In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
____________________
No. 16‐1532
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff‐Appellee,
v.
SAMUEL L. BRADBURY,
Defendant‐Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division.
No. 2:14‐cr‐00071‐PPS‐APR‐1 — Philip P. Simon, Judge.
____________________
ARGUED JANUARY 18, 2017 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 16, 2017
____________________
Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and POSNER and HAMILTON,
Circuit Judges.
POSNER, Circuit Judge. On June 8, 2014, Jerad and Amanda
Miller, originally of Lafayette, Indiana, shot and killed two
police officers and one civilian in Las Vegas. The couple died
in an ensuing shootout with police, Amanda committing su‐
icide after Jerad was shot. At approximately 11:15 p.m. on
June 19, 2014, Samuel L. Bradbury, a Lafayette resident,
2 No. 16‐1532
placed the following message on his Facebook “wall,” where
it was readable by his Facebook “friends,” who could more‐
over take screenshots of the message to convey to others:
I can’t keep silent on this conspiracy anymore. I have to
reveal some truth. My buddy and comrade Ant has been
catching some flack for some of his posts about killing
cops. I have to let out the truth. Jerad and Amanda Miller
were losers. They were part of out [sic] group, the 765 An‐
archists, the town’s cop killing group run by none other
than myself, Sam Bradbury. When we discovered that Je‐
rad and Amanda were CIs and in with the boys in blue, we
sent them out to the Bundy Ranch to cause controversy
elsewhere because we didn’t need them snitching on our
business. I hadn’t heard from him since that event, but
some of our comrades gave the command and that’s why
Jerad and Amanda [M]iller killed those cops in Las Vegas.
I thought Jerad was cool, but fuck him, he was a CI. Great
job I must say, but not what we wanted. We, the 765 Anar‐
chists, including myself and Ant are part of a much larger
plot that we’ve been forming for years to kill cops in the
local area, and specifically to take out WLPD Officer Troy
Green and Tippecanoe County Sheriff, Tracy Brown. Jerad
and Amanda were just following 765 Anarchist group or‐
ders, but they had fallen out of favor with the group after
we discovered they were working with police as confiden‐
tial informants. While we are glad that they killed some
police, the 765 Anarchists are looking to make waves in the
765 area, specifically Lafayette. The top two on our hit list
are Troy Green of the WLPD and Tracy Brown, Tippe‐
canoe County Sheriff. We have field agents out currently
gathering information and planning the attack. We have
gathered enough thermite and explosives that we intend to
not only kill those two pigs and any others that get in our
way, but also to cause extreme damage to the county’s var‐
No. 16‐1532 3
ious offices’ equipment, including police cars and police
buildings. Before the month is over, we intend to inciner‐
ate and destroy no less than 6 police cars, as well as the
Tippecanoe County Courthouse, with hits specifically tar‐
geted on Judge Les Meade and Judge Loretta Rush also.
The courthouse will be blown to pieces within the month,
we have agents operating all over the city, and some all
over the country. Ant is nothing more than a fall boy, alt‐
hough we do have plans to use him in a suicide strike on
the police or a suicide bombing on a local police building
before we are through. Our arsenal is massive, and our
group has well over 50 supremely dedicated members
who are willing to die. I can’t let this story go on falsely
anymore, Jerad and Amanda Miller didn’t do shit, they
were outcasts of the group, but they brought us the atten‐
tion we needed. I, Sam Bradbury, am responsible for the
organization of the group and the acquisition of the chemi‐
cal weapons, incendiaries, explosives, munitions, and gen‐
eral arms. We will not stop this plan, we will cause chaos
and terror. We will destroy the Tippecanoe County Court‐
house in a blaze of glory and we will take out Tippecanoe
County Sheriff Tracy Brown, no matter what the cost, even
if we lose all of our members in the process, we will not go
down without a fight and causing serious damage. So
watch out, the cop killers are out. The 765 Anarchists are
going to purge the vile pig scum from this land and restore
constitutional rights to the people. Call us crazy, call us
killers, call us heroes and patriots. We’re okay with all of
it. Remember – KILL COPS, STICK PIGS, AND WATCH
OUT FOR THE 765 ANARCHISTS, INCLUDING SAM
BRADBURY AND ANT! (FREE SPEECH EXERCISE
FOOLS)[.]
In response to a comment from a friend asking whether
his post was serious, Bradbury described it as “complete sat‐
4 No. 16‐1532
ire … . This is simply a big mind game and satirical joke. …
[I]t’s made to get you to think.” (To think about committing
mayhem!) About a half hour after posting the message he
deleted it, but one of his friends had obtained screenshots of
the post and discussed them with a coworker, who sent
them to the police, which kicked off an investigation that re‐
sulted in Bradbury’s arrest and (pursuant to search war‐
rants) searches of his bedroom in his parents’ home. The
search turned up approximately four pounds of chemicals:
0.38 pounds of thermite (a compound of metal oxide and
aluminum) plus 3.5 pounds of unmixed ingredients for mak‐
ing more thermite, and also turned up magnesium, which
can be used to ignite thermite—and once it is ignited, ther‐
mite burns at an extremely high temperature and so can
cause a great deal of damage.
