OFF THE WIRE
Once again, with the exception of AB1096, AB1559 & AB1746 (THANK
YOU Assembly Member Melendez) the state democratic majority continues
to execute a full frontal assault against our 2nd Amendment rights.
CALIFORNIA- new, update
AB997 [new]: Firearms: persons detained or apprehended for examination of mental condition
Status:
02/22/19: From printer. May be heard in committee March 24.
02/21/19: Read first time. To print.
Bill text:
This bill would prohibit the person from possessing a firearm or deadly
weapon pending the hearing and would prohibit the person from having
possession of a firearm or deadly weapon for a period of 5 years if the
court determines that the return of the firearm or other deadly weapons
would likely endanger the person or others. The bill would make a
violation of this prohibition a crime, punishable as a misdemeanor or a
felony. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated
local program.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fac…/billTextClient.xhtml…
AB1096 [new]: Firearms: concealed carry licenses
Status:
02/22/19: From printer. May be heard in committee March 24.
02/21/19: Read first time. To print.
Bill text:
This bill would instead require the sheriff of a county, or the chief
or other head of a municipal police department, to issue a license to
carry a concealed handgun or to carry a loaded and exposed handgun, as
specified, if good cause exists for the issuance and the applicant is of
good moral character and satisfies certain other criteria.
This
bill would define “good cause” for these purposes to include
self-defense, defending the life of another, or preventing crime in
which human life is threatened, and would provide procedural guidelines
to the issuing authority on determining the presence or absence of “good
cause.”
This bill would authorize a resident of another state to
apply for a license to carry a handgun, as specified, from any sheriff
in the state using the same procedure and would authorize that sheriff
to issue a license.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fac…/billTextClient.xhtml…
AB1121 [new]: Firearms: gun violence restraining orders.
Status:
02/22/19: From printer. May be heard in committee March 24.
02/21/19: Read first time. To print.
Bill text:
SECTION 1. Section 18125 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
18125. (a) A temporary emergency gun violence restraining order may be
issued on an ex parte basis only if a law enforcement officer asserts,
and a judicial officer finds, that there is reasonable cause to believe
both of the following:
(1) The subject of the petition poses an
immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to himself,
herself, themselves or another by having in his or her custody or
control, control of, or owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving
receiving, a firearm or ammunition.
(2) A temporary emergency gun
violence restraining order is necessary to prevent personal injury to
the subject of the petition or another because less restrictive
alternatives either have been tried and found to be ineffective, or have
been determined to be inadequate or inappropriate for the circumstances
of the subject of the petition.
(b) A temporary emergency gun
violence restraining order issued pursuant to this chapter shall
prohibit the subject of the petition from having in his or her custody
or control, control of, or owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving,
or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition, and
shall expire 21 days from the date the order is issued.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fac…/billTextClient.xhtml…
AB1297 [new]: Firearms: concealed carry license
Status:
02/25/19: Read first time.
02/23/19: From printer. May be heard in committee March 25.
02/22/19: Introduced. To print.
Bill text:
Existing law authorizes specified local law enforcement agencies to
issue to an applicant a license to carry a concealed firearm if certain
requirements are met, including, among others, that the applicant has
good cause for the license. Existing law requires an applicant for a
license or a renewal of a license to pay a fee to the Department of
Justice, as specified, to cover costs associated with background
reports. Existing law allows the licensing authority of any city, city
and county, or county to charge an additional fee for a new license in
an amount equal to the actual costs for processing the application for a
new license. Under existing law, that additional fee may not exceed
$100.
This bill would require, rather than authorize, the local
licensing authority to charge the fee and would require the fee to be in
an amount equal to the reasonable costs for processing the application,
issuing the license, and enforcing the license, as specified. The bill
would delete the prohibition on charging more than $100 for the fee.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fac…/billTextClient.xhtml…
AB1559 [new]: Firearms: emergency concealed carry permits.
