All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 24, 2023 - Owen Shroyer Live
43:44
Owen Shroyer And Norm Pattis Make Final Statements Before Owen’s Incarnation
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Owen Schreuer here with my attorney Norm Pattis, and I am mere hours away from becoming a prisoner in the United States of America.
Now, this is a very sensitive subject matter because, first of all, for me, I am a First Amendment activist.
I think my lawyer here too would tell you he's a firm believer in the First Amendment.
But this is also very sensitive because we're dealing with what I view is extreme corruption in the White House and in the Justice Department.
And so it makes talking about these matters dangerous, quite frankly.
And I don't want to go too far into that because I feel like right now my head is in a legal vice.
And so what we're gonna do here is I'm gonna be making final statements before I go in here with my attorney Norm Pattis, just to let people know where we're at in the legal process right now, how we got to this point, and why I feel I'm being politically persecuted.
And that is truly how I feel.
And I believe we have enough evidence given the circumstances that we're in, as well as other cases that beyond a reasonable doubt for me, I believe this is political persecution.
Now, my lawyer might disagree with that.
He's got a lot of experience in courtrooms and in the legal field, certainly more than I have, but I can't help but land on that conclusion, and I'm going to explain why.
Now, before I get into that and how we got to this point and why I believe beyond a reasonable doubt I'm being politically persecuted, I wanted to let my attorney just give you an update on where we stand legally, how we got to this point, and what comes next, Norm Pattis.
Thanks, Owen.
So, you know, those of you who followed the saga don't need to hear all of this, but some of the this may be new to some of you, so I'm going to spend a few minutes breaking it down from the beginning to the end.
And I want to correct a couple misconceptions that have been reported in the mainstream media.
Owen is a First Amendment activist.
He's been part of the InfoWars family for a number of years.
That's how I met him in his association with Alex Jones.
And one thing that I have come to respect and admire and appreciate about Alex and Owen is their fearness, fearless rather attack on hypocrisy and seeking to expose undercurrents in American life that most of us feel, but most of us don't get a chance to read or hear about.
I'm talking about globalism and so forth.
So Owen appeared at a hearing, a House impeachment hearing.
You'll recall our former president Donald Trump, who was never given a chance to govern, but was attacked by the House for four consecutive years in a sort of never Trump moment, where a couple of impeachments.
In the first impeachment proceeding, Owen went to cover the proceedings in the House, and it was they were being conducted by by Jerry Nadler of New York.
And Owen disrupted the proceedings.
He approached, he he basically talked about his feelings about the process and was removed by Capitol Police officers, arrested and charged.
Those cases were handled in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, a low-level criminal court.
We negotiated a plea agreement for that.
Um and that plea agreement required that Owen do some community service.
Um and in exchange, uh the charge against him would be dismissed.
It was what's called the deferred prosecution agreement.
This took place during the COVID um COVID-topia shutdown of the country.
It was difficult for Owen to find a place to do his community service, but he did.
And so once he did the community service, we wrote to federal prosecutors and said about that dismissal.
But notice the timeline.
By the time we got the letter to federal prosecutors, January 6 had come and gone.
And so once we sent them a letter saying we've done our part, now do yours, what about that dismissal?
They wrote back and said, no, no, no.
Owen is now under investigation for his role in January 6th.
And what's more, he's two hours short on the community service.
Um, it turns out there was a mathematical error in the paperwork.
It was corrected.
Um, we sent that back to prosecutors.
They ignored us.
We filed a motion to dismiss the underlying case as to Mr. Nadler and his committee on the grounds that the prosecution was vindictive.
Owen had fulfilled his part of the contract.
He wanted the government to honor theirs.
The case got tabled, um, and the court wouldn't schedule the motion for a hearing.
In the meantime, federal prosecutors began to investigate people in the January 6th event.
I'll call it a riot.
Owen's name surfaced.
He was arrested in August of that year.
In the course of working that case out, we we gave federal prosecutors voluntarily access to Owen's phones because we knew they contained evidence of no crime.
They were completely exonerating.
And Owen sat down to speak with federal prosecutors in a so-called proffer session.
He waived his right to remain silent and agreed to be truthful to them in response to the questions they posed to him.
What they learned is he was a working journalist, outraged by the status of the country, who believed for good reason that the elections in 2020 were infirm or had been stolen and had participated in protests to stop the steal.
Nobody ever suggested that Owen was anything less than truthful with prosecutors in those proffer sessions or that one proffer session.
Had they done so, he would have been prosecuted for giving a false statement.
