Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Reese Asset Release Motion

Reese Asset Release Motion

Ratings: (0)|Views: 21|Likes:
Published by David Codrea
Reese.family motion for Partial Release of Assets so they can fund their defense on remaining gun form charges.
Reese.family motion for Partial Release of Assets so they can fund their defense on remaining gun form charges.

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: David Codrea on May 15, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/22/2013

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATESFOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICOUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ))Plaintiff, ))vs. ) Case No: 11 CV 1109 RB-LFG)Real Property Located at 6600 and 6560 SE, )Deming, NM and 6545 El Portal Road SE, )Deming, NM, Including all Structures, )Appurtenance and Improvements Thereon, )Containing 85 Acres More or Less, Owned by )RICK REESE and TERRI REESE, ET AL., ))Defendants. )
 ______________________________________________________________________________ 
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL RELEASE OF ASSETS______________________________________________________________________________
 COMES NOW the Defendants, Rick Reese and Terri Reese, by and through their counselof record, Robert J. Gorence of Gorence & Oliveros, P.C., and Jason Bowles of the Bowles LawFirm, and hereby move this Court to enter an order authorizing the release of a portion of their seized assets to pay for upcoming legal expenses as well as to provide life subsistence. Asgrounds for this motion, Defendants state as follows:1. On August 24, 2011, the Defendants were charged in a 30 count grand juryindictment. Count 1 charged Defendants with conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(a)(1)(A) and 554. Counts 2 through 10 charged Defendants with False Statements in Connection with theAcquisition of Firearms under 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(a)(1)(A) and 2. Counts 11 through 28 charged Defendants with Smuggling Goods from the United States under 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(a)(1)(A) and 2. Counts 29 and 30 charged Defendants with violations of federal money laundering statutes.
Case 1:11-cv-01109-RB-LFG Document 63 Filed 05/13/13 Page 1 of 7
 
2. As part of the Indictment, the government included forfeiture allegations and filed a separate civil forfeiture case,
United States of America v. Real Property Located at 6600 and 6560 SE, Deming, NM, et al
, No. 11-cv-1109 RB, on December 19, 2011. The civil forfeitureaction involved the following property:a) Real Property located at 6600 and 6560 Ventura Road SE, Deming, NM; b) Real Property located at 6545 El Portal Road SE, Deming NM;c) 1,428 Firearms;d) 1,975,262 rounds of assorted ammunition;e) 535 canisters of smokeless power;f) 4,757 ammunition magazines;g) $117,823.09 in gold and silver coins;h) 2008 Chevrolet Suburban;i) 2006 Jeep Rubicon; j) 2005 Chevrolet Suburban;k) 2005 Dodge Ram;l) Assorted Body Armor;m) 17 gun safes;n) $11,019.92 in funds seized from First Savings Bank;o) $5,449 in U.S. currency seized from Terri Reese; p) $13,000 in U.S. currency seized from the Reese Residence;o) $4,000 in U.S. currency seized from an outbuilding on the Reese property; and q) $84,000 in U.S. currency seized from the Reese store.3. At the conclusion of evidence in the criminal case and prior to the jury’s verdicton August 1, 2012, the parties agreed that the civil forfeiture would proceed in January based onthe trial record created during the criminal trial.4. Following the entry of this Court’s order on February 1, 2013, granting Rick Reese and Ryin Reese’s Motion for New Trial, there is obviously no longer a trial record fromthe original case. As such, the Reeses are asking that the civil forfeiture action be stayed untilthe conclusion of the criminal proceedings.5. This matter is now on appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Because the proceedings before the Tenth Circuit will be time-consuming, and assuming that this Court’sorder is affirmed, there is still the matter of sharing testimony on the Motion to Dismiss pending2
Case 1:11-cv-01109-RB-LFG Document 63 Filed 05/13/13 Page 2 of 7
 
 before the court and potentially a new trial. Obviously, significant legal expenses will beincurred. Additionally, the Reeses require money for subsistence which will be established at anevidentiary hearing in this matter. Mr. Reese will testify regarding his lack of any financialresources to support himself and his family since all of their money and assets were seized by thegovernment and are subject to the forfeiture in this matter.
See
, Exhibit A (Affidavit of Rick Reese).6. As such, the Reeses request the release of their assets pursuant to
United States v. Jones
, 160 F.3d 645-49 (10th Cir. 1998). Proceedings surrounding the motion for return of  property seized in a criminal case are civil in nature.
United States v. Maez
, 915 F.2d 1466, 1468(10th 1990), and based on equitable principles,
see United States v. Madden
, 95 F.3d 38, 40(10th 1996). “The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 983, governs all requests for the pretrial release of property that has been seized for civil forfeiture.”
United States v. Approximately up to $15,034,6633 in Funds Contained in Ten Bank Accounts
, 844 F. Supp. 2d 1216 (D. Utah 2011). A claimant may be entitled to immediate release of seized property if fivespecific criteria are satisfied:(A) the claimant has a possessory interest in the property;(B) the claimant has sufficient ties to the community to provide assurance thatthe property will be available at the time of the trial;(C) the continued possession by the Government pending the final dispositionof forfeiture proceedings will cause substantial hardship to the claimant,such as preventing the functioning of a business, preventing an individualfrom working, or leaving an individual homeless;(D) the claimant's likely hardship from the continued possession by theGovernment of the seized property outweighs the risk that the propertywill be destroyed, damaged, lost, concealed, or transferred if it is returned to the claimant during the pendency of the proceeding; and (E) none of the conditions set forth in paragraph (8) applies.18 U.S.C. § 983(f)(1). Paragraph 8 denies relief where the property:3
Case 1:11-cv-01109-RB-LFG Document 63 Filed 05/13/13 Page 3 of 7

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->