OFF THE WIRE
agingrebel.com
Joseph
Yanny, the attorney for Mongol Nation, filed a 35-page “Motion for a
Judgment of Acquittal in the Guilt Phase” late this afternoon in the
federal racketeering case United States versus Mongol Nation: An Unincorporated Association.
The case was filed in 2013 and is directly descended from another RICO case titled United States versus Cavazos and others. In the last five years, the case has been heard by three Federal District Judges. It was dismissed by the current judge, David O. Carter. It was reinstated by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It went to trial on Halloween. A jury of nine women and three men found “Mongol Nation” guilty of two counts of racketeering in December. The jury reconvened this week to decide whether Mongol Nation should be punished by forfeiting, or having the federal government seize, the club’s indicia.
Indicia is lawyer’s Latin for indicators of membership. The government wants to deprive the Mongols Motorcycle Club, and consequently the club’s members, of all rights to and use of the club’s so-called “collective membership marks.” Those marks are similar to trademarks but they indicate membership in an organization rather than ownership of a brand in commerce.
As of Thursday afternoon, the same jury that found Mongol Nation guilty was still deciding whether it would vote to to authorize the governments confiscation of the “Mongols marks.” Those marks are: The “Name Mark,” which is the word “Mongols;” the “Picture Mark, which is the motorcycle club’s logogram – a depiction of Genghis Khan is 1960s attire riding a 1960s motorcycle; and the “Composite Mark,” which is both of those marks arranged with the word mark above the picture mark and below that the letters “MC.”
The government seeks to confiscate personal items that include any portion of any of the marks. If the jury and the judge authorize that forfeiture the government would literally be authorized to search homes for items decorated with the forbidden symbols. Police in any state would be authorized to stop Mongols on the streets and strip them of articles of clothing like vests, belts and hats and search them for forbidden articles like cigarette lighters and bandanas.
Before they can happen, Judge Carter has to issue an order of forfeiture. Carter has already suggested that he will consider the defense motion filed this afternoon before he issues an order to forfeit.
Nothing else that has happen until now in the Mongol Nation trial matters. Whatever verdict the jury reaches about the the Mongols forfeiture does not matter. What matters is Judge Carter’s ruling on this motion.
The motion begins by connecting the Mongol Nation case to the Cavazos case.
“On October 9, 2008, the government brought an indictment against 79 individual persons alleged to be members of the Mongol Nation Motorcycle Club alleging violations, among other charges.”
“Shortly thereafter on October 21, 2008, the United States Attorney’s Office of the Central District of California issued a press release in which then United States Attorney Thomas P. O’Brien boasted: “in addition to pursuing the criminal charges set forth in the [indictment, for the first time ever, we are seeking to forfeit the intellectual property of a gang….. Mr. O’Brien continued: ‘The indictment alleges that this trademark is subject to forfeiture. We have filed papers seeking a court order that will prevent gang members from using or displaying the name ‘Mongols.’ If the court grants our request for this order, then if any law enforcement officer sees a Mongol wearing his patch, he will be authorized to stop that gang member and literally take the jacket right off his back.’”
“All of the 79 individual defendants charged in Cavazos, except for an individual who died in custody and another deemed incompetent, entered into a plea agreement with the government, and nearly all of those individuals pled guilty to 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) (RICO Conspiracy). Additionally, these individuals have all already as part of their plea deals agreed to forfeit their right to display the Marks sought for forfeiture in this current proceeding.”
“The government brought on February 13, 2013 an indictment in which the government gave notice that it will once again attempt the exact same forfeiture of the exact same Mongols MC collective membership marks. The only difference between Cavazos and the instant case is that in this case the government names the entity Mongol Nation, an unincorporated association, as the sole defendant.”
The motion argues that the guilty verdict returned by the jury last month should be overturned on three legal grounds.
First, that the government failed to prove that Mongol Nation is a distinct legal entity from the Mongols Motorcycle Club.
Second, that the defendant Mongol Nation, which has always been a vaguely defined, legal fiction is “legally incapable incapable of committing the malum in se crimes of murder and attempted murder.” A malum in se crime is one which is obviously evil, like murder, as opposed to a malum prohibitum crime, like smoking marijuana, which is a crime not because it is obviously evil but because a law has been passed prohibiting it.
