Complete Dutch Bandidos Decision

January 2, 2018

All Posts, News

Complete Dutch Bandidos Decision

Sometimes, the most important reason for journalism is not to tell a story you should know but to disseminate public documents you should be able to read for yourself. Last month a court in the Netherlands banned the Bandidos Motorcycle Club from Holland. It was a landmark ruling in the ongoing global war against motorcycle clubs. The Aging Rebel has long believed that this “war” is far more about social control than crime prevention. This page also believes that American law enforcement agencies are the driving force behind this war on behalf of government authority. So, here is a competent English translation of all 7000 words of the Dutch decision. In the same way that much of this European decision parrots arguments made in recent trials of Bandidos in Texas, future state and federal cases in the United States will probably parrot portions of this decision.

 

1.1. The Public Prosecutor (hereinafter: PP) has submitted a petition against the informal association the Dutch Division of the Bandidos Motorcycle Club (hereinafter: BMC Holland) and against the foreign cooperative Bandidos Motorcycle Club (hereinafter: BMC). No address details are known of both defendants.

1.2. In the case against BMC Holland, BMC Holland was summoned by a registered letter addressed to Bandidos MC Sittard (hereinafter: (BMC Sittard), to the address of [A], president of BMC Sittard, and by means of a notice in the Government Gazette. BMC has not appeared although duly summoned. BMC Sittard has registered as an interested party to this case and has been considered as such.

1.3. In the case against BMC, BC was summoned by a registered letter addressed to Bandidos Motorcycle Club, to the address of [B], president of Bandidos Motorcycle Club Federation Europe (hereinafter: BMC Europe), by means of an email to the email address of Bandidos MC in the United States of America, by means of a contact form on the website with the address “www.bandidosmc.com”, and by means of a notice in the Government Gazette. BMC has not appeared although duly summoned. BMC Europe has registered as an interested party to this case and has been considered as such.

1.4. BMC Sittard has in the case against BMC Holland submitted a defence and BMC Europa has submitted a defence in the case against BMC.

1.5. The applications have been handled orally at the same time in the hearings of 3 October 2017 and 6 October 2017. Official reports have been drawn up of these hearings.

1.6. The Court has ultimately decided to render its judgement on 20 December 2017. The Court has officially included the petitions.

2 The petitions

2.1. The PP asks the Court to pursuant to Article 2:20 of the DCC (hereinafter: DCC) rule, immediately enforceable, on the prohibition and dissolution of BMC Holland with an appointment of a liquidator and determine that any remaining balance will be paid to the State of the Netherlands after settlement.

2.2. PP requests the Court to pursuant to Article 10:122 of the DCC rule, immediately enforceable, on the right that the activities of BMC infringe on the public order within the meaning of Article 2:20 of the DCC.

2.3. BMC Sittard has submitted a defence against the petition listed under 2.1 and BMC against the petition listed under 2.2. The Court will below, to the extent necessary for the assessment of the petitions, discuss the arguments of PP, BMC Sittard and BMC Europe.

3 The considerations

Introduction

3.1. The Bandidos motorcycle club was founded in the United States of America. Initially, there were only chapters (divisions) of Bandidos members in North and South America, chapters in Australia, Europe and Asia arose later. A chapter in the Netherlands was founded in 2014: BMC Sittard. Later, chapters in Alkmaar, Utrecht and Nijmegen were founded with several dozen members in total. The chapter in Alkmaar has closed a short time ago. There are more than 200 chapters with a total of over 2500 Bandidos members worldwide.

3.2. PP argues in support of its petitions that the culture of the Bandidos is focused on committing serious crimes, particularly drug offences, weapon offences, and extortion, facilitating and encouraging these crimes, and affecting the rights and freedoms of others and their own members. The activities of BMC and BMC Holland for these reasons infringe on the public order according to the PP. The PP aims with its petitions to put a permanent end to the presence of the Bandidos in the Netherlands.

3.3. BMC Sittard and BMC Europe primarily argue that BMC and BMC Holland, the informal legal entities identified by the PP as the defendants, do not exist and that the PP must, therefore, be declared inadmissible. They also argue that BMC Europe, the regional federations and the chapters are each separate and autonomous (informal) legal entities. To the extent the petition is directed against BMC Utrecht and chapters in Russia, Serbia and Ukraine, this Court may be competent. They argue that there is no jurisdiction regarding the other chapters, the regional federations and BMC Europe. Alternatively, BMC Sittard and BMC Europe dispute that structural crime and structural violence are considered normal within the Bandidos and that BMC Europe, the regional federations and/or the local chapters encourage this. Committing crimes by individual Bandidos members cannot be attributed to the BMC of which they are a member. A lot of the conduct argued by the PP has not been established. To the extent there have been problematic chapters, this is not because the Bandidos as a whole has a criminal nature, but because they have acted under the influence of individual criminal leaders and/or some criminal members. BMC Europe does not accept such criminal clubs and takes measures to the extent it is able to do so.

Jurisdiction

3.4. The Court will first assess whether the Dutch Court has jurisdiction in the case against BMC. The argument of BMC Europe that this Court has no jurisdiction over BMC Europe, the regional federations and most European local chapters does not need to be discussed because the petitions of the PP are not directed against those organisations.

