Thursday, March 29, 2012

The Hutaree Case: Next Time, They'll Just Send In The Drones

Exonerated Hutaree defendants leave court: Future "seditionists" probably won't get a trial.
Next time the Regime identifies a group of people as “domestic terrorists,” the result might be summary execution, or imprisonment in military custody, rather than a trial. This is one very plausible result of the dismissal of “seditious conspiracy” charges against members of Michigan’s Hutaree militia. 

Thanks to the legal environment created by the NDAA, the Feds won’t have to run the risk involved in submitting the next “domestic terrorism” case to the scrutiny of a court. Now that Attorney General Eric Hoder has helpfully clarified that “due process” and “judicial process” aren’t the same thing, it’s entirely possible that the next group of American dissidents identified by the SPLC or other self-appointed political watchdog groups as “terrorists” could be targeted by a drone-fired missile or a presidential strike team. 

When asked by Rep. Thomas Graves (R-Georgia) if such "targeted assassinations" could be conducted domestically as well as overseas, FBI Commissar Robert Mueller pointedly refused to rule out the possibility. This was probably welcome news to Leslie Larsen, the FBI Agent who presided over the Hutaree case. 

 "We haven't worked a year and a half on this investigation and risked [an undercover agent's] life to walk away from this with 3 arrests," groused the secret police investigator two years ago. At the time it appeared that the FBI wouldn’t be able to manufacture a criminal conspiracy out of a few trivial firearms violations and a surfeit of anti-government rhetoric. 

During the past decade, false flag operations targeting disaffected Muslims have become the FBI’s métier. The Hutaree was the first non-Muslim “domestic extremist” groups to be cast as the lead in one of the Bureau’s post-911 Homeland Security Theater productions. U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts, who was able to see the plot holes in the FBI’s implausible script, had the character and good sense to dismiss the case with prejudice.

 In her order granting the defense motion for summary judgment, Roberts – who had previously expressed severe skepticism regarding the supposed merits of the case – lambasted the Feds for repeatedly venturing beyond "inference to pure speculation” and “attempting to formulate an alternative theory of criminal liability” when it became clear that they couldn’t provide tangible evidence of intent to commit an overt criminal act. This resulted in a theory of the case “based primarily on two conversations … the first on August 13, 2009, and the second on February 20, 2010.” 

Hutaree Crackdown: SWAT operators raid a church in Michigan.
 The Hutaree “militia” was a loosely organized group of obscure people united by their entirely commendable hostility toward the criminal clique calling itself the United States Government. They apparently shared a set of apocalyptic beliefs about the imminent rise of the Antichrist, and they engaged in survivalist training in anticipation of the End Times, when they might confront the necessity to use defensive force against government agents – whether foreign or domestic – in league with the enemy. 

It was in the context of this scenario that members of the Hutaree group supposedly plotted to murder a law enforcement officer and then follow up with opportunistic attacks on other LEOs who would attend the funeral. This repellent terrorist tactic should be familiar to the Feds who investigated the Hutaree group; after all, the government that employs them has made extensive use of it. A detailed report compiled by British and Pakistani journalists has documented that CIA drone-fired missile strikes have killed “dozens of civilians who had gone to help rescue victims or [who] were attending funerals” that resulted from earlier missile attacks.

In orchestrating its phony domestic terrorist plots, the Regime tends to use a script inspired by its own acts of state terrorism abroad. The Hutaree “plot” to assassinate a cop and then capitalize on the funeral may have been prompted by the federal informant who infiltrated the group and – acting as a provocateur– thoughtfully offered to teach them how to make improvised explosive devices. It may have been stitched together in  post-production by the FBI impresario presiding over this little melodrama. What we know for certain is that it was not conceived by the Hutaree activists, nor did they take ownership of it.

The original indictment – which Judge Roberts eviscerated in a preliminary ruling – accused the Michigan dissidents of making material preparations to carry out specific criminal acts. When it was shown that there was no evidence to support that charge, the Feds shifted their focus and charged them with “seditious conspiracy,” which consisted of expressing opinions about government corruption and making physical preparations to for self-defense against criminal violence perpetrated by government authorities. 

Citing a Supreme Court precedent (Russell v. United States, 1962) holding that the prosecution isn’t “free to roam at large – to shift its theory of criminality so as to take advantage of each passing vicissitude of the trial,” Roberts observed that the Feds were not free to “say that the alleged plan set forth [in the original indictment] is irrelevant.” Yet that’s precisely what they attempted to do.
Although the supposed police assassination plot was central to the case against the Hutaree, “the Government did not provide sufficient proof of the existence of a conspiracy at all,” ruled Judge Roberts. “The Government says it is not certain whether the Hutaree intended to initiate the conflict, or simply engage in it once it was initiated by others.” While Hutaree members frequently engaged in what were described as “diatribes” against law enforcement, “all of this speech is protected by the First Amendment,” Roberts observed. Expressing hatred for the government’s enforcement caste “is not the same as seditious conspiracy.”

