Barry Croft, Jr. Seeks U.S. Supreme Court Review of Conviction in Whitmer "Kidnap Plot" Case
Through his counsel, Mr. Croft has filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari seeking a review of the Sixth Circuits' Denial of his Appeal.
WASHINGTON, D.C., July 31, 2025 - On July 30, 2025, counsel for Barry Croft, Jr. filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals April 1, 2025 denial of Mr. Croft’s appeal.
Background
Mr. Croft asserts that he was one of “several citizens targeted in 2020 by the FBI and a tightly controlled cohort of paid confidential agents/informants, all working together on a coordinated FBI team to ensnare citizens in an FBI promoted ‘conspiracy’ to ‘kidnap’ Michigan’s governor, who was in on the hoax and updated regularly, all timed for splashy arrests before the November 3, 2020 election.”
Mr. Croft endured two separate trials on these charges and has maintained that he was entrapped and framed by the FBI and its paid provocateurs. The first federal trial ended with the jury acquitting two of his co-defendants, but they were unable to reach verdicts as to Mr. Croft and co-defendant Adam Fox.
In the second federal retrial, the government was able to secure a conviction but this was only possible because the district court came up with a bogus “hearsay ruling” to bar the defense from brining into evidence non-hearsay substantive evidence, mainly the numerous vicarious admissions and incriminating statements made by FBI agents/informants unless the informants statements were “expressly authorized by their FBI bosses as scripted words.”
In doing so, Mr. Croft argues the district court forced him to present his entrapment defense without being able to use the evidence that would support it. The Sixth Circuit agreed that indeed, the district court erred, but it claimed this error was “harmless” because Mr. Croft could have taken the stand to testify about some of the admissions.
Questions Presented
The main questions presented to the U.S. Supreme Court for consideration are as follows:
Did the district court deny Mr. Croft’s constitutional right to present a defense, and thereby commit a trial error of constitutional dimension, when the district court applied the Federal Rules of Evidence in such an arbitrary manner as to effectively remove Evid.R. 801(d)(2)(D) from the evidence rules which Mr. Croft was permitted to utilize in presenting his entrapment defense to the government’s conspiracy charges?
Is the district court’s error in removing Evid.R. 801(d)(2)(D) from the evidence rules which Mr. Croft was permitted to utilize in presenting his entrapment defense subject to the more rigorous Chapman harmless error standard which requires the government to prove that the error was harmless “beyond a reasonable doubt,” a standard the government cannot meet in the circumstances of this case?
Did the Sixth Circuit impermissibly burden Mr. Croft’s exercise of his Fifth Amendment right not to testify at his trial, and otherwise violate his rights, when - in determining whether the district court’s error was harmless or not when it barred Mr. Croft from presenting the 801(d)(2)(D) statements - the appellate court held that Mr. Croft’s failure to testify in his own defense relegated the district court’s error to review for harmlessness under the government-favorable Kotteakos standard and not the more rigorous Chapman standard?
Statement of Case
Mr. Croft’s counsel goes on to provide a statement of the case, delving deeper into the FBI’s hoax plot and how Croft got ensnared in it.
None of Barry’s antigovernmental talk was illegal. He was well within his rights to talk trash with fellow patriots, a national pastime.
I think it’s very important to point out that Mr. Croft NEVER injured or endangered anyone, yet he was given an egregious sentence of 19 1/2 years at Florence Supermax, while people who actually did engage in political violence didn’t go to prison at all.
Unlike traditional law enforcement who need probable cause to open an investigation into a subject, the FBI can use first amendment protected political speech as a pretext to open an “intelligence threat assessment” on a subject.
It wasn’t just several paid confidential agents/informants, it was a network of at least a dozen, all acting as agents provocateurs for the government. As outlined above, every single element of the fake conspiracy was directed and scripted by the FBI.
An additional point to be made about the bogus hearsay ruling, which I have not seen any defense lawyer mention except the appeals lawyer for Joseph Morrison, is the fact that FBI Informant Dan Chappel gave his handling agents his login information and passwords for his internet accounts, so any messages sent from those accounts could have been scripted and written by the FBI agents themselves. Chappel also met regularly with the handling agents, and when calling and texting the defendants could have been given a script of what to say by the agents, thus making them potentially direct party statements.
There is no overstating how disgusting and shameful these indisputable facts are. There was essentially no crime here, as the alleged victim was herself in on the FBI’s conspiracy and was never at any point in any kind of danger.
A lot of these statements (which can be read here) contained actual audio recordings of informants saying incendiary things at FBI sponsored events. The government was able to cherry pick clips from the same audio recordings to portray the defendants as dangerous and violent, yet the defense could not show the full context and what the provocateurs were saying. So, from a 4 hour audio recording of an FBI called and chaired meeting, the government could cherry pick a 17 second clip of an intoxicated Barry Croft saying something incendiary, but the defense could not play a clip from the same 4 hour recording of an informant suggesting violence.
This means the FBI can outsource entrapment via the use of a dozen informants and the defense cannot introduce the evidence of entrapment.
It’s fascinating they chose to use an analogy from the Truman Show, as indeed this entire hoax was scripted like a movie about characters who were being monitored 24/7 and had actors introduced into their lives posing as friends.
The FBI was so desperate to conceal their criminality they actively tried to conceal these communications. For example, special agent Kristopher Long had informant Jenny Plunk set up a proton email address, for which she provided him they credentials, and they would communicate via the DRAFTS email folder - without sending an email.
