Harpole v. Owens · No. 3:26-cv-00556 (M.D. Tenn.)
Mitch Snow: The Sworn Record vs. the Public Record
What Mitchell H. Snow told a federal court under penalty of perjury, set against what he told the public. Findings that cut against him and findings that clear him are published together.
Read This First
Snow is a defendant in a civil defamation case, pending as of 13 October 2026. No court had ruled on the merits as of that date, and nothing here is a finding by any court. He is not required to prove anything.
This review asks one question: are his own statements consistent with each other? It uses fixed definitions. A contradiction means two statements that cannot both be true. Misleading the court requires a false statement in a sworn declaration. Arguments in briefs are advocacy, not testimony. A change of position over time is not a contradiction.
Where the record supports Snow, this review says so, including where the plaintiff's own brief misstated the facts. Every quotation is verbatim and tied to an exhibit, a docket entry or a permalink.
At a Glance
- 1.
Did he watch Candace Owens before December 2025?
Direct contradictionCuts against SnowSwore (Dkt 39 ¶3): "I had not watched episodes of her program." Said on camera, 10 Jan 2026: "I've watched Candace Owens a few times." A narrow clips-versus-episodes defence is possible but thin.
- 2.
Does he hold photos of the people at Fort Huachuca?
Misled the publicCuts against SnowPosted that he took HD, zoomed shots of vehicles and license plates. Told an interviewer four days later that both phones were in a surrendered backpack: "No, I wish I had." One image he aired on 31 July 2026 has not yet been verified.
- 3.
Did he accuse Harpole of involvement in a killing?
Irreconcilable (not sworn falsehood)Cuts against SnowHis sworn denial is accurate as to the broadcast, which contains his qualifiers. His later posts in his own voice use murder-conspiracy framing that the denial does not account for.
- 4.
Did he want the fundraiser money?
Irreconcilable public statementsCuts against SnowNo sworn falsehood. But 11 July: "we humbly accept"; 18 July: "We are not asking"; 6 Sept: he wanted refunds "from first notice until now."
- 5.
Where is the $151,932?
Not a contradictionSupports SnowTwo platform snapshots show no recipient ever registered. On 8 Jan 2026, $138,864.70 sat unpaid. This supports his sworn statement that he has received nothing.
- 6.
Who contacted whom on 8 December 2025?
Snow was rightSupports SnowThe plaintiff's brief says Snow initiated contact. The plaintiff's own complaint, Owens on air, and Snow's interviews all say Owens phoned him after a third-party referral.
- 7.
What has the court been told about the phones?
Omission (not perjury)OpenNone of his three declarations mention photographs or devices. The declarations are limited to jurisdiction, so this is not a false statement. Its weight depends on whether any such photos exist.
- 8.
Will he hand the material over if ordered?
Stated refusalCuts against SnowPublicly said "no man, no judge, no president can compel me" and described devices sealed underwater. Note: no court has ordered production. The court denied the motion for a preservation order on 6 July 2026, noting that the ordinary duty to preserve evidence already applies.
The Bottom Line
Against Snow: one sworn statement (whether he had watched Owens) is directly contradicted by his own recorded voice. His public description of photographic evidence is not supported by his own account of where his phones were.
For Snow: no perjury was found on the money, which by the platform record he has never received. His sworn account of who contacted whom is correct, and the plaintiff's brief is not. His denial that he accused Harpole on the broadcast itself is accurate.
Still open: the image he aired on 31 July 2026 has not been verified. The court denied the motion for a preservation order on 6 July 2026; no court has ordered him to produce his devices.
Questions People Ask
Did Mitch Snow commit perjury?
No court has found that, and this review does not say so. Snow is a defendant in a civil case that was pending as of 13 October 2026, and no court had ruled on the merits by then. The review found one sworn statement, about whether he had watched Candace Owens' program, that is directly contradicted by his own recorded words. It found no false sworn statement about the fundraiser money.
What is Harpole v. Owens?
A civil defamation case (pending as of 13 October 2026) in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, No. 3:26-cv-00556. Mitchell H. Snow is a defendant. His three sworn declarations in the case (Dkt 34, 39 and 42) are limited to the question of jurisdiction.
