Informant’s phone calls lead to massive federal drug-dealing indictment in Baltimore

by Van Smith

Published in City Paper, Aug. 29, 2014

The FBI had a busy day in Baltimore on Aug. 11, thanks to an informant’s flurry of phone calls setting up drug deals that resulted in federal charges against nine men. The informant, dubbed “CW1” in court documents, had been arrested with “several kilograms of both heroin and cocaine,” and proceeded to set up sales of the drugs to his customers so the FBI could arrest them.

Seven were arrested over a four-hour period that afternoon, when they arrived in succession at the Mondawmin Mall parking lot, allegedly prepared to purchase kilograms of cocaine and heroin from CW1, who had supplied them in the past. Two, from Washington, D.C., were arrested that night at the Haddon Hill Apartments in Northwest Baltimore, where one allegedly worked as a maintenance man; agents seized $216,140 in cash from a maintenance-closet cabinet there. In one case, a defendant allegedly expected a setup at the mall parking lot, thanks to an earlier call from his probation agent, who asked him if he’d been arrested by the FBI, and so he came to the deal without any money.

All nine were indicted Aug. 22 by a federal grand jury, which charged them in a cocaine-and-heroin conspiracy. Many appear to have prior federal convictions. The court documents portray a hectic schedule of wheeling and dealing as the informant and the men prepared for major drug transactions that lured the alleged dealers into the hands of waiting law enforcers.

First arrested were Dominic William “Nick” Parker of Gwynn Oak and Jermaine “Main” Cannady of Eutaw Place in Baltimore, after their 1:05 p.m. arrival at the mall’s parking lot. Earlier, at 9:27 a.m., CW1 called Cannady, who was convicted of assault in the 2000s after throwing scalding-hot baby oil on a fellow inmate who he also beat with a broom handle while he was serving time for a 1999 drug-conspiracy conviction, and told him to “call Nick” and “wake his ass up” because “I don’t want fat boy and any other them motherfuckers, just Yo” to come to the drug deal. Later, just after noon, Parker got on the phone with CW1 and said he had some errands to do first, but CW1 told him to come do the deal first—which he and Cannady did, and were promptly arrested.

Next up, after their 1:41 p.m. arrival at the mall parking lot in a white pickup truck, were Tavon Alexander Louis “Tay” Hopkins and Cornell Dion “Nelly” Brown Jr., both of Northeast Baltimore. Described as “multi-kilogram dealers” who CW1 “supplied with cocaine,” the court documents indicate that CW1 initially tried to get them to come do the deal with Cannady and Parker, with whom Brown was previously convicted on armed bank-robbery charges. A half-hour before their arrival, Brown told CW1 that “I’ma come get four” kilograms, and then, later, “I’ma come back [and] get ten.” After their arrests, agents found $157,000 in cash in the truck, enough to purchase four kilograms. Hopkins told agents he “knew it was a set up” because “CW1’s vehicle was far from other vehicles, like the police set it up,” and that “he told Brown that he needed to drive away.”

At 3:01 p.m., Donte Eugene Taylor of McElderry Park arrived at the mall parking lot, having enthusiastically received CW1’s news, delivered over the phone at 9:41 a.m., that kilos of cocaine and heroin were available. “You ready to see me?” CW1 had asked, to which Taylor responded, “Yeah!” The deal was for one kilogram of each drug, and CW1 told Taylor he didn’t need to bring all the money, just enough “so I have something.” At 1:49 p.m., Taylor told CW1 that “I’m just waiting on my little homie to get me” some money. When Taylor was arrested, he had $2,504.

Guy Bordes Agnant Jr. was the next arrestee to arrive at the mall parking lot, at 4:05 p.m. The Laurel resident has a prior conviction for involuntary manslaughter in a highly publicized case in D.C. after a car crash, in which he was driving a vehicle at 90 mph, resulted in a man’s death. Agnant was skeptical of CW1’s proposed deal, since in his prior purchases from CW1—which court documents say involved a total of about 25 kilos of coke—had occurred in Columbia, Maryland. Nonetheless, Agnant was intrigued, texting CW1 a question—”How far can you go?”—to which CW1 replied, “As far as you want to go,” meaning as much coke as he wanted. The agreed-upon amount ended up being 15 kilos, with Agnant bringing half the money up-front. But when Agnant arrived, he was empty-handed, and CW1 explained that “Agnant was very nervous as he had been set up before” and “was nervous about the change in their normal dealings.”

