USA v. Joshua N. Bowser

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
No.ȱ15Ȭ2258
U NITEDȱS TATESȱOFȱA MERICA,
PlaintiffȬAppellee,
v.
J OSHUAȱN.ȱBOWSER ,ȱetȱal.,
Defendants.
A PPEALȱOF :ȱBRADLEYȱW.ȱC ARLSON
AppealȱfromȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱDistrictȱCourtȱforȱtheȱ
SouthernȱDistrictȱofȱIndiana,ȱIndianapolisȱDivision.
No.ȱ1:12ȬcrȬ00102ȬTWPȬDMLȱ—ȱTanyaȱWaltonȱPratt,ȱJudge.ȱ
A RGUEDȱJ ANUARYȱ19,ȱ2016ȱ—ȱD ECIDEDȱA UGUSTȱ23,ȱ2016
BeforeȱEASTERBROOK,ȱR OVNER ,ȱandȱS YKES,ȱCircuitȱJudges.
R OVNER ,ȱ Circuitȱ Judge.ȱ Thisȱ appealȱ involvesȱ theȱ governȬ
ment’sȱeffortsȱtoȱseizeȱpersonalȱpropertyȱbearingȱtheȱinsignia
ofȱtheȱOutlawsȱMotorcycleȱClubȱ(theȱ“Outlaws”),ȱandȱtheȱeffort
ofȱaȱrepresentativeȱofȱtheȱOutlawsȱtoȱinterveneȱtoȱpreventȱthose
forfeitures.ȱTheȱforfeitureȱactionsȱstemmedȱfromȱcriminalȱcases
broughtȱagainstȱaȱnumberȱofȱOutlawsȱmembers,ȱincludingȱall
membersȱofȱtheȱIndianapolisȱchapterȱofȱtheȱOutlaws.ȱAsȱwe
summarizedȱinȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱKnoll,ȱ785ȱF.3dȱ1151,ȱ1152–53
(7thȱ Cir.ȱ 2015),ȱ “[t]hisȱ caseȱ beganȱ withȱ aȱ fortyȬnineȱ count

-- 1 of 12 --

2 No.ȱ15Ȭ2258
indictmentȱthatȱchargedȱfiftyȬoneȱindividualsȱ(allȱmembersȱof
theȱOutlaws)ȱwithȱracketeering,ȱmailȱandȱwireȱfraud,ȱmoney
laundering,ȱ drugȱ trafficking,ȱ extortion,ȱ runningȱ anȱ illegal
gamblingȱbusiness,ȱwitnessȱtamperingȱandȱfirearmsȱoffenses,
amongȱotherȱthings.”ȱIncludedȱinȱthatȱindictment,ȱwasȱaȱcount
chargingȱnineteenȱmembersȱofȱtheȱOutlawsȱwithȱviolationsȱof
theȱRacketeerȱInfluencedȱandȱCorruptȱOrganizationsȱstatute
(RICO),ȱbasedȱonȱallegationsȱthatȱtheȱOutlawsȱwasȱanȱenterȬ
priseȱandȱitsȱmembersȱparticipatedȱinȱthatȱenterpriseȱthrough
theȱcommissionȱofȱvariousȱcrimes.ȱTheȱindictmentȱincludedȱa
noticeȱofȱtheȱgovernment’sȱintentȱtoȱforfeitȱanyȱandȱallȱproperty
affordingȱtheȱRICOȱdefendantsȱwithȱaȱsourceȱofȱinfluenceȱover
theȱenterpriseȱandȱallȱpropertyȱobtained,ȱdirectlyȱorȱindirectly,
fromȱracketeeringȱactivity.ȱ
Onȱ Julyȱ 11,ȱ 2012,ȱ inȱ connectionȱ withȱ theȱ arrestsȱ ofȱ the
Outlawsȱmembers,ȱtheȱFBIȱexecutedȱsearchȱwarrantsȱonȱthe
Outlaws’ȱclubhousesȱinȱIndianapolisȱandȱFortȱWayne,ȱIndiana,
theȱOutlaws’ȱbunkhouseȱinȱIndianapolis,ȱandȱseveralȱindividȬ
ualȱ residences.ȱ Pursuantȱ toȱ thoseȱ searches,ȱ theȱ FBIȱ seized
numerousȱitemsȱbearingȱtheȱinsigniaȱofȱtheȱOutlaws,ȱandȱthe
FBIȱsoughtȱforfeitureȱofȱthoseȱitems.ȱThatȱpropertyȱincluded,
butȱwasȱnotȱlimitedȱto:ȱvests,ȱpatches,ȱshirts,ȱhats,ȱbeltȱbuckles,
signs,ȱ mirrors,ȱ flags,ȱ calendars,ȱ books,ȱ andȱ pictures.ȱ The
Outlawsȱusedȱtheȱsymbolsȱonȱtheȱclothingȱtoȱconspicuously
displayȱtheirȱpresenceȱandȱtoȱdeterȱotherȱgroupsȱfromȱinfringȬ
ingȱ onȱ theirȱ territory.ȱ Theȱ itemsȱ includedȱ theȱ symbolȱ ofȱ the
Outlawsȱwhichȱwasȱaȱskullȱandȱcrossedȱpistons,ȱandȱpatches
withȱ slogansȱ suchȱ asȱ “Godȱ Forgives,ȱ Outlawsȱ Don’t”ȱ and
“SnitchesȱAreȱaȱDyingȱBreed”ȱwhichȱcommunicatedȱaȱthreatȱto
thoseȱwhoȱwouldȱseekȱtoȱopposeȱtheȱOutlaws.ȱ

