Sibick Letter

Case 1:21-cr-00291-ABJ Document 209 Filed 07/21/23 Page 1 of 28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES :
v. : Crim. No. 21-291 (ABJ)
THOMAS F. SIBICK :
PRELIMINARY MEMORANDUM IN AID OF SENTENCING1
COMES NOW Defendant, Thomas F. Sibick, through undersigned counsel,
Stephen F. Brennwald, Brennwald & Robertson, and submits the following
Memorandum in Aid of Sentencing. Defendant argues herein that under the
unique circumstances of his case, a sentence of home confinement – taking into
account the nearly eight months he already spent in prison under very difficult
circumstances - followed by a period of supervised release and an order of
restitution, would constitute a sentence that is sufficient, but not greater than
necessary, to accomplish the goals enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).2
1
Defendant submits this preliminary memorandum with the expectation that it will be supplemented by
Monday, July 24, 2023. Counsel has attempted to address, in this memorandum, almost all of the more
complex issues this Court must decide so that it will be able to begin its analysis of the case prior to
submission of the final memorandum. Defendant needs more time to engage in a proper discussion of the
“unwarranted sentencing disparities” factor, as well as to flesh out the general §3553(a) factors. But again,
almost all of defendant’s arguments are included herein. In addition, defendant is attaching several
significant letters to this filing, though it will add a few others shortly.
2
The government, for its own reasons, recommends a sentence at the top of the guideline range it believes
applies to this case – 57 to 71 months in prison. The probation office recommends, for reasons that are
more sound but that still erroneously contemplate a five-level enhancement for serious bodily injury, a
sentence of 48 months in prison (with additional stipulations). Neither the government’s sentencing
memorandum nor the probation office’s sentencing recommendation addresses the extreme conditions of
Mr. Sibick’s confinement prior to his October 26, 2021, release. Nor do they sufficiently take into account
the mental disease or defect from which he was suffering on January 6, 2021, that was exacerbated by the
prescription of a medication – Adderall – that was contraindicated. Moreover, neither document
acknowledges the “minor” nature of the assault when compared to what is typically considered an assault
(punching, kicking, etc.) under the relevant statute. Finally, neither the government nor the probation
office had the benefit of having read the very compelling letter written by Mr. Sibick in advance of
sentencing, or any other letter addressing the sentencing issues this Court must address.
Background
The “Assault” Plea
Mr. Sibick is before this Court after having pled guilty to one count of
Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Certain Officers, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
111(a)(1), and two counts of Theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 661.
His case, when compared with other January 6 defendants, is unique in that
while the “111” charge falls under what is typically viewed as a statute prohibiting
“assault,” and assault is generally considered to be an act that involves violence
(hitting, punching, kicking, etc…), the Statement of Offense clarifies that Mr.
Sibick’s involvement with respect to this count related solely to his “physical
contact … in order to forcibly remove Officer Fanone’s badge and police
radio….” Statement of Offense, at 4.
It did not remotely involve the same type of conduct as that undertaken by
other individuals who interacted with the officer that day, or with other officers in
general. These individuals, as the Statement of Offense references, “tased, kicked,
punched, pushed, grabbed, and hit [the officer] with objects….” Id. As a result,
and quite fairly, they received lengthy prison sentences. Mr. Sibick did none of
those things.
Mr. Sibick was factually able to admit his guilt to this crime because the
language in the statute uses several verbs, two of which apply to his actions
toward the officer that day. Specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1) states that
whoever “(1) forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes
2
with any person designated in section 1114 of this title while engaged in or on
account of the performance of official duties…[shall be punished as provided in
the statute].”
The government and the defendant agreed, in plea discussions, that Mr.
Sibick’s conduct constituted “impeding” and/or “interfering” with Officer Fanone,
and the Statement of Offense reflects this agreement, in part by omitting the word
“assault” from any language referencing Mr. Sibick’s behavior.
Mr. Sibick’s removal of the two objects from the officer’s vest – which the
officer likely did not even notice or feel at the time, given the commotion - did not
cause the officer any physical pain at all, nor even involve a touching of the officer
himself. Rather, it involved removing two items from the officer’s vest. And a
review of the body-worn camera footage from Officer Fanone’s camera, as well as
video footage from a camera elsewhere, confirms the speed at which this incident
took place - lasting at most two seconds - after which Mr. Sibick fell to the ground
backwards, presumably with the objects in his hands, never to be seen on camera
again.
As noted above, other defendants did physically assault the officer, and
cause him to suffer extreme pain. Moreover, those defendants, as far as defendant
can tell, did not express true remorse. If anything, one or more of those
defendants may have issued a perfunctory apology. Mr. Sibick, on the other hand,
has been devastated by his actions that day, and expressed his remorse to this
Court early on in a letter he sent to the Court.
3
The unrepentant defendants who actually assaulted Officer Fanone rightly
received significant sentences. But their conduct bore no relation to what Mr.
Sibick did, and Mr. Sibick did not know any of these other individuals beforehand
– or during or after this incident. He did not speak with them before they
undertook their own actions, or afterward, and he in no way conspired with them
or acted in concert with them in any way. This will be discussed later in the
“unwarranted disparity” portion of this memorandum as well as in the guideline
enhancement section.
Mental Health as a Precipitating Factor
Mr. Sibick’s case is also unique because on the day he took Officer
Fanone’s badge and radio, he had taken Adderall, a drug that had been prescribed
to treat Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”). Unfortunately, as
experts at the D.C. Department of Corrections realized in the summer of 2021, Mr.
Sibick did not “have” ADHD. Instead, he suffered from another disease this Court
was made aware of prior to the bond hearing on October 26, 2021.
This misdiagnosis created a serious problem for Mr. Sibick because
Adderall is contraindicated for people who suffer from Mr. Sibick’s condition, as
it can, and did in Mr. Sibick’s case, cause that person to become manic, or
aggravate any mania.
Thus, on January 6, 2021, Mr. Sibick was under the influence of a legally-
prescribed chemical compound that aggravated his mental health, rather than
4
helped it. When Mr. Sibick grabbed Officer Fanone’s badge and radio, he had no
idea that he was suffering from that particular mental disorder.
For years, starting in his childhood, he was continuously diagnosed with
ADHD. Unfortunately, that diagnosis was incorrect, 3 and on January 6, it turned
what was already an emotionally-charged environment into one that was
temporarily out of control.
Mr. Sibick’s aunt, Diane Cicatello, MD, has written a letter to this Court
that discusses her “real-time” interaction with Mr. Sibick the very evening of
January 6, right after all of the events of that day had concluded. She is thus the
best “earwitness” to Mr. Sibick’s actual mental state that day, and her background
as a physician lends her opinion a great deal of credence, as she is a development
and behavioral pediatrician, regularly facing a host of mental health scenarios in
her practice that are informative of the opinions expressed in her letter to this
Court.