Owen was never a cooperator against anyone else.
He didn't rat out on anyone because there was nothing to rat out.
Ordinary people got angry and did what the First Amendment permits them to do.
They peacefully assembled, they petitioned for the redress of grievances, and they spoke out.
On that day, the crowd erupted, and a riot did take place, and some people did behave violently.
Owen wasn't among them.
Owen was with a group of people who tried to deter people from entering the Capitol grounds.
And for that, he was arrested.
He was arrested and charged effectively with trespass.
And we hadn't a choice to make.
Could we go to trial or would we enter a plea agreement?
We entered a plea agreement because it was understood that the prosecution was going to give Mr. Schreuer the benefit of his cooperation, the benefit of their free access to his telephones, the benefit of the doubt.
We were stunned when we read the government's sentencing memo.
Because what the government sentencing memo did was charge, was asked the judge rather to consider Owen a criminal worthy of incarceration because of his speech, because he purveyed quote unquote disinformation, because on the days before January 6, 2021, he encouraged people to rally.
Because he was a patriot who used such chance as 1776, death to tyrants, because he did those things on the days before January 6th, and on January 6th itself, the prosecutors concluded he needed to be punished.
He needed to be deterred.
A message needed to be sent out to people to do what?
Not to trespass?
No.
Not to engage in the form of speech that he engaged in.
What's more, prosecutors contended that because after January 6th he expressed no remorse for his trespass that day, he was also deemed worthy of incarceration.
We pled with the judge that his speech used on January 6th, his speech before January 6th, his speech after January 6th was all protected speech.
He was charged with mere trespass, appearing at a place that he shouldn't have been and remaining there when he had no right to do so.
His speech was not part of the offense.
But prosecutors insisted otherwise, and Judge Timothy J. Kelly of the United States District Court in the District of Columbia agreed.
Now, federal prosecutors asked for 120 days.
We asked for none.
The judge split the babies.
He's got a nickname now in D.C. called Halfway Kelly.
The government always asks for a lot.
He usually gives the government about half of what they're looking for.
So Halfway Kelly gave Owen 60 days.
We asked the judge to leave Owen out of jail, not to require him to go out of prison until we could have an appellate court review the decision.
Judge Kelly said no.
So we filed an emergency application in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals last night around 6-7 o'clock.
They said no.
So before 2 p.m. Central time today, Owen Schreuer has to report to federal prison, whereas he is expected to serve up to 60 days in prison.
And the crime that he committed, the crime to which he pled guilty was trespassed.
But what he's being sentenced for is his speech.
And to my mind, this is the first case in the United States history where a trespassory offense was enhanced.
The consequences were enhanced because of a person's protected political speech.
And we're going to take this case all the way to the Supreme Court.
I had hoped that Owen would be free while we did this, but it turns out he'll have to serve his sentence.
And by the time he's released, we'll still be litigating it.
But we're going to be counting on your support over this because it's not Owen we're fighting for, it's you we're fighting for.
What we're fighting for is the right of ordinary Americans to speak up when they're angry, to speak out when they're when they're and and and to when they're frankly pissed off to go to the Capitol to protest.
If somebody engages in unlawful conduct, fine, um punish them.
But don't punish a person because of what they said or what they thought.
We've not had thought crimes to date in the United States.
But Owen Troyer is inmate number 0001 in the new era of thought crimes.
And we will it's a terrifying moment in American history.
Owen, thank you very much for having me come down to be with you today.
It's a grim day.
I'll drive with you to the prison soon.
But some part of my heart will disappear when you're locked up because the America that I grew up in, the America in which it was uh free in which people were free to dissent, free even to engage in violent speech as long as they were abstract calls from violence at some future date.
That's the America I was trained on in law school.
That's the America I'd fought for for decades, and that's the America that sometime before two o'clock central time will die a little bit as the door closes behind you.
And that's why this case is so important, and that's why we are taking it to the Supreme Court, and you can help me in my legal defense by going to Defend Owen.com.
And I want to get more into the ins and outs of what we're talking about here in specifics, because you say, Well, wait a second, how can this be a speech crime?
How can this be a thought crime?
Well, we'll read you the government documents, a sentencing memo, and the judge's response, and I'll show you in their exact quotes, but I want to re-emphasize two things just to make it clear.
If the country were not shut down in 2020 because of COVID-19, I'm likely not dealing with any of this because I would have finished my deferred sentencing, completed my probation, and completed my community service hours.
I mean, Norm, I don't even think it's fair to say that.