After his arrest, Agnant told officers “that he knew something was up today because his probation officer called him and asked if he had been arrested by the FBI.” FBI special agent Eric Nye contacted the probation officer, “who confirmed she had called Agnant” and asked “if he had been arrested by the FBI.” Agnant also told officers he didn’t understand why he was being arrested, since “I didn’t have any money on me, I just came to look at it.”

About 25 minutes later, Ronald Timothy “Little Ronald” Sampson of Windsor Mills arrived at the mall parking lot and was arrested. Earlier in the day, he’d told CW1 he wanted to buy a kilogram each of heroin and coke, saying, “I need to see you bad.” CW1 responded by saying, “I got you, I got you . . . on both,” adding that it would cost $75,000 for the heroin and for the cocaine, “I’ma say about 38, since it’s a drought.” At 3:40 p.m., Sampson told CW1 that “I gotta put the word out as we speak”—meaning he would be alerting his customers that he’s about to be flush with drugs—and added that “I got some cash for when I see you.” He was arrested with $10,500.

The last two busted due to CW1’s efforts were D.C. residents Antoine Demarr “Vito” Washington and Vincent Ronald “Cuzo” Cooper, who both appear to have prior federal drug convictions. CW1 “has sold over 40 kilograms of cocaine” to them in the past, the court documents state. In the Aug. 11 deal, Cooper allegedly agreed to buy seven kilos of coke, but only had enough money to buy six kilos. At 8:45 p.m., the two men arrived at  the Haddon Hill Apartments, where Cooper allegedly “was a maintenance man” who had “access to vacant apartments there to safely exchange the cash for the cocaine.” Washington was detained first, then Cooper was found “coming up from the vicinity of a basement storage door,” and, after agents detained him, they found a key to the maintenance closet, where they found “a large cabinet on the floor” in which was found “a brown paper bag containing” $216,140. Another $7,000 was recovered from Washington’s car.

Thus, thanks to CW1’s well-placed phone calls, law enforcers arrested nine alleged kilo-level drug dealers, some with serious criminal pasts, and seized about a half-million dollars in cash­. That’s an impressive haul for a day’s work.

Baltimore police “credibility issues” in drug case stymie feds’ effort to keep $106,000 in seized cash

by Van Smith

Published in City Paper, Aug. 28, 2014

U.S. District Court Judge Richard Bennett on Aug. 26 ruled that the federal government has no right to keep $106,467 in cash that a Baltimore City Circuit Court judge previously ruled had been seized illegally from a drug suspect by Baltimore police. Maryland U.S. Attorney’s Office spokesperson Marcia Murphy, in an emailed response to a request for comment, said, “we expect to file a motion for reconsideration.”

The Baltimore City criminal case against the drug suspect, 37-year-old Adolfo-Gitchenos Aduso Lucas of Northeast Baltimore, fell apart last year when his criminal-defense lawyer, Lawrence Rosenberg, persuaded Circuit Court judge Barry Williams that a traffic stop of Lucas and subsequent search of Lucas’ home violated the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits illegal searches and seizures. As a result, the evidence against Lucas—not only the cash, but also 105 grams of crack cocaine, cutting agents, drug paraphernalia and packaging materials, and a loaded handgun—was suppressed. With no admissible evidence to prove Lucas’ guilt, prosecutors had to abandon the charges against him.

Rosenberg explains in an interview that Baltimore police “stopped the car without probable cause,” and “after they made the arrest, they somehow got a search warrant for Lucas’ house, but there were things in the warrant that were not true. In my opinion, there were credibility issues, and that’s why we won, and the case was dropped.”

After the criminal case against Lucas came to a halt—as did, according to online court records, state-level forfeiture cases seeking to keep three of Lucas’ vehicles—state prosecutors “took no steps to forfeit the seized currency,” Bennett’s ruling explains, but instead “forwarded the currency to the Drug Enforcement Administration.” Assistant U.S. Attorney Stefan Cassella filed a forfeiture case against the cash last August, asserting the U.S. government’s right to keep it as criminally derived assets—a move that, in essence, sought to bring the suppressed evidence against Lucas back to life in civil rather than criminal court.  

Cassella’s initial forfeiture filing made no mention of Williams’ ruling that the cash had been seized illegally. But Lucas’ civil attorney, Brian Murphy, raised the issue in a motion for summary judgment filed in February, arguing that the federal government has no right to relitigate the issue. Cassella countered that since the federal government was not a party to the prior proceedings before Williams, it should be allowed to pursue forfeiture of the cash as criminally derived assets.