Her letter describes how Mr. Sibick called her to wish her happy birthday.
He then described to her what had happened that day, and she could hear the
mania in his voice, as she witnessed it in real time. That fact – that a trained
mental health professional had a conversation with someone who was involved in
the events of January 6, 2021, right after those events occurred, is also very
unique.
3
In an effort to avoid having to file two separate memoranda, one original and one redacted, defendant is
not specifying that diagnosis here. This Court, however, is aware of the correct diagnosis from past
submissions to the Court in connection with the defendant’s hearing on October 26, 2021.
5
Dr. Cicatelli obviously knows Mr. Sibick very well, including how he
normally speaks and relates stories. Because of this knowledge, she is able to
inform this Court that Mr. Sibick “sounded anxious with pressured frenzied
speech” and that when she asked him where he was, he “laughed maniacally.”
She then describes how he shared what he had witnessed that day, and how
he did not know what to think of what had just happened.
“Thomas sounded anxious with pressured frenzied speech and when asked
where he was he laughed maniacally asking if I knew what had gone out that day.
When I said no, he began to recount what he had witnessed. I am a physician, was
at work all day an came home to have dinner with family not knowing what had
occurred at the capital, nor knowing my nephew had traveled there. Though I
cannot recall Thomas’s words verbatim, his message was clear and stands out in
my memory. He described it as the most wild experience of his life. He told about
the crowd storming the capital being overwhelming and sucking him in. He
reported how he saw a cop being mistreated by others, felt compelled and tried to
help but couldn’t. He shared he was confused about how to think about what he
just experienced, communicating he went to hear the President speak and had no
idea that this event would erupt the way it did. He sounded scared, indicated he
had no idea what he was getting himself into when he made the impulsive decision
to come to Washington and that he was upset about what he witnessed. He said he
was alone there, without a plan of what to do and where to go next. He indicated
he was staying alone in a hotel….”
Dr. Cicatello describes how she believed that he was experiencing a manic
episode both at the Capitol and even before he impulsively left Buffalo to come to
Washington, D.C. despite the fact that he was supposed to be at work at a highly
desirable internship on January 6.
Again, it is unique that a mental health professional would have a
conversation with someone who had just participated in the events of January 6,
2021, and noticed the unusual mania that the person’s speech displayed.
6
Thankfully, his misdiagnosis was corrected while Mr. Sibick was
incarcerated at the D.C. Department of Corrections Central Treatment Facility,
and since that time, he has been on the road to recovery. It is hard to know
whether Mr. Sibick would have gone to Washington, D.C. on that day but for this
misdiagnosis, and the resulting use of medication that was contraindicated for his
true condition. But there is no doubt that that medication severely and negatively
impacted him throughout the day.
Mr. Sibick’s mania, and subsequent and sudden mood change, is amply
evident in the Instagram video the government has shared with this Court as a
sentencing exhibit. In the first part of the video, one witnesses the manic way in
which Mr. Sibick was speaking. Later, Mr. Sibick’s voice is notably somber and
subdued. It is chilling to see the juxtaposition of his moods in that recording.
There is no doubt, based on this evidence, that Mr. Sibick’s mental state
played a central role in his actions on that day. If it were just a matter of
someone’s moods, however, one might dismiss them as just a part of who Mr.
Sibick is. The wrongful diagnosis and the prescription of incorrect medication,
however, are unique factors that directly impacted Mr. Sibick’s behavior on
January 6, 2021, and must be factored into any decision regarding punishment for
those actions.
Mr. Sibick’s Sincere Contrition
This Court has sentenced quite a few defendants charged in connection
with the events of January 6, 2021. Even more relevant are the sentencings
7
involving defendants who have been convicted, by way of guilty pleas or trials, of
assaulting law enforcement officers.
Aside from the vast differences between the conduct of Mr. Sibick and the
behavior of most defendants in “111 assault cases” (including defendants who
used weapons, or their hands, to actually physically assault or harm a police
officer), this Court is also quite familiar with the lack of true remorse expressed by
many defendants who have come before it for sentencing.
Unfortunately many defendants who decided to plead guilty to §111
offenses are not really sorry for their actions. Some refuse to apologize outright,
while others offer only a half-hearted apology – a mere mouthing of insincere
words.
In some cases, defense counsel apologize on behalf of their clients although
their clients are truly not sorry.
This case is very different, as Mr. Sibick’s letter to this Court clearly
demonstrates.
Counsel has literally never read a letter that better demonstrates a
defendant’s clarity of thought, as well as sorrow, regarding the gravity of that
defendant’s actions.
To be perfectly clear, undersigned counsel did not contribute to Mr.
Sibick’s letter in any way whatsoever. He did not tell Mr. Sibick what he should
write, or advise him to say one thing or another. The letter came straight from Mr.
Sibick’s heart and mind.
8
Counsel received the letter from Mr. Sibick by email, and read it with relief
and satisfaction. Relief that Mr. Sibick truly does understand the wrongfulness of
his actions (which counsel already knew), and satisfaction that Mr. Sibick sees the
world – at least insofar as the events of January 6, 2021 and the 2020 election are
concerned – very clearly despite having been surrounded by misinformation and
strong partisan views on a regular basis for many years.
Undersigned counsel urges this Court to carefully read Mr. Sibick’s letter,
as counsel knows it will, and give it the weight it deserves. Mr. Sibick has made a
remarkable change in his life since he received his correct mental health diagnosis
and has begun cognitive behavioral therapy.
Because he sees January 6 for what it was, he is not a threat to re-offend in
the future.
Mr. Sibick’s Pre-Release Unusually Difficult Conditions of Imprisonment
As this Court will recall, Mr. Sibick was arrested on or about March 14,
2021, and held without bond until the Court released him to home confinement
(not personal recognizance or third party custody) on October 26, 2021.
During the early months of his incarceration, Mr. Sibick was struggling a
great deal with his confinement, as he was not being properly medicated.
Eventually, as noted above, a doctor at the Correctional Treatment Facility arrived
at a new diagnosis for Mr. Sibick, and he finally received proper medication.
Unfortunately, Mr. Sibick suffered greatly because he was in a jail unit with
other defendants accused as part of the January 6 events. Many of those
9
defendants were rabid Trump supporters who insisted on the loyalty and
allegiance of everyone in that unit. This included nightly singing of the national
anthem.
Inmates were also angry because Mr. Sibick did not believe that the former
president had won the 2020 election. This enraged the others in the unit.
As if that weren’t enough, some of the inmates constantly complained that
the guards were treating them badly although Mr. Sibick had no problem at all
with the guards and over time tried to be around the guards than around his fellow
inmates. Because Mr. Sibick was a compliant prisoner – unlike a few of the folks
in that unit – some inmates thought that this meant that he was somehow in league
with those guards, and was “a rat.”
There came a point when Mr. Sibick could literally no longer mentally cope
with the stress of being in that unit and around those inmates, and he begged the
prison to put him in “the hole.” This would normally be the last place any
prisoner would want to go. But anything was better, in Mr. Sibick’s eyes, than
