UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Criminal Action No. 23-69-1 (CKK) ISAAC ANTHONY THOMAS, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION (August 17, 2023)
Pending before the Court is Defendant Issac Anthony Thomas’s [39] Motion to Modify
Conditions of Release. Defendant asks the Court to allow him “to relocate his residence to
Texas” and, more specifically, requests that his supervision be transferred from the Eastern
District of Michigan to the Northern District of Texas. ECF No. 39 at 1, 4.
Defendant Thomas explains that he had to relocate to Texas “for emergency financial
reasons to avoid imminent homelessness” and “for emergency shelter.” Id. at 1. Defendant was
evicted from his home in Michigan in July. Id. Ex. B (eviction judgment); see also ECF No. 40
at 3. Although he paid the outstanding debt for his eviction, he was $80 short of being able to
redeem and continue his lease. ECF No. 39 at 2–3. As a result, he was “unable to remain in his
Michigan residence and was facing imminent homelessness;” he now states that if the Court does
not approve his move to Texas, he will “have nowhere to live,” as he is an orphan with no family
or support network in Michigan. Id. at 3. Defendant was offered the use of a place to stay in
Texas from “supportive contacts.” Id. at 3.
Defendant also explains that he lost his job in Michigan “due to people harassing his
employer… concerning the events of January 6th.” Id. He expressed concerns that he will “be
unable to stay in touch with his attorneys or the court if he had no place to live and no job to
1 keep his phone in service” in Michigan. Id. He was offered a job in the countryside to the north
of Dallas, Texas doing groundskeeping and maintenance for a company’s residential clients, as
well as use of a car from “supportive contacts” while starting up with his new employment. Id.
Due to these circumstances, Defendant Thomas made plans to travel to Texas. As is
required by the [9] Order Setting Conditions of Release, Defendant notified a Pretrial Services
Agency (“PSA”) Officer for the Eastern District of Michigan in advance of this travel outside of
that district. See ECF No. 9 at 3. Said Officer contacted PSA in the District of Columbia and
then passed along their response––that they did not object to his traveling to Texas, but that he
must obtain a court order for a permanent move. ECF No. 39 at 2; see also id. Ex. A. The
Pretrial Services Officer in the District of Columbia said that this “must be done prior to him
moving.” Id. Ex. A.
PSA for the District of Columbia indicates that they were informed on July 17, 2023 that
Defendant Thomas was being evicted at the end of the month. ECF No. 40 at 3. On July 27,
Defendant was given permission to travel to Texas to inspect the residence offered to him. Id.;
see also ECF No. 39 at 3. He indicated that he was only planning on staying until August 2,
2023. ECF No. 40 at 3. However, on August 1, 2023, the Defendant notified his supervising
officer that he would not be making it back to Michigan by August 2 and instead that he would
provide an update by August 4. Id. Defendant did not provide an update as promised. Id. On
August 5, Defendant notified his supervising officer that his attorney filed a motion for him to
move to Texas. Id. at 3. The Motion indicates that “the move is not a temporary visit but
contemplated to be a permanent relocation.” ECF No. 39 at 2. As PSA sees it, “[t]he
[D]efendant moved to Texas without prior approval from the Court or from PSA.” ECF No. 40
at 3. The Government adds that “[t]he defendant [] told his supervising officer that he would
2 only return if the Court denied his motion to move,” which “exceeded the bounds of the
permission he received to leave Michigan.” ECF No. 41 at 4. To the Court’s knowledge,
Defendant is currently located in Texas.
The Government filed a [41] Response to Defendant’s [39] Motion opposing the
requested relief. In their Response, the Government highlights a lack of detail regarding
Defendant Thomas’s potential move. See ECF No. 41 at 7–8. On July 24, 2023, prior to the
Defendant’s filing of the pending [39] Motion, the Government was contacted regarding the
Defendant’s intent to file such a motion. Id. at 2. The Government informed Defense counsel
that they needed additional information about the details of Defendant Thomas’s job offer,
employer, and proposed residence; a phone conference to discuss this information was scheduled
but did not occur. ECF No. 41 at 2–3. Defendant has not provided any additional detail
regarding the job “or the identity or motivation of the individual that provided the opportunity,”
including whether he had a relationship with the individual prior to January 6, 2021. Id. at 8; see
generally ECF No. 39. He has also not provided information as to whether the “supportive
contacts” offering him use of a residence and car are family, close friends, or otherwise. ECF
No. 41 at 8; see generally ECF No. 39.