I think it's 100% accurate to say that if I would have been allowed access to finish my probation in the time allotted, then I'm likely not even dealing with any of this right now.
I think that's fair.
I mean, one of the things the government argued is, well, of course, in their opening sentencing memo, they pretended you hadn't completed the community community service.
The mainstream media is reporting that we're getting taunted online.
Oh, he didn't complete community service, he should go to jail.
He did.
It's just not true.
You can't believe everything you read in the mainstream media.
Take a look at the documents.
Even the government backed down when we presented them with emails we sent to the government proving that Owen had completed his community service.
Had they not had that hook over him, I doubt very seriously he would even have been charged for his role on January 6th.
No one else that he was with that day has been, because while they may arguably have been on government property without authorization, what they were trying to do was to send the crowd away to prevent violence.
Um because this this violent narrative is exactly what the left wanted, and it's been used now to criminalize dissent.
I suspect many of you watching this are afraid to go to a protest now, or maybe even afraid to speak out, or maybe even afraid to watch or respond to this view for fear that you might be picked up by some algorithm somewhere, and that the state may knock on your door and say, What do you really think about Joe Biden?
Don't be afraid.
Fear divides, fear conquered.
This country was founded on dissent, the Bill of Right protects your right to speak out, and notwithstanding the dark day that we endured today, there's hope for a brighter tomorrow, so long as people like Owen remain committed to speaking out.
Well, and you know, the irony of all this too, Norm, is that actually, considering the deferred sentencing, I actually went above and beyond.
I've spent more time on probation than I was supposed to on good behavior.
And I actually did more community service hours Than I was supposed to do.
I made a clerical error, as he pointed out, a mathematical error in my paperwork, and I said, Hey Norm, I actually did it, but I just filed wrong, and we just agreed, you know what?
Just go do more.
Just go do the extra hours so there's no doubt about it.
Just get it done, and everything will be taken care of.
And it was stunning when we found out that no, they weren't going to accept that.
So I actually did longer on probation than I was supposed to, and more community service hours.
Let's talk about that for a minute, because what that meant while Owen was free, um, is that there was a knock on the door.
It was the government.
They had a right to enter his home.
They had a right to superintend what he did.
They placed conditions on how he lived.
His right to possess firearms was limited, including his right to defend himself, and you acquire lots of haters in this sort of work.
And there were concerns Owen had about his ability to protect himself from some of them.
He lived under federal supervision for years.
And the government at sentencing pretended that he was free and that it counted for nothing.
So I want to get into some of the specifics now, why this was such a shocking thing.
And I want to first go back to the sentencing memo and read some of these quotes.
That again, they say this isn't about speech.
That's what they want to argue, and it was it was Twilight Zone moments when we're sitting in the courtroom.
And I don't know if we ever got that transcription.
We did.
I sent it to Rob today, in fact, this morning.
I didn't realize you hadn't received it.
So Rob should have it too.
So we should we're we'll publish that transcription at InfoWars.com because I'm telling you it was Twilight Zone stuff where the prosecutors get up there and say, This isn't about Schreuer's speech, but here's what he said.
This isn't a First Amendment case, but this is what he said.
And so it's all over here.
I mean, I'm just gonna read from some quotes.
Schreuer spread election disinformation.
Again, this is the sentencing memo where they argued for a hundred and twenty days.
Their opening sentence.
First sentence.
What does that have to do with trespassing?
Violent rhetoric.
What violent rhetoric?
Death to tyrants?
I guess that's the only violent rhetoric.
And here's an ironic one.
Shreuer precisely warned in November 2020 that if Biden became president, it's not going to be a million peaceful marchers in D.C. Well, I was right.
I was right about that.
That wasn't a violent threat.
I go on air and I make political predictions with my foresight.
I wish Nancy Pelosi and the Capitol Police had listened, maybe we wouldn't have had this problem.
Shreuer took to a megaphone.
Again, speech.
Here's another one that they, I guess this is the violent rhetoric they're talking about.
We declare death to tyranny, death to tyrants.
Okay, so I guess that's the violent rhetoric.
Here they're quoting me saying 1776.
1776 quoted as worthy of a hundred and twenty days of incarceration.
For saying 1776.
By the way, death to tyrants, I believe that's on the Virginia state flag.
Am I correct about that?
I believe it is.
That's what I thought.
Now, now going back to the deferred prosecution, and and I I really hate going back to this, but again, it's important.
There's a quote in here that I have highlighted and I want to show, with intent.
Okay.
With intent.
