Tag: Bergholz Clan

Jurors should be allowed to hear about alleged sexual “counseling” of Amish wives by a man charged with masterminding beard- and hair-cutting attacks on fellow Amish in Ohio, prosecutors told a federal judge Friday.

Former members of the group say Sam Mullet has been “counseling” married women in his clan, taking them into his home “so that he may cleanse them of the devil with acts of sexual intimacy.”

Members of a fringe Amish group charged with committing hate crimes against fellow Amish have requested words including “cult,” “splinter” and “rogue” be banned from their upcoming trial in U.S. District Court.

They also requested that any Amish called to testify “affirm the truthfulness” of their testimony rather than swear an oath.

A federal judge has rejected a challenge of the federal hate crimes law by Amish sect leader Sam Mullet and 15 followers charged with beard- and hair-cutting assaults in Ohio Amish country last year..

The judge ruled the indictment does not violate the U.S. Constitution.

A Federal judge rejected Amish sect leader Sam Mullet’s attempt to have some of the government’s allegations against him stricken from a hate crimes indictment.

Mullet is awaiting trial, along with several members of his clan, for a series of beard- and hair cutting attacks against other Amish people.

Judges says Samuel Mullet had prior knowledge of the attacks and that he defended the assaults in media interviews.

They also said Mullet exerts such complete control over his community that members have refused to talk to the FBI until he gives permission.

The leader of an Amish splinter sect accused of cutting the beards of religious enemies has received more than $2 million for oil rights to his 800-acre farm, yet continues to be represented by a taxpayer-financed public defender, according to a new court filing.

Prosecutors also that Samuel Mullet remain in jail pending his trial, citing fears that he and his followers might retreat to his farm and forcibly resist surrendering.

Lawyers for the group claim the government’s case should be dismissed because they say the 2009 Hate Crimes Prevention Act should not apply to a dispute within a religion.

Justice Department lawyers answer the defendants “were properly indicted under the act” and that the law “represents a proper exercise of Congressional authority to enact legislation” to prosecute crimes motivated by bias.