Status:
02/25/19: Read first time.
02/23/19: From printer. May be heard in committee March 25.
02/22/19: Introduced. To print.
Bill text:
Existing law prohibits a person from carrying a concealed firearm or
carrying a loaded firearm in public. Existing law authorizes the sheriff
of a county, or the chief or other head of a municipal police
department, if good cause exists for the issuance, and subject to
certain other criteria, to issue a license to carry a concealed handgun
or to carry a loaded and exposed handgun, as specified.
Existing law
exempts from the prohibition against carrying a loaded firearm in
public, a person who reasonably believes they are in immediate grave
danger, as specified.
This bill would authorize a person who,
because of prior victimization or based on specific articulable facts,
reasonably believes that they are in immediate and grave danger of
domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, as specified, to apply
to the sheriff in the county in which they reside for a temporary
emergency license to carry a concealed firearm. The bill would require
the sheriff to immediately issue an emergency license to such a person
if that person submits a signed affidavit describing their
circumstances. The bill would authorize the sheriff to verify the
applicant’s eligibility to receive a license, as specified, but would
require such verification to be completed without delay and at the time
of application.
The bill would also allow an applicant to
simultaneously apply for a regular license to carry a concealed firearm
and would require such a license to be approved within the period the
emergency license is valid, contingent on the applicant’s eligibility
and completion of the requirements for a regular license. The bill would
require that the facts that provide eligibility for the granting of an
emergency license establish good cause for the eligibility of the
regular license.
The bill would require the Department of Justice to
complete the fingerprint report for a regular license applied for
pursuant to this bill within 21 days.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fac…/billTextClient.xhtml…
AB1602 [new]: Use of firearm insurance.
Status:
02/25/19: Read first time.
02/23/19: From printer. May be heard in committee March 25.
02/22/19: Introduced. To print.
Bill text:
Existing law requires the Department of Insurance, headed by the
Insurance Commissioner, to regulate specific classes of insurance,
including liability, burglary, and legal insurance. Existing law
prohibits an insurer from transacting any class of insurance that is not
authorized by its charter.
This bill would express the intent of
the Legislature to enact legislation that would prohibit an insurer from
either selling or advertising liability coverage for bodily injury or
property damage resulting from the insured’s discharge of a personal
firearm.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fac…/billTextClient.xhtml…
SB1297 [new]: Firearms: concealed carry license
Status:
02/25/19: Read first time.
02/23/19: From printer. May be heard in committee March 25.
02/22/19: Introduced. To print.
Bill text:
Existing law authorizes specified local law enforcement agencies to
issue to an applicant a license to carry a concealed firearm if certain
requirements are met, including, among others, that the applicant has
good cause for the license. Existing law requires an applicant for a
license or a renewal of a license to pay a fee to the Department of
Justice, as specified, to cover costs associated with background
reports. Existing law allows the licensing authority of any city, city
and county, or county to charge an additional fee for a new license in
an amount equal to the actual costs for processing the application for a
new license. Under existing law, that additional fee may not exceed
$100.
This bill would require, rather than authorize, the local
licensing authority to charge the fee and would require the fee to be in
an amount equal to the reasonable costs for processing the application,
issuing the license, and enforcing the license, as specified. The bill
would delete the prohibition on charging more than $100 for the fee.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fac…/billTextClient.xhtml…
AB1746 [new]: Firearms: license to carry concealed.
Status:
02/25/19: Read first time.
02/23/19: From printer. May be heard in committee March 25.
02/22/19: Introduced. To print.