Under the Government’s theory of the case, Roberts noted, one could be charged with “sedition” simply through his or her “mere presence at the scene” when a Hutaree activist spoke about “going to war and killing police.” 

One of the defendants, Tina Mae Stone, was described by the Feds as an “active, engaged and vocal member” of the purported conspiracy because she overheard two conversations – one regarding a planned trip to Kentucky by David Stone, Sr. and the federal informant, and a second that took place in an FBI-rented warehouse in which the provocateur “discussed explosives” with Mr. Stone. 

The latter conversation touched on the subject of using coffee cans and wine bottles to make improvised explosively formed projectiles (EFPs).  Ms. Stone joked that “she would take one for the team and drink more wine, presumably so that the bottles could be used to make explosives,” Roberts recounts. The Feds characterized that wisecrack as evidence that she had “played an active, unhesitant, and continuing role in obtaining materials to use in building EFPs” – despite the fact that she was present for only one meeting with the Hutaree co-defendants, and never provided them with anything. 

Unchained: Michael Meeks hugs his aunt after being set free.
 Following dismissal of the case, Hutaree defendant Michael Meeks, a 42-year-old former Marine, said that the salient lesson taught by the case was the need for Americans to “watch what you say. Even the most innocent of statements can be used against you.” 

Actually, the lesson is that anything said in your presence can be used against you -- and if a sufficiently incriminating remark isn't forthcoming from you or your friends, the Feds can always pay somebody to perform on cue, and on camera.

While the Feds didn’t succeed in imprisoning the Hutaree defendants for life, they were able to steal more than two years of their respective lives through pre-trial incarceration. 

Although U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade – the Madam DeFarge behind this case – wasn’t able to feed the defendants to the guillotine, she expressed a measure of vindictive satisfaction that the felony convictions mean “that these defendants will never be permitted to possess firearms again.” She also reiterated the Regime’s intent to continue “dismantling” militias and other dissident groups suspected of impermissible animosity toward their rulers. 

Once again, thanks to the NDAA – the Obama Regime’s “Law of Suspects” – the Feds will be able to use extra-judicial means to “dismantle” dissident groups in the future. 

 The original Law of Suspects was enacted by France’s revolutionary Jacobin government  on September 17, 1793 (as it happened, the sixth birthday of the U.S. Constitution). The decree permitted the wholesale imprisonment of several classes of people deemed enemies of the State:

*Those considered “partisans of tyranny” or “enemies of liberty” -- which in the Jacobin lexicon referred to defenders of the monarchy and traditional institutions;

*Individuals who had been denied “certificates of patriotism” issued by the revolutionary regime;

*Former “civil servants” who had been cashiered by the National Convention;

*Former nobles and emigres and their families, if they failed to provide suitable displays of “devotion to the Revolution”;

*Those who emigrated from France between July 1, 1789 and April 8, 1792.

 As David A. Bell of Johns Hopkins University points out in his study The First Total War: Napoleon's Europe and the Birth of Warfare as We Know It, the Law of Suspects -- the template for every modern totalitarian legal system, including the NDAA -- was the enabling act for the revolutionary Reign of Terror. As is the case with a contemporary American deemed an “enemy combatant,” any French citizen branded a Suspect had no right to appeal that designation. Protests of that kind were probably met with some variation of the sentiment recently expressed by Robespierre’s modern disciple, Sen. Lindsey Graham: “Shut up – you don’t get a lawyer!” 

The same concept was adopted by the Soviet Union’s Fundamental Principles of Penal Legislation, which identified the central mission of the state's law enforcement apparatus (chiefly the Ckeha secret police, which would later become the KGB) as that of identifying, and removing the threat of, "socially dangerous persons." That mission was enshrined in Article 58 of the Soviet penal code, which was the foundation of that government’s perpetual war of terror against dissent – and the antecedent to section 1031 of the NDAA.

 The law dealing with "socially dangerous persons," notes the authoritative Black Book of Communism, dealt with "any activity that, without directly aiming to overthrow or weaken the Soviet regime, was in itself `an attack on the political or economic achievements of the revolutionary proletariat.' The law thus not only punished intentional transgressions but also proscribed possible or unintentional acts” (emphasis added).

Additionally, the expression "socially dangerous persons" itself was based on "extremely elastic categories" that permitted the imprisonment of people in the gulag "even in the absence of guilt." This is because what the Soviet rulers were pleased to call "the law" specified that incarceration, exile, or execution could be employed as means of "social protection" against "anyone classified as a danger to society, either for a specific crime that has been committed or when, even if exonerated of a particular crime, the person is still reckoned to pose a threat to society." (Emphasis added.)

