4th member of Hutaree militia group gets out of jail
A fourth member of the Hutaree militia accused of plotting to overthrow the government was released from jail Wednesday after prosecutors said they were confident that the strict conditions under which he was set free would ensure the public's safety.
Kristopher Sickles of Sandusky, Ohio, will be electronically monitored 24 hours a day, like three other members of the Hutaree militia who were released under the same conditions Tuesday.
"I'm very excited. This is the first step. God will see us through," his wife, Kelly Sickles, said after the hearing. She will serve as her husband's custodian while he awaits trial.
Five other members of the group remain behind bars, and prosecutors have asked the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to keep them there while they await trial on Nov. 4.
The nine are charged with conspiring to commit sedition and attempting to use weapons of mass destruction.
Sickles coincidentally appeared before U.S. Magistrate Judge Donald Scheer for instructions about his release, the same judge who ordered the nine to jail on April 2, citing a threat to public safety. That decision led to a series of challenges by defense lawyers and then by prosecutors.
U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts overruled Scheer on May 3 and said all could go home with electronic monitors until trial. The appeals court suspended her order while it considers an appeal by the U.S. attorney's office in Detroit. It is expected to rule by early June.
"We believe the conditions will reasonably ensure the safety of the public," Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Falvey Jr. said in explaining why he stopped opposing Sickles' release.
Sickles, 27, must stay at home unless he's at work, church, court or a medical appointment. His wife told Scheer that she "wouldn't have a problem" reporting any violations.
Sickles left court carrying his 4-year-old son, got into a car and gestured thumbs-up. His wife joked that they were going to Disney World.
The government says it seized 13 firearms from the couple's home on March 27 and thousands of rounds of ammunition, though there's been no indication that the weapons were illegal. In a court filing, Falvey described Sickles as a "regular participant" in militia training for violent acts.
In a phone interview from jail on April 17, Sickles told The Associated Press that he had "never hurt anyone or taken steps to do so." He said he joined the group to learn how to protect his family.
"As far as any specific plan to overthrow the government, I never heard such things," he said. "There was off-color talk, but there was no set plan to overthrow this or take over that."
Those still in jail are 44-year-old militia leader David Stone and his 21-year-old son, Joshua Stone, both of Lenawee County; Joshua Clough, 28, of Blissfield; Michael Meeks, 40, of Manchester; and Thomas Piatek, 46, of Whiting, Ind.
Comments
Ricebrnr
Fri, May 21, 2010 : 7:49 p.m.
Re my previous question, one of the Hutaree lawyers also has no clue what changed and why those four were released either. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/37270153#37277686 "I saw the way things were going, a long time back. I said nothing. I'm one of the innocents who could have spoke up....But I did not and thus became guilty myself." Happily we're not, nor shall we ever be if we are part of those checks and balances.
bedrog
Fri, May 21, 2010 : 5:37 a.m.
rice..i have thought about your last point.. alot... and will toss it back this way: actual or probable horror shows, local or not, trump vaguely and exaggeratedly potential ones...especially when effective checks and balances exist on the government you seem to fear so much. we'd probably be on precisely the same page were we living in a gazillion other state systems one could name...but happily we're not.
Ricebrnr
Thu, May 20, 2010 : 5:54 p.m.
I stated I'm not a supporter of the National ACLU as they do not support the WHOLE Constitution especially where the 2nd Amendment is concerned. Some of the state chapters will and do however. Let me just point out one more thing before you go. You fear small, local and relatively isolated threats. I submit that the great threat is if the government of an entire country is out of control. Your threats = small pockets of terrorism. My threats historically leads to genocide. Something to think about.
bedrog
Thu, May 20, 2010 : 3:08 p.m.
rice...your latest sounds reasonable enough on the surface...yet elsewhere you have stated that you are no supporter of the ACLU, the most visible defender of the 'individual vs. the big bad govt' issues you claim to espouse. curious. anyway, as it happens, neither am i...although i once was ( they lost me after their defense of neo-nazis 'rights' to march in skokie!)...and have elsewhere remarked that to me the organization seems like a schizophrenic fireman who is also a pyromaniac.. i.e. defending many of the very types who want to violently destroy the values the group claims to represent). but after that we differ...to me some of my fellow members of 'the people', such as the hutarees, are a hell of a lot scarier than what my government seems to actually be doing, allegations of the conspiracy minded aside... i think we've used this thread up...see ya on the next hutaree one no doubt.
Ricebrnr
Thu, May 20, 2010 : 2:18 p.m.
