STATE OF MICHIGAN

CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

JACKSON COUNTY

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff,
Nos. 20-003171, 20-003172 FH,
v 20-003173 FH

PAUL EDWARD BELLAR, JOSEPH

MATTHEW MORRISON, and HON. THOMAS D. WILSON
PETE MUSICO

Defendants.

Sunita Doddamani (P67459) Andrew P. Kirkpatrick (P66842)

William Rollstin (P40771) Attorney for Defendant Bellar
John S. Pallas (P42512) 503 S. Jackson Street
Attorneys for Plaintiff Jackson, MI 49203
Michigan Department of Attorney General (517) 783-3500
Criminal Trials and Appeals Division
525 W. Ottawa Street Nicholas Somberg (P80416)
P.O. Box 30217 Attorney for Defendant Morrison
Lansing, MI 48909 31700 Telegraph Road, Ste 210
(517) 335-7650 Bingham Farms, MI 480205
(248) 270-5979

Kareem Johnson (P71988)

Attorney for Defendant Musico
505 South Jackson Street
Jackson, MI 49203
(517) 768-6883
/

THE PEOPLE’S ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS BELLAR’S, MORRISON’S,

AND MUSICO’S MOTIONS TO DISMISS BASED ON ENTRAPMENT

NOW COMES the People of the State of Michigan, by and through Dana

Nessel, Attorney General, and Assistant Attorneys General Sunita Doddamani,

William Rollstin, and John S. Pallas, and answer defendants’ motions to dismiss

based on entrapment, as follows:

4. Defendants Bellar, Morrison, and Musico claim that they are entitled

to dismissal of the charges against them based on their assertion that they were

entrapped as a matter of law. 1 Not so.

5. However, the People stipulate that, based on the applicable caselaw,

this Court should conduct a hearing on defendants’ entrapment claim prior to ruling

on the motion to dismiss.

6. This answer relies on the attached brief in support.

Respectfully submitted,

Dana Nessel
Attorney General

Sunita Doddamani
______________________________
Sunita Doddamani (P67459)
William Rollstin (P40771)
John S. Pallas (P42512)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Michigan Department of Attorney
General
Criminal Trials and Appeals Division
525 W. Ottawa Street
P.O. Box 30217
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 335-7650
DATED: September 22, 2021

1 As defendants Bellar, Morrison and Musico have filed similar motions and briefs
in support, the People are filing a single answer and brief in support in response to
all three defendants’ pleadings.

2
 STATE OF MICHIGAN
CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
JACKSON COUNTY

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff,
Nos. 20-003171 FH, 20-003172
v FH, 20-003173 FH

PAUL EDWARD BELLAR, JOSEPH

MATTHEW MORRISON, and HON. THOMAS D. WILSON
PETE MUSICO

Defendants.

Sunita Doddamani (P67459) Andrew P. Kirkpatrick (P66842)

William Rollstin (P40771)
John S. Pallas (P42512)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Michigan Department of Attorney General
Criminal Trials and Appeals Division
525 W. Ottawa Street
P.O. Box 30217
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 335-7650
Attorney for Defendant Bellar
503 S. Jackson Street
Jackson, MI 49203
(517) 783-3500
Nicholas Somberg (P80416)
Attorney for Defendant Morrison
31700 Telegraph Road, Ste 210
Bingham Farms, MI 480205
(248) 270-5979

Kareem Johnson (P71988)

Attorney for Defendant Musico
505 South Jackson Street
Jackson, MI 49203
(517) 768-6883

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE PEOPLE’S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT

BELLAR’S, MORRISON’S, AND MUSICO’S MOTIONS TO DISMISS BASED
ON ENTRAPMENT

3
 ARGUMENT

I. Defendants Bellar, Morrison, and Musico were not entrapped.

A. Necessity for an evidentiary hearing

Defendants Morrison and Musico ask this Court to conduct a hearing on their

claims that they were entrapped and for dismissal of the charges against them

because they were entrapped. While the People hotly dispute that any of these

defendants were entrapped, the People stipulate, based on the applicable caselaw,

that this Court should conduct a hearing on the claims prior to ruling on

defendants’ motions to dismiss.