-- 2 of 12 --

No.ȱ15Ȭ2258 3
Oneȱ defendant,ȱ Christianȱ Miller,ȱ wasȱ foundȱ guiltyȱ after
trial,ȱ butȱ theȱ remainingȱ eighteenȱ defendantsȱ pledȱ guilty—
sixteenȱdefendantsȱtoȱallȱchargesȱandȱtwoȱdefendantsȱtoȱallȱbut
theȱRICOȱcountsȱtoȱwhichȱtheyȱpledȱnoloȱcontendere.ȱAsȱpart
ofȱ theȱ pleaȱ agreements,ȱ eachȱ agreedȱ toȱ forfeitȱ theȱ Outlaws
paraphernaliaȱseizedȱbyȱtheȱFBI.ȱAfterȱtheȱgovernmentȱsought
andȱobtainedȱfinalȱordersȱofȱforfeitureȱfromȱallȱbutȱoneȱdefenȬ
dant,ȱandȱwasȱinȱtheȱprocessȱofȱfinalizingȱforfeitureȱwithȱthe
remainingȱOutlawsȱdefendant,ȱtheȱcourtȱreceivedȱaȱletterȱfrom
Bradleyȱ W.ȱ Carlsonȱ whichȱ itȱ interpretedȱ asȱ aȱ motionȱ to
interveneȱ inȱ theȱ criminalȱ forfeitureȱ actions.ȱ Pursuantȱ to
18ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1963(l)(2),ȱ“[a]nyȱperson,ȱotherȱthanȱtheȱdefendant,
assertingȱaȱlegalȱinterestȱinȱpropertyȱwhichȱhasȱbeenȱordered
forfeitedȱtoȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱ…ȱmayȱ…ȱpetitionȱtheȱcourtȱfor
aȱhearingȱtoȱadjudicateȱtheȱvalidityȱofȱhisȱallegedȱinterestȱinȱthe
property.”ȱInȱorderȱtoȱpursueȱsuchȱrelief,ȱaȱpetitioner’sȱrightȱto
theȱ propertyȱ mustȱ haveȱ vestedȱ inȱ petitionerȱ ratherȱ thanȱ the
defendantȱorȱbeȱsuperiorȱtoȱanyȱright,ȱtitleȱorȱinterestȱofȱthe
defendantȱatȱtheȱtimeȱofȱtheȱcommissionȱofȱtheȱcriminalȱacts,ȱor
theȱpetitionerȱmustȱbeȱaȱbonaȱfideȱpurchaserȱofȱtheȱproperty.
18ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1963(l)(6).ȱTheȱgovernmentȱsoughtȱtoȱdismissȱthe
motionȱasȱuntimelyȱinȱthatȱfinalȱforfeitureȱordersȱhadȱalready
issued,ȱbutȱCarlsonȱrespondedȱbyȱfilingȱaȱmotionȱtoȱreopenȱthe
finalȱordersȱandȱalsoȱchallengingȱordersȱseekingȱforfeitureȱof
indiciaȱandȱmemorabiliaȱofȱtheȱOutlaws.ȱ
InȱseekingȱtoȱreopenȱtheȱforfeitureȱactionsȱunderȱFederal
RuleȱofȱCivilȱProcedureȱ60(b),ȱCarlsonȱcontendedȱthatȱheȱhad
aȱpropertyȱinterestȱinȱallȱofȱtheȱOutlawsȱparaphernaliaȱandȱthat
theȱgovernmentȱhadȱfailedȱtoȱprovideȱhimȱwithȱdirectȱnoticeȱof
theȱforfeitureȱactions.ȱTherefore,ȱtheȱissueȱbeforeȱtheȱdistrict