3.5. The Court shares the position of the PP that the EEX-VO II1 and the EVEX II2 in the case against BMC do not apply. The material scope of the EEX-Vo II and the EVEX II is “civil and commercial matters” as laid down in Article 1. According to fixed case law of the European Court of Justice, the phrases that define the material scope of the EC Convention and the EEX-Vo (II) must be autonomously interpreted using, on the one hand, the goals and the structure of the treaty or the relevant directive and, on the other hand, the general principles found in all legal systems of the mutual Member States. This interpretation, which also applies to the EVEX II, means that certain cases are outside of the material scope of the EEX-Vo II and the EVEX II based on the nature of the legal relationship between the parties or based on the nature of the subject of the dispute. A legal relationship between a public authority and a (legal) person may fall within the material scope, but not if the public authority acts based on an exclusive government power. This is not the case in this matter. The PP, a government body, uses a power which falls outside the scope of the rules that generally apply to civil legal relationships between (legal) entities in the Member States of the European Union. A petition like in this case is, after all, an instrument for performing a government duty par excellence: maintaining the Dutch public order and can, as demonstrated by Article 10:122 of the DCC, only be submitted by the PP.

3.6. This means that the Dutch Court has jurisdiction based on Article 3, preamble and (a) of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (DCCP). After all, the PP is located in the Netherlands.

Existence of BMC

3.7. BMC Europe argues that BMC does not or no longer exist and that the PP, for this reason, cannot be declared admissible in its petition against BMC. The Bandidos were founded in the United States in 1966 and have spread to various continents. Until 1997, the Bandidos effectively functioned as a whole or global partnership predominated by the America continuant, according to BMC Europe. The first substantial gap between the continental clubs arose in 1997 and each continent had its own president and own powers. Australia and Europe could from that moment determine their own direction. In 2005, the president of the United States wanted to get rid of this gap but the other continents wanted to keep their independence and refused. This led to the final separation from the American Bandidos club and the separation between the continental clubs as of 17 July 2007. From 1997, and in any case from 2007, there was no longer any global organisation or a global partnership, argues BMC Europe.
The Bandidos in Asia and Australia will, after a period in which the National President Europe granted some administrative assistance to Bandidos in Asia, also go their own way. The European federation, the organisation of BMC Europe, will be fully independent of BMCs on other continents and focused exclusively on Europe. Bandidos worldwide have a uniform look to some extent but this does not mean that there is one global organisation, argues BMC Europe.

3.8. The Court considers as follows in this respect. BMC can be considered a corporative within the meaning of Article 10:122 of the DCC if it conducts itself as an independent entity or organisation (refer to Article 10:117, preamble and (b) DCC). Case law interprets this as follows: “The term ‘corporative’ is a broadly interpretable collective term for acting entities and partnerships that are recognised as such by law, whether or not as a legal entity. [….] There is no requirement of having the power the perform rights and obligations, carry out legal acts or take legal actions: it is sufficient that a company which is not a legal entity acts as an independent unit, not necessarily with economic or professional independence.” In other words, this case concerns the question whether BMC acts as an independent unit. That BMC Europe, BMC United States and BMC Australasia are in organisational terms entirely or largely independent of each other and that there are no financial links between the continents (which the Court assumes hypothetically) is relevant to the question whether BMC acts as an independent unit but is not of decisive significance. The mere fact that BMC Europe, BMC United States and BMC Australasia (also) act as independent units does not automatically mean that BMC is not an independent unit or organisation. An independent unit can be a partnership of separate entities.

3.9. The Court cannot determine whether there is an(n) (actual) management of BMC which has control over the control over the continental BMCs with respect to one or more subjects. This is not in itself a requirement for the answer to the question whether BMC can be considered an acting independent unit and partnership. Agreements or arranged actual practices between various independent organisations can also lead to the conclusion that there is an acting independent unit and partnership. Such (broad) interpretation of the term ‘cooperative’ matches the essence and the goal of the procedure laid down in Article 10:122 DCC as demonstrated by case law; ending foreign corporations which engage in impermissible activities in the Netherlands.

3.10. The Court believes that BMC acts as one independent global motorcycle club. This is evidenced by the following facts and circumstances, considering in conjunction with each other:
BMC uses the same name worldwide: “Bandidos MC”.
BMC has a website called “Bandidos MC” (www.bandidosmc.com). The website lists all countries which Bandidos chapters that can be contacted using links on the website. The website describes joint activities and provides news about the chapters worldwide, for example, the news that BMC has a new chapter in Belgium.
Only persons who are a member of a chapter affiliated with BMC United States, BMC Europe or BMC Australasia may use the club clothes of Bandidos (which is the same around the globe), often consisting of sleeveless leather vests in the club colours with the name “Bandidos MC” and the same type of symbols. These symbols have the same meaning within BMC. The same slogans are also used by members of BMC worldwide.
The members have the same or very similar rules around the globe, including the rule that third parties cannot wear the Bandidos club clothes. These rules can be found in the “Bible of the Bandidos Motorcycle Club Europe”, which according to BMC Europe lays down the rules for the European federation until 16 January 2016.
Additionally, the Australasian “Bible” was submitted (“Bandidos Motorcycle Club Australasia Ltd club rules”) which according to BMC Europe apply to Bandidos chapters in Australia and Asia. According to these “Bibles”, the rules apply to all Bandidos members of the chapters in Europe and Australia and Asia respectively. The “Bibles” contain comparable requirements before a member can become a “full member” of Bandidos: candidate members must pass various stages to become a full member. The “Bibles” also contain prescribed positions in the various chapters (at a continental and local level): “president”, “vice-president”, “sergeant at arms”, “road captain”, etc. The names of the positions in the “Bibles” are identical. It is also a fact that the rules of the local chapters in Europe may not conflict with the rules established by the continental chapter. According to BMC Europe, these rules could be found in the abovementioned “Bible of the Bandidos Motorcycleclub Europe” until 16 January 2016 and then in the “Statutes of the Bandidos Motorcycleclub Federation Europe”. To make enforcement of the rule possible, the continental chapter in Europa has, for example, the power to close chapters and has a veto right on the incorporation of local chapters.
Global events are organised. This is illustrated by a press release about the “NATIONAL RUN 2017” on a Swedish Bandidos website (www. bandidos-mc.se) which reads: “It was good to see all the brothers from the world!! […] But we can see what we are, and we are the best Motorcycle Club in the world […]”.
Bandidos members also consider themselves part of the global motorcycle club BMC. The 2014/2015 edition of the “Bible of the Bandidos Motorcycleclub Europe” reads: “The Bandidos Motorcycle club is now a worldwide biker brotherhood, being the best and strongest of all 1%er Motorcycle Clubs worldwide.”
The Bandidos in Europe, Asia and Australia make use of the European email server. The police has found documents related to these continents on this server (in Denmark).3