being around idealistic zealots who mentally tormented him. He was actually
grateful when the prison permitted him to go into “administrative segregation”
(“AS”) despite there being no correctional basis to do so.
Mr. Sibick then spent about two months in AS before this Court released
him on October 26, 2021.
It is important to note here that when a person is sent to the hole, it is
usually for 7 or 14 days, and it is always against that inmate’s wishes (unless the
10
inmate is charged with a sex offense, in which case the inmate seeks the safety of
the unit from others who relish the chance to stab and/or kill that inmate).
Some inmates may spend 30 days in the hole in extreme circumstances.
Mr. Sibick, as noted, spent two months there, though it was clearly
breaking him mentally. Counsel saw Mr. Sibick several times during that time
period, and he personally witnessed Mr. Sibick decompensating. Specifically, Mr.
Sibick would cry during legal visits, and say that he couldn’t take it anymore. He
was very depressed, and felt an overwhelming sense of hopelessness.
This is to be expected, as inmate segregation has been shown to lead to
self-harm, anxiety, depression, paranoia, and/or aggression.
Finally, before he went to the hole, Mr. Sibick spent almost every hour in
his cell because of Covid restrictions. So in addition to spending two months in
the hole, Mr. Sibick spent the prior nearly six months in near-lockdown because of
the jail’s Covid policy.
This is all to say that although Mr. Sibick has “only” spent about seven and
a half months in prison to date (plus another 21 months in home confinement), that
time should count for at least twice the actual calendar days he was incarcerated,
due to the extremely harsh conditions of his confinement.
The Scene Inside and Outside the Capitol that Afternoon
As this Court surely has discerned, having presided over a number of
January 6 cases by now, there were varying levels of participation and action by
11
different people, and groups of people, at the Capitol on that day, both on the
grounds outside the building, and inside the Capitol itself.
Some, as has been shown in numerous video recordings, were prepared for
battle, wearing military-style outfits, carrying different types of weapons (guns,
sticks, batons, flagpoles that were used as weapons, pepper or bear spray, etc.) and
implements of battle (zip ties, rope, etc…).
Many of the individuals had also posted messages in various social media
platforms before January 6 indicating that it was time for a civil war, and that they
would not accept the official results of the election that were certified by the 50
States.
It is fair to say that the crowd, generally, was very angry about the outcome
of the election, and strongly disagreed with certification of the votes by various
State officials. Some in the crowd had resolved not to allow a peaceful transfer of
power to a new administration.
However, it is equally clear that while some in the crowd were prepared for
a physical battle, others went there to shout, scream, and protest the official results
of the election. And others were simply caught up in the testosterone-laden
actions of the overall crowd, acting in ways they likely never thought they would.
This included Mr. Sibick. While he did not enter the Capitol, he did, for a
three minute-period, stand outside the temporary tunnel that had been erected on
the lower West terrace for the upcoming inauguration, then make his way toward
12
the front of the group in the tunnel, then exit the tunnel fairly quickly after he and
others were tear-gassed.
The government argues that for a time, Mr. Sibick was at the forefront of
the group of people inside the tunnel helping other rioters push against the police
line inside. Mr. Sibick adamantly denies this.
In his Statement of Offense, which was carefully worded to comport with
Mr. Sibick’s admitted conduct, the defendant agreed that he “joined the rioters in
the lower west terrace archway who were pushing against the police line.” But
while he joined them by being present, he did not join them in exerting any effort
to push up against the police line. In fact, some of the video recordings of the
events inside the tunnel show some spatial gaps between certain people at various
points in time, belying the notion that everyone inside the tunnel was participating
in the pushing action of others. In any event, none of the videos show Mr. Sibick
confronting any police officers or pushing up against their bodies or shields inside
the tunnel.
While this may seem like semantics, it is not. Mr. Sibick asserts that he did
not join in pushing any officers, though he did slowly move from the back of the
crowd toward the front. When he got to the front of the line, as noted, he and
others were soon tear-gassed, and rightfully so. That caused Mr. Sibick to yell,
“let me out! let me out!” as he retreated to the cleaner air outside of the tunnel.
After he had exited, and while still in a manic phase, he did say “let’s go,
let me get refreshed” and “just got tear-gassed, but we’re going, baby, we’re
13
going. we’re pushing forward now.” These statements were pure bravado,
however, as he never did go back inside of that tunnel after his initial 3-minute
foray inside.
Mr. Sibick was also not among the fairly small number of people who used
violence to break windows or push open doors so that they, and others behind
them, could gain entry to the building.
He was also not among the many people who shouted various chants at the
police officers who were attempting, often in vain, to keep the crowd from
entering further into the Capitol building once the crowd had breached the
perimeter.
He was not among the crowd of people who threw flagpoles, stolen police
shields, chairs, and other objects towards police officers. While he did pose with a
police shield at one point, that was after someone had literally handed him the
shield and suggested that he be photographed holding the shield.4
Mr. Sibick also did not spray any officers with any substances, as some
rioters did. He also was never overtly hostile and demonstrative toward the police,
or aggressively screaming in their faces.
During his time outside the Capitol, he also did not incite others to commit
any unlawful acts.
4
Most of the people there that day seemed to grasp the historicity of that day, though not in the way they
should have.
14
Despite this, he did, over a period of two seconds, reach out towards
Officer Fanone, and for reasons still unknown to him, grab the officer’s badge and
radio. He did not do so to obtain a “trophy,” as he threw the radio away sometime
after the day’s events and later buried the police shield in his parents’ back yard.
He also did not post any pictures of himself with those items afterward. He also
did not mention his possession of those items to his aunt, Dr. Diane Cicatello,
during their nearly-contemporaneous phone call that afternoon.
He also did not grab Officer Fanone’s body, or attempt to punch, kick, or
otherwise hurt the officer. He grabbed objects that were attached to the officer’s
body.
Mr. Sibick’s actions that day are puzzling, even to him. He has wanted to
believe that he reached towards Officer Fanone to help him, and even said that to
his aunt that day. He later repeated that claim to the police.
Interestingly, his aunt has indicated to counsel that Mr. Sibick has always
wanted, since childhood, to be the hero in any given situation, and “save the day.”
Perhaps neither we, nor Mr. Sibick, will never know what he was thinking
when he did what he did, as he was in a drug-aggravated mania that afternoon.
But whatever the cause of his actions, including his use of prescribed Adderall, he
has learned an extremely hard lesson when one considers that 1) he was inside or
around the tunnel for no more than 3 minutes, and 2) was involved with Officer
Fanone for no more than two seconds that day.
Analysis of Sentencing Factors
15
As this Court knows, pursuant to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220
(2005) and Gall v. United States, 128 S.Ct. 586, 596-97 (2007), not only are the
United States Sentencing Guidelines no longer mandatory, they are not even
presumptively reasonable. In determining an appropriate sentence, this Court
must consider the factors delineated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and impose a sentence
