A Jury Of Their Peers

December 7, 2012

Features, News

Unlike many big motorcycle club cases, the racketeering case against the Rock Hell Nomads in South Carolina is definitely going to trial.

Twenty people have been indicted in that case, titled U.S. v. Bifield et al. They are, Daniel Eugene Bifield, Mark William Baker, David Channing Oiler, Bruce James Long, Richard Thrower, Robert David Pryor, Frederick Keach, Jr., Frank Enriquez, Jr., Donald Boersma, Lisa Ellen Bifield, Johanna Looper, Kerry Chitwood, Carlos Hernandez, Ronald Dean Byrum, Jr., James Rhodus, Bruce Ranson Wilson, Thomas McManus Plyler, Jamie Hobbs Long, Somying Anderson and Trent Allen Brown. Eighteen or 19 of them will probably be tried as a group.

Five of the defendants have asked the court to sever their cases from the coming spectacle. David Allen Pryor, Bruce Ranson Wilson, Somying Anderson and Kerry Chitwood have had those motions denied. James Rhodus, who entered his motion to sever this week, may still win his own trial. A sixth defendant, Frederick Keach, seems to have disappeared from the case and is rumored to be cooperating with prosecutors.

Although the freedom of the dozen and a half defendants, four of whom are women, is in jeopardy in this case what will really be tried in Columbia beginning February 11, 2013 is the issue of which freedoms Americans should be allowed. The Bifield case isn’t about what the sophistical phrase “criminal enterprise.” Jurors in the case will really be asked to decide whether the late 18th Century Romantic notion of freedom is still viable in the new millennium.

The lawyers in Columbia already know this and the proof of what they know is in the voir dire questions they wrote last month. These are the questions the prosecutors and defenders will use to decide whether to accept or reject potential jurors. Taken as a whole the questions mirror what the lawyers imagine citizens in South Carolina can be led to think. The following were proposed by attorneys on both sides and are arranged by topic.


Do you have any particular views about firearms or people who own firearms? Do you have any particular views about the ownership, possession, or use of firearms? Do you have any particular views about the Second Amendment right to bear arms, or have you ever taken a position about the Second Amendment right to bear arms? Have you every contributed money to, or participated in, an organization or person(s) who advocated for gun control laws or policies, or have you ever held or expressed any opinion about gun control? Do you own any firearms, and if so, how many and what kinds? If you owned firearms at one time, but do not own any now, please explain what it is that has caused you not to own any firearms now? Have you ever bought, sold traded, or gifted, a firearm to or from an individual who was not a licensed dealer? Do you or a family member own an assault rifle, silencer, or machine gun? Have you sold a firearm to another individual?


Have you ever had a motorcycle driver’s license? If yes, do you currently have a valid motorcycle driver’s license or has it expired? Have you or an immediate family member owned a motorcycle in the last twenty years? If so, when and what type of motorcycle? Have you or a close family member owned a motorcycle or obtained a motorcycle driver’s license?

Motorcycle Clubs

Have you or any member of your family ever had a negative experience with any member of an organization that rides motorcycles? If so, please describe this experience in the space below. Would that experience make it difficult for you to impartially sit as a juror in a case where some of the defendants are in a club for motorcycle enthusiasts? The U.S. Constitution states that every defendant charged with a criminal offense is presumed to be innocent; the government has the burden of proving the defendant’s guilt and must do so beyond a reasonable doubt. Could you, acting as a juror, apply these principles to facts presented to you so that the government and defendants are given a fair and impartial hearing even though some of the defendants may be members of, or associated with, motorcycle clubs such as the Hells Angels or Red Devils? Have you formed a negative opinion of motorcycle clubs such as the Hells Angels or Red Devils to the extent that you could not sit as a fair and impartial juror in a case involving these organizations? Have you or someone you know belonged to, or associated with, a motorcycle clubs, including Hells Angels, Red Devils, Southern Gentlemen, Death Dealers, God’s Few, Outlaws, or Pagans?


The Government has used informants and may call informants to testify. An informant may be afforded some benefit in exchange for cooperation. Do any of you have any strong feelings, one way or the other, in connection with the Government’s use of informants in investigating or prosecuting criminal activity? The Government may call cooperating witnesses who have been involved in the criminal activity that is the subject of this trial. These accomplices may be afforded some benefit for their cooperation. Do any of you have any strong feelings, one way or the other, in connection with the Government’s use of such an accomplice as a testifying witness?