3.11. Based on the above facts and circumstances, the Court reaches the conclusion that BMC acts as an independent unit, despite the fact that (national) chapters can also act as independent units and despite the gap between Bandidos in the United States and Bandidos on other continents. The fact that BMC United States, BMC Europe and BMC Australasia have a decisive influence on the way the Bandidos manifest themselves on their continent does not alter this fact. Each of them presents itself as part of the worldwide Bandidos brotherhood. The facts and circumstances in 3.10 also demonstrate that this continental influence has apparently not lead to changes in the organisation, rules and/or practices of BMC.

Existence of BMC Holland

3.12. The above does not mean that the question whether BMC Holland, the Dutch entity as argued by the PP, exist as an informal association. After all, the PP has against BMC Holland submitted a unilateral petition based on Article 2:20 DCC.

3.13. BMC Sittard argues that the informal association BMC Holland does not exist and explains this position, summarised, as follows. Since early 2016, the European federation has consisted of regional federations, the regional chapters, which each represent a certain part of Europe (Northern Scandinavia, Central Scandinavia, Southern Scandinavia, East Central, West Central, South Central, Central South, Western South, Central East and Deep South). The three remaining local chapters in the Netherlands are represented by the regional chapter West Central. A national BMC, like BMC Holland, does not fit the new organisational structure of the European federation. Furthermore, all local chapters, including the three Dutch local chapters, are entirely independent of each other. The Dutch local chapters have and had contact through the monthly meeting of the chapters, for example, but this does not mean there is an informal association called BMC Holland.

3.14. The Court considers as follows in this respect. An informal association is a legal entity within the meaning of Article 2:20 DCC. BMC Holland can be considered an informal association if it acts outwardly like an organisation of persons (members). The Court joins the PP in the opinion that this is the case based on the following facts and circumstances, considering in conjunction:
The website called “Bandidos MC” (bandidosmc.com) contains an overview of all countries in which BMC is active. “Holland” is also listed in this overview. A link can be used to contact “Holland”. There is also a Facebook page called “Bandidos Holland”.
Police searches turned up a list with names which are likely to be the names of the members of the Dutch chapters.
[A] X, president of BMC Sittard, has a certain degree of control over the Dutch chapters. This is evidenced by the fact that he in 2016 announced the incorporation of a new Dutch chapter, BMC Utrecht, by minutes of various “Holland meetings”, and by an email of 28 April 2016 from BMC Sittard to the email address to which information for the European newsletter of Bandidos can be sent, which reads “all contacts regarding information about Holland […] true chapter Sittard”.
There is a monthly “Holland-meeting” at BMC Sittard, which is not only attended by members of BMC Sittard but by members of all Dutch chapters. The joint meetings (with chapter Alkmaar and chapter Utrecht) are also evidenced by the newsletter submitted by the PP.
BMC Sittard has drawn up so-called “Holland Rules” that obviously also apply to the (members of) other Dutch chapters. The argument of BMC Sittard that these rules were drawn up when BMC Sittard was the only chapter in the Netherlands and only apply to BMC Sittard, is not accepted by the Court. The “Holland Rules” include: “All registrations go through chapter Sittard. When we make something for Bandidos Holland for an anniversary or similar parties, it will be shared by the Holland chapters.”
BMC Sittard and BMC Alkmaar had a shared inventory list of patches4 in 2015 which was found during a search.
The Bandidos in the Netherlands often wear their colours with a bottom rocker5 “HOLLAND” out in public. The abovementioned shared inventory list includes a figure of “9+15”, 24, of these bottom rockers.
A payment receipt shows that “BMC Holland” has paid an amount of € 1,000.00 to a law firm.
The Dutch Bandidos members/the Dutch chapters also act as one Dutch organisational partnership in other manners, for example, in the role as a sponsor.

3.15. The circumstance in which the local chapters can be considered informal associations does not mean that BMC Holland must also be considered an informal association. The change in the organisational structure that according to BMC Europe and BMC Sittard had taken place on 16 January 2016 does not imply otherwise. The Court does not discuss whether there actually was a change in organisational structure or whether there, as the PP argued based on the minutes of the “National meeting in Essen” held on 16 January 2016, there is a paper smokescreen to protect the MC against government measures such as a ban. The decisive factor is whether BMC Holland acts as an organisational structure of persons (members). The Court rules that this is the case based on the abovementioned circumstances.