B. The entrapment defense

The purpose of the entrapment defense is to deter the corruptive use of

government authority to instigate or manufacture crime, and as such, a finding of

entrapment justifies acquittal for the accused irrespective of his guilt or

innocence. People v Juillet, 439 Mich 34, 52-53 (1991) (Brickley, J.). Only when the

defendant can prove that government agents engaged in activities that would

impermissibly manufacture or instigate a crime will the defense of entrapment

prevail. Id. at 61, citing People v Jones, 165 Mich App 670, 676-677 (1988).

Whether entrapment has occurred is a question of law for the court to decide.

People v Fyda, 288 Mich App 446, 456 (2010). “Entrapment is not a defense that

negates an essential element of the charged crime. Instead, it presents facts that

are collateral to the crime and that justify barring the defendant’s prosecution.”

People v Jones, 203 Mich App 384, 386 (1994). Thus, “[t]he defendant’s guilt or

4
innocence is irrelevant.” People v Forrest, 159 Mich App 329, 334 (1987) (quotation

marks and citation omitted). Nonetheless, the “[d]efendant ha[s] the burden of

proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he was entrapped.” People v

Vansickle, 303 Mich App 111, 115 (2013).

“Michigan has adopted a modified objective test when analyzing entrapment,

looking primarily at police conduct but also requiring the court to consider ‘the

circumstances of the defendant to determine whether the police conduct would

induce a similarly situated person, with an otherwise law-abiding disposition, to

commit the charged crime.’ ” People v Akhmedov, 297 Mich App 745, 752–753 (2012)

(quotation marks and citation omitted).

“Entrapment occurs if (1) the police engage in impermissible conduct that

would induce an otherwise law-abiding person to commit a crime in similar

circumstances or (2) the police engage in conduct so reprehensible that the court

cannot tolerate it.” Vansickle, 303 Mich App at 115 (quotation marks and citations

omitted). But, the furnishing of a mere opportunity to commit a crime is not

entrapment. Akhmedov, 297 Mich App at 752. And “[i]nitial entrapment does not

immunize a defendant from criminal liability for subsequent transactions that he

readily and willingly undertook” (quotation marks and citation omitted; alteration

in original). Id. at 753.

Michigan trial courts must consider a number of factors in determining the

first prong – whether “a defendant was impermissibly induced by the police to

commit criminal activity ….” Id. at 753. Those factors include:

5
 • whether the police appealed to the defendant based on friendship,

• whether the defendant had been known to commit the charged

crime,

• whether there was a time lapse between the investigation and the
arrest,

• whether there was an inducement that would make the crime

unusually attractive to a law-abiding citizen,

• whether excessive consideration was offered to the defendant,

• whether the police guaranteed that the acts were not illegal,

• whether the government pressured the defendant to commit the

crime,

• whether sexual favors were offered to the defendant,

• whether the defendant was threatened with arrest unless he or she

complied,

• whether the government acted to escalate the defendant’s criminal

culpability,

• whether the police had control over the informant, and

• whether the investigation targeted the defendant.

Akhmedov, 297 Mich App at 753.

As to the second prong, “[r]eprehensible conduct alone, without police

instigation, can constitute entrapment.” People v Fyda, 288 Mich App at 456. The

reprehensible conduct form of entrapment occurs when the police “commit certain

criminal, dangerous, or immoral acts.” People v Connolly, 232 Mich App 425, 429

(1998) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “Reprehensible conduct by an

6
informant may be attributed to the police if a sufficient agency relationship exists

between the informant and the police.” Akhmedov, 297 Mich App at 754.

Entrapment has been found where an informant “incessantly requested

drugs from all those around him, including [the defendant].” Juillet, 439 Mich at

66, citing People v Rowell, 153 Mich App 99 (1986) (where the informant requested

the defendant to obtain drugs for him at least two or three times per day). See also

People v Larcinese¸ 108 Mich App 511, 515 (1981) (“[T]he agent, who first contacted

the defendant in mid-1977, pressured the defendant every two weeks for a period of

more than thirteen months before [the crime took place].” Exploitation of a

friendship and pleas for sympathy have been found to constitute entrapment. See

People v Turner, 390 Mich 7, 22-23 (1973). More specifically, as an example,

entrapment has been found where a police officer exploited a childhood friendship,

pretending that he was an addict to play on the defendant’s friendship and

sympathy, and when there was an exploitation of a family relationship. See People

v Soper, 57 Mich App 677 (1975) (exploitation of friendship and sympathy); People v

