DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REVOKE PRETRIAL DETENTION 

ORDER...

Kohlmetz Steen & Hanrahan, PC

741 SW Lincoln Street

Portland, OR 97201

(503) 224-1104

Andrew M. Kohlmetz, OSB #955418

Kohlmetz Steen & Hanrahan, PC.

741 SW Lincoln Street

Portland, OR 97201

Tel: (503) 224-1104

Fax: (503) 224-9417

Email: andy@kshlawyers.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JASON PATRICK,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:16-CR-00051-09-BR

DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM IN 

SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REVOKE 

PRETRIAL DETENTION ORDER AND 

FOR RELEASE OF DEFENDANT

Procedural History

On January 29, 2016, Mr. Patrick made his first appearance on the underlying Complaint 

herein. The Complaint charge Mr. Patrick with Conspiracy to Impede Officers of the United 

States From Discharging Their Duties Through the Use of Force, Intimidation, or Threats in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 372. This is a class D felony punishable by a maximum of 6 years of 

incarceration and a fine not to exceed $250,000.00. According to the federal sentencing 

guidelines, the Base Offense Level for this crime is 10. USSG 2X1.1, 2A2.4.

A detention hearing was held pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). Magistrate Judge Stacie 

Beckerman, the same judge who found probable cause to issue the Complaint itself, presided 

over the detention hearing. After considering the submissions and arguments of the parties Judge 

Beckerman ordered Mr. Patrick detained as both a flight risk and a danger to the community.

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 135 Filed 02/10/16 Page 1 of 14
DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REVOKE PRETRIAL DETENTION 

ORDER...

Kohlmetz Steen & Hanrahan, PC

741 SW Lincoln Street

Portland, OR 97201

(503) 224-1104

The first part of Judge Beckerman’s detention Order, attached as Exhibit A, found that on 

the motion of the government that the this case involved an alleged risk to the safety of any other 

person or the community because it involved a crime described in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1), as well 

as a “serious risk” that the defendant would flee.

Judge Beckerman’s Order went on to find that “No condition or combination of 

conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required due to:

- Unknown family/employment/community ties

- Unstable/no residence available

- Information unverified/unverifiable

- Other: Pending case in GA/No ties to District

And that “No condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of other 

persons and the community due to:

- Nature of offense

- Violent behavior

- Prior criminal history

- Other: pending case in GA

On February 3, 2016 the defendant was indicted with a single count of Conspiracy to Impede

Officers of the United States, the same charge as in the original complaint. Pursuant to 18 

U.S.C. § 3145(b) Mr. Patrick now seeks revocation of Magistrate Judge Beckerman’s January 

29, 2016, Order of Detention. Review of a magistrate’s release decision and facts relied thereon 

is de novo. United States v. Koenig, 912 F.2d 1190, 1192-93 (9th Cir. 1990); United States v. 

Lopp, 2015 WL 5139367 (N.D.Ca. 9/1/15)

Statutory Framework

The Bail Reform Act codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3141 et. seq. provides the statutory 

framework by which release decisions are to be made in federal criminal courts. In cases such as 

the defendant’s, a class D felony, the Bail Reform Act creates a presumption that the defendant 

will be released on his own recognizance or unsecured bond. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(b). If the Court 

determines that a recognizance or bond release will not reasonably assure the appearance of the 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 135 Filed 02/10/16 Page 2 of 14
DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REVOKE PRETRIAL DETENTION 

ORDER...

Kohlmetz Steen & Hanrahan, PC

741 SW Lincoln Street

Portland, OR 97201

(503) 224-1104

defendant or will endanger the safety of any other person or the community, the Court shall order 

the defendant released on conditions. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c). The conditions of such a release must 

be “the least restrictive” condition or combination of conditions that will reasonably assure the 

appearance of the defendant and the safety of other persons and the community. 18 U.S.C. § 

3142(c)(B).

