Defense Request for Downward Variance Page 1 

Terri Wood, OSB #883325 

Law Office of Terri Wood, P.C. 

730 Van Buren Street 

Eugene, Oregon 97402 

541-484-4171 

Fax: 541-485-5923 

Email: contact@terriwoodlawoffice.com 

Attorney for Jon Ritzheimer 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

-VSJON RITZHEIMER, 

 Defendant 

Case No. 3:16-CR-00051-02-BR 

DEFENSE REQUEST FOR DOWNWARD 

VARIANCE WITH SUPPORTING 

MEMORANDUM 

COMES NOW the Defendant, Jon Ritzheimer, by and through undersigned 

counsel, and requests a downward variance from the advisory guideline range, as further 

supported by the sentencing memorandum that is part of this pleading. The defense 

reserves the right to submit a supplemental memorandum by the November 20, 2017, 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 1 of 121
Defense Request for Downward Variance Page 2 

filing deadline set by the Court, should that be necessary to address issues in the Final 

Presentence Report which has not yet issued, or otherwise supplement the record. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 3rd day of November, 2017 

/s/ Terri Wood 

TERRI WOOD OSB 883325 

Attorney for Ritzheimer 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 2 of 121
Table of Contents i 

Table of Contents 

Summary Of Mitigation Evidence And Departure/Variance Grounds..............................1 

I. Mr. Ritzheimer’s Military Service And Combat-Related Injuries 

Contributed Substantially To His Commission Of The Offense. ........................7 

 

A. Mr. Ritzheimer’s Behavior Is A Product Of Military Culture. ...............14 

Brief Overview of the Military Total Institution 

And Marine Corps Values...............................................................15

Mr. Ritzheimer’s Post-Deployment and 

Post-Discharge Reintegration Efforts.................................................19 

Brief Summary of Mr. Ritzheimer’s Offense Conduct..............................24 

Mr. Ritzheimer’s Offense Behavior As A Product of Military Culture..........29 

B. The Influence Of Combat-Related PTSD, mTBI And Moral Injury On 

Mr. Ritzheimer’s Behavior............................................................32 

Combat-related PTSD....................................................................33 

 A. The Physiological Basis of PTSD.........................................34 

 B. The Diagnostic Symptoms of PTSD......................................36 

C. Mr. Ritzheimer’s Experience with PTSD leading up to the 

Occupation........................................................................39 

Combat-related mild Traumatic Brain Injury (mTBI)..............................43 

A. The Mechanics of mTBI....................................................46 

B. The symptoms of combat mTBI..........................................46 

C. Distinguishing mTBI from PTSD.........................................48 

Combat-related Moral Injury............................................................50 

The impact of PTSD, Moral Injury and mTBI on Mr. Ritzheimer’s Offense 

Behavior ....................................................................................59 

C. Mr. Ritzheimer’s Offense Behavior Is Not Attributable To His 

Pre-Military History, Pre-Existing Conditions, Or Substance Abuse..........63 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 3 of 121
Table of Contents ii 

II. Mr. Ritzheimer’s Extraordinary Post-Offense Rehabilitation Efforts, 

Along With Other Factors, Evince A Very Low Risk Of Recidivism; 

His Substantial Progress In Reintegration Will Be Undermined By 

Incarceration.......................................................................................66 

Mr. Ritzheimer’s Post-Plea Treatment Progress......................................68 

Mr. Ritzheimer’s Strong Support Network Of Family And Friends..............72 

Mr. Ritzheimer’s Efforts To Become Self-Sufficient And 

Contribute To His Community...........................................................74

Mr. Ritzheimer’s Pre-Approval To Enter The Veteran’s Program 

In Arizona US District Court............................................................74 

Mr. Ritzheimer’s Extraordinary Post-Offense Rehabilitation Efforts 

 And Other Factors Establish A Low Risk Of Recidivism..........................76 

III. Legal And Policy Grounds Supporting Downward Departure 

Or Variance. ........................................................................................79 

Military Service As A Departure/Variance Ground..................................80 

Mental And Emotional Conditions As A 

Departure/Variance Ground.............................................................86 

Extraordinary Post-Offense Rehabilitation............................................95

Departure Or Variance To Provide Effective Rehabilitation.........................97 

IV. A Sentence Of Continued Community Supervision Is “Sufficient But Not 

Greater Than Necessary” To Achieve Justice In Mr. Ritzheimer’s Case. ...........101

The Kinds Of Sentences Available....................................................102 

The Advisory Sentencing Guidelines Range........................................104 

Relevant Policy Statements By The Guidelines Commission......................107 

The Need To Avoid Unwarranted Sentence Disparities...........................107 

The Need To Provide Restitution To Any Victim...................................109

The Goals Of Sentencing...............................................................110

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 4 of 121
Table of Contents iii 

 A. Retribution...................................................................110 

 B. Deterrence.....................................................................112 

 C. Incapacitation................................................................113 

 D. Rehabilitation................................................................114 

Conclusion..................................................................................................115 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 5 of 121
1	

Summary Of Mitigation Evidence And Departure/Variance Grounds 

“Our Nation has a long tradition of according leniency to veterans in 

recognition of their service, especially for those who fought on the front lines 

as [petitioner] did. Moreover, the relevance of [petitioner’s] extensive 

combat experience is not only that he served honorably under extreme 

hardship and gruesome conditions, but also that the jury might find 

mitigating the intense stress and mental and emotional toll that combat took 

on [petitioner].” 

Porter v. McCollum, 558 US 30, 130 S Ct 447, 456 (2009) (internal citations 

omitted). 

Mr. Ritzheimer repeatedly risked his life for our country in the aftermath of 9-11, serving 

two tours of duty in Iraq before his honorable discharge at the rank of Marine Staff Sergeant. 

Until this case, his record was impeccable: No prior arrests, convictions, or disciplinary actions, 

but rather a host of awards, decorations and commendations from his 11 years of military 

service. 

Military records document that on his first tour in 2005, with the II Marine Expeditionary 

Force in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Mr. Ritzheimer’s platoon completed over 60 

convoy escort missions that totaled over 30,000 miles, often exposing him to IEDs (improvised 

explosive devise) attacks, RPG (rocket propelled grenade) ambushes, as well as gunfire 

exchanges with insurgents. As a Lance Corporal, his primary duty was serving as a machine 

gunner during convoy security operations, based in Ar Ramadi. He also participated in searching 

and clearing homes. Ar Ramadi was a hotbed of violence after the 2004 battle of Fallujah had 

driven the insurgency there. Mr. Ritzheimer personally killed and participated in the killing of 

insurgents; he witnessed grievous injuries to and deaths of his fellow soldiers; and saw Iraqi 

civilian casualties, including children. He was 21-years-old. 

During his second tour in 2008, with the Marines 4th Tank Battalion, he conducted over 

160 resupply convoys as a MRAP (Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle) driver, among 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 6 of 121
2	

other combat support duties, and received a field promotion to Sergeant. He knew of enemy and 

civilian casualties, as well as American soldiers who were injured or killed, although his unit was 

“lucky” this time. 

Veterans Administration (VA) records attest that Mr. Ritzheimer also sustained combatrelated injuries from his two tours in Iraq: Mild Traumatic Brain Injury (mTBI), tinnitus, and 

migraines, all likely resulting from numerous head traumas to include multiple IED explosions 

and a Humvee crash, and prolonged combat noise exposure without hearing protection 

equipment; upper thoracic spine strain, cervical spine strain and left shoulder impingement, all 

secondary to the 2005 Humvee accident, that still cause him pain and varying degrees of 

disability; and psychic injuries far more devastating, that continue to plague his daily life, 

diagnosed as moderately severe Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Depression, and Moral 

Injury. 

Nobody who deploys to a combat zone is ever quite the same afterwards. . . . 

There are, of course, those who suffer, from shot and shrapnel, bomb burst and 

booby trap, the physical wounds of war. There are as well many who are afflicted 

with so-called invisible wounds of war, the not so obvious wounds that invade a 

veteran’s consciousness, ripping away peace of mind, infusing nights and days 

with the lingering legacy of his — and as more and more women troops 

experience combat, her — often haunting experiences. 

Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, Veterans Treatment Courts: A Second 

Chance For Vets Who Have Lost Their Way (May 2016). 

The defense mitigation evidence proves Mr. Ritzheimer’s exemplary military service and 

combat-related injuries substantially contributed to his commission of the offense: He spent most 

of his adult life in the Marines, from age 20 to nearly 31. Over those formative years, his highly 

successful indoctrination into military culture and values—measured objectively by his rise in 

rank, performance evaluations, and commendations—dramatically shaped his behavior and 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 7 of 121
3	

beliefs, and continued to govern his conduct upon his ejection into civilian culture.1 Our 

government recognizes this impact of military service on human behavior, and expends 

resources to train civilian mental health providers to become competent in military culture so that 

they can better understand and treat service members.2 Like many veterans, Mr. Ritzheimer 

struggled to “return to normal” back in civilian culture, but the military has not prepared them to 

do so. 

 Honorably discharged in July 2014, it should not be surprising that his military-ingrained 

behavior and beliefs remained in control of his interactions with the Bundys and their followers

starting in December 2015. Furthermore, his combat-related injuries of PTSD, Depression and 

Moral Injury are “mental and emotional conditions” with a well-documented correlation to risktaking behaviors and law violations when left untreated.3 VA records show Mr. Ritzheimer was 

not actively engaged in treatment nor taking VA prescribed medications to suppress symptoms 

 

1 The VA recognizes “The Military has a rich and distinct culture, made up of unique values, 

symbols, and a shared history. . . . As in other cultural contexts, service in the military can 

influence a person’s values, beliefs, expectations and behaviors.” 

www.mentalhealth.va.gov/communityproviders/military.asp . 2 Id. (“Community Provider Toolkit” webpages); see also, the Department of Defense “After 

Deployment” website, http://afterdeployment.dcoe.mil/home, with resources including “Free 

Military Culture Training for Educators”. 

3 See, e.g., Evan R. Seamone, Attorneys as First Responders: Recognizing the Destructive 

Nature of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder on the Combat Veteran’s Legal Decision-Making 

Process, 22 Military Law Review 144, 153 (2009)(“When left untreated, PTSD can lead veterans 

to behave irresponsibly, impulsively, violently, and self-destructively, which has created 

significant concern for their own well-being and the well-being of others.”); Department of 

Justice, National Institute of Corrections, Justice-Involved Veterans, nicic.gov/veterans (noting 

many veterans suffer from combat-related PTSD, TBI, depression and anxiety, and that “on any 

given day, veterans account for nine of every hundred individuals in U.S. jails and prisons” 

despite that “most combat veterans had no involvement in the criminal justice system before 

their engagement in military service”). 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 8 of 121
4	

during the months leading up to and during his participation in the Occupation.4 In addition, his 

combat-related mild Traumatic Brain Injury (mTBI) has substantial symptom overlap with 

PTSD; and chronic PTSD, with its stress-induced changes to a person’s neurobiological systems, 

can impede recovery from mTBI.5 Thus, there was an untreated, organic component impacting 

Mr. Ritzheimer’s behavior. 

Collectively, PTSD, mTBI and Moral Injury are often referred to as “invisible injuries” 

of war. We as a society have proven both generally ignorant and miserly in responding: We see a 

veteran who has lost an arm or a leg, and respond appropriately; the opposite frequently occurs 

in society’s response to a veteran with invisible injuries.6 It is also well-documented that veterans 

themselves are loath to acknowledge experiencing these debilitating mental and emotional 

conditions—viewed as a sign of weakness and thus contrary to core military values—resulting in 

them not seeking or dropping out of treatment.7

The advisory guidelines encourage a downward departure in cases such as Mr. 

Ritzheimer’s, where mental and emotional conditions contributed substantially to the 

commission of the offense, based on diminished capacity. USSG §5K2.13. 

 

4 Barriers to necessary treatment have been a long-standing, widespread problem for veterans 

with PTSD, due to a chronic combination of lack of VA and community-based resources as well 

as the stigma military culture assigns to any perceived weakness that encourages veterans to 

resist help. PTSD Treatment for Verterans: What’s Working, What’s New, and What's Next,

Miriam Resiman, P&T, Vol. 41 No. 10 (October 2016). 

5 Returning Home from Iraq and Afghanistan: Assessment of Readjustment Needs of Veterans, 

Service Members, and Their Families, Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Science 

(2013), available at www.nap.edu/read/13499/chapter/1. 6 See, e.g., Invisible Wounds of War: Psychological and Cognitive Injuries, Their Consequences, 

and Service to Assist Recovery, T. Tanielian & L. Jaycox, editors (Rand Corporation, 2008),

available at www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG720.pdf ; 

Understanding the Context of Military Culture in Treating the Veteran with PTSD, Dr. Patricia 

Wilson, U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, National Center for PTSD (2017)(“Studies show that 

because of the lack of cultural competence among providers, service members and veterans may 

drop out of care, are misdiagnosed, or see care only when their illness is at an advanced stage.”). 

7 E.g., Returning Home from Iraq and Afghanistan, supra n.5. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 9 of 121
5	

 The advisory guidelines also note a downward departure may be warranted based on 

military service, USSG §5H1.11, as well as on mental and emotional conditions, USSG §5H.13, 

if present to an unusual degree that takes the case outside the heartland. The mitigation evidence 

proves Mr. Ritzheimer had no pre-service mental health disorders (including no drug or alcohol 

abuse), nor any propensity to break the law before or during his military service. The direct 

correlation between his military service, invisible injuries and offense conduct make his case 

exceptional and deserving of leniency. See, Porter v. McCollum, supra. 

The defense mitigation evidence further proves that Mr. Ritzheimer has engaged in 

extraordinary post-offense rehabilitation efforts, which combined with other factors detailed 

below, place him at a very low risk of recidivism. Simply put, he is now a much-changed man 

from who he was at the time of the Occupation, and even a year after that. Additional 

incarceration is not necessary to protect society. His efforts include intensive, on-going mental 

health treatment, and related pro-social reintegration into civilian culture, that would be 

undermined by incarceration.

8

 A downward departure is supported under Ninth Circuit case law 

based on extraordinary post-offense rehabilitation, as well as to accomplish a specific treatment 

purpose, USSG §5C1.1, Application Note 6. 

 Clearly, Mr. Ritzheimer’s meritorious military service, combat-related mental and 

emotional conditions, and physical injuries resulting in disability and chronic pain, as well as his 

post-offense rehabilitation and low risk of recidivism, are all relevant offender characteristics for 

 

8 See, e.g., Quil Lawrence, NPR, “Behind Bars, Vets With PTSD Face A New War Zone, With 

Little Support” (11/5/2015), available at http://www.npr.org/2015/11/05/454292031/behind-barsvets-with-ptsd-face-a-new-war-zone-with-little-support (last accessed 3/31/17); Saxon, Davis, 

Sloan, McKnight, McFall & Kivlahan, “Trauma, Symptoms of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, 

and Associated Problems Among Incarcerated Veterans,” Psychiatry Online (July 2001), 

available at http://ps.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/appi.ps.52.7.959 (last accessed 

3/31/17). 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 10 of 121
6	

purposes of variance under 18 USC §3553(a), even should the Court determine that none of these 

factors are “present to an unusual degree” or make his case “extraordinary” for purposes of a 

downward departure. 

Finally, as a first offender convicted of a non-violent crime that carries a maximum 6

years imprisonment, Mr. Ritzheimer fits squarely within the category of offenders that Congress 

directed should ordinarily be spared a prison sentence, apart from other mitigation factors. 28 

USC §994(j)(“The Commission shall insure that the guidelines reflect the general 

appropriateness of imposing a sentence other than imprisonment in cases in which the defendant 

is a first offender who has not been convicted of a crime of violence or an otherwise serious 

offense”). 

 This memorandum will both explain and summarize the mitigating evidence, before 

further discussing the law and additional public policy grounds that support the defense 

recommendation that Mr. Ritzheimer not be sent to prison. The defense seeks a sentence of time 

served (2 months), and a term of supervised release that may include a period of house arrest, 

and his participation in the Arizona Veteran Program of the U.S. District Court in Arizona where 

Mr. Ritzheimer resides and has been pre-approved for admission. As a less-favored alternative, 

should the Court decide that some additional incarceration is warranted, the defense recommends 

a term not exceeding six months, to be served in a Residential Re-entry Center, as an additional 

condition of supervised release. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 11 of 121
7	

I. Mr. Ritzheimer’s Military Service And Combat-Related Injuries Contributed 

 Substantially To His Commission Of The Offense. 

"There is disconnection between everything human and what has to be 

done in combat. Imagine being in an unimaginable situation and having to 

do the unthinkable."9

 

Mr. Ritzheimer grew from “just a kid” to a man while serving in the United States 

Marines. He graduated high school in 2002, and enlisted in early 2003, upon taking the induction 

oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. He went through Boot 

Camp in San Diego, CA, where he was indoctrinated by drill instructors to defend the 

Constitution, obey all orders, kill the enemy, and embrace his rifle as his closest, most intimate 

friend—primarily for the safety and security of him and his Marine “buddies”—all without 

question or hesitation. As part of that indoctrination, he memorized, repeated over and over, and 

soon believed to his core the Marine Corps Rifleman’s Creed: 

This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine. It is my life. I must 

master it as I must master my life. Without me my rifle is useless. Without my 

rifle, I am useless. I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than the 

enemy who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me. I will. My 

rifle and I know that what counts in war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our 

burst, or the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count. We will hit. 

My rifle is human, even as I am human, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it 

as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strengths, its parts, its accessories, 

its sights and its barrel. I will keep my rifle clean and ready, even as I am clean 

and ready. We will become part of each other. Before God I swear this 

creed. My rifle and I are the defenders of my country. We are the masters of our 

enemy. We are the saviors of my life. So be it, until victory is America's and there 

is no enemy. 

After successfully completing Boot Camp in May 2003, Mr. Ritzheimer went through 

Marine Combat Training, a basic infantry program focused on tactical as well as the technical 

aspects of weaponry, followed by Advanced Individual Training at Ft. Leonard Wood, MO, 

 

9 Scott Lee, PTSD: A Soldier’s Perspective, 

http://ptsdasoldiersperspective.blogspot.com/2009/02/quotes-from-within.html. (blog cited in 

Bringing Baghdad into the Courtroom, 24 Crim. Just. 4 (Summer 2009)). 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 12 of 121
8	

where he began his military occupation training in Vehicle Operations. While the primary focus 

of these trainings was technical, instructors continued the indoctrination of Boot Camp values to 

develop Mr. Ritzheimer’s ability to kill the enemy, and further instill the obligation to protect 

one’s “buddies” at all costs, including self-sacrifice.10 Following graduation from advanced 

training, Mr. Ritzheimer reported for duty with the 4th Tank Battalion at San Diego, as a motor 

truck operator. He left that unit for further training for his 2005 combat deployment to Iraq. In 

his own words: 

I remember the first day we flew in to Iraq and the unit that we were relieving 

came to pick us up from Al Asad air base. I was a scared kid only knowing stories 

about Viet Nam. The guys from the unit we relieved all had the 1000 yard stare. 

You could see their long deployment on their faces. Even though they were all 

about to be relieved, it wasn’t good enough to make them smile again. They were 

dirty and weathered Combat Veterans now. I stayed close to a Sergeant that was 

my friend. Nandy Hernandez. He had already deployed in 2003 during the initial 

invasion of Iraq and his experience and confidence comforted me. We rode in the 

back of 7 ton trucks with sand bags for protection. Rifles aimed out because that’s 

how we trained for the past 3 months leading up to this. I remember the driver 

laughing at us and asking us if we were gonna shoot the IEDs? Then it sunk in 

that our greatest threat wasn’t going to be some random guy shooting at us but 

rather IEDs that we were borderline defenseless against at the time. We pulled 

our rifles in and turned inboard and just hoped for the best on that first trip. 

Occasionally curiosity kicked in and I wanted to see the foreign county we were 

in. But after we would get caught peeking we were quickly yelled at to get down 

and reminded that curiosity killed the cat. 

Fast forward to the end of our deployment when it was now our turn to pick up 

the unit relieving us. It was almost identical. I remember being happy on the 

 

10 “Over the years since WW II, the military has improved its combat training methods to 

produce troops who will kill the enemy without hesitation: from an average of only 15-20 % of 

soldiers in WW II who would fire at the enemy, to 95% who would do so by the time of 

Vietnam. Modern training methods include simulated combat calculated to cause severe stress 

and thereby train the recruit to fight as the instinctive reaction, versus flight or freeze. Marching 

cadences resound with kill, kill, kill and blood will spill.” Brockton Hunter & Ryan Else, The 

Attorney’s Guide To Defending Veterans In Criminal Court, at 473-76 (2014 Veterans Defense 

Project)(hereafter referred to as Hunter & Else, Defending Veterans) (frequently citing Dave 

Grossman, On Killing 3 (1st Paperback Ed., Back Bay Books, 1995), available for free download 

at https://archive.org/details/On_Killing (last accessed 4/1/17)). Success in military culture is 

largely measured by one’s proficiency in mortal combat. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 13 of 121
9	

inside but unable to show it because I knew we still had a few missions to go and 

it could all end during any of them. There were guys from other units on the base 

that were killed by mortars during their first week in country and there were guys 

that got killed a week before they were scheduled to go home. Ar Ramadi was a 

hot bed in 2005 because the Fallujah battle of 2004 drove the insurgency to Ar 

Ramadi. The everyday uncertainty for 7 months straight is what messes you up 

along with fellow Marines getting injured and your own platoon sergeant 

freaking out after a Marine lost his leg and screaming to the whole platoon that 

“it’s personal now”. 

Mr. Ritzheimer returned stateside in late 2005, and sought to redeploy with his unit in the 

summer of 2006. On his “Pre-Deployment Health Assessment” he reported being in “very good” 

physical and mental health. However, while in training to deploy, commanding officers referred 

him to medical for “evaluation of nightmares, flashbacks, mood swings, etc.,” and his unit 

deployed without him. In late September 2006, Medical assessed him as having Chronic PostTraumatic Stress Disorder, delayed onset, but noted, “He has not had any civilian or military 

legal problems and wants to stay in the Corps for 20 years. . . . He is stabilizing and can redeploy 

[with a different unit] subject to reevaluation after about one month.” Following reevaluation, he 

was held back again and prescribed Prozac and Paxil for mood stabilization. Meeting with a 

military therapist in December 2006, “he discussed guilt over not deploying and how to balance 

the reality of putting his fellow Marines at danger by being overwhelmed by his symptoms and 

‘being there’ for them. . . . His mood was described as ‘I lose my temper easily.’” 

On his medical history report in March 2007, Mr. Ritzheimer acknowledged taking 

Prozac but denied experiencing all symptoms related to PTSD; that failed to get him cleared for 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 14 of 121
10	

return to combat. He stopped taking Prozac, and continued to fight for deployment.11 Mr. 

Ritzheimer gained approval to redeploy in December 2007, and began training for the mission. 

In mid-March 2008, he received trigger point injections for pain relief from injuries to his back 

and shoulder sustained on his first tour, and aggravated by current participation in the Marine 

martial arts combat program. A few weeks later, on his Pre-Deployment Health Assessment, he 

reported his health as “Excellent,” denied having any medical problems, denied having sought 

any mental health care during the past year, and received medical clearance to deploy with the 4th

Tank Battalion to Al Anbar province. 

 His unit encountered a rocket attack during their first week there, but remained lucky 

after that. They spent much of his tour “outside the wire”—military jargon for being beyond the 

relative safety and comforts of a base camp: Assigned to drive a 4-person truck in resupply 

convoys for tanks patrolling hostile territory, perpetually on guard for insurgent attacks, Mr. 

Ritzheimer and his crew lived for months out of their vehicle, without showers (only baby wipes 

for cleansing), and consuming mostly MREs (“Meal, Ready-to-Eat” field rations). In addition to 

resupplying the tanks that were sweeping the region—seeking to engage any remaining 

combatants before returning control to the Iraqis—his unit was charged with methodically 

searching for IEDs and weapon caches, and interviewing villagers about the locations of 

insurgents. All told, his unit conducted over 100 combat patrols during Operation Defeat Al 

Qaeda. Mr. Ritzheimer suppressed PTSD-induced fears by staying very focused on his duties, 

 

11 Dr. William Nash, head of psychological health for the Marine Corps, is reported recently in 

the New York Times stating that during the first years of the Iraq war, the military did not have 

enough psychologists to meet the needs of troops experiencing PTSD, and that quick 

consultations just long enough to prescribe medication became the default treatment. To this day, 

“No one has figured out how to make their access to care not be damaging to their self-esteem, 

their career, their identity.” Dave Phillips, A Marine Attacked an Iraqi Restaurant. But Was It a 

Hate Crime or PTSD?, nytimes.com/2017/10/18. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 15 of 121
11	

and received a combat field promotion to Sergeant E-5. He shared the responsibilities as the 

Sergeant of the Guard for two Tactical Assembly Areas where he set up and supervised the 

Combat Operations Center watch, perimeter security and police calls. 

Mr. Ritzheimer’s 2008 Post-Deployment Health Assessment notes his back and joint pain 

got worse during this tour; and possible exposure to toxins while camped for a month at a 

partially demolished chemical weapons facility. He again denied experiencing any PTSD 

symptoms, but soon resumed taking Prozac. His diagnosis of chronic PTSD remained unchanged 

over the ensuing years, and he was prescribed various medications for symptom management. 

Following his last tour in Iraq, Mr. Ritzheimer continued to advance his military career in 

the Marine Reserves: His duty assignment changed from Motor Transport Operator to Motor 

Transport Platoon Squad Leader in April 2009, “responsible for the morale, welfare, training and 

discipline of all Marines assigned to his squad.” In October 2009, his duty assignment advanced 

to Motor Transportation Platoon Sergeant, responsible for the 45 junior Marines assigned to the 

platoon, and he was recommended for promotion. In August 2010, he attended the Sergeants 

Course at Quantico, VA, where he passed all performance and comprehensive evaluations in 

Military Studies, Leadership Studies, and War Fighting, with a cumulative grade point average 

of 85%. Upon return to base he was assigned to Motor Transportation Platoon Training for all 61 

Marines in the platoon, and to stand in for the Platoon Sergeant as needed. He maintained this 

assignment for the next few years with increasing responsibilities, and promotion to Staff 

Sergeant E-6.12

 

12 His Company Commader at that time writes that “Jon was assigned as the platoon sergeant for 

the Headquarters and Service Company. This position is a highly respected billet and is reserved 

for the most competent and responsible members of the unit. He was accountable for the actions, 

training, safety, leadership, discipline, education, physical and mental development and well 

being of the 25(+) members of his platoon. He was always making time to mentor and guide the 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 16 of 121
12	

In June 2013, he attended the Staff Noncommissioned Officer Academy at Quantico, VA, 

where he mastered courses “with emphasis on war fighting and leadership skills to effectively 

lead Marines in combat and develop subordinates to ensure mission success,” with a cumulative 

grade point average of 93%. In September 2013, he transferred units to be closer to special 

operations, from 4th Tank Battalion to the 6th ANGLICO (Air Naval Gunfire Liaison Company) 

where his primary assignment was Motor Transportation Chief, until honorable discharge in 

2014. To this day, Mr. Ritzheimer’s fellow Marines recall and attest to his extraordinarily high 

standards of honor, courage, and commitment to do what is right, defend the Constitution, and 

standup for those who need assistance, demonstrated throughout his years of service. Some who 

know him assume that those same characteristics forged in military culture explain his 

participation in the Malheur Refuge occupation. While partly true, the full explanation demands 

recognition of his invisible injuries of PTSD, mTBI and Moral Injury—untreated at the time of

those events—and how those afflictions both hampered his efforts to reintegrate to civilian 

culture and adversely affected his behavior in that culture.13

 

troops under his command and care for them on a deep level. . . . When his team was undergoing 

challenges or be given tough missions, he would take it upon himself to make sure each man was 

fed and given as much sleep as possible, he treated them more like brothers than troops. . . . I’ve 

known Jon as a Marine, a friend and most of all a patriot. His dedication and devotion to our 

nation and way of life is second to none.” 

13 “The reality of trauma is that it frequently changes how the individual defines him or herself. 

