Ablett Found Guilty

February 22, 2012

All Posts, News

After listening to three weeks of testimony and deliberating for four hours and fifteen minutes, a jury in San Francisco today found Mongol Christopher Bryan “Stoney”Ablett (photo above) guilty of four racketeering charges.

The jurors had obviously reached a consensus before entering the jury room. During deliberations, the foreman, juror 34, asked one question. “Can we have a white board a chalk board?”

The verdict was read at 1:20 p.m. Pacific Time. The jurors checked the “yes” box on the verdict form. The questions to which they were required to answer yes or no were:

The Charges

Has the Government proven beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about September 2, 2008 defendant Christopher Bryan Ablett unlawfully and with malice aforethought murdered Mark Guardado for the purpose of gaining entrance, maintaining his position, or increasing his position within an enterprise engaged in racketeering activity…as charged in Count I?

Has the Government proven beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about September 2, 2008, defendant Christopher Bryan Ablett assaulted Mark Guardado with a deadly weapon for the purpose of gaining entrance, maintaining his position, or increasing his position within an enterprise engaged in racketeering activity…as charged in Count II?

Has the Government proven beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about September 2, 2008, defendant Christopher Bryan Ablett knowingly used a firearm in furtherance of, or knowingly used or carried a firearm during and in relation to, the crimes charged in either Count I or II…as charged in Count III?

Has the Government proven beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about September 2, 2008, defendant Christopher Bryan Ablett knowingly used a firearm during and in relation to the murder in aid of racketeering of Mark Guardado, as charged in Count I, or during and in relation to the assault with deadly weapon in aid of racketeering of Mark Guardado, as charged in Count II, and that the firearm was used to cause the death of Mark Guardado…as charged in Count IV?

The Verdict

The jury checked the “yes” boxes all four times. They were polled by Judge Richard Seeborg and all jurors agreed the verdict was unanimous. They were dismissed and allowed to return to their lives at 1:30 p.m.

Ablett will appeal the convictions. A motion hearing is scheduled for May 8 at 2:30 p.m. Ablett will be sentenced by Judge Richard Seeborg on May 15 at 2:30 p.m. Ablett cannot be sentenced to death. He can be condemned to life in prison.


, , ,

62 Responses to “Ablett Found Guilty”

  1. Glenn S. Says:

    That one is sticking in my mind too. Kinda a whatthefuck thing, like a two headed snake or something. I guess I’m stuck with some of the childhood brainwashing that the system has elements of, rather than the illusion of fairness, and still shake my head when the illusion gets shatterred again and again.

  2. Cajun Says:

    Observer and Glenn S.,

    Great points. I received that same brainwashing and so that keeps the expectations low. Honestly, I figured they would find him guilty of something just because that’s the way the system is supposed to work (sarcasm), but damn, all of it? It just doesn’t make sense.

    When Rebel started reporting the real story, which counters the “Gangland” version, I though Abllet could have represented himself and gone home that afternoon. However, it seems he was punished for inconveniencing the jurors and the courts. It really wreaks of an apathetic jury that just wanted to go back to their lives and not deal with some “motorcycle gang” nonsense.

    How Watso and Jiminez, who made the phone calls that created the situation, weren’t implicated in this is beyond me. If memory serves me correctly, Jiminez died a few years ago, but I may have that wrong. Still, the fact someone external to the two actors intentionally intervened to create the situation didn’t come up in the trial is a mystery to me. In my opinion these people are the real criminals. How is that not a conspiracy? If they had promoted an illegal street fight between these two individuals and one of the participants died during the fight, wouldn’t the promoters be held culpable in some way?

    I really hope Rebel writes a book on it.