that:
1) reflects the seriousness of the crime;
2) promotes respect for the law;
3) provides just punishment;
4) deters criminal conduct;
5) protects the public from further crimes, and
6) provides the Defendant with any necessary educational or
vocational training, medical care, or other correctional
treatment.
In addition, this Court must also consider
1) the nature and circumstances of the offense;
2) the history and characteristics of the defendant;
3) the kinds of sentences available;
4) the sentencing range;
5) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among
defendants with similar records who have been found guilty
of similar conduct, and
16
6) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense.
Dispute as to a Sentencing Guideline Enhancement
Before addressing the 3553(a) factors, defendant notes that he does not
agree that his guideline offense level for the assault charge should be increased by
five levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2(b)(3)(B) (Victim Sustained Serious
Bodily Injury).
In fact, the parties’ dispute concerning this factor threatened to derail the
plea negotiations in this case for many months. Ultimately, while the government
would not relent in its insistence that even under the facts of this case the
enhancement applied, it finally agreed to “allow” Mr. Sibick to contest this
enhancement at sentencing. He does so now.
Preliminarily, defendant points out that this enhancement could only
arguably apply with respect to Officer Michael Fanone. None of the other officers
who were remotely near Mr. Sibick that day suffered any serious bodily injury that
Mr. Sibick could have contributed to or somehow be found to be responsible for.
In addition, the reason the analysis in this case is more complicated than
normal is because the government is proceeding on a type of “vicarious liability”
argument, rather than on a claim that Mr. Sibick directly caused the serious bodily
injury suffered by the officer.
It is clear that Mr. Sibick did not directly cause Officer Fanone’s “serious
bodily injury.” Thus, the analysis shifts to whether Mr. Sibick can be found
17
indirectly responsible for the officer’s injuries under the “jointly undertaken
criminal activity” standard found in the relevant guideline.
Thus, in advancing its claim that Mr. Sibick’s offense level should be
increased by five levels because of the injuries suffered by Officer Fanone, the
government states (correctly) that under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B), the serious
bodily injury enhancement applies only “in the case of a jointly undertaken
criminal activity (a criminal plan, scheme, endeavor, or enterprise undertaken by
the defendant in concert with others, whether or not charged as a conspiracy….”
Id.
That guideline further specifies that the defendant is accountable only for
such “conduct (acts and omissions) of others that was: (i) within the scope of the
jointly undertaken criminal activity; (ii) in furtherance of that criminal activity;
and (iii) reasonably foreseeable in connection with that criminal activity.” Id.
The government also correctly notes that, as the guideline states,5 a
defendant does not have to be charged in a conspiracy for the enhancement to
apply. United States v. Patton, 927 F.3d 1087, 1094 (10th Cir. 2019).
Nevertheless, for the enhancement to apply the Court must still find that the
defendant jointly undertook criminal activity with others, and that any activity
undertaken by others in concert with Mr. Sibick was reasonably foreseeable. The
5
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B).
18
statute, in that sense, is “forward-looking” as it asks what a non-directly-offending
defendant could have foreseen someone else doing.
In this case, the question is whether Mr. Sibick could have foreseen that his
own removal of the badge and the radio from Officer Fanone’s desk would in
some way assist, or work in concert with, Daniel Rodriguez’s tasing of Officer
Fanone, as it was Rodriguez’s tasing that caused the officer’s serious bodily
injury.
As will be discussed below, however, Mr. Sibick took the badge and radio
after Rodriguez had already tased the officer, such that Sibick’s actions had
nothing to do with Rodriguez’s action in tasing, and thereby causing, Fanone’s
serious bodily injury. Thus, the “forward-looking” looking nature of the
enhancement matters, as will be further elucidated below.
The government is correct that the Court can consider an explicit “or
implicit agreement fairly inferred from the conduct of the defendant and others.”
United States v. Egbert, 562 F.3d 1092, 1097 (10th Cir. 2009), citing Comment
3(B) of the foregoing guideline.
Thus, even if he did not know Mr. Rodriguez, or Kyle Young or
Albuquerque Cosper Head, Mr. Sibick could still be vicariously liable for their
actions (“the conduct of others”)6 if he explicitly or implicitly jointly undertook
criminal activity with them, engaged in conduct that was in furtherance of that
6
Application Note 3 to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3.
19
joint criminal activity and that was reasonably foreseeable in connection with that
criminal activity.
In support of its vicarious liability theory, the government points to United
States v. Bassil, 932 F.2d 342 (4th Cir. 1991). Its reliance on Bassil is misplaced,
as its reading of Bassil is overly general, and ultimately inapplicable to the facts of
this case.
The government states that in Bassil, “the defendants, prison inmates at
Lorton Reformatory, took part in an extemporaneous riot that injured several
prison guards.” Gov. Memo. at 19. While this is technically correct, that
description implies that there was a general riot at the prison, such that anyone in
the area who may have participated in any way should, like the government argues
here with respect to Sibick, be liable for the actions of any other inmate.
But that is not what happened in Bassil. As the opinion explains,
“correctional officers at the Lorton Reformatory responded to a disturbance in the
B-wing of Dormitory Three.” Id., at 344. (Emphasis added.)
That crucial distinction makes it clear that the inmates who participated in
the riot were not just inmates from the general population of the prison who might
have been out in a common area of the jail, such as a courtyard (or, in this case,
outside the lower West side of the Capitol) at the time of the riot.
20
Rather, they were inmates who were all housed in one wing of one
dormitory building.7 That proximity and “familiarity” presents a very different
picture of the relationship of the inmates to each other than one might otherwise
infer from a description that merely presents the inmates as “prisoners at the
Lorton Reformatory.”
It is clear from the narrative in Bassil that the inmates all joined each other
in resisting the commands of the officers in that particular wing of dormitory three
on that day after an inmate had been assaulted by two other inmates. Officers who
responded to the disturbance ordered the two inmates suspected of the assault to
be removed from that dormitory. The other inmates refused to allow this to
happen, and engaged in physical confrontations with several officers who were
later backed up by about another dozen officers.
These inmates obviously slept in the same wing of the same dorm, ate in
that same dorm, showered in that dorm, and were together on a constant basis
when not out in the “rec. yard.” They were not disparate groups of inmates from
various dorms or various parts of Lorton (or here, various parts of the country).
In other words, the dormitories at Lorton, and each wing of a particular
dormitory, were small enough that unless an inmate had just recently arrived from
another facility or had arrived to begin serving a sentence following a sentencing
7
As counsel recalls from his many, many visits to Lorton in the 80’s and 90’s, dorms typically had a
capacity of between 40 to 80 inmates if fully occupied. There were multiple facilities at Lorton, of course
(Youth Center, Youth Center II, the Modular Facility, Central, Max, and more), each with varying capacity.
But most dorms had a limited capacity.
21
hearing, that inmate knew every other inmate in that dorm, especially in that wing
of the dorm. This is clear in how the inmates reacted to the commands of the
guards.