Bennett sided with Murphy, ruling that “the United States is in privity with the State of Maryland on this issue,” meaning it is asserting “precisely the same legal right in respect to the subject matter involved.” Therefore, he ruled, “no genuine dispute remains that the evidence in this case was unlawfully seized,” so “the illegally seized currency must be excluded from this forfeiture proceeding” and “this Court will grant summary judgment as a matter of law in favor of [Lucas] as to ownership of the currency.”

“We tried to settle the case,” Rosenberg says, “but Cassella would have none of it.” Murphy adds that Cassella “is a good lawyer,” but “you’ve got to pick your cases wisely,” and says “the government can always file an appeal, but I hope they don’t. I think they would be picking the wrong case to appeal.”

Lucas, meanwhile, said in court documents that the money was obtained legally. The $4,500 “found in my vehicle upon my arrest was the proceeds of the sale of a 2000 Volkswagen Jetta” that he had “sold to a co-worker,” who “had paid me . . . shortly before I was arrested.” The money “found in the safe in my house,” meanwhile, “was essentially working capital for and profits from my side occupations—the buying and selling of cars and the buying and selling of properties that I renovate.” Lucas, who explained that he works as “a quality control inspector at Elite Spice in Jessup,” where he has worked “for many years,” stated that “the original source of much of the working capital for these side occupations was the proceeds of the sale of a house that I and a partner bought, renovated, and resold in 2007 for a profit of approximately $126,000.”

Once Lucas gets his cash back, courtesy of Bennett’s ruling, his working capital will be replenished—partially anyhow, given the expense of fighting the government in court. Despite the financial hit, though, he can rest on the laurels of having beaten prosecutors in two courts—and perhaps having sent a message to Baltimore police to keep their cases clean and credible.

Shot and Seized: Baltimore Man’s Lawsuit, Claiming a Detective Illegally Seized Him from Hospital after Police Shot Him, Moves Forward

by Van Smith

Published in City Paper, Aug. 12, 2014

Baltimore media erupted with coverage of a police-involved shooting in West Baltimore on April 22, 2013 that left one man dead and two injured. The two men who survived the cops’ barrage of bullets—23-year-olds Guy Jackson and Rickey Dixon—are charged in an attempted-murder conspiracy involving firearms and a stolen vehicle, and are scheduled to go to trial in September. But Jackson has already won a victory of sorts: He had sued the Baltimore Police Department (BPD) and several officers over the incident and subsequent events, and a federal judge recently ruled against BPD, saying some of Jackson’s claims can move forward.  

While senior U.S. District judge William Nickerson dismissed counts arising from the police shooting Jackson, he allowed claims involving a homicide detective’s allegedly unconstitutional seizure of Jackson from Maryland Shock Trauma, where he was recovering from multiple bullet wounds. The detective, Julian Min, allegedly told Shock Trauma doctors that he was taking Jackson to the Baltimore City Jail’s medical facility—despite their advice not to do so—but instead took the patient to police headquarters to interrogate him, and then put him out on the streets. Jackson, with a bullet hole in his face and a feeding tube protruding from stomach, was wearing a hospital gown, and family members eventually returned him to medical care. 

Although Jackson’s “claim is perhaps an unusual factual scenario,” Nickerson wrote in his ruling, “there is no question that Plaintiff was seized,” and Jackson “adequately pleaded that the seizure was unreasonable under the circumstances, particularly considering the alleged deception used by Detective Min and the medical concerns of Plaintiff’s doctors at Shock Trauma.”

On Aug. 6, Nickerson ordered that Jackson’s claims against Min be litigated first and separately from those against the BPD, which Jackson seeks to hold liable as Min’s supervisor. The surviving counts seek $1 million from Min and the BPD.

Michael Marshall and Chaz Romero Ball, who represent Min, and Dorrell Brooks, who represents the BPD, did not respond to City Paper’s effort to reach them for comment, but Jackson’s civil attorney, Joshua Insley, spoke openly about the matter.

“What they did,” Insley says, “is patently illegal. Under false pretenses they deprived Jackson of medical care and interrogated him because they wanted information about a third party, under color of legal authority. I use the word ‘torture’ to describe what was done because, we think, this meets the United Nations’ and the federal government’s definition of torture.”  

