Checking On Bifield Et Al.

August 15, 2012

All Posts, News

There is not much to report on the federal case in South Carolina titled U.S. versus Bifield et al. Partly this legal void reflects the essential nature of the case which is mostly smoke and rhetoric.

Also, the prosecutors don’t have much to do at this point except sow confusion. The defendants in this case are Daniel Eugene Bifield the former President of the Rock Hell City Nomad charter of the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club, Mark William Baker who succeeded Bifield as charter President, David Channing Oiler, Bruce James Long, Richard Thrower, David Pryor, James Frederick Keach, Jr., Frank Enriquez, Jr., Donald Boersma, Lisa Ellen Bifield, Johanna Looper, Kerry Chitwood, Carlos Hernandez, Ronald Dean Byrum, Jr., Trent Allen Brown, Bruce Ranson Wilson, Thomas McManus Plyler, Jamie Hobbs Long and Somying “Ying”Anderson. And, after announcing in a June press release that all these defendants were guilty and so South Carolina had been saved, all the prosecutors really had to do was stall.

The Enterprise

The indictment alleges that this Angels charter was in the business of buying and selling drugs, particularly cocaine, for profit. In the manner of racketeering accusations it identifies this motorcycle club charter using the magical word “enterprise.” And the point of the enterprise was not riding motorcycles, getting loaded or impressing women or civilians but:

(a) Preserving, protecting, and expanding the power, territory, and profits of the Enterprise through the use of intimidation, extortion, narcotics distribution, money laundering, arson, and acts and threats of violence.

(b) Enriching the members and associates of the Enterprise through, among other things, intimidation, extortion, narcotics distribution, money laundering, arson, trafficking in stolen goods, prostitution, and firearms trafficking.

(c) Promoting and enhancing the Enterprise, the Enterprise’s reputation, and its members’ and associates’ activities.

(d) Assisting, supporting, and obtaining assistance and support from, the regional, national, and international Hells Angels in their activities, including: legal matters, rivalries (such as the rivalry with the Outlaws Motorcycle Club), exchanging information about current membership, exchanging information about criminal investigations, relying on other Hells Angels Chapter members to assist the enterprise in furthering its criminal conduct, and aiding and protecting other Hells Angels’ members in their criminal activity.

(e) Using the enterprise to facilitate the possession and use of controlled substances.

(f) Funding the operation of the Hells Angels.

(g) Promoting a climate of fear and keeping victims, potential informants, witnesses, and others in fear of the Enterprise and in fear of its members and associates through violence and threats of violence.

Habeas What

Buried deep in paragraph (d), the accusation that it is somehow criminal to gather and distribute “information about criminal investigations” may be the most Nixonian in the entire indictment.

None of the allegations have been proven. They don’t have to be. The defendants have already been punished – some of them more severely than others. In an age of mass media, gutless reporters and a national attention span psychologically defended against and so shortened by fire hoses of bullshit all prosecutors have to do is stall until the defendants have no choice but to give up. In the age of bullshit that’s what federal justice is. For the last two months the case has been litigated in front of a loose pack of federal magistrates. It does not appear to have been actually assigned to a federal district judge until earlier this month.

A standard prosecutorial strategy in all these cases is to simply hide the evidence – if there is evidence. Sometimes the evidence is actually secret and at other times it is concealed by hiding it as leaves hide in forests. “Evidence” usually means illusions and lies created by and uttered by informers who are either in a jam, or who have made a career of betraying anyone stupid enough to befriend them, or who are psychopaths or who are mentally ill in a less interesting way than the psychopaths usually are.

Two Motions

This month the lead defendant, Dan Bifield, has filed two motions to try to discover what prosecutors think they know and why they think they know it.

On August 1, Bifield’s attorney Allen Burnside asked Federal District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie “to compel the government to disclose the identities (i.e., name, address, birth date, telephone number, and social security number) of the confidential informants who allegedly provided the information used to establish that the defendant conspired with the other named defendant’s to distribute drugs and firearms and launder money.”

