This page apologizes for the unnecessary consternation it has caused some members of the Mongols Motorcycle Club with the posting below titled “New Battle Over Mongols Marks.”
The issue has been argued before three judges and it should have been decided last July. A fine lawyer, gentleman and scholar named David Blair-Loy who is the Legal Director of the ACLU Foundation of San Diego & Imperial Counties as well as informed and respectfully regarded members of the Mongols have asked me to provide a clarification. So I am. Blair-Loy corrects me:
“You write, “Former Mongols President Ruben ‘Doc’ Cavazos trademarked the Mongols insignia in the name of a corporation he owned.” While the government might make that argument, I don’t believe it’s legally correct.
“As I’ve written in the briefs and as Judge Cooper found, the Club acquired the trademarks by first use in 1969 and 1970 (top rocker and center patch, respectively). Trademarks do not need to be registered. The marks were eventually registered in 2003 and 2005. Though Doc signed the registration materials, he did so on behalf of the Club. The marks are collective membership marks. As a matter of law, only the Club, not any individual member, can own or register them.
“Though documents were executed purporting to assign the marks to Shotgun Productions LLC, those assignments were invalid as a matter of law, as Judge Cooper found. The Club later recorded corrective assignments in any event.”
Why Did Rebel make This Mistake
It seemed to me at the time I published the story that I need to raise this issue before July 15th. Just in case. I replied to Blair-Loy:
“Sure I hear. Doc could not trademark the Mongols marks because they already were collective membership marks that belonged to a group called the Mongols. As I understand, the government disputes this because trademarks were issued to Shotgun Productions. The government also, I suspect, will introduce a wiretapped conversation between Doc Cavazos and his son from February 14, 2008 in which they discuss extending the trademark to include the logo.
“What I find gray and what I think the DOJ intends to paint gray is what Doc forfeited. All the legalities in this case have always been a dog chasing his tail. The Mongols is a racket because it is a racket. Doc can forfeit the marks because he trademarked them. He could trademark them because a trademark was issued to Shotgun Productions. And there are two judges ruling on what seems to me to be essentially the same issue. Maybe I am wrong but I am not subtle enough to reduce the issue to something other than a dichotomy. Doc owned the trademarks or he didn’t. Maybe this is just something procedural that I am missing. Judge Wright ruled that Doc had something to forfeit. It seems to me that the government would not have asked Judge Wright to rule on this forfeiture if they were not up to something. I put the story up because I think the government is up to something. At first glance, the civil and the criminal rulings seem to contradict each other.”
In any event, I now know that Judge Wright cannot proceed with this forfeiture until sometime after August 12, 2010 when a series of depositions will be completed in his court. The Club is on top of the situation. Don’t worry. Be happy.
The complete text of Judge Wright’s forfeiture ruling of June 15th follows.
Case 2:08-cr-01201-ODW Document 3854 Filed 06/15/10
PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE AS TO RUBEN CAVAZOS [REGISTERED MARKS]
Upon consideration of the revised application of plaintiff United States of America for a preliminary order of forfeiture pursuant to Count Eighty-Five of the Indictment, defendant Ruben Cavazos’s plea of guilty to Count One of the Indictment, defendant’s plea agreement, defendant’s change of plea hearing, and the evidence presented with the government’s application, the court ORDERS as follows:
I. FORFEITABLE PROPERTY
For the reasons set out below, the following described property, and all rights, interests and privileges appurtenant thereto (hereinafter, the “Forfeitable Marks”) is subject to forfeiture to the United States. As alleged in Count Eighty-Five of the Indictment, the government has established the requisite nexus between the Forfeitable Marks and the offenses described in Count One of the Indictment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1963(a). All right, title, and interest of RUBEN CAVAZOS in the Forfeitable Marks is hereby forfeited to the United States. The Forfeitable Marks are more particularly described as:
1. The mark assigned Registration No. 3076731 (serial no. 78610213), issued to Mongol Nation on or about April 4, 2006, purportedly for use in commerce in connection with promoting the interests of persons interested in the recreation of riding motorcycles.
2. The mark assigned Registration No. 2916965 (serial no. 76532713), issued to Mongol Nation on or about January 11, 2005, purportedly for use in commerce in connection with promoting the interests of persons interested in the recreation of riding motorcycles.