Does Mitch Snow have photos of who was at Fort Huachuca?
His own statements do not agree. He posted that he took HD, zoomed shots of vehicles and license plates. Four days later he told an interviewer that both phones were in a surrendered backpack, saying "No, I wish I had." One image he aired on 31 July 2026 has not been verified.
Did Mitch Snow receive the GiveSendGo fundraiser money?
The platform record supports his sworn statement that he has received nothing. Two platform snapshots show that no recipient was ever registered for the $151,932 fundraiser, and on 8 January 2026, $138,864.70 sat unpaid.
Did Mitch Snow contact Candace Owens first?
No. The plaintiff's brief says Snow initiated contact, but the plaintiff's own complaint, Owens on air, and Snow's interviews all say Owens phoned him on 8 December 2025 after a third-party referral. On this point Snow's sworn account is correct.
Has a court ordered Mitch Snow to hand over his phones?
No. No court has ordered production, and the court denied the motion to preserve his devices on 6 July 2026, noting that the ordinary duty to preserve evidence already applies. He has said publicly that "no man, no judge, no president can compel me" and has described devices sealed underwater.
Where Stew Peters Appears in This Record
Stew Peters was on the panel of the 24 July 2026 livestream on which Snow described putting his phones and devices in a river. On that stream Snow said Peters had advised him against a safety deposit box: “he's just like, ‘Yeah, don't put it in a safety deposit box or anything.’”
That is Snow's account of what Peters told him. This review holds no statement from Peters confirming or denying it. On 14 January Snow had posted that the phones were “locked up in safety deposit.” See the contradictions breakdown, page 9.
Source Documents
The complete evidentiary review: method, timeline, every finding with its strength and limits, and all court filings, posts, transcripts and platform records reproduced as exhibits.
Loading document…
Eight questions, side by side: what he told the court, what he told the public, and what does and does not line up. Two of the eight clear him.
Loading document…
Where the Case Stands
- Filed 30 April 2026. Snow was served on 20 July 2026.
- On 8 July 2026 every district and magistrate judge in the Middle District of Tennessee recused. The Sixth Circuit is to designate a judge from outside the district.
- Three motions to dismiss are pending, two of them Snow's. None has been decided.
- No court has ruled on whether his account is true.
As of 13 October 2026, from the public docket. The full status report, with every ruling.
News on this case
All articles on this →Report ·
Why did every judge in the district recuse from Harpole v. Owens?On July 8, 2026, all district and magistrate judges of the Middle District of Tennessee stepped aside. The order gives no reason, and as of October no replacement judge appears on the docket.
Explainer ·
Who is Mitch Snow, and how did he become a defendant in Harpole v. Owens?Mitchell Snow is a retired Army sergeant who said on Candace Owens's podcast that he was at Fort Huachuca the day before the Kirk shooting. He is now a defendant, representing himself.
Explainer ·
What is the TPPA, and why do both sides invoke it in Harpole v. Owens?The Tennessee Public Participation Act is the state's anti-SLAPP law. It lets a defendant ask a court to screen out lawsuits that target protected speech early, before full discovery.
Explainer ·
What is Harpole v. Owens, the defamation lawsuit that names Mitch Snow?Charlie Kirk's former security lead sued Candace Owens, her companies and Mitchell Snow in April 2026, saying they falsely tied him to a meeting at Fort Huachuca the day before the shooting.
Method, Redactions and Right of Reply
Record reviewed: 49 docket entries through Dkt 42, 1,827 archived X posts from @Ft_Banana_Snow, 16 recorded appearances, 21 podcast episodes and two GiveSendGo platform snapshots. Court quotations were checked against the filed page images. Transcript timestamps from long interviews are estimates and are marked as such.
Redacted for publication: a home street address in a court filing, a personal email address, and the names of private individuals whose unrelated fundraisers were used as a control sample. The minor child and domestic-violence complainants are excluded throughout.
If you are named here and believe something is wrong, tell us. See our corrections policy or contact us. Corrections are published.