-- 3 of 12 --

4 No.ȱ15Ȭ2258
courtȱ wasȱ whetherȱ Carlsonȱ wasȱ dueȱ directȱ noticeȱ ofȱ the
forfeitureȱactionsȱfiledȱinȱthisȱcase.ȱTheȱnoticeȱrequirementsȱfor
suchȱ forfeituresȱ isȱ setȱ forthȱ inȱ 18ȱ U.S.C.ȱ §ȱ 1963(l)(1),ȱ which
providesȱthatȱ
[f]ollowingȱtheȱentryȱofȱanȱorderȱofȱforfeiture
underȱ thisȱ section,ȱ theȱ Unitedȱ Statesȱ shall
publishȱnoticeȱofȱtheȱorderȱandȱofȱitsȱintentȱto
disposeȱofȱtheȱpropertyȱinȱsuchȱmannerȱasȱthe
Attorneyȱ Generalȱ mayȱ direct.ȱ Theȱ GovernȬ
mentȱ mayȱ also,ȱ toȱ theȱ extentȱ practicable,
provideȱdirectȱwrittenȱnoticeȱtoȱanyȱperson
knownȱ toȱ haveȱ allegedȱ anȱ interestȱ inȱ the
propertyȱ thatȱ isȱ theȱ subjectȱ ofȱ theȱ orderȱ of
forfeitureȱasȱaȱsubstituteȱforȱpublishedȱnotice
asȱtoȱthoseȱpersonsȱsoȱnotified.
Inȱaddition,ȱFederalȱRuleȱofȱCriminalȱProcedureȱ32.2(b)(6)(A)
requiresȱtheȱgovernmentȱtoȱ“publishȱnoticeȱofȱtheȱorderȱand
sendȱ noticeȱ toȱ anyȱ personȱ whoȱ reasonablyȱ appearsȱ toȱ beȱ a
potentialȱclaimantȱwithȱstandingȱtoȱcontestȱtheȱforfeitureȱinȱthe
ancillaryȱproceeding.”ȱTheȱgovernmentȱprovidedȱnoticeȱofȱall
ofȱtheȱforfeituresȱtoȱeachȱofȱtheȱdefendants,ȱandȱalsoȱposted
noticeȱofȱeachȱforfeitureȱonȱtheȱofficialȱgovernmentȱforfeiture
siteȱatȱwww.forfeiture.govȱforȱ30ȱconsecutiveȱdays.
Carlsonȱassertsȱthatȱheȱwasȱentitledȱtoȱdirectȱwrittenȱnotice
ofȱtheȱorderȱbecauseȱheȱclaimsȱthatȱheȱhasȱbeenȱelectedȱbyȱthe
collectiveȱ membershipȱ ofȱ theȱ Outlawsȱ toȱ protect,ȱ manage,
direct,ȱoversee,ȱandȱcontrolȱallȱindiciaȱandȱmemorabiliaȱofȱthe
Outlawsȱ inȱ theȱ Unitedȱ States.ȱ Carlsonȱ maintainsȱ thatȱ all
patchesȱ andȱ registeredȱ collectiveȱ marksȱ ofȱ theȱ Outlawsȱ are

-- 4 of 12 --

No.ȱ15Ȭ2258 5
ownedȱsolelyȱbyȱtheȱcollectiveȱmembershipȱofȱtheȱOutlaws,ȱnot
byȱ anyȱ individualȱ members.ȱ Asȱ supportȱ forȱ hisȱ position,
Carlsonȱ pointsȱ outȱ thatȱ Outlawsȱ membersȱ believeȱ thatȱ the
propertyȱbearingȱtheȱmarkingsȱofȱtheȱOutlawsȱareȱtheȱproperty
ofȱtheȱOutlawsȱasȱaȱwhole,ȱandȱthatȱOutlawsȱmembersȱmust
returnȱtheirȱ“colors”ȱ(paraphernaliaȱwithȱOutlawsȱmarkings)
ifȱ theyȱ ceaseȱ toȱ becomeȱ activeȱ members.ȱ Theȱ government
concedesȱ thatȱ Outlawsȱ membersȱ shareȱ thatȱ belief.ȱ Carlson
claimsȱthatȱbyȱvirtueȱofȱhisȱelectedȱpositionȱheȱhasȱbeenȱvested
byȱtheȱmembershipȱofȱtheȱOutlawsȱwithȱaȱ“superiorȱpossessory
interestȱinȱallȱitemsȱofȱ[Outlaws]ȱindicia.”ȱ
Theȱdistrictȱcourtȱdeniedȱthatȱmotion,ȱasȱwellȱasȱCarlson’s
subsequentȱmotionȱtoȱalterȱorȱamendȱtheȱjudgmentȱpursuant
toȱRuleȱ59(e).ȱTheȱdistrictȱcourtȱdeterminedȱthatȱCarlsonȱhad
failedȱ toȱ demonstrateȱ thatȱ theȱ governmentȱ wasȱ awareȱ of
Carlsonȱorȱhisȱallegedȱinterestȱinȱtheȱproperty,ȱandȱthatȱinȱany
eventȱCarlsonȱhadȱfailedȱtoȱdemonstrateȱaȱpropertyȱinterestȱin
theȱ Outlawsȱ paraphernalia.ȱ Weȱ reviewȱ theȱ districtȱ court’s
Ruleȱ60(b)ȱdeterminationȱforȱabuseȱofȱdiscretion.ȱAndersonȱv.
Catholicȱ Bishopȱ ofȱ Chicago,ȱ 759ȱ F.3dȱ 645,ȱ 652ȱ (7thȱ Cir.ȱ 2014);
UnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱ8136ȱS.ȱDobsonȱSt.,ȱChicago,ȱIll.,ȱ125ȱF.3dȱ1076,
1082ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ1997).
Onȱappeal,ȱCarlsonȱpresentsȱtwoȱissuesȱforȱourȱresolution:
whetherȱCarlsonȱpossessedȱanȱinterestȱinȱtheȱpropertyȱsuffiȬ
cientȱtoȱentitleȱhimȱtoȱnoticeȱofȱtheȱforfeitureȱproceedings,ȱand
whetherȱtheȱnoticeȱprovidedȱbyȱtheȱgovernmentȱwasȱadequate
asȱbothȱaȱstatutoryȱandȱconstitutionalȱmatter.ȱBecauseȱCarlson
failsȱtoȱadequatelyȱallegeȱthatȱheȱhadȱaȱlawfulȱpropertyȱinterest
atȱstakeȱofȱwhichȱtheȱgovernmentȱreasonablyȱwouldȱhaveȱbeen
aware,ȱ weȱ needȱ notȱ considerȱ hisȱ secondȱ contentionȱ thatȱ the