The Government also points out what they believe to be “troubling revelations from the
defendant’s filing.” ECF No. 41 at 3. The summons and complaint in Defendant’s landlord-
tenant case was filed in April 2023 and the judgment was entered by consent on June 21, 2023,
which was a week and a half prior to the last hearing held before this Court on July 3, 2023. Id.
(citing ECF No. 39 Ex. B). However, Defendant Thomas did not mention the eviction at that
hearing. Instead, having filed the [39] Motion over one month later, on August 5, 2023––and,
the Government notes, many months after the landlord-tenant case was initially filed––
3 Defendant now presents the issue as an “emergency.” Id.
The Government also explains that Defendant’s permission to visit Texas until August 2
was important because Defendant had a court date in Michigan’s 67th District Court on August
8, 2023 related to the traffic citation he received on May 31, 2023. Id. at 4. This traffic citation
had given rise to the Government’s [33] Motion to Revoke Release Order1 for operating a
vehicle without insurance in violation of Michigan law. Id. On August 8, 2023, the morning of
the scheduled hearing, as Defendant Thomas was still in Texas, he called the clerk of the court in
Michigan approximately fifty to one hundred times requesting that his in-person hearing be
changed to a Zoom hearing. Id. at 4–5. The clerk called the Burton City Police Department,
resulting in a misdemeanor complaint being filed against him alleging that he “did threaten
physical harm or damage to any person or property or used any vulgar, indecent, obscene, or
offensive language or suggested any lewd or lascivious act.” Id. at 5; see also id. Ex A. The
penalty for this violation is a maximum possible penalty of ninety days incarceration. Id. at 5.
As a result of these calls, the August 8 hearing date was moved to August 9, but Defendant still
failed to appear, resulting in a default judgment being entered against him. Id. Among other
penalties, his driver’s license has been suspended and will remain so until he complies with the
default judgment. Id. The misdemeanor case remains pending.
Next, the Government argues that Defendant “continues to fail to appreciate the
seriousness of his conduct on January 6, 2021.” Id. at 6. Although Defendant complains of
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Criminal Action No. 23-69-1 (CKK) ISAAC ANTHONY THOMAS, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION (August 17, 2023)
Pending before the Court is Defendant Issac Anthony Thomas’s [39] Motion to Modify
Conditions of Release. Defendant asks the Court to allow him “to relocate his residence to
Texas” and, more specifically, requests that his supervision be transferred from the Eastern
District of Michigan to the Northern District of Texas. ECF No. 39 at 1, 4.
Defendant Thomas explains that he had to relocate to Texas “for emergency financial
reasons to avoid imminent homelessness” and “for emergency shelter.” Id. at 1. Defendant was
evicted from his home in Michigan in July. Id. Ex. B (eviction judgment); see also ECF No. 40
at 3. Although he paid the outstanding debt for his eviction, he was $80 short of being able to
redeem and continue his lease. ECF No. 39 at 2–3. As a result, he was “unable to remain in his
Michigan residence and was facing imminent homelessness;” he now states that if the Court does
not approve his move to Texas, he will “have nowhere to live,” as he is an orphan with no family
or support network in Michigan. Id. at 3. Defendant was offered the use of a place to stay in
Texas from “supportive contacts.” Id. at 3.
Defendant also explains that he lost his job in Michigan “due to people harassing his
employer… concerning the events of January 6th.” Id. He expressed concerns that he will “be
unable to stay in touch with his attorneys or the court if he had no place to live and no job to
1 keep his phone in service” in Michigan. Id. He was offered a job in the countryside to the north
of Dallas, Texas doing groundskeeping and maintenance for a company’s residential clients, as
well as use of a car from “supportive contacts” while starting up with his new employment. Id.