Domestic Spying

The Government may utilize telephone calls intercepted by wiretap and recorded meetings. Do any of you have any strong feelings, one way or the other, in connection with the Government’s use of such wiretaps or recordings?


Do you have any tattoos? If so, please describe the tattoo(s).


Do you watch a television show called the Sons of Anarchy? If so, who is your favorite character? If so, do you realize that this show is a work of fiction? Have you read any stories, or ever seen reports on television or the internet, concerning allegations of wrongdoing by motorcycle clubs such as the Hells Angels or Red Devils in the United States? If yes, would the exposure to this information affect your ability to be fair and impartial to the subjects of those stories? Have you watched episodes of the television show Sons of Anarchy?


Do you support or subscribe to the mission of legalizing marijuana or cocaine or methamphetamine or other controlled substances advocated by groups such as National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML)?



, , ,

35 Responses to “A Jury Of Their Peers”

  1. Snow Says:

    Well hell,
    yes, no, could be, I don’t fucking know…… Hell of a way to seek freedom..God speed to yall and all political prisoners in the Amerikan system.

  2. Paladin Says:

    A lot of these questions are self incriminating. I’d rather face a contempt charge, than answer them, especially since these questions appear to require a written response.

    BTW, nice video. Too bad it’s made by a clothing company that coincidentally sells motorcycles.

    Long May You Ride,


  3. Base Says:

    Oh hell,,

    Anyone think they are not stacking the jury? If so.

    Would you also believe my ol’lady’s Jack Russel shits gold nuggets?

  4. Base Says:


    No doupt,,,

  5. Tim Says:

    It sure looks like they are,

  6. Glenn S. Says:

    So anybody that supports the second amendment, thinks the war on drugs is a waste of time, and believes that anybody that would betray his friends is a piece of shit will likely be disqualified from jury service.

    Great title for this one, Rebel.

  7. Jim666 Says:

    @ Paladin

    The factory has it wrong, they should sell the bikes for $45,00

    and the tee shirts for $16,000,
    hell they,d make more money, almost everyone on the face of the earth owns a tee shirt.

    @ Base, you know it.

  8. Rashomon Says:

    And do you believe that pigs can fly? Yeah … they just flew by in a helicopter 5 minutes ago.

    Where the fuck does it all end?

  9. 10guage Says:

    So much for A JURY OF YOUR PEERS…. FTF

  10. AVAGOVFFV Says:

    As I sit here on my bike breathing in the cold fall mountain air, yeah I get it…. Jurors will allow the government, local law enforcers ATF, DEA, Homeland Security to over reach their judical power by withholding sealed information, lying and using assholes that would turn on their mother to save their ass. I want to believe that our jury system will work as intended but the manipulation of evidence by the cops, feds, prosecutors and then add the whale turd snitches it’s a tough road for us all.

    Viva Los Vagos

  11. Tooj Says:

    it’s clear the headings of the questions show where the questionable evidence exists. the numbers of actual questions in each topic seem to order them by priority.

    these areas may be where juror experience and attitude would sway a verdict one way or the other. a big part of the selection process for attorneys, but i could be wrong. i only play an attorney in bars with drunk chicks for giggles.

    sutter must be licking his chops to weigh in on this one publicly, since he has been mentioned indirectly once again. (fuck SOA and the ‘pseudo-biker movement’ on tv! ya hear?)

    when it comes to ‘the system’ it is adversarial. it’s about winning. the laws are the rules and boundaries to the game (advantage to those aware of them; and there are a LOT of them). insinuation and verbal bending are the norm to try to discover some sort of advantage over your adversary. both sides will know the score upon final selection.

    i see things stacked by way of eliminating anyone close to a peer of a club member. same with extreme prejudices the other way. a bunch of folks that know very little of anything about anything. again, i could be wrong, i’m not a psychologist either, but i’m willing to analyze you for free.

    what bothers me with ‘the system’ is that it ignores we are still talking about human beings and they are facing a system, not a human. humans in the system? quite often more concerned with their career trajectories than what they are actually doing, they have also abstracted human beings.

    abstracted into: tattooed motorcycle riding ganster gun running anti-government drug addled criminals with an overarching label ‘motorcycle gang’. nicely packaged and reprogrammed for public consumption…

  12. Glenn S. Says:

    The court system is a game of skill and resources, more dungeons and dragons than high minded morality. Psychologists determine the ideal juror, predisposed to either convict or acquit, and the prosecution usually wins that game because they have greater resources and greater ability to collect information about jurors (and because the ignorant outnumber the informed these days). If a judge was truly impartial, he would limit voir dire to legitimate questions, rather than allow the government to stack the jury with those predisposed to convict because of a lack of understanding or ability to relate to the defendants. Its kinda like the “trial by ordeal” of the middle ages, where the ordeal was likely to kill you without divine intervention.