As one combat veteran said, ‘War made me have to deal with who am I really—a decent person 

who had to engage in some terrible actions to stay alive or some kind of animal that only thought

he was civilized and decent.’ These types of questions strike at the heart of identity, value, and 

worth. . . . Trauma survivors must, however, try to construct coping mechanisms to deal with 

these effects and lingering doubts about who they are, what costs they believe they paid to 

survive, guilt over what they did or failed to do, and what it means about themselves.” Daniel 

Dossa & Ernest Boswell, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder: A Brief Overview, Chpt. 6, p. 163-64, 

(hereafter referred to as Dossa & Boswell),published in Hunter & Else, Defending Veterans,

supra n.10.

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 17 of 121
13	

 According to a New York Times article published in 2013, “Less than 0.5 percent of the 

[American] population serves in the armed forces, compared with more than 12 percent during 

World War II.”14 Unless you have served or have otherwise acquired specialized knowledge of 

military culture, to fairly evaluate the mitigating evidence in Mr. Ritzheimer’s case will require

becoming competent in that culture’s values and its indoctrination processes: To understand at 

least the basics of how military culture shapes and defines human behavior; and the stark 

differences between military and civilian culture in modern America. Those cultural conflicts—

as well as the invisible injuries from military service that manifest in symptoms of PTSD and 

other maladies of the psyche—make post-service reintegration difficult for many veterans,

including Mr. Ritzheimer, and have caused more than a few to run afoul of the law.15

 A working knowledge of military culture is fundamental to analyzing Mr. Ritzheimer’s 

culpability under the law for sentencing purposes. Basic information is summarized below, and 

treated in greater depth in Dr. William Brown’s report. Dr. Brown is a sociologist and nationallyrecognized expert who has researched and published extensively on veterans’ issues, including 

the role of military culture in shaping veterans’ behaviors and beliefs. A Vietnam combat 

veteran, Dr. Brown later served as a Drill Sergeant, and as a Platoon Leader in B Company 75th

Rangers. His sociological evaluation of Mr. Ritzheimer in 2016 focused “on the influence of the 

 

14 Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/opinion/americans-and-their-militarydrifting-apart.html?_r=0

15 See, e.g., Brock Hunter, Echoes of War: The Combat Veteran in Criminal Court. See also, 

Alyson Sincavage, The War Comes Home: How Congress’ Failure to Address Veterans’ Mental 

Health Has Led to Violence in America, 33 Nova. L. Rev. 481 (2009), 

http://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1144&context=nlr (last accessed 4/3/17). 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 18 of 121
14	

Military Total Institution, also referred to as military culture, on Mr. Ritzheimer’s post-military 

behavior.”16 

A. Mr. Ritzheimer’s Behavior Is A Product Of Military Culture. 

But I fear they do not know us. I fear they do not comprehend the full weight of 

the burden we carry or the price we pay when we return from battle. This is 

important, because a people uninformed about what they are asking the military 

to endure is a people inevitably unable to fully grasp the scope of the 

responsibilities our Constitution levies upon them. 

— Admiral Michael Mullen, (then) Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, United 

States Military Academy, West Point, NY (May 21, 2011). 

Mr. Ritzheimer’s behaviors and beliefs relevant to this criminal case are largely a product 

of “his complete and highly successful indoctrination into military culture, and as shaped by his 

military service,” according to the comprehensive evaluation conducted by Dr. Brown. “Highly 

successful indoctrination” is documented by his military service and performance records 

analyzed in Brown’s report, as well as many hours of structured interviews of Mr. Ritzheimer

summarized in the report: He rose in rank to Staff Sergeant E-6, and his Performance 

Evaluations show high marks. His numerous awards, decorations, commendations, and 

certificates further demonstrate that he was an exceptional Marine. Interviews with fellow 

service members conducted by Dr. Brown, as well as later interviews by the defense, supply 

corroboration beyond the military records of Mr. Ritzheimer’s dedication to Marine Corps 

values. 

A brief overview of the influence of military culture on the conduct of veteran 

defendants, condensed but taken mostly verbatim from Dr. Brown’s report, is included here to 

 

16 The VA recognizes “Even after separation from the military service, military ideals and values 

often continue to be deeply held by Veterans,” and offers a host of on-line “Military Culture 

Resources” to assist civilian mental health providers to better understand and work with service 

members. www.mentalhealth.va.gov/communityproviders/military_resources.asp . 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 19 of 121
15	

assist in better understanding the mitigating evidence summarized in this memorandum.17

Brief Overview of the Military Total Institution And Marine Corps Values

The basic characteristics germane to any total institution include: 

 All components of an individual’s life occur in the same place or setting. 

 Large numbers of people are treated nearly or exactly the same. 

 All stages of the individual’s day and night are tightly scheduled and monitored. 

 All participants are required to accept and adapt to the total institutions’ cultural 

expectations and standards. 18

These characteristics are prevalent in all military institutions throughout the world. 

Military Total Institutions require complete control of the recruit’s entire being, and replacement 

of the recruit’s civilian cultural beliefs and responses with those of the military. The recruit is 

first stripped of civilian values and habits, and through rigorous training, ingrained in military 

values and routines. This is necessary to produce soldiers who will respond to orders without 

question, carry out the mission, and kill the enemy.19 Recruits are placed in stressful situations 

where they are forced to make decisions. The punishment is generally more severe for those 

recruits who cannot or will not make a decision. The logic is that a bad decision is better than no 

decision. In other words, a trainee is likely to be punished more severely for not reacting 

 

17 Additional resources for becoming competent in military culture are cited in Dr. Brown’s 

report, and others are accessible through the Center for Deployment Psychology, 

http://deploymentpsych.org/military-culture. 18 Criminal justice system players are familiar with “prison culture” and how defendants who 

have spent significant time in prisons become indoctrinated to that value system and find it 

difficult to reintegrate to civilian culture. While military culture is clearly distinct, the similarity 

is that both share the defining attributes of a “total institution”. 

19 See, e.g., Zurcher, L.A., The Naval Recruit Training Center: A Study of Role Assimilation in a 

Total Institution, Sociological Inquiry, 1967, 37:1: 85-98 (“The day–to-day conduct of a civilian, 

guided as it is by relative freedom of decision, cannot be tolerated in a total institution if it is to 

remain total. Therefore, the first and major task of the training center [also known as “Boot 

Camp”] is to ‘de-civilianize’, to role-dispossess, the entering individual.”).

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 20 of 121
16	

instantaneously as opposed to making a bad decision but reacting instantly. Trainees are 

conditioned to select the fight option, as opposed to the flight option, when confronted with 

dangerous or stressful circumstances. Recruits are trained to respond instantaneously and 

aggressively to any and all perceived or real dangerous circumstances or confrontations without 

hesitation. Failure to comply typically results in punishment ranging from individual humiliation 

to physical exploitation. Hesitation in firing a weapon or responding physically to a threat, real 

or perceived, can result in the loss of life and the demise of the MTI’s reason for existence—to 

defeat the enemy.20

The military operates on a completely different set of expectations than civilian culture, 

and subscribes to a different set of values and morals. Furthermore, part of the process for 

stripping the recruit of his civilian values and habits is to disparage civilians: Recruits are taught 

that civilians are lazy, uncaring, unconcerned, undisciplined, undependable, and unwilling to 

exercise their responsibility to protect their freedom and democracy. Many veterans have little 

respect for civilians due to the differences in military versus civilian cultural values. For many 

veterans, their military culture indoctrination will contaminate their return to civilian culture: 

Veterans will be forced to make daily decisions. Which software program will they rely on to 

make their decisions? The military software program provides a particular set of options, while 

 

20 See, e.g., Joseph Collins, Thomas Jacobs, Walter Ulmer, American Military Culture in the 

Twenty-first Century: A Report of the CSIS, Introduction at 3(“A direct link exists between 

military culture and effectiveness. The underlying culture of U.S. military forces is the 

foundation from which arise standards of behavior such as discipline, teamwork, loyalty, and 

selfless duty.”)(herefafter referred to as CSIS Report), available at csisprod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fspublic/legacy_files/files/publication/121022_Collins_AmericanMilCulture_Web.pdf. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 21 of 121
17	

their displaced civilian software program provides a completely different set of options, and they 

are frequently in conflict.21

Four core values ingrained in military culture are obedience, discipline, survival, and 

sacrifice. Deployment, particularly to combat zones, further ingrains the core values which are 

then put to practice in real life, not training exercises. 

Those four indispensable factors—obedience, discipline, survival, and sacrifice— 

maintain the foundation of the MTI: 

(1) Obedience requires military personnel to accept the command of authority without 

hesitation or question. 

(2) Discipline is crucial to the perfection of the recruit’s mental faculties and moral 

character. High levels of discipline are obtained through repetitive training whereby the trainee’s 

reaction to situations becomes second nature. 

(3) Survival is the means and individual commitment to insure the continuation of life—for 

fellow soldiers as well as self—to carry out the mission. 

(4) Finally, there is sacrifice, which requires the soldier to surrender something of value to 

ensure that something else of value is maintained or secured.22 As recruits are integrated into the 

MTI, they are required to sacrifice their own individuality. During the training process, 

sacrificing one’s own life is portrayed as an honorable act. This segment of training and 

 

21 For a more comprehensive discussion of military culture and its significance to veterans 

entangled in our criminal justice system, see William Brown, Robert Stanulis, Misty Weitzel and 

Kyle Rodgers, You probably don’t know who are what you are talking about: Cultural and 

Moral Incompetence in Evaluating the Veteran in the Criminal Justice System, Justice Policy 

Journal, Volume 12:1 (Spring 2015)(hereafter referred to as Cultural Incompetence), available at 

http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/jpj_brown_et_al_spring_2015.pdf . 22 “Numerous studies have concluded that men in combat are usually motivated to fight not by 

ideology or hate or fear, but by group pressures and processes involving (1) regard for their 

comrades, (2) respect for their leaders, (3) concern for their own reputation with both, and (4) an 

urge to contribute to the success of the group.” Grossman, On Killing, supra n.10, at 89-90. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 22 of 121
18	

indoctrination prepares soldiers, who may later be confronted with life or death situations, to 

willingly make this ultimate sacrifice. 

The U.S. Marine Corps specifically emphasizes the values Honor, Courage, and 

Commitment when conducting performance evaluations23: 

 (1) Honor is perceived as the bedrock of a Marine’s character, and demands ethical and 

moral behavior. It includes honesty, an uncompromising code of integrity, respect for human 

dignity, and respect and concern for each other. 

 (2) Courage is viewed as the heart of the Marine Corps’ core values. Courage is 

perceived as the mental, moral, and physical strength that allows Marines to confront the 

challenges of combat and control of fear. Courage also allows Marines to do that which is right, 

adhere to a higher standard of conduct, make difficult decisions, and lead by example.

 (3) Commitment is depicted as the essence of determination and dedication among 

members of the Marine Corps. Commitment enhances professionalism, learning the “Art of 

War,” and discipline for both self and unit.24 

For many veterans, particularly those veterans who have participated in combat, their 

MTI experiences are embedded for life.25 The experiences become part of the “baggage”26 many 

veterans carry as they navigate through their transition process back into the civilian culture. 

 

23 “The Marine Corps is a unique service and marines have the strongest service culture.” CSIS 

Report, supra n.20, p. 13. 

24 Based on a comprehensive review of Mr. Ritzheimer’s Marine performance evaluations 

(“Fitness Reports,” available from July 2008 through May 2013), Dr. Brown found his ratings in 

each category clearly met the expectations for a non-commissioned officer (NCO), and generally 

exhibit improved performance over time. 

25 See, e.g., R.J. Westphal, Sean P. Convoy, (January 31, 2015), Military Culture Implications 

for Mental Health and Nursing Care, OJIN, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Military culture “reinforces and 

rewards selflessness, courage, loyalty, stoicism, and commitments to moral excellence, living by 

a moral code, and defending the social order. For some service members, the military and 

warrior ethos becomes a permanent part of their self-identity and worldview.”), available on-line. 

26 Artifacts from military culture and the recollection of experiences acquired while serving. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 23 of 121
19	

Many veterans are not aware of that baggage until they become homeless, involved in a domestic 

violence situation at home, or a defendant in the criminal justice system. 

Indoctrination into military culture not only changes the veteran’s behavior because it 

changes the beliefs and values that motivate behavior; it also changes behavior through 

conditioned responses to situations the veteran is likely to encounter during service. For 

example, veterans are conditioned through repetitive drills and exercises—as well as 

psychological indoctrination—to react immediately to any perceived threat by eliminating the 

threat. They are conditioned to be expendable in pursuit of the mission. This phenomenon is oft 

referred to as “muscle memory.” 27 Veterans are also conditioned to remain externally calm and 

regimented in the face of danger, by controlling strong natural emotions of fear and distress; but 

suppression of emotions does not eliminate the internal psychological force of those emotions on 

the individual’s physical and mental health. 

Following release from the military the veteran does not experience extraction or 

deprogramming of the military-installed “mental software.” Some veterans are successful in 

deprogramming and re-integration to civilian culture. Others are not so successful. 

Mr. Ritzheimer’s Post-Deployment and Post-Discharge Reintegration Efforts.

Asked whether his experiences in the military culture ever played a significant 

role in the way in which he behaved in the civilian culture, Jon said yes. Asked 

whether he still carried any of the baggage acquired during his military training 

and service, he said yes. He identified irritation in the company of civilians, 

feeling comfortable only with veterans, being highly suspicious of strangers, and 

being quite hyper vigilant as the most notable changes he perceived in his 

behavior. . . . Jon said he does not feel that he is a part of the civilian community 

since he was discharged from the Marines. Jon noted that if he doesn’t fit in 

anywhere, he doesn't have much of a future anywhere. 

—Dr. William Brown, (July 2016). 

 

27 See, e.g., Muscle Memory helps corpsmen save lives, available at 

https://health.mil/News/Articles/2015/11/12/Muscle-memory-helps-corpsmen-save-lives. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 24 of 121
20	

 As documented in Dr. Brown’s report, when Mr. Ritzheimer returned home from 

deployments, his family was always happy to have him back, but he described his feelings most 

of the time as “numb,” and at times “uncomfortable,” although he deeply loves his family. He 

frequently experienced difficulties falling asleep, only to be suddenly awakened by nightmares 

related to combat exposure, finding himself exhausted and often sweating as if he’d been 

running. Experiencing sudden or loud noises, being in crowded areas, having strangers approach 

him, and sometimes driving, could trigger recollections of combat trauma, causing great stress, 

irritation and anger. He preferred to be alone and felt uncomfortable in the company of civilians 

who did not share his military experiences. He severed relationships with most of his former 

friends, who he felt did not share the same interests he now embraced and had different 

priorities. He developed new friends, but they were almost all Marines or other veterans. 

While in the Marine Reserves, and post-discharge, he had good experiences developing 

and maintaining relationships with other Marines, but poor experiences doing the same with 

civilians. He attended community college a couple of years after his 2008 deployment and while 

serving in the Reserves, but he had difficulties relating to his fellow classmates; they were much 

younger, disrespectful towards instructors, and also did not share his values. His college 

experience proved upsetting for him, and included some verbal confrontations with other 

students. True to his military values, he nonetheless completed that mission, graduating with an 

Associate degree, but would go no further. 

As detailed earlier, Mr. Ritzheimer remained committed to the Marines during postdeployments while serving in the Reserves, and was immersed in military culture through the 

time of his honorable discharge in July 2014. He felt comfortable there and did not experience 

the same difficulties in that world: 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 25 of 121
21	

It was easier to cope with things in a military setting where it’s ok to be angry. 

Anger equals productivity in the Marine Corps. Your superiors are all angry, 

you’re angry, and you’re always kept in a state of “it’s not good enough and it 

can be better”. People were always getting ass chewings. I was able to motivate 

my junior Marines and lead more by example, but if someone needed an ass 

chewing, I would give it. Sleep issues were less because you work your ass off till 

2 a.m. and then it’s time to wake up at 5:30 to get ready for chow. As a senior 

Marine I would get to take a cat nap here and there but for the most part I was 

always coordinating logistics and keeping the rest of the platoon busy. 

Mr. Ritzheimer never wanted to leave the Marines, and had pursued plans to return to active duty 

with greater opportunities for combat deployment, by transferring from the 4th Tank Battalion to

ANGLICO, a Marine Corps elite Special Operations force, in 2013. When it was time to for him 

to re-enlist in 2014, the commander rejected Mr. Ritzheimer’s application due to him having a 

tattoo that violated the Marine Corps’ recently revised tattoo policy. At least that—and not his 

chronic PTSD—was the official reason.28 Mr. Ritzheimer had no choice but to take an honorable 

discharge, and found himself now completely adrift in civilian culture, and in need of a new 

career path. 

Having decided against college, he sought vocational training and became a certified 

motorcycle mechanic in 2014. While living in Arizona to attend the trade school, and apart from 

his family (who remained home in California), Mr. Ritzheimer joined two motorcycle clubs. The 

first was the Marine Riders Club, which he joined to be with fellow Marines. According to Mr. 

Ritzheimer, two of the leaders were badly injured later in motorcycle accidents, and the club 

 

28 See, e.g., Madeline McGrane, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in the Military: The Need for 

Legislative Improvement of Mental Health Care for Veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom and 

Operation Enduring Freedom, 24 J.L. & Health 183, 191 (2010)(“Within the military, PTSD is 

often ‘equated with cowardice or lack of resilience or, even worse, with malingering to escape 

service or to receive unmerited compensation.’ When the branches of the military flaunt slogans 

such as ‘The Marines, The Few. The Proud’ and ‘There’s Strong, and then There’s Army 

Strong,’ it is unsurprising that a stigma of weakness might attach to an intangible mental wound. 

In addition to stigma, some veterans fear diagnosis will lead to their discharge.”)(internal 

citations omitted). 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 26 of 121
22	

fizzled. He was recruited to the local chapter of the Peckerwoods motorcycle club, but they 

parted ways after a few months. Once his family relocated with him to Arizona, he found 

companionship with them and ceased searching elsewhere. 

After he got his mechanic certificate, Mr. Ritzheimer worked at a couple of motorcycle 

repair shops in Phoenix, but those jobs did not last due to his disabilities, and other military 

“baggage”: Even though he was able to find employment, he felt that the job was beneath him 

when compared to the level of responsibility he held while serving in the Marines. He often felt 

that if he was doing something he considered worthless, it meant that he too was worthless. To 

fill that void, he became extremely committed to political activism. That pursuit allowed him to 

do one of the things he liked most about being out of the military—exercise free speech—and the 

opportunity to engage in service, by rallying others to take responsibility for insuring their own 

freedom in this country. As a political activist, he felt alive—passionate instead of numb—and 

noble, as he had found a way outside of the military to continue defending the Constitution. He 

felt obligated to activate and apply his Marine training to help others realize that the Constitution 

is more than a piece of paper, and to protect the rights of others who he perceived as being 

oppressed, consistent with the conduct expected of a Marine Staff Seargent.29 

 

29 Dr. Brown notes that veterans’ involvement in political activism critical of the government has 

a long history in America, often linked to feelings of betrayal both by the government and the 

military. More recently, “Militia organizations such as the Oath Keepers have emerged. Oath 

Keepers target both active-duty members of the military and veterans for the purpose of being 

prepared to defend the Constitution. Mr. Ritzheimer is a former member of the Oath Keepers.

There are other veteran organizations that also criticize the government, but they are more 

inclined to use a different platform: The Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), the American Legion, 

and the Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA). Most of the participants in these organizations are 

made up of earlier generations of veterans, which means they have had more time to reacculturate back into the civilian culture. Jon is a lifetime member in the VFW and also belongs 

to the American Legion.” 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 27 of 121
23	

Notwithstanding Mr. Ritzheimer’s flamboyant social media persona as a political activist, 

his career as an organizer of protests was short lived: It started in May 2015, when he organized 

an anti-Islam, “Rally for Free Speech,” that drew hundreds to protest at a Phoenix mosque. Mr. 

Ritzheimer told news media at the time he was inspired to take action after learning the two 

gunmen who had opened fire against officers guarding a Mohammad cartoon-drawing contest in 

Texas earlier that month were from Phoenix and had attended the mosque. No violence 

erupted.30 He took considerable backlash, including death threats allegedly from ISIS, and 

condemnation by pro-Muslim civil rights groups. By August he announced plans to network with 

others to organize a global protest against Islamic extremists, his idea being for attendees to 

protest outside mosques while armed, to spur “everybody to utilize your Second Amendment 

[rights] in case we come under that much anticipated attack.”31 The “Global Rally for Humanity” 

failed to materialize outside a handful of U.S. cities, and no violence was reported. Mr. 

Ritzheimer organized the Phoenix demonstration, that attracted fewer participants than the May 

rally, and told news media, “We’re just exercising our first amendment rights. We are all about 

peace and love.”32 His next and last political activist venture was the Hammond rally and illfated Occupation at Malheur Refuge, a few months later. 

With his judgment impaired by largely untreated PTSD, mTBI and Moral Injury (to be 

explained in great detail later), Mr. Ritzheimer failed to realize that this was not only a poor 

 

30 Miriam Wassert, Hundreds Attend Phoenix Mosque Protest, phoenixnewtimes.com (May 30, 

2015). 

31 David Neiwert, Southern Poverty Law Center (Oct. 9, 2015), Militiamen Plan to Bring Guns 

to Mosques Around Nation in ‘Global’ Protest of Islam. 

32 Tom Dart, Protesters decry Islam outside Phoenix mosque: ‘They want to take over’, the 

guardian.com (Oct. 10, 2015). Mr. Ritzheimer has since publicly apologized for his “Fuck Islam” 

t-shirts and banners, admitting they were the wrong way to convey his intended message as well 

as distasteful. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 28 of 121
24	

reintegration strategy; it would prove to be an “anti-reintegration” strategy. 33 His pursuit of 

political activism embraced his military values, employed his military training, and enabled him 

to redeploy on risky missions “outside the wire,” leaving family behind, and often in the 

company of other veterans. At that time in his life, Mr. Ritzheimer could only find relief from his 

invisible injuries by remaining “still at war.” As Dr. Brown observed: 

Mr. Ritzhiemer appears, as have many other veteran participants in my research, 

locked into the past: Failing at re-acculturation to civilian society, they want to 

continue their assigned mission to defend America, defeat the enemy, and defend 

the U.S. Constitution. Many of the vets I have interviewed including Mr. 

Ritzheimer now feel empty. Many feel betrayed. Fourth of July parades do little to 

fill that hole. Mr. Ritzheimer’s commitment to political activism embraced a 

mission similar to the missions he had in the Marines, and it gave him purpose 

and self-worth in a civilian culture where he struggles to reintegrate. 

Fighting in that theatre, Mr. Ritzheimer suffered arrest, imprisonment, and a felony conviction, 

the penal consequences for which this Court must determine. But those disastrous events would 

set in motion a path for his redemption. 

Brief Summary of Mr. Ritzheimer’s Offense Conduct 

As noted in the Government’s September 2016 Trial Memorandum, “Defendants’ speech 

constitutes a significant amount of the evidence in this case,” (#958, p. 18), a statement that 

applies equally to Mr. Ritzheimer’s offense conduct. Before turning to his words, it is important 

to note his actions: He never personally engaged in a physical confrontation or heated exchange 

with any citizen, federal employee or law enforcement officer in Harney County. He never 

brandished a firearm in the presence of a federal employee or law enforcement officer—nor in 

his videos during these events. He voluntarily self-surrendered upon being advised of the federal 

arrest warrant. 

 

33 Dr. Brown noted, “When asked to rate his actual performance transitioning back into the 

civilian culture, Jon rated this 2, on a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being “very difficult” and 10 being “not 

difficult at all”),” and that it had proved to be much more difficult than he anticipated. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 29 of 121
25	

Mr. Ritzheimer’s history is one of civility and the spirit of cooperation with law 

enforcement. In a video posted January 21st, he said, “I don’t think there’s bad people in the FBI 

or bad people in law enforcement. It’s just a lack of education. . . . It shouldn’t be just me and us 

in here defending the Constitution. We should be doing this with sheriff deputies by our side . . .

federal agents by our side,” MNWR_0058067. In the fall of 2015, Mr. Ritzheimer maintained 

communications with Peoria, Arizona, Police Detective Michael Griffin and FBI SA Steve 

Denney, emailing them that he was headed north to protest injustices to the Hammonds in late 

December. Prior to leaving Arizona, Ritzheimer met with Denney and other FBI agents at his 

home; their purpose was to evaluate him as a possible CHS. MNWR_0024242. These facts 

indicate the FBI did not view him as a terrorist threat, and Mr. Ritzheimer had no plans to 

knowingly violate the law while protesting in Burns. 

He was a “newbie” to Operation Mutual Defense (OMD), recruited by another veteran, 

Ryan Payne, and it was there in November 2015 that he learned of the Hammonds’ plight.34 The 

Hammonds’ situation as described to him—being treated as terrorists and resentenced to 5-yearsimprisonment—struck a chord with Mr. Ritzheimer. That chord sounded about the same time as 

his involvement in protesting what he viewed as the heavy-handed federal prosecution of a 

fellow Marine, Schuyler Barbeau, in Washington state. He decided to combine his trip to Seattle, 

where he engaged in lawful public protest on Barbeau’s behalf, with participation in the stillevolving protest action being planned in support of the Hammonds, on his way back to Arizona; 

and the rest is history. Simply stated, he unlike the majority of his co-defendants, was neither a 

 

34 His application to OMD is dated 10/25/15; on the blank for “What do you have to offer [this 

organization], he wrote: “I can offer loyalty and dedication. I can implement leadership and 

training where it is needed. . .” MNWR_62514. Discovery revealed that a government informant 

was active in OMD prior to Mr. Ritzheimer joining, and that he participated in the Advisory 

Board conference calls only on 6 occasions, from November 5th through December 27, 2015. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 30 of 121
26	

follower of the Bundys nor a member of the Bundys’ inner circle; and he had no involvement in 

the 2014 episode at Bundy Ranch. He joined an assembling group of protestors in late 

December, arriving in Burns on the night of December 22, 2015. 

When Mr. Ritzheimer appeared in videos on December 26th and 31st calling for patriots to 

come to Burns to support the Hammonds, he did not envision invading the Refuge. Mr. 

Ritzheimer was unaware of Ammon Bundy’s plan to occupy the Refuge until hearing it at a 

meeting at a Burns restaurant the morning of January 2nd. The Government confirms it lacks 

evidence to prove otherwise. Although there was testimony at the first trial about a meeting on 

December 29th involving Ammon Bundy and others where the plan was discussed, Mr. 

Ritzheimer was not in attendance.35 

When Ammon Bundy revealed his plans to Mr. Ritzheimer and a large group assembled 

at the Burns restaurant on January 2nd—prior to the start of the Hammond rally that day—and 

asked for volunteers to reconnoiter the Refuge in advance of him leading protestors there from 

the rally, Mr. Ritzheimer agreed to go. He recalls: 

When I saw LaVoy and Ryan Bundy volunteer without hesitation and a few others, 

I decided to participate in the protest. The only advance notice I had was the fact 

that the [restaurant] meeting happened the morning of January 2nd before the 

protest in town and we left to the refuge during the protest. If I knew of the 

takeover before January 2nd, then why would I have needed to go and pack my 

bags after the January 2nd announcement? I was originally on board for the 

protest in town and then being able to return to my family. That’s more my style. 

It was a split-second decision [for me] to go to the refuge. 

 

35 Mr. Ritzheimer was present at an earlier meeting on December 29th at a Burns restaurant with 

Ammon Bundy and others, including Sheriff Dave Ward. The later meeting on the 29th, where 

according to trial testimony by Blaine Cooper, Ammon Bundy and several others discussed 

taking over the Refuge, occurred at a local resident’s home. Cooper did not identify Ritzheimer 

as being present at that meeting, based on news reports of his trial testimony. Mr. Ritzheimer 

maintains he was not privy to those discussions, “perhaps because I was not 100% vetted or 

trusted yet. All the other guys had history together from the 2014 stand-off.” 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 31 of 121
27	

A CHS in contact with Ritzheimer on January 4th reported that “he and other occupiers 

want a peaceful resolution and are trying to bring attention to injustice being done to the 

Hammond family and all ranchers out west. . . . Ritzheimer wants to go home to his family and 

does not want any bloodshed. He is concerned that this will turn into the next Waco.” 

MNWR_0059466. Mr. Ritzheimer publically voiced the same sentiments repeatedly in videos 

posted to social media throughout his time there. He believed that the more people who came to 

the Refuge—“armed or unarmed”—the less likely that they would be attacked by law 

enforcement. 

