United States v. Kaetz

UNITED STATES v. WILLIAM F. KAETZ, Defendant.

2:20-CR-1090-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

January 4, 2021

MEMORANDUM ORDER

J. Nicholas Ranjan, United States District Judge¹

Following a detention hearing, Chief Magistrate Judge Eddy ordered Defendant William Kaetz to be detained pending trial. Mr. Kaetz now moves the Court to reconsider the detention order and to grant him pretrial release. ECF 1. After carefully considering the parties' briefs and submissions, the detention-hearing transcript, and the relevant legal authorities, the Court will deny Mr. Kaetz's motion.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Kaetz is charged with two counts via criminal complaint: (1) interstate communications containing threats to injure, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c); and (2) threats to assault and murder a United States judge, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B). MJ ECF 1. On October 26, 2020, following a combined preliminary and detention hearing that same day, Chief Magistrate Judge Eddy found probable cause that Mr. Kaetz committed the charged offenses. MJ ECF 13.

During the October 26, 2020, combined preliminary and detention hearing, the government called Paul Safier as its sole witness. MJ ECF 20, p. 5. Inspector Safieris a senior inspector with the United States Marshals Service in the District of New Jersey, having served with the U.S. Marshals Service for about 29 years. Id. His primary responsibility is to conduct investigations and threat assessments that concern Marshals Service-protected persons and facilities, which include federal judges. Id. at pp. 5-6. Inspector Safier testified as follows.

In September 2020, Inspector Safier began investigating Mr. Kaetz. Id. at p. 7. According to Inspector Safier, Mr. Kaetz began reaching out to a federal judge in New Jersey ("Judge 1"),² before whom Mr. Kaetz had at least three civil actions pending. Id. at pp. 6-7. While Mr. Kaetz initially filed documents electronically in his cases, on September 24, 2020, Mr. Kaetz mailed several court documents (in an envelope bearing Mr. Kaetz's return address) to Judge 1's home address. Id. at pp. 7-9. That same day, to assess Mr. Kaetz, deputy marshals interviewed Mr. Kaetz at his home. Id. at p. 9. During the interview, Mr. Kaetz stated that he learned Judge 1's home address through a paid Internet-based search service. Id. at p. 10.

On September 30, 2020, the U.S. Marshals Service learned that Mr. Kaetz had also left a voicemail message on Judge 1's Chamber's message service. Id. at p. 10. While the marshals learned of this on September 30, Mr. Kaetz had actually left the voicemail on September 18, 2020 (i.e., six days before his mailed documents arrived at Judge 1's home). Id. In this voicemail, Mr. Kaetz identified himself and expressed his displeasure with Judge 1's actions in his cases before Judge 1. Id. at p. 11. Because the marshals had just interviewed Mr. Kaetz on September 24, the marshalsdid not interview him again when they learned of the voicemail on September 30. Id. at p. 36.

On October 18, 2020, around 5:00 a.m., Mr. Kaetz emailed Judge 1's personal email address. Id. at p. 11-12, 15. The email was also sent to several other recipients, including a U.S. Marshal's general email address. Id. at p. 13. Mr. Kaetz's email stated:

Hello, U.S. Marshals. I filed this case a long time ago. It is to enforce Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution. [Judge 1] has been avoiding and stonewalling the case. It is of national importance. [Judge 1] is a traitor and that has a death sentence. I would rather use the pen than the sword, but as this push for communism becomes all too real there will come a time to take down those people that fail to do their job to be loyal to this nation and that will be people like the traitor [Judge 1]. I have a motion for [Judge 1's] recusal, motions to reopen the case as per [Judge 1's] order, motions to expedite the case, and I will be filing a mandamus. I will try my best not to harm the traitor [Judge 1] but, like I said, [Judge 1] is a traitor and needs to be dealt with. You have an obligation to remove [Judge 1]. Read the court documents. The traitor [Judge 1] lives at, [correct address redacted]. Stop by and ask [Judge 1] why [Judge 1] is stonewalling my case. [Judge 1's] home address will become public knowledge very soon, and God knows who has a grievance and what will happen after that. You want to protect the traitor [Judge 1], enforce the Constitution. You come after me for writing this email will prove it's time to take up arms and civil war is inevitable. Remember your oath of office. This case must be opened and move forward now. This needs to be done now before the vote.

Id. at pp. 14-15. Mr. Kaetz signed the email, and included some attachments of his court documents. Id. at p. 15; ECF 1, p. 6.