I was not banned from Washington, D.C., though the government did want to do that.
They did.
And in the initial case, the government said, look, we in the in the Nadler impeachment disruption, where Owen did disrupt that hearing to express his opinions of it.
Prosecutors wanted him to agree not to come back to the Capitol.
And I said, How can you do that?
Well, that's an unlawful restriction.
What's more, he's a journalist, and his ability to make a living depends on his ability to cover events in the Capitol.
So the agreement was tweaked to say that he couldn't come back with the intent to disrupt.
And that's what it says, with the intent to disrupt.
Now, we didn't want to disrupt what was going on inside the Capitol on January 6th.
We wanted that to go on.
We wanted there to be a second review of was the law applied correctly, whether the laws that were adjusted for that election, did they go through the proper protocols?
We weren't trying to disrupt what was going on at the Capitol that day.
We were in support of what was going on at the Capitol that day.
The disruption of it completely destroyed what we were doing.
So no, I was not banned from the Capitol.
I did not violate my deferred sentence.
I did complete my community service.
And I and what's upsetting is we never argued this because we didn't expect to.
We this was supposed to be dropped as part of the plea agreement.
So then they bring it up again in this case, even though this wasn't even supposed to be part of the case.
So there's a lot of having their cake and eating it too from the government in regards to this.
Again, here they say I had not completed my community service.
I had.
I'd done more, actually.
Now you get into the subsection.
Subsection one, Schreuer's rhetoric in advance to January 6th.
Rhetoric.
That's speech.
Okay?
That's speech.
And mind you, what's significant about this is that sometimes if if Owen had been charged with seditious conspiracy, for example, as some of the Proud Boys were, the government offered prior pre-January 6th speech to show their intent that day, that the speech somehow shed light on their state of mind on the day in question.
Owen was never charged with a conspiracy.
What he said prior to January 6th was simply not relevant.
And so what the government did is they highlighted his unpopular speech, classified it as misinformation and violent rhetoric, and said to the judge, see, see, see, see, put him away.
He trespassed.
It's a non-sequitur.
One doesn't follow the other.
And you have to wonder, too, how many other people are going to get the same charge that I got?
A million and a half?
Or is that too obvious for the U.S. government?
Is that too much of a showing of their hand that they won't go arrest a million people that were on the grounds that day?
But since we're in the Schreuer's rhetoric section of this, even though they say this isn't about speech, but then their section says Schreuer's rhetoric.
Here's some of my rhetoric that they found reprehensible.
Schreuer yelled, we are going to restore and we are going to save the Republic.
And all these great Americans are going to be the ones to do it.
They they quoted me saying that in this sentencing memo.
They also have a quote What I'm afraid of is if we do not get this false certification of Biden stop this week.
So again, I'm in support of the proceedings that day.
I'm afraid of what this means for the rest of the month.
I'm afraid of what this is going to mean to these Trump supporters.
Well, I guess now we know what it means, don't we?
It means you're going to jail.
It means I'm going to jail.
So I was afraid of it then.
I'm afraid of it now, and I am going to jail.
Again, they continue to quote, I'm speaking on a megaphone.
It's just quoting my speech that day.
Here you go.
Shreuer led chance of USA, USA.
Yeah.
I mean, think about that for a moment.
A common chant among people expressing pride of country is now evidence of a crime and reason to go to prison.
I I was incredulous when they did this at the Proud Boys case, and I actually said in the jury's presence, I to a witness, have you ever seen a case where a patriotic chant was used as evidence of a crime?
And here it is.
Here is exhibit A, a free man for a couple of hours, but within the next couple of hours, he will walk into a federal penal institution, a prison, be assigned a number, lose his identity as Owen Schreuer, and be treated as that number.
And what was the crime?
USA.
USA.
I don't think he's going to chant it walking into that building, but I hope every prisoner in the facility greets him with that Jen.
Now, here's an amazing thing, and I'm gonna, and I'm gonna cite the rejection of our appeal here.
They quote here with my my security team that was there that day.
Let's take a break right here.
Let me talk to this cop and see if I can get person one.
We all know who that is, up there to de-escalate the situation.
To de-escalate.
That's a quote.
So they are admitting in the filing memo that we were there to de-escalate.
They even say that.
They say, de-escalate.
Here they are again.
USA, 1776, quoting it again.
Here's another subsection.
Schreuer's statements on InfoWars.
My statements on the air.
Here's another one.
Oh, oh, how about this quote?
This is a quote from me.
We just want to send a peaceful message.