Ramon, 86 Mich App 113 (1978) (exploitation of a family relationship). Entrapment

has also been found where an informant takes advantage of a defendant’s drug

addiction to persuade him to commit a crime. People v Asher, 67 Mich App 174, 177

(1976) (informant persuaded the defendant to commit a crime by offering him

valium, to which the defendant was addicted). Entrapment was also found where

an informant, acting as a police agent, assured the defendants that they would

receive $60,000 each after a larceny and a breaking and entering building with

7
intent to commit larceny, agreed to drive defendants to the store, provided walkie

talkies, took part in preparing the torch and tanks used to cut the safe, turned off

the store’s alarm because he had knowledge of electronics, and gave detailed step-

by-step instructions to the defendants on how to cut open the safe. People v Jones,

165 Mich App 670, 677 (1988). Finally, entrapment was found when the police told

the informant not to engage in sexual acts with the defendant unless it was what

she needed to do in order to get the drugs from the defendant and the defendant in

fact did not accede to the informant’s request for drugs until after she had

performed a sex act on him. See People v Wisneski, 96 Mich App 299 (1980).

C. Defendants’ claims

All three defendants claim that the government, through its confidential

informant—“Dan”—entrapped them into plotting politically motivated violence

(e.g., “storming” the Capital, taking hostages, killing law enforcement officers)

which ultimately led to the plot to kidnap of Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer.

They specifically claim that Dan “instigated” the initial contact between defendants

and Adam Fox, who was one of the main conspirators in the plot to kidnap Michigan

Governor Gretchen Whitmer. 2 (Bellar’s Brief, p 2; Morrison’s Brief, p 5; Musico’s

Brief, p 4). This claim is contradicted by the record that has already been developed

in this case (e.g., the preliminary examination). But it’s more than that. When the

existing record is considered along with other evidence that is not yet part of the

2 Fox has been charged with federal offenses arising out of this plot.

8
record (evidence that the People plan on presenting at the entrapment hearing), the

claims sink like a heavy stone in water. Dan and the government agents working

with him did nothing but watch and monitor as the relationship between Fox and

the Wolverine Watchmen (and these three defendants in particular) moved on from

the initial contact phase into a full blown alliance, in which the Wolverine

Watchmen were training with, and supporting Fox’s plans for politically motivated

violence. And long before Fox came along, defendants were considering politically-

motivated violence such as targeting and killing law enforcement officers. In other

words, they were not innocent citizens unwilling to engage in crime that became

ensnared in a government-manufactured plot. There was simply no entrapment.

Defendants’ motions to dismiss should be denied.

D. Defendants initiate – and maintain -- contact with Adam Fox

When Dan first met defendants (and long before Adam Fox came along) they

were discussing such things as attacking and killing law enforcement officers,

launching the “Boogaloo” and possibly “martyring” themselves at a protest in the

Capital planned for April 15, 2020. (3-3-21 Tr. at 123-124, 131; 3-5-21 Tr. at 27-

29). 3 Dan was concerned for the safety of law enforcement and possibly politicians.

(3-5-21 Tr. at 35). This prompted Dan to go to the police and report the Wolverine

Watchmen. (Id.) Although he was initially unwilling to do so, Dan ultimately

3 Day III of the preliminary examination is mis-labeled as being held on March 4,

2021. The transcripts of Day II and III thus have identical dates on them. In order
to avoid confusion, the People are referring to the transcript of Day III as having
occurred on March 5, 2021.

9
agreed to become a confidential informant for the FBI. (Id. at 38-39, 41, 49). 4 From

then until when Adam Fox came into the picture, defendants Bellar, Morrison, and

Musico continued to spew hatred and threats concerning both law enforcement

officers and politicians such as Governor Whitmer. (See e.g., 3-3-21 Tr. at 91-94,

117-118, 130-131).

