The legal wrangling in United States v. Michael Kirk Moore, Jr., is quite interesting. Dr. Moore, indicted alongside his co-defendants for crimes related to the fraudulent distribution of COVID-19 vaccines and vaccination cards, has repeatedly flouted pretrial release conditions while maintaining a staunch defiance of judicial authority. He has tried sovereign citizen tactics which he claims to have abandoned but it is unclear if that has happened; the prosecutor does not believe so.
Dr. Moore was charged in January 2023 with conspiracy, theft of government property, and obstruction of a government function. Despite being released under stringent conditions—including prohibitions against contacting co-defendants—Dr. Moore’s repeated violations necessitated judicial intervention. The Court ultimately detained him citing clear and convincing evidence that he was unlikely to comply with any release conditions.
A pivotal element of Dr. Moore’s legal strategy has been the use of sovereign citizen arguments. In May 2023 he filed a “Notice of Special Appearance in Propria Persona.” Dr. Moore asserted that the Court lacked jurisdiction, describing its authority as “fraudulent” and equating his appearance in court to being “kidnapped.” He further claimed to be a resident of a “foreign government” outside U.S. jurisdiction. These arguments were dismissed by the Court as “legal gibberish.”
Pattern of Noncompliance
Dr. Moore’s violations of pretrial conditions included refusing to surrender his passport, failure to comply with U.S. Marshals’ processing, and continued communication with co-defendants about the case. Notably, he coordinated encrypted communications through the Signal app to evade monitoring and held in-person meetings to discuss strategies to counter the charges. His actions, characterized by the prosecution as “extensive, repeated, and deceptive,” underscore his systematic attempts to undermine judicial oversight.
For instance, Dr. Moore allegedly instructed a co-defendant to destroy remaining COVID-19 vaccine vials—an act of evidence tampering that the government intends to charge as an additional offense. He also wrapped his GPS monitor with a towel to obscure surveillance, further illustrating his disregard for the conditions of his release.
The Court, in revoking Dr. Moore’s release, relied on 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b), which allows for detention upon clear evidence of noncompliance with release conditions. The statute permits detention based solely on a defendant’s unlikelihood to abide by conditions, irrespective of danger or flight risk. The government drew parallels to similar cases emphasizing that defiance of no-contact orders is a valid basis for detention.
Dr. Moore’s supposedly abandoned sovereign citizen tactics however his subsequent behavior demonstrated that these claims were likely tactical rather than substantive. His public statements, such as his declaration on X (formerly Twitter) that his motto is “Do Not Comply,” solidified the Court’s finding that he remains unwilling to adhere to legal norms.
Prosecution’s Argument
Assistant U.S. Attorney Jacob J. Strain, in opposing Dr. Moore’s release, argued that his repeated violations and expressed ideology made him incapable of compliance. Strain contended that the hardships Dr. Moore cited—family responsibilities and trial preparation difficulties—were insufficient to override his demonstrated noncompliance. The prosecution emphasized the need to uphold judicial integrity, prevent further conspiracies, and maintain the no-contact condition to safeguard the judicial process.
My favorite part is the beginning by ADA Strain about the case. It sums it up quite well:
“Dr. Moore wants everything both ways. He did everything in the indictment, but he is innocent. Sure, he communicated with his codefendants, but he did not violate his pretrial release conditions prohibiting communication with his codefendants. He exercises his right to a speedy trial, but also, he does not. He contends that the Court cannot constitutionally order him not to communicate with his codefendants about this case, but he claims it was an error for the Court not to impose “a more readily-understandable condition of no communication at all between codefendants.” His personal motto (he has had t-shirts made) is “Do Not Comply,” but he will, of course, comply with Court orders if released again, even though he has demonstrated over time that he will not do so. He wants a trial in January, but he also wants trial in July. His counsel cannot effectively represent him at trial by January and one of them is too unhealthy to do so, but now that he is detained–again–they actually can effectively represent him at trial in January–except they cannot if their inability to do so would influence the Court to release Dr. Moore.
Dr. Moore has demonstrated that he cannot be pinned down to a consistent legal or factual position. He will simply change positions as it suits him. But most important, he has demonstrated that he cannot be trusted, and that he is unlikely to abide by the conditions of his release. Judge Bennett was right to detain him. And under the law, Dr. Moore should remain detained pending his trial. Whatever hardships this might cause him are of his own making. He had multiple chances to demonstrate he would comply with his conditions, and he repeatedly undermined them.”
The motion also concludes with this: “For the foregoing reasons, and any other reasons that may be elicited at a hearing on this matter, the United States respectfully requests that this Court (1) deny the Defendant’s Motion to Vacate the Pretrial Detention Order, (2) maintain the no-contact with codefendants condition, and (3) hold firm the January 13, 2025 trial date that Dr. Moore demanded. Dr. Moore should not be rewarded for continuing to violate his conditions of release and for shifting his position on trial readiness. We have been down this road before with Dr. Moore. If he is released, he will violate again.”
We’ll continue to track the case to see how things turn out.
Source: United States v. Plastic Surgery Institute of Utah, Inc., et al., No. 2:23-cr-00010 (D. Utah).