Because the government discusses the facts in Bassil in overly broad terms
(“inmates at the Lorton Reformatory” instead of “inmates in the B-wing of
Dormitory Three”), it incorrectly extrapolates the holding in Bassil to the even
larger group of rioters who were anywhere near Officer Fanone the afternoon of
January 6, 2021, even if those rioters didn’t know each other, did not explicitly or
implicitly plan to do anything together, but just happened to individually take
actions that affected the same officer.
In Mr. Sibick’s case, he had never heard of, nor obviously met, any of the
other individuals who interacted in any way with Officer Fanone that day. And
there were dozens of people in this group of individuals, as the officer was pulled
out of the tunnel and through a large crowd to a position that appears to be dozens
and dozens of feet away from the mouth of the temporary tunnel.
Importantly, Mr. Sibick was not one of those individuals who participated
in pulling the officer out of the tunnel and through the crowd.
Had Mr. Sibick been in that line of individuals who collectively pulled and
pushed the officer out into the crowd, it could at least have been said that Sibick
had implicitly joined in whatever activity those rioters were engaging in. Even
then, however, it would have been highly debatable, at the very least, whether all
or any of these other individuals could have reasonably foreseen that Daniel
22
Rodriguez would receive a taser from Kyle Young, that Mr. Young would then
instruct Mr. Rodriguez on the use of that taser, and that Rodriguez would then use
the taser against Officer Fanone. But Sibick was not in that group of individuals
who pulled Officer Fanone out of the tunnel in any event, so that argument is
irrelevant.
The fact that Mr. Sibick took the officer’s badge and radio after the officer
had already been tased is also critically significant in the context of this
enhancement. As noted above, the enhancement is forward-looking, i.e., it asks
this Court to determine whether another person’s future actions would have been
reasonably foreseeable to the person who could have foreseen them – here,
supposedly Mr. Sibick.
But Mr. Sibick literally interacted with Officer Fanone for a period of two
seconds, on his own, when he reached in and ended up with the officer’s badge in
one hand, and his radio (which he ended up holding by the antenna, not the body
of the radio) with his other hand.
And again, this was after Fanone had already been tased by Daniel
Rodriguez, such that any actions undertaken by Sibick did not assist or enable
Rodriguez in any way to commit the act that caused Fanone’s serious bodily
injury.
Other individuals’ grabbing and pulling of the officer, causing the officer
to have to struggle to try to keep from having his gun stolen, or from being
23
dragged further into the crowd, undoubtedly added to the physical strain on
Officer Fanone’s body, including his heart.
But Mr. Sibick’s two-second action in removing the badge and the radio,
while illegal, happened so fast that it did not in any way add to the strain Officer
Fanone was under during this entire event. The two items were “simply” quickly
removed from whatever had attached them to the officer’s vest, and it is very
likely that Fanone never even knew that it happened until later.
Comparison of This Case with Examples in the Application Notes
In evaluating whether the five-level enhancement applies, this Court can
further look to the 10 examples listed in Application Note 4 to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3.
Defendant will not engage in an exhaustive comparison of each example
with the facts in Mr. Sibick’s case. He maintains that a general reading of the
examples clearly shows why Mr. Sibick cannot be held liable for the actions of
Kyle Young or Daniel Rodriguez in tasing Officer Fanone.
All of the examples describe scenarios where the defendants knew each
other, or of each other’s activities, and performed some act that was designed to
help the overall goal of a known group of individuals
Defendant agrees that it is theoretically possible for people who don’t know
each other to spontaneously participate in an activity that is designed to help each
other achieve some unlawful objective, but that is not what happened here.
When Mr. Sibick quickly reached toward Officer Fanone and pulled off his
badge and radio, he did not do it to help anyone else commit any act against that
24
officer, nor did his actions have that effect, especially as it relates to Fanone’s
serious bodily injury. That injury had already occurred, and Mr. Sibick in no way
helped to bring it about.
For these reasons, the five-level enhancement is inappropriate under the
circumstances of this case.
Removal of the Officer’s “Lifeline”
The government argues, as it did from the beginning of this case in Buffalo,
that Mr. Sibick’s removal of the officer’s radio took away his “lifeline to safety,”
thereby preventing the officer from calling for help.
But this argument, and those words, while “catchy,” completely
misrepresent the facts on the ground that afternoon. Officer Fanone was
surrounded by, or right next to, many officers when he was dragged out of the
tunnel and into the crowd. Other officers already knew, therefore, that he needed
help. They were unable to provide that help, however, because of the large size of
the crowd in the tunnel.8 And as various video recordings show, there were no
other available officers to come to Officer Fanone’s rescue even had he been able
to call for help on his radio. Many other officers already knew that Fanone needed
help but could do nothing about it.
Ultimately, it was the actions of a number of people in the crowd that
finally protected Officer Fanone from any further confrontations, and literally
8
Mr. Sibick had already exited the tunnel by then, and had no part in the actions of the crowd at that time.
25
physically moved him back into the safety of the tunnel where other officers
attended to him.
Defendant is not in any way minimizing his actions, or denying
responsibility for what he did. What he did was criminal, and beyond the pale.
But he can no longer remain silent and go along with the false notion that has been
repeatedly invoked in this case that he caused some general harm to Officer
Fanone by “depriving him of his lifeline.” That is just factually incorrect, even
though what Sibick did in removing the items was illegal, wrong, and completely
unacceptable.
Finally, even if this Court were to somehow find that Mr. Sibick can be
held vicariously liable for the prior conduct of Daniel Rodriguez, he argues that
the five-level enhancement grossly overstates any remote culpability he may have
for Officer Fanone’s serious bodily injuries.
The enhancement clearly applies where a person directly causes a serious
bodily injury, and a five-level enhancement is obviously appropriate in that
context. It also applies “merely” where someone helps another person cause a
serious bodily injury. And even if it applies in a case, such as here, where a person
(Sibick) undertakes an action that takes place after a serious bodily injury has
already been inflicted (what counsel would call a “brain twister”), it would be
inappropriate to punish such a person by imposing a sentence that invokes a
guideline range that is many years more than would be warranted without the
enhancement.
26
Without that enhancement, Mr. Sibick faces a guideline range of 33 to 41
months. – a difference of 24 months to 30 months.
Enhancement for Obstructing or Impeding Administration of Justice
Defendant Sibick is not permitted, under the plea agreement, to argue
whether this enhancement should apply. This Court, however, must make an
independent determination as to whether it applies, and that analysis must include
consideration of the language and examples of covered and non-covered conduct
discussed in the various Application Notes.
Analysis of 3553(a) Factors
The Proposed Sentence Would Reflect the Seriousness of the Crime
To be Supplemented.
The Proposed Sentence Must Also Promote Respect for the Law, Provide
Just Punishment to Mr. Sibick, and Deter Criminal Conduct, both by him
and by Others.
To be Supplemented.
The Need to Protect the Public from Further Crimes.
To be Supplemented.
The Court’s Duty to Provide the Defendant with any Necessary