Bill text:
Existing law authorizes the sheriff of a county, or the chief or other
head of a municipal police department, upon proof that the person
applying is of good moral character, that good cause exists, and that
the person applying satisfies certain conditions, to issue a license for
the person to carry a concealed handgun.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fac…/billTextClient.xhtml…
AB61 [update]: Gun violence restraining orders
Status:
02/26/19: In committee: Set, first hearing. Failed passage. Vote: 4-3 Reconsideration granted. Vote: 8-0
Bill text:
Existing law authorizes a court to issue an ex parte gun violence
restraining order prohibiting the subject of the petition from having in
his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or
receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition
when it is shown that there is a substantial likelihood that the
subject of the petition poses a significant danger of harm to himself,
herself, or another in the near future by having in his or her custody
or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm, and
that the order is necessary to prevent personal injury to himself,
herself, or another, as specified. Existing law requires the ex parte
order to expire no later than 21 days after the date on the order.
Existing law also authorizes a court to issue a gun violence restraining
order prohibiting the subject of the petition from having in his or her
custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving, or
attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition for a period
of one year when there is clear and convincing evidence that the subject
of the petition, or a person subject to an ex parte gun violence
restraining order, as applicable, poses a significant danger of personal
injury to himself, herself, or another by having in his or her custody
or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm, and
that the order is necessary to prevent personal injury to himself,
herself, or another, as specified. Existing law authorizes renewal of a
gun violence restraining order within 3 months of the order’s
expiration. Petitions for ex parte, one-year, and renewed gun violence
restraining orders may be made by an immediate family member of the
person or by a law enforcement officer.
This bill would similarly
authorize, an employer, a coworker, or an employee of a secondary or
postsecondary school that the person has attended in the last 6 months
to file a petition for an ex parte, one-year, or renewed gun violence
restraining order.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fac…/billTextClient.xhtml…
AB164 [update]: Firearms: prohibited persons
Status:
03/12/19: Committee hearing
02/26/19: Public Safety committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
Bill text:
Under existing law, a person who purchases or receives a firearm,
attempts to purchase or receive a firearm, or owns or possesses a
firearm knowing that the person is prohibited from doing so by a
temporary restraining order, an injunction, or a protective order, as
specified, is guilty of a crime.
This bill would expand the scope of
this crime to a person who is prohibited from purchasing or possessing a
firearm in any jurisdiction by a valid temporary restraining order,
injunction, or protective order issued in another jurisdiction.
jurisdiction that is similar or equivalent to a temporary restraining
order, injunction, or protective order issued in this state. Because
this bill would expand the scope of an existing crime, it would impose a
state-mandated local program.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fac…/billTextClient.xhtml…
AB276 [update]: Firearms: storage
Status:
02/25/19: Re-referred to Committee on Public Safety
Bill text:
Existing law generally regulates the possession of firearms, including
storage requirements to prevent children from gaining access to
firearms.
This bill would require a person who is 18 years of age or
older and who is the owner, lessee, renter, or other legal occupant of a
residence, while that person is outside that residence, as defined, to
ensure that any firearm that person owns or controls is securely stored
against theft or unauthorized access. The bill would define a firearm as
being securely stored if it is secured with an operable device that is
listed on the Department of Justice’s roster of approved firearm safety
devices, as specified. The bill would exempt a person from this section
if the firearm is loaned under specified conditions, and would exempt an
unloaded antique firearm from these provisions. The bill would
additionally prohibit a person convicted under these provisions, or
under other specified provisions regulating the storage of firearms,
from subsequently owning, purchasing, receiving, or having in their
possession or control, any firearm. firearm within 10 years of the
conviction.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fac…/billTextClient.xhtml…
Saturday, March 2, 2019
CA - Mongols can keep notorious patches, logos
OFF THE WIRE
Federal judge rules government’s first-of-its-kind effort in seizing the motorcycle club’s trademarks violates its First and Eighth amendments
By Sean Emery
A federal judge has rejected the U.S. government’s unprecedented effort to gain control of the prized patches that adorn the vests worn by the notorious Mongols motorcycle club, ruling seizing the outlaw organization’s trademarks would be unconstitutional.
The ruling, released Thursday morning by U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, marks a setback for federal prosecutor! S who two months ago persuaded a Santa Ana jury to find the Southern California-based club guilty of racketeering.