As days passed following the January 2nd takeover, Mr. Ritzheimer witnessed the 

increasing militarization of law enforcement in response to the Occupation: 

The first few days I slept at the top of the refuge just outside the main entrance. I 

wanted to be a buffer as you know, and I put out a video showing that I was at the 

top and wanted to be a voice of reason if anyone came to assault the refuge and 

the occupiers. Then I went in town and saw a lot more law enforcement had 

begun to gather there. The fact that they were not willing to have an open 

dialogue with Ammon scared me. We were trying to be transparent but they 

wanted no part in that. It made me feel sub-human. Like we didn't matter and they 

were not going to deal with us because in their minds we were the peasants and 

they were the superiors. Then it was rumored that a bearcat (military style 

vehicle) was spotted in town so I had to go and see it for myself. I also went to see 

the build up at the airport and saw military-style tents set up there with lots of 

equipment like generators and other field equipment we used in the military. They 

even had what looked like a sat-comm set up, which is a large satellite dish for 

communications. I went to the compound that was set up in the town and it was 

100% like a military base. Cement barriers and armed guards in full tactical gear 

standing guard 24-7. It was so crazy to see such an escalation of force. You would 

have thought Russia or North Korea invaded. It was beyond overkill and I felt 

compelled to continue to try and deescalate the situation. Overtime I went into 

town and was always sure to leave my side arm in my truck and use tact when 

speaking to the officers. I know that disrespect won't get you far when conversing 

with these guys who were just following orders. Some of the sheriff deputies 

seemed competent enough to know we were no threat, and they weren't all high 

strung when meeting with me. But the FBI agents and the State Troopers were 

very militant and treated us as if we were terrorists and they weren't going to 

negotiate with us. Even though I saw all this build up, as time passed and nothing 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 32 of 121
28	

bad happened, the fact that it was going on for so long made me feel like it was 

going to end peacefully. 

Mr. Ritzheimer and others stood guard duty while armed at the front entry to the Refuge, 

but denied no one access unless they appeared likely to incite trouble. Locals, school children, 

and news media regularly came and went. No known law enforcement attempted entry so none 

were knowingly turned away, but for sure no BLM employees who came were turned away. E.g., 

MNWR_0040656. Mr. Ritzheimer frequently left the Refuge, traveling to town on errands, to 

meet with other citizens, and to engage law enforcement officers at the courthouse compound in 

conversation about the Constitution.36 He reports being stopped or approached several times by 

law enforcement as well, without incident. An FBI Event log documents a traffic stop on January 

11th near the Silver Spur hotel, MNWR_0054129. A police video documents a friendly encounter 

with him near the Burns post office. MNWR_0043258 (date unknown). Such encounters 

reinforced Mr. Ritzheimer’s belief that he and other occupiers were viewed by the authorities as 

engaged in peaceful protest, or at worst, civil disobedience. 

While at the Refuge, Mr. Ritzheimer helped with the Occupation by organizing security 

teams, but he was not alone in those efforts. Mr. Ritzheimer’s efforts were consistent with his 

military training and intended to build teamwork and prevent violence from erupting from people 

otherwise inclined to act on their own and with less restraint. Other persons reportedly 

participated in different aspects of security training: John Killman (later identified as a CHS) 

provided hand-to-hand combat training of occupiers, MNWR_003804; Payne was in charge of 

the shooting range and wanted to conduct live-fire training so he can judge their shooting and 

tactical abilities, MNWR_0059461; Ryan Bundy was in charge of most of the tactical training, 

 

36 There are striking similarities between his activities involving the Occupation and his duties 

during combat deployments, as discussed infra. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 33 of 121
29	

MNWR_00001690; Ritzheimer wasn’t involved in tactical training and sometimes worked as a 

“gopher,” picking up mail and taking meals to the men who were otherwise disposed, 

MNWR_00001508. 

Mr. Ritzheimer had seen news reports by Danny Coulson, a former special-agent-incharge of the FBI in Oregon, providing his assessment: “We don’t have a violent act here. Again, 

it’s just protestors. . . . We’ve still got a trespass situation. It’s certainly not worth a firefight. . . . 

They’re exercising their First Amendment rights. If they want to make a statement, let them. Let 

them have a forum.”37 Those sentiments resonated with his perspective of his conduct—that he 

was engaged in peaceful protest at worse amounting to trespass, and certainly not felonious 

conduct that his government would later characterize as domestic terrorism. 

Mr. Ritzheimer’s Offense Behavior As A Product of Military Culture 

When the veteran, who was carefully selected pre-enlistment to not have 

experienced legal problems or anti-social values, runs afoul the law inside the 

[civilian] environment and becomes targeted for criminal prosecution, we ignore 

how the military culture and moral injuries sustained by the veteran contributed 

to or caused the criminal problems he or she became trapped in. Instead, the 

criminal act(s) of the veteran was/were freely chosen and that the war experience 

is unrelated. 38

 Dr. Brown’s July 2016 report includes the following findings: 

Mr. Ritzheimer post-discharge has continued to behave largely as dictated by the four 

core military values (Obedience, Discipline, Survival, and Sacrifice): 

 Obedience, in military terms, requires unquestionable compliance with orders from 

superiors, and the oath taken to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. Mr. 

Ritzheimer’s military training during Boot Camp taught him to view the Constitution as 

 

37 http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/01/why_dont_feds_try_to_oust_oreg.html. 38 Cultural Incompetence, supra n. 33, at 3. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 34 of 121
30	

a set of “black or white” rules.39 At that time he was a high school graduate. He was not 

taught by the military that legal scholars and the courts often have conflicting 

interpretations of the Constitution’s content and meanings. He continues to respond to 

situations involving the Constitution in civilian culture with the same literal 

interpretation and same commitment to uphold and defend it. 

 Discipline in the military is associated with instantaneous responses to orders given by 

superiors, and contributes to the development of a cohesive military unit. Mr. 

Ritzheimer continues to show discipline in his commitment to form a strong coalition 

that will defend and protect the Constitution. He would naturally employ the leadership 

skills and methods he acquired during military service, for coalition building.40

 Survival requires a commitment to continue the pursuit of the mission. Mr. Ritzheimer 

has not yet successfully reintegrated into civilian culture; he has found no place (work, 

college, motorcycle clubs, the company of former civilian friends) where he fit in, or felt 

a sense of purpose. As noted, he has considered committing suicide post-discharge, 

directly related to problems with his reintegration. His commitment to political activism 

filled that void, and he has survived thus far through his pursuit of making people aware 

of their rights, and trying to convince others to accept responsibility for defending the 

Constitution. 

 

39 See, e.g., CSIS Report, supra n.20, Introduction at 3 (“The values and philosophies that have 

evolved as central to U.S. military culture have emerged from both the noble basic tenets of the 

U.S. Constitution and the harsh lessons of the battlefield.”). 

40 Dr. Brown noted that Mr. Ritzheimer’s military experience significantly increased his ability 

to exercise loyalty, and that he rated his level of loyalty to others before enlisting at 4 on a scale 

of 1 (low) to 10 (high). During service his level of loyalty increased to 10. “He rated his level of 

loyalty to civilians after discharge from the Marines at 8, explaining that while he does not 

particularly care for civilians, when he makes a commitment to civilians he follows through with 

it.” 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 35 of 121
31	

 Sacrifice in the military ranges from giving up one’s right of privacy to the ultimate 

sacrifice of giving one’s life. Mr. Ritzheimer has demonstrated his willingness to 

sacrifice himself to be at the forefront of a movement to defend the Constitution, and has 

expressed a strong sense of obligation to make these sacrifices for the sake of his 

children and all Americans. Like many veterans, Mr. Ritzheimer disbelieves that he 

preserved freedom in American by fighting in Iraq. He views his efforts to educate 

others about the Constitution and the need to fight (in the figurative sense, using the First 

and Second Amendments) to defend their freedom as truly serving his country. 

 Mr. Ritzheimer’s devotion to a literal reading of the Second Amendment is consistent 

with his military indoctrination, including the Marine Corps Rifleman’s Creed. Carrying 

a firearm for the safety and security of himself and his “buddies” is a predictable, 

ingrained behavior from military culture. He has routinely carried a firearm while 

engaged in various protest activities, and that could certainly be an artifact of his military 

indoctrination, rather than a sign of aggression.41

 Many of Mr. Ritzheimer’s post-discharge criticisms of government appear directly 

related to his military values and service. Mr. Ritzheimer went to Iraq to defend 

America, defeat the enemy, and insure that the U.S. Constitution would be protected. He 

completed everything he was asked to do during two deployments. He had comrades 

who were injured or killed during his deployments, and still feels angry, frustrated and 

saddened by those events even though most were not related to anything he did or didn't 

do. He sustained physical injuries including TBI, and suffers from PTSD. His military 

service altered his life’s course and his future in the myriad of ways documented in this 

 

41 Having weapons at hand at all times is also a classic behavior of combat veterans with PTSD, 

and serves as a maladaptive coping strategy for the ensuing stress and anxiety, as discussed infra. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 36 of 121
32	

report. Mr. Ritzheimer (and the public in general) has come to recognize the motives 

behind the rationale to invade Iraq have proved to be false. Feelings of betrayal 

invariably result. 

B. The Influence Of Combat-Related PTSD, mTBI And Moral Injury On Mr. 

 Ritzheimer’s Behavior. 

For too many soldiers, after a year away from home, consumed by the grit of 

combat duty, adjusting to family and garrison duty is much too hard. . . . These 

soldiers say that they are just not the same. They don’t know why, but they feel 

changed, and the important stuff around them has changed. Combat will do that 

to almost anyone—everyone is changed, for better or worse, and sometimes both 

better and worse. These are not the great traumas of the war, but much more 

corrosive micro-traumas: an inability to relate in comforting and familiar ways 

and the tendency to feel like an alien when doing the most ordinary things.42 

Dr. Brown’s report traced Mr. Ritzheimer’s progression of generally unsuccessful 

attempts to reintegrate into civilian culture culminating with his arrest in January 2016.

43 The 

later psychological evaluation conducted by Dr. Robert Stanulis provides crucial insights about 

that time period in Mr. Ritzheimer’s life. His efforts to reintegrate were undertaken while 

suffering from the disabling, combined effects of PTSD, mTBI, and Moral Injury, all largely 

untreated. Dr. Stanulis, a forensic neuropsychologist with extensive experience working with 

veterans, conducted an evaluation of Mr. Ritzheimer starting in November 2016 and concluding 

in July 2017, with an addendum in October that discuss Mr. Ritzheimer’s subsequent progress in 

treatment and issues related to sentencing. Before discussing his findings, further explanation of 

 

42 S. Xenakis, PBS’s This Emotional Life: What the Hurt Locker Got Right, 

www.huffingtonpost.com/brigadier-general-stephen-n-xenakis-md/pbss-this-emotionallife_b_491853.html 

43 A 2011 Pew Center Research study of 1,853 veterans found 44% of those who served after 

9/11 reported a difficult time re-entering civilian life. Military experiences with adverse impact 

on reintegration included experiencing a traumatic event, serving in a combat zone, and serving 

with someone who was killed or injured. Mr. Ritzheimer experienced all of those factors, and 

none of the factors identified as making re-entry less difficult, e.g., being a college graduate, 

commissioned officer, or devoutly religious before the trauma. (The Difficult Transition from 

Military to Civilian Life). 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 37 of 121
33	

these invisible injuries, taken from Dr. Stanulis’ report and additional authorities, along with a 

summary of Mr. Ritzheimer’s VA medical records pre-dating his offense, provide necessary 

context. 

Combat-related PTSD 

“PTSD is a major life-threatening mental illness that can stem from any type of 

traumatic experience. Much of our current knowledge about PTSD comes from 

the military for the obvious reason: War causes trauma on a massive scale.”44

PTSD is the result of exposure to severe trauma(s) that leads to intrusive re-living of the 

trauma and flashbacks, coupled with avoidance symptoms that occur to prevent intrusive reliving of the traumatic event. Combat veterans who, like Mr. Ritzheimer, “have been viscerally 

exposed to the devastation and degradation of warfare, the blood and gore and death, the 

incessant, wrenching fear wrought by the agencies of combat,” sustain repeated exposures to 

severe trauma.45 

People with PTSD “can suffer from a wide array of symptoms, including intrusive 

memories, flashbacks, hyper-vigilance, sleep disturbance, avoidance of traumatic stimuli, 

numbing of emotions, social dysfunction, and physiological hyper-responsivity,” and “[t]hese 

symptoms are believed to reflect stress-induced changes in neurobiological systems”. 46 While 

some individuals exposed to a traumatic event do not develop PTSD, others manifest all of its 

symptoms, or some combination of them. A significant number do not immediately manifest 

symptoms of PTSD, instead demonstrating a “progressive escalation of distress or a later 

 

44 Thomas J. Berger, Executive Director of the Veterans Health Counsel, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 

National Institute of Corrections, Veterans Treatment Courts: A Second Chance For Vets Who 

Have Lost Their Way, Section 3 (May 2016)(available at nicic.gov/veterans). 

45 Id. 

46 Betsy Gray, Neuroscience, PTSD, and Sentencing Mitigation, 34 Cardozo L.Rev. 53 (Oct. 

2012)(hereafter referenced as Gray, Neuroscience). Gray is a law professor and faculty fellow at 

the Center for Law, Science & Innovation, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, ASU. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 38 of 121
34	

emergence of [the] symptoms.”47 Regarding the course of PTSD, the DSM-5 text summarizes 

available evidence stating that symptoms vary over time, with “recurrence and intensification . . . 

in response to reminders of the original trauma, ongoing life stressors, or newly experienced 

traumatic events.” (Development and Course, p. 277). Simply put, PTSD is a chronic condition 

that waxes and wanes, and some individuals remain symptomatic for more than 50 years. Id. 

A. The Physiological Basis of PTSD 

PTSD symptoms in veterans start as an adaptive neurobiological response to combat: 

Hyper-arousal and hyper-vigilance are adaptive in combat, but these responses are not adaptive 

in non-combat, civilian situations. PTSD also changes the structure and function of brain and the 

autonomic nervous system of those affected, to include chronic hyperarousal of the “fight or 

flight” functions of the brain. 

Key structures of our brains operate when trauma and stress are experienced, acting either 

to stimulate the “arousal system” or keep our emotions in check. When the brain is functioning 

properly, new neuron connections are created that override the traumatic memory, a process 

known as “extinction.” When this system becomes maladaptive, the retention of traumatic 

material in the brain can result in emotional disorders, including PTSD. Properly functioning 

brains have biological processes that allow an individual to adapt and overcome traumatic 

events, while brains affected by PTSD or similar disorders do not, causing previously neutral 

stimuli in the environment, such as sights, sounds, and smells, to become linked with the 

traumatic event.

48 Thus, the traumatic event(s) remain in their perceptions as an active, not past, 

event. Simply put, PTSD literally “rewires” the brain. 

 

47 Id. 

48 Id., at 87. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 39 of 121
35	

There are biochemical processes associated with PTSD. Our brains are flooded with 

stress hormones during and after a stressful event, to facilitate fear processing. Traumatic stress 

can induce fear, which triggers an alarm system known as the “fight or flight” response in our 

neurocircuitry. PTSD involves the dysregulation of several neurotransmitter and hormonal 

systems, that lead to changes in the structure and function of the brain. Persons with PTSD 

experience increased levels of cortisol and adrenaline, which further activate fear responses. 

Prolonged release of these hormones can enhance the functioning of the amygdala and impair the 

cognitive function of the medial prefrontal cortex; prolonged release of cortisol causes longlasting neurological changes in the hippocampus, associated with the intrusive memories of 

PTSD.49

The amygdala is integral to the generation and maintenance of emotional responses, 

including fear and threat assessment. The medial prefrontal cortex is largely responsible for 

judgment, cognition, behavior, personality expression, and decision-making. In persons with 

PTSD, the amygdala is hyperactive while the controlling mechanisms in the prefrontal cortex fail 

to dampen fear arousal, and the prefrontal cortex may sustain reduced volume and 

interconnections with other brain regions. This malfunction leads to hyperarousal, distress, and 

avoidance behaviors to stimuli that objectively would be seen as neutral or only mildly stressful

or threatening. The hippocampus plays a central role in learning and the formation of episodic, 

declarative, and working memory. Several structural MRI studies have reported decreased 

 

49 Id., at 89-90. In addition, persons with PTSD display “abnormal regulation of catecholamine, 

serotonin, amino acid, peptide, and opioid neurotransmitters, each of which is found in brain 

circuits that regulate/integrate stress and fear responses,” and some of these core neurochemical 

dysregulation is also found in persons with TBI, “presumably the result of diffuse axonal injury.” 

Sherin & Nemeroff, Post-traumatic stress disorder: the neurobiological impact of psychological 

trauma, Dialogues in Clin. Neurosci. 13(3): 263-78 (2011), available at 

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3182008/ . 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 40 of 121
36	

hippocampus volumes in individuals with PTSD. A deficit in the hippocampus may “impair the 

individual’s appreciation of safety cues and is partly responsible for an inappropriate 

physiological response to stress.” Because of this deficit, the “fear response” may fail to turn 

off.50 To simplify, persons with PTSD cannot inhibit a fear response when exposed to reminders 

of traumatic events; the autonomic nervous system hyperactively responds.51

 B. The Diagnostic Symptoms of PTSD 

 The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V) categorizes the 

symptoms that accompany PTSD into four “clusters”: 

 Intrusion—spontaneous memories of the traumatic event, recurrent dreams related to it, 

flashbacks, other intense or prolonged psychological distress upon exposure to internal or 

external clues that symbolize or resemble an aspect of the traumatic event, or marked 

physiological reactions to such clues. 

 Avoidance—avoidance or efforts to avoid distressing memories, thoughts, feelings, or external 

reminders of the event. 

 Negative Cognitions and Mood—myriad feelings including a distorted sense of blame of self 

or others for the cause or consequences of the traumatic event; persistent negative emotions (e.g., 

fear, anger guilt, shame), feelings of detachment or alienation, or persistent inability to 

experience positive emotions (e.g., happiness, satisfaction, love). 

 Arousal—irritable behavior and angry outbursts with little or no provocation, reckless or selfdestructive behavior, problems with concentration, sleep disturbances, hypervigilance or

exaggerated startle response. 

 

50 Gray, Neuroscience, supra n.46, at 88-89 (citations omitted). 

51 Id., at 90. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 41 of 121
37	

The phenomenon of “reckless or self-destructive behavior,” in the marked alterations in 

the Arousal cluster of symptoms, was first included as a PTSD symptom in the DSM-V (2013), 

and “reflects the tendency of those with PTSD to engage in risky behaviors that give them a 

“rush,” thereby serving as a means of adaptation to a disturbed and unmodulated 

[neurophysiological] arousal system.”52 Moreover, research has shown that veterans with PTSD 

are more likely to engage in risky and impulsive behaviors when in a depressed state; and that 

veterans suffering from a combination of PTSD and depression may experience an 

intensification of anger.53 

A PTSD diagnosis requires identification of one or more symptoms of Intrusion and 

Avoidance, and two or more symptoms of Negative Cognitions and Mood, and Arousal; duration 

of the symptoms for more than one month; and resulting causation of clinically significant 

distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning. 

Military culture shapes the symptoms of PTSD in veterans. Combat-related PTSD is 

tilted strongly towards symptoms of avoidance, isolation and denial. Ownership and proximity to 

weapons become an effective means to lower anxiety. Clearly, PTSD can adversely impact 

veterans’ reintegration to civilian culture: 

Numerous psychosocial conditions have been found to be associated with PTSD, 

for example, violence and aggression, relationship problems, decreased quality 

of life, legal problems, and homelessness. Research demonstrates that PTSD can 

cause substantial distress and functional impairment. The various effects and the 

 

52 Suzzane Best, Impact of Warzone Deployment, Chapter 7, p. 7-2, (hereafter referred to as Best 

(2017)), published in Still at War A guide for defenders, prosecutors & judges dealing with 

Oregon’s Veteran Defendant Crisis (2017 OCDLA)(hereafter Still at War). Dr. Best is a clinical 

psychologist specializing in evaluation and treatment of PTSD and trauma-related conditions, 

and co-author of Courage After Fire: Coping Strategies for Returning Iraq and Afghanistan 

Veterans and Their Families. Dr. Best notes that TBI “also can lead to impulsivity, aggression, 

and impaired decision making.” Id. 

53 Id., at 7-3. As previously noted, VA records include a diagnosis of Depression for Mr. 

Ritzheimer. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 42 of 121
38	

interconnections of PTSD with other physical, mental, and social outcomes can 

interfere with readjustment into one’s previous life.54

“Moreover, after repeatedly responding to and, at times, themselves giving orders carrying life or 

death consequences, veterans may have difficulty adhering to what they see as meaningless laws 

or respecting local representatives of domestic authority who they deem weak and even 

contemptible.”55

Many veterans, including Mr. Ritzheimer, experience a pervasive sense of guilt, shame, 

and self-blame. While PTSD is most often perceived as a fear-based condition arising from a 

life-threatening event, it may also develop in reaction to traumatic events for which the veteran 

feels responsible.56 In the later instance, the military cultural values of self-sacrifice without 

hesitation to protect ones “buddies”, and drive to successfully complete all missions, would 

necessarily heighten feelings guilt, shame and self-blame. “Because guilt reactions negatively 

impact mood, veterans with PTSD are at significant risk for associated major depression, a 

combination which results in more severe symptoms and resistance to treatment.”57

The symptoms of PTSD have been categorized into three typologies: dissociative 

reactions, sensation-seeking syndrome, and depression-suicidal syndrome. Not all individuals 

with PTSD experience all three typologies. A dissociative reaction includes altered states of 

consciousness or flashbacks, in which a veteran may regress into “survival mode” and commit an 

act responsive to reliving a past traumatic event. Manifestations of the sensation-seeking 

 

54 Returning Home from Iraq and Afghanistan, supra n.5. 55 Best (2017), supra n.52, p. 7-1. 56 Id., p. 7-3 

57 Id. In that article, Dr. Best discussed one client, an Army Ranger officer who endured many 

life-threatening experiences in combat that were highly distressing to him, but reported his most 

traumatic experience was when he sent a platoon on a mission where eight were killed, and he 

was not with them. Compare, Mr. Ritzheimer’s extreme distress over not redeploying with his 

unit in 2006, thus not being able to protect them from injury or death. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 43 of 121
39	

syndrome include seeking out dangerous activities to recreate the excitement of combat. This 

may be an attempt to feel alive again, rather than “numb,” in civilian life; or an unconscious 

attempt to relive and control the trauma experienced in combat. The depression-suicide 

syndrome includes intense feelings of guilt, hopelessness, betrayal, and deep depression. Combat 

veterans often feel survivors’ guilt and experience depression; they may feel hopelessness when 

unable to reintegrate to civilian life, or betrayed by the government that sent them to fight a 

controversial war. These individuals may commit suicide, subconsciously act out their anger 

through criminal acts, or commit criminal acts with the goal of “passive” suicide or “suicide by 

cop.”58

 C. Mr. Ritzheimer’s Experience with PTSD leading up to the Occupation. 

“Combat alters the way we think about ourselves. . . . It challenges our common 

assumptions about who we are and what we and others are capable of. The 

illusions of safety, civility, and civilization are forever shattered in those who 

have witnessed otherwise. After going through such experiences, the world does 

not feel the same and many veterans feel unable to rejoin the mainstream of 

society and put their experiences behind them. As one combat veteran sagely 

noted, ‘My wife and friends tell me to let it go . . . it all happened so long ago. I 

get that. It was only 30 minutes out of my entire life. But, for me, those thirty 

minutes have cast a shadow thirty years long.’”59

Mr. Ritzheimer served as a gunner on convoys during his first deployment to Iraq, and 

described many experiences that are known to give rise to PTSD. These included being attacked 

and ambushed, being responsible for the death of the enemy, witnessing dead bodies and human 

remains, seeing dead and seriously injured American troops, knowing personally an American 

who was killed, having close calls where protective gear prevented death or injury, and clearing 

homes in combat areas. In 2005, his convoy was ambushed and the truck in front was hit with 

 

58 Daniel Burgess, Nicole Stockey & Kara Coen, Reviving the “Vietnam Defense”: PostTraumatic Stress Disorder and Criminal Responsibility in a Post-Iraq/Afghanistan World, 29 

Dev. Mental Health L. 59, 65-68 (2010). 

59 Dossa & Boswell, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder: A Brief Overview, at 163-64, supra n. 13. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 44 of 121
40	

RPGs (Rocket propelled Grenade). This resulted in his truck being stuck in the “kill zone” with 

insurgents attempting to place an IED (Improvised Explosive Device) next to his truck. In that 

firefight, he shot and killed multiple insurgents. His truck remained separated by the “kill zone” 

from the rest of the convoy for a period. During his 2005 deployment, he sustained multiple IED 

and RPG attacks as well as gunfire attacks. 

VA records document Mr. Ritzheimer’s PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), Depression 

and Moral Injury diagnoses and treatment. While training to redeploy with his unit in 2006, he 

began experiencing “nightmares, poor sleep, flashbacks, mood swings, fear, anger, 

sadness/depression fatigue, low motivation, and irritability,” and was diagnosed with PTSD. 

During follow-up medical appointments, “anxiety, depression with pessimism about the future, 

or brooding about the past, and loss of interest in friends and family” was noted. Medications 

were prescribed, and he was referred to outpatient treatment. There he discussed guilt over not 

redeploying with his unit. He remained on medications for PTSD in 2007. He was allowed to redeploy in 2008. 

According to Dr. Stanulis, one of the most important psychological aspects of Mr. 

Ritzheimer’s military experience occurred when, due to PTSD, he was not allowed to re-deploy 

with his unit in 2006. To the civilian eye, not being deployed to a combat zone would appear less 

stressful than being deployed. However, the opposite holds true within military culture where 

soldiers are indoctrinated to complete the mission to kill the enemy at all costs, with sacrifice of 

one’s life in that pursuit portrayed as the ultimate heroic act. This failure to be fit to deploy is far 

more stressful to combat veterans, and it affected Mr. Ritzheimer in a very profound and 

negative manner: He reports feelings of guilt, shame and a corresponding strong need to makeCase 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 45 of 121
41	

up for his failure, and find some other way to leave a “legacy” for his children after his 2014, 

unexpected discharge—when he was once again on a path to deploy to a combat zone. 

 When Mr. Ritzheimer re-deployed in 2008, his unit escaped direct enemy attack, other 

than rocket fire when they first arrived, during that tour. When he returned stateside, he sought 

mental health services for PTSD, and was again prescribed medication. His symptoms as 

documented in late 2009 were reported as “sleep disturbance most nights, nightmares about once 

a week, intrusive thoughts daily, irritability that comes and goes, anxiety daily, and vigilance 

daily. . . . He is avoidant of other people. He does not really have much of a social life. He is 

vigilant and he is armed with a loaded gun at all times be it at home or out and about. He has 

road rage when he drives and he has heightened physiologic arousal with loud noises.” 

Symptoms including “mood swings, anxiety and depression” were rated moderately severe, ongoing, pretty much daily for four years. 

Notwithstanding sporadic participation in VA mental health services and periodic use of 

prescribed medications for symptom management, Mr. Ritzheimer’s PTSD symptoms did not go 

into remission as the years passed. A few months after his honorable discharge in 2014, VA 

examiners found that he suffered from “depressed mood, anxiety, chronic sleep impairment, mild 

memory loss, flattened affect, disturbances of motivation and mood, difficulty in establishing 

and maintain effective work and social relationships, difficulty in adapting to stressful 

circumstances, including work, and impaired impulse control, such as unprovoked irritability 

with periods of violence.” During 2014-2015, he took prescribed medications for management of 

depression/anxiety and insomnia, but decreased use of those and began using medical marijuana 

in March 2015. The counseling records during this time period repeatedly noted he had “low 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 46 of 121
42	

motivation,” and “[c]hronic passive suicidal thoughts with no current plan or intent,” as well as 

“Chronic Pain.” 