Educational or Vocational Training, Medical Care, or Other Correctional
Treatment.
To be Supplemented.
The Need to Avoid Unwarranted Disparities
To be Supplemented.
Conclusion
27
To be Supplemented.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
__________________________________
Stephen F. Brennwald, Esq.
Bar No. 398319
Brennwald & Robertson, LLP
922 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20003
(301) 928-7727
(202) 544-7626 (facsimile)
E-mail: sfbrennwald@cs.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was sent by email, this 20th
day of June, 2023, to all counsel of record.
/s/
_________________________________
Stephen F. Brennwald
28
Case 1:21-cr-00291-ABJ Document 209-1 Filed 07/21/23 Page 1 of 3
June 21, 2023
Dear Judge Jackson,
I am writing in behalf and support of the defendant, Thomas Sibick.
I feel it is pertinent to tell the story as it occurred and give my insight, as a close relative who loves
Thomas while understanding his strengths and weaknesses and believing in him empirically, and as a
professional in the medical field with experience in the mental health care of our youth.
On Jan 6th 2021 I received a call at approximately 7pm from my nephew Thomas Sibick wherein he was
wishing me a happy birthday. I am his godmother and he always calls, happy to share his love and best
wishes. This time it was different. Thomas sounded anxious with pressured frenzied speech and when
asked where he was he laughed maniacally asking if I knew what had gone out that day. When I said no,
he began to recount what he had witnessed. I am a physician, was at work all day an came home to have
dinner with family not knowing what had occurred at the capital, nor knowing my nephew had traveled
there. Though I cannot recall Thomas’s words verbatim, his message was clear and stands out in my
memory. He described it as the most wild experience of his life. He told about the crowd storming the
capital being overwhelming and sucking him in. He reported how he saw a cop being mistreated by
others, felt compelled and tried to help but couldn’t. He shared he was confused about how to think
about what he just experienced, communicating he went to hear the President speak and had no idea
that this event would erupt the way it did. He sounded scared, indicated he had no idea what he was
getting himself into when he made the impulsive decision to come to Washington and that he was upset
about what he witnessed. He said he was alone there, without a plan of what to do and where to go
next. He indicated he was staying alone in a hotel, and had a scheduled flight back home. Because I was
in the middle of dinner with family I asked Thomas to call later, and advised him to stay safe. I did not
hear from him again that night, texted him the next day and did not receive a reply; which is very
unusual for Thomas. There was not any further contact until many days later when I was informed of the
details of his situation. At that point I did have multiple conversations via text and phone with him
regarding my opinion of his current and past mental health, including that I thought he was experiencing
a manic episode the day/night of the insurrection and likely prior to leaving abruptly. This is of the
utmost importance because I believe Thomas was symptomatic of escalating mental health symptoms
while at home, as he indeed did not have a predetermined plan to go to the capital and was acting out
of impulse. He did not go to work that day, which was his second day of a highly desired internship to
complete training for his certification in the medical field such that eh could pursue a career as a nursing
home administrator. Thomas had recently completed his MBA, was in a long term romantic relationship
with a woman pursuing a PhD in psychology and seemed to be planning his life in a positive direction.
He had communicated his excitement and satisfaction with the way his decisions had led him down a
successful path. He was proud of himself. He also shared how he was stressed despite being happy,
because adult life is complicated and the expectations to manage work and relationships, both personal
and professional , was challenging. No one in the family who found out about this turn of events
understood why Thomas would have acted upon going to the capital that day. When asked, Thomas
shares he felt compelled to go. He describes an unwavering feeling of urgency to be part of an effort to
simply show his support for President Trump. He went to hear the President speak. He did not
understand the intensity of nor desire to be part of the vortex of hate and rhetoric of right and wrong
which erupted into a dangerous situation. He had no intentional malice in mind. He was a young
impressionable man caught up in a cyclone of feelings and emotions which were out of control. He
acted on impulse without considering the consequences of his involvement. Unfortunately there have
been serious ramifications and undesirable outcomes of his actions, for which he has suffered greatly.
He is remarkably regretful and remorseful, becoming acutely aware that he was indeed acting outside of
his typical behavior, led by not his intellectual prowess nor ethical belief system but by emotional
impulse with an inherent desire to do good. This fortuitously created his misfortune.
Thomas has made many amends in many areas of his life since the day he was scooped up in the hype,
and there has been a positive outcome which will serve Thomas well indefinitely.
Serving time in jail brought him opportunity to reflect. He read the bible and journaled. He displayed
resilience, creatively cooked and supported his inmates kindly. When he felt oppressed by the
complicated social challenges of being an inmate he willfully chose isolation. He sought psychiatric
consultation due to feeling distressed, reflecting on his complicated history of mental health symptoms
and the possibility that he was experiencing increased severity. Luckily, the justice system offered him
an opportunity to receive appropriate mental health care evaluation and treatment which he definitively
needed. He was diagnosed with depression and a mood disorder. He is now medicated with
antidepressant and mood stabilizer medication, which have had a remarkably positive effect. Having
behaved well in jail he was granted discharge on house arrest until sentencing. He has been privileged to
be under the care of his immediate family and benefitted from the love and support of all who are
committed to him and his well being. This has been a welcome temporary relief offering opportunity to
continue to work on himself. He has entered into long term therapeutic counseling which has supported
his atonement, helped clarify symptoms and given him insight into his past behavior resulting in the
understanding that his mental health disorder was never adequately nor accurately diagnosed and
managed.
Historically Thomas has had challenging behavior and mental health symptoms since he was a young
child. There have been multiple efforts to access help which were not successful, having never created
the positive outcomes he has recently experienced. He now describes feeling calmer, emotionally level
and more lucid, focused and not distractible. He is less irritable and can engage in conversation without
argumentative tendency accepting the ideas of others openly. He can feel in a way that is peaceful as
opposed to erratic. Thomas has always needed a lot of stimulation. He is a sensory seeker of input in all
forms. He is a is a doer, not a quitter. While on house arrest he has been a contributing person in
society. He has attended church regularly. His inherent nature of caring kindness and selfless giving
prevails and he has willfully offered his efforts to help those he has been allowed to interact with under
the limits of his house arrest. He has never been irresponsible with his probation officer , abused his
privileges , nor broken probation. He has pursued active employment in the medical field to preserve his
commitment to his career path hoping to continue to gain worthwhile experience. He has worked at an
employed position with integrity performing duties above and beyond expectations. His romantic
relationship pre-arrest ended soon after his jail time began causing him emotional duress beyond that of
the insurrection events. He bravely entered into a new romantic relationship while on house arrest with
a young woman who understands his social and psychiatric history, accepts him for who he is, believes
in him and has provided him an opportunity to display his capability at reciprocal affection and loving
someone unconditionally. His much more positive , secure ,self aware presence resultant of his
successful access to appropriate mental health care and the work he has done in counseling led to an
emotional maturity allowing him to be more successful developing depth of interpersonal interactions.
Hence his romantic relationship grew in its significance rising to a point of him feeling committed
enough to marry. He feels blessed and grateful. He wants to have a family and create forward
momentum within his life.
Thomas is a good citizen and a mindful community member. He wants to do well and deserves to have
the opportunity that all Americans have to make amends when they make mistakes. We teach this in
our family life, it is a prevailing dictum in our schools and our society. Forgiveness is a conceptual
ideology of the religion he practices. Thomas has asked for forgiveness , made effort to make
reparations and communicated his intentions at the capital on Jan 6th were in good faith to do no harm.
He was suffering with mental health symptoms predisposing him to act out of character and
incongruent with his internal set of beliefs.
To date he has served a combined term of 2 years time in retribution of his actions. He acknowledges his
wrongful behavior and is willing to do whatever is necessary to meet the US government’s decision for
sentencing. I ask that you consider the information outlined above as you decide his fate. I request that
you value his commitment to self improvement and his desire to continue to demonstrate it. I thank
you for whatever amount of dispensation you may feel Thomas worthy of, as I believe he is an
inherently good person who deserves a second chance at creating a fulfilling life.
With all due respect,
Diane Cicatello, MD
Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrician
Optum Health
2507 Sotuh Rd Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
O 845-592-7764
C 845-797-3548
Judge Amy Berman Jackson,
Every day I wake up and go to bed with your stern warning playing in my head and I quote “I’m
giving you the benefit of the doubt, which I believe you’ve earned. Please understand, Mr. Sibick, that
you will only get one chance.”
It has been almost two years since I had written you from solitary confinement, a place I chose
to go in order to remove myself from the chaos and toxicity of the other defendants. An area typically
reserved for those who are unable to behave properly and conform to the jail’s policies; however, I was
different, I was escaping. In that letter I provided an understanding of who I was and how my conduct
on January 6th was unequivocally an aberration of who I desire to be. This letter will expand on that, in
addition it will illustrate who I have become since then; the guilt I have endured, the struggles I have
overcome, the remorse for my actions, the acceptance of my health issues, the shame I have