Third, that “the racketeering acts and conspiracy alleged have not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt”
Today’s motion states:
“The government failed to prove the existence of two distinct entities.
“Both parties have already stipulated on the record that distinctness is a question of law for the bench to decide. This was conceded by the government on several occasions both in writing and orally on the record. Whether this is being decided de novo as a question of law for the Court, or as a review of the sufficiency of evidence under Rule 29, the same rationale for this argument applies. Due to the government’s failure to prove the distinctness requirement for a finding of guilt under RICO, defendant Mongol Nation requests this Court exercise its rightful authority and enter a judgment of acquittal. This case was already originally dismissed for lack of distinctness in 2015. The Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal because all well plead facts must be presumed true when evaluating pleading. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). However, the government still bears the burden of proving distinctness as true at the trial stage. They have not meet this burden.”
“The alleged separate membership and purpose is a distinction without a difference. The prospective members, probationary members, and hang-arounds/associates are defined by, and owe their existence to, the unincorporated association Mongol Nation. Taking the allegations as true, all non-members involved in the Mongols Gang enterprise are acting within the Mongol Nation/Mongols Gang association structure, analogous in all meaningful respects to corporate employees acting within the scope of their employment. Most courts, including the Ninth Circuit, have explicitly recognized that an enterprise that consists only of a corporate defendant and its employees fails for lack of distinctness…Although an unincorporated allegedly criminal organization cannot have “employees,” the roles of the prospective members, probationary member, and ‘hang-arounds’ are the functional equivalent…There is simply no substance to the Mongols Gang enterprise independent of Mongol Nation, an association of its leadership and official membership.”
“The testimony of defendant’s witnesses reiterated these facts that show the Defendant is one entity. Doctor Richard Cole, a member of the Mongols Motorcycle Club for thirteen years who goes by the nickname Ritchie Rich, verified the rules and customs stated in the Mongols Constitution. He also verified that there is no difference between Mongols ‘hang-arounds’ and Mongols “associates.” These two terms are interchangeable and their synonymous nature is customary within the organization.
“Governor Jesse Venture, one of the original members of the Mongols Motorcycle Club and former Sargent at Arms for the South Bay Chapter who goes by the nickname Superman, verified the rules and customs in the Mongols Constitution. Governor Ventura also discussed that there are rules for inactive members.
“Richard Gutierrez, the Mongols Mother Chapter Secretary of Treasury who goes by the nickname Rags, verified the fact that all levels of the organization, including officers, full-patch members, probate members, probationary members, and hangarounds/associates are governed by club rules, guidelines, and customs.
“Bengy Leyva, a member of the Mongols Motorcycle Club since 2000 who goes by the nickname Secret, reiterated these facts as well.
“Furthermore, EVERY undercover agent from operation Black Rain the government called to testify in this trial reiterated these facts. There is no better evidence that the club is one-single entity composed of various members with differing status and rules governing their conduct than the testimony of undercover agents who infiltrated the club for multiple years. A revisit of the testimony from Darren Kozlowski, Greg Gaioni, and Paul D’Angelo will verify the lack of distinctness proffered by the government.
“Inadvertently stated or not, from the mouths of the undercover agents themselves, there is no RICO “person” distinct from the RICO “enterprise” in this case.
“Indeed, in closing argument, the government acknowledged the fact that testimony from their very own witnesses repudiated any assertion of distinctness between the defendant Mongols Nation and another entity. Realizing this error in their case, the government desperately attempted to challenge the testimony of their very own witnesses – alleging that Greg Gaioni and other undercover agents were ‘confused’ when they spoke about the organizational makeup of the club. These undercover agents spent roughly three years infiltrating the club; they were not confused. The government cannot erase testimonial evidence through their closing argument; nor can they re-write it. A valiant effort by the prosecution to distance themselves from their very own witnesses was not successful. The record clearly shows that the only testimony regarding the structure of the defendant Mongol Nation is that of a single unified entity. Furthermore, during his testimony on January 8, 2019, special agent Kozlowski specifically referred to on multiple occasions his ‘prospecting status’ within the organization as being a ‘prospect member.’