Detention of a defendant facing this charge is appropriate only if after a hearing the Court 

determines that there are no conditions or combination of conditions that will reasonably assure 

the appearance of the defendant or the safety of other persons or the community. 18 U.S.C. § 

3142(f). In keeping with the presumption of release, the statute calls for reasonable assurances of 

appearance and safety: Not for absolute assurances. Since the presumption is one of release the

government bears the burden of demonstrating that no condition or combination of conditions 

can reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant and/or the safety of other persons and the 

community.

The standard of proof for non-appearance and danger are different. The government must 

prove by a preponderance of the evidence that no condition or combinations of conditions can 

reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant. The government must demonstrate by clear 

and convincing evidence that the no condition or combinations thereof can reasonably assure the 

safety of others or the community. United States v. Gebro, 948 F.2d 1118, 1121 (9th Cir. 1991); 

United States v. Motamedi, 767 F.3d 1403, 1406 (9th Cir. 1985).

Factors to be considered in determining the release issue are listed at 18 U.S.C. § 3142 

(g). Briefly they are as follows:

1) The nature and circumstances of the offense.

2) The weight of the evidence against the person.

3) The history and characteristics of the person, and

4) The nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community if 

the defendant were released.

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 135 Filed 02/10/16 Page 3 of 14
DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REVOKE PRETRIAL DETENTION 

ORDER...

Kohlmetz Steen & Hanrahan, PC

741 SW Lincoln Street

Portland, OR 97201

(503) 224-1104

1) The Nature and Circumstances of the Offense

As an initial matter, the government is wrong, Judge Beckerman’s Order notwithstanding, 

when it labels this offense a “crime of violence” under the Bail Reform Act. The Bail Reform 

Act defines “Crime of Violence” in pertinent part as:

(A)An offense that has an element of the offense the use, attempted use, or 

threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another;

(B) Any other offense that is a felony and that by its nature, involves a substantial risk

that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the 

course of committing the offense... 18 U.S.C. § 3156(4)

The crime of Conspiracy to Impede Officers of the United States does not necessarily 

contain an element of the “use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the 

person or property of another.” It would therefore only qualify as a crime of violence under the 

Bail Reform Act if it fell under 18 U.S.C. § 3156(B) as an offense that by its nature involves a 

substantial risk that physical force may be used in the course of committing the offense. The 

United States Supreme Court in Johnson v. United States recently struck down as 

unconstitutionally vague a similarly worded “residual” clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act 

at 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). 576 U.S.___, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d. 569 (2015). Under 

Johnson, 18 U.S.C. § 3561(B) falls as well.

The government in its initial Complaint goes to great lengths to portray the acts of the 

charged defendants as an unjustified “armed occupation” of the Malhuer National Wildlife 

Refuge (“MNWR”). While it was certainly an occupation and while many of those participating 

in events at the Refuge were in fact armed, the government’s narrative is incomplete. The 

occupation of the MNWR was born of the lawful protest(s) which had preceded it in Burns. It 

was primarily, almost exclusively a political act that had, allegedly criminal results. The nature 

of the crime itself is a political one which dramatically differentiates it from the generic criminal 

activity routinely prosecuted by the courts. This was an action taken based on sincerely and 

strongly held political beliefs that caused as a secondary effect an alleged violation of federal 

law. This is not crime for crime’s sake. Nor is its genesis found in the more craven motives often 

seen in criminal cases: money, power, greed, hatred or sheer sociopathy. This “Armed 

Occupation” is in reality a political protest – and the “Occupiers” are themselves protesters.

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 135 Filed 02/10/16 Page 4 of 14
DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REVOKE PRETRIAL DETENTION 

ORDER...

Kohlmetz Steen & Hanrahan, PC

741 SW Lincoln Street

Portland, OR 97201

(503) 224-1104

Paragraph 58 of the initial complaint captures succinctly the purpose of this occupation in 

Mr. Patrick’s own words: 

We hope to achieve is restore the constitution and the right of the people of 

Harney County...access of the land back to proper jurisdiction...Most people 

are walking around without a weapon.