    Thanks for your response,

  3. neverwaz Says:

    The feds have made motive a crime in itself with these racketeering and RICO enhancements. Motives are difficult to prove with certainty, but this jury assigned a criminal motive to Ablett and found him guilty of it in just 4 hours. The jury pool is so tainted by the feds campaign to make examples of men in motorcycle clubs that fair jury trials aren’t possible.
    With ‘hate crime’ laws the feds make motives – or thoughts – a crime too. They set up unpopular citizens – bikers, racists etc. – as terrorists or threats to society and tack these crimes of the mind on them. Now that citizens are comfortable that the system can judge the motives of a man, juries are convicting them of thought crimes like hanging judges.
    Right now bikers in clubs are the targets, but the precedents set in these cases will be extended to citizens of all types in the future.

  4. Rashomon Says:

    I don’t know the facts other than what I’ve read here but I assumed he’d been offered a plea and not taken it so they punished him for actually making them go to trial.

    It really makes no sense at all.

  5. Elric42 Says:

    The American police are involved in psychological warfare against those American who don’t frighten them with imposing papers and threats… It’s a Victorian police force; it peers out of musty windows and wants to inquire about everything, and make crimes if the crimes don’t exists to their satisfaction.
    -Jack Kerouac, On the Road, Written in 1951.

    Nothing has really changed in 61 years.

  6. Rebel Says:

    Dear Cajun,

    Legally, the “intent” is called mens rea (? I think). Ablett was wearing Mongols MC indicia. He was carrying a gun and a knife. Whatever his motivation and his state of mind actually was, he shot a dying man in the back of the head. I agree that calling the incident an example of “racketeering” is preposterous. But that is what the jury believed. The jury clearly held Ablett’s frankness about stabbing and shooting Guardado against him. It wasn’t even close. They went into the jury room, had their snacks, quickly came to a concensus, took some time to figure out how to fill out the forms, then called it a day.

    The jury could have found Ablett guilty or second degree murder or manslaughter. They didn’t. They found him guilty of a racketeering murder in an incident in an underground war between two notorious criminal mobs. (No, I am not calling either HA or the Mongols MC criminal mobs but that accusation is the primary tool the government uses to suppress the anti-authoritarian dissidence that outlaw motorcycle clubs represent.)

    So now Ablett faces a mandatory sentence of life in prison. I think there is some possibility that Judge Seeborg will sentence him to a lesser sentence but Seeborg has his own career to worry about. I think Seeborg might wind up sitting on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He might wind up as one of the Supremes. So I am not sure how likely it will be that the Ninth Circuit will overrule anything he did in the case. And, I am sure Seeborg has already considered the possibility that he will be cross examined about any mercy he might show now in some future confirmation hearing.

    I don’t think I will ever write a book about the case. So, if that doesn’t answer your questions let me know and I will try to do better.


  7. observer Says:

    neverwaz: Motives (thoughts) as crimes is a very chilling overview of modern justice. Your post really gets to the larger, more ominous issue this case has exposed.

  8. Cajun Says:

    Rebel and all,

    Thanks for the replies. It’s even more baffling to me now that I know the jury could have convicted him of a lesser charge. Instead they threw the book at him. Also, if the government offered him a plea deal and he denied it, I can see them being overzealous to convict him. However, I wonder if the plea deal identified the Mongols as a racket? I’m sure it would have. Given the opportunity to create the precedence of the Mongols as a racket, I don’t see the government allowing that opportunity to slip through their fingers.

    It’s peculiar to me that one judge ruled Mongols colors as free speech, but in this case, that right to free speech got Ablett convicted of racketeering. In essence, people seemingly tried to kill him over free speech. Take away the words “Mongols” and “Hells Angels” and insert the words “Democrat” and “Republican” and this case is even scarier. As neverwaz said, it will be extended to citizens of all types.

    The lack of a public reaction reminds me of the poem about the Nazis coming in and killing people and the author standing by doing nothing. When the Nazis came for him, there was no one left to help him.

    I agree with you about the judge. I don’t see him reducing the sentence as it could impact his career later on. Why would he fall on his sword over a “racketeering murderer”? I’m sure he’ll pronounce the sentence, bang his gavel, and then head out to the club for a quick 18 with his investment manager. Sleep well!