Fast forward a few months to a June 3, 2020, Wolverine Watchmen

leadership meeting, at which defendants Bellar and Morrison were present. The

attendees discussed Morrison’s national contacts and opportunities for networking

with other like-minded groups, particularly at an upcoming “national militia

conference” in Dublin, Ohio, planned for June 6, 2020. 5 (3-3-21 Tr. at 138). Items

to be discussed at this meeting included “a national game plan” in coordinating a

response from militias from a number of states to the actions of politicians during

the COVID-19 pandemic. In other words, “to initiate a three-phase plan as far as

recruitment, attack planning and attacks in states across the union to be

simultaneous to send a message to tyrannical governors.” (Id. at 140). Though

Morrison did not ultimately attend the Dublin “conference,” he later indicated

awareness of the topics discussed. 6 (3-3-21 Tr, at 140; Id.)

4Dan never asked for compensation for being a confidential informant. (3-3-21 Tr.
72-74; 3-5-21 Tr. at 48), though ultimately the FBI agents reimbursed him for his
expenses in addition to providing him reasonable compensation for his work. (3-3-
21 Tr. at 75-76).
5 Dublin is a suburb of Columbus, Ohio. (3/3/21 Tr. at 148).
6Some of the discussions at the Dublin “conference” were about violence, e.g.,
murdering police, leveling buildings, burning houses down with people inside of
them, taking hostages, terrorizing people, kidnapping politicians, and serving their
own form of legal process by arresting politicians and others. Those in attendance

10
 Adam Fox, among others from Michigan, were present at the militia

conference in Dublin. (Id. at 142). Among topics discussed at the meeting were the

“refounding” of the United States, a plan to “take down” tyrant governors,

“storming the Capital in Michigan,” and a plan to dress in law enforcement

uniforms and kill citizens or other law enforcement officers “in order to create

distrust between law enforcement and the citizens they are supposed to protect.”

(3-4-21 Tr. at 160).

After the Dublin “conference,” defendant Morrison (who clearly knew what

had been discussed at that conference) began to encourage a relationship between

the Wolverine Watchmen and Adam Fox. In an encrypted chat on June 9, 2020,

among the leadership of the Wolverine Watchmen, defendant Morrison 7 mentioned

his “contact” (Fox) who had attended the Dublin meeting. He noted that the

Watchmen “need to do a meeting with” him and said “[t]his is some real shit guys”

and that it was the “real deal”:

left Dublin with an understanding that recruitment of others (including militias)

was needed to effectuate any of the attack plans discussed. Morrison learned many
of these details from an individual named Barry Croft, who had attended the
“conference.” Croft has also been charged with federal offenses arising out of this
plot.
7Morrison’s handle on Wire was “Boog Daddy Bunyan.” Dan Harris’ was “Beaker.”
Ty Garbin’s was “Gunny.” Bellar’s was “Doc1776.2.” And Dan’s was simply “Dan.”

11
(People’s Exhibit 17). 8

During another encrypted chat on June 12, 2020, between the leadership of

the Wolverine Watchmen (including defendant Bellar), Morrison shared a “voice clip

from my contact Adam,” where Fox reached out to defendant Morrison to recruit the

Wolverine Watchmen in some then unspecified plans. Defendant Morrison – not

Dan – then asked the others if they would be willing to meet in Grand Rapids where

Fox lived. During the first part of this chat, defendant Morrison encouraged the

group to meet with Fox:

8 All references to People’s Exhibits in this pleading are to exhibits that were
introduced into evidence at the preliminary examination in these cases.

12
(People’s Exhibit 18A).

The chat continued with defendant Bellar indicating that he planned on

going to the meeting with Fox and defendant Morrison saying that he would “throw

[in] gas” if someone else drove:

13
 Later that same day (June 12, 2020) in another chat, defendant Morrison

spoke to Dan with enthusiasm about the upcoming meeting with Fox:

14
 Audio clips introduced at the preliminary examination as People’s Exhibits

20 and 21 demonstrate that defendant Morrison continued to express enthusiasm

and anticipation for the meeting with Fox. At a tactical training hosted by

defendants Morrison and Musico in Munith, Michigan on June 14, 2020, defendant

Musico took Dan aside and discussed the proposed meeting with Fox in Grand

Rapids.

Defendant Musico excitedly told Dan that the meeting with Fox “is

pertaining to kicking the boog off…. This ain’t about fucking let’s get prepped and

ready to go, this is about pointing rifles at fucking police officers and fucking

politicians and squeezing the fucking trigger…. This ain’t no joke.” He further

stated it was about “starting Fallujah in the United States. That’s what [Fox’s]

talking about…. Listen to his message man, his message is … let’s do something.”