II. IMPLEMENTATION
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as follows:
A. Upon the entry of this Order, and pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(6) and 18 U.S.C. § 1963(c) and (g), the United States Attorney General (or a designee) is authorized to seize the Forfeitable Marks and all rights, interests and privileges appurtenant thereto. To the extent the United States at any time identifies specific tangible property subject to forfeiture pursuant to this Order, the United States may apply for a seizure warrant to seize such property in the manner set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 1963(e), and shall move to amend this or any other then existing order of forfeiture in this matter to include such property, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(e).
B. Upon entry of this Order, the United States is further authorized to conduct any discovery for the purpose of identifying, locating, or disposing of property subject to forfeiture pursuant to this Order and Rule 32.2(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. “Any discovery” shall include all methods of discovery permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
C. Upon entry of this Order (and at any time in the future after amendment of the applicable order of forfeiture in this matter), the United States Attorney General (or a designee) is authorized to commence any applicable proceeding to comply with statutes governing third party rights, including giving notice of this and any other Order affecting specific property. The following paragraphs shall apply to any ancillary proceeding conducted in this matter:
(1) Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1963(l)(1), the United States Marshal shall forthwith publish once in a newspaper of general circulation notice of this order and any other Order affecting the Forfeitable Marks, and notice that any person, other than the defendant, having or claiming a legal interest in the property must file a petition with the Court within thirty (30) days of the publication of notice or receipt of actual notice, whichever is earlier. The United States shall also, to the extent practicable, provide written notice to any person known to have an alleged interest in the Forfeitable Property.
(2) Any person, other than defendant CAVAZOS, asserting a legal interest in the Forfeitable Marks may, within thirty days of the publication of notice or receipt of notice, whichever is earlier, petition the court for a hearing without a jury to adjudicate the validity of his alleged interest in the property, and for an amendment of the order of forfeiture, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1963(l)(2).
(3) Any petition filed by a third party asserting an interest in the Forfeitable Marks shall be signed by the petitioner under penalty of perjury and shall set forth the nature and extent of the petitioner’s right, title, or interest in such property, the time and circumstances of the petitioner’s acquisition of the right, title or interest in the property, any additional facts supporting the petitioner’s claim, and the relief sought. 18 U.S.C. § 1963(l()(3).
(4) The United States shall have clear title to the Forfeitable Marks following the Court’s disposition of all third party interests or, if no petitions are filed, following the expiration of the period provided in 18 U.S.C. § 1963(l)(2) for the filing of third party petitions.
D. Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(3) and defendant CAVAZOS’s consent, this Preliminary Order of Forfeiture shall become final as to defendant RUBEN CAVAZOS upon entry and shall be made part of his sentence and included in his judgment.
E. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce this Order, and to amend it as necessary, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(e).
Related posts:
July 14th, 2010 at 3:42 pm
Thanks REBEL for clearing this up, YOUR PAL JAMES
July 14th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
http://www.bikernews.org/wtn/news.php?extend.10872
Not to change.
Are they part of a criminal enterprise ?
Keep up the fight Black and white.
Respect, Steve
July 14th, 2010 at 5:38 pm
Dear Rebel:
Does this mean that the ACLU has become interested in this issue?
SVD
July 15th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Dear SVD,
The ACLU has been interested in this issue for at least 14 months. I have the highest regard for David Blair-Loy. I have not gone out of my way to mention his name because he might not want me to. Personally, I think everybody should be interested in this issue.
Nice to hear from you, as always.
Rebel
July 15th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Dear Steve,
Yes.
The Department of Justice will announce a RICO indictment against the widespread Philadelphia Organized Criminal Enterprise. Members and associates of the Philly gang have committed more than a million crimes in the last decade. The Department of Justice will seek the forfeiture of all Philadelphia indicia including the gang names “Philadelphia,” “Phillies,” “cheesesteak,” “Hoagie,” “Eagles,” “Sixers” and “Flyers.” The DOJ also seeks the forfeiture of the colors red, white, blue and the so called Liberty Bell.
“Philadelphia has always called itself ‘The City of Brotherly Love,’” ATF Agent John Ciccone explained. “But that’s a joke. Everybody knows that Philadelphia is nothing but a syndicate on the Delaware.”