    Thanks for your response Rebel. My questions are answered and my fear is raised.


  9. Glenn S. Says:

    The government seems to reserve its strongest hatred towards members of organizations that are a) all about freedom and b) aware of the fact that freedom is only sustainable through strength.

    I recall one of those sensationalized cable “documenteries” about one of the LEO operations targeting one of the motorcycle clubs. At the conclusion of the show, one of the cops offered that the operation had been a success, primarily because members were leaving the club and the area out of concern that they might be targeted. That seems to be the desired goal: to disband the clubs, to cause their members to be distrustful of one another, and to provoke instances of violence, thus justifying LEO tactics in the eyes of the public.

    My question has been answered, I don’t like the answer, I’ve known it for some time, but I always expect a line to appear that even today’s dumbed down citizenry won’t cross. The answer is that the American jury system is a scam, the citizenry has been so brainwashed to fear and hate anyone that refuses to conform, and prioritizes that fear and hatred above concerns like justice and fairness. If the prosecution can indicate that a defendant is guilty of at least littering, is strong enough to be characterized as dangerous (consider the three high-profile defendants that have been acquitted in recent years: Michael Jackson, Casey Anthony, and OJ Simpson, none of whom could be characterized as dangerous to the citizenry and provoke fear), and may hold values different than their own, the jury will find the defendant guilty of anything at all, without hesitation. The general belief among the citizenry is that free society should consist only them and people like them. Absent some sea change in the culture, it will not only get worse, but even the trappings of truth, fairness, and justice will disappear.

    Consider the “war on terror”. A lot of my friends disagree with my positions on this, but I don’t think that the government’s response to the 9-11 attacks have been good for the USA, and have set back the cause of freedom to Munich, circa 1930s. Because of the government response to terrorism (a word that has the potential to be misused to the point of absurdity) this country has embraced long-term detention of even American citizens (see Jose Padilla, always described in the media as a “former street gang member”) based on a mere accusation. It has embraced torture as a means of gathering intelligence, due process where the rules have changed for the stated purpose of making it easier to convict, summary executions of Americans, and even making it a crime to parephially “support” (another word that can easily be defined to suit the government) organizations deemed undesirable by the government.

    Some of my friends say: “but they’re TERRORISTS! They ATTACKED us!” Uh huh, sure. True. But if the government has the power to just say someone is a terrorist, rather than have to prove it, it will assuradly abuse that power. The end result cannot be anything but a police state, and once one enemy is no longer a threat, the terror warriors will seek to expand their mandate to justify their existance. If the average citizen supports the government as it incrementally grabs more power, they will continue to grab even more power. Until it touches everyone and, as has been suggested, there is nobody left to object.

    I guess this case has bothered me so much because it is another sign that the citizenry is willing and eager to co-sign just any bullshit. As Rebel has pointed out, the characteristics of the rugged fronteirsman that made this country strong are no longer the norm.

  10. L.A. 1%er Says:

    Was trying to draw parallels between Stony’s situation and Trayvon Martin’s but my head exploded. At least my Brother is still alive. Can’t say the same for the kid. Here’s hoping that true justice will eventually prevail in both cases. Thanks for you coverage Rebel. Hope to see you on the road and with the Pack again soon.

  11. amarie 11446666 Says:

    I wish they still hung men, that did what he did. I’d watch it and smile.

  12. Sieg Says:

    Not rightly sure why this would surprise anyone. Federal defendants routinely-over 90% of them-plead out. Of those who opt to stand trial, something like 7 or 8 in 10 are convicted, and surprise surprise, they get the max.

    So to convict someone of Racketeering is a pretty simple thing. Two members of the same org get convicted of two predicate offenses, and they can both be hung-out for RICO violations, which typically carry a much heavier penalties than State charges.

    Total bullshit, but there it is. We can probably ALL be scooped up in this shit if they wanted us bad enough.

    FTF / FTP
    5 to 1

Leave a Reply