“He also stated he could wear the Center Patch before while he was a ‘prospect member.’
“This once again shows that all differing ranks within the organization are still members
and under the same Mongol Nation umbrella. This fact precludes any distinctness as required by the RICO statute. Evidence presented by the defense as well as the government clearly show that RICO distinctness has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Mongols Full-patch members, Mongols probationary members, Mongols prospect members, and Mongols hang-arounds/associates are all Mongols of a sort unified by their common allegiance to the Mongols entity. They have no meaningful existence relevant to this case except as holding a status within the Mongols organization.”
“An entity is legally incapable of committing the malum in se ‘racketeering acts’ set forth in the indictment and incorporated into the verdict form. In the present case, the defendant is not an individual, but rather an entity formed through association. As such, defendant Mongol Nation requests this Court exercise its rightful authority and enter a judgment of acquittal due to the jury finding guilt based solely on malum in se racketeering acts.”
“In Jund v. Town of Hempstead, the Court faced, seemingly as a matter of first impression, a challenge from an unincorporated association defendant that it was legally incapable of committing the predicate acts which formed the basis of the violation claim against it. See Id. at 1284. That Court held: ‘Generally in the absence of a clear legislative intent to impose criminal responsibility, an unincorporated association of persons as an entity cannot be indicted and convicted of a crime, since, if a crime is committed, it must be committed by them as individuals.’”
“The indictment alleges that Mongol Nation, unincorporated association, committed ten ‘racketeering acts’ which constitute the predicate acts required for a § 1962 (c) violation. The racketeering acts allegedly committed by Mongol Nation, an unincorporated association, are as follows: (1) Conspiracy to distribute narcotics in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and (b)(1)(A); (2) Distribution of narcotics in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and (b)(1)(A); (3) Attempted Murder in violation of California Penal Code §§ 187 and 664 and (4) Murder in violation of California Penal Code § 187.
“Nowhere in each of the aforementioned statutes is there language that specifically holds an entity criminally liable for crimes that require specific mens rea that results in an act that is malum in se as opposed to malum prohibitum. See 21 U.S.C. § 841; California Penal Code §§ 664, 187. Generally speaking, if a ‘person’ cannot burn in hell or be incarcerated for the consequence of an act, they cannot be convicted of it. In fact, it is strange to even ponder a situation where an entity can be found guilty of murder or attempted murder. It is axiomatic that such is not the case. See United States v. Kelso Co., 86 Fed. 304 (N.D. Cal. 1898) (‘Of course, there are certain crimes of which a corporation cannot be guilty; as, for instance, bigamy, rape, murder, and other offenses, which will readily suggest themselves to the mind.’); Commonwealth v. Punxsutawney St. Passenger Ry., 24 Pa.C. 25 (1900). Despite the age of these cases, there is no subsequent authority that directly contradicts their conclusions. The lack of authority on the subject lends credence to the fact that these past cases were so established and axiomatic that there was not need to question and test the holdings further. They remain good law.
“Therefore, since Mongol Nation is legally incapable of committing any of the specific intent “racketeering acts” set forth in the indictment and incorporated into the verdict form, these charges should not and cannot be the basis of a conviction.”
“In addition to the previous arguments, a judgment of acquittal is necessary and proper because none of the racketeering acts and conspiracy alleged have been proven by the government beyond a reasonable doubt.
“With respect to all of the drug transactions, it is important to note that nowhere in the evidence presented in this trial was there anything that one would expect to find from an organization whose purpose was to manufacture or distribute controlled substances. The government has indicated on the record that it has five shipping containers of evidence of allegedly seized during operation Black Rain, which led to both the Cavazos and this current prosecution. Nowhere in discovery or in the evidentiary record were any of the things one would expect to find from a cartel dealing drugs, such as a “Pay-Owe” sheets or ledgers, cryptic communications from the organization related to drug transactions, or legitimate “Stash-Houses” that can be attributed to this defendant the Mongols Nation Motorcycle Club.