-- 5 of 12 --

6 No.ȱ15Ȭ2258
noticeȱsuppliedȱtoȱallȱ membersȱofȱtheȱIndianapolisȱOutlaws
chapter,ȱincludingȱitsȱpresident,ȱwasȱinadequateȱtoȱinformȱthe
Outlaws’ȱcollectiveȱmembership.ȱ1
Asȱ Carlsonȱ concedes,ȱ aȱ lawfulȱ propertyȱ interestȱ forȱ purȬ
posesȱofȱtheȱforfeitureȱnoticeȱprovisionȱisȱcreatedȱandȱdefined
byȱ stateȱ law.ȱ Knoll,ȱ 785ȱ F.3dȱ atȱ 1156;ȱ Unitedȱ Statesȱ v.ȱ 5ȱ Sȱ 351
TuthillȱRd.,ȱNaperville,ȱIll.,ȱ233ȱF.3dȱ1017,ȱ1021ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2000),
amendedȱonȱdenialȱofȱrehȇgȱ(Mar.ȱ21,ȱ2001).ȱTherefore,ȱweȱmust
lookȱtoȱIndianaȱlawȱtoȱdetermineȱwhetherȱCarlsonȱhasȱalleged
aȱ propertyȱ interestȱ recognizedȱ inȱ thatȱ state.ȱ Onlyȱ aȱ person
possessingȱaȱlegalȱinterest,ȱratherȱthanȱanȱequitableȱinterest,ȱin
propertyȱwillȱhaveȱstandingȱtoȱchallengeȱitsȱforfeiture.ȱKnoll,
785ȱF.3dȱatȱ1156;ȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱTimley,ȱ507ȱF.3dȱ1125,ȱ1129ȱ(8th
Cir.ȱ 2007).ȱ Carlsonȱ allegesȱ onlyȱ thatȱ theȱ propertyȱ subjectȱ to
forfeitureȱwasȱnotȱownedȱbyȱindividuals,ȱbutȱwasȱownedȱby
theȱ “collectiveȱ membership”ȱ ofȱ theȱ Outlawsȱ andȱ heȱ wasȱ an
agentȱ ofȱ thatȱ collectiveȱ membershipȱ forȱ theȱ purposesȱ of
maintainingȱandȱcontrollingȱtheȱpropertyȱandȱthereforeȱhadȱa
1ȱȱAlthoughȱbothȱpartiesȱrelyȱonȱtrialȱtestimonyȱinȱarguingȱasȱtoȱownership,
Carlsonȱ assertsȱ thatȱ theȱ governmentȱ shouldȱ notȱ beȱ ableȱ toȱ pointȱ to
testimonyȱinȱtheȱcriminalȱcaseȱthatȱCarlsonȱneverȱhadȱanȱopportunityȱto
contest.ȱSettingȱasideȱtheȱcontradictionȱinȱrelyingȱonȱsuchȱtestimonyȱwhen
usefulȱandȱdisavowingȱitsȱrelevanceȱwhenȱnot,ȱtheȱargumentȱisȱproblematic
onȱaȱmoreȱfundamentalȱbasis.ȱTheȱissueȱhereȱisȱwhetherȱtheȱgovernment
shouldȱhaveȱknowȱthatȱCarlsonȱhadȱanȱownershipȱinterestȱinȱtheȱproperty
suchȱasȱtoȱentitleȱhimȱtoȱdirectȱnotice.ȱTheȱgovernment’sȱknowledgeȱofȱthe
Outlawsȱgleanedȱinȱtheȱtrialȱtestimonyȱisȱrelevantȱ toȱthatȱdetermination
regardlessȱ ofȱ whetherȱ thatȱ informationȱ couldȱ haveȱ beenȱ contestedȱ by
Carlson.ȱ

