ILNews

Man faces federal charge in courthouse plot

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Pike County man arrested after police discovered his plan to blow up the county courthouse now faces federal charges.

Kerry A. Thomas, of Oakland City, is charged in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, with possession of a destructive device. During a Nov. 1 search of his home, police found a PVC pipe containing a blasting cap, a cast booster, a degraded cast booster, and detonation cord. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives determined those materials constitute a destructive device as defined under federal law.

Under state law, Thomas is charged with Class A felony unlawful possession of a destructive device or explosive to kill, injure, or to destroy property; and Class C felony unlawful possession of a destructive device.

The U.S. Attorney Office also announced Thomas faces a charge of possession of unregistered machine guns. The complaint alleges that on March 16, 2009, Thomas illegally had three machine guns that weren't registered to him in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.

Police searched Thomas' home to find evidence relating to the murder of Patrick E. King when they found the bomb-making materials. Allegedly Thomas told at least two people he planned to set a bomb off in the Pike Circuit Court courtroom to kill himself and others if he was found guilty at his trial Nov. 4.

Thomas was on trial for criminal confinement, intimidation, pointing a firearm, and battery stemming from an incident in March, according to the Pike County Clerk's Office.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT