The Mongol Nation racketeering case resumes once more tomorrow at 7:30 a.m. tomorrow in Santa Ana, California which is about 35 miles south of Los Angeles.
In December, a federal jury found that there is a individual named “Mongol Nation” unfastened within the land. Mongol Nation is roughly related to the Mongols Motorbike Club and in the final 15 years, the Jury and the prosecutors consider, he has committed multiple racketeering acts.
After arriving at their verdict in time for Christmas the jury was stunned to study that its work was not carried out. It returned in January to deliberate on whether or not the Mongols Club might be stripped of its insignia and identify for what Mongol Nation had accomplished. The jury determined it could possibly be and then then they awarded possession of the membership insignia to the federal government.
In February, Decide David O. Carter decided that it will be unconstitutional to take the membership’s insignia because: In the first place it will violate the Mongols members’ right to freely categorical themselves by sporting the garments of their selection; and secondly, because the punishment can be excessive.
Tomorrow, Carter will pronounce sentence on Mongol Nation and will simultaneously rule on a motion by prosecutors to Award ownership of the Mongols Motorbike Membership’s patch and identify to the Division of Justice however permit members of the membership to continue sporting and using their membership marks.
But wait. There’s more. There’s additionally the matter of who will symbolize the Mongols, and Mongol Nation, in courtroom tomorrow.
Yanny Or Stubbs
There was discernible rigidity throughout the lengthy trial between Joseph Yanny who is the Mongols trial lawyer and Stephen Stubbs who is the Mongol Motorbike Club Counsel. Stubbs fired Yanny after Carter dominated the Mongols nonetheless personal the marks. Stubbs is the club’s lawyer now. But he is has not been admitted to Carter’s courtroom. Perhaps Yanny will symbolize all the Mongols tomorrow or perhaps Stubbs will. Perhaps a man will come as much as me tomorrow and shake my hand and say, “Hello, My identify is Mongol Nation.” About 16 hours before courtroom is scheduled to convene it’s nonetheless a cliffhanger.
Yanny will file a “Response to Probation Presentencing Report and Authorities’s Amended Request for Forfeiture of Collective Membership Marks” tomorrow. An extended excerpt from his submitting might give readers some perception into what is occurring with this case.
“The undersigned was knowledgeable that Mongols common counsel Steven Stubbs can be submitting Mongol Nation’s Response,” Yanny begins. “Mr. Stubbs is just not admitted to follow in the State of California or in the Central District. On my request he was admitted Pro Hac Vice in the course of the course of the trial. Up to now, the Response has not happened, and so I am compelled to at the least submit this.
“It was not until November 29, 2018, that Mr. Stubbs showed as much as the trial and the Courtroom admitted him at my request. Mr. Stubbs examined no witnesses, wrote, nor reviewed prior submission of any of the movement papers, nor argued to the Courtroom of any of the matters litigated. Mr. Stubbs as the ‘Common Counsel’ did deal with all issues with sentencing and probation, the undersigned was not concerned.
Massive Case Massive Dollars
“To summarize the Mongol Nation claimed $960,000.00, in lawyer fees because the US v. Cavazos case (hereinafter “Cavazos”), which was filed in 2008. The undersigned cannot affirm that. To clarify for the report, the Yanny & Smith agency was paid $420,000.00, from 2013 to current for this case. Nonetheless owing underneath our hourly retaining agreement is one other $511,326.98. The one funds acquired throughout trial was a $25,000.00 cost. Opposite to the representations of sentencing and probation the stability of over $511,00zero remains unpaid. These matters can be resolved pursuant to regulation and agreement in arbitration, as properly they need to be.
“There have been roughly 79 defendants in the Cavazos case. It is my understanding that each one of them had either public defenders or panel counsel at the governments expense. Through the underlying Cavazos case two associated issues have been also litigated. One concerned Roman Rivera case (Ramon Rivera v. Ronnie A. Carter et al., Case No. CV 09-2435-DOC-JC Doc 113), through which Mr. Rivera was represented by the ACLU, David Loy Esq.. Because Mr. Rivera was profitable in his civil rights case towards numerous members of the US Government who have been discovered to be violating his civil rights, the government was ordered to pay roughly $250,00zero.00, in fees and price.
