RSS feedGuilty or not, this is too much when Eric Holder and ATF get off scot free.
By Jeff Knox
Gun-raid family faces a judge: kasa.com
FirearmsCoalition.org
Manassas, VA --(Ammoland.com)- A family of four – Rick Reese, his wife Terri, and their two sons, Ryin – 24 and Remington – 19 – was arrested in Las Cruces, New Mexico on August 30, 2011.
They have been held in four separate county and federal detention facilities without bond ever since. Their alleged crime is that, over the course of several months, they sold between 15 and 30 guns to people they knew, or should have known were gun traffickers for Mexican drug gangs. The Reeses insist that they are innocent of any crime.
Shortly after they were arrested in Las Cruces, dozens of police vehicles, including four armored personnel carriers and two helicopters, full of armed officers and agents from numerous federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies swarmed over the Reese’s home and businesses. The entire firearm and ammunition inventory was taken from Rick Reese’s store as well as his entire personal collection of firearms and all cash and valuables from his home safe. Even the 30 to 40 empty gun safes that were on display at the store were seized. US Attorney Ken Gonzales indicated that he is going to seek asset forfeiture of the Reese’s home and 25 acre property (including the shooting range on the property which he leased to various law enforcement agencies), all of the cash and valuables seized, their vehicles, and a monetary judgment of at least $36,000 from whatever assets might be left.
In a prepared statement to the press US Attorney Gonzales stated: “This case serves to put firearms dealers on notice that they will be held accountable for any failure to comply with federal firearms laws.”
I have no real problem with that statement except that I strongly disagree with many federal firearms laws, but until we can get those changed, licensed dealers are obligated to comply with them. What’s more, dealers, particularly dealers in southern border states, have been well aware of heightened scrutiny and enforcement for the past several years. It is almost inconceivable that any dealer, particularly a successful and prosperous one like Rick Reese, would jeopardize their life and livelihood for the sake of a few ill-gotten dollars.
What bothers me most though, is the heavy handed treatment of the Reese’s, the judges refusal to establish bond for them, and something else that US Attorney Gonzales said: “Those who sell firearms knowing that they will be illegally smuggled into Mexico to arm Mexican Cartels share responsibility for the violence that has been devastating Mexico.”
Did Anyone Hear of Fast & Furious?
While the Reese family sits in their various jail cells accused of should have known, it should be pointed out that in Operation Fast & Furious, the ATF and DOJ, along with the US Attorney for Arizona, twisted dealers arms to get them to sell over 2000 guns to traffickers for Mexican drug gangs. They did this with every intention of allowing the un-monitored guns to reach the bad guys and only tracked them by the crime scenes where they quickly began to show up. The program was only stopped when two of those guns turned up at the scene of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry’s murder.
My question for US Attorney Gonzales is; when are those responsible for Fast & Furious going to be arrested and tried for their contributions to “the violence that has been devastating Mexico?”
Something else to consider when looking at the Reese case is that convicted straw purchasers are typically sentenced to less than one year in prison – if they are prosecuted at all. Prosecutors generally require that straw purchasers have records of purchasing high numbers of guns and that some of those guns can subsequently tied to violent crimes. Such standards make the aggressive treatment of the Reese family, all of whom have spotless records in their business and their personal lives, look even more excessive.
I don’t know the Reeses and really have no idea whether they knowingly broke the law. I do know that they had a reputation for being responsible citizens, and that they have insisted that they are innocent and will not plea bargain. I also know that they are facing well over $100,000 in just basic legal costs. If Rick and Terri and the boys are eventually exonerated, they will walk away with probably $200,000 in legal bills and damaged, depreciated inventory – if they can recover it.
Courts are notoriously loath to return guns under any circumstances and even less inclined to return ammunition. Rick’s plans to close the shop at the end of the year and run for Sheriff are crushed. His son Ryin’s plans to open a new shop in Las Cruces with a lot of his father’s remaining inventory are also destroyed.
Regardless of the Reese’s guilt or innocence, this case raises serious questions about the equity of our legal system, the show-boat tactics of some federal law enforcement agencies, and the complexity of our nation’s gun laws.
Crimes should be punished, but more importantly, justice should be served. That doesn’t seem to be happening in this case. I’m going to keep monitoring this one.