On the basis of these discoveries, and the threats in the
Facebook post, Bradbury was indicted on federal charges of
threatening to use explosive materials to kill law enforce‐
ment officers and state court judges and destroy a court‐
house and police vehicles, all by means of the thermite
found in his bedroom—thermite ignitable by the magnesium
also found there. But a superseding indictment changed the
charges to “willfully mak[ing] any threat” and “maliciously
convey[ing] false information.” The jury trial that ensued re‐
sulted in Bradbury’s acquittal of the first charge and convic‐
tion of the second. The judge sentenced him to 41 months of
imprisonment to be followed by two years of supervised re‐
lease.
The count of which he was convicted was based on 18
U.S.C. § 844(e), which provides, so far as relates to this case,
that “whoever, through the use of the mail, telephone, tele‐
No. 16‐1532 5
graph, or other instrument of interstate or foreign commerce,
or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, … mali‐
ciously conveys false information knowing the same to be
false, concerning an attempt or alleged attempt being made
or to be made to kill, injure, or intimidate any individual or
unlawfully to damage or destroy any building, vehicle, or
other real or personal property, by means of fire or an explo‐
sive, shall be imprisoned for not more than 10 years or fined
under this title, or both.” The judge instructed the jury that
to act “maliciously” means “to act intentionally or with de‐
liberate disregard of the likelihood that damage or injury
will result.” He added that the jury should find the defend‐
ant guilty if it concluded that he’d intentionally “conveyed
false information, knowing the same to be false,” that “the
false information was conveyed maliciously and via an in‐
strument of interstate commerce,” and that it “concerned an
alleged attempt to kill or injure law enforcement officers or
to damage or destroy the Tippecanoe County Courthouse or
other public property by use of fire or explosives.” And so
the jury found.
Bradbury argues that the judge’s definition of “mali‐
ciously” allowed the jury to convict him merely for posting
the message (an intentional act) even if he didn’t intend the
post to cause harm—in other words if his Facebook post was
a joke and so there was nothing malicious about it, just as in
United States v. Hassouneh, 199 F.3d 175, 182 (4th Cir. 2000),
which vacated a conviction under the Bomb Hoax Act, 18
U.S.C. § 35(b), in which a similar instruction had been given
to the jury and the defendant had argued that the false
statements about a bomb in his airline luggage were jokes.
6 No. 16‐1532
The jurors in the present case, however, could not have
believed that the instructions they were given equated “ma‐
liciously” to “intentionally,” because that would make
trimming one’s fingernails a malicious act. To make a threat,
however, is both intentional and malicious—intentional be‐
cause deliberate and malicious because calculated to inspire
fear and provoke a possibly costly response—even if the
threatener doesn’t intend to carry out the threat. And that is
how the government argued the case to the jury—that Brad‐
bury should be convicted because he had conducted an
elaborate, detailed, and malicious hoax, intending the dis‐
ruptive effects that resulted from his threat, even though it
wasn’t carried out, to blow up a courthouse and kill several
named judges and law enforcement officers.
We find variant instructions in other, similar cases, such
as United States v. Grady, 746 F.3d 846, 849 (7th Cir. 2014),
which defined “maliciously” in 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) as acting
“intentionally or with deliberate disregard of the likelihood
that damage or injury would result, and United States v. Wil‐
liams, 690 F.3d 1056, 1064–65 (8th Cir. 2012), where an in‐
struction under section 844(e) read that “To act maliciously
as the term is used in these instructions means to act inten‐
tionally or with willful disregard of the likelihood that dam‐
age or injury will result.” An alternative wording of the in‐
struction given in a case such as the present one might be
that a defendant acts “maliciously” within the meaning of
section 844(e) “if he acts either with the intention to cause
damage or injury or with deliberate disregard for the likeli‐
hood that damage or injury would result.”
But the instructions in the present case were adequate,
and, as the judge explained, “when someone goes on social
No. 16‐1532 7
media and says he is going to blow up a courthouse, or any
building for that matter, that is almost assuredly going to
cause substantial harm by diverting law enforcement re‐
sources.” Sure enough, Bradbury’s Facebook post precipitat‐
ed an extensive police investigation that discovered Brad‐
bury’s thermite and magnesium hoard—hardly the material
of harmless jokes. Furthermore, the persons named in the
post as intended murder victims of Bradbury and his pals
can’t have enjoyed seeing the screenshots of the post.
It’s true that the word “maliciously” is not precise; if you
google “maliciously synonyms,” Thesaurus.com gives you
16 words, ranging in gravity from “crookedly” to “roguish‐
ly.” See www.thesaurus.com/browse/maliciously (visited
Feb. 16, 2017). But at least “malice” and “malicious” are rea‐
sonably clear and they in turn guide interpretation of “mali‐
ciously.” “Malice” is the noun, “malicious” the adjective,
and “maliciously” the adverb—and so to act maliciously is
to act with malice, or equivalently to be malicious. All three
cognates well describe Bradbury’s post, which he knew
might be read by people not all of them his pals and com‐
municated by them to the police and to the persons named
in the post as intended victims of him and his cronies. Most
hoaxes are harmless, but a hoax based on a threat of harm is
criminalized by 18 U.S.C. § 844(e), as explained by the dis‐
trict judge, even if the harm that ensues is fright rather than
physical injury.
AFFIRMED
United States v. Samuel Bradbury
Combined Opinion