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
Doc.78.Motion and Memo Re Motion to Strike Claims

Doc.78.Motion and Memo Re Motion to Strike Claims

Ratings: (0)|Views: 5|Likes:
Published by David Codrea

More info:

Published by: David Codrea on Jun 17, 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

04/14/2014

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
 U
 NITED
S
TATES OF
A
MERICA
,
Plaintiff,
 vs.
Civil No. 11-1109-RB-LFG
EAL
P
ROPERTY
L
OCATED AT
6600
AND
6560
 
V
ENTURA
OAD
SE,
 
D
EMING
,
 
 NM,
AND
6545
 
E
L
P
ORTAL
OAD
SE,
 
D
EMING
,
 
 NM,
 
I
 NCLUDING
A
LL
S
TRUCTURES
,
 
A
PPURTENANCES AND
I
MPROVEMENTS THEREON
,
 
C
ONTAINING
85
 
A
CRES
M
ORE OR 
L
ESS
,
 
O
WNED BY
ICK AND
T
ERRI
EESE
,
 
 ET AL
.
;
 Defendants,
 
MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKETHE CLAIMS AND ANSWERS OF RICK REESE AND TERRI REESE WITHRESPECT TO CERTAIN DEFENDANTS
 IN REM 
 
Pursuant to Rule G(8)(c)(i)(B) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or MaritimeClaims and Asset Forfeiture Actions (“Supplemental Rules”), the United States moves to strikethe Claims and Answers of Rick Reese and Terri Reese as they relate to the defendant propertyowned by Old Ironsides, LLC (“Old Ironsides”) for lack of standing. The United States alsomoves to strike the Claim and Answer of Terri Reese as they relate to property owned by RyinReese or Remington Reese because she does not have an ownership interest in such property. Insupport of this motion, the United States respectfully submits this memorandum of law.
Case 1:11-cv-01109-RB-LFG Document 78 Filed 05/30/13 Page 1 of 10
 
 2
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On August 24, 2011, a federal grand jury in the District of New Mexico returned anindictment against Rick, Terri, Ryin and Remington Reese arising from allegations thedefendants participated in the “straw” purchases of numerous firearms and the unlawfulexportation of those firearms, along with ammunition, to persons working for a Mexican drugcartel.
See
11-CR-2294,
 
Docket Entry (D.E.) No. 2.
1
 On or about August 30, 2011, acting upon seizure warrants issued by a U.S. MagistrateJudge for this District, federal law enforcement officers seized the personal property assets thatare the defendants
in rem
in this case. In addition, the government filed a
lis pendens
against the parcel of real property in Deming, New Mexico, that served as the residence of all four membersof the Reese family and the location of the New Deal store.On December 19, 2011, the United States commenced this civil forfeiture action by filinga Verified Complaint for Forfeiture
 In Rem
(“Verified Complaint”).
See
D.E. No. 1. After filingthe Verified Complaint to institute this civil forfeiture action, the United States sent notice of thisaction to all known potential claimants. Both Rick and Terri Reese attempted to file claims on behalf of Old Ironsides. Rick Reese filed a claim to “all of the real and personal property listed as a defendant in the above-referenced action.” D.E. No. 29. His claim further stated that “Rick Reese is the owner of Old Ironsides, LLC and New Deal Shooting Sports.”
 Id.
Terri Reese filed a claim to “the above-referenced property that is the subject of this proceeding,” including“property owned by an LLC that she has a membership ownership interest in” and “personal
1
Citations to “Docket Entry No. ‘X’” or “D.E. No. ‘X’” refer to the document filed in this case’sofficial court record and identified by that name in the Court’s file.
Case 1:11-cv-01109-RB-LFG Document 78 Filed 05/30/13 Page 2 of 10
 
 3 property that her adult sons own, like specific guns or ammo.” D.E. No. 30. Terri Reese’s claimstated that “all property seized is either hers solely and separate, or by community property law,or by laws arising from the operation of a New Mexico Limited Liability Company.”
 Id.
 On March 23, 2012, the United States moved to stay the civil forfeiture case until thecriminal case was resolved through verdict or plea, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(g)(1).
See
D.E. No. 36. The Court granted the government’s motion to stay the civil forfeiture proceeding onJune 15, 2012.
See
D.E. No. 47.From July 17 through August 1, 2012, the Court conducted a jury trial in the related criminal matter. On August 1, 2012, in exchange for claimants Rick Reese and Terri Reeseagreeing to withdraw their request for a jury trial in the civil case, the United States agreed todismiss the criminal forfeiture allegations in the criminal case. The parties memorialized thisagreement on the record the afternoon of August 1, 2012. Later that day, the jury returned itsverdict as to all four criminal defendants. Claimants were each convicted of one count of violating 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A).
See
11-CR-2294, D.E. No. 353. Following the verdicts, theCourt granted the three convicted defendants’ motion for a new trial.
 Id.,
D.E. No. 404. TheGovernment appealed.
 Id.,
D.E. No. 425.On September 4, 2012, the United States filed an unopposed motion to lift the order staying the civil forfeiture action. D.E. No. 48. On September 6, 2012, the Court entered anOrder lifting the stay. D.E. No. 49. On November 16, 2012, the Court entered an Order stayingdiscovery and all case management deadlines until the sentencing hearing in the related criminalcase. D.E. No. 60.
Case 1:11-cv-01109-RB-LFG Document 78 Filed 05/30/13 Page 3 of 10

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)//-->