3.16. Both petitions of the PP can be declared admissible; both BMC and BMC Holland exist as ‘corporative’ or informal association respectively. The defence of BMC Sittard that this Court has no jurisdiction over BMC Sittard and/or BMC Nijmegen does not need to be discussed because the petitions of the PP are not directed against BMC Sittard and/or BMC Nijmegen.

Do its activities infringe on the public order?

3.17. The question whether the activities of BMC and/or BMC Holland infringe on the public order must then be discussed. The PP argues, summarised, the following in this regard. The intimidating and often violent manner in which Bandidos members and the organisation manifest themselves in society and the way they move away from government control (and actively oppose this) create a subculture of lawlessness. This subculture encourages and facilitates serious crime, including violence and drug trafficking. This leads to particularly serious (sometimes large-scale) acts of violence and turmoil in society. The activities of the Bandidos are, therefore, a serious threat to the safety of the citizens and public authorities. The Bandidos deny their own members the freedom to seek help and assistance from the government and to leave the club when they want. This violates the fundamental rights of its own members.

3.18. BMC Sittard and BMC Europe argue the following this regard.
The situation sketched by the PP that incidents and crime are the order of the day at the Bandidos is incorrect. This situation is sketched and maintained by the government. The majority of Bandidos members and chapters in Europe do not behave in a way which should be prohibited. The minority, which might behave in a way which should be prohibited, has already been prohibited or addressed by BMC Europe. Committing offences by individual Bandidos members cannot be attributed to their local chapter, let alone to BMC Holland or BMC (worldwide). The persecution of members of BMC Sittard, a fact on which the PP has also based its requests, has not yet led to convictions; the criminal cases will not be heard before 2018. BMC Sittard requests to postpone the hearing of these petitions until the criminal court has rendered its ruling. The PP has also put forward many incidents with Bandidos members abroad. However, these incidents do not show that the Dutch society and public order are being threatened.

3.19. The Bandidos have, according to BMC Sittard and BMC Europe, no subculture of lawlessness. The “expect no mercy” patch means, contrary to what the PP argues, that the Bandidos member wearing the patch has suffered for the club, not that he has committed violence on behalf of the club. Finally, the Bandidos do not violate any fundamental rights of its own members. The Bandidos members are completely free to leave their chapter. The requirement to make use of their right to keep silent imposed on Bandidos members is not to harm the club or other Bandidos members. Bandidos members are tough guys that do not like the government; you do not do anything for the government if you do not need to, is the prevailing view at Bandidos according to BMC Sittard and BMC Europe.

3.20. The Court considers as follows in this respect. The answer to the question whether the activities of BMC and/or BMC Holland infringe on the public order must be based on fact that the guaranteed freedom of association and meeting is a principle of democracy as laid down in Article 8 of the Constitution and Article 11 of the ECHR6. A prohibition of a Dutch legal entity based on Article 2:20 DCC or a declaration that the activities of a foreign corporative infringe on the public order based on Article 10:122 DCC, a declaration with the same effect as a prohibition within the meaning of Article 2:20 DCC, means a severe infringement on this fundamental right which may only be imposed in extreme cases. A prohibition or declaration referred to above requires more than social undesirable behaviour. A prohibition or declaration as set out above must be considered a necessary measure to avoid behaviour which is an actual and severe infringement on fundamental principles of our legal system that (can) disrupt our society.

3.21. Article 2:20(1) DCC must be interpreted in the light of Article 8 of the Constitution and Article 11 ECHR. Based on Article 11(2) ECHR, the exercise of the right of association can only be subject to restrictions which (i) have been laid down in law, and (ii) which are necessary in a democratic society, and (iii) in the interest of national security, the public order, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of the health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. The Court must when answering the questions of whether restrictions are necessary exercise restraint considering the major importance of the freedom of association in a democratic society, as evidenced by rulings of the European Court of Human Rights8.

3.22. The legislative history of Article 2:20 DCC shows that the term “activities” is used in its ordinary meaning and therefore includes the acts committed by the legal entity and the works spoked or written in the context of its organisation. The principle is that only the conduct of the legal entity itself can be considered its own “activities”. If the legal entity is not directly involved in conduct of third parties in the sense that the (actual) leadership has controlled it or has purposefully given the opportunity for it, this conduct can only be considered the own “activities” of the legal entity based on special facts and circumstances.9

3.23. To determine the “activities” of BMC and BMC Holland, the Court will first specify the organisation, rules and culture of the Bandidos based on the statements and documents submitted in this case.

3.24. As indicated in 3.10, there is an identical organisational structure within all instances of BMC where members have “ranks”. The available documents and the police investigation create a picture of a tight and closed organisation in which loyalty to the Bandidos prevails. This does not only apply to and within the local chapters, but within all levels of BMC, as considered below. Candidate members must go through several stages to become a full member. It is also a fact that the rules of the local chapters in Europe may not conflict with the rules established by the continental chapter. To make enforcement of the rule possible, BC Europe has, for example, the power to close chapters and has a veto right on the incorporation of local chapters. The Court also refers to a document in which the PP has substantiated that these are minutes of the meeting of the leadership of BMC Europe on 16 January 2016 which reads that “the National office will make sure that the clubs standards are the same everywhere”. The declaration of the (former) president of BMC Regensburg also shows that within the organisation the “sergeant at armes” is “responsible for punishments of its own members, for actions and counter actions. He does not need to do this himself, but he must coordinate it. Everything will take place in consultation with the president. The only thing the sergeant does on his own, independent from the president, is to submit the request to the sergeanto des armas if a member has earned the “expect no mercy” patch. [….] These patches are awarded by the sergeanto des armas in the relevant region.” The role and influence of the “president” and “sergeant at arms” is confirmed in a statement of the former president of BMC Alkmaar: “The Bandidos law: The President may not hit anyone, may not provide drugs. I need to be the leader, but cannot do it. It is not my task. Other people take care of this. […] Sergeant Arms arranges those things”.