Philadelphia will be divided into four equal parts which henceforth will be known as Northern Essington, Southern Levittown, Greater Darby and the ATF Marina.
Rebel
July 15th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Is it too early to try to buy waterfront property on the ATF Marina ?
-Curious in Carolina
July 15th, 2010 at 5:14 pm
“The ACLU has been interested in this issue for at least 14 months. I have the highest regard for David Blair-Loy. I have not gone out of my way to mention his name because he might not want me to. Personally, I think everybody should be interested in this issue.”
I’m due for my annual contribution to the ACLU. (Yes, I’m a card-carrying member).
Is there any reason for me not to drop the ACLU a note along with it letting them know that even people far outside the biker world are indeed interested in this issue and that their attention to it is appreciated by a member? If the ACLU’s involvement is not really supposed to be public information (though it is now), I’ll hold off, but if that’s not a problem then maybe positive reinforcement is a good thing.
SVD
July 15th, 2010 at 7:05 pm
Hi Rebel,
I left you a posting on another site, but since this article is more recent, I am leaving you another one. I just want you to know how much I appreciate the information you provide. My man is a great person who was totally screwed and you stuck up for him. That means a lot to me. Thanks Reb
July 16th, 2010 at 8:56 am
If I may answer this Reb,
Because of the interest of the ACLU, those funds that were ear marked for the defense of “Patch Holders” (Mongol Trade Mark issue) were sent off to the east coast (in defense of the Pagans) Now this case was dragged out of the coffin so to speak and the ACLU is stepping up and NCOM will keep an eye on it. Currently (as of our NCOM Convention back in May) we need over 100k to aide this cause, of which we are about 75% funded.
Now in the manor of the “Liberty Bell” mentioned above… hey Reb, did ya pick that one of the blue or was it an intended shot over the bow?
Detroit Dutch LRMC
Liberty Riders Motorcycle Club (LRMC)- Detroit
-Club Delegate to the Michigan- Confederation of Clubs (CoC- Michigan)
-COC- Michigan board member- Legal & Legislative Committee
-Legal & Legislative Officer for the CoC- Michigan
-Lt. Commander for State of Michigan- [US] Defenders Program (NCOM- National Coalition of Motorcyclists)
http://usdefenders.org/index_files/michigan.htm
July 16th, 2010 at 4:30 pm
Just do it,”Frasier”.
July 16th, 2010 at 8:12 pm
That’s it, bob; once again I shall have to drive this gunny sack down about your ears!
July 17th, 2010 at 9:55 am
LOL @ “Frasier”
July 17th, 2010 at 6:53 pm
If anyone wants them, I have copies of the following books:
Befriend and Betray: Alex Caine
Wayward Angel- George Wethern
Hells Angels: Three Can Keep a Secret if Two Are Dead- Yves Lavigne
Under & Alone- Billy Queen
I did not pay for these, I got them from an anthropologist who knew of Daniel Wolf and was interested in bikers.
Remember, I can send these to general delivery and you don’t have to give me your address, only a name. I’m also not a Fed or cop or snitch.
If anyone wants one of these or all, please contact Rebel and if he is amenable, he can give you my email address(it has changed in the last month). I will send them free of charge, provided you will be willing to distribute them to other posters when you are done perusing them.
BigV in Carolina(Home Sweet Home)
July 19th, 2010 at 9:55 am
Philly a “syndicate”? Who Knew ? Guess I’ll need to be little more careful when I scoot over the Del Mor Bridge. Syndicate…hmmm.
Closer to Intezone thuth be told.
July 21st, 2010 at 9:33 am
Rebel, thanks as always for your excellent reporting on these important issues. The ACLU is proud to stand up for freedom of speech and against the government’s abuse of power. Personally, I am privileged and honored to represent Mr. Rivera. I appreciate your consideration, but I have no problem at all if you mention me or the ACLU in your reporting.
And thanks to all ACLU members and supporters. We can’t do our work without you.
July 23rd, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Dear David Blair-Loy,
I think you have done a great job. Some government officials think I am a flaming biker asshole and I try not to get any Rebel crap on good people whose work I admire. Keep up the good work.
