Judge orders release of 9 Hutaree militia members (Update to earlier threads)

[shadowrider]

A federal judge in Detroit today ordered the release of nine members of a Lenawee County Christian militia group freed on bond over the objections of federal prosecutors.

“The United States is correct that it need not wait until people are killed before it arrests conspirators,” U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts said in a 36-page decision. “But, the Defendants are also correct: their right to engage in hate-filled, venomous speech, is a right that deserves First Amendment protection.”

She said federal prosecutors failed to persuade her that the defendants must be jailed until trial.

It is unclear whether the U.S. Attorney’s Office will appeal the decision.

"We will be reviewing and weighing all of our options," said spokeswoman Susan Plochinski of the U.S. Attorney's Office.

http://freep.com/article/20100503/NEWS06/100503031/1319/Judge-orders-release-of-9-Hutaree-militia-members

IMHO this was nothing more than a fishing expedition against a bunch of people who crawl around in the woods wearing their camo.

[Glassunion]

1. Hmm. Not sure how I feel about this one... (nt)

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mmonk]

3. The five count indictment is here:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/03/29/stone.pdf

They were not arrested for hate speech.

[mmonk]

4. So is the feeling here that those that conspire to commit murder against

law enforcement officials should be released on free speech grounds?

[pipoman]

5. I can't speak for everyone here

but at least a couple of these charges are in fact speech/association related. These people are innocent until proven guilty. I trust the judge to make a reasonable determination concerning the strength of the case, the danger to society, and the rights of the accused...but then I am a civil libertarian.

[mmonk]

7. There is no free speech right to conspire to commit murder

against those in law enforcement or the government and to assemble the bomb materials to do so.

[Callisto32]

9. Ahh, but conspiracy requires that you take a concrete step toward the completion of the conspiracy.

Just talking doesn't count.

[shadowrider]

10. And if talking did count among those who take issue with police/government, etc.

Just about the entire population would be in jail.

[mmonk]

26. Here was the account as I reported it on my blog with updates:

http://americancommentary.wordpress.com/2010/03/28/f-b-i-the-joint-terrorism-task-force-and-homeland-security-raids-occuring-in-michigan-and-other-areas/

[pipoman]

12. You do understand the whole,

'innocent until proven guilty' thing, no?

[Winterblues]

47. Bush* Doctrine

Do you back that?

[pipoman]

60. The "Bush* Doctrine"

is a bit broad for this tight space. Is there a specific case, policy or incident you have in mind? In general some of what I saw during his term, I believe would have happened on any President's watch, some wouldn't have happened on anyone in their right mind's watch.

[Winterblues]

66. You do understand what the "Bush* Doctrine" is don't you?

It is about attacking anyone or any country that you suspect may be at some time thinking of doing you harm..IOW Guilty before any trial or even a reply..

[Callisto32]

8. The feeling is that you need evidence to hold someone in a tiny room with no way out.

The .gov figured that if they said enough "scurry things" the judge would be all "ZOMG!! ItZ teh Terrorizts OnOes!!1!" Instead, she actually required due process. You know, that thing that we put into place to make sure YOU aren't railroaded at some point.

[mmonk]

36. So bomb making materials are not enough evidence I suppose.

[Supersedeas]

20. Would the same standard apply to Islamic fundamentalists during the Bush era?

[Xithras]

33. Conspiracy requires intent

That's where these types of cases get onto shaky ground. In order to prove conspiracy, you have to prove intent. Quite often, the only difference between a real terrorist cell and a bunch of rednecks talking shit over beers as they play Rambo in the woods is the intent to follow through on their words.

From what I've seen of the case so far, there does seem to be a real question as to whether they actually intended to commit any crimes, or whether they were just a bunch of wannabes chattering BS at each other. They were certainly a real militia who believed that "end times" are coming, and see themselves as some sort of soldiers in the war that will follow. The thing is, none of that is illegal. They were arrested and indicted based on the assumption that they would be directly attacking a law enforcement officer, and that part seems to be a bit less provable.