3.25. The Bandidos characterise themselves as an MC with a culture of lawlessness, an “outlaw culture”. The Bandidos consider themselves a “1%” MC and state this explicitly. The Bandidos show the “1%” symbol with which they MCs and their members show the rest of the world that they (want to) operate outside the law, that they are “outlaws”, for example, on their colours (using the “1%” patch) and on websites. [A], the president of BMC Sittard, has had the “1%” sign tattooed on his face. The symbol is also used internally by the Bandidos, for example, when referring to individual Bandidos members in newsletters and in minutes. These statements on the use and the meaning of the “1%” symbol have been submitted and substantiated with documents by the PP and not disputed by BMC Sittard of BMC Europe.

3.26. The Bandidos use slogans with a violent message. The slogan “God forgives, Bandidos don’t”, abbreviated as “GFBD”, is used as a promise of revenge of Bandidos in messages about Bandidos members who have become wounded or killed by violence, and the slogan “Snitches are a dying breed” is a promise by the Bandidos that betrayal will result in violence. BMC Sittard and BMC Europe have insufficiently disputed the explanation of both slogans by the PP.

3.27. That the culture of lawlessness of the Bandidos does not only exist in statements but that there actually is a culture of lawlessness has been substantiated by the PP. Relatively many Bandidos members are involved in (serious) crimes, often related to violence, threats, intimidation and extortion. The Bandidos accept this conduct and the establishment of rules within their organisation also reflect this acceptance. This is, for example, demonstrated by the requirement imposed on Bandidos members to make use of their right to remain silent when arrested by the police as long no legal assistance is present. The reasons for this requirement put forward by BMC Europe and BMC Sittard in this hearing, that other Bandidos members or the club may not be harmed (i.e. may not experience legal difficulties) is significant in this regard. This is also demonstrated by the registration of “jail lists”, lists with names of Bandidos members currently in jail, and by “jail funds”, funds with which these members are supported financially, and the reminder of Bandidos members currently in jail in newsletters and in other ways. Members who cooperate with the police are ejected from the club, sometimes accompanied by violence. The PP has given the following (undisputed) example: when the police asked what happens if a member of BMC Sittard breaks the code and talks, a member took his hand across his neck as if slicing a throat. The police states that on 26 November 2014 a member of BMC Alkmaar he does not want to make a statement about a threat within Bandidos. He stated in this respect that “two may be locked up, but 6000 will still be outside.”

3.28. The focus on the Bandidos on committing violence and the encouragement by the Bandidos organisation is clear from the fact that violence is awarded with honours (patches) or a rise in rank. The most prominent of those is the “expect no mercy” patch. This patch is awarded to Bandidos members who have committed (serious) violence on behalf of the motorcycle club. This is particularly clear from Annex 10 of the PP, an overview of relevant investigation data drawn up by the police. The Court will summarise a number of these data below:
On 23 May 2007, two Bandidos members have murdered a Hells Angels member [C] in Germany. A former leader of the Bandidos, [D], has as crown witness in the trial declared that the two Bandidos members wanted to earn an “expect no mercy” patch through the murder.
On 8 October 2009, Hells Engels member [E] as at a Bandidos clubhouse in Duisburg killed Bandidos member
[F]. [E] has declared in the trial that he feared that [F] would kill him to earn an “expect no mercy” patch. The Bandidos have posthumously awarded an “expect no mercy” patch to [F].
On 26 December 2010, a fight took place between Bandidos members and members of another motorcycle club in Germany. The fight resulted in injuries. Bandidos members have declared that two Bandidos members involved in the fight received an “expect no mercy” patch for the fight.
On 24 May 2014, two Bandidos members have beaten a person to death in Melbourne, Australia. A (former) Bandidos member has as witness declared that one of the two Bandidos members received an “expect no mercy” patch for this.
On 20 September 2014, two Bandidos members shot the president of Rock Machine MC in Hyllstofta, Sweden. The two Bandidos members received the “expect no mercy” patch 10 days later.
Various (former) Bandidos members have declared to the German police that the “expect no mercy” patch can be earned if the interests of the club have been defended with violence and blood has been spilt. Various German criminal courts adopt this position.
Police services in several European countries interpret the “expect no mercy” patch similarily.
The American justice system assumes that the “expect no mercy” patch is awarded to a Bandidos member who “has given or taken blood for the club”.
In a tapped telephone conversation of 2 April 2015, a member of BMC Sittard talks about earning an “expect no mercy” patch: “They can all earn that thing. A round badge. Expect no mercy. That you have fought with other motorcycle clubs.”

