TN – US v Huff – Appeal

Darren Huff talks to much and thinks to little. However the appeal’s brief by the government shows why Darren was convicted:

Following Fitzpatrick’s arrest, Defendant began planning citizens’ arrests of Madisonville officials involved in Fitzpatrick’s case. On April 7, 2010, Defendant returned to Madisonville to meet Fitzpatrick, who had just been released on bond and was awaiting a court hearing scheduled for April 20, 2010. (R. 210, Trial Tr. at PageID# 1688-91; R. 211, Trial Tr. at PageID# 1795; R. 212, Trial Tr. at PageID# 1910.) Following that meeting, Defendant informed a friend via text message that no citizens’ arrests had been conducted that day. (R. 210, Trial Tr. at PageID# 1690.) When the friend asked if Defendant had “pull[ed] out the mussell [sic]” (id.), which was a reference to “some type of force” (R. 211, Trial Tr. at 1799), Defendant replied that he had not because Fitzpatrick had been released the night before (R. 210, Trial Tr. at PageID# 1690). Defendant explained, however, that it had not been a “wasted trip” because he had “met with the arrested to coordinate with all groups involved.” (Id. at PageID# 1690-91.) Defendant also stated, “we’re moving on to Phase 2.” (Id. at PageID# 1690.)

Defendant gave hints about that second phase to two employees at the J.P. Morgan Chase Bank in Hiram, Georgia, on April 15, 2010. That day, Shane Longmire was working as the bank manager and Erica Dupree was one of the tellers. (R. 209, Trial Tr. at PageID# 1445, 1447, 1470.) Both individuals were familiar with Defendant because he had been a regular customer of the bank since 2005 and had recently expressed anti-government sentiment. (Id. at PageID# 1445-46; R. 210, Trial Tr. at PageID# 1470-71.)

That morning, however, Defendant made comments that were “out of the ordinary.” (Id. at PageID# 1452.) Defendant told Longmire and Dupree that, on April 20, 2010, he was going to Madisonville with members of the Georgia Militia to “take over” the city. (Id. at PageID# 1447-49, 1454; R. 210, Trial Tr. at 1471-74, 1485-86.) He explained that they were going there because Fitzpatrick had been “wrongly arrested.” (R. 209, Trial Tr. at PageID# 1448.) Defendant stated he was going to bring multiple guns, including an AK-47 rifle, and that he would be on the “front line.” (Id. at PageID# 1449; accord R. 210, Trial Tr. at PageID# 1471-73.) He also said that he would have an anti-aircraft gun mounted on the back of his truck. (R. 209, Trial Tr. at PageID# 1450, 1456; R. 210, Trial Tr. at PageID# 1473, 1480-82.) Defendant assured Longmire and Dupree that they would hear about the incident on the news. (R. 209, Trial Tr. at PageID# 1449; R. 210, Trial Tr. at PageID# 1472.)

As Defendant was speaking, Longmire noticed that Defendant had driven a different truck to the bank than the one he normally drove. (R. 209, Trial Tr. at PageID# 1451-52.) The new truck was painted camouflage and had a “Georgia Militia” emblem on the door. (Id. at PageID# 1452, 1456.) When Defendant left the bank, he told Dupree that it had been nice knowing her and suggested that he might not ever see her again. (R. 210, Trial Tr. at PageID# 1475.) Longmire and Dupree both believed that Defendant was serious and were so concerned by his statements that they each separately contacted law enforcement authorities. (R. 209, Trial Tr. at PageID# 1452-53; R. 210, Trial Tr. at PageID# 1472, 1475-78.)

To follow up on those reports, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Special Agent Charles Reed spoke with Defendant at his residence on April 19, 2010. (R. 210, Trial Tr. at PageID# 1670-72.) Defendant confirmed that he was planning to go Madisonville the next day. (Id. at PageID# 1672.) Defendant explained that he intended to conduct some citizens’ arrests there. (Id. at PageID# 1678.) He said that he and other militia members would “try to take back” Madisonville and Monroe County and “possibly” even Tennessee and the United States. (Id. at PageID# 1672.) Defendant described the situation as “us against them,” with the “them” being government officials in Madisonville. (Id.)