Jurors agreed that the government should seize the Mongols’ patches and trademarks, but Carter’s ruling overrides that portion of the verdict.
Attorneys for the Mongols described the ruling as a victory for all motorcycle clubs. At the center of the legal battle was control of the patches that depict the club’s name and an illustration of a ponytailed, Ghengis Khan-type motorcycle rider wearing sunglasses.
"The Mongols motorcycle club was able to defend the First Amendment for themselves and all motorcycle clubs," said Stephen Stubbs, an attorney for the Mongols.
Officials with the U.S. Attorney’s Office said they are disappointed by the ruling and consideri! Ng an appeal.
! "While affirming the jury’s guilty verdicts on racketeering charges, the court’s ruling nullifies the jury’s finding that these (patches) are a core component of the Mongols’ decades long Pattern of murder, assault and drug trafficking," said Thom Mrozek, a U.S. Attorney’s Office spokesman.
Carter’s ruling is unlikely to stand as the final word in a case that has drawn national attention. The first-of-its-kind effort to convict the Mongols organization, rather than specific members, of racketeering in order to strip members of their wellknown insignia is almost certain to make its way before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and possibly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Carter upheld the racketeering conviction and tentatively agreed that the government can keep seized guns and ammunition from the Mongols. But he ruled that efforts to take control of the Mongols’ insignia and patches violates the First Amendment’s freedom of speech and ass! Ociation protections and the Eighth Amendment’s protection against excessive fines.
"Not everything repugnant is unconstitutional," Carter said. "And what does the government plan to do with the tattoos of the (Mongols’ insignia and patch) on members’ backs, arms and other body parts? ... That certain individual members of the Mongol Nation displayed the symbols while committing violent crimes or were rewarded with other patches for the commission of crimes does not justify the government’s attempts to bootstrap a conviction of the motorcycle club into censorship of uncharged members or supporters."
Attorneys for the Mongols have described the patches that adorn members’ leather "cuts" as the organization’s "holy grail," and they have said that the government taking control of them would mark a "death penalty" for the group.
"I’m happy that! This is not a death sentence here," said attorney Joseph Yanny, who represented the Mongols in the racketeering trial. "But I don’t like the fact the club has been labeled a criminal organization."
Prosecutors have argued that taking the Mongols’ trademark is the only way to stop the "cycle of crime" committed by club members. The Mongols have countered that the crimes were committed by "bad apples" who are no longer involved in the club.
In December, jurors agreed that the Mongols organization engaged in drug trafficking, vicious assaults and murder. Much of the violence — including attacks, some fatal, in bars and restaurants in Hollywood, Pasadena, Merced, La Mirada, Wilmington and Riverside — was tied to a decadeslong rivalry between the Mongols and the Hells Angels motorcycle club.
Cart! ER said the government has spent more than a decade attempting to take control of the Mongols’ trademark, at one point claiming it wanted to be able to stop members of the club and literally take jackets off of their backs.
"The government is not merely seeking a forfeiture of the ship’s sails," Carter wrote. "In this prosecution, the United States is attempting to use (racketeering laws) to change the meaning of the ship’s flag."
The Mongols, one of the nation’s largest motorcycle clubs, was formed in Montebello in the 1970s, and is based in West Covina. Among those who testified on behalf of the club during the recent racketeering trial was Jesse Ventura, a former Minnesota governor and retired pro wrestler who joined the group in 1973 while still on active duty in the U.S. Navy.
The case stemmed from Operation ! Black Rain, a multi-agency investigation that involved several law enfo! rcement agents infiltrating the Mongols. A separate, earlier case against specific Mongols members resulted in 77 people pleading guilty to racketeeringrelated charges.
Friday, March 1, 2019
HUGE WIN FOR THE PEOPLE, UPHOLDING THE 1st AMENDMENT OF THE US CONSTITUTION AND A BLOW TO GOVERNMENT TYRANNY.
