Bandidos Case Secrecy

June 28, 2016

All Posts, News

Bandidos Case Secrecy

There is a motion hearing in the Bandidos racketeering case Thursday at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom C in the federal courthouse in San Antonio. It may be a public hearing. Then again the judge in the case, David A. Ezra, may simply take the public hearing into his chambers.

This is a very, very secret matter.

More than six months after an indictment was returned against then Bandidos Motorcycle Club president Jeff Pike, club vice-president John Portillo and sergeant-at-arms Justin Cole Forster, the case against the three men remains almost entirely sealed lest the people of the United States learn what happens in federal racketeering cases and they start burning down courthouses and lynching prosecutors.

Protective Order

A “protective order” was thrown over the case on January 25 and the order remained sealed until June 7. The motion that requested it is still sealed.

The protective order stated: “That given the sensitive nature of the discovery material, for any material provided, production and viewing of discovery materials is restricted to the United States Attorney’s Office by appointment. It is further ordered that the dissemination of any discovery materials to any person, other than the attorneys of record for the Defendant, in this case is prohibited. It is further ordered that no attorney in the above-captioned cause shall release any discovery to any person, including but not limited to the defendants’ family members, or defendants’ associates. In the event any written or electronic discovery is provided to the defense, attorneys may show discovery to their client(s), and may discuss the information with their client(s); however, attorneys may not reproduce or disseminate any discovery, or copies of discovery to anyone, including the client. It is further ordered that if counsel is substituted in this cause, all discovery materials, including copies. thereof, shall immediately be returned to counsel of record for the Government, who will be obligated to provide a copy of the discovery materials to new counsel upon new counsel acknowledging his or her obligations under this Order. It is further ordered that a copy of this Order shall be furnished to counsel of record in this case and any successive counsel of record who enter an appearance after the date of this Order.”

Judge Ezra refused to modify the order at the beginning of May and will probably refuse to modify the order again. The prosecutors are so in charge of this judge that they are grumbling to him that the defense attorneys are “late” for their appointments.

Waco Waco Waco

What seems to be at stake is the revelation of the identity of the undercover asset the FBI placed inside the Bandidos. This asset’s identity and an accounting of his actions while he was undercover may shed light not only on, as the indictment put it, the “war” between the Cossacks Motorcycle Club and the Bandidos, but also what McLennan County District Attorney Abelino Reyna now calls the “Battle of Twin Peaks.”

Much of the government’s case against Pike, Portillo and Forster seems based on audio recordings made by the government asset. Particularly secret are recordings made on November 1, December 16 and December 29, 2015.

At issue in Thursday’s hearing will be whether the defendants’ lawyers and the defendants must report the prosecutor’s office in San Antonio to hear the purported evidence against Pike, Portillo and Forster. The trip is problematic for Pike, who lives near Houston. It is also a problem for Portillo who is accompanied everywhere he goes by United States Marshals, which makes frank and open discussions between Portillo and his lawyer while they listen to the recordings problematic.

The defense lawyers want copies of the audio recordings. The government will only allow them to have “‘drafts’ of transcripts of the recordings.”

Whatever the prosecutors are hiding must be big. Many government careers must be in jeopardy.

, ,

27 Responses to “Bandidos Case Secrecy”

  1. Griz's Gal Says:

    Kinda what I was thinking, Neuro. And, why drag more judges into the mix? That doesn’t do anything but confuse matters more than they need to be – unless they’re setting up one judge to countermand what the other rules. Might as well get their ducks in a row, eh?

    Ol’ Merla’s been mad for a long time. No telling what’s going to come out in that trial. Sure wishing the best for the R&G.


  2. Neuro Says:

    Thanks for that, Griz’s Gal. This just shows how weak the fed case is against Big John, dredging up a 2002 killing they know all about. On face value it looks bad, but the truth is that it tips their empty hand in a display of desperation. Lara got what he deserved, musta’ ripped off the wrong guy, too bad so sad. Richard, you said too much. Sympathies to Fast Fred for the hassle.

  3. xplor Says:

    David Ezra has been a judge for a long time. The only clue I got was when it was reported that he was moving to the southwest for security purposes . The best way to search is by “judge david ezra” prosecutors.

  4. Griz's Gal Says:

    @xplor, I’d certainly be interested in seeing what you have that indicates the judge was ‘kicked out of Hawaii’. Granted, I didn’t find a lot about him in my research but, what I did find didn’t mention anything like that. I’d like to put that with my files if you’d be so kind as to supply the information.


  5. John Deaux Says:


  6. xplor Says:

    You have to ask, why was he kicked out of Hawaii ?

  7. Griz's Gal Says:

    Senior U.S. District Judge David A. Ezra sounds like an interesting man. At least, what little I can find on him sounds about as far away from the fellas that call themselves judges in McLennan County, so that’s a step in the right direction.

    This comes from the article I’m giving the link to:
    “He works hard and cares about getting things right,” said Paul Alston , president of the Federal Bar Association of Hawaii . “He’s not swayed by politics. He’s ruled on a lot of hard, complex cases with political overtones and he does it without anybody having to worry that he’ll have one eye on the headlines and one eye on the law.”

    When reading this article, you have to fight your way past adverts…

  8. IronRider Says:

    “The defense lawyers want copies of the audio recordings. The government will only allow them to have drafts’ of transcripts of the recordings”

    This is a problem in my mind for the accused and their counsel. At transcript in just that, it is a paper copy of what was said and by who. The problem is that transcripts have been known to have parts or words not make it into the transcript, paragraphs not make it in, and even translations of something said in a foreign language not described accurately in English because it was mis-construed during the transcription.