“It should also be borne in mind that all of the drugs introduced into the record at trial have twice been very aptly illustrated to fit into a standard grocery bag (even with their original evidentiary packaging and labels included) – leaving enough additional room to fit a gallon of milk, a loaf of bread, and a dozen eggs. All of the drug transactions prosecuted were ‘controlled-buy’ situations orchestrated entirely by the government through undercover agents. One of the government’s undercovers, John “Hollywood” Carr, is eloquently written about by Judge Manuel L. Real in the U.S. v. Roberts decision which criticizes the ATF and their scandalous practices intended to get their statistics up by framing minorities and people of low income through the use of confidential informants and other under handed tactics. United States v. Roberts, et al., CR 13-00751- R-1 (2014). This perhaps best illustrates the actual ‘Deep State’ looking for a way to justify their budgets, their bonuses, and their existence. This conduct was also done in the hopes of landing a book deal and movie deal after retirement – just like Billy Queen, Jay Dobyns, and the new budding writer Darren Kozlowski, etc. Ironically, one of the AFT agents, Jay Dobyns, in a successful lawsuit against the ATF itself called the agency which spearheaded this operation a corrupt organization. drug dealing was prohibited by the Mongol’s rules.”
“Also, the Court should bear in mind that there was a slew of violent acts that the government put on evidence regarding. Of that cornucopia, the government chose to proceed to the jury for verdict on only six violent acts. Of these, the jury failed to return a verdict of guilty on four of those acts – leaving only two to address.
“With regards to all of the violent acts alleged, there was zero evidence presented of consultation with, direction from, collaboration by, conspiracy with, or orchestration or encouragement by the sole defendant in this case Mongols Nation Motorcycle Club.”
And there was some discussion among courtroom observers yesterday about whether the “Mongols defense had lost the case.”
The Mongols haven’t lost anything yet except for some legal fees.
As Yanny put it yesterday, “the chess match is just getting started.”
The case was filed in 2013 and is directly descended from another RICO case titled United States versus Cavazos and others. In the last five years, the case has been heard by three Federal District Judges. It was dismissed by the current judge, David O. Carter. It was reinstated by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It went to trial on Halloween. A jury of nine women and three men found “Mongol Nation” guilty of two counts of racketeering in December. The jury reconvened this week to decide whether Mongol Nation should be punished by forfeiting, or having the federal government seize, the club’s indicia.
Indicia is lawyer’s Latin for indicators of membership. The government wants to deprive the Mongols Motorcycle Club, and consequently the club’s members, of all rights to and use of the club’s so-called “collective membership marks.” Those marks are similar to trademarks but they indicate membership in an organization rather than ownership of a brand in commerce.
As of Thursday afternoon, the same jury that found Mongol Nation guilty was still deciding whether it would vote to to authorize the governments confiscation of the “Mongols marks.” Those marks are: The “Name Mark,” which is the word “Mongols;” the “Picture Mark, which is the motorcycle club’s logogram – a depiction of Genghis Khan is 1960s attire riding a 1960s motorcycle; and the “Composite Mark,” which is both of those marks arranged with the word mark above the picture mark and below that the letters “MC.”
The government seeks to confiscate personal items that include any portion of any of the marks. If the jury and the judge authorize that forfeiture the government would literally be authorized to search homes for items decorated with the forbidden symbols. Police in any state would be authorized to stop Mongols on the streets and strip them of articles of clothing like vests, belts and hats and search them for forbidden articles like cigarette lighters and bandanas.
Before they can happen, Judge Carter has to issue an order of forfeiture. Carter has already suggested that he will consider the defense motion filed this afternoon before he issues an order to forfeit.
Nothing else that has happen until now in the Mongol Nation trial matters. Whatever verdict the jury reaches about the the Mongols forfeiture does not matter. What matters is Judge Carter’s ruling on this motion.
The motion begins by connecting the Mongol Nation case to the Cavazos case.
“On October 9, 2008, the government brought an indictment against 79 individual persons alleged to be members of the Mongol Nation Motorcycle Club alleging violations, among other charges.”