Your pal,
Rebel
July 23rd, 2010 at 3:23 pm
To support or not support the ACLU or pick and chose
http://tuecaa.wordpress.com/2008/03/23/aclu-supports-pedophiles-and-child-porn/
July 24th, 2010 at 8:24 am
Dear Anarchy Factory:
It is not a matter of choosing between tolerating pedophiles and shredding the constitution. The ACLU doesn’t support child abuse or pedophilia as the links you provided seem to assert, but rather opposes the systematic use of extraconstitutional means to prosecute and prevent those crimes.
If you allow the authorities to use extraconstitutional means to prosecute/prevent one type of crime because it is an especially heinous crime, eventually those who are prone to abuse their power will manage to link anyone they don’t like to that crime and will use extraconstitutional means for other categories of crime. See Burgess, Dave for an especially relevant example.
Respect,
SVD
July 24th, 2010 at 9:22 am
As usual said in your SVD manner which is much appreciated and underused by myself most especially of late – but what I really do mean in a more rude and crude way – no patience left for things anymore, justifiable anger but no great outlets – but as I always say if I’d wanted patience/patients I’d have been a doc lol
July 24th, 2010 at 1:45 pm
SVD,
Sorry Doc, but to me that dog won’t hunt! ACLU supports a first amendment right for NAMBLA to produce and distribute literature on how to entice childern into sex with adults and how to avoid detection. The ACLU does not recognize the second amendment as an individual right and according to my sources doesn’t even list it among the bill of rights on the walls of their headquarters in Washington DC. There is a great difference between “shredding” the constitution as has been done in all these cases Rebel has reported on, and actively protecting child molesters and in my opinion the ACLU has crossed over that line. The only “right” that a child molester has is the right to a bullet at the base of their skull, a humane way to dispatch an animal.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum.
July 24th, 2010 at 6:28 pm
Dear RVN69:
I have to disagree with you in that as I see it, the ACLU does not set out to actively protect child molesters but rather they set out to act as free speech extremists. They have done so on behalf of a number of extremely unsavory organizations of which NAMBLA happens to be in all likelihood the most reprehensible, on the theory that it is the process and not the specific content of speech that is protected.
Let me say though, that while I don’t agree with you that the work of the ACLU in these cases should be construed as support of NAMBLA, I can see where it can easily be viewed as such, and acknowledge that it could make people who are very strong supporters of free speech feel that they cannot in any way support the ACLU. In return, please don’t construe my continued support of the overall goals of the ACLU as support for for NAMBLA, the American Nazi Party, or any other groups that the ACLU has represented.
On a visceral level, by the way, I think we are in full agreement that what ought to happen to those who exploit and abuse children has very little to do with law.
with much Respect,
SVD
July 24th, 2010 at 8:13 pm
SVD:
As I recall the central issue was the blocking and removal of the NAMBLA website in Canada. Though NAMBLA is a deplorable entity, my understanding is the website itself did not contain material worse than their ideals.
On another note, you can be assured that in certain circles the ACLU is already taking flack for helping out what a vast majoity of people would see as a scumbag motorcyle gang…
Everything is relative but at least ACLU is not afraid to dirty its hands.
RVN69, I’ve not heard of the things you mentioned, but your words is good enough for me.
Suffice it to say ACLU is perhaps a necessary evil at times…
July 25th, 2010 at 7:22 am
Not Surprised:
I think you stated it perfectly.
July 25th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
SVD,
Not equating your support for the ACLU with support for pedophiles. I do equate their actions as such, further I believe that they as an organization may have started with noble intentions, but are now nothing more than a group with a Progressive/Marxist agenda as witnessed by their support for the seizing by the government of personal property for the “greater good”(the case took place in I believe New England and involved forced removal of people from their houses so a company could use the land for a plant thereby generating more taxes for the city or state). Justice Ginsburg (former ACLU Lawyer)voted in favor of the government, no support for the people losing their homes from the ACLU. My dislike/disgust with them is so great I wouldn’t piss on them if they were on fire.
Not Surprised,
My hope is that anybody who can help the Mongols and other clubs caught up in these federal entrapments does so regardless of their intentions. My information concerning NAMBLA is that they were distributing infromation (either printed or electronic) on how to entice children into sex with adults and how to avoid detection, the ACLU was active in supporting the idea that this information was protected by the first amendment. My suspicion is that the ACLU cares little about us, only accepting those cases which it hopes will further it’s agenda. If they truly care so much about civil rights, where are they concerning Derek Hale, if you get my drift??