-- 6 of 12 --

No.ȱ15Ȭ2258 7
lawful,ȱpossessoryȱinterestȱoverȱtheȱforfeitedȱitemsȱbyȱvirtueȱof
thatȱagencyȱrelationship.ȱ
Underȱ Indianaȱ law,ȱ ownershipȱ ofȱ personalȱ propertyȱ is
determinedȱbyȱreferenceȱtoȱtheȱindiciaȱsuchȱasȱtitle,ȱpossession,
andȱcontrol.ȱHardenȱv.ȱMonroeȱGuarantyȱIns.ȱCo.,ȱ626ȱN.E.2dȱ814,
820ȱ(Ind.ȱApp.ȱCt.ȱ1993);ȱWomackȱv.ȱState,ȱ738ȱN.E.2dȱ320,ȱ324
(Ind.ȱCt.ȱApp.ȱ2000);ȱNationalȱServȬAllȱInc.ȱv.ȱIndianaȱDept.ȱof
StateȱRevenue,ȱ644ȱN.E.2dȱ954,ȱ957ȱ(Ind.ȱTaxȱCt.ȱ1994);ȱMeridian
MortgageȱCo.ȱv.ȱState,ȱ182ȱInd.ȱApp.ȱ328,ȱ339,ȱ395ȱN.E.2dȱ433,
439ȱ(1979);ȱRhoadesȱv.ȱState,ȱ70ȱN.E.2dȱ27,ȱ29ȱ(Ind.ȱS.ȱCt.ȱ1946).
Carlsonȱhasȱnotȱallegedȱanyȱofȱtheseȱindicia,ȱandȱinȱfactȱdoes
notȱciteȱtoȱanyȱIndianaȱcasesȱinȱassertingȱtheȱpropertyȱinterest.
Althoughȱ heȱ hasȱ allegedȱ anȱ understandingȱ thatȱ property
cannotȱbeȱtransferredȱtoȱnonȬmembers,ȱheȱdoesȱnotȱidentify
whatȱtypeȱofȱinterest,ȱifȱany,ȱinȱthatȱpropertyȱwasȱretainedȱby
theȱOutlaws—whetherȱanȱoptionȱtoȱpurchaseȱback,ȱaȱrightȱof
firstȱ refusal,ȱ aȱ terminationȱ ofȱ aȱ bailmentȱ orȱ lease,ȱ etc.—and
whetherȱthatȱinterestȱisȱaȱlegalȱinterestȱthatȱgrantsȱstandingȱor
anȱequitableȱorȱotherȱinterestȱthatȱdoesȱnot.ȱHeȱfailsȱinȱfactȱto
citeȱtoȱIndianaȱlawȱatȱallȱtoȱestablishȱtheȱlegalȱinterestȱinȱthe
propertyȱ despiteȱ recognizingȱ thatȱ propertyȱ interestsȱ are
definedȱ byȱ stateȱ law.ȱ Moreover,ȱ amongȱ theȱ forfeituresȱ chalȬ
lengedȱbyȱCarlsonȱareȱthoseȱofȱthreeȱpersonsȱwhoȱwereȱformer
membersȱ ofȱ theȱ Outlaws,ȱ yetȱ stillȱ inȱ possessionȱ ofȱ such
paraphernalia,ȱ andȱ atȱ leastȱ oneȱ personȱ whoȱ wasȱ neverȱ an
Outlawsȱ member,ȱ thusȱ contradictingȱ theȱ claimȱ thatȱ the
collectiveȱmembershipȱexercisedȱthatȱcontrolȱoverȱdistribution.ȱ
Inȱhisȱinitialȱbriefȱtoȱthisȱcourt,ȱCarlsonȱappearedȱtoȱassert
aȱ bailmentȱ relationship,ȱ whereinȱ theȱ propertyȱ wouldȱ be
possessedȱbyȱtheȱOutlawsȱmembersȱonlyȱasȱbaileesȱwithȱthe

-- 7 of 12 --

8 No.ȱ15Ȭ2258
Outlawsȱorganizationȱpresumablyȱtheȱbailor,ȱbutȱheȱaffirmaȬ
tivelyȱ deniedȱ anyȱ suchȱ argumentȱ inȱ hisȱ replyȱ briefȱ andȱ on
appeal.ȱ Bailment,ȱ atȱ least,ȱ isȱ aȱ recognizedȱ propertyȱ interest,
althoughȱ appropriatelyȱ abandonedȱ givenȱ theȱ absenceȱ of
evidenceȱthatȱthisȱwasȱinȱfactȱaȱbailmentȱrelationship.ȱHeȱrelies
insteadȱ onlyȱ onȱ anȱ argumentȱ thatȱ hisȱ legalȱ interestȱ isȱ asȱ an
agentȱofȱtheȱOutlawsȱandȱthatȱhisȱagencyȱinterestsȱareȱaȱlegally
recognizedȱinterest.ȱButȱanȱagentȱcanȱpossessȱonlyȱtheȱinterest
ofȱ hisȱ principal,ȱ andȱ Carlsonȱ hasȱ notȱ allegedȱ whatȱ legally
protectedȱ interestȱ theȱ principal—theȱ Outlaws—hasȱ inȱ the
property.ȱCarlsonȱdidȱnotȱassert,ȱforȱinstance,ȱthatȱtheȱOutlaws
haveȱ aȱ propertyȱ interestȱ becauseȱ theȱ Outlawsȱ purchasedȱ or
manufacturedȱ theȱ paraphernaliaȱ andȱ retainedȱ aȱ recognized
legalȱinterestȱinȱit,ȱnorȱdoesȱheȱallegeȱthatȱtheȱOutlawsȱposȬ
sessedȱitȱandȱdistributedȱitȱinȱsuchȱaȱmannerȱthatȱtheȱOutlaws
retainedȱaȱlegalȱasȱopposedȱtoȱequitableȱinterestȱinȱtheȱpropȬ
erty.ȱInȱfact,ȱatȱoralȱargumentȱcounselȱforȱCarlsonȱdidȱnotȱknow
whetherȱtheȱOutlawsȱorganizationȱhadȱpurchasedȱtheȱitems,
andȱdidȱnotȱknowȱwhereȱtheȱitemsȱwereȱpurchasedȱorȱwhere
manufactured.ȱ Heȱ assertedȱ thatȱ “ownershipȱ isȱ ownership”
regardlessȱ ofȱ whetherȱ oneȱ hasȱ aȱ receiptȱ forȱ theȱ itemsȱ or
whetherȱtheȱitemsȱareȱfoundȱonȱtheȱstreet.ȱButȱofȱcourse,ȱthe
originȱofȱtheȱitems—suchȱasȱwhetherȱtheyȱareȱborrowed,ȱstolen,
purchased,ȱleased,ȱorȱnotȱpossessedȱatȱall—isȱinȱfactȱrelevantȱto
whetherȱtheȱOutlawsȱhaveȱaȱlegalȱinterestȱrecognizedȱunder
stateȱ law.ȱ Carlsonȱ maintainedȱ thatȱ allȱ partiesȱ agreedȱ asȱ to
ownership,ȱbutȱtheȱexistenceȱofȱaȱlegallyȱenforceableȱproperty
interestȱisȱaȱmatterȱofȱstateȱlawȱnotȱaȱmatterȱtoȱbeȱdecidedȱby
theȱparties.ȱPersonsȱjoiningȱtheȱOutlawsȱmayȱwellȱunderstand
thatȱ theȱ Outlawsȱ colorsȱ mustȱ onlyȱ beȱ wornȱ byȱ Outlaws

