United States v. Knoll

• Decision Date: 11 May 2015
• Docket Number: No. 14–3027.,14–3027.
• Citation: 785 F.3d 1151
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Michael A. KNOLL and Dax G. Shephard, Defendants. Appeal of Bob Henson, Intervenor–Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

785 F.3d 1151

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee
v.
Michael A. KNOLL and Dax G. Shephard, Defendants.

Appeal of Bob Henson, Intervenor–Appellant.

No. 14–3027.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 24, 2015^* .
Decided May 11, 2015.

785 F.3d 1152

Bradley A. Blackington, Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Indianapolis, IN, for Plaintiff–Appellee.

Loren J. Comstock, Attorney, Indianapolis, IN, for Intervenor–Appellant.

Richard L. Ford, Attorney, Abigail Lynn Seif, Attorney, Epstein Cohen Seif & Flora, Indianapolis, IN, for Defendants.

Before EASTERBROOK, ROVNER, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion

ROVNER, Circuit Judge.

Michael Knoll and Dax Shephard were members of the Outlaws Motorcycle Club (“Outlaws”). Both men pled guilty to racketeering and Knoll also pled guilty to running an illegal gambling business. Both men agreed in their plea deals to forfeit certain real and personal property that was used in the crimes. Bob Henson intervened to object to the forfeiture of property in which he claimed an interest. Henson now appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the government, and we affirm.

I.

From approximately May 2009 through July 2012, the Outlaws, true to their name, were a very busy criminal organization. This case began with a forty-nine count indictment that charged fifty-one individuals (all members of the Outlaws) with racketeering, mail and wire fraud, money laundering,

785 F.3d 1153

drug trafficking, extortion, running an illegal gambling business, witness tampering and firearms offenses, among other things. The indictment sought the forfeiture of real and personal property from Knoll, Shephard and some of their fellow Outlaws on the basis of the racketeering count. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962 and 1963. Specifically, the indictment sought the forfeiture of real property located at 305 North Jefferson Avenue and 2204 East New York Street, both in Indianapolis, Indiana (“Indianapolis Properties”); as well as real property located at 1202 West Main Street, Fort Wayne, Indiana (“Fort Wayne Property”).

In his plea agreement, Knoll agreed to forfeit any interest he had in the Indianapolis Properties, any firearms found at those properties and any items bearing the name or insignia of the Outlaws found at those properties. Shephard agreed to forfeit his interest in both the Indianapolis Properties and the Fort Wayne property, as well as any firearms, currency and items bearing the name or insignia of the Outlaws found at those properties. For both Knoll and Shephard, the district court granted the government's motions for forfeiture, in each case entering a “Preliminary Order of Forfeiture.” Those Preliminary Orders directed the government to comply with the due process requirements of United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43, 114 S.Ct. 492, 126 L.Ed.2d 490 (1993), by affixing a copy of the court's order in a conspicuous place on the property, and by leaving a copy of the order with the person having possession or the person's agent. The court further ordered the government to publish notice of the Preliminary Orders, alerting anyone other than the defendants having or claiming a legal interest in the property to file a petition with the court within thirty days. See 18 U.S.C. § 1963(1).

Bob Henson subsequently filed intervenor petitions—one in Knoll's case and one in Shephard's case—claiming an interest in the Indianapolis Properties and the Fort Wayne Property. When the government moved to dismiss the petitions because they were not filed under penalty of perjury, the district court granted Henson leave to file amended petitions. Henson then filed an amended, consolidated petition, claiming a third-party interest in all of the properties. Specifically, Henson claimed that he was a resident of the properties as well as a member, trustee and officer of the Outlaws. He asserted that the Outlaws' interest in the properties was superior to that of the defendants. The court allowed discovery on the petition, and the government ultimately moved to compel Henson to disclose all evidence in his possession relating to the nature and extent of his right, title or interest in the Indianapolis Properties and the Fort Wayne Property.

In response, Henson filed a two-page statement titled “Bob Henson's interest in the Indianapolis (AOA) properties,” which begins, inauspiciously:

1) Giving brothers a place to live

2) No one else wanted the responsibility because they were unwilling or scared.

3) Without leadership the other motorcycle clubs in town would be fighting and causing problems.

R. 2853–1. Henson noted eleven other factors he believed to be relevant to his interest in the properties, including the alarming revelation that “[a] major school bus stop for neighborhood children is in front of the clubhouse,” and his belief that “[t]he club as a whole is not a criminal enterprise.” Henson then moved on to more salient factors, under a section titled “Real Interest.” That section reads in its entirety:

785 F.3d 1154

1) I made sure that business within our home was conducted as any other household.

2) I delegated chores (cooking, cleaning, etc.)

3) I delegated people to pay the bills monthly.

a. Gas & Electric

b. Property taxes

c. Water/Sewage

d. Cable

4) I have been the leader since the initial raid in 2012.

a. I am a natural leader who has a way to make the inner-workings of our organization move without crime and/or violence.

b. I am loyal

c. Trustworthy

d. I believe that we can have a motorcycle club and be productive citizens within the community.

Pursuant to 28 USC § 1746, I declare under the penalties of perjury that my stated interests in properties at 2202—2204 East New York Street and 305 North Jefferson Street, Indianapolis, Indiana are true and accurate as I am informed and believe.

R. 2853–1. Henson presented no other evidence in support of his interest in the properties.

Around the same time that he filed this statement, Henson moved for the court...