Later that day, Mr. Kaetz also posted two social media posts relating to Judge 1. Id. at p. 18. On Twitter, Mr. Kaetz posted: ". . . Judge 1 is stonewalling [my] case. Traitor [Judge 1] lives at, [correct address redacted]. Let [Judge 1] feel your angerfor [Judge 1's] violation of [Judge 1's] oath of office." Id. at p. 19. And on Facebook, Mr. Kaetz posted: ". . . [Judge 1] has been avoiding and stonewalling [my] case. It is of national importance. The traitor [Judge 1] lives at, [correct address redacted]. Please send [Judge 1] a message on how you feel about [Judge 1's] failure to protect your rights and violate [Judge 1's] oath of office." Id. at p. 21. In these social media posts, Mr. Kaetz posted Judge 1's actual home address. Id.

Because of his email and posts on October 18, Mr. Kaetz was arrested that same day. Id. at p. 22. Inspector Safier testified that, during Mr. Kaetz's arrest, Mr. Kaetz attempted to evade arrest, resulting in Mr. Kaetz being tased. Id. at p. 23. After arriving at the detention facility, Mr. Kaetz stated that he may have been drunk when he sent the October 18 email. Id.

On October 26, 2020, before Mr. Kaetz's combined preliminary and detention hearing, the FBI executed a search warrant at Mr. Kaetz's home. Id. at p. 29. Inside the home (where Mr. Kaetz lived with his sister and daughter), authorities found drug paraphernalia, a bolt-action rifle, and ammunition. Id. at p. 29; ECF 4-3. Relevant to the rifle and ammunition, Mr. Kaetz has a prior felony conviction arising from him mailing a death threat to an IRS official in 2002 (discussed below). Id. at pp. 23-24. Additionally, law enforcement also discovered that Mr. Kaetz in 2019 had applied for a firearms permit, which was denied. Id. at p. 25.

After Inspector Safier concluded his testimony, the government also proffered the information in the criminal complaint. Id. at p. 29; MJ ECF 1.

Following Inspector Safier's testimony, Mr. Kaetz incorporated the pretrial services report from the New Jersey Probation Office and called Catherine Kaetz, Mr. Kaetz's 28-year old daughter, to testify. MJ ECF 20, pp. 48-56. Ms. Kaetz was presented as Mr. Kaetz's proposed third-party custodian should he be released on bond. Ms. Kaetz testified that she lives with her father, and is currently unemployed; she otherwise works on a temporary or per diem basis for her father's constructionbusiness. Id. at pp. 48-53. She further testified that she leaves the house "a lot" and "really enjoy[s]" visiting her mom, who lives two hours from Mr. Kaetz's home. Id. at pp. 53-54. Ms. Kaetz also testified about her own civil lawsuit, in which Mr. Kaetz is a co-plaintiff, that is pending before Judge 1. Id. at p. 55. She stated that she's "a little frustrated" with Judge 1's actions in the case. Id. at pp. 55-56.

After Ms. Kaetz finished her testimony, Chief Magistrate Judge Eddy concluded that pretrial detention was warranted, finding "by clear and convincing evidence, that no conditions will reasonably ensure the safety of the community." Id. at p. 63.³ As a result, Chief Magistrate Judge Eddy ordered Mr. Kaetz to be detained pending trial. MJ ECF 15.

Mr. Kaetz now moves this Court to reconsider and vacate the detention order and grant him pretrial release. ECF 1, 7. The government opposes his motion. ECF 4. The parties have filed briefs and other materials, which the Court has reviewed. The Court has also reviewed the detention-hearing transcript and record. The matter is now ready for disposition.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under the Bail Reform Act, "If a person is ordered detained by a magistrate judge . . . the person may file, with the court having original jurisdiction over the offense, a motion for revocation or amendment of the order." 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b). The district court reviews the magistrate judge's detention order de novo. United States v. Delker, 757 F.2d 1390, 1394 (3d Cir. 1985). If the record was fully developed before the magistrate judge, "and the parties have not proffered any additional evidence which would materially alter the decision of the Magistrate Judge . . . the [District] Court will rule on the record established before the Magistrate Judge." United States v. Bastianelli, No. 17-305, 2018 WL 1015269, at *4 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 22, 2018). Thedistrict court "is not required to hold a new evidentiary hearing." United States v. Harry, No. 19-246, 2020 WL 1933990, at *2 (D. N.J. April 22, 2020) (citation omitted); see also United States v. Talbert, No. 20-266, 2020 WL 6048788, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 13, 2020) ("[No] additional or independent evidentiary hearing [is required] by the district court, and the court may incorporate the transcript of the proceeding before the magistrate judge, including any admitted exhibits." (citation omitted)). "The rules concerning admissibility of evidence in criminal trials do not apply to the presentation and consideration of information at the [detention] hearing." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2)(B).

A court "shall order the detention of a person" pending trial if the court determines that "no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as...