-- 8 of 12 --

No.ȱ15Ȭ2258 9
membersȱinȱgoodȱstanding,ȱandȱthatȱtheȱ membersȱwillȱtake
awayȱaȱperson’sȱcolorsȱifȱtheyȱleaveȱtheȱOutlawsȱeitherȱvolunȬ
tarilyȱorȱotherwise.ȱThatȱtypeȱofȱexpectationȱmayȱbeȱfoundȱin
otherȱcontextsȱsuchȱasȱinȱstreetȱgangs,ȱinȱwhichȱgangȱmembers
mayȱenforceȱtheirȱgangȱrulesȱandȱprohibitȱnonȬmembersȱfrom
displayingȱtheȱsymbolsȱofȱtheȱgang;ȱthatȱdoesȱnotȱvestȱthose
gangȱ membersȱ withȱ aȱ legallyȱ protectedȱ interestȱ inȱ those
symbolsȱorȱvestments.2ȱInȱfact,ȱOutlawsȱalsoȱpurportȱtoȱrequire
membersȱtoȱcolorȱoverȱtattoosȱcontainingȱOutlawsȱsymbolsȱif
theyȱleaveȱtheȱOutlaws,ȱbutȱthatȱdoesȱnotȱsuggestȱownershipȱof
theȱtattoos.ȱTheȱattemptȱtoȱcontrolȱmemberȱbehaviorȱandȱthe
useȱofȱsymbolsȱisȱprevalentȱinȱmanyȱorganizations—criminal
orȱotherwise—butȱdoesȱnotȱinȱitselfȱestablishȱaȱlawfulȱproperty
interest.ȱ
Inȱshort,ȱitȱisȱnotȱenoughȱtoȱmerelyȱassertȱthatȱtheȱOutlaws
membersȱ understandȱ thatȱ Outlawsȱ insigniaȱ canȱ onlyȱ be
possessedȱ andȱ exhibitedȱ byȱ Outlawsȱ members,ȱ orȱ evenȱ to
assertȱ theirȱ “agreement”ȱ thatȱ theȱ itemsȱ areȱ ownedȱ byȱ the
collectiveȱmembershipȱnotȱtheȱindividuals.ȱ“Courtsȱgenerally
doȱ notȱ determineȱ legalȱ interestsȱ inȱ propertyȱ forȱ forfeiture
purposesȱ byȱ evaluatingȱ theȱ historyȱ andȱ traditionsȱ ofȱ the
Outlaws”ȱandȱtheȱequitableȱinterestsȱcreatedȱbyȱthatȱhistory
andȱ traditionȱ “areȱ insufficientȱ toȱ establishȱ propertyȱ rights.”
Knoll,ȱ785ȱF.3dȱatȱ1156.ȱStateȱlawȱdefinesȱpropertyȱinterests,ȱnot
2ȱ ȱ Althoughȱ Carlsonȱ statesȱ thatȱ theȱ collectiveȱ marksȱ ofȱ theȱ Outlawsȱ are
registeredȱ withȱ theȱ Unitedȱ Statesȱ Patentȱ andȱ Trademarkȱ Office,ȱ Carlson
makesȱ noȱ argumentȱ relatingȱ toȱ trademarkȱ protectionȱ inȱ hisȱ briefȱ and
thereforeȱweȱdoȱnotȱaddressȱthatȱinȱthisȱopinion.ȱ