3.29. The explanation given by BMC Sittard and BMC Europe, that the “expect no mercy” patch is awarded to Bandidos members who have suffered for the club, is considered unlikely and/or unconvincing by the Court. That [F} (see the second indent in the previous paragraph) has posthumously received an “expect no mercy” patch because he has suffered for the club as BMC Sittard and BMC Europe state cannot be correct. After all, BMC Sittard and BMC Europe argue that [F] was not killed in relation to the motorcycle club, but due to a fight over a woman. It is not clear that [F] has suffered for the club. The same applies to the argument of BMC Sittard and BMC Europe that the president of the European federation has been awarded the “expect no mercy” patch because attachment was levied on him in the context of a criminal investigation. The relationship between the attachments and suffering for the club has not been made clear by BMC Sittard and BMC Europe. The Court does not consider is plausible that the “expect no mercy” patch can simply be bought in the Bandidos organisations in Asia and Australia and does not need to be “earned”. BMC Europe and BMC Sittard have only based this on an amount listed in the Australasia “Bible”. However, this is contrasted by several examples of the PP from Asia and Australia where the patch (in accordance with the European approach) was earned.

3.30. The arguments of BMC Europe and BMC Sittard are contrasted with the abundance of information submitted by the PP that support its explanation that the “expect no mercy” patch is awarded to Bandidos members that have committed (serious) violence on behalf of the club. Given this abundance, there is no reason to use the evidence submitted by BMC Sittard and BMC Europe, being the offer to prove that the Bundeskriminalamt (German Federal Criminal Investigation Service) uses the same explanation as BMC Sittard and BMC Europe. Even if the Bundeskriminal- amt uses the same interpretation as BMC Sittard and BMC Europe, it cannot be considered significant based on the abundance of information of the PP.

3.31. Retired members that are considered in “bad standing” as illustrated by the PP by means of examples are often the victims of violence. The Court refers to the battery and threats made against a “hangaround” member of BMC Alkmaar who wanted to leave the club in November 2014. The file also describes the report of a member of BMC Sittard filed with the police in May 2015 that he had left Bandidos in “bad standing” and feared for the safety of his girlfriend and daughter. Sometimes possessions such as a motorcycle are taken away from members using (the threat of) violence. The abovementioned member of BMC Sittard says the following to the police in this respect: “When you become a member, those things are explained to you. They say: You have a motorcycle, but it is owned by the club. You buy it yourself but if you leave the club in Bad Standing, it will remain with the club.” The Court considers the explanation of the term “bad standing” given by BMC Sittard and BMC Europe, that it solely means that the member may not return, not plausible considering the various not soundly disputed examples given by the PP.

3.32. The violence committed by the Bandidos endangers the safety of persons, both persons within the motorcycle club and outside of it. The violence is often directed against members of other (“1%”) motor clubs, especially against Hells Angels members, where these members are injured or murdered. This is for example demonstrated by the violent incidents described in paragraph 3.28 and the recording of serious battery by members of a support club of the Hells Angels by Bandidos members (wearing their vests/colours) in Sittard 7 May 2015, shown by the PP in the hearing. Another example concerns battery of uniformed police officers committed by a Bandidos member using brass knuckles on 14 May 2015. The violence committed by the Bandidos and the violence committed by others in response such as the attacks with hand grenades at a Bandidos house in Nieuwstadt (March 2014) often take place in public spaces, which means that the safety of persons outside the motorcycle club, persons that happen to be at the location, is also endangered. Persons regularly are afraid to make statements to the police out of fear for reprisals by Bandidos. A striking example is the extortion of a broker in march 2014 which has been convincingly outlined by the PP using reports and tapped conversations. This person refrained from filing a report with the police because he stated to be afraid of the entire organisation of the motorcycle club.

3.33. Almost all violent incidents indicated by the PP concern conduct by members where it cannot be established that BMC or BMC Holland were involved directly in the sense that it can be established that a (n) (actual) leadership has managed it or has deliberately given an option thereto. Nevertheless, this conduct can be considered the own “activities” of Bandidos based on special facts and circumstances. These consist of the culture existing within Bandidos where the use of (serious) violence is encouraged as set out above. The organisations also focuses on violence and to a large extent operates in a manner in which certain “ranks” exercise influence. The Court refers to 3.24 in this regard. Finally, it is in this context important that the examples of the PP demonstrate that the members deliberately use the name “Bandidos” or their “colours” to support their actions and words. All these facts and circumstances mean that the commission of violent acts by local chapters or individual members can be attributed to BMC and BMC Holland.

3.34. The Court notes that the PP has not given examples of serious crimes for all local Bandidos chapters in the Netherlands or abroad. However, the does not alter the fact that these chapters belong to BMC and have complied with the rules of the Bandidos and the associated culture as set out above through their association with the regional and continental BMC federation and BMC globally. The culture of the Bandidos and the actual resulting conduct are therefore characteristic and structural and there is a real chance that Bandidos members will in the near future (again) commit serious violent crimes in the Netherlands that (severely) affect the physical integrity within the own club atmosphere and/or persons outside it and that (may) disrupt the Dutch society. These types of crimes must be stopped in the interest of protecting the physical integrity of persons. Even though a prohibition must be used as a last resort, it is justified in this case. The above contributes to the fact that there is no reason to postpone the hearing of the petitions awaiting the outcome in the criminal cases against members of BMC Sittard as requested by BMC Sittard and BMC Europe. When answering the question whether the alleged facts will be involved in the decision whether the activities infringe on the public order, a criminal conviction for the facts is not decisive. It is sufficient that it can be accepted with a sufficient degree of certainty that the alleged facts have occurred.10 That is the case here.

3.35. The Court believes that based on the above and considering all involved interests and rights, it is necessary for a democratic society it must be decided that the activities of BMC infringe on the public order and that BMC Holland will be prohibited in the interests of the rights and freedoms of persons within Dutch society. The prohibition or declaration referred to above stops all activities that are an actual and serious infringement on the fundamental principles of our lay systems which (may) disrupt our society.