“Shortly thereafter on October 21, 2008, the United States Attorney’s Office of the Central District of California issued a press release in which then United States Attorney Thomas P. O’Brien boasted: “in addition to pursuing the criminal charges set forth in the [indictment, for the first time ever, we are seeking to forfeit the intellectual property of a gang….. Mr. O’Brien continued: ‘The indictment alleges that this trademark is subject to forfeiture. We have filed papers seeking a court order that will prevent gang members from using or displaying the name ‘Mongols.’ If the court grants our request for this order, then if any law enforcement officer sees a Mongol wearing his patch, he will be authorized to stop that gang member and literally take the jacket right off his back.’”
“All of the 79 individual defendants charged in Cavazos, except for an individual who died in custody and another deemed incompetent, entered into a plea agreement with the government, and nearly all of those individuals pled guilty to 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) (RICO Conspiracy). Additionally, these individuals have all already as part of their plea deals agreed to forfeit their right to display the Marks sought for forfeiture in this current proceeding.”
“The government brought on February 13, 2013 an indictment in which the government gave notice that it will once again attempt the exact same forfeiture of the exact same Mongols MC collective membership marks. The only difference between Cavazos and the instant case is that in this case the government names the entity Mongol Nation, an unincorporated association, as the sole defendant.”
The motion argues that the guilty verdict returned by the jury last month should be overturned on three legal grounds.
First, that the government failed to prove that Mongol Nation is a distinct legal entity from the Mongols Motorcycle Club.
Second, that the defendant Mongol Nation, which has always been a vaguely defined, legal fiction is “legally incapable incapable of committing the malum in se crimes of murder and attempted murder.” A malum in se crime is one which is obviously evil, like murder, as opposed to a malum prohibitum crime, like smoking marijuana, which is a crime not because it is obviously evil but because a law has been passed prohibiting it.
Third, that “the racketeering acts and conspiracy alleged have not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt”
Distinctness
There have to be two legal entities to charge a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) violation. Those legal entities are a “RICO person” and a “RICO enterprise.” In both Cavazos and Mongol Nation the “enterprise” was the Mongols Motorcycle Club and the RICO person was Mongol Nation. In this trial, after much tortured argument by the prosecution, the jury decided that Mongol Nation could be differentiated from the club. But it was not the jury’s decision to make.Today’s motion states:
“The government failed to prove the existence of two distinct entities.
“Both parties have already stipulated on the record that distinctness is a question of law for the bench to decide. This was conceded by the government on several occasions both in writing and orally on the record. Whether this is being decided de novo as a question of law for the Court, or as a review of the sufficiency of evidence under Rule 29, the same rationale for this argument applies. Due to the government’s failure to prove the distinctness requirement for a finding of guilt under RICO, defendant Mongol Nation requests this Court exercise its rightful authority and enter a judgment of acquittal. This case was already originally dismissed for lack of distinctness in 2015. The Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal because all well plead facts must be presumed true when evaluating pleading. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). However, the government still bears the burden of proving distinctness as true at the trial stage. They have not meet this burden.”
“The alleged separate membership and purpose is a distinction without a difference. The prospective members, probationary members, and hang-arounds/associates are defined by, and owe their existence to, the unincorporated association Mongol Nation. Taking the allegations as true, all non-members involved in the Mongols Gang enterprise are acting within the Mongol Nation/Mongols Gang association structure, analogous in all meaningful respects to corporate employees acting within the scope of their employment. Most courts, including the Ninth Circuit, have explicitly recognized that an enterprise that consists only of a corporate defendant and its employees fails for lack of distinctness…Although an unincorporated allegedly criminal organization cannot have “employees,” the roles of the prospective members, probationary member, and ‘hang-arounds’ are the functional equivalent…There is simply no substance to the Mongols Gang enterprise independent of Mongol Nation, an association of its leadership and official membership.”
“The testimony of defendant’s witnesses reiterated these facts that show the Defendant is one entity. Doctor Richard Cole, a member of the Mongols Motorcycle Club for thirteen years who goes by the nickname Ritchie Rich, verified the rules and customs stated in the Mongols Constitution. He also verified that there is no difference between Mongols ‘hang-arounds’ and Mongols “associates.” These two terms are interchangeable and their synonymous nature is customary within the organization.