Hopefully I can be more clear this time. Please (re)read my 2nd post in this thread. The accused in this case hold no appeal to me whatsoever. I do not defend them specifically. What I have been doing and continue to do IS CRITICIZE THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE as presented thus far AND POINT OUT: 1) Thankfully there is the Constitution that prevents many of the Orwellian measures being advocated. The Constitution and the People are the true victims I'm concerned with not the Hutaree. 2) That the accusations are just accusations and unlike the opinions of those like yourself, the Hutaree are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. That the judge wrote a 30 plus page ruling to release the Hutaree pending trial and criticizing the evidence so far presented might be a hint that you shouldn't go all in for teh FBI... 3) How do you know the FBI mole/informant is credible? The FBI and other Gov't agencies have a horrible track record with informants as my many previous examples indicate. 4) What other evidence has been presented besides the mole's word? The taped conversation? Well hatefull but illegal? Guess we'll find out. The weapons and ammunition? All LEGAL. The training? LEGAL! Means, Motive and Opportunity. No bombs, no plans, no dates. NO CASE. 5) That fear mongering and character assasination have often been used in the aforementioned examples to bolster otherwise weak cases. Much easier for them later if they can convict the accused in the court of public opinion first. The FBI has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, as such I can reasonably speculate and point out problems in their case as has been reported thus far. Criticizing one is not necessarily advocating for the other. Is that simple enough for ya?
bedrog
Thu, May 20, 2010 : 12:52 p.m.
ricebrnr...although this may be deleted as too personal, i gotta admit im curious : why, if those you persist in defending are, as you yourself repeatedly claim, just mouthing -off idiots with no actual bad intentions, what's their special appeal to you? for myself and others enough of such mouthing off, especially when accompanied by weopons training and materiel,... and the presence of a credible undercover mole.., are excellent grounds for going beyond simple ( and simple-minded ) first amendment 'hidey holes'..especially in these fanatic-ridden times..
Ricebrnr
Thu, May 20, 2010 : 8:31 a.m.
Hmm many of the previous comments seem to have forgotten that: Hateful and non PC speech or thought is no gaurantee of terrorism and/or sedition either... Charges brought by government agencies are no gaurantee of truthful or just investigations either.... etc etc etc
Ricebrnr
Thu, May 20, 2010 : 8:27 a.m.
Hateful or non PC speech / thought is no guarantee of terrorism or sedition either.
bedrog
Thu, May 20, 2010 : 7:47 a.m.
davidian..no argument re the islamic world, but alot of fanatics there, usually below leadership levels, are also 'rural bumpkin--ish'...many taliban being cases in point, as indeed was the case with rank and file KKKers in the post civil war south ( leaders again often being from disenfranchised ex-elite slave owners). bumpkin-ism is no guarantee of harmlessness...
Davidian
Thu, May 20, 2010 : 6:54 a.m.
What I've been saying all along--unsophisticated, big-mouthed bumbkins from rural Michigan. We have far more serious threats to public and governmental safety in Michigan. Try going where the destruction of the Twin Towers was celebrated openly...there you may find some truly dangerous folks that hate America and Americans and would love nothing more than to see all of us burn.
Ricebrnr
Wed, May 19, 2010 : 10:25 p.m.
Hey this just in, not to worry the government will prevail....no matter what... "Judge Colleen McMahon said precedents establish that even when the government helps commit a crime, others can be prosecuted. "In case after case, governmental activity that facilitated the commission of a crime has been held not sufficiently outrageous to warrant dismissal of an indictment," the judge wrote in a ruling filed Tuesday." This in reference to the NY Synagogue bombing plots I metioned in an earlier post. ""The men's request for dismissal said that the alleged plot was "a government-inspired creation from day one." They said an informant chose the targets, offered payment, provided maps and bought the only real weapon involved, a handgun. They alleged "outrageous government conduct." McMahon said the government "does not exactly deny devising and financing the details of the plot." Prosecutors claimed their agent had to act as if he were taking part "in order to gather evidence of illegal conduct, and perhaps even to prevent some jihadist act from actually taking place."" Sounds AWFULLY familiar don't you think? Well lucky for us, we can trust in our bureaucrats to git'r done.
Ricebrnr
Wed, May 19, 2010 : 7:48 p.m.
Ah there you guys are! Anyone know what changed since the last 2 hearings that made this statement? "We believe the conditions will reasonably ensure the safety of the public," Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Falvey Jr. said in explaining why he stopped opposing Sickles' release. I don't recall reading anything different from the previous conditions that makes 44% of the accused all of a sudden ok for release IF the Government's case and asserions remain the same.
bedrog
Wed, May 19, 2010 : 5:10 p.m.
if, per the defendant's claim that 'god will see him thru', that ( and god's obvious competence in the religion obsessed middle -east and some other cases i could name)explains why alot of folks are turning to atheism.. reminds me of the old woody allen line: 'i believe in god...but he's an underachiever'