What Mr. Patrick refers to is nothing new. It is representative of a longstanding and 

principled (if not legally correct) popular dispute concerning the role of the federal government 

in the ownership and regulation of public lands in the United States that has its antecedents in the 

Northwest Ordinance of 1787 enacted by the Confederation Congress. The Northwest Ordinance 

is commonly cited as the first authority for the principle that the federal government takes fee 

simple ownership of all unsettled and unclaimed lands outside the borders of recognized states.

The essence of the arguments underlying the current controversy that led many of the 

defendants and those sympathetic to their claims to Burns, Oregon in the late Fall of 2015 is a 

strict reading of the Constitution of the United States, which in the mind of Mr. Patrick does not 

authorize federal ownership and jurisdiction over the MNWR (and most other federal land 

holdings in the West.) His arguments are based on two separate provisions of the United States 

Constitution: Article I, section 8, clause 17, and Article IV, section 3, clause 2.

Article I, section 8, clause 17 provides the Congress shall have the power:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District 

(not exceeding ten Miles square) as may be, by Cession of particular States, and 

the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United 

States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of 

the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be for the Erection of Forts, 

Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings:

According to many of the MNWR protesters, this provision gives the federal government 

authority only over lands ceded to or purchased by the consent of state legislatures. Article IV, 

section 3, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution provides that:

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and 

Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United 

States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice 

any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 135 Filed 02/10/16 Page 5 of 14
DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REVOKE PRETRIAL DETENTION 

ORDER...

Kohlmetz Steen & Hanrahan, PC

741 SW Lincoln Street

Portland, OR 97201

(503) 224-1104

The MNWR protesters read this provision of the Constitution to allow federal authority over 

only land within a “Territory” of the United States. Thus in the view of the MNWR protesters the 

federal government has no legal claim to the MNWR which was neither purchased or ceded from 

the State of Oregon, nor located within a Territory of the United States. Simply put the MNWR 

exists entirely within the State of Oregon. So situated, there is no basis for federal ownership, 

control or regulation.

This is the conceptual backdrop against which many of the MNWR protesters viewed the 

prosecution of the Hammond family. To be sure, there are many more complaints concerning the 

Hammond family’s relationship to the federal government and how they were ultimately 

prosecuted and sentenced. However, and at risk of oversimplification, it is the very notion that 

the Hammonds could be prosecuted federally for offenses that occurred on land to which the 

federal government has no title or right is that is at the heart of not only the protests in Burns 

which preceded the occupation of the MNWR, but the occupation itself.

Mr. Patrick spoke openly to the press during his time at the MNWR. In a January 7, 

2016, Oregonian Article he revealed to the reporter that,

he lost a roofing job with an $80,000 annual salary, benefits and a company truck 

when he abruptly set out for the standoff. He had already exhausted most of his

vacation days for the year attending other so-called Patriot events.

"I didn't get to give appropriate notice," he said of his voicemail message he left to 

alert bosses he wouldn't be coming in to work.

"The Constitution is more important," Patrick said.1

Whether one agrees with Mr. Patrick’s views or the premises underlying them; Whether 

or not his actions ultimately prove criminal, the point is that Mr. Patrick was present at the 

MNWR as a result of his deeply held beliefs that the federal government was acting contrary to 

the U.S. Constitution. He felt and continues to feel he had a moral obligation to the country to 

make a stand against what he perceived as injustice. This is not traditional criminality. There are 

 

1 http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/with_little_outside_support_mi.html as 

viewed 2/10/16.

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 135 Filed 02/10/16 Page 6 of 14
DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REVOKE PRETRIAL DETENTION 

ORDER...

Kohlmetz Steen & Hanrahan, PC

741 SW Lincoln Street

Portland, OR 97201

(503) 224-1104

no attempts to hide his actions from the scrutiny of the public, law enforcement or the courts. His 

arrest and prosecution were known and highly likely outcomes.