“Governor Jesse Venture, one of the original members of the Mongols Motorcycle Club and former Sargent at Arms for the South Bay Chapter who goes by the nickname Superman, verified the rules and customs in the Mongols Constitution. Governor Ventura also discussed that there are rules for inactive members.
“Richard Gutierrez, the Mongols Mother Chapter Secretary of Treasury who goes by the nickname Rags, verified the fact that all levels of the organization, including officers, full-patch members, probate members, probationary members, and hangarounds/associates are governed by club rules, guidelines, and customs.
“Bengy Leyva, a member of the Mongols Motorcycle Club since 2000 who goes by the nickname Secret, reiterated these facts as well.
“Furthermore, EVERY undercover agent from operation Black Rain the government called to testify in this trial reiterated these facts. There is no better evidence that the club is one-single entity composed of various members with differing status and rules governing their conduct than the testimony of undercover agents who infiltrated the club for multiple years. A revisit of the testimony from Darren Kozlowski, Greg Gaioni, and Paul D’Angelo will verify the lack of distinctness proffered by the government.
“Inadvertently stated or not, from the mouths of the undercover agents themselves, there is no RICO “person” distinct from the RICO “enterprise” in this case.
“Indeed, in closing argument, the government acknowledged the fact that testimony from their very own witnesses repudiated any assertion of distinctness between the defendant Mongols Nation and another entity. Realizing this error in their case, the government desperately attempted to challenge the testimony of their very own witnesses – alleging that Greg Gaioni and other undercover agents were ‘confused’ when they spoke about the organizational makeup of the club. These undercover agents spent roughly three years infiltrating the club; they were not confused. The government cannot erase testimonial evidence through their closing argument; nor can they re-write it. A valiant effort by the prosecution to distance themselves from their very own witnesses was not successful. The record clearly shows that the only testimony regarding the structure of the defendant Mongol Nation is that of a single unified entity. Furthermore, during his testimony on January 8, 2019, special agent Kozlowski specifically referred to on multiple occasions his ‘prospecting status’ within the organization as being a ‘prospect member.’
“He also stated he could wear the Center Patch before while he was a ‘prospect member.’
“This once again shows that all differing ranks within the organization are still members
and under the same Mongol Nation umbrella. This fact precludes any distinctness as required by the RICO statute. Evidence presented by the defense as well as the government clearly show that RICO distinctness has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Mongols Full-patch members, Mongols probationary members, Mongols prospect members, and Mongols hang-arounds/associates are all Mongols of a sort unified by their common allegiance to the Mongols entity. They have no meaningful existence relevant to this case except as holding a status within the Mongols organization.”
Malum In Se Crimes
The motion argues:“An entity is legally incapable of committing the malum in se ‘racketeering acts’ set forth in the indictment and incorporated into the verdict form. In the present case, the defendant is not an individual, but rather an entity formed through association. As such, defendant Mongol Nation requests this Court exercise its rightful authority and enter a judgment of acquittal due to the jury finding guilt based solely on malum in se racketeering acts.”
“In Jund v. Town of Hempstead, the Court faced, seemingly as a matter of first impression, a challenge from an unincorporated association defendant that it was legally incapable of committing the predicate acts which formed the basis of the violation claim against it. See Id. at 1284. That Court held: ‘Generally in the absence of a clear legislative intent to impose criminal responsibility, an unincorporated association of persons as an entity cannot be indicted and convicted of a crime, since, if a crime is committed, it must be committed by them as individuals.’”
“The indictment alleges that Mongol Nation, unincorporated association, committed ten ‘racketeering acts’ which constitute the predicate acts required for a § 1962 (c) violation. The racketeering acts allegedly committed by Mongol Nation, an unincorporated association, are as follows: (1) Conspiracy to distribute narcotics in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and (b)(1)(A); (2) Distribution of narcotics in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and (b)(1)(A); (3) Attempted Murder in violation of California Penal Code §§ 187 and 664 and (4) Murder in violation of California Penal Code § 187.