If the prosecutor cannot show that they're either an imminent threat or a flight risk, the judge is correct in ordering them released on bail. If the prosecution hasn't yet convinced the judge of the reality of their intent, it means that the prosecutor has failed...not the judge.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Xela]

11. Innocent until proven guilty...

It should apply to everyone last I heard.

Xela

[quaker bill]

37. True

but release on bond before trial is an entirely different issue. The presumption of innocence applies to all, even those held without bond until trial.

[Obamanaut]

38. Presumed. nt

[Ikonoklast]

13. Every one of you missed one important thing:

These guys are still going to trial, they are only free on bond.

The alleged crimes they supposedly committed has yet to be adjudicated in a court of law.


And a 'fishing expedition' that netted some idiots in camo willing to say out loud that they were conspiring to commit murder, isn't much of a expedition...more like shooting fish in a barrel.

[shadowrider]

17. Saying and doing are two seperate things

[Ikonoklast]

19. Conspiracy.

Planning.



These guys are going to guests of the taxpayers for some years to come.

[shadowrider]

24. I would not want to bet on it. I give it less than 50/50 for conviction IF there are no

concrete, provable plans to kill LEO's. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of guys blowing off steam.

[martymar64]

72. That will be decided at their trial

[Warren DeMontague]

14. Is that including the "punish me with your dildo mallet" guy?

That whole thing was fucking surreal.

[WeDidIt]

15. I wonder if they'll now go apocalyptic

Refuse to leave their compound and make a final stand.

It would not surprise me.

[maddezmom]

16. UPDATE: Judge agrees to delay release of militia members

DETROIT -- A judge has suspended a decision that would have freed nine members of a Michigan militia from jail while they await trial.

Late Monday U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts granted a request by the U.S. Attorney's office to delay their release. Prosecutors have until 5 p.m. Wednesday to tell the judge whether they will file an appeal. Roberts says prosecutors must provide a detailed explanation of why they think they their appeal can succeed.

The nine members of the southern Michigan-based Hutaree group have been charged with conspiracy to commit sedition, or rebellion, against the government.

more: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4367171

[Karenina]

18. What if these clowns had an ever-so-slightly darker skin tone?

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! In my lifetime similarly outspoken groups who were actually COHERENT were murdered in their beds.
Yup! Spring these guys to add fuel to the "race war" they've fantasized about for SO MANY DECADES.

Can you spell WHITE PRIVILEGE boys and girls? I KNEW you could!

[slackmaster]

28. White Privilege, eh?

Here's a portrait of Judge Victoria A. Roberts, who made the decision.



http://www.michbar.org/news/releases/archives99/9_10e_99.cfm

[Karenina]

41. Ja, und?

:shrug:

[slackmaster]

44. Thuddingly obvious

Are you really clinging to the absurd notion that a female African-American judge with impeccable liberal credentials and a long track record of working for racial equality in the justice system let the men out on bond because they are white? That Judge Roberts is an agent of "white privilege"?

:rofl:

Everything is about race on DU now, at least for some of us.

[Rex]

21. Ummm...if the judgment was that their intent is to kill people

then why let them hide behind the 1st amendment? Last time I checked, the right to express yourself doesn't include murder or sedition - looks like I was wrong. Stupid ruling imo, they might now go out and kill someone. I hope not, because then this will all become a tragedy that could have been avoided.

Edit - aw I see the judge might be thinking the same thing. Wouldn't look good to release them and have them kill someone or a lot of people.

[pipoman]

22. But that isn't the "judgment"

it is the accusation, a judgment has yet to be made.

Last time I checked, the right to express yourself doesn't include murder or sedition - looks like I was wrong.

Were the charges dismissed? No, they were not.

Stupid ruling imo, they might now go out and kill someone. I hope not, because then this will all become a tragedy that could have been avoided.