experienced and most importantly the forgiveness I ask of Officer Michael Fanone and this court for my
wrongdoing.
As we know the attack on the United States Capital was one of the most horrific days in
American history. People showed up ready for battle, to keep one man in power, by stopping the
certification of the Electoral College vote. It was an attack on the institutions of our democracy and not
as some would make you believe legitimate political discourse. The attack was far from peaceful, my
actions played a role that will follow me for the rest of my life. As Douglas McArthur said “You’re
remembered for the rules you break” and I certainly broke the rules that day, an embarrassment to
myself, my family and my nation. The scar left in the wake of such a violent event astonished the world,
with our adversaries laughing and our allies in complete disbelief. The lies, misinformation and utter
deceit articulated by individuals in influential positions led many people to believe the election was
stolen. I never thought that! In fact, I went spur of the moment, the last chance to hear the former
president speak before President Biden was to be sworn in.
Countless times people have asked why I attended January 6th, (I don’t call it the ‘Stop the Steal’
rally or a ‘protest’ because I wasn’t going to do either). The motivating factors for attending were as
follows. The first was a desire for acceptance/belonging as the former president and I attended the
same high school, albeit years apart I felt a connection as I do with all New York Military Academy
alumni. Next was the strain on my mental health, a direct result of the COVID pandemic, between the
lockdowns implemented in an effort to keep the outbreak under control to my employment at the time I
was barely holding it together. Working at skilled nursing facilities throughout COVID I witnessed death
on a daily basis, one unfortunate soul after another zipped in a body bag and off to the morgue but I
kept showing up, depressed and emotionless at what was occurring. In addition to the horrific work
environment, I was stuck in my condominium, my mind racing not knowing what to do and when it
would end. I felt caged with no escape, unlike my time at CTF with other January 6th defendants, where I
was caged yet had an escape. Looking back I am surprised I made it through those punishing months
alive, many days I felt like giving up and if it were not for my strength as well as the extraordinary
medical professionals at DC CTF I most likely wouldn’t be writing this today. Lastly, all of that culminated
with the former president saying it was going to be wild. That was the match that lit the fuse, setting off
a chain of events, nothing stopping me from heading to DC. This irrational lapse of judgment
exacerbated by factors I will discuss later on turned out to be the greatest calamity of my life.
The trauma officer Fanone endured that day is undeniably sickening! Watching the video of that
vicious attack as he is unjustly pulled away from the police line, restrained, punched, and electroshocked
makes me hurt. That man was just trying to do his job, a job he loved and took pride in doing. What
transpired is inconceivable, yet there I was in a manic state not helping but contributing as I interfered
with him after he had been tased by another individual. What I witnessed that day still troubles me, I
recall the screams and chaos as members in the vicinity were yelling kill him. Officer Fanone bore the
brunt of a gutless attack while simply being a courageous law enforcement officer defending the capital,
as many were that day. I wish Officer Fanone peace and comfort.
Why did I reach in to remove his badge and radio from the vest? What was my intent? Did I even
have an intent? Was I overpowered by the mob mentality and plagued by mental health issues which
led to an action I would have otherwise not exhibited? I have grappled with these questions for the
better part of two years, at times doubtful I was in control while other times thinking I wanted to help,
because that’s who I am. It occurred so quickly that I am not sure in that moment I was thinking clearly
in order to formulate an intent. Regardless of what was going on in my head one thing is certain, I have
understood and take full responsibility for my uncivilized display of reckless behavior. The pictures and
videos presented by the government of my conduct is not the man I know when I look in the mirror, in
fact quite the contrary. I am a kind hearted, compassionate, and peaceful individual that did not
conspire with others nor did I have any malicious intent. I am confident that I never had any intent to
harm Officer Fanone, unlike others who were combative and enraged with hate towards a human they
did not know. If I could tell Officer Fanone how deeply sorry I was for impeding him from doing his job, I
would. If I was able to give him a hug and make him understand the true nature of my character I would.
Officer Fanone, I am sorry!
Since a young age I was in and out of doctors’ offices trying to determine what was wrong with
me, trying one medication after another for impulsivity, attention deficit, depression and anxiety. It
seemed as though nothing worked, I would speak with psychotherapists from time to time, and still
issues would arise. In my adolescent I started to push back against the notion that there was something
wrong with me, this only led to more substance abuse and less stability. Life was not peaceful, content
or calm as it should be, and suicide was on my mind. I used drugs to feel better, to find happiness, to
find my way, all it did was allow me to temporarily escape. I can’t be certain why I felt this way, I knew I
wanted more out of life but something was off. I started seeing medical professionals again and really
wanted to get a grip on my mental health but every time it looked like we were headed in the right
direction another setback would jump out from around the corner. I recall waking up one day and telling
myself I had had enough, I needed an escape! My mind was made, a new environment was necessary,
so I moved west. This was the change needed to mature my mind, in doing so I would figure out my
path. It worked, or at least I thought it had, not because my mental health was in check, because I was
super focused on a career and proving I was capable of excellence. Nothing was going to stop me, or
was it? After a couple years I moved home and that’s when it all started to come together. The
employment achievements were gratifying yet the past troubles kept coming up. I went to see a doctor
and once again they prescribed me Adderall, which helped but didn’t make things great. This time I was
a little older and wasn’t abusing opioids. My goal was to be stable and I thought a professional career
would provide that. I went back to school graduated from Niagara University with an MBA and was
amazed at the progress I was making. It felt as though everything was under control, however this was
due to my accomplishments overshadowing my inner demons.
I owe an enormous amount of appreciation to the medical staff at the DC CTF, as they diagnosed
me with a major mental illness, Bipolar 1 along with personality disorder (which I don’t share with
others). This was news to me because the doctors I went to in the past classified me as having ADHD and
always prescribed vast amounts of Adderall, which helped with irregularities but didn’t make me feel
the way I do today. Being diagnosed properly has permitted me to achieve the level of care I require.
While others were complaining, fabricating stories of neglect and refusing medical attention, I was
making the most of my situation by accepting the help from the doctors and therapists at the DC CTF. It
was difficult to understand a new diagnosis and fully accept it, but I was shown ways to cope with my
feelings and slowly began to utilize new techniques in dealing with others and my shortcomings. This
work has been strengthened while on home confinement the past 20 months. My unwavering
dedication to my life long recovery has resulted in drastic reforms to my overall stability and mindset.
The work my therapist has implemented called ‘cognitive behavioral therapy’ along with the proper
medication management makes me feel normal, as arbitrary as that sounds. I have not only refrained
from drugs and alcohol, which I will continue to do, but regularly participated in one on one sessions
along with some groups. It’s good to feel ok and know there are others dealing with the same issues as
myself.
Mental health plays a crucial role in our country’s stability the same was it does in an
individuals, any imbalance will cause turmoil. Asking for help doesn’t show weakness, honestly getting
help shows your acceptance, courage, and dedication in the face of adversity. Although, we have made
great progress regarding mental health awareness over the last few decades, barriers still exist. As a
nation we have an obligation to end all forms of stigmas and discrimination against people who suffer
from debilitating issues and ensure they receive the professional care required to be an active,
productive and managed member of our society, as I have become.
People like me who suffer from complex mental illnesses merit your empathy. Please have
compassion and understanding while sentencing me. I have dedicated the months incarcerated along
with my time on home confinement to bettering myself. I want a sense of normalcy back, free from
keeping my phone attached to my hip in fear I may receive a ‘check-in’ and miss it, resulting in a
violation. One of my future goals is to lead my own group on mental health awareness. If I had been
diagnosed properly years ago I likely wouldn’t be in the situation I find myself today, and at the mercy of
this court. I have matured and grown in ways never imaginable, for that I am grateful. The desire to give
back and make a difference in others’ lives as has been made in mine is without question. The support
my family and amazing wife have provided are priceless. They have given everything, and ensured the
stability needed to stay on track has been provided. Melissa, the other positive to come from my
involvement in January 6th other than the mental health treatment, such a loving and gentle partner
means who means the world to me. She provides a home and environment that is more peaceful than I
ever could have imagined. The patience she has displayed through all of this amazes me and we both
look forward to celebrating with a church wedding in the near future.
Judge Amy Berman Jackson, I apologize for my actions steps away from your chambers on that
fateful day. I wholeheartedly understand and accept that I let down many people with my egregious
display of immaturity, however I can assure you that I am not the same person I was back then. This has
been a journey and will continue to be my entire life. My commitment to growth is evident through my
actions, it truly is a testament to my character. I am not just talking but have shown. Your Honor, you
afforded me a chance on October 26th 2021 and I have not disappointed, truthfully you played a key
role in my development, for that I am thankful. I assure you prison time is unnecessary to deter me from
any future unlawful behavior. I am a human with so much to give. I genuinely pray for the same chance
on July 28th 2023. May I please continue taking the steps at rehabilitation I have been, by correcting my
thoughts and actions?
Sincerely,

