Opinion ID: 796854
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Terry and James were both arrested in connection to the bombing.

Text: 28 Nichols argues that the arrested in connection to the bombing statement offers the clearest indication of the district court's failure to abide by the summary judgment standard. Additionally, the district court viewed this statement by Moore as the most troublesome. The district court viewed the arrested in connection to the bombing statement as troubling because Nichols is correct in asserting that he was never arrested or charged for having committed any criminal act directly related to the Oklahoma City bombing. Nichols is also correct in asserting that Michael Moore knew this fact to be true when he published Bowling for Columbine. Despite the troubling nature of Moore's statement, we nevertheless agree with the district court's finding that Moore's arrested in connection to the bombing statement is substantially true. 29 Though Nichols was neither charged nor arrested regarding the Oklahoma City bombing, we believe that Nichols's arrest was sufficiently in connection to the bombing for Moore's statement to be considered substantially true. Nichols was arrested only days after the bombing and his arrest was brought about by the FBI's investigation into Timothy McVeigh's and Terry Nichols's roles in the bombing. Additionally, Nichols was held as a material witness in connection to the Oklahoma City bombing, and Nichols himself admitted that he did not know whether this constituted an arrest in connection to the bombing. Based on these facts, we agree with the district court's determination that the arrested in connection to the bombing statement is substantially true. 30 3. Officials charged James, who was at the hearing, and Terry, who was not, with conspiring to make and possess small bombs. 31 Nichols next argues that the district court erred in finding that the [o]fficials charged James . . . with conspiring to make and possess small bombs statement was substantially true. We agree with the district court's finding. In the 1995 criminal prosecution of plaintiff, the federal grand jury indictment charged plaintiff with Conspiracy to Possess Unregistered Firearms. The indictment alleged that the co-conspirators would manufacture destructive devices on Nichols' farm in Decker, Michigan. The overt acts section asserted: 32 In approximately 1992, James Nichols, Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh experimented in the manufacture and detonation of destructive devices made up of readily available materials such as brake fluid and diesel fluid. 33 Based on the allegations of the indictment against James Nichols, we find that Moore's statement that [o]fficials charged James, who was at the hearing, and Terry, who was not, with conspiring to make and possess small bombs is substantially true. 34 4. But the feds didn't have the goods on James, so the charges were dropped. 35 Nichols challenges the district court's finding that Moore's statement [b]ut the feds didn't have the goods on James, so the charges were dropped was substantially true. We agree with the district court's finding that this statement is literally and substantially true. It is undisputed that the charges against James Nichols were dropped due to a lack of evidence against him. Accordingly, the district court correctly concluded that Moore's the charges were dropped statement is substantially true. 36