Two days later Burnside wrote the judge that the defendants:

“…have been charged in a 91 count indictment alleging various crimes associated with the Hells Angels organization. Mr. Bifield is the lead defendant and is named in 21 of the counts, including 10 of the RICO acts contained in Count One. The initial discovery released in this case is 4,682 pages, and per the written disclosure order, is not to be reviewed by the defendants outside the presence of their attorneys. The audio portion of the discovery has not yet been received, but is expected to come as a terabyte of recordings on a separate hard drive. Our computer expert estimates that one terabyte at CD quality will contain around 2,000 hours (83 days) of audio. Mr. Bifield has the right, and has indicated that he wishes to listen to, all of the recordings in the case. It would be almost impossible to have someone from the Federal Public Defender’s Office sit in a room at the jail while years worth of tapes are listened to and discovery read. Panel lawyers would have the same difficulty and the cost per hour to have 20 lawyers bill their time for this would be astronomical. Attorneys for the defendant request that the court direct that a designated ‘reading and listening room’ be made available at the jails or at the courthouse.”

As of August 15, the judge had not yet ruled on either motion. A discovery hearing is set for August 24. There is no trial date although it is remotely possible that a trial might begin as early as April 2013.



, , ,

69 Responses to “Checking On Bifield Et Al.”

  1. rollinnorth Says:

    Best advice: STFU!

  2. rollinnorth Says:

    If you are under arrest, you want a lawyer. If you are not under arrest, you want to leave.

  3. KK Says:

    Pig: If you don’t that Miranda rights go state to state then you sound like a local pig right? Are you the nice approach pig during interogation?

    Hello KK please be seated let me take those cuffs off, how you doing? how is so & so doing these days? would you like a smoke,soda,crackers?

    I’d really like to help you out here, and I think we can if we work together. LOL fkn pigs.


  4. Glenn S. Says:

    Friend of HAMC said: “…many of you seem to be worried about the lawyers on this case and disparage their ability.”

    Its just that many of us have experience with the criminal “justice” system. Some of us have had the dubious benefit of legal representation from public defenders not willing to take the time or energy or resources to go all out in defense of their client, and/or have career ambitions that conflict with the best interests of their client. (And just who IS the client, anyway? The defendant or “society”, that pays their salaries?) Or we’ve only had enough money for fixer lawyers who will not take a case to trial, but will only use relationships with prosecutors, cops, and judges to negotiate a plea bargain, and will not jeopardize those relationships in defense of a client. Or we’ve been represented by intelectually lazy lawyers, lawyers who act as if the client’s input is irrelavant and just go through the motions of defense.

    I’m not suggesting this is the case here, but the legal profession as a whole has not earned my respect. Maybe the lawyers will give 100% in this case. Its high profile, and the recommendations of their clients and others in future might be something they want badly enough to give the case the extra effort it deserves.

    Sadly, no matter what, the defense can never match the resources of the prosecution, if for no reason other than the prosecution has the power to grant immunity or reduced sentences to its witnesses, and the power to bring the weight of law enforcement down on defense witnesses.

    Excuse my cynicism regarding the legal process. It is based on firsthand experience.

  5. rollinnorth Says:

    Sorry to hear that, Glenn S. Sadly, your experience is all too common. But there are those who will fight hard against the state or Uncle Sam. Hopefully, that is what is happening in this case.
    Another tool against the overwhelming power of the prosecution is letting legislators know how much that latest law they plan to pass will actually cost taxpayers.
    Every little bit helps.


  6. Rebel Says:

    Dear Glenn S,,

    Very well and cogently said. I couldn’t agree more or have said this as well.

    I suspect that the defenders in this case do not yet know what they are up against. But they seem to have the will to win and that is half the battle.


  7. Junior Says:

    friend of HAMC: I dont think you are any friend at all. I think you are a P.O.S. trying to make those interested in the Bifield case just relax and think everything is OK.

    Everything is not OK, I speak with Dan often and he complains of his attorneys apparent lack of interest in the case every time we speak. So how is it that your story contradicts what’s coming from the horses mouth? Fucking pig troll. -Junior

  8. Not Surprised Says:

    Many people from all walks read this site, including some friendly attorneys. Even some attorneys publicly connected with certain 1% clubs. Dan Bifield is a man who is loved on several continents and that is a fact.

    It would not come as a surprise if what “Friend” says is true. I’m not saying it is, only that IF it is, it is because of the club Dan represents and the man he is and the respect he commands. At any rate, I hope it is true.