Mr. Ritzheimer’s symptoms had not improved when assessed again in April 2015, with 

records noting PTSD and Depression. His counseling group facilitator at the Vet Center was 

retiring, causing concerns. For a short time he engaged in more intensive out-patient treatment 

with the VA PTSD Clinic (weekly, 90-minute group sessions focused on PTSD coping 

strategies), but by then was involved in political activism; he started missing sessions.60 In June 

he reported being under increased stress after receiving death threats and other negative fallout as 

the organizer of the May protest at the Phoenix mosque. He reported more anxiety, little interest 

in things, some anger but able to avoid confrontations, denied feeling hopeless, but more guilt 

feelings, hypervigilant, some intrusive thoughts—at times feels he has blood on his hands. He 

was to be referred for individual therapy for EMDR (Eye Movement Desensitization and 

Reprocessing), a therapy used to treat PTSD, but no provider was available in the area. In July 

Mr. Ritzheimer ceased participation in the PTSD Clinic program, intending to attend group 

sessions at the Vet Center closer to his home. He found the new group facilitator to be unhelpful, 

and stopped going. He did continue to see his VA psychiatrist every six weeks or so, until shortly 

before leaving home in December 2015. 

His psychiatrist’s progress notes from his last appointment, mid-December 2015, prior to 

the Occupation reflect: 

Mood has been up and down. He remains mostly isolated. Little interest in things. 

Spends much of the day watching the news, He has some friends he spends time 

with. Tries to spend more time with his daughters. Continues to have baseline 

 

60 VA counseling records document that after his return from the 2017, in-patient PTSD 

program, he acknowledged that around May 2015, when he became a political activist, “life 

started going hay wire,” first with backlash from his anti-Islam protests and then his involvement 

in the “Oregon take over.” 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 47 of 121
43	

PTSD symptoms. Hypervigilant, some intrusive thoughts. Set off easily with 

crowds. Avoids shopping. Worried constantly about his safety. Using CBD oil to 

manage anxiety. Can get angry easily—will go walk to manage tension. Sleep is 

fair. May sleep 5-6 hours. Some restlessness. He is avoiding taking sleeping 

medication because he does not want to sleep too deeply. No recent suicidal 

thoughts. No intent or plans to harm himself. . . . [B]aseline symptoms 

exacerbated by stresses. Mood is fair, Motivation low. Wife is supportive. 

Managing anger. Infrequently drinking alcohol. . . . Return in 6 weeks. 

Combat-related mild Traumatic Brain Injury (mTBI) 

Despite their frequency, the acute and long-term effects of mTBI have been a 

relatively unexplored area of medical inquiry until very recently. Undoubtedly, 

the “invisible” nature of mTBI, notably the lack of any external physical evidence 

of damage to the head or brain, has been a major factor contributing to the 

impression of inconsequentiality. However, there is accumulating evidence that 

some individuals develop persistent cognitive and behavioral changes after mild 

neurotrauma.61 

Mild Traumatic Brain Injury (mTBI) has become known as the “signature injury” of 

veterans who fought in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, primarily caused by exposure to IED

blasts. Although resolution of symptoms often occurs within 3 months, as many as 25 percent of 

veterans with mTBI experience chronic physical, cognitive and behavioral changes. 62 Veterans 

who have sustained a mTBI are also at increased risk of comorbid psychiatric disorders including 

 

61 Ann C. McKee, Meghan E. Robinson, Military-related traumatic brain injury and 

neurodegeneration, Alzheimers Dement (2014 June), available at 

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4255273/ (hereafter McKee & Robinson (2014)) 

Experts have concluded that any soldier who was within 50 meters of a blast or who was in a 

vehicle behind or ahead of one struck by a blast is at risk for TBI. Robert Worth, What if PTSD 

Is More Physical Than Psychological, The New York Times Magazine (June 10, 2016), 

available at mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/magazine/what-if-ptsd-is-more-physical-thanpsychological.html (last accessed 10-25-2017). 

62 Jeffrey B. Ware, MD, Rosette C. Biester, PhD, Elizabeth Whipple, MS, Keith M. Robinson, 

MD, Richard J. Ross, MD, PhD, Paolo G. Nucifora, MD, PhD, Combat-related Mild Traumatic 

Brain Injury: Association between Baseline Diffusion-Tensor Imaging Findings and Long-term 

Outcomes (July 2016), available at http://pubs.rsna.org/doi/full/10.1148/radiol.2016151013. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 48 of 121
44	

PTSD, and occupational impairment.63 Standard CT scans or MRI procedures will not detect 

mTBI. “The new gold standard is diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), a superior type of MRI 

whereby actual nerve tracks are visualized, along with areas of injury and areas where new nerve 

growth has occurred,” but DTI was not routinely available within the VA system as of 2013.64

Mr. Ritzheimer was diagnosed with mTBI by the VA in 2009, based on history of blast 

exposures and concussion sustained in 2005, with persistent symptoms, and has never been 

examined using DTI. 

 Repetitive mTBIs can provoke the development of chronic traumatic encephalopathy

(CTE). CTE is clinically characterized by mood and behavioral disturbances, progressive 

decline of memory and executive functioning, and cognitive deficits that eventually progress to 

dementia over the course of several decades. Mood and behavioral disturbances typically include 

depression, apathy, impulsivity, anger, aggression, irritability, and suicidal behavior. CTE has 

been documented in boxers, football players, and other contact-sports participants, as well as 

combat veterans from World War II forward. As with many neurodegenerative diseases, CTE 

can only be diagnosed definitively through postmortem examination.65 Unlike mTBI from 

conventional sports, military-related mTBI occurs in a myriad of ways, including during physical 

training, falls, and vehicle accidents, as well as blast exposure. Injury from blast exposure varies 

 

63 Id. 

64 Dr. Chrisanne Gordon, M.D., and Dr. Ronald Glasser, M.D., Traumatic Brain Injury—The 

Invisible Injury, 212-13, (hereafter referred to as Gordon & Glasser, Traumatic Brain Injury), 

published in Hunter & Else, Defending Veterans, supra n.10. 65 However, science continues to progress on methods to diagnose CTE in the living, through 

identification of protein biomarkers associated with the disease. See, e.g., Nadia Kounang, 

Researchers identify CTE biomarker that may lead to diagnosis while alive (Sept. 27, 2017), 

available at http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/26/health/researchers-identify-cte-biomarker-that-maylead-to-diagnosis-while-alive/index.html . 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 49 of 121
45	

based on external factors (e.g., strength, proximity, location), and an individual’s combined 

exposure to blasts and impacts.66

 There is increasing recognition and on-going studies of the frequent association of mTBI 

and PTSD in combat veterans from our recent military conflicts in the Middle East. One study of 

2525 U.S. Army infantry soldiers surveyed after deployment to Iraq for 1 year, 44% of the 

soldiers with mTBI and subsequent loss of consciousness met criteria for PTSD.67 There is also 

considerable symptom overlap between mTBI, PTSD, and early stage CTE.68 An accurate 

diagnosis is necessary to determine the most effective course of treatment. Unfortunately, the 

VA system has been skewed toward a PTSD-centric focus because of its established treatment 

pipeline for PTSD, and nearly non-existent mTBI detection and treatment resources.69 However, 

in February 2016, the Veterans Affairs and Defense Departments’ Evidence-Based Practice 

Working Group published the second, updated version of its “Clinical Practice Guideline for the 

Management of Concussion-Mild Traumatic Brain Injury,” first published in 2009, which may 

lead the way to improved services for diagnosis, assessment and treatment of mTBI.70

 

66 McKee & Robinson (2014), supra n.61. 67 Hoge CW, McGurk D, Thomas JL, Cox AL, Engel CC, Castro CA., Mild traumatic brain 

injury in U.S. Soldiers returning from Iraq, N Engl J Med. 2008; 358:453–63. 

68 McKee & Robinson (2014), supra n.61. 69 Gordon & Glasser, Traumatic Brain Injury, supra n.64, at 209; Worth, What if PTSD Is More 

Physical Than Psychological, supra n.63, noting great reluctance by the military to accept that 

blast exposure caused physical injury: “As late as 2008, researchers at the Walter Reed Army 

Institute of Research published a paper suggesting that the symptoms of traumatic brain injury 

could be caused in large part by PTSD and brushing off ‘theoretical concern’ about neurological 

effects of the blast wave.” 

70 Available at: 

https://www.healthquality.va.gov/guidelines/Rehab/mtbi/mTBICPGFullCPG50821816.pdf . The 

Guidelines do not recommend DTI imaging for diagnostic purposes, concluding its “sensitivity 

inadequate for routine use at this time,” p.24. The extent to which that conclusion is related to the 

VA’s lack of DTI imaging facilities is unknown. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 50 of 121
46	

A. The Mechanics of mTBI. 

Shock waves from explosive blasts damage the brain much like concussive impact to the 

head by a solid object. This is why: 

The different layers of brain tissue have the consistency of differing layers of JellO. It is these different layers of densities that make the brain so exquisitely 

sensitive to any abnormal motion, whether from a blow to the head or a jarring 

blast wave from a roadside bomb or suicide bomber. These different layers of the 

brain with their different masses move at different speeds when set into motion. It 

is the different speeds at which these ‘Jell-O’ like layers move that generates 

internal shearing forces between layers and tear the bridging arteries, veins, 

connective tissues and nerve fibers. . . A brain set in motion by a passing [blast] 

wavefront is like a layer cake suddenly placed on the top of a jackhammer. . . .A 

more than one neurosurgeon has pointed out, the damage from that shaking of the 

brain can be more widespread and more neurologically disabling to a patient than 

a penetrating head would where the damage is only along the track of the bullet. 

With a shaken brain, the damage will be everywhere and anywhere.71

As we know from recent news accounts involving NFL players, repeated exposure to 

concussive forces increases the extent of brain injury. “Consider a blast injury, which can be 100 

times more forceful than a hit from a 300-pound NFL lineman. Then consider that a soldier may 

suffer several blast injuries in a tour of duty,” as well as repeated tours over the course of a few 

years. “The significance here is that brain injuries are additive and, the closer together they 

occur, the worse the outcome.”72 Scientific studies also suggest that brain cells functioning at the 

time of the blast injury are most vulnerable to damage, such that hypervigilant combat troops 

with their “high alert” brain functioning may exacerbate the injury. Lack of sleep, another 

common experience for combat troops, may also make the brain more susceptible to injuries.73

B. The symptoms of combat mTBI. 

The primary causes of TBI in Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan are blasts, 

blast plus motor vehicle accidents (MVA's), MVA's alone, and gunshot 

 

71 Gordon & Glasser, Traumatic Brain Injury, supra n.64, at 202, 204. 

72 Id., at 204. 

73Id., at 205. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 51 of 121
47	

wounds. Exposure to blasts is unlike other causes of mTBI (mild TBI), and 

may produce different symptoms and natural history. For example, Veterans 

seem to experience the post-concussive symptoms described [below] for

longer than the civilian population; some studies show most will still have 

residual symptoms 18-24 months after the injury. . . . However, some 10% to 

15% of patients may go on to develop chronic post-concussive symptoms. 

These symptoms can be grouped into three categories: somatic (headache, 

tinnitus, insomnia, etc.), cognitive (memory, attention and concentration 

difficulties) and emotional/behavioral (irritability, depression, anxiety, 

behavioral dyscontrol). Patients who have experienced mTBI are also at 

increased risk for psychiatric disorders compared to the general population, 

including depression and PTSD. . . . [M]any Veterans have multiple medical 

problems. The comorbidity of PTSD, history of mild TBI, chronic pain and 

substance abuse is common and may complicate recovery from any single 

diagnosis. 

PTSD and Brain Injury, National Center for PTSD, Department of Veterans 

Affairs, available online). 

Mr. Ritzheimer is service-connected for TBI. VA records indicate that he was diagnosed 

with a Grade III (serious) concussion from a MVA accident because of his period loss of 

consciousness. He also was subjected to blast forces from numerous IED exposures that “dazed” 

him. He also has headaches and tinnitus, which are often associated with TBI. The VA doctor 

conducting his 2009 disability determination noted: “At this point, since he does have a good 

deal of psychiatric and mood disturbances, I really cannot separate any mild cognitive 

dysfunction [resulting from the TBI] from any type of mood alteration of the depression he is 

suffering from.” While Mr. Ritzheimer now feels that he has recovered from his concussion, the 

accuracy of this self-report is difficult to assess given that the degree of symptom overlap 

between PTSD and TBI is substantial.74 Symptom overlap with PTSD consists of 

 

74 “Evaluating the TBI patient is complicated by anosognosia, the patient’s inability to recognize 

physical or mental dysfunction.” Dr. Peter Breggin, M.D., TBI, PTSD, and Psychiatric Drugs; A 

Perfect Storm for Causing Abnormal Mental States and Aberrant Behavior, Chapter 10, p. 255, 

Hunter & Else, Defending Veterans, supra n.10. As Dr. Stanulis explains, the cognitive 

impairments of mTBI are somewhat similar to the “brain fog” experienced from a cold or flu, 

and become “the new normal” when experienced as a chronic condition. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 52 of 121
48	

depression/anxiety, insomnia, irritability/anger, trouble concentrating, fatigue, hyperarousal and 

avoidance. As discussed earlier, Mr. Ritzheimer has experienced all of those symptoms. 

The areas of brain that are affected by PTSD are also vulnerable to concussion and blast 

injuries. Numerous studies have shown that Middle East war veterans who had diagnoses of 

mTBI had symptoms of PTSD at much higher rates than non-TBI injured soldiers.75 The cooccurrence of PTSD, TBI, and chronic pain that characterizes Mr. Ritzheimer’s combat injuries, 

is common in this generation of veterans because of the frequency of concussive and blast 

injuries that can produce all three health issues. A recent review by the Institute of Medicine, 

National Academy of Science, concluded that TBI can have adverse effects on all aspects of 

social functioning, including employment, social relationships, independent living, functional 

status, and leisure activities.76 

C. Distinguishing mTBI from PTSD 

Dr. Stanulis administered testing related to mTBI in November 2016. This included the 

TBI checklist from the VA. On the TBI checklist Mr. Ritzheimer’s symptoms of headaches, 

fatigue, sleep disturbance, anxiety, and depression were self-rated as mild. He endorsed visual 

problems, sensitivity to light, hearing difficulty, sensitivity to noise, numbness or tingling of 

parts of his body, poor concentration/distractibility, and difficulty making decisions, as 

moderate. Symptoms of forgetfulness, feeling depressed, irritable, poor frustration tolerance, and 

feeling easily overwhelmed, were rated as severe. Thus, he reported some symptoms specific to 

mTBI: headaches, visual problems, sensitivity to light, hearing difficulty, sensitivity to noise, 

numbness or tingling of parts of his body. Additionally, “feeling easily overwhelmed” may be 

 

75Returning Home from Iraq and Afghanistan, supra n.5. One study showed the highest rate of 

PTSD among veterans whose injury involved loss of consciousness. 

76 Gulf War and Health, Volume 7: Long-Term Consequences of Traumatic Brain Injury, 

Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Science (2009). 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 53 of 121
49	

attributed to TBI, as those individuals “cannot filter stimuli well and are therefore overwhelmed 

by the activity at a major sports event or the selection of cereals in the aisle of a grand grocery 

store. Too much input is the hallmark of TBI, not PTSD.”77

Dr. Stanulis also performed neuropsychological screening, which is now recommended 

by the VA’s revised Clinical Treatment Guidelines for mTBI for veterans with persistent 

cognitive symptoms that have not resolved through other treatment modalities.78

Neuropsychological testing includes specifically-designed tasks meant to correlate to certain 

areas of the brain responsible for that task or function. Mr. Ritzheimer was average to above 

average in his ability to do verbal abstractions. Attention and concentration, however, were 

markedly impaired, and also affected his memory performance. According to Dr. Stanulis, tests 

measuring attention and concentration are associated with frontal lobe function, the part of the 

brain that exercises judgment and controls impulsivity; attention and concentration are the 

precursors for memory, i.e., memories are only formed of events or information that is first 

noticed. The frontal lobe is the region most susceptible to blast mTBI. So the neuropsychological 

testing suggests mild injury to the frontal lobe. However, Mr. Ritzheimer’s PTSD symptoms 

include anxiety with intrusive thoughts, that can result in similar low scores on tests for attention,

concentration and memory. Overall, his performance on tests of verbal and non-verbal memory 

indicated that his anxiety did interfere with his performance, but that with repetition he can

improve. On Verbal Fluency, Mr. Ritzheimer had no difficulty. His performance on this measure 

was well above average. 

 

77 Gordon & Glasser, Traumatic Brain Injury, supra n.64, at 210. 

78 Recommendation 17, p. 36. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 54 of 121
50	

Dr. Stanulis concurred with the VA diagnosis of mTBI, but because of symptom overlap 

with PTSD, he likewise could not determine with any certainty what percentage of Mr. 

Ritzheimer’s difficulties are caused by mTBI as opposed to PTSD. 

Mr. Ritzheimer has not undergone VA testing or treatment for mTBI that is now 

recommended by the VA’s 2016 Clinical Guidelines. He continues to experience mTBI 

symptoms that do not overlap with PTSD, and has cognitive impairments that the defense 

neuropsychological testing suggests may be due to brain dysfunctions susceptible to treatment. 

Because of symptom overlap with PTSD, rehabilitative services for mTBI could be expected to 

lessen the severity of the shared symptoms of these disorders—which are many—and improve 

his prognosis. 

Combat-related Moral Injury 

[O]ne who has never been to war clearly cannot appreciate or understand what 

war actually is or what injuring or killing other human beings can do to a soldier 

or Marine who inflicts those injuries or deaths. There is a significant distinction 

between the thoughts and/or the fantasies of killing and the actual killing of 

another person, which is why the military invests significant amounts of resources 

specifically directed to condition the inducted service member to be able to kill 

another person without hesitation and without any immediate feelings of remorse. 

Many join the military in pursuit of a definition of self or for patriotic reasons. 

Ultimately, they are expected to put aside their moral values that were acquired 

during childhood and go to war. 79

Clinical research on Moral Injury is in its early stages, first given a working definition for 

mental health research purposes in 2009, as “perpetrating, failing to prevent, bearing witness to, 

 

79 Brown, W.B., Stanulis, R., & McElroy, G., Moral Injury as a collateral damage artifact of war 

in American Society: Serving in war to serving time in jail and prison. Justice Policy Journal, 

13(1), 1-41(2016), available at http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/jpj_moral_injury.pdf

(referenced hereafter as Brown et al., Moral Injury). 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 55 of 121
51	

or learning about acts that transgress deeply held moral beliefs and expectations.”80 Moral Injury 

is not the traumatic event, but the resulting loss of trust in self and others, and diminished 

capacity for effective living; i.e., the “disruption in an individual’s confidence and expectations 

about their own or others’ motivation to behave in a just and ethical manner,” brought about by 

perpetrating, failing to prevent or bearing witness to the immoral act.81 Moral Injury has been 

described as “the complex effects from moral reasoning processes that gnaw the heart, and 

darken the soul of combat veterans.”82 Although a recent phenomenon for clinical research 

purposes, the notion that trauma can manifest in a soldier from transgressed ethics and morals is 

far from new.83

In veterans, “moral injuries may stem from direct participation in combat, such as killing 

or harming others, or indirect acts, such as witnessing death or dying, failing to prevent immoral 

acts of others, or giving or receiving orders that are perceived as gross moral violations.”84

According to Dr. Brown’s evaluation in mid-2016, Mr. Ritzheimer acknowledged that he caused 

 

80 Litz, B.T., Stein, N., Delaney, E., Lebowitz, L., Nash, W.P., Silva, C., & Maguen, S., Moral 

injury and moral repair in war veterans: A preliminary model and intervention strategy, Clinical 

Psychology Review, 29, 695-706 (2009)(hereafter referred to as Litz et al.(2009)) available at 

https://msrc.fsu.edu/system/files/Litz%20et%20al%202009%20Moral%20injury%20and%20mor

al%20repair%20in%20war%20veterans--

%20a%20preliminary%20model%20and%20intervention%20strategy.pdf . 81 Jaimie Lusk, The Relevance and Influence of Moral Injury, Chapter 8, p. 8-2 (citation omitted)

(referred to hereafter as Lusk (2017)), published in Still at War (2017 OCDLA), supra n.52. She 

is a clinical psychologist and former Marine who deployed during Operation Iraqi Freedom; she 

treats Moral Injury at the VA in Portland. 

82 Jeff Zust (2015), The Two-Mirrors of Moral Injury: A Concept for Interpreting the Effects of 

Moral Injury 1, Comm. and Gen. Staff College Found., http://www.cgscfoundation.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/06/Zust-TwoMirrorModel-final.pdf . 83 See, e.g., Masick, E.D., Moral Injury and Preventative Law: A framework for the future, 224 

Mil. L. Review 223, 225-230 (2016). 

84 Moral Injury in the Context of War, S. Maguen & B. Litz, National Center for PTSD (2016), 

available on-line. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 56 of 121
52	

enemy casualties, and perceived causing enemy combatant casualties as doing his job well.85 He 

does not know if he participated in causing civilian casualties and is very troubled by this lack of 

knowledge. He denies causing children casualties and is sad that children were casualties. The 

combat experiences he rated as having the most significant influence on him (10 on a scale of 1

to 10), were witnessing dead and seriously injured Americans, witnessing dead bodies and 

human remains, and personally knowing Americans killed in combat; whereas he rated being 

attacked, receiving incoming fire, being in close calls where only his protective gear prevented 

injury, and killing the enemy, as having slightly less significant influence. Dr. Stanulis opines 

that these feelings and events are part of the cause of both his PTSD and Moral Injury.86 

 

85 A survey of Marines and soldiers in 2003 found that 32% reported being directly responsible 

for the death of an enemy combatant. Litz et al. (2009), supra n.80, at 696. 

86 For a less clinical explanation of Moral Injury, see David Wood, Moral Injury, (April 9, 2015)

a three-part series originally published in the Huffington Post in March 2014, available at the 

Dart Center For Journalism & Trauma, https://dartcenter.org/content/moral-injury. Wood writes: 

“We have come back, we have had brothers die in our arms, we’ve picked up 

parts of other people,” 28-year-old Marine Sgt. Sendio Martz told me. . . He 

spoke haltingly, searching for words. “And you are completely angry at the 

situation you were put into . . . not angry because your signed up but what 

happened you weren’t fully prepared for.” . . . .The only way to absorb such 

experiences [Iraqi casualties], Marine Sgt. Clint Van Winkle writes, was to “make 

it impersonal and tell yourself you didn’t give a shit one way or another, even 

though you really did. It would eventually catch up to you. Sooner or later you’d 

have to contend with those sights and sounds, the blood and the flies, but that 

wasn’t the place for remorse. There was too much war left. We still had a lot of 

killing to do.” . . . Marine Staff Sgt. Felipe Tremillo also is struggling with guilt. 

Two years after he came home from his second combat tour, Tremillo is still 

haunted by images of the women and children he saw suffer from the violence

and destruction of war in Afghanistan. “Terrible things happened to the people we 

are supposed to be helping,” he said. “We’d do raids, going in people’s homes 

and people would get hurt.” . . . . American soldiers had to act that way, Tremillo 

recognizes, “in order to stay safe.” But the moral compromise, the willful casting 

aside of his own values, broke something inside him, changing him into someone 

he hardly recognizes, or admires. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 57 of 121
53	

Military Culture plays a key role in understanding Moral Injury. The same actions that 

draw praise and commendations in military culture—killing, “acquiring” (stealing) resources and 

using aggression as a problem-solving strategy—are considered immoral and shameful in 

civilian culture, creating psychological turmoil. The military also does not prepare members to 

cope with feelings of sadness, guilt or shame. Furthermore, military culture promotes “an 

unambiguous sense of right and wrong, clear rules for living, closeness with like-minded 

individuals, and a distinctive identity—all strong advantages at war,” but which contribute to 

difficulties recovering from Moral Injury as veterans struggle to find who they have become.87 

Veterans from the Vietnam area forward have engaged in a different type of warfare—

that makes them particularly vulnerable to Moral Injury—characterized by “ambiguous, 

inconsistent or unacceptable rules of engagement, lack of clarity about the goals of the mission 

itself, a civilian population of combatants, and inherently contradictory experiences of the 

mission as both humanitarian and dangerous.”88 Dr. Brown reported Mr. Ritzheimer said his 

morale as well as that of others in his units during both deployments began with uncertainty 

about their mission or purpose, and ended with ambivalence about what they had accomplished, 

and anger. 

 Although Moral Injury is not a DSM-V diagnosis, it is increasingly recognized by 

mental health providers working with veterans as a substantial issue that requires specialized 

treatment. It was part of the in-patient PTSD program that Mr. Ritzheimer completed this year.

Moral Injury is an interdisciplinary construct that has been used to identify, explain and treat 

 

87Lusk (2017), supra n.81, at 8-5; see also, Brown et al., Moral Injury, supra n.79, at 15; Litz et. 

al. (2009), supra n.80, at 695-706. 

88 Lusk (2017), supra, at 8-4 (quoting D. Wood, What have we done: The moral injury of our 

longest wars (2016 Boston, Little, Brown & Company); see also, Litz et al. (2009) at 696-97. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 58 of 121
54	

dysfunctional behaviors in veterans.89 “Diagnostically, post-traumatic stress disorder involves 

experiencing or witnessing a traumatic event. Events resulting in moral injury may fit this 

criteria, but more specifically involve acts of perpetration or betrayal.”

90 Veterans are 

indoctrinated during military training that troops will be deployed to defend democracy, kill the 

enemy, and protect civilians in the combat area of operation. Many veterans, in the aftermath of 

their deployment experiences, come to believe that this was not truthful. For those veterans who 

have taken human life, sustained injury themselves, or witnessed injury or death of their fellow 

Americans—for what they come to see as a false purpose—the sense of betrayal often runs deep 

and lasting.91 This collective sense of betrayal is a hallmark of Moral Injury: 

Some veterans return home only to find that the [civilian] moral values they 

previously set aside have become leviathans, which subsequently plague the 

soldier or Marine for much of the rest of their lives. The motivation for setting 

aside one’s morals, when he or she decides to join the military, is often affiliated 

with the political rhetoric and ideological promotion of a just war, such as to 

defend against the presence of weapons of mass destruction. However, some 

veterans develop a sense of betrayal when they discover there were no weapons of 

mass destruction. It was all a lie. The war was a lie.92

As previously noted by Dr. Brown, Mr. Ritzheimer, post-discharge, experienced feelings of 

betrayal, given the sacrifices he and other Marines made, only to see the Islamic State emerge in 

the aftermath of the Iraq war, and engage in acts of terrorism on U.S. soil. 

Before the DSM-V (2013), the PTSD diagnosis did not include guilt or shame as a 

symptom; with that inclusion, the overlap between PTSD and Moral Injury is greater. PTSD is 

 

89 See, e.g., Masick, E.D., Moral Injury and Preventative Law, supra n.83, at 225.

90 Lusk (2017) supra n.81, at 8-2. 

91 See, e.g., Moral Injury Is The ‘Signature Wound’ of Today’s Veterans, NPR (Nov. 11, 2014), 

available at http://www.npr.org/2014/11/11/363288341/moral-injury-is-the-signature-wound-oftoday-s-veterans. 92 Brown et al., Moral Injury, supra n.79, at 17. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 59 of 121
55	

generally recognized as a fear-based response to traumatic events, whereas Moral Injury can be 

seen as an anger-based response: 

Whereas Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is typically associated with one’s 

reaction to fear, MI is best viewed as a wound resulting from the violation of 

one’s code of right and wrong, which by definition, meets the eligibility 

description of an invisible wound. However, just as there is no universal soldier, 

neither is there a universal type of MI. MI can be a violation of one’s core cultural 

or spiritual values. MI can also be a violation of the soul.93

PTSD does not “sufficiently capture the moral injury, or the shame, guilt, and self–handicapping 

behaviors that often accompany moral injury.” (PTSD Research Quarterly Volume 23/NO.1 

2012). “Guilt is a painful and motivating cognitive and emotional experience tied to specific acts 

of transgression of a personal or shared moral code or expectation.” In contrast, “Shame involves 

global evaluations of the self, along with behavioral tendencies to avoid and withdraw.”94 

As noted by both Dr. Brown and Stanulis, Mr. Ritzheimer he feels responsible for 

causing American casualties. During a “pop-up” mission, he fell asleep while driving and drove 

their Humvee into a cement wall.95 He lost consciousness, and experienced post-concussion 

headaches, dizziness, disorientation and confusion. Three other Marines were injured; they 

sustained concussions and more grievous injuries. This conduct also conflicted with his core 

military values to protect his buddies and complete the mission. That event thus triggered both 

guilt and shame. “[Military] cultural norms and values emphasize the necessity for peak 

performance and moral excellence in war. Perfection is demanded, and mistakes are 

unacceptable. . . . Military members are told repeatedly, ‘If you make a mistake, people die,’ and 

 

93 Id., at 15. 

94 Id. 

95 A “pop-up” mission occurs on an “as needed” basis and interrupts troops normal down time 

for sleep; normal down town is generally inadequate to avoid sleep deprivation, even when 

uninterrupted. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 60 of 121
56	

‘Complacency kills.’ These expectations are easily violated in the fog and friction of war.”96 Dr. 

