1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) 2:14-mj-90 

 ) 

SAMUEL BRADBURY. ) 

ORDER 

 At the June 26, 2014 initial appearance, the government requested that the defendant, 

Samuel Bradbury, be held without bond. A detention hearing was conducted on June 31, 2014, 

and the court now makes the following findings of fact: 

1. The defendant currently is charged in a criminal complaint with extorting and 

threatening and wilfully threatening the use of explosive materials in violation of 18 

U.S.C. §§ 875(c) and 844(e). A conviction under § 875(c) carries a maximum penalty of 

5 years, and a conviction under § 844(e) carries a maximum penalty of 10 years. 

2. At the hearing, the government relied on the information contained in the affidavit 

attached to its complaint and that in the pre-trial bond report. 

3. In the affidavit, FBI Agent Troy Wohlfert, stated that the defendant posted numerous 

threats to kill West Lafayette Police Officer Troy Greene, Sheriff Tracy Brown, Judge 

Les Meade, and Judge Loretta Rush. The defendant stated on Facebook that he could not 

“keep silent on this conspiracy anymore”, that he was the leader of the 765 Anarchists, 

the town’s cop killing group, that he was associated with Jerad and Amanda Miller, who 

murdered police officers in Las Vegas, and that the 765 Anarchists had field agents 

gathering information and planning an attack. He further stated that the group had 

enough thermite and explosives to kill the two named police officers and others who got 

case 2:14-cr-00071-PPS-APR document 13 filed 07/01/14 page 1 of 5
2 

in their way and to cause extreme damage to the county’s offices, including police cars, 

police buildings, and the Tippecanoe County Courthouse. 

4. Agent Wohlfert further stated that during a search of the defendant’s residence, the West 

LaFayette Police Department discovered three bags of aluminum powder in close 

proximity to three bags of black iron oxide. Both are precursors used in making of 

thermite. Thermite is an incendiary material created when aluminum powder and iron 

oxide are mixed together. Once the mixture is ignited, thermite produces tremendous 

heat and molten slag sufficient to burn through metal and difficult to extinguish. 

5. Investigators also found that the defendant had searched the names of the individuals 

identified in his Facebook threat and found handwritten documents with strong anti-law 

enforcement and anti-government statements, including such statements as “Kill Cops” 

and “Could someone please kill a cop today or even just a sycophant”. 

6. At the hearing, the defendant called Agent Wohlfert to testify. Agent Wohlfert agreed 

that following the defendant’s Facebook post, he stated that his post was an exercise of 

free speech, that the plans were not real as far as he knew, and that the statement was 

satire and an exercise to see whether free speech still exists. Agent Wohlfert further 

stated that none of the bags recovered from the defendant’s residence contained a mixture 

of the aluminum powder and iron oxide and that no ignition material was found. 

A defendant charged with an offense may be (1) released on personal recognizance, (2) 

released on conditions, (3) temporarily detained to permit revocation of conditional release, or 

(4) detained. 18 U.S.C. ''3142(a) & (e). Release may be denied if the court finds that there are 

no conditions that will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant and the safety of the 

community. 18 U.S.C. '3142(e). The court's authority to order detention is limited to the 

case 2:14-cr-00071-PPS-APR document 13 filed 07/01/14 page 2 of 5
3 

following seven situations: (1) cases involving crimes of violence with a statutory maximum of 

ten years or more, '3142(f)(1)(A); (2) cases involving an offense carrying a maximum sentence 

of life imprisonment or death, '3142(f)(1)(B); (3) cases involving drug offenses carrying 

maximum sentences of ten years or more, '3142(f)(1)(C); (4) cases involving a felony if the 

defendant has two or more prior convictions for crimes falling in categories (1)-(3), 

'3142(f)(1)(D); (5) cases involving minor victims or the use or possession of a firearm, 

'3142(f)(1)(E); (6) cases involving a serious risk that the defendant will flee, '3142(f)(2)(A); 

and (7) cases involving a serious risk that the defendant will obstruct justice, or intimidate 

witnesses or jurors, '3142(f)(2)(B). See United States v. Chavez-Rivas, 536 F.Supp.2d 962, 966 

n.5 (E.D. Wis. 2008) (laying out these conditions and discussing Congress' addition of 

'3142(f)(1)(E) as part of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006). There is a 

presumption against bond for crimes of violence, which encompasses threats to kill in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. §844(e). See United States v. Ali, 2005 WL 3115876, *2 (N.D. Ill. 2005) 

(explaining that threats to kill in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 844(e), 876(c) are crimes of violence 

that carry a presumption of detention). 

To determine whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the 

appearance of the defendant and the safety of the community, the court considers: (1) the nature 

and circumstances of the offense charged; (2) the weight of the evidence against the defendant; 

(3) the history and characteristics of the defendant; and (4) the nature and seriousness of the 

danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the defendant's release. 18 

U.S.C. '3142(g); United States v. Wade, 2007 WL 2005556, *2 (E.D. Wis. July 10, 2007). 

The government has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is 

a danger to the community and "that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably 

case 2:14-cr-00071-PPS-APR document 13 filed 07/01/14 page 3 of 5
4 

assure . . . the safety of . . . the community . . . ." § 3142(e). The defendant is charged with a 

serious crime involving violence by making threats to kill police officers, judges, and other 

public officials, and threatening to blow up government buildings. The court takes threats to kill 

police officers and public officials seriously. United States v. Bennett, 731 F.Supp. 907, 909 

(S.D. Ill. 1990)(“The Court, however, treats threats to kill law enforcement officials very 

seriously, and is not persuaded by the defendant's apparent remorse.”). This is compounded by 

the fact that the defendant has a history of substance abuse and a mental health condition. He 

was diagnosed with Bi-Polar Disorder, received therapy within the last 12 months, and currently 

is taking psychotropic medication for his mental health condition. See United States v. Sallay, 

2011 WL 1344288, *5 (N.D. Ind. 2011)(finding that although detention is not a remedy to 

mental health issues, mental health issues weigh in favor of detention); Ali, 2005 WL 3115876, 

*4 (denying bond, in part, because of concern of mental health issues). Although the defendant 

stated that his Facebook post was an exercise of his First Amendment right to free speech, the 

court does not have to accept his disclaimer, particularly in light of the magnitude of his treats, 

the discovery of materials used to make an explosive device found during the search of his 

residence, and the internet searches the defendant conducted to research the individuals against 

whom he made the threats. The defendant also has a history of failing to appear and failing to 

abide by the conditions of probation. 

Under all of the circumstances, it is unlikely that the Probation Department could 

effectively monitor the defendant if released on bond. The government's motion for pretrial 

detention is GRANTED, and the defendant is ORDERED HELD WITHOUT BOND. 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i), it is further ORDERED that: 

case 2:14-cr-00071-PPS-APR document 13 filed 07/01/14 page 4 of 5
5 

A. The defendant shall be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for 

confinement to a corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from persons who 

are confined after a conviction; 

B. The defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunities for private consultation with 

his attorney; and 

C. The defendant shall be delivered to the custody of the United States Marshal when the 

appearance of said defendant for any court proceeding is required. 

ENTERED this 1st day of July, 2014 

/s/ Andrew P. Rodovich 

case 2:14-cr-00071-PPS-APR document 13 filed 07/01/14 page 5 of 5