  9. Shyster Says:


    You a cop? Respect for the “handle.”

    Tell the readers the best road to take when being investigated by you … Remain silent! I have said it before so here goes:

    Cop: come here I wanna talk to you OR do you know why I pulled you over?

    Citizen: Am I free to leave?

    Cop: I just want to ask you some questions, etc ….

    Citizen : Am I free to leave?

    Cop: No.

    Citizen: I want a lawyer (say nothing else and only turn over license, insurance and registration if it’s a traffic stop)

    And don’t submit to ANY searches of your vehicle/bike OR your person. That includes removing your helmet, sunglasses and bandana.


  10. Phuquehed Says:

    I think Junior put up a website address that taught the things to say and do also. Hey Junior, what’s that link again?

  11. Chip Says:

    Greetings All:

    FriendofHAMC: Your August 23rd., 2012 comment is pure fiction. If it’s fiction you’ve come upon second or third hand, perhaps it’s understandable. If it’s fiction you’ve somehow decided to print to persuade the rest of us that all is well, welcome to the Judas Club. The fact of the matter is that the Public Pretender (sic) is either overwhelmed with too large of a case load to be able to care, doesn’t care, or is too clueless to care. What Mr. Bifield is being advised to do now is to “just give up and plead guilty”. I don’t come upon that information second or third hand, I come about it by actual telephone conversations with the man, as in recent telephone conversations where we try to cram as much information into the ten minutes allowed before the automatic recording comes on and warns us we have one minute remaining, then 15 seconds remaining, then click. In your comment you claim to have “sources” of information concerning the quality and activity of the court appointed lawyers, great! Only one problem though, nobody else does and that includes the detainee himself (I don’t use defendant as there has been no trial and isn’t likely to be one until well into 2013 given the “speedy” pace at which this whole convoluted mess is moving, Detainee seems more appropriate to the un-schooled such as myself). In other words, Dan doesn’t know anything about what you are talking about nor has he ever praised the quality of his legal “team”, which it turns out are one or two disinterested lawyers who have already advised him to throw in the towel.

    There are those who could properly defend this man against this slew of crap thrown up against the wall to see if any of it will stick. Problem is they don’t work pro bono (for free), and in point of fact are looking for somewhere in the neighborhood of 150K and let’s be honest, if we had a benefit party followed by a benefit ride every Friday and Saturday between now and when this thing goes to trial, unless Bill Gates shows up on his Can-Am (trailored) in a generous mood, isn’t a realistic expectation. In our so called Justice System if a person is unable to afford legal representation, they are to be appointed such which would be fine if those who locked the person up had to abide by the same quality as the Detainee. It doesn’t work that way. The System has unlimited resources to afford overwhelming odds against anything it may provide to the victim/detainee/target.

    To be sure, there are those of us out there who are doing all we can to support and remain loyal to Dan. “Little People”, if you will. We send letters, cards, take telephone calls, send books and magazines, buy related merchandise from and in our quietest moments agonize over our small ability to make much of a dent in this massive problem which looms large on the not too distant horizon. The System knows who we are. They open our incoming mail, listen to and record our telephone calls, copy down our license plate numbers at events and have a running count on how many times we visit the Jail. Our cell phones get the ding dong treatment unless we remove the battery. We remain squeeky clean because to do otherwise is just too risky and we won’t be of much use if we flaunt ourselves and find ourselves not visitors but being visited. But, know this: WE AREN’T GOING AWAY AND WE AREN’T GIVING UP AND NEITHER IS DAN. And, finally also know this: If you are truly a “Friend of his Club” you’d have gotten in contact with at least one of us by now and told us all about these wonderful efforts on the part of the Public Pretenders and I know nobody who has heard a word from you or even who you are but I’d lean towards the opinion that you are perhaps a diversion or tool who is trying to persuade us to let down our guard and somehow believe all is well when we know otherwise. Please don’t send rebel your e-mail address to send to me as I won’t respond, my advice to you would be to write a letter to Dan so that you an enlighten him as to all the wonderful progress his so called legal team is making, he could probably use a good laugh right about now.

  12. Glenn S. Says:

    Rebel said: “Dear Glenn S,,

    Very well and cogently said. I couldn’t agree more or have said this as well.”