OFF THE WIRE
HUGE WIN FOR THE PEOPLE, UPHOLDING THE 1st AMENDMENT OF THE US CONSTITUTION AND A BLOW TO GOVERNMENT TYRANNY.
THANK YOU JUDGE CARTER!!!!
The work is not over. The Feds WILL most certainly appeal to the 9th circuit court of appeals. But...today we have hope!
THANK YOU JUDGE CARTER!!!!
The work is not over. The Feds WILL most certainly appeal to the 9th circuit court of appeals. But...today we have hope!
PATCH SAVED!!!
1st Amendment prohibits the forfeiture of collective marks.
1st Amendment prohibits the forfeiture of collective marks.
Ruling VICTORY FOR ALL CLUBS! NEW
OFF THE WIRE
Judge Won’t Make Mongols Biker Gang Surrender Trademark Logo After Racketeering Conviction
A California judge delivered a blow Thursday to a decade-long effort by federal prosecutors to strip the Mongols motorcycle gang of its trademarked logo, ruling such a move would be unconstitutional.
U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter in Santa Ana nullified a first-of-its-kind jury verdict that would have given the government control of the logo of a Mongol warrior astride a chopper-style motorcycle and two other trademarks.
Ordering forfeiture of the trademarks would violate the First Amendment rights to freedom of association and Eighth Amendment protections against excessive penalties, Carter said.
“The collective membership mark acts as a symbol that communicates a person’s association with the Mongol Nation, and his or her support for their views,” Carter wrote. “Though the symbol may at times function as a mouthpiece for unlawful or violent behavior, this is not sufficient to strip speech of its First Amendment protection.”
Mongols’ attorney Joe Yanny said the ruling was a big deal for the bikers and he criticized prosecutors for wasting millions of dollars chasing “an impossible dream by some government guy who had no respect for the constitutional rights he might be trampling.”
“It’s an attempt at collective guilt, which has never been the law here in this country,” Yanny said. “You don’t hold people guilty or punish folks simply because they know people that may be related in some fashion to people who are alleged to have done something wrong.”
Prosecutors were disappointed with the ruling and may appeal, said Thom Mrozek, spokesman for the U.S. attorney.
Prosecutors had successfully argued before a jury that the logo was core to the identity of the Los Angeles area-based gang responsible for drug dealing, beatings and murder. They argued that bikers wore the badges like armor to intimidate.
The January verdict appeared to conclude a 10-year quest that began after agents with the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives infiltrated the gang and 77 members were convicted of racketeering.
In January, the jury found the Mongol Nation entity guilty of racketeering and said the group’s trademarked patches could be forfeited.
While Carter affirmed the convictions, which could carry fines at sentencing in April, he refused to give prosecutors what they had long sought.
In announcing charges in 2008, prosecutors said a forfeiture order would allow any law enforcement officer to stop a gang member and “literally take the jacket right off his back.”
Prosecutors appeared to dial back that assertion, claiming in court papers that forfeiture was “merely a procedural step divesting the Mongol Nation of its legal rights to enforce exclusive use of the symbols.” But Carter dismissed that argument as disingenuous.
“The government has lost credibility when it now suggests the sole purpose of more than a decade of prosecution is only to limit the Mongol Nation’s ability to bring infringement lawsuits against other entities,” Carter wrote.
Marsha Gentner, a trademark lawyer in Washington, said she was puzzled by what the government hoped to accomplish.
Under trademark law, the U.S. could prevent others from using the Mongol’s logos or name. They could potentially auction the rights to the trademark, though it was questionable who pay for it. If they did nothing with the trademark, it would eventually be considered abandoned and someone else could snap it up.
“This whole idea of seizing the mark,” Gentner said, “it just was not well thought out.”
The Mongols was founded in a Los Angeles suburb in 1969. The group is estimated to have more than 1,000 riders in chapters worldwide.
Yanny described the Mongols as a club that doesn’t tolerate criminal activity. He said the government targeted the group because of its large Mexican-American population.