3.36. The prohibition and the declaration referred to above mean that the presence of the Bandidos in the Netherlands in whatever form will be terminated. The corresponding dissolution of BMC Holland means that its capital, at least consisting of the capitals of the local chapters of the Bandidos in the Netherlands, must be settled. The Court will appoint a liquidator for this purpose as requested by the PP. The Court will in this regard enable the PP to submit an official written proposal on the person of the liquidator. BMC Sittard will be given the opportunity to respond to this proposal by means of an official written document. It may be recommendable and practical and in their both interests that the PP and BMC Sittard consult on the person to be proposed. The Court will leave this to them.

3.37. The legal declaration that the activities of BMC infringe on the public order means that the Court appoints a liquidator which will settle the assets of the corporative located in the Netherlands. Since a liquidator will already be appointed in the case against BMC Holland, this appointment is not necessary in the case against BMC.

3.38. The Court will postpone the case against BMC Holland concerning the appointment of a liquidator. The Court renders a final judgement on all other matters.

4 The decision

The Court

in the case against BMC Holland

4.1. declares BMC Holland prohibited and dissolves BMC Holland,

4.2. enables the PP to make a proposal on the person to be appointed as liquidator of the capital of BMC Holland by means of a written document which must be submitted to the Court Registry before Wednesday 10 January 2018,

4.3. and enables BMC Sittard to respond to the proposal of the PP by means of a written document which must be submitted to the Court Registry before Wednesday 24 January 2018,

4.4. postpones the case concerning the appointment of a liquidator,

4.5. declares 4.1 of this decision immediately enforceable,

in the case against BMC

4.6. declares that the activities of BMC infringe on the public order within the meaning of Article 2:20 DCC,

4.7. declares 4.6 of this decision immediately enforceable.

This decision was rendered by D.A. van Steenbeek, L.M.G. de Weerd, and H.A. Brouwer, assisted by H.G. van Soolingen as Registrar, rendered in public on 20 December 2017.11

1 Directive (EU) No. 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on the competence, the recognition and the enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters.
2 Treaty on the competence, the recognition and the enforcement of decisions in civil and commercial matters of 30 October 2007 (OJEU L339/3 of 21 December 2007).
3 See Annex 66 of the PP.
4 Pieces of cloth bearing a symbol, attached to the colours.
5 Text underneath the logo of the Bandidos at the rear of the colours.
6 European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
7 Supreme Court, 26 June 2009, paragraph 3.3, ECLI:NL:HR:2009:BI1124 (Hells Angels) and Supreme Court, 18 April 2014, paragraph 3.5, ECLI:NL:HR:2014:948 (Vereniging Martijn).
8 ECHR, 14 January 2014, 47732/06, EHRC 2014/77.
9 Supreme Court, 26 June 2009, paragraph 3.6, ECLI:NL:HR:2009:BI1124 (Hells Angels).
10 Also refer to Amsterdam Court of Appeal 10 April 2008 par. 23, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2008:BC9212
11 type: HvS (4206) coll:

Share

17 Responses to “Complete Dutch Bandidos Decision”

  1. david Says:

    A blatant example of criminal liars in legislative office is the bull-shit financial budget “shortfall” / “crisis”.

    Fact is, the bullshit liars control the currency creation digital and paper money printing presses. Money is NEVER a problem when Congress owns the printing press.

    These liars are all bullshit, all the time.

  2. david Says:

    @ Mark, with respect,

    Lawyers everywhere at the state,local and federal level, self-serving criminals.

    The names mentioned are/were positioned in the executive and judicial branch of national gov. At least 75% of the U.S. Congress is comprised of similar, or worse criminals. And Congress has over 500 criminal members.

    Mid-term elections will reflect the absolute disgust the american people have towards these congressional criminals.

    The huge number of laws passed by these congressional SOB’s yearly, were/are written to specifically protect the lawyers in Congress, and everywhere else.

    The aforementioned criminals in public office criminally usurped these positions which were originally intended for ALL who qualify. These lying, bastard attorneys are the exact humans who the american people NEED to DISQUALIFY from holding public office.