    That is the highest complement I’ve received in a long time. Thank you.

  13. Rebel Says:

    Dear Glenn S.

    Poor you.


  14. Rebel Says:

    Dear Chip,

    I believe that FriendofHAMC may be one of the defense attorneys in the case. I can’t say for sure because I really have no idea. But my psychic friend in Dubai thinks this person is a defense attorney in this case. For what that is worth.


  15. Rebel Says:

    Dear Shyster,

    Excellent advice.


  16. Pig Says:


    Glad to answer any questions I can. Don’t want to be disrespectful and hijack this thread though. These folks are trying to help Dan. If you have questions go over to the diological saloon and I’ll answer what I can.

  17. Glenn S. Says:

    Chip said: “What Mr. Bifield is being advised to do now is to “just give up and plead guilty”.”

    That is the public defender’s standard line. What generally happens after the defendant or detainee says “Not just no but hell no” is that the public defender says to himself: “Well if this ungrateful loser doesn’t appreciate the lengths I’m willing to go to to get him the best plea bargain a lack of money can buy, I’ll not give this case any effort at all. What is he gonna do, fire me? And I won’t actually tell him this, but he’ll figure it out when I display a complete lack of interest.

    I had a cell partner in the Lexington County Jail who was told by his public defender, the daughter of the then comissioner of the SC department of corrections, that he would rot in jail until he agreed to plead guilty. I wrote a grievance for him to the judicial standards office of the SC Supreme Court, and all that happened was that he received a form letter in reply that instructed him not to discuss his grievance with anyone under threat of contempt charges. Six months after I was in the penitentiary, he arrived and told me he finally broke down and pleaded guilty. I was once charged with Felon in Posession of a Pistol when the pistol in question was in my girlfriend’s purse and she was adament it was hers. At first, the public defender was completely disinterested, but then he learned he had grown up with my father. At that point, and not before, he interviewed my girlfriend. The charge was dismissed at the preliminary hearing with very little effort on his part. I was glad to get out, but pissed that this public defender needed some extra little thing to be willing actually defend me.

    If someone is stuck with the public defender, the best and only good thing he can have going for him is friends and/or family that are knowlegable about the law, looking over the public defender’s shoulder, calling bullshit when necessary, like Rebel, Chip, and Junior just did.

  18. Shyster Says:

    Glenn S.,

    I really hope that you and I can someday sit down and share a 12-pack. I would wager that you would change your position on Public Defenders in about 30 minutes. Take care amigo. Your ex-public defender friend from Los Angeles.


  19. Glenn S. Says:

    I no longer drink, but I’ll buy you one or twelve if we ever meet. I think we’ve spoken on this subject before, and I believe you are sincere and dedicated to your clients. I also believe things might be different in big cities, where lawyers and judges and higher ranking cops don’t have the tight social network, family ties, etc. But I have firsthand knowledge of the way things work in SC, and the case we are discussing is not only happening in SC, but is happening in the part of SC that has, historically, been one of the worst when it comes to fair trials (York County). When I was in prison, and fellow convicts would ask me to have a look at their trial transcripts and help with their post-conviction relief applications, I was often amazed at the obvious willful ignorance of the el cheapo lawyers and public defenders. It often seemed like the public defender threw the case.

    Sure, there are exceptions, but as a rule, defendants represented by public defender in South Carolinas are far less likely to have the benefit of a dedicated expert advocate that is motivated to win at trial, and far more likely to receive a long sentence after conviction. Or they do have good lawyers appointed by the court, but those lawyers focus their time and energies on paying clients.

    The mainstream culture is a little different here in SC than LA. This is the Bible belt, the citizenry is highly focused on crime and punishment, old testiment style, and has never met a Tough New Law it didn’t love. Constitutional rights are regarded as mere inconvieniences for the protectors of society. Culturally, an acquital in a criminal trial is regarded as a criminal that got away with it. There is the strong belief that people without the money to pay for professional services, be it life saving medical treatment or legal advocacy, do not deserve it.

    The best description I’ve heard of public defenders vs. circuit solicitors hereabouts is this: They are like professional wrestlers. They put on a show for an audience, but their primary purpose is to not hurt one another.

Leave a Reply