Former pro wrestler and Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura testified for the defense, saying he neither committed crimes nor was told to do so when he was a Mongol in the 1970s.
Prosecutors won the convictions after detailing violence that included the killing of a Hells Angels leader in San Francisco, a Nevada brawl in 2002 that left members of both clubs dead, and the killing of a Pomona policeman while raiding the home of a Mongols member in 2014.
Judge Won’t Make Mongols Biker Gang Surrender Trademark Logo After Racketeering Conviction
A California judge delivered a blow Thursday to a decade-long effort by federal prosecutors to strip the Mongols motorcycle gang of its trademarked logo, ruling such a move would be unconstitutional.
U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter in Santa Ana nullified a first-of-its-kind jury verdict that would have given the government control of the logo of a Mongol warrior astride a chopper-style motorcycle and two other trademarks.
Ordering forfeiture of the trademarks would violate the First Amendment rights to freedom of association and Eighth Amendment protections against excessive penalties, Carter said.
“The collective membership mark acts as a symbol that communicates a person’s association with the Mongol Nation, and his or her support for their views,” Carter wrote. “Though the symbol may at times function as a mouthpiece for unlawful or violent behavior, this is not sufficient to strip speech of its First Amendment protection.”
Mongols’ attorney Joe Yanny said the ruling was a big deal for the bikers and he criticized prosecutors for wasting millions of dollars chasing “an impossible dream by some government guy who had no respect for the constitutional rights he might be trampling.”
“It’s an attempt at collective guilt, which has never been the law here in this country,” Yanny said. “You don’t hold people guilty or punish folks simply because they know people that may be related in some fashion to people who are alleged to have done something wrong.”
Prosecutors were disappointed with the ruling and may appeal, said Thom Mrozek, spokesman for the U.S. attorney.
Prosecutors had successfully argued before a jury that the logo was core to the identity of the Los Angeles area-based gang responsible for drug dealing, beatings and murder. They argued that bikers wore the badges like armor to intimidate.
The January verdict appeared to conclude a 10-year quest that began after agents with the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives infiltrated the gang and 77 members were convicted of racketeering.
In January, the jury found the Mongol Nation entity guilty of racketeering and said the group’s trademarked patches could be forfeited.
While Carter affirmed the convictions, which could carry fines at sentencing in April, he refused to give prosecutors what they had long sought.
In announcing charges in 2008, prosecutors said a forfeiture order would allow any law enforcement officer to stop a gang member and “literally take the jacket right off his back.”
Prosecutors appeared to dial back that assertion, claiming in court papers that forfeiture was “merely a procedural step divesting the Mongol Nation of its legal rights to enforce exclusive use of the symbols.” But Carter dismissed that argument as disingenuous.
“The government has lost credibility when it now suggests the sole purpose of more than a decade of prosecution is only to limit the Mongol Nation’s ability to bring infringement lawsuits against other entities,” Carter wrote.
Marsha Gentner, a trademark lawyer in Washington, said she was puzzled by what the government hoped to accomplish.
Under trademark law, the U.S. could prevent others from using the Mongol’s logos or name. They could potentially auction the rights to the trademark, though it was questionable who pay for it. If they did nothing with the trademark, it would eventually be considered abandoned and someone else could snap it up.
“This whole idea of seizing the mark,” Gentner said, “it just was not well thought out.”
The Mongols was founded in a Los Angeles suburb in 1969. The group is estimated to have more than 1,000 riders in chapters worldwide.
Yanny described the Mongols as a club that doesn’t tolerate criminal activity. He said the government targeted the group because of its large Mexican-American population.
Former pro wrestler and Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura testified for the defense, saying he neither committed crimes nor was told to do so when he was a Mongol in the 1970s.
Prosecutors won the convictions after detailing violence that included the killing of a Hells Angels leader in San Francisco, a Nevada brawl in 2002 that left members of both clubs dead, and the killing of a Pomona policeman while raiding the home of a Mongols member in 2014.