“Nowhere in each of the aforementioned statutes is there language that specifically holds an entity criminally liable for crimes that require specific mens rea that results in an act that is malum in se as opposed to malum prohibitum. See 21 U.S.C. § 841; California Penal Code §§ 664, 187. Generally speaking, if a ‘person’ cannot burn in hell or be incarcerated for the consequence of an act, they cannot be convicted of it. In fact, it is strange to even ponder a situation where an entity can be found guilty of murder or attempted murder. It is axiomatic that such is not the case. See United States v. Kelso Co., 86 Fed. 304 (N.D. Cal. 1898) (‘Of course, there are certain crimes of which a corporation cannot be guilty; as, for instance, bigamy, rape, murder, and other offenses, which will readily suggest themselves to the mind.’); Commonwealth v. Punxsutawney St. Passenger Ry., 24 Pa.C. 25 (1900). Despite the age of these cases, there is no subsequent authority that directly contradicts their conclusions. The lack of authority on the subject lends credence to the fact that these past cases were so established and axiomatic that there was not need to question and test the holdings further. They remain good law.
“Therefore, since Mongol Nation is legally incapable of committing any of the specific intent “racketeering acts” set forth in the indictment and incorporated into the verdict form, these charges should not and cannot be the basis of a conviction.”
Reasonable Doubt
Today’s motion argues:“In addition to the previous arguments, a judgment of acquittal is necessary and proper because none of the racketeering acts and conspiracy alleged have been proven by the government beyond a reasonable doubt.
“With respect to all of the drug transactions, it is important to note that nowhere in the evidence presented in this trial was there anything that one would expect to find from an organization whose purpose was to manufacture or distribute controlled substances. The government has indicated on the record that it has five shipping containers of evidence of allegedly seized during operation Black Rain, which led to both the Cavazos and this current prosecution. Nowhere in discovery or in the evidentiary record were any of the things one would expect to find from a cartel dealing drugs, such as a “Pay-Owe” sheets or ledgers, cryptic communications from the organization related to drug transactions, or legitimate “Stash-Houses” that can be attributed to this defendant the Mongols Nation Motorcycle Club.
“It should also be borne in mind that all of the drugs introduced into the record at trial have twice been very aptly illustrated to fit into a standard grocery bag (even with their original evidentiary packaging and labels included) – leaving enough additional room to fit a gallon of milk, a loaf of bread, and a dozen eggs. All of the drug transactions prosecuted were ‘controlled-buy’ situations orchestrated entirely by the government through undercover agents. One of the government’s undercovers, John “Hollywood” Carr, is eloquently written about by Judge Manuel L. Real in the U.S. v. Roberts decision which criticizes the ATF and their scandalous practices intended to get their statistics up by framing minorities and people of low income through the use of confidential informants and other under handed tactics. United States v. Roberts, et al., CR 13-00751- R-1 (2014). This perhaps best illustrates the actual ‘Deep State’ looking for a way to justify their budgets, their bonuses, and their existence. This conduct was also done in the hopes of landing a book deal and movie deal after retirement – just like Billy Queen, Jay Dobyns, and the new budding writer Darren Kozlowski, etc. Ironically, one of the AFT agents, Jay Dobyns, in a successful lawsuit against the ATF itself called the agency which spearheaded this operation a corrupt organization. drug dealing was prohibited by the Mongol’s rules.”
“Also, the Court should bear in mind that there was a slew of violent acts that the government put on evidence regarding. Of that cornucopia, the government chose to proceed to the jury for verdict on only six violent acts. Of these, the jury failed to return a verdict of guilty on four of those acts – leaving only two to address.
“With regards to all of the violent acts alleged, there was zero evidence presented of consultation with, direction from, collaboration by, conspiracy with, or orchestration or encouragement by the sole defendant in this case Mongols Nation Motorcycle Club.”
Jury Still Out
Judge Carter will not rule on the defense motion until after the jury returns a verdict. That did not happen today.And there was some discussion among courtroom observers yesterday about whether the “Mongols defense had lost the case.”
The Mongols haven’t lost anything yet except for some legal fees.
As Yanny put it yesterday, “the chess match is just getting started.”