    The other problem is in a transcript is that a person could say “That fuckers crazy”. So if you were reading a transcript, the reader could think that particular person who made that remark was talking about someone who is mentally ill or someone violent or some guy who likes sky diving or that is funny as hell or likes to party.

    There is no way to ascertain the context of that comment and know exactly what the person who made the comment and their manner at the time and how it related to the other individual in the conversation was made.

    A transcript is not going to describe that mannerism in that moment the person who said ” that fuckers crazy” as say an audio or video may. Did that person who said that comment say in in a hurried way, did they say it in anger, did they say that while laughing, did they say it calmly? There is no way to know, and this puts the defendants and their counsel at a disadvantage.

    IMHO the defense and their counsel are entitled to hear the recording, it is the only way to know the context and hear the mannerism in winch things were said and the exact words so it is an accurate reflection of the events

  9. david Says:

    The bull-shit gov. racketeers are showing their true form, racketeering their BS legal game.

    @ Gandalf, June 30th. article: The unavoidable soon economic collapse, including a “Bank Holiday”, will cause major population unrest with a potential martial law declaration from Bath-House Barry. The Check people stopped Russian tanks in ’68 with molotov cocktails.

  10. TX_Biker Says:

    I know I have said this before but “our forefathers would have been shooting by now”.

  11. old & stoned Says:

    So, the most obvious point they’re making is; it is now illegal, and prosecutable to simply “know something about something”.

    getting creepier by the minute

  12. Ziocles Says:

    The snitches name will come out, it’ll have to when the trial finally comes.

  13. thebullshitisneckdeep Says:

    They pretend to play by some sort of rules but they don’t. It’s all neck deep bullshit.

    Hillary set up her own private server so that nobody could see what she was doing. She deleted over 30k emails while none of those belonged to her. She failed to turn over all of her emails when she claimed she did. There are so many laws and protocols that were broken here, its tough to keep track of them all.

    If you were a federal employee at any level and decided to set up your own private server in which to conduct classified, top secret, SCI or SAP business, what do you think would happen to you?

    …………and this bitch is going to be our next President!

  14. Potmetal Says:

    Do you feel it? Do you hear it?

    Prepare yourselves, it’s coming.

    Even the best ranchers in the world know that once the herd hits critical mass, it’s going to go where it wants.

  15. Elwood Green Says:

    I remember we as a country used to have these rights, what has happened? They sound more like an urban legend at this point.

  16. Elwood Green Says:

    The Speedy Trial Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial”[1] The Clause protects the defendant from delay between the presentation of the indictment or similar charging instrument and the beginning of trial.

  17. Elwood Green Says:

    The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” Generally, the right is to have a face-to-face confrontation with witnesses who are offering testimonial evidence against the accused in the form of cross-examination during a trial. The Fourteenth Amendment makes the right to confrontation applicable to the states and not just the federal government.[1] The right only applies to criminal prosecutions, not civil cases or other proceedings.

  18. Drifter Says:

    @Dano; Concur, star chamber mentality, very dangerous to the whole Freedom and Liberty deal….

    @Sieg; roger that….

    Respects to ya both, and as always Sieg, my hat is tipped to ya….

  19. Sieg Says:

    When you know that there is no law save that of the FedCoat gun-thug, then it is pointless to try to continue playing their game.

    Under the circumstances outlined, defense lawyers should refuse to go to court, period. If they are ordered to, they should stand mute.

    We are right at the edge of the hard-phase of the revolution, but it may just be possible to win a few propaganda battles before it starts.

    FTF / FTP

  20. Dan-O Says:

    This is for your protection. You can only see what we decide you can see. We put a veil of secrecy over everything because we say we can. Do not question us or challenge us. We are in charge. We make the rules, as well as interpret how they are enforced at any given time. This is for your protection.

  21. Scubba Steve Says:

    I’ve spent a lot of time trying to figure out this statement…

    “In the {EVENT} any written or electronic discovery is provided to the defense, attorneys may show discovery to their client(s), and may discuss the information with their client(s); however, attorneys may not reproduce or disseminate any discovery, or copies of discovery to anyone, including the client.”

    WTF??? I’m no Constitutional Scholar but my gut reaction is that this is a violation of Constitutional rights. How many lawyers would want to step in this bear trap?

    “In the event any written or electronic discovery is provided”… I wonder what the odds of that are…

    I can’t believe what we’ve become as a country…

  22. xplor Says:

    Judge Ezra is in the FBIs pocket . Things are going to go very bad, very soon. Can you say bias ?

  23. Bone Head Says:

    Secret, secret, secret…Rebel’s right; some asses are in danger.
    I’m curious as to when and if all these “secrets” could ever be revealed?

    Good luck to The Bandidos…and may the judge contract a painful wart on his pee-pee.

  24. Neuro Says:

    Fuck the fed bacon and their local porky piglets.

  25. BMW Says:

    The lawyers for the defendants are correct to demand actual tapes rather than “transcripts”. In one high interest federal trial after another, when checked against the actual recordings, the supposedly accurate transcripts have turned out to be absolutely FALSE. No one should ever trust the transcripts provided by the Fibbies for any purpose.


Leave a Reply