Stanulis identifies this event as important causative factor in Mr. Ritzheimer’s PTSD and Moral 

Injury. 

Features of Moral Injury in veterans identified through research that are not generally 

associated with PTSD include moral/spiritual conflict, self-condemnation, self-sabotage, low 

enjoyment (Anhedonia), purposelessness (Anomie), and social alienation. Shared features 

include depression, emotional numbing, avoidance (including isolation, aggression, self-harm 

behaviors, substance abuse, somatic complaints), and loss/grief.97 

Dr. Lusk notes many scholars believe that Moral Injury is critical in the explanation of 

criminal behavior by veterans. She quotes Dr. Nash, who works for the Department of Defense 

(DOD) and VA, as stating that “if research were available, it would reveal that moral injury 

underlies veteran suicide, homelessness and criminal behavior.” 98 Dr. Litz is quoted as saying 

that “all potentially morally injurious experiences create risk for demoralization and alienation, 

as well as altered moral expectations (informally termed a ‘broken moral compass’).” Research 

shows that Moral Injury is also related to suicide, post-deployment risk taking, difficulty with 

self-forgiveness, anger and relationship problems, and increased substance abuse. Thus, Moral 

Injury can result in diminished capacity or unwillingness to adhere to laws or values, and can 

result in behavior that is simultaneously symptomatic and criminal.99 Moral Injury is relevant to 

understanding Mr. Ritzheimer’s confused moral compass in this case. 

During his intensive in-patient PTSD treatment, Mr. Ritzheimer “reported experiences 

from his service that he felt violated his values and experiencing difficulties with identity, and 

 

96 Lusk (2017) supra n.81, at 8-4. 

97 Id., at 8-3. 

98 Id., at 8-6, 8-7. 

99 Id. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 61 of 121
57	

depressive symptoms as a result,” and his “desire to ‘accept my moral injuries.’” Early in that 

program, in March 2017, as recounted by the therapist: 

He recognized he was happy when he could educate people and motivate them. . . 

. He noted feeling the urge to do something important and found others’ 

complacency challenging. He recognized that much of his need to act and 

motivate [people] stems from a need to make amends with his past actions, 

particularly those during his military service. Discussed how identities change 

from our experiences and that while we cannot change the past, we can learn from 

it to better understand ourselves now. [He] was receptive to looking at his 

experiences as a soldier and processing his need to make amends. 

In later sessions, Mr. Ritzheimer questioned whether his acts of killing were justified, 

even though the Marines gave him commendations for that conduct: “He reported feeling guilty 

about this and later regretted being a ‘minion’ for the government. He also reported the guilt he 

felt over not deploying and feeling ‘weak.’ [He] reported trying to make up for these experiences 

and not feel these emotions.” He also reported “difficulties knowing who he is now,” after 

leaving the military. “He noted that he has always felt a need for a greater sense of purpose in his 

life,” and “struggling because the current circumstances [legal proceedings and family 

responsibilities] do not allow for more freedom to involve himself in a cause.” 

While in this program, Mr. Ritzheimer continued to be torn between his need to be part of 

a larger cause and engage in self-sacrifice—which mirror his deep-seated military values—and 

his need to be fully present and participate in the lives of his family—his deeply-felt value from 

civilian culture: 

He reported trying to find purpose in his life that will make his family proud. He 

directly denied that he would take his own life in an act of suicide but also did not 

feel that he would grow old, as he believed that his personal sacrifice to a cause 

may cost him his life. Discussed whether one could make a lasting sacrifice 

without losing his/her life, and [he] was uncertain. [He] noted being his family's 

"rock" and described them as his "purpose." . . . . He reported “I need to get PTSD 

symptoms under control for my family.” 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 62 of 121
58	

At discharge, he still “struggled with the dilemma to either remain present for his family 

or return to fighting for a cause. . . . He acknowledged the need to place his family first in his 

life, but struggled with the need to make amends for his actions in the military.” Mr. Ritzheimer 

“admired those who died young for a cause they believe in and, as such, make a difference in the 

world,” and saw that as one way to make amends for past actions and “leave a legacy” for his 

family. He left the program with a list of continuing problems to address in outpatient treatment, 

“including his identity, values, and need to mourn/honor soldiers who have died in battle.” 

The evidence for the existence of moral injury is overwhelming. Moral injury 

causes mental torture to the very troops whose case is entrusted to American 

leaders. It leads soldiers to try to drown their sorrows in alcohol or the euphoria 

of drugs, to be involuntarily separated from the service due to disciplinary action, 

or to voluntarily leave the service—or the world, by killing themselves—because 

they feel they cannot cope anymore. 

 --Judge Advocate Major Erik Masick, United States Army 

VA records document Mr. Ritzheimer has engaged in suicidal thinking at various times 

over the course of many years. According to Dr. Brown’s report, Mr. Ritzheimer had never 

considered committing suicide before entering the military, but did consider suicide while 

serving in the military related to his PTSD, as well as post-discharge then directly related to his 

problems with re-acculturation to the civilian community. Dr. Brown noted: 

Many of the veterans I have interviewed have expressed a sense of betrayal. Many 

experience difficulty securing gainful employment. They find that they do not fit 

in a university classroom. Parades, support the troops bumper stickers, and 

Memorial Day picnics are not sufficient recognition for these veterans who have 

been deployed to combat zones. One reaction to betrayal is suicide. The most 

recent data indicate that at least 22 veterans commit suicide each day. That equals 

out to about 8,030 veterans who take their own life each year. 

As previously observed, this sense of betrayal which Mr. Ritzheimer endorsed is a defining 

feature of Moral Injury. “Moral Injury is not just psychological, and may involve healing in a 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 63 of 121
59	

broader sense. . . . [M]oral injury-specific treatments . . . attempt to address ‘moral repair’ 

through acceptance, making amends, forgiveness, self-compassion, and reparative behaviors.”100

Mr. Ritzheimer to date has received only short-term, limited treatment for Moral Injury 

as part of his in-patient PTSD program in 2017. Although he has continued making progress 

during intensive out-patient PTSD treatment, he has not had the opportunity to participate in outpatient VA treatment modalities specific to Moral Injury.101 Much healing remains to be 

accomplished. 

The impact of PTSD, Moral Injury and mTBI on Mr. Ritzheimer’s Offense Behavior 

 An undeniable nexus exists between Mr. Ritzheimer’s military service, invisible injuries 

and offense conduct, demonstrated not only by the defense experts’ evaluations and opinions: 

First, there is the temporal nexus between Mr. Ritzheimer’s undesired but honorable 

discharge from the Marines in July 2014 after 11 years of service, his pursuit of political 

activism starting less than a year later in May 2015, and participation in events leading up to the 

Occupation starting in December 2015. By all accounts, he had not been successful in 

reintegrating to civilian culture in such short time, and his military values remained strong; 

coupled with his invisible injuries, they dominated how he perceived and reacted to the world. 

 

100 Lusk (2017), supra n.81, at 8-8. 

101 Dr. Lusk notes four distinct treatments specific for Moral Injury that are available through the 

VA in some locations: Adaptive Disclosure; Impact of Killing in War; Trauma-Informed Guilt 

Reductionl and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. Id.

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 64 of 121
60	

Second, there are the striking similarities between his activities during the Occupation 

and his duties while in the Marines. Even the Government has characterized the Occupation as a 

paramilitary take-over and claimed Mr. Ritzheimer was high in the chain of command. Not only 

did he regularly participate in “resupply” and other “convoy” missions between the Refuge post 

and neighboring towns as a “motor transport” driver—his most common combat duty assignment 

in the Marines—he also went on night-time reconnaissance drives with fellow veteran Ryan 

Payne, and at times stood “security detail” for LaVoy Finicum. He functioned as a Sergeant, 

attempting to enlist more recruits, organizing duty rosters, trying to instill discipline, and tending 

to the welfare of fellow protestors. Mr. Ritzheimer explains that he took “chow to the guys that 

were pulling watch [that] was what I was taught to do. It’s called troop welfare. Those guys were 

sacrificing on watch so that we could sleep. I felt obligated to take care of them as if they were 

my junior Marines. In the Marine Corps, the junior Marine always ate first. Troop welfare is a 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 65 of 121
61	

must in the Marine Corps.”

102 He left the Refuge to return home on his own accord, once he 

believed law enforcement was not going to ambush the protestors, and that their message was 

being heard; i.e., he completed the mission. 

Third, there are physical similarities between the desert terrain, his clothing and gear, and 

the “base camp” set up the Refuge—including barracks, a common kitchen, and command center 

occupied by the Bundys—with his military life in Iraq. Those environmental similarities—

coupled with stress from (false) reports of a Waco-type assault on the occupiers and the 

militaristic presence of law enforcement—likely influenced Mr. Ritzheimer’s behavior on a 

visceral level. Finally, as discussed in more depth below, there is nothing else in his character or 

background—apart from his military service and resulting injuries—to explain his aberrant, 

criminal conduct in this case. 

Dr. Stanulis made the following findings, also supported by psychological and cognitive 

testing detailed in his report, which underscore the synergistic effect of Mr. Ritzheimer’s 

invisible injuries as causation for his offense conduct: 

 Mr. Ritzheimer during the November 2016 evaluation presented with symptoms 

of severe PTSD and Depression, as well as Moral Injury. He also, while of at least 

average intelligence, showed marked symptoms of problems with attention and 

concentration and memory. These cognitive symptoms are consistent with both 

PTSD and mTBI. 

 Mr. Ritzheimer’s symptoms of PTSD are shaped by his indoctrination into the 

military culture. For example, his need to protect others—here first the 

Hammonds, then the Bundys and their followers—even by placing himself at risk, 

 

102 His commanding officer post-deployment when Mr. Ritzheimer served as Staff Sergeant in 

the reserves wrote of his dedication to troop welfare, at n.12, supra. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 66 of 121
62	

is both part of the military culture and a maladaptive means (“risk-taking 

behavior”) to manage the depression and the anxiety that is part of PTSD:

Focusing his attention on a present risk avoids reflection on past trauma. 

 His conduct also served as a subconscious mechanism to address his Moral 

Injury, fueled by the anger and anxiety that is a part of PTSD: Doing what he 

perceived as the right thing, to make up for the wrong things he believes he did in 

service. His Moral Injury, as influenced by his military cultural values, compelled 

him to seek out and protect the weak, and uphold the Constitution, using the skills 

he acquired in the military. 

 His conduct was also part of his struggle to define a legacy that his children 

would be proud of, necessary to ameliorate the feelings of intense guilt and shame 

that are symptomatic of his Moral Injury, and well as his survivor’s guilt that is a 

symptom of both his PTSD and Moral Injury: He was subconsciously driven to 

make up for and psychologically undo the damage he feels responsible for when 

he failed to be ready (i.e. strong enough) to re-deploy in 2006 due to PTSD, and 

for what he did during combat. 

 Mr. Ritzheimer’s participation in the protest of the Hammond’s sentence which 

for him suddenly morphed into the Occupation, were driven by his military values 

and were expressions of his overlapping mTBI and PTSD cognitive impairments: 

He reacted impulsively, without hesitation or good judgment, when called upon 

by Ammon Bundy to help conduct the initial sweep of the Refuge. He went into a 

state of “high alert,” and reacted in accord with his military training and 

experience. Remaining for the Occupation exemplifies the mission-focus trained

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 67 of 121
63	

into him through his military service. He was also driven by anxiety and the need 

to not fail at completing the mission, as he feels he did after his first deployment 

to Iraq. 

 The need to have a weapon on his person is also symptomatic of PTSD, as well as

an artifact of military culture: Many veterans describe having a weapon as helping 

to reduce anxiety. The severity of PTSD symptoms can be monitored by tracking 

the number and placement of guns. 

 Recent treatment records indicate that Mr. Ritzheimer is acquiring the skills and 

insight to recognize these issues. However, at the time of the Malheur 

Occupation, he was easy prey for those who could tap into his strong 

psychological needs to find a morally unassailable need to protect others (the 

Hammonds), and to be part of something larger than himself that would take 

advantage of his strong but not yet re-calibrated “moral compass.” 

 Mr. Ritzheimer’s behaviors and values during the Occupation were driven by prosocial motivations that can be explained and understood through the lenses of his 

military acculturation and service, his combat-related mTBI and PTSD, and Moral 

Injury, rather than simple criminal intent. The contributions of his military service 

and combat injuries to his conduct in the instant offense(s) are highly significant 

and must not be overlooked. 

C. Mr. Ritzheimer’s Offense Behavior Is Not Attributable To His Pre-Military 

 History, Pre-Existing Conditions, Or Substance Abuse. 

 This strong causal link between Mr. Ritzheimer’s combat-related “invisible injuries” and 

his offense conduct is further established by his pre-military history. Furthermore, his postCase 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 68 of 121
64	

deployment history leading up to the Occupation is one of continuing difficulties at reintegration

to civilian culture; the only identifiable source for those difficulties is his military “baggage”—

ingrained behaviors and values—coupled with his invisible injuries. 

Mr. Ritzheimer’s only mental health issue reported prior to combat-related PTSD was 

Attention Deficit Disorder diagnosed in the seventh grade, for which he was prescribed 

Ritalin.103 He experimented with alcohol and marijuana recreationally while in high school, 

without adverse consequences. Prior to entering the Marines, he only drank occasionally. After 

joining the Marines, his alcohol consumption increased but was never problematic during 

service. Post-discharge he did have periods of drinking daily and to excess, which the literature 

establishes is common among veterans with PTSD, but that ended in February 2015. In March 

2015 he began using medical marijuana (CBD oil)104, but prior to that had not smoked marijuana 

since occasional use in high school. Since his release in early 2016, he has not consumed 

alcohol, CBD oil nor any other drugs except as medically prescribed. 

His performance in school was average, but he struggled to graduate high school

following his ADD diagnosis. He excelled in sports and played soccer, baseball, basketball, 

 

103 The ADD diagnosis has never been made since he reached adulthood, notwithstanding mental 

health screening as part of the enlistment process and numerous mental health examinations 

since diagnosed with PTSD. Records reflect Mr. Ritzheimer reported the childhood diagnosis to 

the military and VA; i.e., it was not a diagnosis missed through omission. Dr. Stanulis advised 

that childhood ADD may resolve on its own by adulthood; estimates in the literature range from 

one-half to two-thirds of childhood ADD patients do not have persistent symptoms into 

adulthood. 

104 Cannabidiol oil (CBD oil), is a compound from the marijuana plant which does not produce 

the mind-altering “high” of THC, and has been used for pain relief, anxiety disorders including 

PTSD; the most common side effect is tiredness; however, there is very little long-term safety 

data. See, e.g., Jon Johnson, CBD oil: Uses, health benefits, and risks,(last updated 29 April 

2017) Medical News Today (on-line at www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/317221.php ); 

David Kohn, A powerful new form of medical marijuana, without the high, (Dec. 31, 2016), The 

Washington Post (on-line at www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/a-powerful-newform-of-medical-marijuana-without-the-high/2016/12/29/81bbf7c0-b5b2-11e6-b8df600bd9d38a02_story.html?utm_term=.50d092d15414 )/ 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 69 of 121
65	

football, track and cross-country running. Outside of school, his hobbies were skateboarding, 

surfing and snowboarding. He started working in construction prior to graduating high school, 

and continued working for the same employer, often part-time, during periods of his enlistment

and while active in the Reserves. In contrast, post-discharge in 2014, he was unable to maintain 

steady employment; and post-deployment, he did not resume his former hobbies. 

After his second deployment and while in the reserves, he attended community college 

and graduated with an associate degree in communication in 2011. However, his “invisible 

injuries” made college life stressful, as noted earlier, so he elected to not seek a higher degree. 

He later pursued training for a vocation as a motorcycle mechanic. He successfully completed 

the course, became a certified mechanic, and found work at repair shops. But he had recurring 

difficulties related to his PTSD, and was unemployed at the time he traveled to Oregon in late 

2015. 

Mr. Ritzheimer married his wife Rachel in 2007. They have experienced some marital 

problems, as is common for veterans with invisible injuries—including his irritability, anger 

outbursts, and tendency to isolate—that they continue to work through. They have remained 

together, and his wife has written about how his military service changed him for the worse; and 

how she has watched him recover over the last 18 months through devoted participation in 

treatment. They have two young daughters, ages 5 and 7. By all accounts, Mr. Ritzheimer is very 

devoted to his family. 

 His father abandoned their family when Mr. Ritzheimer was very young, but he reports a 

good childhood reared by his mother, and no acts of abuse or neglect. He maintains a good 

relationship with both her and his only sibling, sister Lisa. As previously noted, he has no 

juvenile justice history, no military disciplinary actions, and no civilian or military criminal 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 70 of 121
66	

history apart from the instant offense. There are no reports of him witnessing or participating in 

traumatic events pre-enlistment. 

The defense interviewed two men who have known Mr. Ritzheimer since they were 

classmates together in the 7th grade. Both describe him as popular, funny, energetic, and 

outspoken but not a troublemaker. One recalls he would stand up for people or what was right if 

needed. That long-standing, pro-social character trait has remained an integral part of who Mr. 

Ritzheimer is to this day: It contributed to his decision to join the Marines. It continued during 

his military service, as many fellow service members attest. And it led to his later involvement in 

political activism resulting in arrest—only by then misguided by his “confused moral compass.”

Another friend from that period, who was a couple of years ahead of Jon in school, recalled the 

same traits, and also described him as having a lot of patience, and attending church regularly. 

He said when Jon decided to join the Marines, he was worried for him, but Jon said he felt it was 

the right thing to do in the aftermath of 9/11, and that he wanted to serve and do something big 

with his life. 

II. Mr. Ritzheimer’s Extraordinary Post-Offense Rehabilitation Efforts, Along With 

Other Factors, Evince A Very Low Risk Of Recidivism; His Substantial Progress In 

 Reintegration Will Be Undermined By Incarceration. 

Mr. Ritzheimer left the Refuge to return home on his own accord, once he believed law 

enforcement was not going to ambush the protestors, and that their message was being heard; 

i.e., he completed the mission. He voluntarily surrendered to authorities upon being notified of 

the warrant for his arrest. He remained in custody for over 60 days before being granted release. 

His PTSD symptoms were exacerbated by the killing of LaVoy Finicum after Mr. Ritzheimer 

had “left his post” to return home, and through the experience of being incarcerated. He was 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 71 of 121
67	

released on conditions to resume treatment with the VA, but not compelled to seek intensive 

treatment. 

 Simply acknowledging invisible injuries is difficult for most veterans, much less 

expending the time and energy to embrace the stigma of mental health treatment. Dr. Brown

explained: 

It is my understanding that Jon elected not to use his PTSD diagnosis as any form 

of defense in this case. He is not unlike many other veterans who continue to 

subscribe to the military culture’s proclamation that those who claim PTSD are 

weak. While the military claims this is not how their culture projects PTSD, or 

TBI for that matter, the reality is quite different. It is not uncommon for veterans 

to ignore PTSD until they find themselves risking family relationships or 

becoming entangled in the criminal justice system. Many veterans resist allowing 

any form of mental health diagnosis to be conducted. Today, for example, if one 

looks inside the mental health section of the Veterans Hospital in Portland, 

Oregon, they will find veterans from the Vietnam War to the current generation of 

new veterans. Many waited most of their lives to come to the realization that war 

leaves invisible scars that are often hard to identify; and when they are identified 

those scars remain hard to accept. There is considerable research to validate this 

claim. 

In addition, obtaining adequate mental health treatment from the VA has historically been 

difficult due to lack of culturally-competent providers and resources, as documented earlier, 

although more recent articles attest to additional appropriations and efforts to improve the 

system. A fellow Marine who deployed with Mr. Ritzheimer in Iraq and stayed in touch postdischarge, said Jon took his PTSD diagnosis seriously, and would get upset with the VA because 

of delays in getting treatment.105 

 

105 The Institute of Medicine, National Academies, Returning Home from Iraq and Afghanistan, 

supra n.5, noted “serious concerns about inadequate and untimely clinical followup and low 

rates of delivery of evidence-based treatments, particularly psychotherapies to treat PTSD and 

depression. . . . Unwarranted variability in clinical practices and deviations from the evidence 

base present threats to high-quality patient care. . . .” Also noted was “excessive wait time” and 

“poor availability and misdistribution of mental-health specializes in many parts of the United 

States”. Id. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 72 of 121
68	

Finally, given that PTSD is an avoidance-based disorder, and most treatment involves 

repeated exposure and discussion of the traumatic events and resulting distress, it is common for 

veterans who start treatment to drop out. Studies document that of veterans who sought any 

psychological and/or pharmacotherapy treatment for PTSD, 24% had dropped out of care within 

the first 6 months, 22% had only one visit in 6 months, and only 52% had “minimally adequate 

care,” defined as 4 or more visits in 6 months. In the largest study to date of veterans involved in 

the specific, intensive out-patient treatment that Mr. Ritzheimer successfully completed, 

“Prolonged Exposure Therapy,” only 2% of participants completed the minimum number of 

sessions considered necessary for “adequate care.”106

Mr. Ritzheimer’s Post-Plea Treatment Progress 

Not long after his change of plea in August 2016, once Mr. Ritzheimer had stopped 

focusing on the battle of going to trial, he sought weekly PTSD counseling services at the VA; 

previously while on release he was only seeing the psychiatrist for periodic check-ups and 

medication management. He went to the closest VA counseling center, West Valley Vet Center, 

for intake on August 25th, and not too long after started in weekly counseling with an individual 

therapist; he also began seeing his psychiatrist about once every four weeks, rather than once 

every 6 weeks as had been standard. 

As of September 2016, following his annual “Compensation and Pension” evaluation, it 

remained “not possible to delineate PTSD/TBI neurobehavioral symptoms due to symptom 

overlap.” That same document reported persistent, negative alterations in cognitions and mood, 

and marked alterations in arousal and reactivity including irritable behavior and angry outburst, 

 

106 L. Najavits, The problem of dropout from “gold standard” PTSD therapies, (2015; National 

Library of Medicine), available on-line. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 73 of 121
69	

hypervigilance, exaggerated startle response, problems with concentration and sleep disturbance, 

consistent with moderately severe PTSD. 

In his first session with his VA psychiatrist post-plea, on September 27, 2016, records 

reflect that Mr. Ritzheimer was in weekly individual counseling sessions, working on his 

relationship with his wife, and spending more time with his daughters. Those records further 

note: “Feels overwhelmed at times because of the legal charges pending . . . He continues to have 

significant PTSD symptoms. . . . Sleep is poor. . . Some ruminating thoughts.” He was taking 

Wellbutrin for mood as prescribed. At his October 27th appointment, they discussed “residential 

treatment for PTSD and moral injury,” and a social worker was assigned for assistance in lining 

up residential treatment. 

The psychiatrist prepared an “interdisciplinary treatment plan” on November 17, 2016, 

setting goals for Mr. Ritzheimer with the objective of reducing the negative impact of PTSD has 

on his daily life and developing traits of resiliency and adaptability, progress to be reviewed in 

12 months. Next seen on December 23, 2016, his psychiatrist noted: 

Mood has been down a bit more lately—anniversary of when he was in Oregon. 

Started remodeling his kitchen to keep his mid occupied. Feels overwhelmed.

Level of energy is low. Wife recently started working—he is doing more of the 

routine with his children (getting them to school). Some panic attacks. Feels like 

he does not have enough time in the day to do everything. He feels very stressed 

being in the city—too many people. He is at the West Valley Vet Center every 

week—seeing an individual therapist. He continues to have significant PTSD 

symptoms. . . . Motivation is improving a bit. 

Similar findings are reported at his next meeting with his psychiatrist in late January 2017. At 

that time, the social worker completed the pre-admission screening application for residential 

treatment, and in late February, received word for an admit date of March 7th. 

Mr. Ritzheimer’s in-patient treatment and ongoing intensive outpatient treatment as 

reflected in those records and discussed in Dr. Stanulis’ report, are summarized as follows: 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 74 of 121
70	

Mr. Ritzheimer was admitted to the VA American Lake PTSD program on March 7, 

2017, where he actively engaged in treatment as well as being an active member of his dormitory 

community. He also engaged in Adaptive Disclosure treatment for Moral Injury. This was 

shifted to Trauma Informed Guilt Reduction work with focus on values, as Mr. Ritzheimer noted 

struggling most with his conflicting feelings about his military service, and his need to leave a 

“legacy” for his children. He completed the PTSD program on April 6, 2017, having made 

“moderate progress.” He reported at discharge, “I’ve got my book of tools,” and had been using 

them to cope with symptoms. 

 Mr. Ritzheimer returned home and soon commenced intensive, out-patient PTSD 

treatment through the VA in Phoenix. He started a course of Prolonged Exposure therapy (PE) 

on May 16, 2017, involving individual sessions with a psychologist and “homework,” generally 

once a week. As documented by Dr. Stanulis, within a couple of months he had resolved his 

issue about leaving a legacy for his children by deciding the best legacy he can leave is through 

being their father and involved in their lives, rather than making a heroic sacrifice of himself for 

a cause. He also desired to provide for his family without dependence on disability benefits, so 

he opened his own motorcycle repair shop in June 2017. He said that he no longer wants to be a 

political activist at the forefront of a movement. He plans on channeling his energy into 

treatment, working, and family, rather than fighting for a larger cause. 

Mr. Ritzheimer continued to experience more severe symptoms at “anniversary dates” of 

the deaths of Marines he knew in combat. The in vivo exercises required by his PE therapy 

aggravated his symptoms and he voiced concerns that “I can’t stick with it,” but he did. He 

successfully completed the nine sessions on August 14, 2017, remarking “I can move on with 

life,” and “I have come a long way.” He said he no longer felt blood on his hands, and that his 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 75 of 121
71	

participation in the church “helped me to press through” with treatment. Near the completion of 

treatment he burned his combat fatigues, described in his counselor’s notes as “liberating” for 

him. Dr. Stanulis noted, “This ritualistic burning indicates that he is making good progress in the 

task of leaving his combat Marine identity behind, grieving his losses from combat, and moving 

on into the role of civilian, father, husband, and citizen.” 

 Meeting with his psychiatrist on August 21st, Mr. Ritzheimer reported only brief, 

transient periods of depression, improved sleep, and that his anxiety had been manageable. He 

continued to experience “some baseline PTSD symptoms including hypervigilance, intrusive 

thoughts, and difficulties tolerating crowds of people; some anger at times . . . no aggressive 

behavior.” His mental status examination at that time evinced “logical and goal directed thought 

processes,” “adequate impulse control,” and “good judgment and insight.” Concerns about 

sentencing in his criminal case remained a source of stress affecting symptom management. 

During a follow-up PE session on September 18th, his therapist observed Mr. Ritzheimer had 

maintained his gains from PE, and would like to work on his marriage now and requested 

couples counseling. 

Dr. Stanulis noted Mr. Ritzheimer is currently progressing well in treatment. His scores 

on scales measuring depression and PTSD severity have declined, indicating that treatment is 

being successful. Treatment has addressed the fears, shame and guilt that fueled the selfdestructive and suicidal ideation that are part of his PTSD and Moral Injury, and contributed 

substantially to his offense conduct. 

Dr. Stanulis concluded, “Mr. Ritzheimer’s prognosis is good. He is pro-social in 

orientation and has excellent self-discipline.” Further, Mr. Ritzheimer’s “diagnosis of Alcohol 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 76 of 121
72	

Abuse remains in remission and he no longer feels a compulsion to drink alcohol, which is 

frequently a complicating factor for a favorable prognosis.” 

