Outlaws MC member denied club’s seized property
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA (August 24, 2016) – A member of the Outlaws Motorcycle Club who wanted to intervene
in a forfeiture action involving paraphernalia bearing the Outlaws insignia
couldn’t convince the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that a federal court was
incorrect in denying his motions.
The FBI with search warrants raided the Outlaws’ clubhouses
in Indianapolis and Fort Wayne in 2012 and seized numerous items bearing the
Outlaws name, such as vests, flags, and signs. All members of the Indianapolis
chapter were criminally charged, including Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations charges. All but one pleaded guilty, and as part of the plea
agreements, each agreed to forfeit the Outlaws paraphernalia seized by the FBI.
Motorcycles seized during a 2012 raid of the Outlaws MC clubhouse in Indianapolis, IN
Bradley W. Carlson tried to intervene while the government
was in the process of finalizing the forfeiture with the last Outlaws
defendant. The government sought to dismiss the motion as untimely as the final
forfeiture orders had already been issued. Carlson contended that he had a
property interest in all of the paraphernalia and the government failed to
provide him with direct notice of the forfeiture actions. He claimed that he
had been elected by the collective membership of the club to protect, manage
and oversee all memorabilia of the Outlaws, and that the property is not owned
by the individuals but collectively by the members.
The government provided notices to all of the defendants and
also posted notice of the forfeitures on the official government forfeiture
site for 30 days. The district court denied Carlson’s motion as well as his
motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Federal Civil Procedure Rule
59(e).
“Although he has alleged an understanding that property
cannot be transferred to non-members, he does not identify what type of
interest, if any, in that property was retained by the Outlaws –whether an option
to purchase back, a right of first refusal, a termination of bailment or least,
etc. – and whether that interest is a legal interest that grants standing or an
equitable or other interest that does not,” Judge Ilana Rovner wrote. “He fails
in fact to cite to Indiana law at all to establish the legal interest in the
property despite recognizing that property interests are defined by state law.”
The judges also rejected Carlson’s request that the court
hold in a criminal forfeiture, an assertion of ownership, without more, is
sufficient to alert the government that he has a property interest in the items
as against those who were in possession of the items and conceded their
forfeiture.
SOURCE: TheIndianaLawyer.com