My respects to you both.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum.
July 25th, 2010 at 4:55 pm
Dear RVN69:
Thanks for your very thoughtful response. While I feel the overall mission of the ACLU is important enough for me to continue my support, I’m going to look further into the cases you mentioned. If I decide to overlook something, I at least ought to know exactly what I’m overlooking.
The property seizure case seems especially out of line with what the ACLU is supposed to be about. It is not a matter of protecting anyone’s freedom, or of protecting some despised group from the tyranny of the majority. I would add that you can’t even call that Marxist or progressive, because these days when the government seizes property for the “common good” it usually turns out that the “common good” is either directly or indirectly linked to private capital interests, regardless of which political party constitutes the government.
I was serious when I said that people should try to push the ACLU on the issues discussed in this blog. I was serious when I stated that as a member, I’m going to do so. Lord knows they contact members enough times a year with the “collection plate”. I addressed Rebel as to whether it was OK or not, only because he seemed to imply that ACLU involvment in these cases wasn’t fully public knowledge prior to his writing about it and I didn’t want to bring attention in a way that could cause him a problem. Respect for our host and all that. As an aside, I enjoyed bob’s comment of “just do it ‘Frasier’”. If a man can’t enjoy a little levity at his own expense….. At any rate, I’m going to add Derek Hale and other cases mentioned here, indicia warrants, profiling, guilt by association, and all the rest. When I do it, I’ll post a copy here.
I encourage any one else here who is an ACLU member to join me in this.
Respect,
SVD
July 26th, 2010 at 8:25 am
To understand the ACLU and the cases they choose you must understand how our legal system works and to which ends we as “a people” can effect change or sustain the status quo.
Our laws are a system of legally enacted bills by our duly elected officials. Additionally courts rule on cases and these rules become “starie decis” (what has gone before is the case now- precedence)
It is the job of the ACLU to defend the minority opinion, no matter how obscure or delineated, and they look carefully at both ends of the pendulum when it swings. It is by defending the furthest swing that the “starie decis” (precedent) is set.
So in fact the defense of NAMBLA, no matter how obscene or outrageous to the majority of us, is the basic defense of all rights. In other words if they can say what they want to say, we can say what we want!
If the Nazi party is defended by the ACLU, then in fact our very actions in the Tea Party are secure!
July 26th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
DD,
I understand the justice system and how our legal system is “supposed” to work. I do not accept the premise that rights are absolute and in the absence of any responsibility. Your right to swing your arms ends where my body starts. Everyone knows the “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater” responsibility. I do not accept that the ACLU is somehow protecting my rights to free speech by defending the indefensable in the NAMBLA case. As I have stated I believe they have a Marxist/socialist agenda where by their chosen government gets more authority over certain individuals, the case I referenced earlier was Kelo vs City of New London, I can find no information on the ACLU supporting the people who’s property was seized, the former ACLU lawyer Ruth Bader Ginsburg now sitting on the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the City, favoring the possible avantage to the collective to gather more taxes over the rights of the individual to keep their homes. I believe the ACLU supports the use of foreign law to supersede our constitution, stating that we need to use foreign precedent to help decide our own constitutional issues. If we want to do that we should just rewrite the constitution. The ACLU believes that the constitution of the United States is a “living” document, that it really doesn’t mean what is says, it means what they interpret it to mean now. How would you like it if your bank used that type of logic say with your mortgage. “Sorry Dutch, we know you signed a mortgage for 5% interest, but we are short of money, so we have decided that your contract is actually a living document and now it really means that your interest rate is 10%! If they really support free speech, why do they not sue colleges over their speech standards, could it be because the colleges only restrict speech that the ACLU does not support ie: Right to Life, Right to keep and bear arms? You are a Marine, do you support the free speech right of the person who leaked Top Secret information about special ops missions in Afganistan, even though it will endanger the troops? You know the ACLU will, they would walk over thousands of bodies of our service personnel to file the court papers, and I don’t believe the “but that is the freedom they died for” crap either. Sorry but I just don’t buy the absolute theory of rights with no responsiblities! This will be my last comment on this subject, don’t want to use Rebels bandwidth for this particular arguement.
Semper Fi Dutch!! OOHRAH!
Si Vis Pacem, Parabellum.