So they say that I'm violent, and they say that I'm amping up the crowd, but then they admit, quotes, in their own sentencing memo, that we were there to de-escalate, and that I said we had a peaceful message.
Again, more of having their cake and eating it too.
Here's another subsection.
Spreading January 6th misinformation following January 6th.
Speech from broadcast On a completely different day.
Not even on the same way.
Here they are again, quoting me on things I said on the air after January 6th.
Here's a time, you know, just for uh some some for an anecdote for you here.
Here's a time I got arrested at the Capitol for having a piece of tape over my mouth.
They used that as evidence here.
Well, even though I spent 36 hours in jail because of that, the judge ripped that up and tossed it out because it was total BS.
Now, Norm, I know that you don't have a short-term memory loss, but I'm sure you recall what happened at the Capitol just last week.
What happened to the Capitol just last week?
We had thousands of protesters, could you call them violent protesters?
Storm the Capitol, chant, have banners, and do all of that.
I was a lone man.
A lone man with a piece of tape over my mouth.
I got arrested and spent 36 hours in jail.
Uh, Norm, do you think anybody that stormed the Capitol just last week for their pro-Palestine pro-Hamas demonstration?
Do you think any of them dealt with what I dealt with?
I'd be willing to bet my law license that not one of them did.
I suspect that what happened is they were post they posted bonds and were released or were released on their own recognizance.
Um, you know, there are the political wins move in one direction or another, depending on who's in control of the White House.
And those protesters were undoubtedly given given the star treatment and sent home.
And I want to be clear about something right now, because I have consistency in my principles and my values.
I believe that all of those demonstrators had a right to be there.
I do believe that they had a right to be there.
Now, I'm not saying I agree with the content of their protest.
I'm not saying I agree with their stances politically.
However, I believe that that was their First Amendment right.
And by the way, the Justice Department has argued in defense of those protesters, it's all over the news, because they were asked, why weren't there mass arrests?
Why weren't there mass detainments?
And the, and you know what the Department of Justice said?
We didn't want to violate their First Amendment rights.
Isn't that amazing?
So they can violate my First Amendment rights by their own logic, but those protesters are allowed First Amendment rights, which I agree with, by the way.
I agree that they have a First Amendment right to be there.
You want to kick them out, you want to detain them for an hour, whatever, and let them go on their way?
That's how that should be handled.
To me, that's justice.
So I actually stand for their First Amendment right.
But it's amazing how they get a First Amendment right and Owen Schreuer doesn't.
So again, what else am I left to conclude that I'm being politically persecuted?
What else can I assume, Norm?
I don't, you know, unfortunately, and I say this with a heavy heart because I'm a lawyer, I believe in the rule of law, I believe in neutral principles.
I believe that people in similar situations should be treated similarly.
But in the case of the right these days, and in the case of you in particular today, um, you are being prosecuted for the content of your ideas.
Um, and it's safe to be on one side of the political spectrum and not on the other.
The Justice Department's treatment of the January 6th class of defendants in general is unprecedented in American history.
It is savage, savage.
Shame on the Justice Department, shame on Merrick Garland.
Um, you know, the the I three years after the civil war in the United States in the 19th century, when 600,000 Americans lost their lives over a sectional conflict, um, most folks were repatriated.
Um, that is, we got back to the business of nation building and learning to live together.
Three years after January 6th, we are still seeing new arrests almost every week at one in one community of or another in the United States, and there's an active grand jury evaluating new cases as we speak.
What is the matter with the Justice Department?
There is a crisis of legitimacy in the country, a crisis of confidence in our institutions, in our leadership, not in our way of life, because ordinary Americans who shake one another's hands on the street and meet one another on the street know we have a good thing going here.
But we're losing faith in the broader institutions to hold us together.
And as a result, we're attacking people who point that out and who demand that we live up to the content of our creed.
Owen made that demand.
He got some people angry, and those people are exacting their payback now.
The Justice Department has become a department of injustice.
And you know, to be quite Frank with you, we take a risk just filming this video, folks.
Norm is taking a risk for his legal career, and I'm taking a risk for my life, quite frankly.
Who knows what they might do to me in there?
Who knows if they even let me out?
That's how crazy things are right now.
But I believe it's more important for me to come here and tell the truth and stand up for the First Amendment, despite the cost, because I don't want this to happen to the next young journalist.
I don't want this to happen to the next young political activist.
I don't want this to happen to the next young person that wants to get involved in politics and has to fear that they're going to be punished for their speech or their ideas.
I think it's important.