(People’s Exhibit 20).

15
 Defendant Morrison later joined the conversation with Musico and Dan.

When defendant Morrison is asked what the meeting with Fox will be about, he

replies, “fucking kicking it off….” (People’s Exhibit 21).

During a subsequent “conference call” to Fox that included defendants Bellar,

Morrison, and Musico, defendant Morrison asked Fox what he needed. (3-3-21 Tr.

at 159). Fox responded that he “needed two hundred men to storm the Capital.”

(Id.). The group on the call ultimately agreed to meet with Fox in person at a

Second Amendment rally in the Capital on June 18, 2020. (Id.)

On June 18, 2020, defendants Bellar, Morrison, and Musico, as well as Dan,

formally met Fox for the first time at the rally in the Capital. (3-3-21 Tr. at 159).

According to Dan, when Fox saw the group from the Wolverine Watchmen he told

them that “he wanted to storm this motherfucker right now.” (3-5-21 Tr. at 107).

Fox also talked about “taking hostages” and specifically referenced Governor

Whitmer, hogtying her, and “executing her on television.” (Id.) Ultimately, Fox and

the Wolverine Watchmen members present (specifically defendant Morrison)

determined that the Second Amendment rally was not the time to commit to storm

the Capital and take Governor Whitmer as “there wasn’t enough people there.” (Id.

at 108).

On June 20, 2020—two days later—defendant Bellar, Ty Garbin, and Dan,

went to Grand Rapids and met with Fox in the basement of the Vac Shack, a

meeting that went on for approximately four hours. (3-3-21 Tr. at 161–162; 3-5-21

Tr. at 116). At this meeting, Fox gave his audience further information about the

16
militia group meeting in Dublin and—as a group—they discussed several violent

ideas, including a plan to “storm[] the Capital,” a plan which Fox seemed

particularly fixated on. (3-3-21 Tr. at 162; 3-5-21 Tr. at 110). Defendant Bellar and

Garbin suggested that there would be a law enforcement response, but they could

“tak[e] out police” who responded by “having snipers.” (3-3-21 Tr. at 161-162; 3-5-21

Tr. at 110).

Defendant Bellar was “engaged in the conversation with Adam Fox” and was

“talking about the training techniques that the Wolverine Watchmen had and what

they could bring to the table.” (3-3-21 Tr. at 163). When the conversation turned to

formulating a plan for simultaneous attacks (perhaps both in Virginia and in

Michigan), Bellar said, “we really need [to start] formulating a plan for this.” (3-5-

21 Tr. at 111). As Fox was talking about storming the Michigan Capital, and

hogtying Governor Whitmer, Bellar became “upbeat” and “started talking more.”

(Id. at 114).

At the conclusion of the meeting, Bellar and Garbin assured Fox that they

represent the Wolverine Watchmen and that they were “on board.” (6-20-20 Audio

Recording, DE_12345_12345 BR_2020_06_20_06_20T16_30_47).

On June 22, 2020, defendant Musico reached out to Dan for a debrief on the

meeting with Fox. But defendant Musico did not need to be sold on Fox. Defendant

Musico referred to Fox as the “answer to [a]… prayer.” While defendant Musico

expressed a sentiment that Fox seems “half-cocked” and “out there,” he nonetheless

said that he (defendant Musico) was “down for anything” and added, “I see us [the

17
Wolverine Watchmen] doing things [with Fox].” Then Musico, clearly floating the

idea of having Fox attend Wolverine Watchmen trainings, asked Dan “what do you

think about inviting his ass to a group, a training session?” Dan replied, “I am all

for it.” (6-22-20 Audio Recording, 102_0100.MP4).

The conversation continued the next day, June 23, 2020, when defendants

Morrison and Musico reached out to Dan by phone. While defendants Morrison and

Musico expressed frustration with Fox’s “hotheaded” nature and his lack of

operational security (“dude needs to work on opsec a little more”), they did not

express any hesitation to Dan about adding Fox’s ideology and desire for violence to

their own. (3-3-21 Tr. at 164; 6-23-20 Audio Recording File 1, DE_12345_12345-

BR_2020_06_23T10_55_18.wav, File 1). During this conversation, defendant

Morrison called Fox a “valued asset.” (6-23-20 Audio Recording File 2, DE-

_12345_12345-BR_2020_06_23T11_15_19.wav).