Edit - aw I see the judge might be thinking the same thing. Wouldn't look good to release them and have them kill someone or a lot of people.

Are you saying you favor jailing people or denying rights of people for what they might do? Remember these are not convicts, they are only accused. There is criteria for denial of bonding while awaiting trial, apparently the prosecutors have not yet met that criteria in the opinion of the judge.


All that said, from the only info I have on this case, which, I must add, came entirely from the prosecution, I hope these people are severely dealt with after their conviction. OTOH, I have personally seen cases of prosecutors interpretation of evidence being such that not another reasonable person could possibly agree. It happens pretty regularly and is manifested in not guilty or innocent (rarely), court verdicts.

The civil libertarian in me sees a case of law enforcement hearing about a plot to attack law enforcement.

[Rex]

29. Well if OJ Simpson can rot away in a county jail for a year without

due process (which he did) then I don't see why people make a big deal about this case. I agree with your last line, this is a case of law enforcement hearing someone might endanger them and they must find a way to stop it from happening. I guess that is my problem in the way I see it. You are right of course, these are accused and not convicts. I just don't agree with letting them go, I think they are a flight risk and a danger to society, remember they admitted that they wanted to usurp the rule of law. That is what bothers me the most.

[pipoman]

30. Again, except,

these are all claims we have heard from police and prosecutors, and only police and prosecutors accusations. The judge has seen the actual evidence, knows the histories of the people, has read the cases, and is supposed to make a lawful, reasonable, and unbiased decision. I trust that is exactly what this judge is doing. What could you possibly know which would make your opinion that these idiots are a flight risk better than the judge's opinion that they probably aren't?

[pipoman]

31. delete..dupe

[devilgrrl]

23. The got out because they're white.

Had they been black people doing the same thing - they'd still be behind bars.

[slackmaster]

27. Hey devilgrrl, do you know anything about Judge Victoria A. Roberts?

...Hon. Victoria A. Roberts of Detroit is currently a federal judge for the Eastern District of Michigan and served as the 62nd president of the State Bar of Michigan. Her strong leadership in voluntary legal services to the poor and dedication to pro bono and public service initiatives earned her nomination by the D. Augustus Straker Bar Association. During her State Bar presidency, she appointed the State Bar Task Force on Racial/Ethnic and Gender Issues in the Courts and Legal Profession and implemented the State Bar's first "Access to Justice for All Hotline" for the public during the State Bar's Annual Meeting....

http://www.michbar.org/news/releases/archives99/9_10e_99.cfm

[devilgrrl]

32. So what?

They still belong behind bars.

[slackmaster]

34. So, you are backing away from "The (sic) got out because they're white"

Thanks.

[devilgrrl]

35. No.

and they still belong behind bars. :hi:

[slackmaster]

42. "Had they been black people doing the same thing - they'd still be behind bars."

I take it you'd be OK with them being behind bars if they were black.

[devilgrrl]

45. No.

I wouldn't be okay with that. But if they were as dangerous as I think these assholes are - I'd be fine with it. So why is this bunch allowed out again?

[slackmaster]

48. You just contradicted yourself.

Unless you mean to say that white people should be treated more harshly than black people.

So why is this bunch allowed out again?

Ask the judge.

I guarantee she won't tell you she let them out on bond because of the color of their skin. She'll probably teach you something about the law.

[devilgrrl]

49. and she could probably teach you a few things too.

eom

[slackmaster]

52. I'm sure she could teach me a lot

Everyone has something to teach other people who are willing to listen and to re-assess their views.

[Fading Captain]

25. I've paid attention to this case

What I saw in the indictment wasn't very persuasive.

They were turning back in their van from a militia conference when the leader spotted a local cop car and said that cop was going to be one of the one's killed.

It's really hard to tell a) how serious these guys were and b) whether or not they were competent enough to pose a serious threat.