You can donate to the Resse’s Defense Fund here:
Copyright © 2011 Neal Knox Associates – The most trusted name in the rights movement.
About:
The Firearms Coalition is a loose-knit coalition of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs and civil rights organizations. Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, the organization provides support to grassroots activists in the form of education, analysis of current issues, and with a historical perspective of the gun rights movement. The Firearms Coalition is a project of Neal Knox Associates, Manassas, VA. Visit: www.FirearmsCoalition.org
Isn’t US Attorney Ken Gonzales the same ideologue that persecuted the Border Patrol Agents unjustly landing 3 of them in jail for doing their jobs?
That has been Rick’s style all his life! He uses people to get what he wants and will do anything for a fast buck, anything. Guilty as charged.
REESE CASE: Stunning Developments
December 19, 2012 | Author Luna Tea Party Patriots |
Today’s hearing regarding a motion for release pending sentencing was a public hearing. The defendants were present. The defendant’s family was present. Over 40 of the defendants’ friends and supporters packed the courtroom. At least three media reporters were present. All in all some 60 people were in the courtroom. We all heard what was said. It is no secret – even though it is probably supposed to be.
For the moment, however, this writer has decided to redact certain things regarding what happened today. Everything will come out soon enough. The gist of what happened should still be clear.
As reported in the last post, observers in the courtroom today learned that the reason for today’s hearing was:
sealed documents provided by the prosecution to the defense attorneys quite recently triggered the request for immediate release of Rick and Ryin,
sealed documents triggered accusations against the government of violating the constitutional rights of the defendants,
sealed documents triggered motions that are being prepared requesting a new trial.
It was serious enough that the Chief of the Criminal Division of the US Attorney’s office from Albuquerque had to come down and explain things to Judge Brack and then apologize to the judge.
Sealed documents are not public records. There are a number of reasons why documents get sealed. For example confidential settlement agreements in civil litigation can be sealed. In another example, criminal indictments are sometimes sealed until the person or persons are arrested, at which time the indictment is unsealed and made public. Sealed basically means only those authorized to know the contents are supposed to know what is in the document. The list is short.
As reported in the last post, the Judge was not interested in talking about sentencing issues in the Reese case.
What he wanted to know is why the information contained in the sealed indictment, information that the prosecutor had before the trial was concluded, wasn’t turned over as Brady evidence to the defense.
At issue here is the Supreme Court decision in Brady v Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). This was a landmark case in which the prosecution withheld evidence from the defendant. As a result, the government had violated his U.S. Constitutional 14th Amendment Right of Due Process. As a result of the courts decision in Brady, the prosecution must disclose evidence to the defense. This includes exculpatory evidence if there is a reasonable probability the conviction or sentence would have been different if the material had been disclosed. “Brady evidence” includes statements of witnesses or physical evidence that conflicts with the prosecution’s witnesses, and evidence that could allow the defense to impeach the credibility of a prosecution witness.
Mr. James Tierney, Chief of the Criminal Division explained to the Judge what happened and why this Brady evidence wasn’t turned over to the defense during trial.
First he explained how the prosecution failed to know about the information before trial. Mr. Tierney explained that he has a procedure for cases going to trial. There is a list of names that has to be given to prosecutor’s regarding witnesses. In this case that procedure didn’t happen. He further explained that XXXXXXXXXXXXX name was not listed in the correct place. Instead of being on the list, XXXXXXXXX name was in the body of the memo.
It was the mention of the name that caused the first quiet gasp of people observing the hearing.
Mr. Tierney continued that if someone in law enforcement has a credibility problem it is noted in their file. However, in this case because XXXXXXXXXXX is being investigated by another law enforcement agency, that note is not in their file.
This triggered the second gasp.
At this point, since Mr. Tierney was naming names and the context of the problem (Brady evidence) from the sealed file that triggered today’s hearing, Ms. Armijo jumped up and interrupted Mr. Tierney by handing him a note. Mr. Tierney stopped speaking. Judge Brack interjected that Mr. Tierney should stop and reminded him it was Giglio material.
[Giglio information or material refers to material tending to impeach the character or testimony of the prosecution witness during a criminal trial.]
Mr. Tierney stated it was not in the realm of Giglio.
