South Carolina Federal Railroad

December 19, 2012

All Posts, News

There was a hearing in Columbia, South Carolina for most of the defendants in the Rock Hell Nomads Hells Angels case and Judge Cameron McGowan Currie mostly ruled against the defense. When she dies and goes to Hell she will be endlessly tried for racketeering.

Much of the case against the defendants remains secret – or at least secret for all practical purposes. Earlier this month prosecutors hit defendants with an “evidence dump.” Evidence dumps do not lead to justice but they do lead to convictions and plea deals. One defense attorney described the discovery in the case as “so massive as almost to be beyond description.”

Defenders in U.S. v. Bifield et al. were already confronted with two terabytes of discovery and the lawyer quoted above complained that his staff “has not yet finished an initial review.” Then two weeks ago, on December 4, “the government completed another massive evidence disclosure that included 5,882 photographs, 137 audio clips and 20,851 pages of phone records.” The point of these dumps is to twist the concept of pretrial discovery into a prosecutorial weapon. The government’s case is now a leaf hidden in a forest.

The lead defendant in the case, Dan Bifield, tried to separate the relevant evidence from the irrelevant with a “Motion for a Bill of Particulars” on two of the charges in the current indictment. Bifield and his wife Lisa, Bruce Long and David Pryor appear to have been entrapped by one or more of the snitches in the case. There were an unfathomable number of informants including a CHS-1, what seems to be two CHS-4s and “an individual described as the ‘girlfriend’ of CHS-4.” “The two primary confidential informants used during the investigation” are identified as “CHS-3, a/k/a Midas: and CHS-2, a/k/a RD.” Those two are also known as Joe Dillulio and Marty “Cowboy” Deloach. Bifield’s motion argued that “the government informant is the only individual to propose a robbery and it is not legally possible to conspire with a government agent.” Yesterday, Judge Currie disagreed.

Motion For Continuance

Because the evidence against the defendants is maliciously “massive” Bifield’s main defender, Allen B. Burnside, asked Currie to delay the trial by two months. Some people would consider that to be a reasonable request.

In a comparable case in Detroit, titled United States v. Scott William Sutherland, et al., a more rational judge appointed a “Coordinating Discovery Attorney for the defendants” to assist defenders comprehend a smaller volume of evidence than defenders must now analyze in the South Carolina case. The Detroit case has been unfolding since May 2011. The third indictment in that case was voted out about the same time the Bifield defendants were being rounded up. There is still no trial date in Detroit although there is a status conference scheduled for January 7.

But Currie has been in a rush to get on with her sentencing since the case began six months ago. She acts like a woman who is afraid she’ll miss her pre-paid honeymoon. She made a couple of decisions on scheduling yesterday. In one ruling she allowed defendants an extra month, until January 16 at 4 p.m., to take the government’s offer of reduced punishment in return for pleading guilty. In the other ruling she refused to reschedule the trial. Jury selection will still begin in five weeks and the trial will begin on February 11.

As for the mysterious CHS-4 (or CHS-4s if it turns out one of them is a top secret clone) and what kind of deal he made to betray his friends: “Materials concerning this individual shall be produced by the Government to defense counsel five (5) business days prior to the individual being called as a witness in the trial of this matter.”

First Guilty Plea

Currie also accepted the first guilty plea in this case yesterday. Trent Allen Brown, who pled not guilty on October 12 to a charge of conspiring with “others” to possess and distribute old school, new school, oxycodone and clonazepam pled guilty to a “lesser included charge” contained somewhere in the accusation about drug dealing.

Brown and his attorney will now have until 4 p.m. on January 16 to work out the details of his plea and sentencing agreement with prosecutors. Then the next morning he, and anyone else who sees no way out but to make a deal, will stand up and lie to the judge that they pled guilty of his their free wills in a vcuum without promises or duress from their accusers. The formal acceptance of a plea deal is one of the most cynical rituals in federal court. After you witness a few dozen of the things you can almost smell the fire and brimstone.


, , ,

9 Responses to “South Carolina Federal Railroad”

  1. WARTHOG Says:

    “If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed. If you do read the newspaper, you’re misinformed.” – Mark Twain

  2. Glenn S. Says:

    RVN69 said: “If the law and the Constitution and Bill of Rights still held any sway in a courtroom travesties like this wouldn’t happen.”

    Yes, its become the new normal. But it shouldn’t go unremarked on.

    Freedom said: “The fact that it is not in the main stream media at all is troubling to me.”

