Key charges dismissed against Michigan militia members in federal court

[burf]

A year ago, the seven militia members standing trial were indicted by a federal grand jury "on charges of seditious conspiracy, attempted use of weapons of mass destruction, teaching the use of explosive materials, and possessing a firearm during a crime of violence."

The Detroit Free Press reports all charges were dropped against 5 of the defendants, but weapons charges remain for two of them.

http://www.npr.org/local/stories/Michigan-Radio/149472963

What is the problem with the DOJ? When these people were arrested, it sounded like a slam dunk. But then again maybe the Hutarees were runnin' guns for the ATF. Who knows?

[Xela]

1. Deal?

Perhaps a super duper secret deal was made of some sort.

Or the judge made a good call. Overzealous agents wouldnt' be new.

Xela

[chrisa]

2. Because these losers always rat each other out.

The problem is not getting them to talk - it's getting them to shut up!

They just want to go back to their homes and smoke meth in piece, just like the rest in the self-proclaimed "Patriot" movement.

[shadowrider]

3. Maybe the evidence wasn't there to support the allegations?

[burf]

4. In a related story by Reuters

Much of the evidence against the six men and one woman consisted of audio and video recordings made by an undercover agent and a paid informant who infiltrated the group.

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/kera/news.newsmain/article/0/2/1916883/US/Hutaree.militia.walk.from.jail.after.charges.dismissed

Maybe the UA and CI were the meth heads chrisa was refering to.

[pipoman]

5. In my state use of a "paid informant" who is facing criminal charges,

on probation or on parole can't be used and on the occasions when the paid informant, who was prohibited was used, all evidence which was the product of that CI has been thrown out. I don't know if this is what happened, sometimes these types of procedural state statutes are the product of a supreme court decision(s) or other case law. Just a guess.

[burf]

7. But this was in Federal court. n/t

[pipoman]

8. If it is procedural

law based on case law it may apply to the feds too..I think it will be some sort of procedural violation resulting in throwing out evidence.

[pipoman]

6. I predict a procedural problem with the evidence..