The occupation of the MNWR is nothing if not a classic example of political protest 

through direct-action civil disobedience. Beginning in October of 2015, as the resentencing of 

the Hammonds approached, codefendants Ammon Bundy and Ryan Payne were already seeking 

redress of their complaints against the federal government from the local authorities in Harney 

County. In November Ammon Bundy provided Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward with a public 

letter outlining what they believed to be a litany of unconstitutional and illegal actions committed 

by the federal government in their treatment of the Hammond Family and their ranch. This letter 

and its references are attached hereto as Exhibit B. This letter was followed in December by 

what Ammon Bundy believed to be a more formal Notice of Redress of Grievances, made 

publicly available and provided to various local and Oregon State Officials. This Notice is 

attached hereto as Exhibit C. 

What these documents and actions evince are that those individuals who ultimately 

occupied the MNWR were for months seeking what they thought were appropriate local 

government channels by and through which their complaints of a federal government gone out of 

control could be brought. To their mind seeking remedy from the federal government itself was 

futile and counterproductive. They sincerely believe that the local authorities are the only ones 

with Constitutional and legal authority to act on their behalf. It was only when it became clear to 

them that local authorities would not assist them in pressing their claims that the occupation of 

the MNWR occurred. Paragraph 12 of the Initial Complaint refers to a January 4. 2016 video in 

which Ammon Bundy expresses his frustration at having spent the last two months petitioning 

the state and local governments to no avail:

We feel that we have exhausted all prudent measures and have been ignored. 

And it has been left to us to decide whether we allow these things to go on or 

whether we make a stand.

The occupation of the MNWR began on January 2, 2016. On January 4, 2016, Ammon 

Bundy reaffirmed that the occupation was to be a peaceful one and that although they were 

(obviously) serious about what they were doing, there would be no violence unless “the 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 135 Filed 02/10/16 Page 7 of 14
DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REVOKE PRETRIAL DETENTION 

ORDER...

Kohlmetz Steen & Hanrahan, PC

741 SW Lincoln Street

Portland, OR 97201

(503) 224-1104

Government wants to take it there.” (Complaint paragraph 11). For the most part Mr. Bundy 

proved accurate. Up until the stop and arrest of the first five of the MNWR protesters on state 

route 395 North of the MWNR January 26th, 2016 that resulted in the shooting death of Lavoy 

Finicum, the MNWR protesters came and went from the Refuge at will. Private citizens, 

members of various media organizations and even representatives of state and local governments 

traveled to and from the refuge to meet with the protesters. Press conferences were held both on 

and off the refuge. Not a single incident of threats, violence or intimidation were reported during 

these numerous interactions.

The government’s initial Compliant while rich in rhetoric and tone in branding the 

“armed occupiers” as intimidating and threatening violence, completely lacks any specific threats 

of violence made by any of the occupiers contemporaneous to their presence at MNWR – other 

than statements made by a handful of the occupiers that they would defend themselves from law 

enforcement if necessary. There are but two paragraphs, paragraphs 16, and 25, in the Complaint 

that approach threats of violence. Paragraph 16 relates to an incident that occurred on December 

18, 2015 in Burns, Oregon between a citizen and two individuals, one of whom is identified as 

codefendant Jon Ritzheimer, wherein the citizen hears shouting to the effect that she “is BLM.” 

Mr. Ritzheimer and the other individual left the area in a black pickup truck. The paragraph goes 

on to relate that in the following weeks up until Christmas Day she observed the black pickup at 

her residence and place of employment and another tailgating her aggressively. These incidents 

predated the occupation of the MWNR. There is no evidence that they were in any way 

sanctioned or condoned by anyone other than Mr. Ritzheimer and his cohort.

Paragraph 25 refers to the alleged fact that on January 2, 2016, an unidentified and 

unverified “source” informed a Harney County Sheriff’s Deputy, who then informed someone at 

the BLM that

the group controlled the MNWR and had explosives, night vision goggles and

weapons and that if they didn’t get the fight they wanted out there they 

would bring the fight to town.”

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 135 Filed 02/10/16 Page 8 of 14
DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REVOKE PRETRIAL DETENTION 

ORDER...

Kohlmetz Steen & Hanrahan, PC

741 SW Lincoln Street

Portland, OR 97201

(503) 224-1104

This is nothing more than unreliable and unverifiable multiple level hearsay. Furthermore the 

statement that they would bring the fight to town is absolutely contradicted by the subsequent 

and peaceful conduct of the occupation itself.