The cozy relationship between defendants (in particular Morrison) and Fox

continued just days later. On June 26, 2020, defendant Morrison, his wife, Fox, and

Fox’s girlfriend (Amanda Keller), arranged for a “double date” of sorts, meeting with

significant others. After dinner, defendant Morrison called the leadership of

Wolverine Watchmen to discuss Fox, who defendant Morrison said was more “dialed

in” than he had been previously (e.g., at a rally). Near the end of the call, Morrison

said that Fox would attend the Wolverine Watchmen training on June 28, 2020, and

that he was going to bring several people with him. (6-26-20 Audio Recording,

103_016.MP4).

18
 On June 28, 2020, Fox showed up to the Wolverine Watchmen training in

Munith, Michigan. In addition to training for such things as ambushes, room

clearing, and medical assistance, Fox and the Wolverine Watchmen in attendance

gathered together for some discussions. (3-5-21 Tr. at 124-125). At one of these

discussions, when all three defendants were present (as well as Ty Garbin),

defendant Musico said that they were going to be doing “some no shit stuff” and

mentioned the “three” plan. 9 (Id. at 125, 127). At one point during the discussion,

Fox said, “[w]ho’s down for kidnapping tyrants?” (Id.) This caused some visible

confusion in some of those in attendance, but defendant Morrison and Fox were

going to later “get a feel who was down with that.” (Id. at 126).

E. Analysis

By June 28, 2020, the date of the Munith, Michigan Wolverine Watchmen

training that Fox attended, defendants Bellar, Morrison, and Musico were fully

aware of Fox’s plans for politically-motived violence. And as early as that date, all

three defendants of their own volition began to provide material support to Fox for

his terroristic plans by tactically training him and his associates.

Defendants Bellar, Morrison, and Musico were not mere hapless doomsday

preppers being pulled by the nose by an arm-twisting Dan and his scheming

handling FBI agents into a plot to kidnap the Governor, other politicians, or law

enforcement. Nothing that Dan or his FBI handlers did prompted the three

9This was Musico’s plan to attack politicians and law enforcement in their homes at
three in the morning. (3-5-21 Tr. at 118-119).

19
defendants to align with Fox. They did so completely of their own volition.

Defendants Bellar, Morrison, and Musico were not pressured, cajoled, threatened,

or otherwise forced or even encouraged by Dan or his FBI handlers to connect with

and—later—work with Fox. Far from it.

It was defendant Morrison who initially reached out to Fox after the Dublin,

Ohio militia conference. It was defendant Musico who suggested – without any

input from Dan – that Fox and his associates train with the Wolverine Watchmen.

And it was defendant Bellar who went to Grand Rapids on behalf of the Wolverine

Watchmen for a meeting with Fox to discuss coordinating attack plans against

politicians and law enforcement.

Nonetheless, defendants make a number of arguments in their motions that

paints a very different – and misleading – portrait of what occurred in this case. It

does not take much to demonstrate the utter lack of merit of these arguments.

First, however, a legal point. All three defendants say that “but for” the

conduct of Dan – working at the direction of his FBI handlers – they would not have

involved themselves with Fox and thus would not have been caught up in Fox’s

terrorist plots. See Bellar’s Brief, p 6 (“But for the phone call by the FBI informant,

under the direction of the FBI agents, to reach out and invite Adam Fox, an

individual known to them to be dangerous and unstable, these charges would have

never been brought against Mr. Bellar.”); see Morrison’s Brief, p 5 (“[B]ut for the

instigation of the government … Mr. Morrison would have never engaged in

training that rose to the level of material support of terrorism, … he would have

20
never trained in front of Adam Fox, [and] finally … Adam Fox would have never

had access to group members to build his own organization from.”); see Musico’s

Brief p 5 (“[B]ut for the instigation of the government … Mr. Musico would have

never engaged in training that rose to the level of material support of terrorism, …

he would have never trained in front of Adam Fox, [and] finally … Adam Fox would

have never had access to group members to build his own organization from.”)

