Timeline (we will keep this updated as the case develops)
4/18/23: Transphobes speak at Pitt, community members protest.
5/19/23: With guns drawn, FBI agents along with police from various local agencies raid Peppy and Krystal’s home in the early morning. They were detained for several hours before being told they were free to leave.
6/29/23: Krystal and Peppy are notified by their lawyers that they are being federally indicted and are to turn themselves in the next day.
6/30/23: Krystal and Peppy surrender. They are held in custody until appearing before the magistrate to enter not guilty pleas. Peppy is ordered to remain in pretrial detention and taken to Butler County Prison. Krystal is granted pretrial release with conditions.
7/3/23: Hearing before the magistrate appealing the detention order. The appeal is denied and Peppy remains in custody.
10/26/23: Judge denies Peppy’s release from pretrial detention, with no bail option.
2/1/24: Counsel for Krystal and Peppy file extensive pre-trial motions requesting to review potential evidence, and for the court to discuss the case due to government misconduct and misapplication of statutes.
2/23/24: Judge grants the prosecution an extension and sets a revised timeline:
3/4/23: Government response to defense’s pre-trial motions due·
3/11/23: Defense reply due·
4/10/23: Decision from court
Trial remains likely to follow in the spring or summer of 2024.
Legal pre-trial arguments- Peppy
Peppy’s case, number 2:23-cr-00146-NR-1 (docket here), charges him with three counts: (1) 18 U.S.C. 371 conspiracy; (2) 18 U.S.C. 2 & 231(a)(3) obstruction of law enforcement during civil disorder; and (3) 18 U.S.C. 844(h)(1) use of explosive to commit a federal felony. He has filed two motions to dismiss.
2/1/24: The motion to dismiss the entire case due to Selective Prosecution states that prosecutors made the decision on the basis of alleged political beliefs and associations that are statutorily and constitutionally protected.The prosecution’s theory is that Mr. DiPippa holds “AGAAVE” (anti-government and anti-authority violent extremist) beliefs that merit prosecution. The FBI applies its “AGAAVE” acronym to people with ideological agendas derived from anti-government or anti-authority sentiment, including opposition to perceived economic, social, or racial hierarchies; or perceived government overreach, negligence, or illegitimacy.
The FBI defines Anarchist Violent Extremists as people “who oppose all forms of capitalism, globalization, and governing institutions which are perceived as harmful to society.”[1]
Peppy’s motion to Dismiss Count 2 (obstruction of law enforcement during civil disorder) argues that the civil disorder statute is overbroad and unconstitutionally vague because it’s imprecise; its subjective standards fail to provide fair notice to the public as to what is constitutionally protected and what criminalized; and it creates significant risk of arbitrary enforcement. The motion argues that statute’s phrasing is so broad and indefinite that it may interfere with and criminalize First Amendment protected speech and expressive activities.
Peppy also filed numerous motions related to discovery (the process of gathering and exchange of evidence). These include:· Moving to suppress electronic evidence or return of property seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment.· Asking the judge to order the government to reveal confidential informant(s) and any favorable treatment they have received from the government.· Asking the court to order federal and state investigative and law enforcement agents to produce: their notes; materials covered by Rule 16, such as surveillance (mail cover, electronic, photographic, mechanical, visual, aural or any other type) and all documents, photographs, and recordings; written or oral statements covered by the Jencks act[2]; evidence contemplated in Rule 404 and 609 covering acts of misconduct other than those specified in the indictment; and exculpatory evidence that could assist with the defense (otherwise known as Brady material).
Legal pre-trial arguments – Krystal
Krystal’s case, charges her with (1) 18 U.S.C. 371 conspiracy; and (2) 18 U.S.C. 2 & 231(a)(3) obstruction of law enforcement during civil disorder.
Krystal asked the court for all the motions Peppy filed to apply to her. Additionally, Krystal’s filings:
· Moved to dismiss the indictment, (need a direct url to court listener filing once it is showing on court listener -there were technical issues) arguing that the “obstruction of law enforcement during civil disorder” statute charges exceed the authority given to Congress. Congressional power is limited to regulating commerce between states and other things “necessary and proper” to executing that power.[3] Here, the motion alleges that the civil disorder statute impermissibly allows for federal criminal prosecution of intrastate, noneconomic activity, which is outside the limited scope of congressional authority to regulate commerce between the states.· Argued that the statute is impermissibly over-broad and criminalizes activities protected by the First Amendment.[4]· Asked for a bill of particulars to defend against the civil disorder charge. The purpose of this is to “inform the defendant of the charge against him (sic) with sufficient precision to allow him (sic) to prepare his (sic) defense.” The motion alleges that “[N]either the indictment or the indictment memorandum sufficiently states the government’s accusation as to the necessary element of interstate commerce, the element which would confer jurisdiction.” The motion asks the Court to require the government to explain how the allegations relate to interstate commerce, which is a requirement for jurisdiction to prosecute the case. · Filed a standard motion to know what evidence of her “character” the prosecution might use.[5]
The judge ordered the government to respond by 2/23/24, the defendants to respond by 3/1/24, and the court to respond by 3/30/24. Trial is likely to follow in the spring or summer of 2024. Note: the government asked for, and received, and extension for their response. See revised timeline.
[1] See, Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General Audit of the Department of Justice’s Strategy to Address the Domestic Violent Extremist Threat released in June 2023. Refer to Page 3, Figure 1.[2] More information on the Jencks Act is here.[3] Even though the conduct alleged does not seem to involve interstate commercial activity, the Commerce Clause is the legal basis for the statutes selected by the prosecutor. In reaction to the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1968 congressional conservatives demanded a reciprocal but conservative corollary and passed Section 231(a)(3) as a reactionary measure to punish protestors. Krystal’s filing questions the scope of Congress’s statutory ability to criminalize people who engage in protest. [4] For more context on how prosecutors have been using civil disturbance statutes from the Wounded Knee Occupation of 1973 to the George Floyd uprisings in 2020, see The Federal Government’s Aggressive Prosecution of Protestors, Lawfare, July 13, 2020.[5] This motion is pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), which is the federal rule detailing to the admissibility of evidence related to a defendant’s “character” at trial.