Due to these circumstances, Defendant Thomas made plans to travel to Texas. As is
required by the [9] Order Setting Conditions of Release, Defendant notified a Pretrial Services
Agency (“PSA”) Officer for the Eastern District of Michigan in advance of this travel outside of
that district. See ECF No. 9 at 3. Said Officer contacted PSA in the District of Columbia and
then passed along their response––that they did not object to his traveling to Texas, but that he
must obtain a court order for a permanent move. ECF No. 39 at 2; see also id. Ex. A. The
Pretrial Services Officer in the District of Columbia said that this “must be done prior to him
moving.” Id. Ex. A.
PSA for the District of Columbia indicates that they were informed on July 17, 2023 that
Defendant Thomas was being evicted at the end of the month. ECF No. 40 at 3. On July 27,
Defendant was given permission to travel to Texas to inspect the residence offered to him. Id.;
see also ECF No. 39 at 3. He indicated that he was only planning on staying until August 2,
2023. ECF No. 40 at 3. However, on August 1, 2023, the Defendant notified his supervising
officer that he would not be making it back to Michigan by August 2 and instead that he would
provide an update by August 4. Id. Defendant did not provide an update as promised. Id. On
August 5, Defendant notified his supervising officer that his attorney filed a motion for him to
move to Texas. Id. at 3. The Motion indicates that “the move is not a temporary visit but
contemplated to be a permanent relocation.” ECF No. 39 at 2. As PSA sees it, “[t]he
[D]efendant moved to Texas without prior approval from the Court or from PSA.” ECF No. 40
at 3. The Government adds that “[t]he defendant [] told his supervising officer that he would
2 only return if the Court denied his motion to move,” which “exceeded the bounds of the
permission he received to leave Michigan.” ECF No. 41 at 4. To the Court’s knowledge,
Defendant is currently located in Texas.
The Government filed a [41] Response to Defendant’s [39] Motion opposing the
requested relief. In their Response, the Government highlights a lack of detail regarding
Defendant Thomas’s potential move. See ECF No. 41 at 7–8. On July 24, 2023, prior to the
Defendant’s filing of the pending [39] Motion, the Government was contacted regarding the
Defendant’s intent to file such a motion. Id. at 2. The Government informed Defense counsel
that they needed additional information about the details of Defendant Thomas’s job offer,
employer, and proposed residence; a phone conference to discuss this information was scheduled
but did not occur. ECF No. 41 at 2–3. Defendant has not provided any additional detail
regarding the job “or the identity or motivation of the individual that provided the opportunity,”
including whether he had a relationship with the individual prior to January 6, 2021. Id. at 8; see
generally ECF No. 39. He has also not provided information as to whether the “supportive
contacts” offering him use of a residence and car are family, close friends, or otherwise. ECF
No. 41 at 8; see generally ECF No. 39.
The Government also points out what they believe to be “troubling revelations from the
defendant’s filing.” ECF No. 41 at 3. The summons and complaint in Defendant’s landlord-
tenant case was filed in April 2023 and the judgment was entered by consent on June 21, 2023,
which was a week and a half prior to the last hearing held before this Court on July 3, 2023. Id.
(citing ECF No. 39 Ex. B). However, Defendant Thomas did not mention the eviction at that
hearing. Instead, having filed the [39] Motion over one month later, on August 5, 2023––and,
the Government notes, many months after the landlord-tenant case was initially filed––
3 Defendant now presents the issue as an “emergency.” Id.
The Government also explains that Defendant’s permission to visit Texas until August 2
was important because Defendant had a court date in Michigan’s 67th District Court on August
8, 2023 related to the traffic citation he received on May 31, 2023. Id. at 4. This traffic citation
had given rise to the Government’s [33] Motion to Revoke Release Order1 for operating a
vehicle without insurance in violation of Michigan law. Id. On August 8, 2023, the morning of
the scheduled hearing, as Defendant Thomas was still in Texas, he called the clerk of the court in
Michigan approximately fifty to one hundred times requesting that his in-person hearing be
changed to a Zoom hearing. Id. at 4–5. The clerk called the Burton City Police Department,
resulting in a misdemeanor complaint being filed against him alleging that he “did threaten
physical harm or damage to any person or property or used any vulgar, indecent, obscene, or
offensive language or suggested any lewd or lascivious act.” Id. at 5; see also id. Ex A. The
penalty for this violation is a maximum possible penalty of ninety days incarceration. Id. at 5.