Mr. Tierney continued explaining they had a file on several witnesses and this file left his office. He stated it wasn’t traditional Giglio material. He stated XXXXXXXXXXX was being investigated by another law enforcement agency.
Judge Brack pointed out that this information had been in his office for several years. Mr. Tierney admitted that was true.
Judge Brack pointed out that Ms. Armijo is the branch chief, and Mr. Tierney again responded this is true.
Judge Brack wanted to know if Ms. Armijo was not made aware of the information. Mr. Armijo responded again this was true, that the information was not discussed with anyone in her office and that other law enforcement may find out about the target.
Ms. Armijo jumped up again and handed Mr. Tierney a note and interrupted him once again. Mr. Tierney continued that Ms. Armijo did not know the name of the target.
Mr. Tierney continued and mentioned the XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX case in 2XXX contained similar allegations with XXXXXXXX in that case. He also stated that XXXXXXXXXX name was deleted from that 2XXX file.
Mr. Tierney explained the reason for the delay was that Ms. Armijo received the information after closing. Someone named XXXXXXX XXXXXXX requested informaton from the file and investigated. Trial preparation was going on in 2011 and 2012. He found the file and put ABQ Ethics Officer on the file. A proposal was reviewed on how to disclose this to the Court.
Discussions were held between the investigating agency and the prosecutor on whether to disclose during the Reese trial. The prosecutor wanted to disclose, however, the law enforcement agency involved didn’t want to disclose because there was a case conflict in the state of XXXXXXXX.
On the 19th, these negotiations were still ongoing.
Mr. Tierney continued that on December 2nd the draft was readied by Ms. Armijo, distributed on December 7th, and was filed on December 21st.
He added that within the prosecutor’s office there was a lot of discussion if the information should be disclosed pending the investigation, which didn’t contain traditional Giglio information. He added in retrospect it should have been done quicker.
Mr. Tierney pointed out that it is before the Court to make a decision, whereas the Court could have made the decision four months ago.
Mr. Tierney stated it is his fault – he is in charge of the Criminal Division. He apologized to the Court for the delay.
Mr. Gorence thanked Mr. Tierney for his candor and for taking responsibility, however, the reality is that it should prove to their detriment.
Ms. Armijo, the prosecutor in the Reese case, made a comment along the lines that this is a lot of to do about nothing.
Judge Brack received his explanation. He explained he wasn’t satisfied with a system that could produce such a result. He expressed concern about the sequence of time in order for him to decide. He doesn’t want this to turn into a protracted process. He set time frames to move the process towards a mid-January hearing on motions for a new trial.
Mr. Gorence informed the court he foresees a protracted evidentiary hearing and that XXXXXXXXXXXXXX named by Mr. Tierney would be subpoenaed.
Mr. Bowles mentioned XXXXXXXXXXX in XXXXXXXXXX County knew the XXXXXXXXX was investigating, and that he may have tempered his testimony. Because of that, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX had conversations with XXXXXXXXX. This will show XXXXXXXXXXXX knew the government had XXXXXXXX and a lot of cases go from there.
After the hearing, defense attorneys were approached about publishing the information that has been redacted in this report. They confirmed that the information learned today is now pubic information since it has been revealed in court and there is no problem publishing the information including names. Given the probality that there is an ongoing active investigation involved, redaction seems prudent until subpoeanas for the January hearing are served.
Other than the revelations learned in court today as reported above, the rest of the contents of the file remain sealed. The contents of the portions of that file that were turned over to the defense are known by the defense attorneys.
It should also be noted the reporters present not only heard what happened in the courtroom, but also interviewed the defense attorneys outside of the courtroom. They have made no mention of the above, or that motions for a new trial will be filed by the end of the year. It is not known if the judge will grant a new trial. It is not known if the judge does grant a new trial if the prosecution will re-file charges. The Reese’s cannot be tried again for the charges of which they have already been acquitted.
If it isn’t crystal clear in the redacted portion above, the bottom line is the Chief of the Criminal Division of the US Attorney’s Office for NM let it be known today that XXXXX in law enforcement, who testified in the Reese trial, is under investigation by XXXXXX. At issue is his credibility as a prosecution witness against the Reeses.
During the hearing today, Mr. Gorence stated that had the jury known this information the verdict many have resulted in acquittals on all counts.
Stay tuned.