Mr. Ritzheimer’s Strong Support Network Of Family And Friends 

Mr. Ritzheimer’s support network includes family, friends, and more recently members 

of his church where he and his wife have been active as a couple since August 2016. According 

to Dr. Stanulis, as well as the literature on recidivism, “a strong support network of family and 

friends has a demonstrated positive influence on recovery.” 

The defense interviewed two members of his congregation, and both have observed 

positive changes in Mr. Ritzheimer’s behavior over the past year that corroborate Dr. Stanulis’ 

conclusions of a good prognosis. One is Zachary, the leader of a small bible study and prayer 

group that Mr. Ritzheimer started attending last August. He said at first Jon was closed and 

standoffish. It wasn’t until around November 2016 before he saw Jon started to change and open 

up more: He started to talk about the things he was going through with the court, he was really 

concerned about the effect the case had on his marriage, and he was very concerned about the 

effect it would have if he went to prison. 

 Zachary has been working with him on how he reacts to situations. Mr. Ritzheimer had 

expressed that he is very frustrated by injustice, and when he sees wrong he feels he has to act on 

it immediately. Zachary said that he and the other members of the group have really talked to Jon 

about how no one likes injustice, but that a more effective approach is to stop and analyze 

situations, putting thought into finding the best resolution. Over the months he has worked with

Mr. Ritzheimer, Zachary has seen a real change: Jon has really opened up to other ideas about 

how to deal with things, and he’s open to discussions instead of thinking his immediate reaction 

is the right one. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 77 of 121
73	

 Overall, Zachary said he has been very impressed with Mr. Ritzheimer and the positive 

changes he’s made over the months, and that he has a lot of support. He was even more 

impressed because of Jon’s military background, and believes it is difficult for people from that 

background to change. He remarked that a lot of military people turn to drugs or alcohol to deal 

with their issues, but Jon has made it a priority to participate in this church group. 

Noah is in the church men’s group, and met Mr. Ritzheimer last August. He also served 

more than 11 years as a military police officer in the U.S. Army, did tours in Iraq and 

Afghanistan, and was discharged 3 years ago. He said from experience that there is a difficult 

adjustment when someone is discharged from the military, because you are trained to take action 

in response to situations, especially when you think an injustice has occurred. He added that the 

manner you are trained to respond with is typically with force, and to take the most direct path to 

try and counter the injustice. When someone like him or Mr. Ritzheimer is discharged, it is hard 

to cope and understand that you have to suppress that desire to react, because the world doesn’t 

see things the way you were trained to by the military. 

 Noah said Jon had troubles with that adjustment, and that he had directed his energies “in 

the wrong way.” He said they have had many conversations about civilian life, adjusting to it, 

and how civilians aren’t trained like they are to react a certain way to situations. Noah said he’s 

been helping Jon develop coping mechanisms for his PTSD symptoms. One way that seems to 

be working for Mr. Ritzheimer is their religion.107 Noah said that since Jon has started coming to 

church, he’s been helping him learn how to live his life the way the Bible sees it. Mr. Ritzheimer 

 

107 The 2011 Pew Center study, supra n.43, found that for post 9/11 veterans, having high levels 

of religious belief, as measured by frequent attendance at religious services, “dramatically 

increases the odds that [the veteran] will have an easier time readjusting to civilian life.” 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 78 of 121
74	

has been learning to love people, not fight them, and Noah has observed many positive changes 

over this past year, including in his relationship with his wife and daughters. 

 Noah said that early on he heard there was a lot of information about Mr. Ritzheimer on 

the Internet but he waited some time to Google him. When he did, he was surprised because the 

person that is on the Internet and in videos isn’t at all the person he interacts with today. Noah 

said that Mr. Ritzheimer has found a new base of beliefs to help guide him, and the changes he’s 

observed in him have been both drastic and for the better. 

Mr. Ritzheimer’s Efforts To Become Self-Sufficient And Contribute To His Community 

Within about two months after discharge from the in-patient PTSD program, Mr. 

Ritzheimer launched his own motorcycle repair shop in a commercial space. Known as Gremlin 

Garage, the business has gotten off to a good start with Mr. Ritzheimer as the sole “employee,” 

and income has been paying the costs of operation, although without much profit. His goal is to 

make sufficient income to cease dependence on VA disability benefits. How long that will take 

cannot be predicted, but additional incarceration will kill this component of his reintegration 

strategy. He had “an amazing month” in July, that enabled his shop to be a Sponsor of the Toys 

for Tots Ride in Arizona, and it will be one of the stops for the event. Mr. Ritzheimer was very 

active in the Marines Toys for Tots program while in the reserves. 

Mr. Ritzheimer’s Pre-Approval To Enter The Veteran’s Program In Arizona US District Court 

The District Court in Phoenix operates the “Veteran’s Program” treatment court, open to 

veterans on probation or supervised release for qualifying crimes. Its goals are “to honor past 

commitment and service, address the veteran’s unique circumstances and issues, and reduce the 

likelihood of reoffending.” The treatment program’s structure and design is similar to the Reentry Court program in Oregon, and it meets monthly under the supervision of a district court 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 79 of 121
75	

judge. Veterans’ court programs operate in various jurisdictions, state and federal, around the 

nation (including in some Oregon circuit courts), and are generically called “veteran treatment 

courts” (VTC). These programs “are one solution to the growing problem of the ‘justiceinvolved vet,’ that is, a veteran who finds him- or herself involved in the civilian criminal justice 

system after getting discharged from the military.” VTCs recognize that veterans “are a unique 

subpopulation of defendants who could benefit from a specialized problem-solving court tailored 

to their unique needs and common culture.”108

Ninth Circuit Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, a former U.S. Attorney and Captain in the 

Marine Corps, advocates for increasing access to VTCs, observing: 

The focus is on treatment, not punishment, and on getting at the root cause of 

anti-social behavior. For veterans, it is the cycle of their experience from civilian 

life, to the regimentation of military life with all its attendant support, to the 

intensity of life in a combat zone, then to what may be a rather swift and 

unsupported return to civilian life. Similarly, the veterans court concept begins 

with an understanding that routine criminal punishment will not address the 

participant’s underlying problem and that early intervention and intensive 

supervision is essential to long-term success. The veterans concept adds an 

importantly tailored element: that those who have a shared experience, other 

veterans, offer the most easily accepted and effective “tough love” support. Then 

there is the very serious cost of doing nothing. Suicide rates among returning 

veterans are alarmingly high and increasing every year. A returning veteran’s 

deployment experience can cause domestic difficulty to spiral into violence and 

minor brushes with law enforcement into deadly clashes. 109

Mr. Ritzheimer, on his own initiative, attended the May 2017 session of the Veteran’s 

Program at the U.S. District Court in Phoenix as an observer. Afterwards he spoke with one of 

the US Probation Officers who staffs the program, and was told he would be accepted if his 

probation or supervised release is courtesy-transferred to Arizona. He is enthusiastic about 

 

108 K. Huskey, Reconceptualizing ‘the Crime’ in Veterans Treatment Courts, Federal Sentencing 

Reporter (2015). 

109 Michael Daly Hawkins, Coming Home: Accommodating The Special Needs of Military 

Veterans To The Criminal Justice System, 7 Ohio St. J. Crim. L. 563, 570 (Spring, 

2010)(hereafter referred to as Hawkins, Coming Home). 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 80 of 121
76	

participating in the program based on what he observed. Undersigned counsel confirmed through 

US Probation that Mr. Ritzheimer would be accepted into the program if he elected to 

participate; like our Re-entry Court, he may be ordered to observe as a condition of supervision, 

but not ordered to participate. He will definitely participate once given the opportunity. 

This program should prove very beneficial to Mr. Ritzheimer’s continuing efforts to 

reintegrate to civilian society. Beyond the support and understanding of veteran’s issues that 

would be expected from this program’s staff, the program itself speaks to the government’s 

recognition of veterans’ service, sacrifice, and the struggles they endure upon returning home. 

Being granted the opportunity to participate in that program, without the grave hardship of 

additional incarceration, could only help lessen Mr. Ritzheimer’s Moral Injury which is fueled 

by feelings of betrayal by his government. 

Mr. Ritzheimer’s Extraordinary Post-Offense Rehabilitation Efforts And Other Factors 

Establish A Low Risk Of Recidivism 

The following factors combine to demonstrate that additional incarceration is not 

necessary to protect the public, due to Mr. Ritzheimer’s very low risk of recidivism: 

 Mr. Ritzheimer has no prior nor post-offense history of law violations, nor any preexisting mental or emotional conditions associated with criminal behavior.

110 He is 

engaged in treatment for his combat-related invisible injuries that are associated with law 

breaking, and making good progress. 

 

110 Considerable research shows a statistically low risk of recidivism for “true first offenders” 

like Mr. Ritzheimer. See U.S. Sentencing Commission, Recidivism and the “First Offender”, 

May 2004 available at http://www. ussc.gov/publicat/recidivism_ firstoffender.pdf. Based on 

empirical research, the commission found that a defendant with no prior arrests nor criminal 

history has only a 6.8 percent chance of recidivism. Id. This was the lowest rate of recidivism of 

any group in the study and sharply lower than the rate of those defendants with prior arrests but 

no convictions (17.2 percent) or defendants with one criminal history point (22.6 percent). 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 81 of 121
77	

 He has a brief history of alcohol abuse symptomatic of untreated PTSD, but has not 

abused alcohol since early 2015, and has consumed no alcohol since early 2016. He has 

never abused illegal drugs nor prescribed pain medication.111 Substance abuse disorders 

can contribute to criminal conduct and make treatment more difficult. Mr. Ritzheimer has 

a clear advantage due to not being so afflicted. 

 Mr. Ritzheimer has done what far too few veterans with his invisible injuries have done, 

by seeking and completing all treatment opportunities post-offense.112 While his 

treatment needs continue, treatment is proving effective. Because of the direct correlation 

between his offense conduct and his military service and resulting invisible injuries, 

successful completion of treatment—undisrupted by incarceration—is of much greater 

consequence to decreased risk of recidivism than for offenders with treatment needs 

lacking as clear a connection to their criminal conduct. 

 Mr. Ritzheimer’s post-plea efforts over the past year to reintegrate into civilian culture 

have been substantial and successful; i.e., he is clearly on the right track. He is focused on 

his family, his new business, and his treatment. He is involved in church and community 

service activities. 

 

111 PTSD is commonly associated with substance abuse and hazardous use of alcohol. Institute of 

Medicine of the National Academies, Treatment for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Military 

and Veteran Populations: Initial Assessment, 322 (2012), available for free download at 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/13364/treatment-for-posttraumatic-stress-disorder-in-military-andveteran-populations (last accessed 4/2/17). 

112 A 2014 RAND National Defense Research Institute report, Mental Health Stigma in the 

Military, noted “Despite the efforts of both the U.S. Department of Defense and the Veterans 

Health Administration to enhance mental health services, many service members are not 

regularly seeking needed care when they have mental health symptoms or disorders,” and 

discussing military task force recommendations for stigma-reduction efforts as “a primary 

strategy for DoD to increase help-seeking of service members,” with the “longer-term goal of 

promoting quality of life and well-being among service members.” Available at 

www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR400/RR426/RAND_RR426.pdf . 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 82 of 121
78	

 Mr. Ritzheimer’s promotions in military rank recognized his increasing degrees of 

responsibility and teamwork in stressful situations. He has no history of violence apart 

from his military service. He is dependable and pro-social by history and nature. He is a 

trustworthy, disciplined person., as attested to in defense interviews and letters to the 

Court from those who have known him in all walks of life. He will comply with all terms 

of supervision when sentenced, just as he has done pretrial. 

 Mr. Ritzheimer enlisted in the aftermath of 9/11, voluntarily heading into harm’s way to 

defend his country. He chose a path that few of his fellow citizens chose in response to 

this foreign terrorist attack on America soil. He is a patriot. Post-discharge he has 

continued to act honorably and has accepted responsibility for his offense conduct. 

Dr. Stanulis opines that incarceration would interfere with treatment, noting there are no 

combat-related PTSD or Moral Injury treatment programs in BOP facilities; and that treatment is 

the key element in assisting Mr. Ritzheimer’s re-acculturation into the civilian world and 

preventing recidivism. “Interrupting his treatment is strongly contraindicated given his excellent 

progress to date.” 

 Furthermore, both anecdotal reports and research show that incarceration exacerbates the 

symptoms of PTSD.113 A veteran defendant with PTSD may request solitary confinement to 

avoid interaction with other inmates, knowing extended contact could trigger anger outbursts, or 

increased anxiety and hypervigilance resulting in greater stress and worse insomnia. However, it 

 

113 See, e.g., Quill Lawrence, NPR, “Behind Bars, Vets With PTSD Face A New War Zone, 

With Little Support” (11/5/2015), available at 

http://www.npr.org/2015/11/05/454292031/behind-bars-vets-with-ptsd-face-a-new-war-zonewith-little-support (last accessed 3/31/17); Saxon, Davis, Sloan, McKnight, McFall & Kivlahan, 

“Trauma, Symptoms of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, and Associated Problems Among 

Incarcerated Veterans,” Psychiatry Online (July 2001), available at 

http://ps.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/appi.ps.52.7.959 (last accessed 3/31/17). 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 83 of 121
79	

is well-established that solitary confinement can both cause mental illness, and exacerbate preexisting mental health conditions.114

Thus, incarceration would likely return Mr. Ritzheimer to society far more damaged than 

now, with more severe PTSD and Moral Injury. His business would be lost, his wife and 

daughters left without his support, and his VA benefits which pay the mortgage, put food on their 

table, and help keep the business afloat during slow times, would terminate after the first 60 days 

of imprisonment. All of his successful steps towards reintegration would be severely damaged or 

destroyed. There are other, safer and smarter ways to hold him accountable for his criminal 

conduct, as discussed below. 

III. Legal And Policy Grounds Supporting Downward Departure Or Variance. 

The Supreme Court in Porter v. McCollum, supra, made clear that military service and 

combat-related injuries could mitigate culpability for sentencing purposes. When men and 

women of good character have risked their lives to fight as our proxies, and return home with 

injuries that lead them afoul of the law, there arises a moral duty to do them no more harm than 

is necessary to protect the public. They deserve restorative justice: 

The breadth and depth of the challenges faced by military service members and 

veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan result from the complex interaction 

of issues that must be addressed by primary prevention, diagnostics, treatment, 

rehabilitation, education and outreach, and community support programs if 

readjustment after combat service is to be successful.115

 

114 E.g., Joshua Manson, “New Report Documents Devastating Effects of Solitary Confinement 

on Mental Illness,” Solitary Watch website (September 2016)(with links to report and related 

articles), http://solitarywatch.com/2016/09/09/new-report-documents-devastating-effects-ofsolitary-confinement-on-mental-illness/ (last accessed 3/31/17). 

115 Returning Home from Iraq and Afghanistan, supra n.5. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 84 of 121
80	

Military Service As A Departure/Variance Ground 

There is widespread public acceptance of the notion that military veterans should 

be treated differently in many respects from their civilian counterparts. As a 

consequence, veterans receive medical care, educational support, and 

employment preferences not available to their civilian counterparts. This 

acceptance may be attributable to a general respect for the sacrifice of members 

of an all-volunteer force and the knowledge that today’s veteran may have been 

subjected, even repeatedly subjected, to life-threatening events the general public 

may never know. 116

 In Porter v. McCollum, the Supreme Court identified two separate bases for leniency that, 

depending on the individual veteran, could exist either singularly or combined: (1) our social 

contract with service members who have signed up to risk their lives for ours, i.e., “in 

recognition of their service”; and (2) the impact of military service when it makes veterans 

“traumatized [and] changed”, “declared relevant to assessing a defendant’s moral culpability” for 

his crime. 130 S.Ct. at 448 & 454. Although Porter concerned military service as mitigation in a 

death penalty case, its dicta regarding military service as mitigation has been widely cited in noncapital cases. Moreover, the Guidelines Commission cited Porter as its primary support for 

changing its view on military service as a ground for downward departure. U.S.S.G. §5H1.11, 

Military Service, deals specifically with only the first basis for leniency identified by Porter, “in 

recognition of their service.” 

The Guidelines Commission amended §5H1.11 specifically to make military service a 

relevant circumstance for downward departures, where it had previously been listed along with 

public service and similar good works as ordinarily not relevant. “The Commission determined 

that applying this departure standard to consideration of military service is appropriate because 

such service has been recognized as a traditional mitigating factor at sentencing.” Historical 

Notes, 2010 Amendments. This policy statement provides: 

 

116 Hawkins, Coming Home, supra n.109, at 569. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 85 of 121
81	

Military service may be relevant in determining whether a departure is warranted, 

if the military service, individually or in combination with other offender 

characteristics, is present to an unusual degree and distinguishes the case from the 

typical cases covered by the guidelines. 

Civic, charitable, or public service; employment-related contributions; and similar 

prior good works are not ordinarily relevant in determining whether a departure is 

warranted. 

The defense has been unable to find case law addressing a downward departure based on 

military service under the amended guideline. This is likely due to courts utilizing downward 

variances as opposed to departures post-Booker, and the limited number of veteran defendants 

whose cases result in appeals, given that most federal cases are resolved by plea agreements and 

the prevalence of appellate waivers. However, this revised recognition of military service as an 

encouraged versus discouraged ground for departure denotes military service as an important 

consideration for mitigation based on the “history and characteristics of the defendant” under 18 

U.S.C §3553(a). 

Moreover, there is case law approving downward departures for military service—and in 

the absence of PTSD or other invisible injuries—prior to the 2010 amendment of §5H1.11. One 

district judge carefully explained the rationale in finding that a defendant’s exceptional military 

record was a factor that warranted departure to straight probation, without any community 

confinement: 

This Court is of the opinion that a person's military record is a relevant factor to 

be considered at sentencing, because it reflects the nature and extent of that 

person's performance of one of the highest duties of citizenship. An exemplary 

military record, such as that possessed by this defendant, demonstrates that the 

person has displayed attributes of courage, loyalty, and personal sacrifice that 

others in society have not. Americans have historically held a veteran with a 

distinguished record of military service in high esteem. This is part of the 

American tradition of respect for the citizen-soldier, going back to the War of 

Independence. 

In ignoring a defendant's military service record, the Commission has done a 

disservice (albeit unintentional) to those ex-service men and women who have 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 86 of 121
82	

served their country faithfully in time of war or other need, and who later find 

themselves brought before a federal court on criminal charges. 

United States v. Pipich, 688 F.Supp. 191, 192-93 (D. Md. 1988)(involving theft of mail by postal 

employee). The Fifth Circuit upheld the district court’s downward departure in an armed bank 

robbery case based solely on “extended, exemplary military record [including “time in a combat 

theater”, that] reflects a positive contribution to society.” United States v. Henley, 50 F.3d 1032, 

1995 WL 1032 (5th Cir. 1995)(not selected for publication). 

The Eight Circuit suggested that a downward departure for military service under the 

earlier policy statement required exemplary military service in combat, rather than merely 

commendable military service that did not demand great personal sacrifice. United States v. Neil, 

903 F.2d 564, 566 (8th Cir. 1990)(while military service could constitute grounds for downward 

departure in an unusual case, military service consisting of 11 years of duty in the U.S., mainly 

as a recruiter, is not meaningfully distinguishable from persons holding responsible positions in 

the civilian work force).

117 Mr. Ritzheimer’s military service would meet the Eighth Circuit’s 

test in Neil, as his two tours of combat duty demanded great personal sacrifice, not only by 

risking his life, but also continuing sacrifice from sustaining chronic physical and psychological 

injuries that plague him to this day. 

 The Second Circuit approved a downward departure under the guidelines based on the 

defendant’s military service along with other personal characteristics. United States v. Canova, 

412 F.3d 331, 358-59 (2d Cir. 2005)(affirming 6-level downward departure to one year probation 

 

117 Cf., United States v. Cooper, 394 F.3d 172 (3d Cir. 2005) (affirming 4-level departure to 

probation in securities fraud and tax evasion case based on defendant’s good works where 

defendant did not simply donate money to charity but organized and ran youth football team in 

depressed area and helped members attend better schools which qualified as exceptional because 

they entail “hands on personal sacrifices which have a dramatic and positive impact on the lives 

of others.”). 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 87 of 121
83	

in multi-million dollar Medicare fraud case, based on extraordinary public service and good 

works where defendant, more than twenty years before sentencing, served in Marine Corps’ 

active reserves for six years, and as a volunteer firefighter, and more recently had acted as Good 

Samaritan demonstrating his commitment to helping persons in distress was an instinctive part of 

his character.). 

More courts have granted downward variances in recognition of a defendant’s military 

service. One district court judge discussed the amended §5H1.11, and found that while the 

defendant’s exemplary military service did not support a downward departure,118 it did support a 

substantial variance—from 78 to 46 months imprisonment in a child pornography case: 

While Jager does not fall outside of the heartland of cases, his military service is 

relevant to granting him a variance. His service, with the exception of this crime, 

has been superior and uniformly outstanding. In his military service, Jager 

appears to have been trustworthy, and dedicated, and he served with distinction. 

His colleagues and commanders wrote on his behalf, commenting on his integrity 

and good work ethic. He made a career of the military, rather than serving one or 

two terms. These considerations counsel the Court to vary downward. The Court 

realizes he has brought shame upon the military with his crime, but with the 

exception of his crime, he has served with honor, and the Court thinks his service 

justifies a considerable variance from the guideline sentence. 

U.S. v. Jager, 2011 WL 831279, at *14 (D.N.M. 2011). 

There is Ninth Circuit case law, as well as opinions from other circuits, recognizing a 

downward variance is warranted based on military service in combination with other factors—

and in the absence of “invisible injuries” that would reduce moral culpability for the crime. See, 

e.g., United States v. Carper, 659 F3d 923 (9th Cir. 2011)(variance affirmed where the defendant, 

a Marine, violated the Arms Export Control Act; the sentencing court granted the variance based 

 

118 The court reasoned (1) that “Jager’s military service, while exemplary, is not one of intense 

combat,” (only once under fire; served in support roles); and (2) that he was like many child 

pornography offenders who “are outstanding members of our society, but they live a secret life.” 

U.S. v. Jager at *11. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 88 of 121
84	

on Carper’s military service and little to no likelihood of recidivism)119; United States v. Chase, 

560 F.3d 828 (8th Cir. 2009)(finding defendant’s prior military service, advanced age and health 

issues, and lack of prior record could support downward variance even if it didn’t support formal 

departure); United States v. Baird, 2008 WL 151258 (D. Neb. Jan. 11, 2008) (The district 

court considered the defendant’s 15-year military career, low risk of recidivism, and lack of 

criminal history as factors for a variance from 63 months to 24 months prison in child 

pornography case). 

 In United States v. Howe, 543 F.3d 128 (3d Cir. 2008), the Court affirmed the district

judge’s variance from the guidelines’ 18-24 month range to probation with 3-months home 

confinement in a wire fraud case—characterized by the Government as “a two-year campaign to 

cover up a six-figure fraud on the Air Force.” The district court found the crime to be 

an “isolated mistake” in the context of Howe’s entire life, which was otherwise upstanding 

and included 20 years of military service in the Air Force, devotion to family, community, and 

church. The Government appealed. The Third Circuit specifically addressed Howe’s military 

service as a ground for variance: 

Another justification was Howe's twenty years of military service followed by 

honorable discharge. The Government brushes that justification aside with the 

conclusory averment that this factor does “not meaningfully distinguish Howe 

from other defendants. . . .” But the Government cites no evidence that most 

defendants, white-collar or otherwise, in fact have lengthy and positive records of 

past military service, whereas it is the Government as appellant whose burden it is 

to establish that a sentencing factor is unreasonable. Further, the argument that 

any military service must be “exceptional” is not suitable to our review of a 

district court's analysis under §3553(a). 

Indeed, the Supreme Court included military service as a reason to affirm the 

district court's below-Guidelines sentence in Kimbrough v. United States, 128 

 

119 The Ninth Circuit’s decision does not recite all of these facts, which are taken from Case 

Annotations and Resources: Military Service USSG §5H1.11 Departures and Booker Variances, 

prepared by The Office of General Counsel, U.S. Sentencing Commission (Jan. 2012), (hereafter 

referred to as Case Annotations §5H1.11), available on-line. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 89 of 121
85	

S.Ct. 558, 575, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007) (“he had served in combat during 

Operation Desert Storm and received an honorable discharge from the Marine 

Corps, and that he had a steady history of employment”). While this consideration 

alone might not be enough to warrant the downward variance to probation in this 

case, Kimbrough makes clear that it may be considered as one of the factors. 

543 F.3d at 139. 

Although courts must give consideration to military service when called upon to do so, 

either for downward departure or, as in Mr. Ritzheimer’s case, for purposes of downward 

variance, imposing a lower sentence on that ground remains discretionary. As demonstrated by 

case law cited above, courts have substantially reduced sentences below the advisory guideline

range—going from prison to probation—when the defendant was convicted of a non-violent 

offense and had demonstrated exemplary military service. Pipich, supra; Canova, supra; 

Cooper, supra; Howe, supra. Mr. Ritzheimer’s case falls squarely in that category. Most 

commonly, courts have declined to reduce sentence when the defendant was convicted of a crime 

of violence or other serious offense, had prior criminal history, or had not served courageously in 

combat.120

Thus, Mr. Ritzheimer’s exemplary military service at great personal sacrifice should 

serve to substantially reduce his sentence from the advisory guideline range, regardless of 

whether his combat-related injuries also contributed to his criminal conduct. Simply put: his 

distinguished service, especially his 14 months on the ground in combat zones with much of that 

time spent “outside the wire”121, warrants leniency in recognition of his personal sacrifice on 

 

120 See Case Annotations §5H1.11, supra.

121 Iraq combat veterans, including Mr. Ritzheimer, experienced “130 degree temperatures, 

unrelenting noise, lack of privacy, and the constant threat of being attacked by mortar rounds, 

rocket propelled grenades, or biological and chemical agents,” blinding sand storms and other 

unsanitary living conditions. Id., at 4. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 90 of 121
86	

behalf of us all, Porter v. McCollum, supra, particularly given the absence of aggravating factors 

that have led courts to not grant leniency for such service. 

Mental And Emotional Conditions As A Departure/Variance Ground

To deny the frequent connection between combat trauma and subsequent criminal 

behavior is to deny one of the direct societal costs of war and to discard another

generation of troubled heroes.

 * * * * 

For soldiers, mental trauma and debilitating stress are part of the job description. 

When veterans go astray, they deserve every reasonable effort to get them back 

where they began: clean, sober and on the right side of the law.122

 “‘PTSD is the only [mental] illness [that has] a clear etiologic[al] relationship to military 

service’ and it has been demonstrated that being exposed to war-zone stress can lead to lifelasting impairment.”123 No doubt those facts have contributed to the courts’ increasing 

receptiveness to combat-related trauma for mitigation of sentence.124 Senior U.S. District Judge 

John L. Kane, who has encouraged reforms to confront the problem of sentencing veterans with 

untreated mental conditions, noted: “We dump all kinds of money to get soldiers over there and 

train them to kill, but we don't do anything to reintegrate them into our society.”125 When 

returning veterans with no prior criminal history run afoul of the law, federal judges have the 

 

122 National District Attorney's Association Resolution 26b (2010), available at http:// 

www.nadcp.org/sites/default/files/nadcp/NDAA%20Endorsement_0.pdf . The first paragraph of 

this bi-part quotation are words of a defense attorney, excerpted from another article. 

123 Robert Rosenheck & Alan Fontana, Changing Patterns of Care for War-Related PostTraumatic Stress Disorder at Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Centers: The Use of 

Performance Data to Guide Program Development, 164 MILITARY MED. 795, 795 (1999). 

124 See, e.g., F. Don Nidiffer & Spencer Leach, To Hell and Back: Evolution of Combat-Related 

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, 29 Dev. Mental Health L. 1, 16 (2010) (“[The] legal system has 

begun to view combat-related PTSD as an important mitigating factor when assessing 

culpability, as well as the growing acceptance within the legal system and society of this 

diagnosis and its impact.”); Amir Efrati, Judges Consider a New Factor at Sentencing: Military 

Service, Wall St. J. (Dec. 31, 2009) at A14; Debra Cassens Weiss, Judges Cite Wartime Stress in 

Granting Leniency to Veterans, A.B.A.J. (Mar. 17, 2010), 

ww.abajournal.com/news/article/judges_cite_wartime_stress_in_granting_leniency_to_veterans. 