Not that I disagree with their arrest. People who act in the manner they have should be investigated.

[Warren Stupidity]

39. Out on bond is not charges dismissed.

Conspiracy to commit murder is a rather serious charge.

I suppose you are also against this:

"Roberts said the defendants could be freed under house arrest on electronic tethers. They must surrender their concealed weapons permits, cannot apply for a license to purchase or carry guns and cannot drink alcohol or take drugs."

After all this was a 'fishing expedition' by the evile gummint against just plain old folks tramping around the woods with guns who happened to be allegedly planning "to attack local, state and federal law enforcement officers, among other officials." What's the big fuss?

[shadowrider]

40. This is the big deal

Imagine this. You and a bunch of friends are standing around the BBQ swigging a few beers while waiting for the burgers to get done. Someone from local law enforcement shows up on a noise/smoke complaint. They leave. You say something to your friends to the effect that officer should get removed from his/her position for frivolously hassling you. A friend hears this and reports it. LEO's show up and arrest you and your friends on a "conspiracy" charge, with no proof you were actually going to do anything to the officer.

Saying you're going to do something, and providing concrete proof of intent, are two separate things.

[old mark]

43. OK they are released ON BOND, pending trial - they are not "cleared of all charges"...

I thought the Feds found evidence of explosives being made, but other than that, I have not seen much that warrants them being held without bail....they had a lot of guns...so do I. I think they will have a rough time at trial, providing the Feds have not fucked the dog on evidence or violeated their rights - they are US citizens, after all and just as entitled as we are to talk shit about the government or parts thereof....just not good to plan to kill LEO's en masse - that may bet you some time in prison.

I am hoping the feds bite is as bad as their bark n this case.

mark

[notadmblnd]

46. there was an article in our local paper yesterday,

that the judge put a hold on her decision. Is this out new this morning?

http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/2232990,hutaree-militia-bond-judge-050410.article

[ljm2002]

50. This really pisses me off...

...I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that if the exact same facts were presented to the exact same judge, but the identities of the accused were Muslims, there is no way in hell they would have been released on bail.

These are very serious charges and it is perfectly reasonable to keep such people incarcerated until and unless they are acquitted of the charges. To do otherwise is to risk public safety.

[slackmaster]

51. The parade of baseless knee-jerk second-guessing of a good judge's decisions never ends

:nuke:

[ljm2002]

53. I disagree with the decision...

...these people are not charged with mischief, the charges are very serious and include sedition and planning to kill police officers, just for starters.

But I see the judge has delayed their release. Good for her.

The factors considered when deciding on amount of bail, or whether there should be any bail at all, are typically (a) are they a flight risk? dubious in this case; and (b) are they a danger? they would appear to be so IMO.

As for rude slackers, all I can say is, slack off.

[slackmaster]

54. I take it you would be OK with keeping them locked up if they happened to be Muslims

Because you would be OK with keeping them locked up as Christians.

Thanks for the clarification.

[ljm2002]

55. When someone is charged with making bombs...

...planning to kill LEOs, and sedition -- then, yes, I am okay with them being held without bail. Those are serious charges and indicate that those charged are a danger to society. The purpose of keeping them in jail is to protect society from potential harm.

Yes I know they are innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law. Doesn't mean that we let every murderer go free until they have their day in court.

Granted they had not yet implemented their plan. OTOH, conspiracy to commit murder is already getting into "don't let these fuckers out" territory IMO. And I don't care what color or culture they are. If these were black people or Muslims with the same charges, I would have no problem with keeping them incarcerated until trial. Because silly me, I don't want to give them the chance to execute their plan.

[shadowrider]

56. So you're all for keeping Gitmo open?

People there are charged with the same thing. Making bombs, conspiracy to commit murder, etc. There is no proof they actually did any of these things, but they COULD do it.

Just curious

[ljm2002]

57. Last time I checked...

...the Hutarees were charged in a civilian court under civilian laws and procedures.

