5 Hutaree militia men must stay locked up awaiting trial
Five members of the Hutaree militia charged with conspiring to rebel against the government and use weapons of mass destruction will remain in jail while awaiting trial, an appeals court said today, reversing a decision by a federal judge.
Each man is dangerous and "no conditions of release will reasonably assure the safety of the community," two judges on the three-judge panel said.
During a series of raids in late March, authorities arrested nine members of a southern Michigan group called Hutaree. The government claims they were scheming to kill a police officer then attack officers who attended the funeral in the first steps toward a broader rebellion.
Over the objections of prosecutors, U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts said they could await trial at home under strict conditions, including electronic monitors. The government later dropped its opposition to releasing four but took her decision on the other five to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Defense lawyers say the men legally possessed weapons and that any talk of killing people was simply stupid, hateful speech with no specific targets planned.
"It is also legal to purchase and own fertilizer and diesel fuel, but if a person who has made threats against the government purchases large quantities of both, it creates a different, more dangerous, implication," judges Boyce Martin Jr. and Raymond Kethledge wrote.
Judge Helene White said she was in favor of releasing one of the five, Joshua Clough of Blissfield, Mich. She also would have told Roberts to take another look at evidence against Thomas Piatek of Whiting, Ind.
"I find this to be a far closer call than the majority opinion would indicate," White said of the government's appeal.
She said militia members "had never taken any action except for field training, and some of the taped conversations appeared to be in jest."
Besides Clough, 28, and Piatek, 46, the other members detained are Hutaree leader David Stone, 44, and his 21-year-old son, Joshua Stone, both of Lenawee County, Mich., and Michael Meeks, 40, of Manchester, Mich.
Four others under indictment were sent home in May.
From top left, David Brian Stone Sr., 44, of Clayton, Mich,; David Brian Stone Jr. of Adrian, Mich,; Jacob Ward, 33, of Huron, Ohio,; Tina Mae Stone; and bottom row from left, Michael David Meeks, 40, of Manchester; Kristopher T. Sickles, 27, of Sandusky, Ohio; Joshua John Clough, 28, of Blissfield; and Thomas William Piatek, 46, of Whiting, Ind.
Comments
John Galt
Sat, Jun 26, 2010 : 10:57 a.m.
This whole case is simply an exagerated and trumped-up attempt to intimidate by the Federal Government. Ironically, the Feds are simply affirming what these type of people are have been stating by being repressive.
xmo
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 9:52 p.m.
Where is the ACLU on this Case? Americans for Civil Liberties! They like radicals who want to destroy the country.
Greggy_D
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 4:29 p.m.
Well Freemind, I have not heard nor seen any evidence which would indicate that these people are "terrorists". Maybe a few cards short of a full deck but definitely not "terrorists". You may also thank the.gov and MSM for throwing that term around so loosely this past decade.
Ricebrnr
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 3:58 p.m.
"and dear friend rice...even if they were just gassing off, as you have maintained repeatedly on other threads, they have now learned that free speech is not always consequence- free speech." Bedrog, glad to see you've finally acknowledged the quelling effects upon free speech that we already well noted might happen in those previous threads. Also as stated it will be interesting to see the trial, especially considering the recent Supreme Court decision. associatedcontent.com/article/5512142/controversial_law_challenges_free_speech.html?cat=17
Lokalisierung
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 3:38 p.m.
I didn't say i thought that way either, was in reference to Freemind's... "I guess that the "protect us from terrorists" only applies if their dark-skinned or non-christian."
bedrog
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 3:20 p.m.
lokalis..ive never thought of conservatives as 'raciest'...quite the opposite actually, even a bit prudish. but conservative, liberal ( or whatever the hell 'libertarians' are... martians maybe?) its minimally commonsensical, in advance of an actual trial, to keep those with such violent ideas and plans under wraps now that they are in custody. and dear friend rice...even if they were just gassing off, as you have maintained repeatedly on other threads, they have now learned that free speech is not always consequence- free speech. others in this community would do well to consider this too ( and im here referring to an entirely different group of shall we politely say 'extremists' ( to avoid moderator action on abusive language) than militia supporters.
jcj
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 3:07 p.m.
Like I said before let the facts speak at the trial. But what ever happen to a fair and speedy trial? As stated in the Sixth Amendment. They may or may not have been dangerous before. But I would not want to be on the wrong side of them when and if they get out. Get on with it lets go to trial!
Ricebrnr
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 2:14 p.m.
LMAO "Freemind" thank you for the chuckle. The content of your comment is a clear example of the opposite. Good stuff!
Lokalisierung
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 1:47 p.m.
"it seems to me that conservatives who constantly scream at the government to..." I'm not a conservative, You are typcasting the people commenting on this story as terrorist fearing conservatives who are raciest, becasue we believe these people are not getting fair treatment under the law? Smooth. Oh yeah and then you state this group was about to commit terrorism. Is your post a joke?
Freemind42
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 1:28 p.m.
judging by the comments so far, it seems to me that conservatives who constantly scream at the government to keep us safe from terrorists are complaining that people who were planning to commit terrorism are being held without bail until their trial. I guess that the "protect us from terrorists" only applies if their dark-skinned or non-christian.
Carl Duncan
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 1:12 p.m.
How come no one is investigating the competence of Eric Holder?
Ricebrnr
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 1:07 p.m.
"I find this to be a far closer call than the majority opinion would indicate," White said of the government's appeal. I find the decenting opinion far more telling the the knee jerk and terrible reasoning of the other two judges. Can't wait to see the evidence presented at trial. I've yet to see anything to change my opinion that this is going to be VERY costly to us taxpayers when this is all said and done.
michiganpoorboy
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 1:05 p.m.
Our new system. Guilty until proven innocent like in Russia?
Greggy_D
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 1 p.m.
"It is also legal to purchase and own fertilizer and diesel fuel, but if a person who has made threats against the government purchases large quantities of both, it creates a different, more dangerous, implication," judges Boyce Martin Jr. and Raymond Kethledge wrote." Time out. So if I own large quantities of firearms, it is implied that I become dangerous? This is unbelievable.
Lokalisierung
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 12:31 p.m.
"It is also legal to purchase and own fertilizer and diesel fuel, but if a person who has made threats against the government purchases large quantities of both, it creates a different, more dangerous, implication," So it's an "implication" that's keeping them in? Rediculous.