What few threats of violence appear in the narrative are those that are made in response 

to what at least some of the occupiers felt at the time was an imminent threat of an armed 

response to the occupation by federal law enforcement authorities. Ammon Bundy, Jon 

Ritzheimer and the deceased Lavoy Finicum are reported to have made statements to the effect 

that they were prepared to defend themselves if federal law enforcement agents entered the 

refuge in an attempt to seize them. (i.e. paragraph 32 – Jon Ritzheimer, paragraph 41 – Ammon 

Bundy.)

The Indictment under which the government now proceeds suffers from similar vagaries. 

After reciting a boiler-plate recitation of the statutory elements of 18 U.S.C. 372 as it applies 

them to the defendant the Indictment lists seven overt acts allegedly in support of the charge. The 

first alludes to two defendants travelling to Harney County in October, 2015, to warn the Harney 

County Sheriff of ‘extreme civil unrest’ if certain, unspecified demands. The next four overt acts 

describe in general and conclusory terms the protestors arrival and presence on the MNWR. 

While their presence is described as accomplished by force, no examples of any such force are 

proffered, save the fact that some of the protesters possessed firearms, and that certain “threats” 

were made by some to resist their forceful eviction from the MNWR. The last two overt acts 

allege simply that some protestors encouraged others to participate in their activities and that 

some had traveled to Harney County with the specific intent to intimidate and coerce the people 

of Harney County.

Yet, the facts of what did and did not occur were widely and publicly available in the 

months leading up to and even during the events which transpired at MNWR. Unlike routine 

criminal endeavors, the alleged conspirators in this case took extraordinary steps to document 

what was occurring at the refuge, who was present and/or involved and the reasons why the 

protest was being undertaken. Public calls for support, media press conferences and internet 

video reporting were all being conducted from the refuge up until the government shut off access 

after the shooting of Lavoy Finicum. Dozens of individuals came and went from the refuge. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 135 Filed 02/10/16 Page 9 of 14
DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REVOKE PRETRIAL DETENTION 

ORDER...

Kohlmetz Steen & Hanrahan, PC

741 SW Lincoln Street

Portland, OR 97201

(503) 224-1104

Finally, one circumstance in Mr. Patrick’s alleged offense that is not mentioned by the 

government is that on January 27, 2016, Mr. Patrick reached out to counsel in an effort to seek 

representation as he walked off the refuge to turn himself in to authorities. While the first group 

of defendant’s made their initial appearances on January 27, 2016 I, and others at my office were 

in contact with case agents and AUSA’s in an effort to communicate to them that Mr. Patrick 

wished to peacefully turn himself in. After walking some eight miles out of the MNWR that is 

precisely what he did. He has been in custody since that time and anything that has happened or 

been said at the MNWR since his voluntary departure into police custody should not be 

attributed to him.

2) The Weight of the Evidence Against the Person.

In terms of placing Mr. Patrick at the MNWR and participating in the occupation and protest, 

the government’s proof does appear strong at this juncture. However, as the Bail Reform Act 

itself reminds us, this is in no way an abrogation of the presumption of innocence. 18 U.S.C.

3142(j). In that vein, the charge is one of Conspiracy and the Indictment (as well as the 

Complaint before it) is bereft of any evidence on the crucial element of any specific agreement 

made by Mr. Patrick to specifically accomplish the offense of Impeding a Federal Officer.

3) The History and Characteristics of the Person

Contrary to the findings made by Judge Beckerman in support of her initial detention 

Order Mr. Patrick does have known family, employment and community ties; He does have 

stable and verified residences available to him. That he has family, employment and community 

ties to the Pacific Northwest has been verified by U.S. Pretrial Services, and while not 

necessarily in the District of Oregon they are all in the Puget Sound are of Washington. Mr. 