Sibick Letter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sibick Letter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sibick Letter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the defendant charged with?

What is the defendant charged with?

What is the defendant arguing for in terms of sentencing?

What is the defendant arguing for in terms of sentencing?

Case 1:21-cr-00291-ABJ Document 209 Filed 07/21/23 Page 1 of 28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

v. : Crim. No. 21-291 (ABJ)

PRELIMINARY MEMORANDUM IN AID OF SENTENCING1

COMES NOW Defendant, Thomas F. Sibick, through undersigned counsel,

Stephen F. Brennwald, Brennwald & Robertson, and submits the following

Memorandum in Aid of Sentencing. Defendant argues herein that under the

unique circumstances of his case, a sentence of home confinement – taking into

circumstances - followed by a period of supervised release and an order of

necessary, to accomplish the goals enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).2

The “Assault” Plea

Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Certain Officers, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §

111(a)(1), and two counts of Theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 661.

“assault,” and assault is generally considered to be an act that involves violence

contact … in order to forcibly remove Officer Fanone’s badge and police

radio….” Statement of Offense, at 4.

general. These individuals, as the Statement of Offense references, “tased, kicked,

whoever “(1) forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes

account of the performance of official duties…[shall be punished as provided in

Sibick’s conduct constituted “impeding” and/or “interfering” with Officer Fanone,

“assault” from any language referencing Mr. Sibick’s behavior.

Court early on in a letter he sent to the Court.

The unrepentant defendants who actually assaulted Officer Fanone rightly

“unwarranted disparity” portion of this memorandum as well as in the guideline

Mental Health as a Precipitating Factor

to treat Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”). Unfortunately, as

This misdiagnosis created a serious problem for Mr. Sibick because

aggravate any mania.

idea that he was suffering from that particular mental disorder.

For years, starting in his childhood, he was continuously diagnosed with

ADHD. Unfortunately, that diagnosis was incorrect, 3 and on January 6, it turned

what was already an emotionally-charged environment into one that was

temporarily out of control.

as a physician lends her opinion a great deal of credence, as she is a development

and behavioral pediatrician, regularly facing a host of mental health scenarios in

he did not know what to think of what had just happened.

desirable internship on January 6.

Again, it is unique that a mental health professional would have a

Thankfully, his misdiagnosis was corrected while Mr. Sibick was

incarcerated at the D.C. Department of Corrections Central Treatment Facility,

impacted him throughout the day.

subdued. It is chilling to see the juxtaposition of his moods in that recording.

Mr. Sibick’s Sincere Contrition

This Court has sentenced quite a few defendants charged in connection

assaulting law enforcement officers.

behavior of most defendants in “111 assault cases” (including defendants who

used weapons, or their hands, to actually physically assault or harm a police

many defendants who have come before it for sentencing.

Unfortunately many defendants who decided to plead guilty to §111

while others offer only a half-hearted apology – a mere mouthing of insincere

In some cases, defense counsel apologize on behalf of their clients although

their clients are truly not sorry.

Counsel has literally never read a letter that better demonstrates a

defendant’s clarity of thought, as well as sorrow, regarding the gravity of that

To be perfectly clear, undersigned counsel did not contribute to Mr.