125 Amir Efrati, , supra n.124. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 91 of 121
87	

power pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) to structure sentences that facilitate rehabilitation and 

reintegration. E.g., United States v. Brownfield, Case No. 08-cr-00452-JLK (D. 

CO.)(Memorandum Opinion and Order on Sentencing, Dec. 18, 2009)(Kane, J., noting “this case 

involves issues the Sentencing Guidelines do not address regarding the criminal justice system’s 

treatment of returning veterans who have served in Afghanistan and Iraq.”).126

More than a decade earlier, the Ninth Circuit held that combat-related PTSD was the type 

of “mental condition” that would qualify a defendant for a downward departure for “diminished 

capacity” under U.S.S.G. §5K2.13. United States v. Cantu, 12 F.3d 1506 (9th Cir. 1993).127 “The 

court's inquiry into the defendant's mental condition and the circumstances of the offense must 

be undertaken ‘with a view to lenity, as section 5K2.13 implicitly recommends.’” Id., at 1511 

(citation omitted). “Lenity is appropriate because the purpose of §5K2.13 is to treat with some 

compassion those in whom a reduced mental capacity has contributed to the commission of a 

crime.” Id.; accord, Porter v. McCullum, supra. That Mr. Ritzheimer did not pursue a mental 

defense to the charges related to his invisible injuries does not decide the issue of whether his 

criminal conduct would not have occurred in the absence of his service-connected disabilities. 

His PTSD, mTBI and Moral Injury unquestionably cause problems in maintaining self-control 

 

126 Judge Kane varied downward from a jointly-recommended prison sentence to probation for a 

veteran with PTSD due to events witnessed in combat zones, explained in his 30-page opinion. 

The opinion is available at http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100303brownfieldopinion-order.pdf . 127 Cantu continues to be cited by courts and secondary sources to support downward departures 

and variances based on PTSD. E.g., United States v. Menyweather, 447 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 

2006)(in embezzlement case, finding no abuse of discretion in district court’s downward 

departure of 8 levels to probation under §5K2.13 in part due to defendant’s (civilianbased)PTSD, where psychologist’s testimony was not rebutted, other than by the prosecutor’s 

arguments); Natalie Hinton, Comment, Curing the BOP Plague with Booker: Addressing 

Inadequate Medical Treatment in the Bureau of Prisons, 41 J. MARSHALL L. REV. 219, 228 

(2007). 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 92 of 121
88	

and impair cognitive functions; Moral Injury, in particular, is described as creating a “broken 

moral compass” that diminishes capacity to understand the wrongfulness of one’s conduct. 

The Ninth Circuit had little difficulty concluding that PTSD is a qualifying disorder for 

“diminished capacity”: 

Cantu's post-traumatic stress disorder is a grave affliction. Its effect on his mental 

processes is undisputed. He has flashbacks to scenes of combat. He suffers 

nightmares, “intrusive thoughts[,] and intrusive images.” He is anxious, 

depressed, full of rage, “markedly paranoid,” and “explosive at times.” . . . . [The 

psychologist’s] report shows that Cantu's condition interfered substantially with 

his ability to make reasoned decisions, causing him to fixate on weapons and rely 

on them for feelings of personal safety and security. Cantu's impairment is more 

than sufficient to make him eligible for a reduction in sentence under §5K2.13.128

12 F.3d at 1513. The Court went on to explain that “the disorder need be only a contributing 

cause, not a but-for cause or a sole cause of the offense.” Id. at 1515. This policy statement, since 

amended, now requires the disorder “substantially contribute” to defendant’s commission of the 

offense. §5K2.13 provides: 

A downward departure may be warranted if (1) the defendant committed the 

offense while suffering from a significantly reduced mental capacity; and (2) the 

significantly reduced mental capacity contributed substantially to the commission 

of the offense. Similarly, if a departure is warranted under this policy statement, 

the extent of the departure should reflect the extent to which the reduced mental 

capacity contributed to the commission of the offense. 

However, the court may not depart below the applicable guideline range if (1) the

significantly reduced mental capacity was caused by the voluntary use of drugs or 

other intoxicants; (2) the facts and circumstances of the defendant's offense 

indicate a need to protect the public because the offense involved actual violence 

or a serious threat of violence; (3) the defendant's criminal history indicates a 

need to incarcerate the defendant to protect the public; or (4) the defendant has 

been convicted of an offense under chapter 71, 109A, 110, or 117, of title 18, 

United States Code. 

 

128 Other courts have reached the same conclusion. See, e.g., United States v. Eric Shawn Perry, 

1995 WL 137294 (D. Neb. March 27, 1995)(PTSD and related sleep disorders significantly 

reduce the ability to reason; “[i]t does not require a degree in psychiatry or psychology to 

conclude that chronic intentional sleep deprivation, to avoid remembering the horrors of war, 

will significantly impair the ability to reason.”). 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 93 of 121
89	

 There is only one Application Note, which defines “significantly reduced mental 

capacity” to mean “the defendant, although convicted, has a significantly impaired ability to (A) 

understand the wrongfulness of the behavior comprising the offense or to exercise the power of 

reason; or (B) control behavior that the defendant knows is wrongful.” These two alternatives 

have been characterized as the “cognitive prong,” and the “separate volitional capacity prong,” 

i.e., “the power to control [one’s] behavior or conform it to law,” as discussed at length by Judge 

Ferguson in his concurring opinion in United States v. Schneider, 429 F.3d 888, 891-94 (9th Cir. 

2005)(criticizing the district court for ignoring the volitional prong once determining the 

defendant’s conduct demonstrated he knew “exactly what he [was] doing” and acted out of 

greed; and noting the Government had not offered any expert opinion contrary to the defense 

expert’s). 

According to Dr. Stanulis, Mr. Ritzheimer’s PTSD, mTBI, and Moral Injury—all of 

which have overlapping cognitive and behavioral symptoms—significantly reduced his capacity 

under both the cognitive and volitional prongs, as explained previously in this memorandum and 

detailed in Dr. Stanulis’ report. Mr. Ritzheimer has worked with VA therapists to gain insights 

regarding his involvement in political activism, culminating with the Occupation, as a coping 

mechanism to “make amends” for his “failures” while in the military. His conduct, first in the 

Hammonds’ protest and the later Occupation, was driven by those psychological needs arising 

from his PTSD, mTBI and Moral Injury. Those invisible injuries significantly impaired his 

capacity to understand that what he was doing was anything but “the right thing,” as well as his 

volitional capacity to do anything different. His risk-taking behavior manifested by his 

involvement in the instant offense is a product of his combat-related PTSD, Moral injury, and

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 94 of 121
90	

history of TBI, and not related to “criminal thinking”.129 His motivation for participating in the 

Occupation of Malheur Refuge was to “make amends” for his service-related guilt, and not for 

self-gain or personal gratification. In addition, he has no other signs suggestive of criminality. He 

has no juvenile history, or adult criminal history or military disciplinary actions; he is married 

and a good father to his children; he has no history of substance abuse; and he is active in his 

church and community. 

Mr. Ritzheimer’s offense conduct falls within a pattern of conduct well-established as 

resulting from combat-related PTSD: 

A veteran who is compelled to seek danger and heightened sensation may engage 

in activities that are both risky and have criminal consequences. . . [T]his 

sensation seeking may compel veterans to repeatedly engage in quasi-military, 

sensation-fraught criminal conduct. A self-destructive, survivor guilt response, for 

example, may explain the apparent tendency of some veterans to undertake 

criminal activity that has little chance of success.130

In late January 2017, the Hon. Robert E. Jones heard testimony from psychologist 

Suzanne Best that a former Army Ranger and highly-decorated Iraq War veteran with PTSD 

engaged in criminal conduct driven by the symptom of survivor’s guilt, when he was involved in 

an armed standoff with police.131 United States v. Jonathan Courtney, Case No. 3:15-CR-00360-

1-JO. According to the Government’s sentencing memorandum, Mr. Courtney became 

intoxicated and fired shots inside his home. When police responded, Courtney pointed a loaded, 

 

129 “PTSD may explain nonviolent criminal behavior because the veteran either seeks the 

sensations of combat or is acting out of guilt [by engaging in risk-taking behavior],” and this 

“lack of control defense” has been used successfully to support an insanity defense in United 

States v. Tindall, No. 79-376-T 07 (D. Mass. 1980). There, the defendant who was charged with 

drug smuggling by helicopter, contended he was seeking the sensation of danger he felt as a 

helicopter pilot in Vietnam, because the horrors of war had left him dependent on stressful 

situations to cope with his PTSD. Hunter & Else, Defending Veterans, supra n.10, at 418-419. 

130 Id., at 419 (citations omitted). 

131 Facts are as reported by news articles and Best (2017), supra n.52, at 7-6 through 7-8, and 

court records available through PACER. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 95 of 121
91	

semiautomatic Glock 9 mm. pistol straight at the police chief and began counting down from 

three as if to shoot him; when the chief ran, Courtney went back inside his house. Several 

minutes later he emerged again with the gun, and responded to another officer’s command to put 

the gun down by assuming a ready-to-shoot stance and aiming straight at that officer. Over the 

course of the 7-hour standoff, Courtney went in and out of his house more than a few times, 

waiving the gun around, pointing it toward the officers and yelling at the police to shoot him. At 

one point he fired a shot in the general direction of the police from his front porch, and his 

neighbor tried to wrestle the gun away; the neighbor was shot in the leg during the struggle, and 

then was dragged inside by Courtney. Once the neighbor notified police that Courtney had 

passed out, he was captured by an FBI SWAT team. 

 Pursuant to negotiations, Courtney pled guilty to 2 counts of Assault on a Federal Officer, 

crimes with a maximum of 20 years imprisonment. His advisory guideline range was 51 to 63 

months, but the Government agreed to recommend an 8-level downward variance, resulting in a 

21-month prison sentence. In its sentencing memorandum, the Government explained the 8-level 

variance was due to Courtney’s exemplary military service as a decorated combat veteran; that 

the standoff reflected “an aberration from the law-abiding conduct that has characterized most of 

his life”; his post-military employment characterized as service to his community; that his 

“offense conduct also appears to have been fueled by alcoholism and untreated PTSD,” and 

military experiences that caused him to suffer from survivor’s guilt; and his “exceptional postoffense rehabilitation” including VA in-patient treatment and subsequently maintaining steady 

employment. 

Courtney’s defense counsel sought a variance down to probation, presenting testimony by 

Dr. Best that Courtney’s offense conduct in 2015 was driven by his PTSD, and that his 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 96 of 121
92	

symptoms—under control by time of sentencing in 2017—would be exacerbated by 

imprisonment. Judge Jones agreed that the isolation and inactivity of prison would jeopardize 

Courtney’s recovery from PTSD, and imposed a 5-year probationary sentence. The 

circumstances in Courtney’s case are quite similar to those in Mr. Ritzheimer’s case—except that 

his is not a crime of violence and he never threatened to shoot law enforcement officers, much 

less pointed a loaded firearm at anyone during his involvement in the Occupation.132 Yet, the 

Government has thus far been resistant to seeking much less than a 30-month prison sentence for 

Mr. Ritzheimer. 

§5K2.13 currently does not define or illustrate what “contributed substantially to the 

commission of the offense” means, nor has the defense found case law interpreting that provision 

to provide a standard. However, the guideline further notes that, if a departure is warranted, “the 

extent of the departure should reflect the extent to which the reduced mental capacity contributed 

to the commission of the offense.” This suggests that “substantial” in this context means a nonillusory and more than negligible contribution, but need not be a major nor the primary cause. 

The preceding pages of this memorandum have summarized defense evidence and numerous 

authorities demonstrating strong causation between Mr. Ritzheimer’s diminished capacity and 

offense conduct. The guideline also specifies factors that disqualify defendants from a departure 

for diminished capacity, but none of those apply to Mr. Ritzheimer. 

However, this Court need not wade into uncharted territory on the meaning of 

“contributed substantially,” as Mr. Ritzheimer does not move for a downward departure but 

 

132 It is worth noting that none of the Occupiers were alleged to have pointed firearms directly at 

anyone, and that the only shots fired at people were by law enforcement executing an ambush as 

the FBI’s chosen means to end the political protest at the Refuge. Only one co-defendant, Sean 

Anderson, was reported to have fired shots anywhere other than during target practice. Discovery 

noted Anderson had fired shots at surveillance aircraft. The government resolved his case for 

misdemeanor trespass and probation. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 97 of 121
93	

rather argues that a commensurate downward variance is warranted for the significant role 

played by his PTSD, mTBI and Moral Injury in his commission of the offense, particularly in 

combination with the other factors asserted in this memorandum. In the Courtney case, Judge 

Jones would have had to vary downward an additional 8 levels from the 21-month prison 

sentence sought by the Government (after its recommended 8-level variance), to impose the 

straight sentence of probation set forth in the judgment. 

 Based on similar factors, the Court in United States v. Oldani, 2009 WL 1770116

(S.D.W.Va. 2009), varied downward from a guideline range of 30-37 months to a sentence of 

five months imprisonment followed by eight months community confinement. Oldani served 

honorably in the Marines and was diagnosed with PTSD after his first tour of combat duty to 

Iraq in 2005. He sought and received an honorable discharge in 2007. He was also diagnosed 

with mTBI. He was engaged in treatment with the VA. Over the course of many months, Oldani 

sold night-vision rifle scopes, stolen by his brother from Marine Corps barracks, on E-bay, and 

took “a large share in the more than $50,000 of profits he helped generate.” Id., at *1-*2. The 

Court based its variance on Oldani’s exemplary military history, and corresponding low risk of 

recidivism; combat-related PTSD and mTBI that caused him to “exhibit poor judgment,” and 

which the VA was effectively treating, unlike the less-satisfactory care he would receive from 

the BOP; and his progress at reintegrating, including pursuing a degree, becoming engaged, and 

“strong support from his church and his family.” Id., at *6-*8. 

In 2010 the Guidelines Commission also amended U.S.S.G. §5H1.3, Mental and 

Emotional Conditions, noting such conditions “may be relevant in determining whether a 

departure is warranted” either “individually or in combination with other offender 

characteristics,” where previously these conditions were “not ordinarily relevant.” The 2010 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 98 of 121
94	

Amendment also added a cross reference to §5C1.1, Application Note 6, stating “In certain cases 

a downward departure may be relevant to accomplish a specific treatment purpose.” §5H1.3 

provides: 

Mental and emotional conditions may be relevant in determining whether a 

departure is warranted, if such conditions, individually or in combination with 

other offender characteristics, are present to an unusual degree and distinguish the 

case from the typical cases covered by the guidelines. See also Chapter Five, Part 

K, Subpart 2 (Other Grounds for Departure). 

In certain cases a downward departure may be appropriate to accomplish a 

specific treatment purpose. See § 5C1.1, Application Note 6. 

Mental and emotional conditions may be relevant in determining the conditions of 

probation or supervised release; e.g., participation in a mental health program (see 

§§ 5B1.3(d)(5) and 5D1.3(d)(5)). 

United States v. Ferguson, 942 F.Supp.2d 1186, 1191-92 (M.D. Ala. 2013) traced the 

history of these amendments: 

In 2010, the Sentencing Commission amended its recommendations for 

sentencing mentally ill defendants in response to the Commission's “multi-year 

study of alternatives to incarceration.” As part of the study, it “reviewed federal 

sentencing data, public comment and testimony, recent scholarly literature, 

current federal and state practices, and feedback in various forms from federal 

judges.” The resulting amendment . . . includes an application note that, for the 

first time, authorizes departure from “Zone C” of the sentencing table (which 

requires prison for at least half the minimum term) to “Zone B” (which does not 

require prison) in order to achieve a “specific treatment purpose.” (codified at 

USSG § 5C1.1, comment. (n.6)). Such a departure is appropriate in cases where 

the defendant “suffers from a significant mental illness, and the defendant's 

criminality is related to [that illness],” though courts must additionally consider 

the likelihood that treatment will address the defendant's mental illness as well as 

the risk to the public absent incarceration.

Also in 2010, the Sentencing Commission amended the status of mental and 

emotional conditions from a specific offender characteristic that is “not ordinarily 

relevant” to one that “may be relevant.” . . . A specific offender characteristic 

identified in Chapter Five, Part H as “not ordinarily relevant” must be present to 

an “exceptional degree” to warrant departure. USSG § 5K2.0(a)(4). As amended, 

the . . . policy statement instructs that mental and emotional conditions may be 

relevant in setting a lower sentence where the conditions are “present to an 

unusual degree” that “distinguish[es] the case from the typical cases covered by 

the guidelines.” This is a less demanding standard than the “exceptional” 

standard. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 99 of 121
95	

Ferguson reasoned that while the amended policy statement speaks only to downward 

departures, it reflects careful study and empirical evidence of factors that would also warrant a 

downward variance. 942 F.Supp.2d at 1194. The court noted the amended guidelines reflect the 

principle that “punishment should be directly related to the personal culpability of the criminal 

defendant,” id., at 1192; and “the growing recognition that treating mentally ill criminal 

defendants rather than imprisoning them better serves both the defendants and society,” id., at 

1193. 

When mental or emotional disorders are shown to be a factor that reduces a defendant’s 

moral culpability for his crime, a downward variance or departure is justified. See, United States 

v. Schneider, 429 F.3d 888, 891-94 (9th Cir. 2005)(Ferguson, J., concurring); United States v. 

Stange, 225 Fed. Appx. 618 (9th Cir. 2007)(Court agreed with defendant that post-service PTSD 

could support a shorter sentence, but affirmed within-range sentence for armed bank robbery, in 

deference to district court’s discretion); United States v. Risse, 83 F.3d 212 (8th Cir. 1996)(in a 

case involving drug trafficking and firearm possession, court affirmed a downward departure 

from 57-71 months to 18 months based on the defendant’s service-related PTSD and overstated 

criminal history score); Cantu, supra; United States v. Courtney, supra; United States v. 

Brownfield, supra; United States v. Perry, supra. Mr. Ritzheimer has made that showing. 

Extraordinary Post-Offense Rehabilitation 

As discussed earlier in this memorandum, Mr. Ritzheimer has accomplished what far too 

few veterans with the same invisible injuries have done—sought and successfully completed 

intensive treatment—and remains invested in on-going treatment through the VA. To do so, he 

had to overcome the stigma attached to acknowledging these disorders, particularly within the 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 100 of 121
96	

military culture but present as well in civilian culture;133 and to relive his traumas during inpatient therapy and out-patient Prolonged Exposure Therapy. Dr. Stanulis noted, “It requires a 

great deal of discipline and courage to confront these traumas.”134

 Through treatment, Mr. Ritzheimer resolved his psychological need to “leave a legacy” 

for his family through pursuing extreme political activism that could result in him dying young, 

or some other dangerously maladaptive means, by redefining this military value as being met by 

being a good father and husband, and a return to work. Dr. Stanulis concluded: “A critical part of 

Mr. Ritzheimer’s treatment is his return to work as this not only normalizes his life, but 

effectively distracts him from re-living his trauma. He is self-employed through the start-up of 

his own business”. Mr. Ritzheimer also has broken through the isolation of his disorders to 

become active, with his wife, in their church; and he is sponsoring the local “Toys for Tots” 

drive through his business. “The health and fitness of warriors is influenced by social factors like 

jobs and family, that give meaning to their lives and get them through hard times. . . . [T]he best 

help that we can give may be sticking to the basics for a productive and gratifying life ‘at 

home.’”135 

 

133 See, e.g., Michael Friedman, The Stigma of Mental Illness Is Making Us Sicker, Psychology 

Today (May 13, 2014)(discussing negative attitudes of the majority of people in research studies 

hold towards people with mental illness, as well as self-stigma) available at 

www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brick-brick/201405/the-stigma-mental-illness-is-making-ussicker . 134 “Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have higher levels of acute PTSD symptoms and anger-related 

problems than veterans from other eras at time of admission to residential programs (Fontana & 

Rosenheck, 2008). In addition, they have shorter lengths of stay in and lower treatment 

satisfaction as well as lower levels of treatment engagement and adherence in treatment 

generally (Erbes, Curry & Leskela, 2009). These problems are likely in part derivatives of the 

distinct characteristics of these most recent military conflicts (e.g., extended tours, multiple 

deployments, increased likelihood of redeployment) (Hoge et al., 2004).” Joan Cook et. al., Iraq 

and Afghanistan Veteran: National Findings from VA Residential Treatment Programs, 

Psychiatry (2013 Spring); 76(1): 18-31. 

135 Xenakis, Combat Trauma, Hunter & Else Defending Veterans, supra. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 101 of 121
97	

The Ninth Circuit has recognized that post-offense rehabilitation efforts may support a 

departure. See, United States v. Green, 152 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 1998); United States v. 

Thompson, 315 F.3d 1071, 1077-78 (9th Cir.2002)(Berzon, J., concurring)(“Post-offense 

rehabilitation—as distinguished from post-sentencing rehabilitation—can be a basis for 

downward departure. . . . A relevant consideration under the rubric of post-offense rehabilitation 

is continuity of needed treatment”). It can also support a variance without necessarily reaching 

the level of “extraordinary.” E.g., United States v. Courtney, supra; see, United States v. Howe, 

supra (noting military service need not be extraordinary to support a variance under §3553(a)).

Mr. Ritzheimer’s steps toward successful reintegration during the last year have been 

extraordinary in light of his mental and emotional impediments symptomatic of combat-related 

invisible injuries, and of his perseverance in seeking and completing intensive treatment. 

Departure Or Variance To Provide Effective Rehabilitation 

As previously noted, §5C1.1, Application Note 6, authorizes a downward departure 

from Zone C (split sentence) to Zone (B) probation, when “appropriate to accomplish a specific 

treatment objective.” This guideline embraces a policy of imposing a non-prison sentence, in 

lieu of a relatively short prison sentence, for the pragmatic purpose of rehabilitative treatment, 

signifying the same rationale is a reasonable ground for a downward variance. Probation is a 

statutory sentencing option for Mr. Ritzheimer’s conspiracy offense; community supervision 

could likewise be achieved through a term of supervised release without additional 

imprisonment. 

In United States v. Autery, 555 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2009) the district court relied on the 

need for the sentence imposed to provide the defendant with rehabilitative treatment in the most 

effective manner, 18 USC §3553(a)2)(D), as one ground for its variance from prison to a 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 102 of 121
98	

probationary sentence. On appeal, the government contended reliance on that factor was 

erroneous, because the defendant could have been ordered to undergo treatment in prison. The 

Ninth Circuit noted the district court’s finding that incarceration would likely create “a much 

more disruptive situation and, actually, could be more damaging” than ordering mental health 

and other appropriate treatment as conditions of probation, in upholding the variance. 555 F.3d 

at 876-77. The Court went on to note that “‘imprisonment is not an appropriate means of 

promoting correction and rehabilitation’ .” Id., at 877 (citation omitted). 

When it comes to the invisible injuries of war, district court judges have repeatedly 

recognized that treatment available through the VA is superior to anything available in the BOP, 

and the government has taken no appeal from those sentencing decisions. In United States v. 

Oldani, supra, the court found: 

The BOP is not uniquely situated, as is the VA, to treat the signature injuries from 

the United States's current military engagements. Counselors at the BOP would be 

less likely to have received specific training to treat veterans and deal, for 

example, with the type of events that brought on a soldier's PTSD. Finally, group 

sessions conducted by the BOP would likely be available to the entire prison 

population (at least those subject to a specific disability) rather than being limited 

to veterans. 

2009 WL 1770116, at *7; accord, United States v. Courtney, supra.

Judge Kane, in his Brownfield opinion, supra at p. 27, determined: 

Given the paucity of prison programs available to those serving one year or less 

and the relative lack of expertise compared with the Veterans Administration in 

treating war-zone related illnesses, corrective treatment will be more readily 

realized by a lengthy sentence to probation rather than a comparatively

abbreviated one to prison. In the circumstances of this case I find that a sentence 

to prison is inappropriate for achieving Section 3553(a)’s purposes. 

 

 In United States v. Kevin John Erickson, Case No. 3:10-CR-006 (E.D. VA., Richmond

Division), the district court varied downward from an advisory guideline range of 46-57 months, 

to a probationary sentence due to lack of veteran-specific treatment from the BOP. Erickson had 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 103 of 121
99	

found employment post-discharge with the BOP as a prison guard, and was convicted of 

smuggling contraband as well as soliciting a crime of violence—a course of conduct that took 

place over several years, according to court filings. In the course of sentencing proceedings, the 

court received testimony from the head of psychiatry for the Bureau of Prisons concerning the 

availability of psychotropic medications as well as therapy for combat-veteran defendants with 

PTSD. The April 1, 2011, sentencing transcript (p. 125), available through PACER, contains the 

Government’s acknowledgment that “the record forecloses a finding that [the defendant’s] going 

to receive veteran-specific posttraumatic stress disorder treatment; however, he’s not going to go 

wholly without treatment.” The court, in support of its downward variance to probation, found: 

 “[T]here’s nothing in the record that the Bureau of Prisons has any way of 

treating posttraumatic stress syndrome of veterans, and the fact of the matter is, 

when people make sacrifices for this county and when they experience what is 

now recognized as very real consequences, then it’s up to the country, even when 

they commit crimes, and that’s evidence by section 3553(a) and the last factor, to 

make sure they get the treatment that they’re required to get,” id., at p. 135. 

Given the reported information concerning Judge Jones’ reasons for variance in Courtney

this year, as well as all other information the defense has been able to find, nothing has changed 

at the BOP since Erickson was decided in 2011, and 2017. If anything, the provision of health 

care, including mental health services, at the BOP may well have declined.136

 

136 A recent DOJ study concluded the BOP systemically lacks sufficient numbers of medical 

professionals to provide all inmates with medically necessary healthcare, resulting in limited 

access to medical care. OIG, U.S. Department of Justice, Review of the Federal Bureau of 

Prisons’ Medical Staffing Challenges, Executive Summary (March 2016)(available on-line). 

Staffing at some prisons was described as “crisis level.” Id., at n.9. At the same time, BOP’s 

institutions remained 16 percent above rated inmate capacity, and grappled with the need to 

control spending while meeting increasing resource needs of inmates. Reducing inmate medical 

costs is a priority. OIG, Top Management and Performance Challenges Facing the Department of 

Justice—2016, III-12. The federal inmate population is expected to increase by more than 4000 

next year under the Trump administration, according to a recent Wall Street Journal article. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 104 of 121
100	

Ongoing VA treatment for Mr. Ritzheimer is vital to his continuing rehabilitation. As 

explained by Dr. Stanulis, and consistent with authorities cited earlier in this memorandum, 

PTSD is a chronic disorder that requires constant attention to manage and keep symptoms under 

control: One way to think about PTSD is to see it as analogous to diabetes. If one adopts the 

proper life style, nutrition and treatment regimen with diabetes, the symptoms can be managed 

well. If, however, one does not maintain the treatment regimen on a daily basis, it can again 

spiral out of control. This is true also of PTSD. 

One noteworthy problem associated with PTSD is the fact that it is often like a 

light switch. At times it seems as though the veteran is well on the way to 

resolving her or his problem, but a single incident or event can take the individual 

back to the point of origin. . . . Current Images and reports from Afghanistan and 

Iraq serves as a trigger for many older veterans (WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf 

War I) to experience recurring PTSD symptoms from their own combat 

experiences (Brown 2005; Schroder and Dawe 2007). Shad Meshad, Executive 

Director of the National Veterans Foundation (NVF) in Los Angeles, California, 

indicates that veterans from past wars are experiencing significant increases in 

stress as images and information of the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is 

injected into mainstream America. Following the release of the film “Saving 

Private Ryan,” telephone calls from World War II veterans flooded the suicide 

toll-free phone banks at the NVF, revealing that the first few minutes of the film 

brought back horrific memories of their previous combat experiences (Shad 

Meshad interview 2008). 137

Dr. Stanulis concludes that a prison sentence not only places Mr. Ritzheimer at risk of 

relapse by interrupting his treatment regimen, but would also increase the severity of his 

symptoms as occurred when he was incarcerated pretrial for about two months. Exacerbation of 

mental disorders, including PTSD, for anyone being sent to prison for the first time is 

documented in the literature.138 Prison is particularly difficult for combat-veteran defendants: 

 

137 William B. Brown, Another Emerging “Storm”: Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans with PTSD in 

the Criminal Justice System, 5 Just. Pol'y J.. 1, 12 (2008) 

138 Not only is “being sent to prison” considered a traumatic event, the magnitude of this trauma 

is comparable to “rape,” “acts of terrorism,” and “being held hostage.” Diana Sullivan Everstine 

& Louis Everstine, Strategic Interventions for People in Crisis, Trauma, and Disaster, at xiv 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 105 of 121
101	

However, when a veteran is sent to prison, he finds himself in a setting that 

creates a “survivor mode” environment that might exacerbate PTSD symptoms. 