Patrick is a 43 year old divorcee with two, young adult children. He was born in Everett, 

Washington and lived in the state of Washington until the year 2002. He graduated from the 

Snohomish County Christian School H.S. in 1990 and shortly thereafter married his high school 

sweetheart. He still has family and lifelong friends in Washington state. His Mother, Christy 

Patrick, and his sister Kelli Rippee – both interviewed by Pretrial services and both available to 

help ensure Mr. Patrick abides by any release conditions (and both present in the court room at 

his initial appearance) still reside in the area. He has been a professional roofing employee, 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 135 Filed 02/10/16 Page 10 of 14
DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REVOKE PRETRIAL DETENTION 

ORDER...

Kohlmetz Steen & Hanrahan, PC

741 SW Lincoln Street

Portland, OR 97201

(503) 224-1104

subcontractor, and the owner of a roofing contracting business since he was 17 years old. In 2002 

he moved to Bonaire Georgia to take advantage of a building boom. He owned his own roofing 

contracting business, “Super Roofers.” Mr. Patrick lost his business and his home in the recent 

great recession. Since that time he has worked sporadically as able as a roofer. Despite the 

economic downturn in 2014 he was recognized as a Red Cross Hometown Hero in Dsiaster 

Relief for his spontaneous efforts to help at least 18 people stranded in a snowstorm between 

Atlanta and Bonaire Georgia.

2 And while he recently lost an $80,000.00 a year job, he is easily 

employable.

Mr. Patrick also has a verified and stable residence available for him if he is released. His 

mother has informed Pretrial Services that he is welcome to live with her in Everett, WA. She 

owns her home free and clear and has told U.S. Pretrial that she is even willing to post a bond on 

the property if necessary. Ms. Patrick is also willing and able to assist Pretrial Services in any 

way to ensure that Mr. Patrick complies with the conditions of his release and returns to court. 

His sister’s home is also a verified potential resource and she is willing also to assist Mr. Patrick 

in meeting his release obligations.

Mr. Patrick suffers from no substance or alcohol related addictions. He does not have any 

mental health conditions that would interfere with his ability to comply with this court’s orders. 

Mr. Patrick’s criminal history is extremely limited. According to the Pretrial Services reports

available at the January 29, 2016, hearing he has one prior conviction for a minor driving offense 

and four prior arrests with no convictions. There is no indication he has ever failed to appear for 

a scheduled court appearance. 

He does have a pending felony criminal case in Houston County Georgia for Terroristic 

Threat. While the title of the offense is no doubt concerning, the Georgia terroristic threats 

statute sweeps extraordinarily broadly. It reads in relevant part;

A person commits the offense of a terroristic threat when he or she threatens to 

commit any crime of violence, to release any hazardous substance, as such term is 

defined in Code Section 12-8-92, or to burn or damage property with the purpose of 

 

2 http://www.13wmaz.com/story/news/local/warner-robins/2014/06/25/hometown-heroes/11367037/ As viewed 

2/10/2016.

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 135 Filed 02/10/16 Page 11 of 14
DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REVOKE PRETRIAL DETENTION 

ORDER...

Kohlmetz Steen & Hanrahan, PC

741 SW Lincoln Street

Portland, OR 97201

(503) 224-1104

terrorizing another or of causing the evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or 

facility of public transportation or otherwise causing serious public inconvenience or 

in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience. No person 

shall be convicted under this subsection on the uncorroborated testimony of the party

to whom the threat is communicated. Ga. Code Ann. § 16-11-37 (West)

The underlying police reports from this case read far more like a drunk and disorderly charge 

than a terroristic threats case. In essence the authorities claim that Mr. Patrick entered into the 

Warner Robins Municipal Court in an intoxicated state. After allegedly refusing an alcohol test

and becoming “loud and belligerent” he was physically taken into custody. After he was taken 

into custody law enforcement officers claim to have spoken to one witness who allegedly stated 

that earlier in the day Mr. Patrick was angry at having to access the court through a back 

alleyway due to construction and that the court was violating his Constitutional rights. The 

witness allegedly heard Mr. Patrick state that he was going to kill everyone in the courtroom 

when he got there. Mr. Patrick was not in possession of any weapons during this incident. 

