• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
GEORGE S. CARDONAActing United States AttorneyCHRISTINE C. EWELLAssistant United States AttorneyChief, Criminal DivisionCHRISTOPHER BRUNWINAssistant United States AttorneyDeputy Chief, Violent & Organized Crime SectionSTEVEN R. WELK California State Bar No. 149883Assistant United States AttorneyChief, Asset Forfeiture Section1400 United States Courthouse312 North Spring StreetLos Angeles, California 90012Telephone: (213) 894-6166Facsimile: (213) 894-7177E-mail: Steven.Welk@usdoj.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of AmericaUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAWESTERN DIVISIONUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,))Plaintiff,))v.))RUBEN CAVAZOS, aka “Doc”, )et al., ))Defendants. ))))))))))))CR 08-1201 FMC
GOVERNMENT'S COMBINED1. OPPOSITION TOSUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OFNON-PART MOVANT; AND2. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OFORDER DENYINGAPPLICATION FOR ENTRY OFPRELIMINARY ORDER OFFORFEITURE AS TOREGISTERED TRADEMARKS;MEMORANDUM OF POINTSAND AUTHORITIES;[DECLARATIONS OF DARRINKOZLOWSKI AND STEVEN R.WELK FILED SEPARATELY]
[No hearing set]
Case 2:08-cr-01201-FMC Document 2609 Filed 09/14/2009 Page 1 of 32
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728i
TABLE OF CONTENTSPAGES
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...........................................iiI.INTRODUCTION..............................................1II.ARGUMENT.................................................5A. The Government is Entitled to Adjudication of the CriminalForfeiture in This Case According to the Mandatory AuthorityGoverning Such Forfeitures.................................51. Motion for Reconsideration............................52.The extent of a criminal defendant’s interest in forfeitable property is determined in the ancillary proceeding that followsthe entry of a preliminary order of forfeiture...............8a.
The significance of the in personam nature of criminal  forfeiture was not properly before the Court in Rivera
.8 b.
The two-step process for criminal forfeiture must beallowed to proceed as required by law
..............9B. Movant, Which Purports to Be the Owner of the Registered Marks, IsStatutorily Barred From Intervening in This Action Before theAncillary Proceeding.....................................21C. The Return of Property Seized Pursuant to the Amended Order Is NotRequired...............................................24D. The Separate Bases for Retention of Seized Property Are NotProperly Addressed in This Setting..........................25E. The Amended Order Need Not Be Modified...................25III.CONCLUSION...............................................26
Case 2:08-cr-01201-FMC Document 2609 Filed 09/14/2009 Page 2 of 32
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESFEDERAL CASES
 
PAGES
 Abbott Laboratories v. Garnder 
,387 U.S. 136 (1967)........................................................................................ 7
 Alexander v. United States
,509 U.S. 544 (1993)...................................................................................... 11
 In re Bryson
,406 F.3d 284 (4th Cir. 2005). ....................................................................... 18
 De Almeida v. United States
,459 F.3d 377 (2d Cir. 2006). ........................................................................ 13
 F.P.P. Enterprises v. United States
,646 F. Supp. 713 (D. Neb. 1986),
aff'd 
, 830 F.2d 114 (8th Cir. 1987)......... 19
 Feldman v. North British & Mercantile Insurance Co.
,137 F.2d 266 (4thCir. 1943).........................................................................19
 Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop
,229 F.3d 877 (9th Cir. 2000). ......................................................................... 5
School District 1J v. AcandS, Inc.
,5 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 1993). ........................................................................... 5
Thomas v. Union Carbide Agricultural Products Co.
,473 U.S. 568 (1985)...................................................................................... 17
United States v. Armstrong 
,2007 WL 809508 (E.D. La. 2007)................................................................ 14
United States v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg) S.A. (Final Order of Forfeitureand Disbursement)
,69 F. Supp. 2d 36 (D. D.C. 1999)................................................................. 21
United States v. BCCI Holdings (Luxenbourg) (Petition of ICIC Investments)
,795 F. Supp. 477 (D.D.C. 1992)................................................................... 17
United States v. BCCI Holdings (Luxenbourg) S.A. (Petition of Banco Central de Uruguay)
,977 F. Supp. 27 (D.D.C. 1997)..................................................................... 18
United States v. Bankston
,182 F.3d 296 (5th Cir. 1999). ....................................................................... 18
United States v. Brown
,2006 WL 898043 (E.D. N.Y. 2006). ............................................................ 14
Case 2:08-cr-01201-FMC Document 2609 Filed 09/14/2009 Page 3 of 32
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...