-- 9 of 12 --

10 No.ȱ15Ȭ2258
theȱagreementsȱbyȱindividualsȱasȱtoȱwhoȱwillȱbeȱdeemedȱan
owner.ȱ
InȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱFundsȱinȱtheȱAmountȱofȱ$239,400,ȱ795ȱF.3d
639,ȱ642Ȭ43ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2015),ȱweȱrecognizedȱthatȱ“anȱassertionȱof
ownershipȱ combinedȱ withȱ someȱ evidenceȱ ofȱ ownershipȱ is
sufficientȱtoȱestablishȱstandingȱatȱtheȱsummaryȱjudgmentȱstage
ofȱaȱcivilȱforfeitureȱaction.”ȱHere,ȱCarlsonȱasksȱusȱtoȱholdȱthat
inȱ aȱ criminalȱ forfeiture,ȱ anȱ assertionȱ ofȱ ownership,ȱ without
more,ȱ isȱ sufficientȱ toȱ alertȱ theȱ governmentȱ thatȱ heȱ hasȱ a
propertyȱ interestȱ inȱ theȱ itemsȱ asȱ againstȱ thoseȱ whoȱ wereȱ in
possessionȱofȱtheȱitemsȱandȱconcededȱtheirȱforfeiture.ȱItȱisȱnot.
Suchȱ anȱ approachȱ isȱ inconsistentȱ withȱ theȱ law,ȱ andȱ underȬ
standablyȱso,ȱasȱitȱwouldȱbeȱrifeȱforȱabuse.ȱPersonsȱengagedȱin
aȱcriminalȱenterpriseȱcouldȱsimplyȱagreeȱamongȱthemselves
thatȱ allȱ personalȱ andȱ realȱ propertyȱ inȱ theirȱ possessionȱ is
actuallyȱownedȱbyȱtheirȱlawȬabidingȱgrandmotherȱdownȱthe
block,ȱandȱtheȱgrandmotherȱcouldȱcontestȱtheȱforfeitureȱofȱsuch
propertyȱwithoutȱanyȱotherȱallegationȱofȱaȱlegalȱinterestȱinȱthe
property.ȱ
TheȱdistrictȱcourtȱinȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱRosga,ȱ864ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ2d
439ȱ(E.D.ȱVa.ȱ2012),ȱrecognizedȱsuchȱaȱdangerȱinȱaȱcaseȱpresentȬ
ingȱtheȱsameȱissuesȱhere—anȱeffortȱtoȱinterveneȱinȱforfeiture
actionsȱbasedȱonȱownershipȱbyȱtheȱcollectiveȱmembershipȱof
theȱ Outlaws.ȱ Asȱ inȱ thisȱ case,ȱ theȱ Rosgaȱ courtȱ wasȱ presented
withȱ forfeitureȱ ofȱ Outlawsȱ paraphernaliaȱ followingȱ RICO
convictionsȱofȱsixteenȱOutlawsȱmembers,ȱandȱtheȱgovernment
providedȱnoticeȱtoȱthoseȱdefendantsȱasȱwellȱasȱtheȱpublicȱnotice
onȱitsȱwebsite.ȱFourȱOutlawsȱmembersȱnotȱnamedȱasȱdefenȬ
dantsȱinȱtheȱcriminalȱcaseȱthenȱcontestedȱtheȱforfeiture,ȱseeking
theȱreturnȱofȱallȱindiciaȱandȱotherȱpropertyȱassociatedȱwithȱthe

-- 10 of 12 --

No.ȱ15Ȭ2258 11
Outlawsȱbasedȱonȱtheȱargumentȱthatȱnoneȱofȱtheȱindividual
defendantsȱownedȱtheȱOutlawsȱitems.ȱTheȱcourtȱheldȱthat,ȱin
orderȱtoȱadequatelyȱallegeȱstandingȱtoȱcontestȱaȱforfeiture,ȱthe
claimantsȱmustȱestablishȱ“atȱleastȱ‘aȱfaciallyȱcolorableȱownerȬ
shipȱinterest’ȱinȱtheȱpropertyȱinȱquestion.”ȱId.ȱatȱ448.ȱTheȱRosga
courtȱ notedȱ thatȱ dismissalȱ ofȱ theȱ petitionȱ onȱ suchȱ standing
groundsȱwouldȱbeȱproperȱonlyȱifȱtheȱfactsȱtakenȱasȱtrueȱinȱthe
lightȱmostȱfavorableȱtoȱpetitioners,ȱ“doȱnotȱplausiblyȱdemonȬ
strateȱaȱcognizableȱlegalȱinterestȱinȱtheȱforfeitedȱassets.”ȱIdȱat
449.ȱFacedȱwithȱtheȱsameȱ“collectiveȱmembership”ȱargument
raisedȱ here,ȱ theȱ courtȱ heldȱ thatȱ theȱ petitioners—whoȱ never
claimedȱ toȱ haveȱ beenȱ inȱ possessionȱ ofȱ theȱ propertyȱ and
assertedȱ onlyȱ unsupportedȱ legalȱ conclusionsȱ ofȱ collective
ownership—failedȱtoȱdemonstrateȱaȱcognizableȱinterestȱinȱthe
items.ȱTheȱcourtȱnotedȱthatȱcriminalȱforfeitureȱstatutesȱshould
beȱconstruedȱtoȱdenyȱreliefȱtoȱpartiesȱengagedȱinȱmanipulating
ownership.ȱ Theȱ courtȱ deemedȱ “wellȬfounded”ȱ theȱ governȬ
ment’sȱ argumentȱ thatȱ theȱ collectiveȱ ownershipȱ mechanism
assertedȱbyȱtheȱOutlawsȱwasȱ“designedȱsolelyȱ‘toȱinsulateȱfrom
forfeitureȱpropertyȱusedȱbyȱconvictedȱmembersȱofȱtheȱorganizaȬ
tion.’”ȱId.ȱatȱ450.ȱ
TheȱallegationsȱreliedȱuponȱbyȱCarlsonȱareȱsimilar.ȱCarlson
reliesȱsolelyȱonȱtheȱunderstandingȱofȱtheȱmembersȱsetȱforthȱin
theȱ membershipȱ affidavitȱ thatȱ eachȱ memberȱ signs,ȱ andȱ atȬ
tachedȱhisȱAmericanȱOutlawsȱAssociationȱ(AOA)ȱMembership
AffidavitȱtoȱtheȱRuleȱ60(b)ȱmotion.ȱThatȱaffidavitȱcontainsȱonly
aȱfewȱsentences,ȱallȱofȱwhichȱreflectȱaȱfocusȱonȱevadingȱlaw
enforcement.ȱFirst,ȱtheȱaffidavitȱdefinesȱownershipȱofȱproperty,
declaringȱ thatȱ “everyȱ memberȱ ofȱ theȱ AOAȱ isȱ informedȱ and
agrees,ȱthatȱaȱmemberȱcanȱonlyȱsurrender,ȱtransferȱorȱforfeit