  3. Mark Says:

    Let’s look at what Rebel opened up with, an national and international attack on MC’s for a social order that is demanded. This is said to be in the best interest of security for the people.
    Fair enough. Let’s go by the establishments rules and overview what is currently happening in the USA that is very much a danger to every single man, woman and child, right now, today. America is under attack by a criminal gang that belongs to a organized institution. This criminal gang is lawyers that all belong to the BAR. Let me prove it. I’ll start with Uranium One, where the Clintons, both lawyers got Mueller, another lawyer, who was the director of the FBI to fly to Russia with a sample of uranium that was unlawfully taking to give to the Russians. ON the official FBI jet, no kidding. The Russians were deep into criminal conduct to get 20 percent of the USA’s uranium and Obama, another lawyer, knew about the whole scam within his morning national security, briefings. No less than 150 million ($150,000,000) was passed on to the Clinton Foundation and Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 dollars to talk at a conference but was there in Russia to set up the uranium sale. Hillary had to have a off the record email server to engage in this act of treason against the USA and it’s people. In fact, AG Holder, another lawyer, knew about the Uranium One deal. The next AG Lynch, another lawyer, unlawfully had a meeting with Bill Clinton at the PHX airport, very criminal. Of course this meeting wasn’t to talk about grandchildren, she doesn’t have any children to have had grandchildren. During the Uranium One deal, Rosenstein, a lawyer and currently the 2nd at the DOJ, and Mueller worked together to keep everything smooth and out of the news. Everything started falling apart to get Hillary into the White House to cover for so many treasonous lawyers. Hillary could at best only get 150, max 200 supporters at any of her political events. Trump was pulling in ten’s of thousands of supporters to all of his events. So the dossier was created, Hillary and the DNC paid for a full on BS and fake report on Trump with Trump being blackmailed by the Russians over, “Pissgate”. That fake report, got Obama to order the FBI to use the report to wire tap Trump and everyone connected to him with a FISA court warrant. When Trump got elected and Sessions, a lawyer, who is a deep state plant in case Trump got elected, to become Trump’s AG. To tie Trumps hands and make sure none of the Treasonous lawyers were every charged for their crimes of treason. So Sessions steps back and lets Rosenstein appoint Mueller to be a special attorney to lead a, criminal coup against the sitting POTUS. And here we are and I left out at least 7 more lawyers that engaged in willful treason against the USA and the American People. With many more willful criminal acts of Treason against the People of the USA.
    Now lets go full circle back to the subject of Rebel’s post, the BMC. But first, a huge point. With 20 percent of the USA’s uranium inventory going to Russia, Russia had a windfall of uranium and sold some to North Korea and Iran. Weapon’s grade uranium. Get the picture, a “Turd” World country can now Nuke us. So who is a greater danger to every single man, woman and child living in the USA. The criminal gang of treasonous lawyers I just named or the BMC?
    The criminals are shinning the light on others to keep the light off of themselves.

  4. david Says:

    @ 3.3 ….a lot of the conduct argued by the PP has not been established.
    The info AND the PP are fake.

  5. Dave Says:

    First you make people you dont like look like a threat, then you have a reason to “save everyone” from said threat, this is in full swing in N. America as well, never ending court cases… the Feds have endless amounts of money and plenty of people who want to make a name for themselves, so they one after another constantly throw shit at walls until it finally starts to stick, then they have a legal precedent to go full throttle on everyone.

  6. oldskewl Says:

    FF Says:
    “This is a war being waged on White Anglo Saxon PEOPLE. .
    The Jews are exacting revenge on Germany by using their inbreed cousins”

    You hit the nail on the head. That and portion of the German people (in America we call them “Liberals”) are willing to pay through the nose for what Hitler did. The people are blinded by their past just as Americans are blind because of slavery.

    The Kenyan is a perfect example of white guilt

  7. Steel Says:

    Europe has much bigger issues than the Bandidos and refuses to recognize the threat they face that their politicians allowed in.

    Respects

    Steel

  8. TN Says:

    lmao at the “PP”. Too bad it doesn’t have the effect of the Micro PP it is as its all up in your ass.

  9. Sieg Says:

    “In order to protect the freedom of the members to talk to the police, we are eliminating the freedom of the members to belong to a club”.

    Makes perfect sense, Mr. Orwell.

    FTF/FTP
    TOSIAR

  10. Sandmann Says:

    James W Crawford Says:
    January 2, 2018 at 3:58 pm

    “The Outlaw Motorcycle Clubs such as the Bandidos are being targeted for destruction by European government because their members are among the few, ethnic european men who have the scrote to resist.”

    Mr Crawford, you are aware that while predominantly consisting of Caucasian members, both the BMC Europe and the HAMC in Europe have members of all ethnicities (and religious affiliations) among them (with the HAMC excluding blacks afaik). That way, they reflect European society – and also make the above quoted argument invalid.

    Happy new year to Rebel and all regulars,
    Tom

  11. Dutchboy Says:

    Brought to you by the same people who want to make abortions of potentially mentally retarded children mandatory, to make it a hate crime to speak ill of Mohamed or islam, in other words modern day NAZIS.

  12. FF Says:

    This is a war being waged on White Anglo Saxon PEOPLE. .

    The Jews are exacting revenge on Germany by using their inbreed cousins

  13. fozz Says:

    wording so broad it would cover , fifa , the police. armed forces . shit any organisation at all . all sports clubs , no wonder britain drpped europe

  14. James W Crawford Says:

    Re Bonehead,

    Good point. Much of Europe is undergoing a demographic implosion because the people are to busy fornicating rather than procreating. Native born, ethnic european women in most countries are having an average of barely one child. This is far below replacement level. The African and Asian, muslim immigrants are having on average 3+ children yet. Many of the children being born to native ethnic european women are sired by Afican and Asian muslim immigrant men because few of the ethnic european men have the testicular fortitude to compete. Hell, at least half of Europe’s men are homosexuals. The result is the islamic conquest of Europe whose women are welcoming the invaders with open thighs.

    The Outlaw Motorcycle Clubs such as the Bandidos are being targeted for destruction by European government because their members are among the few, ethnic european men who have the scrote to resist.

  15. stroker Says:

    After reading a good portion of the above (Thanks Rebel), I believe it can be summed up quite easily. There is a lot of flowery descriptive language justifying the “PP’s” actions and conclusions. A lot of word-twisting to say basically: “WE DON’T LIKE YOU. YOU’RE SCARY. YOU ARE DISRUPTING ORDER. WE FIND YOU ILLEGAL.”
    Doesn’t matter if there are scant evidences of criminality…..none of that matters. The “good” people of Holland (thru the PP) has handed down it’s opinions, and the courts have said “yes”….it must be so.

  16. Bone Head Says:

    They don’t want to have the BMC around while allowing Islamic extremists in. Perfect…
    Thank you Rebel

  17. fozz Says:

    so are they gonna ban football clubs

Leave a Reply