Mr. Patrick is represented by counsel in this case. He has an arraignment currently 

scheduled for February 17, 2016. It is Mr. Patrick’s intent, confirmed by local counsel in 

Georgia, to enter a plea of not guilty and request a jury trial later this year. This makes sense 

given the underlying statute’s prohibition on resting a conviction on the uncorroborated 

testimony of the party to whom the threat is communicated. Mr. Patrick has a release resource in 

Georgia, a close friend, David Ballengy, who has known Mr. Patrick for approximately six years. 

They met as congregants in the River Church in Kathleen Georgia where Mr. Ballengy indicates 

Mr. Patrick was for years an active church goer. They were involved directly with the Church’s 

fundraising activities for battered women and at-risk youth. Mr. Ballengy has spoken to U.S. 

Pretrial and he confirms that he is available to assist Mr. Patrick in anyway necessary. Mr. 

Ballengy is a disabled veteran of the United States Marine Corps and shares a home in Perry, 

Georgia with his wife. Neither he nor his wife have any criminal convictions. He indicates that 

Mr. Patrick was residing with them at his home prior to returning to the Northwest and still has a 

bedroom at his home.

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 135 Filed 02/10/16 Page 12 of 14
DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REVOKE PRETRIAL DETENTION 

ORDER...

Kohlmetz Steen & Hanrahan, PC

741 SW Lincoln Street

Portland, OR 97201

(503) 224-1104

4) The Nature and Seriousness of the Danger to any Person or the Community if the 

Defendant Were Released.

In her initial Order Judge Beckerman further found that Mr. Patrick posed an unacceptable 

risk of danger because of the nature of the Offense, violent behavior, prior criminal history and 

his pending case in Georgia. The nature of the offense has been discussed at length above. To put 

the issue of violence to rest, there is simply no evidence of any violent behavior on the part of 

Mr. Patrick separate and apart from his presence at the MNWR. There is no written nor oral 

explanation of what if any risk to the community Mr. Patrick poses if released upon conditions, 

nor is there any evidence to support such a finding. The government speculates that he could “do 

it again.” If that were the standard for such proof then no one would be released pending a 

federal criminal trial.

Conclusion

At its core this remains a Class D felony charge. Far more dangerous and less-likely-to return 

defendants are released on conditions in this District every day: Defendants charged with 

horrible and personal acts of violence; Defendants with multiple prior convictions, defendants 

with severe substance abuse problems, mental health or personality deficits, drug dealers, pimps, 

sophisticated fraudsters and thieves. Individuals who routinely have engaged in a criminal 

lifestyle. Such are some of the successful candidates for conditional release in federal court.

For Mr. Patrick, the events that led to this case are now over. The points he wished to make 

have been made and at long last there is a forum within which he believes his arguments may be 

heard. He is not a danger to commit any further offenses. Whatever minimal safety risk he may 

pose is easily manageable with any number of pretrial release conditions. He has a verified 

network of support and meets every release criteria in the Bail Reform Act.

In terms of his flight risk, the notion that he – or any of these defendants for that matter might 

flee the jurisdiction of the court borders on the ludicrous. It stands in contradiction to how the 

well documented, open and public course of events that led to this Indictment unfolded. Mr. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 135 Filed 02/10/16 Page 13 of 14
DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REVOKE PRETRIAL DETENTION 

ORDER...

Kohlmetz Steen & Hanrahan, PC

741 SW Lincoln Street

Portland, OR 97201

(503) 224-1104

Patrick desires greatly to continue to participate in this case. This is in many respects a fight of 

his choosing. It is not the result of his discovery after an investigation of his clandestine 

activities. It is not something he will turn his back on. In an effort to have this matter heard he is 

absolutely willing and able to abide by conditions imposed on him by this court.

Respectfully submitted this 10th day of February, 2016.

_____________________________ 

Andrew M. Kohlmetz, OSB 955418

Attorney for Defendant Patrick

 Andrew M. Kohlmetz

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 135 Filed 02/10/16 Page 14 of 14