All three defendants misunderstand the law of entrapment in Michigan. In

People v Julliet, 439 Mich 34, 54, n 5 (1991), our Supreme Court said that it “[did]

not intend to make the entrapment defense simply a ‘but for’ causation analysis”

noting that “where the defendant is merely given the opportunity to commit a

crime, no entrapment exists.” As such, their reliance on a simple “but for” causation

analysis is legally faulty.

But this argument is also factually faulty even were a pure “but for” analysis

was a part of the entrapment test in Michigan. Dan did not make the introductions

between the defendants and Fox and he did little to encourage an alliance between

the defendants and Fox (other than perhaps agreeing with Morrison that Fox

should be invited to Wolverine Watchmen trainings). It was defendant Morrison

who initially contacted Fox following the Dublin, Ohio militia conference,

defendants Morrison and Musico who then urged the creation of an alliance with

Fox, and defendant Bellar who then went to Grand Rapids and essentially “sealed

the deal” by excitedly engaging Fox in a discussion of Fox’s terroristic plans. In

other words, it is simply not true that “but for” the conduct of Dan and/or his FBI

21
handlers, the alliance between the defendants and Fox would never have occurred.

The alliance with Fox was going to happen with or without Dan.

It is not surprising that defendants are not able to point to most – if any – of

the non-exclusive factors that courts look for in ruling on a claim of entrapment. In

other words, defendants have not shown that the government appealed to the

defendants based on friendship, that there was an inducement that would make the

crime unusually attractive to a law-abiding citizen, that the government offered

excessive consideration to the defendants, that the government guaranteed that the

acts were not illegal, that the government pressured the defendants to commit the

crime, that the government offered sexual favors to the defendants, that the

government threatened defendants with arrest unless they complied, that the

government acted to escalate defendants’ criminal culpability, that the police did

not have control over the informant (Dan), or that the government targeted

defendants from the very beginning of the investigation. 10 Akhmedov, 297 Mich

App at 753.

Defendants continue to persist in arguing otherwise by citing a June 14,

2020, recorded conversation between Dan and Adam Fox, during which Dan asked

Fox to attend one of the Wolverine Watchmen’s upcoming trainings. Defendants

claim that, as none of them were present or involved in this phone call, this is

10In fact, it was the other way around. Dan went to the police concerning the
Wolverine Watchmen because he was concerned with what he was hearing
defendants say about doing violence to law enforcement and others. (3-3-21 Tr. at
69-71). Before Dan raised his concerns, the FBI was not investigating any of the
defendants or the Wolverine Watchmen.

22
evidence that Dan entrapped/set them up to work with Adam Fox. (Bellar’s Brief,

pp 2, 4; Morrison’s Brief, p 4; Musico’s Brief, p 4). In this context, defendants again

claim that, “but for” this invitation by Dan to Fox (a person they claim the FBI

knew was “dangerous” and “unstable”), none of them would have engaged in the

conduct that led to them being charged with terrorist offenses. Aside from the legal

flaw in treating entrapment as a “but for” test discussed above, this argument is

also factually flawed, especially when the cited conversation is placed in greater

context. What follows is that missing context.

On June 14, 2020, defendants Bellar, Morrison, and Musico (as well as Dan)

attended a Wolverine Watchman training in Munith, Michigan. What defendants

don’t mention in their motions is that there were two phone conversations with Fox

on that date. The first one being a conference call (initiated by defendant Morrison)

between defendants, Dan, and Adam Fox and the second being a call between only

Dan and Fox. (3-4-21 Tr. at 42, 52). It is during the latter call that Dan tells Fox,

“If you want come train with us …”

In isolation, this may seem like Dan is unilaterally asking Fox to train with

the Wolverine Watchmen (and specifically defendants). But Special Agent Henrik

Impola testified on cross-examination by defendant Morrison’s counsel that the

second call between Dan and Fox was merely a “rehash” of the first call where all

three defendants spoke with Fox. (3-4-21 Tr. at 52).

23
 As illustrated in the following colloquy between defendant Morrison’s counsel

and Impola, Dan did nothing but repeat or rehash what had been discussed with the

three defendants and Fox in the prior call:

Q. So you do – do you agree that – do you agree that it was your

informant who invited Adam Fox to Joe[’]s?

