Skip to main content

Grand Jury Indicts Illinois Man Previously Charged with Attempt to Bomb Courthouse and Murder Federal Employees

SPRINGFIELD—A federal grand jury today returned a two-count indictment charging Michael C. Finton, a.k.a., “Talib Islam,” as previously charged in a criminal complaint, with attempted murder of a federal officer or employee and attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction (explosives) against property owned by the United States. Finton, 29, of Decatur, Ill., was arrested on September 23, in connection with an alleged plot to detonate a vehicle bomb at the federal courthouse in Springfield, Ill.

The indictment alleges that on September 23, 2009, Finton parked a van that he believed contained approximately a ton of explosives in front of the Paul Findley Federal Building and Courthouse, at 600 East Monroe Street, intending that the detonation of the bomb would destroy the building and kill its occupants. Finton allegedly left the van and used a cellular telephone at a nearby location to send a signal he believed would detonate the bomb in the van.

According to the affidavit filed on September 24, in support of the criminal complaint, in his alleged efforts to carry out the plot, Finton ultimately dealt with undercover FBI agents and confidential sources who continuously monitored his activities up to the time of his arrest. FBI agents arrested Finton immediately after he allegedly attempted to detonate the device, which actually contained inactive materials.

If convicted, Finton faces a maximum penalty of life in prison for attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction against property owned by the U.S. The penalty for attempting to murder a federal officer or employee is up to 20 years in prison.

During his initial appearance in federal court in Springfield on September 24, Finton waived his right to a detention hearing and was ordered to remain in the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service.

The investigation was conducted by the Springfield FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force and assisting law enforcement agencies. The prosecution is being handled by Assistant U.S. Attorney David E. Risley from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of Illinois, with assistance from Trial Attorney Joanna Baltes from the Counterterrorism Section of the Justice Department’s National Security Division.

The public is reminded that an indictment is merely an accusation; the defendant is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.
Post a Comment
Read more

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...
3 comments
Read more

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...
Post a Comment
Read more