Soviet "law" discarded entirely with the idea of punishing overt acts, focusing instead on the supposed motivations of those deemed innately threatening to the regime. Note also that the Soviet system was rigged to nullify exculpatory verdicts. Soviet prosecutors, like Federal prosecutors today, considered themselves entitled to “shift the theory of criminality” as needed in order to justify detention of political offenders.

Detention of “socially dangerous persons” was the primary function of the Soviet penal apparatus. As Paul Gregory points out in his book Lenin's Brain, most of the prisoners consigned to the gulag were sent there not because of what they had done, but because of what the state suspected they could do; they were being isolated from the rest of society "because of actual or suspected opposition to the Soviet state” – that is to say, that they had a “general plan” to “oppose the authority” of the government,” as the U.S. “Justice” Department said of the Hutaree defendants. 

 During the Senate’s discussion of the NDAA’s martial law provisions, Sen. Graham warned that Americans suspected of terrorism –  another “elastic” category that can include practically any kind of organized dissent – should “know what will come your way – death; detention; prosecution.” 

Under the NDAA, the Regime has the luxury of ignoring the third option listed by Graham when courts refuse to ratify every conspiracy theory concocted by the Cheka (or, as it’s now know, the FBI).  Or the Feds could simply avoid the messiness associated with “judicial process” of any kind and implement the Obama administration’s policy of executive assassination.

Thank you so much!

I would like to offer earnest and emphatic thanks to everyone who has responded so generously to my recent appeal. This really means a great deal to me and my family. The first batch of personalized copies of Liberty in Eclipse will be shipped out tomorrow (March 30). Two cases arrived a couple of days ago, and I will continue to send out a copy of the book to anyone who donates $20 or more to Pro Libertate. For non-Pay Pal donations, or to send a mailing address, please contact me (WNGrigg [at] msn [dot] [com]). Once again, thank you, and God bless.

Be sure to check out Republic magazine.

Dum spiro, pugno!


Anonymous said...

Domestic terrorists? Wouldst the regime in DC put their evil rhetoric to work and turn the drone rockets upon themselves.

Anonymous said...

"September17, 1793 (as it happened, the sixth birthday of the U.S. Constitution"

The Constitution wasn't "born" until 1789. Maybe you mean the Articles of Confederation instead?

liberranter said...

I can't help but wonder what kind of backlash Judge Roberts will face from the shadow powers that be for having ruled against their interests. Any judge in this day and age who dares render such common-sense interpretations of the law and who would dare side against the State in its campaigns of persecution against selected demographic groups is probably not long for the bench. The Establishment wants Roland Freislers, not Andrew Napolitanos, fronting its "justice" apparatus.

Bob said...

Another well-written post, Will. As I have reinterated time and again, the time has come for secession from the corrupt union.

William N. Grigg said...

Anon @ 11:49 -- September 17, 1787 is when the Constitution was signed at the Philadelphia Convention, and that date is generally considered to be the birthday of the document. The ninth ratification occurred the following June, which I suppose is regarded as the day it went into effect.

Three years later the newly created central government suppressed the Whiskey Rebellion, which demonstrates that even in its infancy the constitutional regime was devoted to something other than the protection of individual liberty. The Constitution is valuable primarily as means to measure the depth of the Regime's official hypocrisy.

Anonymous said...

"...the Hutaree group supposedly plotted to murder a law enforcement officer and then follow up with opportunistic attacks on other LEOs who would attend the funeral."
While I very much prefer the morally unambiguous tactic of the "removal" of individuals who have proven beyond doubt by voluntary action their antagonism to and active sabotage of individual freedom, I am unconvinced that the scenario of this alleged plot is "repellent." I also see no explicit support for that premise articulated in your post. As a deity doubter who is an ardent believer in individual liberty, I invite you to make the case in terms that may convince me.

"Michael Meeks, a 42-year-old former Marine, said that the salient lesson taught by the case was the need for Americans to 'watch what you say. Even the most innocent of statements can be used against you.'"
The lesson I draw from this concerns the merits of self-sufficiency. In plans to undermine the regime. Do not trust in others, _any_ others, under any circumstances. Be a force unto yourself. Will it be a lonely existence? Surely. but it is the only strategy for active resistence (there will be no effective defense of individual liberty without effective resistence of both passive and active varieties) with any realistic possibility of success. Anonymous browsing and technical information available on the internet (if you can learn to discount both lunacy and narcissistic bullshit) are your friends.