“In the separate collateral proceedings (possession and forfeiture of the collective membership mark) in Cavazos, it is the understanding of the undersigned, the Mongols have been represented by Lawyer George Steele. This matter needed to do with the attempted forfeiture of the collective membership mark and was civil in nature. It is the understanding of the undersigned that Lawyer Steele was also compensated by the USA Government for his profitable advocacy of the Mongols possession of the collective service marks. With out quotation to the data it’s also the understanding of the undersigned that Lawyer Steele was compensated by the federal government for his providers in excess of $230,000.00, although the precise determine just isn’t out there.
“There was no trial in both the Rivera, or collateral trademark proceedings These matters have been decided on motion follow. Culpability for not one homicide, attempted murder, ADW, drug transaction, and so on., and so on., and so forth., was litigated in both matter. Nonetheless, the Courtroom at prevailing charges ordered the federal government to pay within the neighborhood of $500,000.00, to profitable counsel at market charges in these issues.
“In the on the spot case, the federal government placed on evidence of in extra fifteen homicides or attempted homicides, dozens of alleged assaults with a lethal weapon, dozens of alleged drug transactions, and so forth., and so forth., every certainly one of them was litigated to the max by each side.
“Of the alleged homicides or tried homicides the federal government proceeded to the jury with solely six in the exercise of ‘prosecutorial discretion’ as said by Mr. Welk on the report. If memory serves me appropriately the federal government solely proceeded to the jury with two drug transactions and one allegation of conspiracy to distributed managed substances. The jury found not proven or deadlocked (10-2 in favor of acquittal) on all homicides or tried homicide claims apart from two- one murder and one attempted murder. The homicide and tried homicide for which guilt was discovered both accrued in the time-frame of 2006 and 2008, when Doc Cavazos was still in control of the club.
“The jury additionally found guilt based mostly on conspiracy to violate racketeering. The only proof even arguably supporting conspiracy was an audio tape of then president, Doc Cavazos, chatting with a gathering of members through which he in impact advised them, ‘in case you’re going to interact in belongings you’re going to fret about, don’t do it on the telephone.’ That tape was made in 2008. All the other issues about which the government placed on proof had nothing to do with conspiracy. The alleged homicide, tried homicides, drug transactions, and so forth., have been both stand alone predicate acts, which the federal government determined to not pursue, but removed from anything that resembles conspiratorial planning, discussions, or agreement. For the report one such matter is the David Martinez case, by which Officer Diamond died, unfortunate and by accident, during an over zealous raid on his residence which is at present in trial in division 105 of the LA Superior Courtroom in the case styled California v. Martinez. In talking with our jury in this case, half of them have been satisfied that officer Diamond was killed by a pleasant hearth accident or at a minimal Officer Diamonds demise was the results of excusable murder due to the nature of the raid carried out.
“The federal government can’t throw out lots of mud relating to predicate acts, not proceed to them to the jury after which alleged that they’re conspiratorial acts. These alleged predicate acts are both stand alone basis for finding substance RICO violations the place there’s nothing at all.
“The bottom line is of all the substantive acts or proof of conspiracy with which the federal government proceeded to the jury occurred between 2006 and 2008, beneath the reign of Doc Cavazos. There are not any specific findings of the jury of substantive violations to the RICO act or conspiracy past the 2006 and 2008 time period.
“We once more remind the Courtroom that after the tens of tens of millions of dollars spent by the federal government harassing this membership that is all there’s. The evidence establishes that Doc Cavazos was removed and kicked out of the membership in 2008, and the government proceeded to the jury with nothing determining specific violations by the substantive rico or conspiracy beyond his tenure. While we consider that the murder and attempted murder and drug predicate acts have been improperly decided by a jury which admittedly didn’t assessment the jury directions during deliberations and who had second ideas publish guilt convictions is one thing we sadly need to reside and cope with. Nevertheless, there are not any specific findings of culpability by the defendant on this case past 2008. The governments misguided pursuit of alleged and unproven substantive acts as proof of ‘conspiracy’ cannot be utilized to punish this defendant beyond what is truthful.
“The governments most up-to-date attempts to destroy the collective membership marks have to be rejected as nicely. It’s axiomatic that to deny this defendant the power to implement it’s collective membership mark is to destroy the mark itself. I can’t bore the courtroom by the regurgitation of all of the authority which the courtroom, the defendant, and the amicus have already recited advert nauseum. Accordingly, the governments second request for forfeiture or destruction of the collective membership mark ought to be rejected out of hand.”