Sometimes, these procedures include denying bail because the accused is deemed to be a flight risk or is a danger to the community.

This has nothing to do with Gitmo. Zip, Zero, Zilch. Just because the charges are similar, does not mean that the procedures being followed are the same. I made no comment about Gitmo, and your leap of (il)logic is mistaken.

By the way, standard legal procedures do not require PROOF of wrongdoing before people are brought to trial. Proof is what happens at trial. Now it is true you need to have some evidence, that's part of due process. But proof, that happens later. In the meantime, there are decisions to be made concerning whether the accused is a flight risk or may be dangerous. I don't want our judges to be draconian on this issue; however, I do want them to be prudent.

Hope that clears it up for you.

[shadowrider]

58. It wasn't a leap of logic

I was just curious.

And I would assume there would be proof of wrongdoing before going to trial, otherwise the prosecutor should be held in contempt at the least, and disbarred at the worst, for wasting valuable courtroom time, IMHO.

[ljm2002]

59. No, there is not PROOF of wrongdoing before trial...

...that's what trials are for.

Generally there is "proof of wrongdoing" in the sense that something bad happened and clearly someone did it. And before you bring someone in on charges, you better have pretty convincing evidence. But convincing evidence is not the same thing as proof, not at all. It's why you have a trial, after all.

Anyway the original issue had to do with whether or not to grant bail. I would argue no, in this case, given the charges. That's me, others may differ. But I repeat, it has nothing at all to do with Gitmo. That is a separate issue of people who never had any due process, some of whom were tortured, many of whom have been kept for years without charges, etc. While the Hutarees are being given standard due process in our court system.

[pipoman]

61. Jeeeez

the keyboard quarterbacking going on here is astounding.

Prosecutor's requests for denial of bail are denied every day. Cases are filed which, upon review by an impartial judge, do not meet the criteria for holding a presumed innocent person without bail. The assertion that you somehow have better ability to judge this case than the judge who is hearing the case, know the case of the prosecution, has information on the accused, has heard both sides arguments, and most importantly understands the law as is related to the granting of bail...well then please share your basis for this belief.

You do understand that there is a prosecution (which includes the investigatory branch, law enforcement) and a defense in each criminal case. The prosecution's job is to gain a conviction and the defense's job is to defend the accused. Thus far the ONLY information I have seen is statements by the prosecution. Prosecutions loose cases every day, often a judge can look at a case and see that it is likely to go against the prosecution based simply on strength or maybe on obvious illegal searches or acquisition of evidence which the judge knows will never be allowed in. A good impartial judge is the ONLY barrier between you, with your very limited resources and the full force of the unlimited resources of the government. It appears to me that this judge is doing her job to the best of her ability and not letting the media or the emotions of people who know nothing influence her experienced decision making. Have you information other than statements by law enforcement and prosecutors?

[ljm2002]

64. Well "keyboard quarterbacking" cuts both ways...

...if I can be accused of it for disagreeing with the judge's decision, then you can be accused of it for agreeing with the decision.

See how that works?

By the way, please quote one of my posts to support your statement that I ever made any "assertion that somehow have better ability to judge this case than the judge who is hearing the case". Please, I want to see what phrase or paragraph in my postings made you take that leap. I disagreed with a pre-trial decision, that's it. No need to read more into it.

People disagree with judges' decisions every day. People are convicted at trial, then appeal and are acquitted. Happens all the time. At what point in a judicial proceeding might I feel free to express my opinion on the matter? Should I wait until the first trial is over? the second? or not say anything at all unless and until all appeals are exhausted, or the defendants are acquitted, since at that point it is fully and finally decided? or maybe the idea is, we should shut our traps until the actual trial begins. But in that case, perhaps you should get on the OP's case since they posted about a pretrial decision on a discussion board, presumably for the sake of discussion.