The initial traumatic experience(s) that caused the veteran’s PTSD may be relived 

by the social stimuli found in prison, and the veteran may revert back to “combat 

mode” to handle prison life.139

A non-prison sentence would also expedite Mr. Ritzheimer’s participation in the Arizona 

federal veteran’s treatment court, which as previously described, is uniquely designed to 

rehabilitate veterans, and thereby protect society. 

Judge Wendy Lindley poses this question, “Are we safer as a community if we 

simply process these human beings through the system and send them off to 

prison and have them come back into our community? Because they will come 

back to our community, and if they come back and their PTSD has not been 

treated, what is the likelihood that they're going to have another violent act in our 

community?” The Situation Room (CNN television broadcast Oct. 28, 2010).140 

IV. A Sentence Of Continued Community Supervision Is “Sufficient But Not Greater Than 

Necessary” To Achieve Justice In Mr. Ritzheimer’s Case. 

“It has been uniform and constant in the federal judicial tradition for the 

sentencing judge to consider every convicted person as an individual and every 

case as a unique study in the human failings that sometimes mitigate, sometimes 

magnify, the crime and the punishment to ensue.” Underlying this tradition is the 

principle that “the punishment should fit the offender and not merely the crime.” 

Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476, 487–88 (2011)(citations omitted). 

As this Court well knows, 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) provides the framework that guides its 

sentencing discretion. Section 3553(a) lists seven factors that a sentencing court must consider. 

The first factor is a broad command to consider “the nature and circumstances of the offense and 

the history and characteristics of the defendant.” 18 U.S.C. §3553(a)(1). This memorandum has 

 

(2006 rev. ed.). See also H. Richard Lamb, Reversing Criminalization, 166 Am. J. Psychiatry 8, 

8 (2009) (observing that “[i]ncarceration poses a number of important problems and obstacles to 

treatment and rehabilitation” for the mentally ill). 

139 Beth Totman, Seeing the Justice System Through A Soldier’s Eyes, 16 J. Health Care L. & 

Pol’y 431, 444-45(2013)(citing Chester Sigafoos, A PTSD Treatment Program for Combat 

(Vietnam) Veterans in Prison, 38 Int. J. Offender Therapy & Comp. Criminology 117, 118 & 

121 (1994). 

140 Major Evan R. Seamone, Reclaiming The Rehabilitative Ethic in Military Justice, 208 Mil. L. 

Rev. 1, 212, n. 83. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 106 of 121
102	

fully addressed all of those.141 The second factor requires the consideration of the general 

purposes of sentencing, including: 

“the need for the sentence imposed— 

“(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and 

to provide just punishment for the offense; 

“(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; 

“(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and 

“(D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, 

medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner.” 

18 U.S.C. §3553(a)(2). 

Stated in summary fashion as (A) retribution, (B) deterrence, (C) incapacitation, and (D) 

rehabilitation, those issues will be further briefed below. 

The third factor pertains to “the kinds of sentences available,” §3553(a)(3); the fourth to 

the Sentencing Guidelines; the fifth to any relevant policy statement issued by the Sentencing 

Commission; the sixth to “the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities,” §3553(a)(6); and 

the seventh to “the need to provide restitution to any victim,” §3553(a)(7). Preceding this list is 

the general directive to “impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply 

with the purposes” of sentencing described in the second factor. §3553(a). Factors 3 through 7 

will be briefly discussed, prior to focusing on how the purposes of sentencing under the second 

factor can be met without the need to send Mr. Ritzheimer to prison. 

The Kinds Of Sentences Available 

 Congress has authorized judges to impose probation for most offenses, i.e., any offense 

with a statutory maximum below 25 years (excluding only Class A and B felonies), unless 

expressly precluded for the offense. See 18 U.S.C. §3561(a), §3559(a). Mr. Ritzheimer is 

 

141 The Supreme Court has recognized the vital need for the depth of information presented in 

this memorandum: “[W]e have emphasized that ‘[h]ighly relevant—if not essential—to [the] 

selection of an appropriate sentence is the possession of the fullest information possible 

concerning the defendant's life and characteristics.’ Pepper, supra, 562 US at 488. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 107 of 121
103	

convicted by plea of a Class D felony, carrying a maximum term of 6-years prison, followed by 

up to a 3-year term of supervised release, and is eligible for a sentence of up to 5-years 

probation. 18 U.S.C. §3561(c)(1). His advisory guideline range if calculated as agreed to by the 

parties is 30-37 months prison, prior to any downward departures or variances. Thus, the Court 

has the option as recommended by the defense to grant a downward variance under the §3553(a) 

statutory sentencing scheme, and sentence him to time served (62 days), followed by a 3-year 

term of community supervision. Another option consistent with the defense recommendation 

would be for the Court to impose up to 5-years probation, if it determines that a more punitive 

sanction is required, or that a longer period of community supervision would serve other 

purposes of sentencing apart from “just punishment” for his conduct. In arriving at the 

appropriate length of community supervision, the defense asks the Court to consider Mr. 

Ritzheimer has been supervised successfully in the community by Pretrial Services for now 

approaching two years. 

Community service is a punitive condition, i.e., one through which a defendant may 

make retribution, that is an available option as a condition of community supervision. A period 

of house arrest is also available as a punitive condition of either probation or supervised release. 

Mr. Ritzheimer has served nearly five months on house arrest (73 days in home detention, 

followed by 67 days on GPS monitoring with curfew) while on pretrial release, but the Court 

need not credit him with that as part of a sentence. 

Finally, a much less-favored, punitive condition of either probation or supervised release 

would be a period of community confinement at a Residential Rentry Center (RRC). 

Undersigned counsel has confirmed with U.S. Probation in Arizona, where courtesy supervision 

would occur, that Mr. Ritzheimer would be allowed to do community confinement in his home 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 108 of 121
104	

state; however, the RRC closest to him in Phoenix, AZ, has declined community supervisiontype placements based on limited capacity due to the number of BOP placements, and the nearest 

RRC would be about two hours drive from Phoenix. Thus, while RRC confinement would allow 

Mr. Ritzheimer continued access to VA treatment, it would unlikely be through his current 

providers; and the distance would also foreclose him from continuing to work at his business. 

The United States Sentencing Commission has recognized: 

Effective alternative sanctions are important options for federal, state, and local 

criminal justice systems. For the appropriate offenders, alternatives to 

incarceration can provide a substitute for costly incarceration. Ideally, alternatives 

also provide those offenders opportunities by diverting them from prison (or 

reducing time spent in prison) and into programs providing the life skills and 

treatment necessary to become law-abiding and productive members of society.142

A sentence of community supervision without additional incarceration at an RRC would 

be most effective in continuing his rehabilitation, as well as his business which, as Dr. Stanulis 

noted, is an important treatment component. His business is also the most promising source for 

him to pay restitution. 

The Advisory Sentencing Guidelines Range 

Mr. Ritzheimer has agreed to his advisory guideline range as part of his negotiated 

resolution of this case. However, his plea agreement does not limit his ability to make arguments 

regarding the amount of deference this Court should give to this §3553(a)(4) factor. There are 

strong arguments that the Guidelines in general, as well as those at play in his case, deserve less 

weight in determining the sentence for first offenders convicted of non-violent crimes, like Mr. 

Ritzheimer. 

 In enacting the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, Congress intended that “prison resources 

[would be], first and foremost, reserved for those violent and serious criminal offenders who 

 

142 USSC, Alternative Sentencing in the Federal Criminal Justice System, at 20 (Jan. 2009).

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 109 of 121
105	

pose the most dangerous threat to society,” and that “in cases of nonviolent and nonserious 

offenders, the interests of society as a whole as well as individual victims of crime can 

continue to be served through the imposition of alternative sentences, such as restitution and 

community service.”143 Congress thus instructed the Commission to ensure “that the guidelines 

reflect the general appropriateness of imposing a sentence other than imprisonment in cases in 

which the defendant is a first offender who has not been convicted of a crime of violence or an 

otherwise serious offense,” 28 U.S.C. §994(j). Congress indicated its view of a crime of violence 

for which prison would be warranted as one “that results in serious bodily injury.” 28 U.S.C. 

§994(j). 

 Congress also intended that probation and intermediate sanctions would be used more 

often than they had been before the guidelines,144 when about 38% of offenders were sentenced 

to probation.145 However, the Commission has acknowledged that the first offender directive in 

§994(j) was not implemented,146 and that the guidelines’ requirement of prison in nearly every 

case was still being followed by many courts, despite more recent guideline reforms to increase 

the availability of community supervision and split sentences for lower level offenders.

147 Thus, 

it is important to consider the congressional directive of §994(j), and the admitted failure of the 

guidelines to implement that directive, in determining the weight to give this fourth factor in 

sentencing Mr. Ritzheimer.

 

143 See Pub. L. No. 98-473, §§ 217(a), 239, 98 Stat. 1987, 2039 (1984). 

144 See S. Rep. No. 98-225, at 67, 172-76 & nn.531-32 (1983). 

145 U.S. Sentencing Commission (U.S.S.C.), Fifteen Years of Guidelines Sentencing: An 

Assessment of How Well the Federal Criminal Justice System is Achieving the Goals of 

Sentencing Reform 43 (2004). 

146 U.S.S.C., Recidivism and the First Offender, at 3 (May 2004) 

147 U.S.S.C., Alternative Sentencing in the Federal Criminal Justice System, at 1-2 (2015). 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 110 of 121
106	

Further consideration is due to the method used by the Government in arriving at Mr. 

Ritzheimer’s advisory guideline range. A review and comparison of co-defendants plea 

agreements in this case shows that, for those defendants who entered negotiated guilty pleas to 

the conspiracy count, the Government built its view of offender culpability into the individual 

defendant’s advisory guideline range. The Government did so through the mechanisms of role 

adjustment, and the much lesser-used Application Note 4 to the Terrorism guideline, U.S.S.G. 

§3A1.4. Note 4 states an upward departure to the guideline range is warranted for crimes that are 

not “federal crimes of terrorism,” so long as “the offense was calculated to influence or affect to 

conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct.” 

The Government applied a “sliding scale” of its own invention in determining the number 

of levels for the “terrorism enhancement” under Note 4, ranging from 3-levels for what it 

considered lower-level offenders to 10-levels for Ryan Payne, and 9 for Mr. Ritzheimer. To be 

perfectly clear, Mr. Ritzheimer agreed to the role adjustment and Note 4 enhancements for 

purposes of the advisory guideline calculations in his case, and is not suggesting the Court is free 

to disregard them. However, he did not forfeit the right to assert that his advisory guideline 

range, driven substantially by this ad hoc application of Note 4—rather than any empirical data, 

research or studies by the Guidelines Commission as to what types of conduct warrant, for 

example, a 3-level versus a 9-level enhancement under Note 4; or whether the enhancement 

should be applied with disparity to participants in the same offense—is deserving of less weight 

in the §3553(a) calculus. Without the Note 4 enhancement, the advisory guideline range would 

be as reflected in the PSR: 12 to 18 months prison, and in a Zone C, split sentence range. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 111 of 121
107	

Relevant Policy Statements By The Guidelines Commission 

This memorandum has previously discussed relevant Policy Statements by the Guidelines 

Commission concerning downward departures for Military Service, Mental and Emotional 

Conditions, and limited departures to accomplish a specific treatment purpose; and asserted the 

Commission’s studied recognition of those factors as mitigating would support a downward 

variance without necessitating a determination of whether any factor is “present to an unusual 

degree,” and makes the case atypical. One additional Policy Statement, U.S.S.G. §5H114 

(Physical Condition) mirrors the language in §5H1.3 (Mental and Emotional Conditions). As 

noted earlier, mTBI is an “invisible” physical (organic) condition that manifests in cognitive as 

well as emotional and volitional impairments. Also, Mr. Ritzheimer continues to suffer from 

combat-related physical conditions, some or most of which are unlikely to be adequately treated 

by the BOP, resulting in increased suffering. 

The Need To Avoid Unwarranted Sentence Disparities 

Section 3553(a)(6) requires the judge to “avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among

defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct.” Defendants 

with similar records convicted of similar conduct vary widely in their culpability, risk of 

recidivism, dangerousness, and rehabilitation needs. Judges must now take account of these 

variations, and uniformity for its own sake is no longer the goal of the sentencing system. See 

United States v. Kimbrough, 128 S. Ct. 558, 574(2007) (“some departures from uniformity were 

a necessary cost of the remedy we adopted.”). “Perfect parity among the sentences imposed on 

the various members of a criminal conspiracy is no doubt impossible to achieve, given the 

complexity of the task.” United States v. Lazenby, 439 F. 928, 934 (8th Cir. 2006). However, 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 112 of 121
108	

extreme disparity of sentences for co-defendants “suggests an arbitrary level of decision-making 

that fails to ‘promote respect for the law,’” id. 

Disparities in the penal consequences bestowed upon co-defendants in this case thus far 

have been stark and wide—but not due to the exercise of judicial discretion. Nonetheless, 

extreme disparities regardless of cause may yet fail to promote public respect for the law. 

Therefore, a brief summary of leniency bestowed through jury verdicts and prosecutorial 

discretion follows: First, there was the acquittal of Ammon and Ryan Bundy, the undisputed 

leaders of the conspiracy, along with five of the less-involved co-conspirators, Shawna Cox, Jeff 

Banta, Kenneth Medenback, David Lee Fry and Neil Wampler, resulting in no sentence being 

imposed. The Government dismissed charges against Pete Santilli—who engaged in many more 

public broadcasts calling for aid for the occupiers than Mr. Ritzheimer—prior to trial. Following 

the first trial, the Government agreed to dismiss conspiracy charges altogether against codefendants Sean Anderson, Sandra Anderson, Dylan Anderson and Darryl Thorn, in exchange 

for guilty pleas to misdemeanor trespass and one-year probation sentences; Thorn ultimately 

rejected the offer and stood trial. 

At the second trial, the jury returned a split verdict, convicting Thorn and Jason Patrick of 

the conspiracy count, but acquitting Duane Elmer and Jake Ryan; they were convicted of 

depredation of government property. All four defendants from the second trial are pending 

sentencing. All other co-defendants, including Mr. Ritzheimer, plead guilty to felony conspiracy 

charges before the first trial commenced. The Government’s plea agreements with Ryan Payne 

and Joseph O’Shaughnessy provided their sentences would be fully concurrent with any sentence 

imposed in their Nevada prosecutions; i.e., bestowing virtually no likelihood that they would 

face any additional penal consequences for their involvement in the Occupation. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 113 of 121
109	

To date, six defendants convicted of the conspiracy count have been sentenced: Corey 

Lequeiu, sentenced to an agreed term of 30 months (who otherwise faced a much higher 

guideline range as a convicted felon on a dismissed count); Brian Cavalier, sentenced to nine 

months (time served) and supervised release; and Geoffrey Stanek, Erik Flores, Travis Cox, and 

Jason Blomgren, all sentenced to two-years probation, and all except Blomgren with a condition 

of several months of house arrest. Thus, the vast majority of Mr. Ritzheimer’s co-defendants 

whose cases have resolved so far have either been acquitted, given misdemeanors, sentenced to 

probation or time served, or are highly unlikely to face any additional imprisonment related to 

their Oregon conduct. 

The Need To Provide Restitution To Any Victim 

Mr. Ritzheimer has stipulated to pay restitution in the sum of $10,000, and the Court has 

agreed to impose that amount. Although the conspiracy count does not fall within the scope of 

mandatory restitution, the purpose served by the restitution to be ordered in this case remains 

part of the punitive sanctions that promote the goals of sentencing. See, Paroline v. United 

States, 134 S.Ct. 1710, 1726 (2014)(noting the primary goal is remedial, but restitution also 

serves “to mete out appropriate criminal punishment”)(citation omitted). 

The best means for ensuring Mr. Ritzheimer pays his restitution is through a sentence of 

continued community supervision where he can continue to grow his motorcycle repair business 

into a profit-making venture. As noted, he is well on his way. If incarcerated, his business will be 

lost and he will be saddled with the debt he undertook to get it started, further impeding his 

ability to pay restitution. He will also return more damaged from disruption of treatment, which 

would not be conducive to finding employment.

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 114 of 121
110	

The Goals Of Sentencing 

A sentence that continues Mr. Ritzheimer on community supervision with special 

conditions, including payment of restitution, will serve the purposes of sentencing identified in 

§3553(a), making prison as proposed by the Government a “greater than necessary” alternative. 

A. Retribution 

It is necessary to impose a punishment that adequately reflects the seriousness of Mr. 

Ritzheimer’s crime. As noted by Judge Kane, “Imprisonment, however, is not the only means of 

punishment, and, throughout the history of civilization, punishment has been curtailed because of 

the frailty of the defendant and his or her need for treatment.” Brownfield, supra, at 24. As 

Brownfield and other cases cited earlier in this memo illustrate, courts have found sentences of 

community supervision to adequately reflect the seriousness of crimes committed by traumatized 

combat veterans in need of treatment—and in cases involving crimes arguably more serious than 

Mr. Ritzheimer’s offense, e.g., assaulting federal officers with a firearm (Courtney); selling 

stolen military equipment sought by hostile foreign forces for use against US troops, on e-bay 

(Oldani); smuggling contraband in a federal prison that threatened institutional security

(Brownfield); soliciting aggravated assault to cover up other crimes (Erickson). 

The Supreme Court has recognized probation is punishment with significant penal 

aspects: 

We recognize that custodial sentences are qualitatively more severe than 

probationary sentences of equivalent terms. Offenders on probation are 

nonetheless subject to several standard conditions that substantially restrict their 

liberty. See United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 119, 122 S.Ct. 587, 151 

L.Ed.2d 497 (2001) (“Inherent in the very nature of probation is that probationers 

‘do not enjoy the absolute liberty to which every citizen is entitled’” (quoting 

Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 874, 107 S.Ct. 3164, 97 L.Ed.2d 709 (1987); 

internal quotation marks omitted)). Probationers may not leave the judicial 

district, move, or change jobs without notifying, and in some cases receiving 

permission from, their probation officer or the court. They must report regularly 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 115 of 121
111	

to their probation officer, permit unannounced visits to their homes, refrain from 

associating with any person convicted of a felony, and refrain from excessive 

drinking. USSG §5B1.3. Most probationers are also subject to individual “special 

conditions” imposed by the court. 

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 48–49 (2007). The Court referenced the Advisory Council of 

Judges of National Council on Crime and Delinquency, Guides for Sentencing 13–14 (1957) 

(“Probation is not granted out of a spirit of leniency . . . . As the Wickersham Commission said, 

probation is not merely ‘letting an offender off easily’ ”). Id., at 49, n.4. Home detention may 

also be imposed as a condition of community supervision, as a substitute for imprisonment. 

U.S.S.G. §5F1.2. 

In addition, evidence-based practices suggest that superior and cost-effective results can 

be achieved by sentencing low-risk individuals to probation, and that imprisonment would be 

wasteful and counterproductive. See, Francis T. Cullen et al., Prisons Do Not Reduce 

Recidivism: The High Cost of Ignoring Science, 91 Prison J. 485, 505 (2011)(“[H]aving pulled 

together the best available evidence, we have been persuaded that prisons do not reduce 

recidivism more than noncustodial sanctions.”). 

The principle of retribution, also discussed in terms of blameworthiness or “just desert” 

for the offender, is related to an assessment of the individual’s moral culpability, such that less 

harsh sentences are “just” for offenders who have, e.g., acted under compulsion or duress not 

constituting a defense, or from unselfish motives, or as recognized by the Ninth Circuit in Cantu, 

supra, have a reduced mental capacity related to their criminal conduct: “Desert 

(blameworthiness) loses some bite because those with reduced ability to reason, or to control 

their impulses, are less deserving of punishment than those who act out of viciousness or greed.” 

12 F3d at 1506. By all available evidence, Mr. Ritzheimer clearly falls within this class of 

defendants. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 116 of 121
112	

B. Deterrence 

Two of the four purposes of sentencing, deterrence and incapacitation to protect the 

public, that could otherwise justify a prison sentence, are counterbalanced by evidence of low 

risk of recidivism. A defendant who has been successfully rehabilitated does not need 

imprisonment to be deterred from re-offending, nor locked up to protect the public. Furthermore, 

the Ninth Circuit has held that the Section 3553(a) goal of general deterrence need not “be met 

through a period of incarceration,” rather than community supervision. United States v. Edwards, 

595 F.3d 1004, 1016 & n.16 (9th Cir. 2010). In addition, studies have shown “confinement or 

increased length of incarceration serve[s] the crime control purpose of incapacitation, but ha[s] 

little or no effect as a ‘treatment’ with rehabilitative or specific deterrent effects.”148 A 20-year 

study of 962 felony offenders found “no evidence to justify the belief that the addition of jail 

time to a probation sentence has a specific deterrent effect.”149

 Mr. Ritzheimer’s post offense rehabilitation also evidences that prison is not necessary as 

a specific deterrent. Gall, 552 U.S., at 59, 128 S.Ct. 586 (“Gall's self-motivated rehabilitation . . .

lends strong support to the conclusion that imprisonment was not necessary to deter Gall from 

engaging in future criminal conduct or to protect the public from his future criminal acts” (citing 

§§ 3553(a)(2)(B)-(C))). 

Judge Kane reflected, “The driving force of general deterrence is certainty, not severity 

or length, of punishment.” Brownfield, supra at 26. 

The general research finding is that “deterrence works,” in the sense that there is 

less crime with a criminal justice system than there would be without one. But the 

question for the judge is “marginal deterrence,” i.e., whether any particular 

 

148 Don M. Gottfredson, National Institute of Justice, Effects of Judges’ Sentencing Decisions on 

Criminal Cases, Research in Brief (1999), at 8, available at 

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/178889.pdf). 

149 Id., at 8-9. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 117 of 121
113	

quantum of punishment results in increased deterrence and thus decreased crime. 

Here the findings are uniformly negative: there is no evidence that increases in 

sentence length reduce crime through deterrence. Current empirical research on 

general deterrence shows that while certainty of punishment has a deterrent effect,

“increases in severity of punishments do not yield significant (if any) marginal 

deterrent effects. . . . Three National Academy of Science panels, all appointed by 

Republican presidents, reached that conclusion, as has every major survey of the 

evidence.150 

The likelihood of any defendant’s sentence in the instant conspiracy case having general 

deterrent value is negligible. First, the well-publicized jury verdicts—both in Oregon and 

Nevada—involving these defendants and other Bundy followers—send the message that there is 

no certainty of being punished by engaging in criminal acts of political protest. Second, given the 

acquittals of many defendants who stood trial in this prosecution, and particularly its leaders, the 

only certainty of punishment existed for those who elected to plead guilty rather than stand trial. 

Sending the message that protestors who abandon the cause, accept responsibility, and plead 

guilty are the most likely to be punished cannot rationally further general deterrence. 

C. Incapacitation 

Of all of the purposes of sentencing, the need to protect the public from further crimes of 

the defendant is the one of greatest practical concern, and also the most capable of being 

measured. Many facts demonstrating that Mr. Ritzheimer has a low risk of recidivism, that will 

be further lowered through continued VA treatment and community supervision, have been 

discussed at length earlier in this memorandum. See Section II, supra. The defense does not 

anticipate the Government will argue that a prison sentence is needed to protect the public from 

Mr. Ritzheimer, so long as he stays on his current course of successful reintegration. 

 

150 Michael Tonry, Purposes and Functions of Sentencing, 34 Crime and Justice: A Review of 

Research 28-29 (2006). 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 118 of 121
114	

D. Rehabilitation 

The Supreme Court has noted that post-offense conduct “may be taken as the most 

accurate indicator of “his present purposes and tendencies and significantly to suggest the period 

of restraint and the kind of discipline that ought to be imposed upon him.” Pepper v. United 

States, supra, at 1242-43. The Court held that evidence of post-offense rehabilitation, including 

post-sentencing rehabilitation, “bears directly on the District Court's overarching duty to ‘impose 

a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary’ to serve the purposes of sentencing. 

§3553(a).” Id. Mr. Ritzheimer’s post-offense rehabilitation has been discussed at length in this 

memorandum, see, e.g., Section II, supra. There is ample evidence—apart from his VA 

treatment records and Dr. Stanulis’ opinions—from the statements of individuals who have 

witnessed his transformation and who interact with him on a routine basis, as well as his actions 

in launching a business, becoming active in his community and church, and maintaining 

compliance with pretrial supervision, to demonstrate he is a much-changed man. 

The case law discussed in support of downward variance based on Military Service and 

Mental and Emotional Conditions, section III, supra, relied heavily on this last purpose of 

sentencing: “to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical 

care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner.” §3553(a)(2). Those courts 

found that veteran defendants suffering from combat-related PTSD could best and most 

effectively be provided treatment through the VA in a community setting, and that prison would 

be counter-productive to protecting society as well as injurious to the defendant. E.g., Courtney, 

supra; Brownfield, supra; Oldani, supra. Mr. Ritzheimer has tendered the same evidence

through this memorandum. He also has medical needs unlikely to be met in a prison setting. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 119 of 121
115	

Finally, the findings of the Charles Colson Task Force on Federal Corrections (2016) 

underscore the importance of alternative sentences that foster rehabilitation as a goal of 

sentencing, in bringing about needed criminal justice reforms: 

After decades of unbridled growth in its prison population, the United States faces 

a defining moment. There is broad, bipartisan agreement that the costs of 

incarceration have far outweighed the benefits, and that our country has largely 

failed to meet the goals of a well-functioning justice system: to enhance public 

safety, to prevent future victimization, and to rehabilitate those who have engaged 

in criminal acts. Indeed, a growing body of evidence suggests that our overreliance on incarceration may in fact undermine efforts to keep the public safe. 

Momentum is strong for a new direction, for a criminal justice system guided by 

proven, cost-effective strategies that reduce crime and restore lives. But 

translating this impulse for reform into lasting change is no small challenge.151 

Conclusion 

[Exacerbating] the problems confronting young veterans today is the absence of a 

comprehensive understanding of the impact of war on those who have served in 

war zones. This lack of understanding seems to exist throughout much of 

America—even though we have volumes of research and personal accountings in 

the aftermath of the Vietnam War. This is particularly true in the case of the 

American criminal justice system. American history seems to be positioning itself 

for a replication of the imprudent responses to veterans' experiences and needs 

practiced for at least the past several decades.152

The defense has sought throughout this memorandum to provide the Court with the 

necessary comprehensive understanding of military culture and combat-related invisible injuries, 

to fully make sense of Mr. Ritzheimer’s mitigating evidence. That evidence, and the legal 

framework for determining sentence, unite in support of the defense recommendation for a 

sentence other than prison. In addition to however many more years of active supervision, and 

 

151 “Transforming Prisons, Restoring Lives: Final Recommendations of the Charles Colson Task 

Force on Federal Corrections,” p. ix (January 2016) (last accessed 10-25-2016 at 

http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/2000589-TransformingPrisons-Restoring-Lives.pdf ). 

152 William B. Brown, Another Emerging “Storm”: Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans with PTSD in 

the Criminal Justice System, 5 Just. Pol'y J.. 1, 11 (2008). 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 120 of 121
116	

such restrictive conditions as the Court deems necessary to impose, Mr. Ritzheimer will sustain 

the punitive impacts of a life-long felony conviction, a debt of $10,000 restitution, permanent 

loss of Second Amendment rights, and his designation to the Terrorist Watch List. 

In the winter of 2016, in the high desert terrain of Eastern Oregon, decked out in military 

garb and slinging a rifle, Jon Ritzheimer was a wounded warrior, still at war. He has since fought 

a different but very hard battle—one caused by his combat experiences, and deeply imbedded 

within himself—to find his way home. May this Court, as a representative of the judicial branch 

of his government, find its way to welcome him back. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 3rd day of November, 2017. 

/s/ Terri Wood 

Terri Wood, OSB 883325 

Attorney for Ritzheimer 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2303 Filed 11/03/17 Page 121 of 121