Defendant also confirmed that he would be armed with his Colt .45 caliber handgun and would have an AK-47 rifle. (Id.) However, he explained that “they would not resort to violence unless they were provoked.” (Id. at PageID# 1673.) Defendant told Special Agent Reed that he was “happy” that the agent had come, gave the agent his business card, and told the agent to call him if there was a problem. (Id. at PageID# 1683-84.)

And again Huff had to talk to the police…

During that traffic stop, officers saw Defendant wearing a Colt .45 caliber handgun. (Id. at PageID# 1496-97.) Defendant “forewarn[ed]” the officers that he was meeting militia members in Madisonville and that “if enough people … show[ed] up [they] fully intend[ed] to proceed forward with … citizens arrests.” (Gov’t Trial Ex. 9;3 accord R. 210, at PageID# 1504-09, 1558; R. 211, Trial Tr. at PageID# 1924, 1942.) Defendant said “that was the reason why [he had his] .45, because ain’t no government official gonna go peacefully.” (Gov’t Trial Ex. 9; accord R. 210, Trial Tr. at PageID# 1504-05.)

Defendant also informed the officers that he had an AK-47 in the toolbox of his truck. (R. 210, Trial Tr. at PageID# 1555; R. 211, Trial Tr. at PageID# 1856). He explained that he and the militia members were going to take over the Monroe County courthouse and that he was personally going to use his AK-47 rifle to conduct arrests inside the courthouse. (R. 210, Trial Tr. at 1532-33, 1553-55, 1571, 1574-78.) Defendant assured the officers that he was “ready to die for his cause.” (Id. at PageID# 1557, 1578). He told them, “If it comes to that I’ve got to fight you guys, I have no choice.” (Gov’t Trial Ex. 40;4 accord R. 210, Trial Tr. at PageID# 1559-62.)

What a dufus…

He also admitted that he occasionally referred to himself as a “potential domestic terrorist” (id. at PageID# 1894) and that he had previously stated that he wanted to arrest government officials in Madisonville for the capital offense of treason (id. at PageID# 1925-28).

 

15 thoughts on “TN – US v Huff – Appeal

  1. I agree Huffs talks too much, but based on his interactions with police and their responsive behavior I have no reason to believe that any thing Huff said he really meant. First, the FBI agent was apparently negilgent in not taking Huff into custody after hearing what Huff said. The police also were negilgent as well for not taking Huff into custody and allowing a person who has said such things and was armed and packing to go on his merry way. In addition, if there was any real truth or threat to Huff’s words, there would have no doubt that Huff would wasted both the FBI and police officers. In conclusion, this is no more than a blowhard case with no “real” threat of violence. Huff was just a blowhard.

  2. First, the FBI agent was apparently negilgent in not taking Huff into custody after hearing what Huff said.

    Really?… You are blaming the FBI agent?….

    John, you are somewhat reality deprived are you not?…

    And yes, he is a blowhard who carried weapons across state line with him to a situation where he was going to effect a “citizens arrest”.

    Not just a blowhard but also not very smart.

  3. John, blow harder ..

    There are so many ‘blowhards’ amongst the birthers🙂

    Walt, Darren, Lakin… immediately come to mind. Walt has never recovered from his Navy days, Darren appears to be a ‘big boy’ who just wants to play and Lakin, well… he just should have taken some time to think before he acted…

  4. Huff had a concealed weapons permit so he every right to carry the weapons across state lines. As far, as his intent to cause any violence or disorder, the facts just don’t support it. The cops stopped him and let him go even though he said all those disturbing things. While the people at the bank thought Huff’s comments were troubling and did call the authoritories, the cops who stopped him obviously did not think so otherwise they would have not let him go. So one can base the credibility on 2 ordinary citizens with no criminal training or 2 cops with substancial knowledge and training in criminal threat, the latter who let him go on his merry way and did nothing. Again, proving a case of blowhardness not one of intent of violence. Further, if there was any credibility to Huff actually being a threat or having an intent, the cops who stopped him as well as the FBI agent would have been dead. The context of Huff’s comments, should put every person in authority on the dead list. But again, Huff cooperated and did nothing proving yet again a case blowhardness not one of violent intent. The only evidence appears to bunch of crap that Huffs spouted. But nothing else in the case seems to support violation of any law.