  13. Tooj Says:

    i still find it tragic and fascinating that groups of men that decided they didn’t need an organization like the a.m.a. to validate being a motorcycle club has gone this far. folks have fear of what they don’t understand but this is ‘ordeal’ then trial.

  14. RLG Says:

    “If a judge was truly impartial, he would limit voir dire to legitimate questions”

    How could we have 98% convictions with such a policy?

  15. Glenn S. Says:

    Yeah, I almost forgot that accurate adjudication of actual guilt and innocence are possible side effects of the process, rather than the intention. Shit, I’ve been watching too much TV.

  16. Paladin Says:

    @ Glenn S,

    The whole process is really nothing more than live theater, and gives a lot of validity to the statement, “We went to court today, and saw just-us”.

    Long may You Ride,


  17. Ol'LadyRider Says:

    I’m with Paladin. There is no way I would have completed this questionnaire and would have gladly done my 5 days for contempt. I think they will need a very large jury pool for this one.

  18. Paladin Says:

    @ Ol’LadyRider,

    Anyone who is stupid enough to fill out one of these questionnaires, will now be on the radar, and vulnerable to the same agencies as the suspects in this case.

    Five days in the can, for “contempt of stupidity” is a small price to pay, when you consider the possibilities of what might happen to you, after filling out that questionnaire.

    Long May You Ride,


  19. Marine Says:

    I saw Randy (Diesel) this weekend at our company Xmas party (formally his company too). It was so sad to see such a good man totally broken. I have known Randy for many years and I can tell you for a fact he is innocent of the charges against him. He “might” have done something dumb but knowing him I assure you he had no illegal intent. Randy wouldn’t talk about the case but I could see it in his eyes he has suffered. Anyone that knows Randy cannot fathom the governments case against him. It is a travesty and I am ashamed of my government that it would go after a man like him. Randy we all love you and we are praying that god will intervene on your behalf!

    (This message posted using the secure TOR browser, the source IP is random and untraceable for my protection)

  20. Glenn S. Says:

    Someone that refuses to answer the questionnaire will, no doubt, be automatically disqualified. And I’m sure that’s the idea. The type of person that would willingly answer would also be likely to support government and law enforcement, and would be predisposed to convict.

  21. Truble Says:

    have read the questions and think we should have that in the court room tyo show the judge!

  22. Ol'LadyRider Says:

    “A Jury of Their Peers” is an apt and telling title for this article, and cements the long-standing problem with this system. Will any of these folk have a jury of peers, of culturally competent persons therefore capable of a measure of objectivity? The voir dire questions indicate that both the prosecution and defense know that they will not. The questions about television are probably the most annoying indicator. This trial would have to be held on the flippin Moon to have an objective jury. Everyone involved knows it. What a sham. This isn’t the first time I’ve wondered if there is some sort of legal recourse for recognizing that the right to a jury of peers is not being upheld. Why can’t defendants require provenance that the persons in the jury box are, in fact, peers with similar experiences, similar views, a similar cultural base, and similar circumstances?

    I know, I know. Silly dreamer I am.

  23. WARTHOG Says:

    For what it’s worth, here’s how I understand the jury selection process. The potential jurors fill out the questionnaire and are then interviewed by both attorneys in front of the judge. Each attorney has a set number of jurors they may dismiss according to how they’ve answered the questions and the follow-up interview. I’m not sure what that number is. They are also interviewed in a set order. The attorneys have a good idea who they want to keep and who dismiss by the voir dire and the interview is for borderline jurors. The extremist for either side are weeded out through this process. The problem in this case is the center leans much closer to the prosecution. It will be very difficult to find 12 “peers” that have any knowledge of MCs that are not eliminated by the prosecution. In a case like this, “fair and impartial” will be unlikely. Still better than waiving your right for jury trial and have a judge decide what fair is.
    Good luck to all those involved.