July 26th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
RVN69:
Good use of Rebel’s bandwidth, and I’m sure he won’t mind. Well said.
July 26th, 2010 at 5:35 pm
RVN69
Hey, I am sorry, I agree with you in the most part, but my right to swing my arms actually extends past the point your right to run your mouth ends. I don’t really have an opinion on the ACLU, I hate NAMBLA, and I don’t feel that anyone has any rights except the rights that we as people extend to one another. My rights go as far as my manhood will take me. As far as the Fed is concerned, well fuck them all! I am not disagreeing with you. I am just saying it how it goes in my world. My world is the same world we all live in. This thing about rights, free speech, etc. is just a bunch of shit that has been pushed down our throats since birth. Believing in them is fine, until the time comes to pay the man and as I have realized they don’t amount to shit, and once that happens don’t come crying to me. This is just my opinion, my life as I’ve lived it. I am not starting shit with you, I just wanted to clarify to you about that one point you made about swinging arms. Thinking that it’s a right not to get knocked out when one is talking in a way that another disagrees is foolish to say the least. We all need to live in a way that respects others, and have no expectations towards how someone else should look upon how we think. The rights we have daily are rights given to us out of respect from others, not what the laws of this country dictate. Our service personnel do such with honor that deserves our respect.
Again, just my opinion, and I agree with you otherwise. Sadly, at this time I do think the ACLU is a necessary evil.
July 26th, 2010 at 6:08 pm
FTF,
I think we are actually agreeing without realizing it. I live in the world you speak of, I don’t believe in an eye for an eye, rather an eye for as much damage as I can do before I get tired, arrested or pulled off by my brothers. My reference to swinging arms and my body refered to someone thinking that they had any sort of right to place their hands on me without my permission and then expect me not to retaliate.
Si Vis Pacem, Parabellum.
July 26th, 2010 at 7:29 pm
Regardless of what the Constitution says or doesn’t say, very few government “officials” take it seriously. Why should we? To paraphrase George W. Bush, it’s just a piece of paper.
I don’t need a document to define rights or liberty for me, and I’m certainly not going to waste my time arguing over what is or is not “constitutional.” Such an exercise reminds me of the scene in “Braveheart” where each of the “nobles” demands recognition of his sacred documents. In the end, it just doesn’t matter.
I think Lysander Spooner put it best:
“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”
I hope the Mongols prevail, and I applaud the ACLU for aiding them. Regardless of the outcome, there won’t be justice. The police state is growing at a remarkable rate, and the people are begging for more chains.
July 26th, 2010 at 8:19 pm
RVN69
My bad Brother, I guess we are in total agreement…I may have misunderstood what point you were trying to make. We are in total agreement.
July 27th, 2010 at 10:38 pm
RVN69,
You said:
“The only “right” that a child molester has is the right to a bullet at the base of their skull, a humane way to dispatch an animal.”
While I agree with your point that animals deserve humane deaths, pedophiles don’t deserve anything so merciful. Animals only do what instinct/nature etc. tells them to do, pedophiles on the other hand, prey on those they should naturally protect (which animals naturally do).
Animals don’t choose to do what they do, pedos do, and for that they deserve hell (here on earth, in the age to come, or both); think about what they get in prison.
A mad dog deserves the mercy of a bullet, not so with the pedophile.
Just my 2 cents
troyez
July 28th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
RVN69: I don’t think you’re wasting bandwidth bringing up Kelo.
Kelo and the cases that followed it into the realms of the federal appeals courts, particularly Sophocleus v. ALDOT, are emblematic of the wholesale destruction of private property rights and civil liberties by our federal government.
Bikers have much in common with Suzette Kelo and John Sophocleus- as they all have experienced the theft and destruction of their basic human rights, and they’ve experienced first hand what it means to be reduced to something less than human via arbitrary action of the federal government.
The more involved civil libertarians can become in safeguarding the rights of bikers, the better off the CL’s will be over time as the rights you save may be your own. The same principle works for bikers, although I think bikers are already aware of this, and are more likely than the average citizen to defend the rights others. Many of the bikers I know and ride with cannot stand bleeding heart liberals, but they will defend to the death the rights of those BHLs to exist and express their thoughts and ideas.
That’s one of the reasons I’m proud to do everything I can to help preserve the existence of bikers, they’re truly one of the last groups of free men.