And that's why we have, or at least it's why we had a Bill of Rights.
If you look at the Bill of Rights, you know, it was intended to place limits on the federal government and now the way that the document has unfolded on state governments as well.
And those limits were always tipped in the in the direction of individual freedom, in the direction of individual sovereignty.
I mean, I guess if I have politics, I'd call them libertarian.
I favor liberty.
I favor the liberty of individuals every time over the collective wisdom of the group because the group can be wrong.
Um and we've seen this throughout American history.
You know, we saw the anti-labor sentiments in the early 19th century, we saw the anti-red sentiments in the early 20th century.
Uh we saw the FBI step out against Martin Luther King and civil rights activists in in the 1960s.
And what we're seeing now is a similar paroxysm, a similar motion, notion, rather, of self-righteous zeal overcome the good judgment of ordinary Americans.
And I'm talking about law enforcement.
I'm talking about the Justice Department.
I'm talking about those prosecuting the January 6th defendants.
People are angry in this country.
People are angry and they have reason to be angry.
Rather than blaming the messenger, rather than attacking the canaries in the coal mine, we should be asking what's going on in the mine.
Why are people so upset?
But instead, we're locking them up.
Is that going to do anything to promote a better world?
Or is it just going to sow deeper divisions in this country?
So more from their sentencing memo.
Schreuer's words, Schroyer's words, Schreuer's words.
They say I had an order to stay out of DC.
Not true.
Um, they didn't even read their own plea agreement.
Yeah, it's having their cake and eating it too.
Um I never took an opportunity to change my stance on January 6th.
They wanted remorse.
Here's literally the word of divorce.
Maybe if you'd gone and registered as a Democrat and offered to work for Biden, they would have given you a pass, you know?
Or, you know, been a part of the Black Lives Matter riots in the year 2020 or a part of the Antifa riots or the Trump inauguration riots.
We can go on and on.
It says uh lack, it says I have a lack of respect for law enforcement.
It's quite the opposite.
My public record would show I've been very pro-law enforcement.
I've held pro-law enforcement views, were on video that day trying to assist law enforcement that was overwhelmed.
Um, you know, here they say approximately 140 police officers were assaulted on January 6th.
They put that in my sentence memo.
I had nothing to do with that.
And by the way, where are the sentencing memo with the thousands of police officers that were assaulted in the summer of 2020 over a lie about George Floyd, by the way, that we just now find out was indeed a lie.
So I don't want to spend too much more time on this.
But let's talk about that for just one moment, if we can.
You know, in the course of representing defendants in the J6 world, I've always asked myself, why did people take the time to go to DC that day?
And more often than not, the answer is the following.
We were told to lock down.
We were told to lock down for our safety, and then George Floyd got killed or died more to the point.
Um and the cities and this across the country erupted.
In protests, we were told were mostly peaceful on the Moose Chirons, but behind the the Chirons were films of burning cities.
And people were afraid to go into their own their own cities.
They were afraid for their livelihoods.
Sometimes they were afraid for their lives.
Um they were then told, stay home on the vote.
We're gonna have all these mail-in ballots, everything's gonna be fine.
And the electoral results were what they were, and many people questioned them.
They were angry about what they perceived to be double standards in law enforcement.
So they went out to protest and say something about it.
And now the double standard has turned on them and cut them to the quick.
More than a thousand Americans have been charged, many are incarcerated, many are still awaiting trial.
Um, and Owen, like others is on their is on his way to prison.
For what?
For caring about the country, for chanting USA, for responding to a call of a president who had reasons to believe the election had been stolen.
When is it a crime to follow the call of your commander in chief?
When is it a crime to be a patriot?
I guess when the other side's got control of the, you know, of law enforcement.
Or better yet, when is it a crime to question or deny an election?
Only when a Democrat wins.
Because the Democrats denied that Al Gore lost.
They tried to stop that process.
They denied John Kerry lost.
They tried to stop that process.
They denied Hillary Clinton lost.
And they tried to stop that process.
But I digress.
We're now into the judge's rejection of my appeal, and there's a few quotes in here that I found to be significant.
One, the judge said Schroyer was among the crowds, and he addressed them with a megaphone.
This is my speech, encouraging them not to accept the election of President Biden, whom he called a child molester and an agent of the Chinese Communist Party.
But none of that was said on Capitol Ground.
And so why is that even worthy here?
He says, then I breached a restricted area, and that's where uh he delineated to my deferred prosecution agreement.
But again, I was not banned from being at the Capitol.
That was not part of my deferred prosecution agreement.