    Me too. I don’t know these particular men or the details of their case. But from time to time, I do know people who have legal troubles, and I do know of the disconnect between what is reported in the media and the reality of it. Generally speaking, the media takes the side of law enforcement, and the tone of these stories is carefully slanted in such a way to give credibility to the government’s case, but in such a way as to shield them from being sued for libel. I Googled this case, and it does not surprise me to see that the media has not reported any specifics of what the accused are actually accused of. (i.e. Defendant Jim Smith is accused of selling one point two ounces of cocaine to Defendant Bill Jones at one o’clock in the afternoon at Joe’s Bar in Slingshit, S.C. in the presence of federal agent John Asshole and confidential informant Sam Rodent.) Instead, they just say that the defendants are accused of not-very-specific crimes on not-very-specific dates, adding a whole lot of unrelated, maybe-true maybe-not, otherwise innocuous “facts” in ways that make the non-criminal seem sinister, peppering the story with words like “racketeering” and “conspiracy”, but again giving no specifics. The viewer or reader got more specifics about prospecting, from the media, than he did about what the defendants supposedly did to merit being held without bail. And every one of the media stories are from the days immediately following the arrests. Then, nothing. (Does the citizenry wonder at the absence of reported facts and so suspect the government’s case is bullshit? Do they worry that they themselves or a loved one might one day be subjected to the injustices of the system? I doubt it.) One would think that the media would want to follow up on such a sensationalized adventure tale of the forces of good at work Keeping Us Safe (sarcasm intended).

  3. Freedom Says:

    There is something very wrong with this case but I do not exactly know what it is. The fact that it is not in the main stream media at all is troubling to me. The lack of publicity allows the government and the bought and paid for judge to do whatever they want without fear of public outcry. Thank god for Rebel, without him we wouldn’t know anything.

    If you love any of the defendants maybe it is time to start getting the word out on what is going on. No need to make anything up just tell people the truth and link them to Rebels site. We do not have a lot of time to blow the lid off this case.

    If I am wrong or out of line please say so. I do not want to harm the defendants case but at this point it seems everything is being stacked against them by the government. Can we not appeal to the PEOPLE to look at this case and see the disgusting injustice taking place?

    Defendants keep the faith, some of use out here are working hard to TRY and make sure you get a fair trial.


  4. Junior Says:

    Hey Defendants! Just remember Vince D was born that way, it’s not his fault. Stay strong, take NO fucking plea and you may be lighting your cigars with $100 dollar bills in a few years when you win on appeal and sue the gubmint for millions. -Junior

  5. Not Surprised Says:

    Only time I have ever heard of/seen a court extend the deadline for accepting a plea bargain offered was in a weak case by a tired old judge who’d rather do anything than sit through weeks and weeks of a complicated trial. Judges hate that shit.

    The attorneys were also tired and came back with a “best we can do” sort of scenario vs the real or contrived prospect of doing serious time.

    Someone once called it the “Justice Casino”

    I think it a good sign more pleas were not accepted.

    Means the defendants have heart

  6. Vince D Says:

    Hey Defendants!, Just remember how strong and tough you are! When told the meek shall inherit the earth the Hells Agels said,”FUCK THAT!”

  7. RVN69 Says:

    Glenn S.
    I think once upon a time in a galaxy far, far away, judges used to be impartial arbitrators of the facts and law. Now they mostly rule for the government, labels like liberal or conservative don’t really work. They both want control, just for different reasons. If the law and the Constitution and Bill of Rights still held any sway in a courtroom travesties like this wouldn’t happen. The government wouldn’t be able to do massive dumps of mostly irrelavent material to the defense right before trial in order to create an impression of a case they don’t have in order to get you to plead out. A conspiracy would have to be between 2 or more people who actually want to commit a crime, not manufactured by a government paid snitch. Snitches wouldn’t get paid millions to lie and be allowed to commit serious crimes just so they will tell the lies their government handlers want to hear. Those days are long gone now, like dinosaurs and cheap gas. Maybe someday some archeologist will dig up some court records and the actual law and wonder how we strayed so far.

    “I am not the devil, nor am I an angel, I am the bastard stepchild of both.”

  8. IO Says:

    With a RICO trial before them, this means that the CIs, snitches, and selfish bastards who will gladly point fingers for reduced prison sentences for their actual “crimes” by laying those “crimes” at the organization and co-defendants feet are all already in place and ready to go. The Feds are going to parade guns, drugs, stories of beatings and theft, and show the jury clothing that includes skulls and the colors red and white week after week. The pawns are in place and the story has been crafted out of the poison spit by liars and professional snitches.

    The defense and the strong and honorable co-defendants will be able to catch those bastards in their lies and make asses of them all during cross-examination. But! The most important thing for all those defense lawyers is to fully explain what and how someone actually violates the RICO Act. To fully and simply explain the difference between a string of crimes that may have been committed by various people who know of each other and how those string of crimes does not constitute a violation of RICO. There are 5 supposed facts that the Feds need to prove in order to get a RICO conviction but lately the government has been getting away with locking people up purely on ignorance of the law and the jury’s inability to understand the difference between a string of “crimes” and RICO.

    Fight hard and stay strong all you family members and supporters!

  9. Glenn S. Says:

    Rebel reports: “Bifield’s motion argued that “the government informant is the only individual to propose a robbery and it is not legally possible to conspire with a government agent.” Yesterday, Judge Currie disagreed.”

    That’s disturbing, since the legal definition of a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more parties to commit a crime (the “agreement” being the criminal act). So how can there be an agreement between two parties when the fact is not in dispute that one party is only pretending to agree and never intended to commit the crime?

Leave a Reply