July 28th, 2010 at 1:04 pm
Did Cavazos ever get sentenced?
July 28th, 2010 at 8:05 pm
Maybe “one” of the last true group of free men that will fight to death,
that the gov has to disarm.
Respect to all freedom fighters
Respect, Steve
http://www.bikernews.org/wtn/news.php?extend.11030
July 28th, 2010 at 8:42 pm
My understanding Doc will not be sentenced till after the mark case is settled , because it’s part of his plea deal. JMG
Respect, Steve
July 30th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
Doc is a punk…straight out, nothing more, nothing less.
August 3rd, 2010 at 4:11 pm
ANARCHYFACTORY and FTF,
FTF, if anyone disagrees with you it speaks volumes about that person!!There are a whole lot of punks running around that display similar punk ass behavior just like him.
ANARCHYFACTORY, thanks for the information. Makes sense.
Doc
August 3rd, 2010 at 5:37 pm
heads up hats, tee’s and beanie rebel supports coming.
Respect, Steve
August 4th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Where are ya Rebel?
August 5th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Say, where is Rebel at ?
For that matter, is Jabba still among us ?
August 8th, 2010 at 3:42 pm
Is this site “Dead”? Has the feds captured Rebel?
August 8th, 2010 at 5:02 pm
Dear IJ:
Rebel has long been preparing his magnum opus on Operation Black Rain and the ATF persecution of the Mongols MC. He has recently told us he has been shopping the book for publication. This is an unbelievably time consuming process and it takes tremendous diligence and dedication.
In addition long time reads can attest that during this part of the year Rebel’s site tends to be a bit slower because all the best runs are during the Summer and Fall. He has written several excellent pieces over the past two years on the runs and trips he has taken- see the Poker Run and the earlier texts describing his various treks through California and the Southwest.
I can guarantee the site isn’t dead. Real life, the strain of trying to publish, and the lure of the road has just slowed things up for a while.
Let’s just hope for the best for Rebel in his publishing endeavors, and that he will return to us soon.
-BigV in Bama
August 9th, 2010 at 7:38 am
BigV
What part of Alabama do you call home?
August 10th, 2010 at 10:50 am
I’m a short 20 minute drive from the (formerly?) “wickedest city in America”.
August 12th, 2010 at 3:42 am
Glad to know that Rebel is alive and well, was kinda worried when I saw nothing new. Good luck to you Rebel I wish you luck and hope you continue doing the great job you have been doing.
August 12th, 2010 at 8:58 pm
I’m not Rebel’s official rep nor do I mean to speak for him, and I do not want to give that impression.
It’s just if you keep up with his page, he said on “Rebel Will Return” he was shopping his book. I know that that has to take a really long time.
In the two years the site has been up, it slows down a bit around this time or at least has in the past. Then he comes back with a really good book review, and a well written story of one of his road trips.
Also, I’m pretty sure he’s okay as it wasn’t that long ago I sent him an email bumming info and he was kind enough to email back.
I apologize for any disrespect shown to Rebel in my earlier post as I should have made it clear I do not speak for him and am not authorized to speak on his behalf. I probably should have kept my mouth shut, period, but I didn’t- so now I’m clarifying. Lesson learned.
August 13th, 2010 at 5:18 pm
BigV I caught what you were saying and your sincerity is obvious. Don’t be too hard on yourself. Here, take two of these Zappas and reflect on your righteousness.
Dominus Vo-bisque ‘em
Et come spear a tu-tu,
Oh!
Won’t you eat my sleazy pancakes
Just for Saintly Alfonzo?
As for Rebels house, I think this passage sums it up pretty well.
Forrest Gump: [running] I had run for 3 years, 2 months, 14 days, and 16 hours.
[he stops and turns around]
Young Man Running: Quiet, quiet! He’s gonna say something!
Forrest Gump: [pause] I’m pretty tired… I think I’ll go home now.
Now what are we supposed to do?
No disrespect intended, just throwing some laughs out.
r/
c8652
August 14th, 2010 at 9:40 pm
“Suffice to say, to the people he hunted for us, he was known as the Glimmer Man. There’d be nothing but newsprint, then a glimmer… Then your career with the ATF’d be dead…”
August 30th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
anything new rebel