A. No.

[Morrison counsel then plays the audio of the second phone call]

Q. Special Agent, you … testified under oath that your confidential

Informant did not invite Adam Fox to Joe Morrison[’]s to train
correct?

A. That’s what I previously testified.

Q. Okay. Are – but that was – do you agree with now that that is
not true?

A. Well I think this is a fairly nuance[d] issue since it’s an

extension of a phone call that your client was part of. And when
this was previously discussed on a different phone call, so I
agree, and I did not recall when you asked me the question my
source[’]s exact statement which I did hear and it’s a fair and
accurate statement. But the phone [call] that you played is part
of a greater contact, is part of a greater conversation [during]
which [the] Wolverine Watchmen had a conference call and
agreed to engage with Adam Fox and basically rehashed the
entire call on an individual call with my source.

Q. Before that call?

A. Yes, directly before that.

Q. So my client was not on that all though?

A. Your client [Morrison] initiated the initial call which [is]

basically a similar summary and repeat of the call you played in
which your client was not on it.

Q And you’re testifying that my – my client invited him first?

24
 A Well I don’t recall the exact statements your client made in a
twenty minute call, the context to that conference call it is Voip
call over Facebook and I could hear the Wolverine Watchmen
clearly, but the connection was muffled with Adam Fox more so
than it was on this call. So they discussed many of the same
things, the concept and they arranged meetings at a protest
which you heard them reference in this call. They arranged how
many men they needed to attack the capital, as a group, as a
Wolverine Watchman. And then shortly following the
[call]because the connection was bad on the conference call,
Adam Fox contacted, or reached out to our source to clarify what
he had talked about. And so we rehashed the entire call over a
clearer connection.

***
… [H]e asked to speak to Dan again and went over the things
that they had already went over with Joe Morrison and the rest
of the Wolverine Watchman leadership.

(5-4-21 Tr. at 40,-52).

To the extent that defendants claim that the FBI encouraged or persuaded

Dan to bring them and Fox together, the testimony elicited at the preliminary

examination belies such a claim. As Agent Impola testified on cross-examination by

defendant Morrison’s counsel, the FBI “didn’t know of Adam Fox” or the content of

the Dublin meeting until the two calls with Adam Fox on June 14, 2020. (3-4-21 Tr.

at 55). In fact, Agent Impola did not research or otherwise investigate Fox between

the two phone calls. (Id.) Thus, the impression that defendants create of scheming

FBI agents encouraging Dan to engage defendants and Fox with each other is

entirely false.

In short, the underlying premise of defendants’ claim – that Dan first asked

Adam Fox to train with the Wolverine Watchmen and thus entrapped defendants

25
into aligning with Fox is belied by the record. It is simply not true. All three

defendants spoke with Fox during the (first) conference call on June 14, 2021, and

the second call – which was between Dan and Fox only – simply reiterated what

had been said in that earlier call.

In any event, mere talk about providing the opportunity to commit a crime is

not entrapment. Akhmedov, 297 Mich App at 752. See also People v Johnson, 466

Mich 491, 497 (2002); People v Milstead, 250 Mich App 391, 397 (2002). Even if Dan

had been the first to invite Fox to train with the Wolverine Watchmen, this was

simply nothing more than providing defendants with the opportunity to commit a

crime—an opportunity that the facts of this case demonstrate they eagerly pursued.

Again, defendants were not entrapped. They unhesitatingly committed the

charged crimes with no prodding or encouragement from Dan or the FBI agents

assigned to this case. Any argument to the contrary is ridiculous. And it almost

goes without saying that the government did not engage in “reprehensible conduct.”

Defendants cannot persuasively point to any such conduct on the part of the FBI

agents or Dan.

Following the entrapment hearing in this case, this Court should enter an

order denying defendants’ motions to dismiss based on entrapment.

26
 CONCLUSION AND RELIEF REQUESTED

This Court should enter an order denying defendants’ motions to dismiss

based on entrapment after conducting the evidentiary hearing required by law.

Respectfully submitted,

Dana Nessel
Attorney General

Sunita Doddamani
______________________________
Sunita Doddamani (P67459)
William Rollstin (P40771)
John S. Pallas (P42512)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Michigan Department of Attorney
General
Criminal Trials and Appeals Division
525 W. Ottawa Street
P.O. Box 30217
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 335-7650

Dated: September 22, 2021

27