Regarding drones, for the most part they are (relatively) slow, and rely on control signals transmitted on known frequency bands (to this point in time, at least - MIC program contraints resulting from the recession are clearly to advantage here) It is one of the most mysterious of (non) events to me that the "enemy" in South Asia has not yet successfully concocted a method to neutralize these devices. On the gripping hand, it was the altitude that crippled the Soviet 'copters in Afghanistan, not Reagan's allies, so perhaps I proffer too much credit. I trust that our home-grown insurgents will do better. If nothing else, it should not be a terribly daunting task to determine the centers from which these devices are controlled (and the personnel with "control skills")

Anonymous said...

So, like so many others, these folks had years of their lives stolen by the true criminals in this country. So I'd like to know if they'll be compensated by these very same thieves? And to then take away their right to self defense, the very thing these folks originally banded together for, after having been fraudulently accused by these serial liars, tells you exactly what they think about anyone who says or even thinks anything that they perceive to be a threat: You, citizen/slave, are their property and had better not wander off the plantation.

monkey in manpants said...

Comrade I am not socially dangerous. I love dear leader saint obama, the savior, the one, the messiah! I love our efficient, trim and lean government. I love our post racial utopia. I love my...chains.

liberranter said...

MoT said:

And to then take away their right to self defense, the very thing these folks originally banded together for, after having been fraudulently accused by these serial liars, tells you exactly what they think about anyone who says or even thinks anything that they perceive to be a threat:

The good news is that NO ONE, not even the criminal, thieving liars who make up the current Regime can "take away" ANYONE'S rights, including the right to self-defense.

Although U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade – the Madam DeFarge behind this case – wasn’t able to feed the defendants to the guillotine, she expressed a measure of vindictive satisfaction that the felony convictions mean “that these defendants will never be permitted to possess firearms again.”

Wrong, you criminal bitch. They will certainly BE ABLE to possess any sort of firearms they wish, as is their absolute God-given right. That they will do so IN DEFIANCE OF THE ILLEGAL FIAT OF THE REGIME YOU REPRESENT is irrelevant.

The afore-quoted statement by the rogue prosecutor, in which an agent of the State attempts to unilaterally and UNLAWFULLY revoke the natural rights of an individual or group of individuals, is, for all practical purposes, tantamount to either a criminal trespass or a declaration of war, depending on one's point of view. That being the case, the Hutaree, who have NOT BEEN FOUND GUILTY OF ANY CRIME, have every natural right to take up arms against these criminal usurpers - as does anyone else not actually incarcerated for having committed a violation of NATURAL LAW (and even then, upon their release from prison, having paid their debt to society, are clearly entitled to reassert their natural rights, IN FULL).

May everyone in the same position as the Hutaree find the courage to reassert their God-given rights, and may all of us who love liberty find the courage to support them in doing so, regardless of whether or not we share their beliefs.

Anonymous said...

Getting someone locked up for two to three years for running his mouth/thought crimes seems to be the driving force behind these cases. Even if the government loses, they win. Free speech is shut down.

In a free society people don't need to watch what they say.

Let's note the FBI agents name, Haug. He was also involved with Hal Turner, the sometime informant who is prison right now for running his mouth.

The DOJ also tried to keep William White on indefinite detention as a danger to society after Judge Lynn Adelman threw out White's guilty verdict in the Matt Hale juror case last year in Chicago.

Matt Hale is basically being held as a danger to society right now, in a very similar type of case to the Hutaree case.

willb said...

"The Law of Suspects."

What an excellent and apt analogue.

I think if the NDAA goes forward the Congress should indeed begin issuing certificates of patriotism. I mean heck, anyone can hide behind a lapel pin.


Anonymous said...

It is hard to keep track of all the fbi entrapment cases. Another shame is that I had to go to a Russian news page to really get the scoop on the NDAA. Sorry if off topic but I read another story of government gone wild in Colorado. A child was removed by cps because a doctor suspected broken bones in a leg. It turns out the child had an extremely rare bone disorder but the father was so distraught over the prospect of being charged with child abuse and a lengthy court case he killed himself and his wife.

Bob said...

Another argument for the election of someone like a Ron Paul. Otherwise, the individual states must, at the very least, consider secession.

Perhaps it's time for another John Wilkes Booth.

Bob said...

Perhaps I was a bit rash with the last sentence of my last comment. If states start leaving the union, will the regime consider using nuclear weapons to force them to reconsider?

liberranter said...

Bob, the biggest problem with secession, as things now stand, is that each state will just wind up being governed by miniature versions of Rome-on-the-Potomac. The only difference will be that the tyrants will be closer to home. Some might argue that this means that they're more effectively controlled (and eliminated), but if what we see today is any indicator, that's a myth. (To illustrate, when was the last time that even a change of city or county council did anything at all to eliminate the petty tyrannies that have characterized local governments everywhere for decades?)

No, as long as the majority subscribes to the idea that The State is essential, it won't matter whether the tyranny operates from the local, state, or federal level. Tyranny exists because, obviously, the sheeple majority wants it to exist.