As a result of these calls, the August 8 hearing date was moved to August 9, but Defendant still
failed to appear, resulting in a default judgment being entered against him. Id. Among other
penalties, his driver’s license has been suspended and will remain so until he complies with the
default judgment. Id. The misdemeanor case remains pending.
Next, the Government argues that Defendant “continues to fail to appreciate the
seriousness of his conduct on January 6, 2021.” Id. at 6. Although Defendant complains of
harassment and doxxing experienced as a result of his criminal charge, see ECF No. 39 at 3, he
continues to raise money for his legal defense online and, just a few months ago, gave a ninety-
minute interview describing his participation in the insurrection, see ECF No. 40 at 6–7.
1 The Court notes that the [33] Motion remains pending before this Court; the Court will discuss it further at the hearing scheduled for August 18, 2023. 4 Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the Government emphasizes Defendant Thomas’s
various violations of his conditions of release, ECF No. 41 at 1, which are also detailed in the
most recent Pretrial Violation Report, see ECF No. 40. Defendant has failed to complete an
intake assessment with a mental health facility as instructed, failed to report contacts with law
enforcement to his supervising officer, and tested positive for marijuana numerous times. ECF
No. 40 at 2–4. He has been issued a warrant for Threats by Computer, Telephone, or Other
Communication Device, as was described above. Id. at 3–4. As also mentioned above, there is a
pending [33] Motion to Revoke Release Order for operating a vehicle without insurance in
violation of Michigan law, which also violates his [9] Conditions of Release. Throughout
Defendant Thomas’s pretrial release, he has failed to provide required information to PSA and
the Court; the Government argues that Defendant’s “conduct shows a profound
misunderstanding of the assurance he must provide to this Court that he will not violate his
conditions of release.” ECF No. 41 at 3. PSA has been unable to confirm licensing for a
medical marijuana facility at which Defendant obtains marijuana nor the dosage he receives,
ECF No. 40 at 3, which was ordered by the Court, see Minute Order, June 16, 2023. They have
also been unable to verify information, including a medical marijuana card, facility, and doctor
in Texas. ECF No. 40 at 3. As a result, PSA is recommending removal from the program.2 Id.
at 4. The Government adds that as Defendant is unable to comply with pretrial release orders in
the jurisdiction he was born and raised, “[i]t is unlikely he will be able to succeed in a
completely new environment in Texas.” ECF No. 41 at 5. They also point to issues that have
already arisen in Texas related to a Court-ordered mental health assessment. See id. Defendant
reported to PSA that he completed the assessment and no recommendations were made;
2 Again, the pending [33] Motion will be discussed further at the August 18, 2023 hearing. 5 however, the social worker that worked with Defendant told PSA that a full biopsychosocial
assessment was not completed and that she provided him with a referral for outpatient treatment,
but he denied her referral. ECF No. 40 at 3.
The Court has considered Defendant Thomas’s track record relating to his conditions of
release, his behavior and understanding––or lack thereof––the seriousness of the charges against
him and the need to comply with his conditions, the Government’s [41] Opposition, and PSA’s
[40] Report condemning his move to Texas, as well as their recommendation for program
removal. For these reasons, and particularly in light of Defendant Thomas’s failure to conform
with his current pretrial release conditions, the Court DENIES Defendant Thomas’s [39] Motion
to Modify Conditions of Release. Defendant remains subject to the [9] Order Setting Conditions
of Release until further Order.
An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.
/s/ COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY United States District Judge