CA - Mongols Win Tyranny Loses
OFF THE WIRE
agingrebel.com
agingrebel.com
This morning at 9 a.m. Pacific district
judge David O. Carter denied a preliminary order of forfeiture that was
transparently intended to turn the Mongols Motorcycle Club’s various
indicators of membership, or club only patches and tattoos, into
contraband.
The government has been pursuing this
cause through two major criminal cases and a civil case spanning more
than ten years. In October 2008 Thomas P. O’Brien, who was then United
States Attorney for the Central District of California, gloated about
the first of those cases:
“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. The name
‘Mongols,’ which is part of the gang’s ‘patch’ that members wear on
their motorcycle jackets, was trademarked by the gang. 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.”
Mongol Problem
And, for the next seven months local and
federal policemen did that and more. They broke into cars to seize
patches that said “MFFM,” for “Mongols Forever Forever Mongols.” They
raided bike rallys to seize Mongols tee-shirts. They used Swat to
execute search warrants on people’s homes in search of Mongols
calendars, posters, bandannas and coffee mugs.
A federal judge named Florence Marie
Cooper put a stop to that but the prosecutors running the government’s
case, Steven Welk and Christopher Brunwin refused to give up the notions
that: First, there is a “motorcycle gang problem;” and second, that the
motorcycle gang problem may be solved by outlawing motorcycle gang
symbols.
Eventually the crusade to end the
“motorcycle gang problem,” or at least the “Mongol problem,” became a
federal racketeering case titled United States versus Mongol Nation: An Unincorporated Association.
It was always a ridiculous case. It was the child of a conspiracy to solve the Mongol problem between the prosecutors at play today, Welk and Brunwin and a mortifying district judge named Otis Dalino Wright II. Wright is an ex-Sheriff who saw his duty as helping Welk and Brunwin solve the Mongol problem. Mongol Nation was his idea. He quit the case because he was afraid that if he did not remove himself from Mongol Nation he would end up being publicly shamed for his despicable conduct of it.
It was always a ridiculous case. It was the child of a conspiracy to solve the Mongol problem between the prosecutors at play today, Welk and Brunwin and a mortifying district judge named Otis Dalino Wright II. Wright is an ex-Sheriff who saw his duty as helping Welk and Brunwin solve the Mongol problem. Mongol Nation was his idea. He quit the case because he was afraid that if he did not remove himself from Mongol Nation he would end up being publicly shamed for his despicable conduct of it.
Indicia
That was how the case wound up in Carter’s court.
Today Carter put a stop to the final solution to the motorcycle gang problem.
What the government has always hoped to
accomplish has been to rip symbols off people’s backs. To break into
people cars to confiscate contraband symbols. To raid the homes of
“known Mongols” in the middle of the night, to kill their pets,
terrorize their children, bully their wives and parents, steal their
cash, smash their momentos, confiscate their electronics and blow their
houses off their foundations – all under the pretense of searching for
contraband symbols.
Brunwin and Welk have denied this. They
have denied it to Carter. Neither Brunwin nor Welk have told the truth
in any of these cases in the last decade. They have lied repeatedly in
Carter’s court and there seems to be some possibility that he has
noticed.
Near the beginning of the 51-page ruling he released this morning, Carter wrote:
“For more than a decade the United
States has expended resources in seeking forfeiture of the Mongol
Nation’s collective membership marks. Why? It is beyond question that
the Government has a legitimate interest in attacking the economic roots
of a criminal organization like the Mongol Nation. But what does the
United States accomplish by seizing control of the intellectual property
associated with a motorcycle club’s symbols? The Government’s own prior
admissions shed light on the objectives underlying more than ten years
of these effort: The collective membership marks are ‘potent emblems’
use to ‘generate fear among the general public’ and the Government has
sought orders to prevent use of ‘the trademark to create an atmosphere
of fear through public display.’ The Government has stated publicly that
it has sought to ‘stop a gang member and literally take a jacket right
off his back.’ The Government is not merely seeking forfeiture of a
ship’s sails. In this prosecution the United States is attempting to use
RICO to change the meaning of a ship’s flag”
“Now that preliminary order of
forfeiture is before the Court, the Government contends that its request
is limited; the Government argues at length about what the requested
preliminary order of forfeiture does not authorize.”