Indeed, if one were to go into detail for everything the FBI orchestrated, you could write an entire book, which perhaps someday I will.
The Dublin meeting was called and chaired by the FBI via their pedophile informant Steve Robeson. At trial, the government would lie and claim Barry Croft was the one who organized the “national militia meeting.” In fact, there were at least 2 other informants present, in addition to Robeson who were there to incite and record. The rest of the attendees were targets of the FBI from across multiple states.
Prior to this meeting, none of the Wolverine Watchmen knew Adam Fox. Chappel had become the defacto leader of the group as Joseph Morrison was busy working 6 days a week and was dealing with marital problems.
While this might sound concerning, none of this talk was serious. During the insane lockdowns in Michigan, you could walk into any bar (that was allowed to be open) at the time and hear much more egregious talk venting anger at the government and politicians. This isn’t a plan, it isn’t a conspiracy to commit a crime, its stoned trash and tuff talk among men trying to impress each other.
It should be noted that it was Robeson who purchased the materials to set up the “shoot house” and undercover agent Mark Schweers testified at trial under cross-examination by attorney for Daniel Harris Julia Kelly, that HE helped construct the “shoot house.” There was even a sign-in sheet at Cambria, despite the FBI’s best efforts to pretend that the group was utilizing OPSEC, or “operational security” to conceal their conspiracy from law enforcement.
The entire thing is textbook entrapment. There were multiple informants present and recording at Peebles, including Robeson, Chappel, and C.M. Philips.
Indeed, a lot of the Watchmen believed Croft was a “fed” and they were a lot younger than him. Croft didn’t join their encrypted group chats, and he was busy taking care of his daughters.
By this point, Jayson Chambers knew he had to come up with something to justify the enormous expenditures for the big TEI investigation, he also had a deadline of arresting the men before the 2020 election. With this in mind, he concocted an idea of having the guys go on a guided tour past Whitmer’s vacation cottage in Elk Rapids.
Interestingly, the mother of the women Fox met at the boat launch and smoked pot with, would become a juror at the first federal trial. If you actually go to Elk Rapids, which I did for my documentary about this case, you will see that there is another bridge besides the I-31 so this entire FBI idea was absurd.
The FBI testified at trial and the firework Croft “detonated” had “reigned down sparkles.” How terrifying.
Yes, the FBI produced a video of them setting an SUV on fire to try to get anyone interested in purchasing “explosives” from undercover agent Bates. This was unsuccessful.
Part of the statements that were barred and excluded from trial was audio picked up of this night that shows the informants coordinating with one another as to who would go in what vehicle - clear evidence that, in violation of FBI admonishments, the informants were aware of who the other informants were.
Croft was told that he was going to do “land navigation” training that night, Brian Higgins was told they were going to be tracking a pedophile (as Robeson was pretending his fake charity was working with law enforcement to go after child traffickers - ironic considering Robeson impregnated a teenager).
At no point is there ever an agreement on any plot to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer. It’s just a group of naïve and trusting men being led around by the FBI and their paid informants.
Gov. Whitmer held a press conference in which she couldn’t contain her narcissistic smirk and gloated about how these men were set up, blaming President Trump to smear his campaign a month before the election in a key swing state. This was then seized upon by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris who made it a talking point in their fear mongering about President Trump.
Reasons for Granting the Writ
While the Writ should be granted for obvious reasons, In my recent correspondence with Barry Croft, he said that his appeals attorney Mr. Sweeney informed him “there’s less than a 1% chance they’ll (the U.S. Supreme Court) look at his case,” but he agrees that the injustice in the case is “overwhelming.”
In this case, the defense was kneecapped and hamstrung from presenting the full evidence and expounding on the full context of certain events. Without the ability to show what the agents and informants were talking about, it’s impossible to show how they were directing the entire hoax.
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, statements of government employees and non-employee agents, within the scope of their work, are admissible against the government for their truth in a criminal case.
The government cannot have it both ways, it cannot use informants it’s directing while simultaneously claiming the informants are not acting at the direction of the government.
Indeed the FBI was violating its own rules and admonishments in this case as evidenced by the statements the government and district court sought to conceal from the jury in two separate trials.
At what point do we consider holding the district court judge accountable for “fixing” the trial on behalf of the government?
Of course this error was not “harmless,” it was the reason that Fox and Croft were convicted in the hasty retrial.
Remember, the government maintained that informants Chappel, Plunk, and Robeson were “unaware” of one another. This is a direct violation of FBI rules and no one has been held accountable nor was this able to be introduced in court to make it into the court record.
This is outlining exactly how the trial was rigged against the defendants. If you cannot present evidence of your innocence at trial, how is this anything more than a kangaroo court or show trial?
Conclusion
Despite there being a less than one percent chance the U.S. Supreme Court will look at the case, I am impressed with the Petition and Mr. Sweeney’s advocacy for Mr. Croft. Right now Adam Fox, Mr. Croft’s co-defendant, has no legal representation after his court appointed appeals lawyer deliberately sabotaged his appeal with the Sixth Circuit, who then denied Adam’s request for a new lawyer due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Currently, Fox has missed his deadline to pursue a U.S. Supreme Court review of the Sixth Circuits denial, and has no legal representation.
To this end, we are hoping that Ed Martin investigates the case and chooses to advise President Trump to pardon both Adam Fox and Barry Croft. We encourage readers to share this article online and to tag Ed Martin and the president and let them know these man should have been pardoned already.