  24. Junior Says:

    If a defendant believes in personal freedom, motorcycles, guns and small government, a “jury of his peers” would believe in those things also. Dan, I hope you & the other defendants get a jury of your peers.

    …Rebel, great site. What you do is appreciated. Personally, won’t be posting much here anymore; hope all of you on this site posing as something that you are NOT are exposed for what you truly ARE. -Junior

  25. Phuquehed Says:

    Hate to see it happening to you Junior. Can’t say much except I hope it goes by quickly for you and nothing happens on the outside during to cause you any extra grief.

  26. RLG Says:

    @Marine, TOR is untraceable by Rebel, but who knows for three letter agencies. (TOR is part funded by Dept. of the Navy and there are SSL cert-in-the-middle vulnerabilities)

  27. Drifter Says:

    @ Junior, what a drag , I thank you for your input, and enlightening me to the jurisdiction protocol which I have studied at length after you posted some very informative comments about it. Hope the best for you man.


  28. Junior Says:

    Always good to get positive feedback. I’ll post from time to time, it will just be less frequently. Remember, in cases where there is no corpus delecti (injured party) and no formal verified complaint, courts must obtain in personam jurisdiction to proceed; without it the court can’t proceed. In order for the court to obtain in personam jurisdiction in these types of cases it requires that you assist in your own prosecution by entering into an agreement with the court. Avoid entering into those agreements with the court and you avoid their charges. Doing so tends to upset those black robed individuals. One got so pissed off at me years ago that he adjourned court while I was in the middle of another question designed to corner him, and gave up on obtaining jurisdiction. I asked him if he really expected me to assist in my own prosecution which infuriated him, but I walked out, the four original charges disappeared, never went on my record and was never charged a fine nor was an arrest warrant issued. A victory indeed! Good Luck in all of your uphill battles Drifter. -Junior

  29. Snow Says:

    Ì have also enjoyed your input over the years, always thoughtful and informative. Stay free, respect. Snow

  30. Freedom Says:

    There was a federal court appearance for all the defendants today at 2:00pm and I must report it was a Kangaroo Court. The judge made it very clear that she is not impartial when she denied a motion by all but 2 of the defendants attorneys to move the trial out due to the massive load of new evidence provided by the government. When the government asked for the same consideration several months back the judge quickly agreed.

    It is obvious to anyone watching these proceedings that judge Curry is anything but impartial and is without a doubt siding with the government. The judge has yet to grant a single request from the defendants in this case. Judge Curry was once a DA and her allegiance to the government continues to shine through.

    The court room itself is a circus and they do not have a good plan to accommodate all the people. The audio equipment wasn’t even working today and they shuffled people to and fro.

    This entire case is just one big show for the government. There will be no justice served as all the cards are being stacked against the defendants. Judge Curry even had the nerve to say “if you all do not know what a 3 point plea reduction is you better ask your attorneys”. In other words you better consider a plea deal because I am going to bury you if you go to trial and lose.

    Fred Keach was nowhere to be seen today. It is assumed he has taken a deal and is cooperating with the government. There is also another mystery confidential informant that will only be revealed 5 days before they testify.

    The defendants in custody look pretty rough as you might expect. They have been through hell but they all seem to be holding up.

    No one will see any justice in this trial. The government will do what they want while throwing the constitution out of the window.

  31. WARTHOG Says:

    Fuck me. Thanks for the update, Freedom.




  32. Jim666 Says:

    Thnx Freedom for Giving us more insight to this fucked up mess,

    Respects, Jim666

  33. Paladin Says:

    If this case does indeed go to trial, Judge Curry’s track record of partiality toward the government’s case, combined with any prosecutorial misconduct, could win the defendents a new trial, dismissal, or at the very least, a major sentence reduction.

    In the recent past, there have been a number of federal cases that have crumbled when appealed, due to prosecutorial misconduct and government bias. If I remember correctly, one federal prosecutor was disbarred, and others were sanctioned. based on their “unsportsmanlike” conduct.

    Long May You Ride,


  34. WWB Says:

    Paladin, let us hope this is the case


  35. felon Says:

    13 1/2. 12 jurors 1 judge and half a chance

Leave a Reply