  5. I have to sa, in light of comments Huff said, the case really doesn’t make much sense. Why Huff did not blow away all the cops is beyond me if there was any merit or credibility to some intent of violence. I think the cops knew Huff was just blowing smoke and had no intent of doing anything that he said. That’s why they let him go.

  6. Huff had a concealed weapons permit so he every right to carry the weapons across state lines. As far, as his intent to cause any violence or disorder, the facts just don’t support it.

    Yes but he did not have the right to carry such a weapon across state lines to be used in an unlawful use in a disturbance. John is making much of the fact that the FBI and the cops let Huff continue to Monroe County but anything before that would likely have been unconstitutional restraint. Darren, more than once commented on his intentions to effect a ‘citizens arrest’ which is by itself unlawful, and he was clear that he was willing to use force and even to die for the ’cause’.

    The combined facts of Darren crossing state lines and showing up in Monroe, sets up the whole sequence of events that led to his arrest. It does not matter if the police thought he was just ‘blowing smoke’, he violated federal law and a jury of his peers agreed and found him guilty.

    Simple as that… Darren should not have been bragging to civilians and law enforcement alike about his intentions, leading to a somewhat predictable outcome. Darren loves to talk… And remember, anything you say can only be used against you in court.

    The police avoided a possibly unconstitutional restraint and allowed Darren to go into a situation where the police were ready for any shenanigans. The ‘patriots’ quickly realized that the situation did not look too good for them and did not even try to act, but the crime is ‘with intent’.

  7. Why Huff did not blow away all the cops is beyond me if there was any merit or credibility to some intent of violence.

    You may want to second guess why the police let him go. They did not really believe that he was an immediate threat as his comments were focused around Monroe County and ‘citizen arrests’. Really John, you seem to have a problem with understanding simple concepts, as usual.
    They even gave Darren the opportunity to store the guns with them IIRC… But Darren insisted on going forward with his trip to Monroe County.

    The jury of his peers was also not impressed by his ‘defense’ and there is no 2nd Amendment concern involved. Perhaps John may want to read the appeal documents🙂

    Just a thought… I do not want to burden John too much with facts…

  8. It also shows that it was not just because of other concerned citizens like Foggy, why there was a significant police presence at the Court house. One can only imagine if there had not been sufficient police and the ‘patriots’ had gotten up the ‘courage’ to effect a foolish and probably illegal citizen arrest…
    The police did them a favor…

  9. “They did not really believe that he was an immediate threat as his comments were focused around Monroe County and ‘citizen arrests”.

    Huffs in passion for making such comments should have killed all the cops but he didn’t. I therefore, don’t believe there was any intent to affect any violence. Huff was just making tough talk but he also felt he had right to carry his weapons under the 2nd amendment. I yet to see any facts that supported Huffs intent for violence beyond just bunch of tough talk.

  10. I guess if I was on the jury, that would have one my reasonable doubts. Why didn’t Huff kill all the cops if he was so intent and passionate about taking over some government force or affecting some citizens arrest.

  11. A supermarket tabloid John? Either John is a very dedicted troll or dumber than a box of rocks. Oddly, given his latest comments, I am leaning toward, troll.

  12. The Loretta Fuddy Autopsy Report is waiting for the toxicology lab results. If John is impatient he should Google “why toxicology lab results take so long.”

  13. John is no longer allowed to post here. His trolling postings about Fuddy, his total disregard for moral behavior, have resulted in a permanent ban.

    John, you are a fool… And you know it…

  14. I guess if I was on the jury, that would have one my reasonable doubts. Why didn’t Huff kill all the cops if he was so intent and passionate about taking over some government force or affecting some citizens arrest.

    Such poor logic. Darren was not interested in attacking cops but rather in citizen arrests in Monroe County.

    Come on John, you have just earned yourself a troll designation and given your total disregard for morality, ethics with respect to Fuddy’s death, you have now earned yourself a permanent ban.

    I know, I am doing the birthers a favor by banning you…

Comments are closed.