[pipoman]

68. I don't agree or disagree

with the judges decision, just am willing to submit that she knows everything about this case and I only know what reporters have screwed up and what one side, the prosecution, has alleged. I tend not to believe everything law enforcement and prosecutors choose to reveal to the press. I trust the judge is making a sound, lawful decision no matter how she decides.

Anyway the original issue had to do with whether or not to grant bail. I would argue no, in this case, given the charges.

There have been several others in this thread who have made very similar comments. The charges in a given case are far less important than the weight of the evidence against an accused, and the strength of the prosecution's case in general. These are things the judge is privy to which we are presumably not.

[ljm2002]

69. Well, by your logic...

...namely, that the judge "knows everything about this case" and that you "trust the judge is making a sound, lawful decision no matter how she decides" -- it sounds like you don't think we should be criticizing judicial decisions at all, since we can't possibly have all the information.

You could characterize many discussions here on DU as "keyboard quarterbacking". We're all full of ideas about what is being done, what could be or could have been done, what should be or should have been done. It's kind of the nature of a discussion board.

Well anyway, the Circuit Court has stayed the release. We'll see how they decide. I'm not going to get wrapped around the axle over it, but still think they should remain incarcerated. I have no quibble with your statement that the weight of the evidence must be a primary consideration when making this decision.

[pipoman]

70. It is quite one thing when we are

critiquing decisions based on transcripts, review of the evidence, or even statements by both sides of the case. Having worked on defense cases for several years I have learned that to make decisions about guilt or innocence based only on either side's assertions or claims is not a good idea. I see over and over on DU people making the mistake of buying into the statements of police and prosecutors only. I am particularly leery of this case in doing that since there is an accusation of a threat to police. Now our investigative branch is not really as unbiased as if they are investigating a threat against, say, an unknown private citizen.

After having read your posts in this thread, I suspect we would mostly agree, it is easy to get carried away with minutia in this format. I have worked on the defense of many, many people who, if the truth was known, I wouldn't want to be free on society. I have always tried my very best to maintain my objectivity and tried to the best of my ability to assist in giving each person or group my best effort.

[shadowrider]

62. Mike Nifong tried going to trial with no proof, how'd that work out?

[shadowrider]

63. Here is an earlier article on the judge and HER frustration with

lack of detail and proof.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x314180

I personally don't think they should be held based simply on what they COULD do in the future. Using that logic, the government can lock up anyone, maybe you, for any reason by saying, "In the future this person COULD do this (whatever "this" is). Your opinion may differ, no harm, no foul.

[ljm2002]

65. Now that the circuit court has STAYED the release order...

...I await the responses from posters here accusing them of (a) wanting to keep Gitmo open; (2) insulting the judge who ordered their release; (c) not understanding how our justice system works; (d) not having all the facts that were available to the judge; (e) listening only to the prosecution; (f) ... well you get the idea.

Those of us who were against the release of the Hutarees were accused of all of the above in this thread.

Waiting...

[shadowrider]

73. I'm not against that at all IF the prosecution came up with evidence

to support the decision. IF, however, she bowed to pressure (keep them in jail just because), then I'm against it. We will never know why or the reasoning behind the decision.

But again, IF the prosecution (government) provided PROOF of their intent, I have no problem with the decision.

[Rex]

74. Maybe people don't know all the facts in the case and just watch

reports on the TVEE. Not like us netheads that read about the people involved and look at pictures of their lives and what they have done. Google is so easy to use.

[ShortnFiery]

67. From the onset I doubted that these folks were true *terrorists* ...

they came across as neither super-bright nor insightful.

It would be easy for an agent provocateur to lead these folks around by the nose and get them to entrap themselves. However, he'd have to do all the heavy lifting.

[ljm2002]

71. This afternoon, after my several posts on this topic...

...I recalled the pictures and what had been written about these folk, and the thought occurred that they seem to be borderline mental defectives.

But that doesn't meant they aren't dangerous.

Well the courts will decide what to do with them while they await trial.