-- 11 of 12 --

12 No.ȱ15Ȭ2258
indiciaȱ ofȱ theȱ AOAȱ toȱ anotherȱ memberȱ inȱ goodȱ standing,
thereforeȱallȱpropertyȱbearingȱtheȱmarkingsȱofȱtheȱAOAȱisȱthe
propertyȱofȱtheȱAOAȱasȱaȱwhole,ȱnotȱtheȱindividual.”ȱInȱthe
sentenceȱ followingȱ thatȱ declaration,ȱ theȱ affidavitȱ discusses
possibleȱforfeiture,ȱandȱtheȱmemberȱagreesȱthatȱifȱtheȱproperty
isȱ seizedȱ byȱ lawȱ enforcementȱ heȱ willȱ pursueȱ itȱ byȱ allȱ legal
resourcesȱthatȱareȱavailable.ȱFinally,ȱtheȱfinalȱsentenceȱinȱthat
sameȱ affidavitȱ providesȱ “Iȱ alsoȱ knowȱ andȱ agreeȱ thatȱ by
becomingȱaȱmemberȱofȱtheȱAOAȱitȱisȱnot,ȱnorȱhasȱeverȱbeenȱa
criminalȱ enterprise.”ȱ Thatȱ statementȱ mirrorsȱ theȱ statement
concerningȱ theȱ propertyȱ interestȱ inȱ thatȱ itȱ reflectsȱ aȱ legal
conclusion,ȱwithȱnoȱfactualȱbasisȱwhatsoever,ȱwhichȱappearsȱto
beȱdesignedȱtoȱsubvertȱlawȱenforcementȱefforts.ȱTheȱstatement
thatȱ itȱ wasȱ notȱ aȱ criminalȱ enterpriseȱ isȱ beliedȱ byȱ theȱ RICO
chargesȱandȱconvictionsȱasȱtoȱallȱmembersȱofȱtheȱIndianapolis
chapterȱ inȱ theȱ underlyingȱ criminalȱ actionȱ here,ȱ andȱ the
statementȱconcerningȱtheȱownershipȱinterestȱfaresȱnoȱbetter.
Theȱaffidavitȱstatementsȱdoȱnotȱprovideȱanyȱbasisȱforȱtheȱcourt
toȱidentifyȱwhatȱlegalȱinterestȱtheȱOutlawsȱhaveȱinȱtheȱpropȬ
erty,ȱandȱcertainlyȱwouldȱnotȱputȱtheȱgovernmentȱonȱnotice
thatȱtheȱ“collectiveȱmembership”ȱpossessedȱaȱlegalȱownership
interestȱ inȱ theȱ property.ȱ Asȱ theȱ Indianaȱ Courtȱ ofȱ Appeals
recognized,ȱ“[o]wnershipȱcanȱnotȱbeȱconferredȱbyȱaȱwaveȱofȱa
magicȱ semanticȱ wand.ȱ Weȱ willȱ lookȱ pastȱ theȱ termsȱ ofȱ the
agreementȱ toȱ theȱ actualȱ transactionȱ involved.”ȱ Meridian
Mortgage,ȱ395ȱN.E.2dȱatȱ440.ȱCarlsonȱhasȱfailedȱtoȱidentifyȱthe
originȱ ofȱ theȱ itemsȱ orȱ allegeȱ theȱ Outlawsȱ relationshipȱ atȱ its
inception,ȱandȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱproperlyȱheldȱthatȱCarlsonȱwas
notȱentitledȱtoȱindividualizedȱnotice.ȱ
TheȱdecisionȱofȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱisȱAFFIRMED.

-- 12 of 12 --