So I find that to be inaccurate in its judgment.
And then it says again, the judge admits I chanted USA, USA, USA.
So in 1776.
And 1776.
So uh chanting USA and saying 1776 is a crime.
Um he then quotes statements I made after January 6, like death to tyrants, stop the steal, and Trump won.
He says I also said these things as I approached the Capitol Grounds, as I approached, so not even on the Capitol Grounds.
So I can't chant death to tyrants, stop the steal or Trump won outside of the Capitol.
That's being used in the rejection of our appeal.
Well, what the rejection of the appeal was the rejection of our request that you remain it free pending our appeal, because we want an appellate court to review the judge's reasoning.
As Owen's pointing out, it's threadbare, and there's no there.
I don't know why Judge Kelly ruled as he did.
Um, but clearly he's wrong.
Well, and and here's again where they have their cake and eat too, and I'm reading from the judge's words.
At his sentencing hearing, he objected to the government's focus, as he put it, me, on his speech acts as aggravating factors.
He argued that his statements were protected under the First Amendment and claimed that punishing him for speaking would be improper.
So he's saying that this isn't about speech.
They keep saying that this isn't about speech, but I'm reading you from their documents, and it's all about my speech.
In fact, 99% of what they're accusing me of is about my speech.
George Orwell wore a robe in Owen's case and appeared under the guise of Timothy J. L Timothy J. Kelly.
This is double speak.
It's not speech, but it's speech.
It's not speech, but it's speech.
Now again, they say that my role in amping up the crowd that day.
They say my role in amping up the crowd that day, but then they admit in the quotes I showed you that we were there to de-escalate and that we were there with a peaceful message.
So again, that's two conflicting logics there.
And now they get into this issue of remorse.
Now, we saw Jenna Ellis recently saying how remorseful and sorry she is.
We'll see if that helps her when it's all said and done.
I doubt it.
But it what what is is that normal to say, oh, you're not remorseful?
I guess that's a normal thing.
I wasn't remorseful enough for them.
You know, I don't think it had a role.
And let's contrast this to Jenna Ellis.
Jenna Ellis pled in Georgia this morning, apparently.
Um, and in Georgia and in many state courts, uh, let's let's talk about a used car lot.
You want to buy a used car, you got a thousand dollars in your pocket, what are you gonna buy?
You go and you test the cars and you get the best one you can, but you know what you're driving off the lot.
That's state plea bargaining.
You know what the outcome is going to be when you choose to enter a plea.
Federal plea bargaining is not like that.
Federal plea bargaining is you plead and then you say, Well, you'll take whatever car the judge gives you.
Oh no, you know it's not gonna be a tank, you know it's not gonna be a jetliner, you know it's gonna be a car.
But He or she is gonna pick the car off the lot.
Jenna, the remorse she expressed today, you know, her sentence can't change based on the plea agreement.
Owen didn't know what he was looking at.
But Owen had no responsibility to say, I'm oh so sorry I trespassed in order to get a fair, just and reasonable sentence.
What the judge was saying is that Owen's speech after this after the event showed no remorse for the event itself.
Therefore, that speech amplifies or is relevant defense conduct.
It's normal for judges to consider that.
We had argued to the judge that Owen had been fully cooperative with federal authorities in their investigation.
Um he waived a grand jury indictment and submitted to um being his charges being handled in a slightly different manner.
He consented to the use of their uh to the search of his phones, uh thus sparing the federal government the need to go through the process of a search warrant and the risk that they wouldn't get one.
He voluntarily spoke to federal prosecutors waiving his Fifth Amendment rights.
He spent several years under supervision while we processed the case, but we pushed it through the system, and never once was anything other than compliant.
Even the federal probation officers who interviewed Owen and recommended a sentence recommended probation.
He had every reason to expect this judge to look at him as a man of firm, resolute convictions who appeared one day, did wrong, trespassed, pled guilty, and should have been sentenced for the trespass, but he shouldn't have been sentenced for his First Amendment and protected activity.
And Judge Kelly simply got it wrong.
Dead wrong.
And let's be perfectly clear.
Part of, if not all, the reason why I cooperated was to prove my innocence.
That's exactly right.
I had not I had nothing to hide.
I went above and beyond to prove my innocence and show in good faith that I am not a problem to society, as the government would suggest.
And here it is one more time.
The court also relied on the fact that Schroyer's conduct at the Capitol on January 6th violated his deferred prosecution agreement.
I would argue otherwise.
But we shouldn't have to.
Part of the plea agreement was that this is dropped.