“But the First Amendment ‘protects against the Government; it does not leave us at the mercy or noblesse oblige’ or any promise to use power ‘responsibly.’”
Trusting The ATF
“The Government has included language in
its proposed POF stating that the order ‘standing alone’ does not
authorize seizure of property bearing symbols and that the Government
‘shall not apply to any Court (other than this Court) requesting seizure
or enforcement authority based upon this Order.’ This is not enough to
remedy the chilling effect the forced transfer of a symbol to the United
States government has on Mongol Nation, its members and society at
large. The Government has not been forthright with the Court and the
public regarding whether the United States can feasibly use the Mongol
Nation’s collective membership marks or transfer the marks to a third
party for their exclusive use. These statements to the Court have been
accompanied by public threats made by the United States Attorney
regarding the Government’s intention to strip vests off members’ backs.
More recently, the special agent in charge of the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Los Angeles Field Division, stated
that the Government has successfully seized a ‘unity symbol.” Because
the forced transfer of symbols to the United States immediately chills
the Mongol Nation’s and its members’ continued rights to display or
otherwise use the collective membership marks without fear of
retaliation or payment of a licensing fee at any point following
forfeiture, the forced transfer of the collective membership marks to
the United States violates the First Amendment.”
“The Government’s request also violated
the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause and must be denied on this
basis alone. The Mongol Nation is a convicted criminal entity, and its
members have pleaded guilty to heinous acts of murder, attempted murder,
drug trafficking and other crimes. But in this case the jury found the
Government did not prove the requisite nexus between the collective
membership marks and the substantive RICO offense; the jury found the
collective membership marks fofeitable as to RICO conspiracy alone. The
forfeiture of rights associated with a symbol that has been in
continuous use by an organization since 1969 is unjustified and grossly
disproportionate to the offense.”
Yanny
After Carter made his ruling, Mongols
attorney Joe Yanny said, “It’s been a long hard road and this is a major
victory for motorcycle clubs.”
“The case was a product of the brains of
some government employees who were trying to justify their existences
and shows not just a complete lack of understanding of the intellectual
property laws but a complete ignorance of and disregard for the
Constitution and the rights of citizens.”
“We can only hope the government gets
the message that they don’t have free reign to spend tens of millions of
taxpayer dollars to abuse people they don’t like or don’t understand.”
At first glance, it does not seem likely
that Brunwin and Welk will appeal Carter’s order. The appeal would go
to the Ninth Circuit which has already ruled, in a case titled Sammartano v. First Judicial District Court, in and for the County of Carson City, that symbols like the Mongols are Constitutionally protected expression.
And, their appeal would have to be
approved by the Solicitor General of the United States. It would
probably boil down to a political decision. The current Solicitor
General is Noel Francisco. He was appointed by President Trump after his
Washington law firm, Jones Day, worked on behalf of the Trump campaign.
It is anybody’s guess how much political capital may still be made by
waving the motorcycle menace in the public’s faces.
Probably, the government’s long crusade to strip motorcycle clubs of their symbols is finally over.
CA - Ruling VICTORY FOR ALL CLUBS!
OFF THE WIRE
On behalf of the Mongol Nation I want to thank everyone that helped & supported us during our fight through this long battle. Today was a VICTORY FOR ALL CLUBS!
It’s not over but we will continue to FIGHT THIS BATTLE FOR ALL CLUBS.
RAGS
MONGOLS FOREVER FOREVER MONGOLS!
Philip, please put this out, thank you!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