So something that is dropped, something that's not even part of the game anymore, and they're still waving it out there as if it's part of the game.
I would argue that no, I did not violate my deferred prosecution.
So it's not even fair.
This was never even tried in a court.
We never even got our time in court.
The government never got their time in court because both sides agreed that we're dropping this from the case.
That was the agreement.
They didn't follow their side of the agreement.
And I would argue that no, I did not violate my deferred prosecution.
And if the country wouldn't have been shut down, this whole thing would have been awash.
It would have been long gone.
One more thing here.
From the judge's words, the relevance of Schreuer's chance to the crowd on the steps of the Capitol to the nature and circumstances of his offense could hardly be clear.
Schreuer chanted while he committed the offense, just steps away from several entrances to the Capitol building, surrounded by a mob that eventually broke into the building.
Folks, they broke into the building long before I got there.
Long before I was anywhere near the building.
And so this idea, this idea that somehow anything I said or did that day had anything to do with the Capitol being breached or anybody breaking into the Capitol is just objectively wrong.
Universally inaccurate and untrue.
Hours before I was anywhere near the Capitol building, all of that had already gone down.
The breach of the grounds, the breach of the Capitol, it was already said and done.
And so to insinuate that somehow I had something to do with that in my activities that day is just wholeheartedly inaccurate.
And here's one last example of the government wanting to have its cake and eat it too.
The judge says, but speech is not an essential element of the offense to which Schreuer pled guilty.
So, folks, you just saw it from dozens of pages of government documents.
And by the way, I only showed you about half of it.
These are publicly available, you can see for yourself.
For dozens of pages of government documents, they're arguing that my speech is what is causing my incarceration.
And then they're also arguing that it was my deferred prosecution, even though that wasn't supposed to be a part of the case.
We never got to argue that case, and we would argue that I did not violate my deferred Prosecution.
So it's inaccurate to say that I violated my deferred prosecution, and it shouldn't be a part of the case.
But then again, they say that speech was not the essential element of the decision to incarcerate me, even though we just showed you how speech was.
In fact, if you take my speech, in fact, Norm, if you took my speech and my deferred prosecution out of this, tell me what is even left.
You're standing on the steps.
That's it.
I'm standing violently on the steps.
Standing on the Capitol.
If you remove my speech and my deferred prosecution, all they have is standing on the Capitol.
And for that, I get 60 days and continued superv uh supervised probation.
Which, by the way, I've been on probation for more than four years now on good behavior, uh, perfect behavior, even.
My multiple probation officers agreed.
That's why they suggested to the judge no jail time.
So there you have it, ladies and gentlemen.
I am now mere hours away from becoming a thought criminal and a speech criminal, and I would make my final statement that what else am I left to assume that I'm being politically persecuted?
I don't have to go too deep into detail on all the riots against Trump where nobody dealt with this.
I don't have to go too much into detail about the Black Lives Matter riots where nobody dealt with this.
We can just look at recent history.
Just last week they stormed the Capitol.
Nobody that stormed the Capitol last week is going to deal with this.
There are other individuals.
What about the congressman who pulled the fire alarm?
Jamal Bowman pulls a fire alarm.
Do you think he's going to deal with any of this?
You know, Owen is going to prison because he's the host on InfoWars.
I mean, that's the bottom line.
Um, and because there's a holy war on this country against disinformation and hate speech.
And it's disinformation and hate speech if it runs counter to the mainstream narrative, period.
And if you're going to permit um one branch of government um to serve as as the governor of what we can say, what we can do, what we can express in public, then this republic and hope for it is lost.
Owen Schroyer becomes a federal prisoner today, but at the moment he crosses the threshold of the prison gate, he becomes a martyr number one in the name of the First Amendment.
And Owen, you know, I'm sorry to see this happen to you, but I'm proud to see you go with your head held high.
I will say this in closing, my final statement here, and I hope that you share this video so that people can have a better understanding of what we're dealing with here.
Again, what else am I left to conclude that I'm being politically persecuted?
And what else am I left to conclude other that my real crime here is telling the truth and speaking my mind, which of course is not a crime at all.
And if that does become a crime in this country, then we no longer have a country.
So that's why I'm taking this fight to the Supreme Court.
Please support my attorney and me by going to Defend Owen.com.
And when I come out of jail, if they ever let me out, I want to continue my pursuit of the truth, continue my pursuit of the American dream, and you can continue to support me in that pursuit as well by going to Owen Troyer.store.
I will see you on the other side.
▲
Export Selection