The circumstances leading up to Jackson’s treatment at Shock Trauma are described in the lawsuit and reiterated in Nickerson’s ruling. Jackson claims that he was on Winchester Street in West Baltimore when he was approached by two men, Larry Hooker and Rickey Dixon, who “brandished handguns” and ordered him to get into a car with them and “drive the vehicle” to North Dukeland Street and Edmondson Avenue, according to the ruling. Once there, Hooker and Dixon ordered Jackson to stay in the car “while they exited and confronted two unknown individuals outside,” and “shots were fired.” Then, as Hooker and Dixon started to get back in the car, BPD officers Lester Manuyag and Alejandro Pena arrived and “began discharging their weapons” into the car, striking Jackson “in the arms, body, and head.” The police shooting also resulted in injuries to Dixon and the death of Hooker, according to media accounts of the incident.

Insley says Jackson “is not a gangster, he’s just a regular kid from the ghetto” who was “walking through an alley, when he’s accosted by two men who he knows by reputation—they are gangsters—in a stolen car, and they pull out guns and order him to drive.” After the shooting and before Min’s hospital visit, law enforcers “realized that Mr. Jackson was pressed into service,” Insley asserts, and so they wanted to talk to him. But Jacksons’ “mouth is wired shut,” Insley continues, so the interrogation involved Jackson having to write down his responses to questions, and the police “humiliated him, they were laughing at him.” Prosecutors, Insley says, told him they are “not going to use those statements” obtained from the interrogation, and “they didn’t want to nail Guy Jackson,” but instead “are trying to get him to be a witness” against Dixon.

Jackson’s criminal attorney, Granville Templeton, says his client “is still incarcerated and charged with a crime that I think the state’s attorney knows he did not commit. They know he didn’t shoot anybody. And there are no victims—there are ‘John Doe’ victims in this case, who have not come forth.” He adds that Jackson, when he was shot by the officers, “thought he was going to die, and now he’s charged. It’s just a terrible situation. I want the charges dropped, and if not, we’re going to get a not-guilty [verdict] before a jury.”

Min has not been disciplined as a result of his alleged handling of Jackson, says Insley, and online court records show that Min continues to be involved in the prosecution of numerous ongoing criminal cases, including murder charges. This prompts Insley to emphasize the BPD’s culpability in Min’s alleged misconduct: “They know what he does and they condone what he does,” he says, “because actions speak louder than words. This is at least the second time Min’s gone rogue on them, and they allow it.” The first time—a young man was detained for seven months on false attempted-murder charges, partly based on Min’s word—resulted in a lawsuit that the city settled for $150,000 about a month before Min’s alleged dealings with Jackson, according to an article in the Baltimore Brew about the city approving funds for paying out the settlement.

Nickerson set a schedule for litigating the case against Min, with pretrial motions due by Jan. 20, without setting a trial date. 

Baltimore Police Missteps Prompt Dismissal of Federal Charges in Two Separate Cases

by Van Smith

Published in City Paper, Aug. 1, 2014

Credibility issues involving Baltimore police officers prompted federal prosecutors to dismiss charges against two men yesterday. The exonerated defendants had been charged in separate cases.

One, Kevin T. Jones, was charged and tried earlier this year before a jury for being a felon in possession of a firearm, but a mistrial was declared after the jury couldn’t return a verdict. As the retrial approached, earlier police testimony about the circumstances leading to Jones’ arrest was shown to be so conflicted that, as the defense put it in a motion, it raised “well known credibility problems associated with the Baltimore City Police Department.” The government’s motion to dismiss Jones’ charges was filed yesterday by assistant U.S. attorneys Jason Medinger and Bonnie Greenberg.

The other, Robert Lomax III, was charged last year in a heroin-conspiracy indictment, facing counts for being a felon in possession of ammunition and maintaining a drug-involved premises, but evidence against him was obtained through an unconstitutional warrantless search of trash on his property. Assistant U.S. attorneys Christopher Romano and Seema Mittal filed Lomax’s dismissal motion, stating that “the Government now believes that the trash pull conducted at Defendant Lomax’s residence ran afoul” of constitutional protections.

In Jones’ case, three officers’ conflicting testimony on the stand during a pre-trial hearing was made even more dubious when their case agent, Det. Edgar Allen, was questioned during the trial about official notes he wrote describing Jones’ arrest. The arrest, on Jan. 19, 2013, occurred after police approached Jones while he was leaning in through the open drivers’ side front door of his van, handling some clothes over the console area, and when the officers spoke to him, he tossed the clothing to the passenger-side seat, and a gun tumbled out. Three officers testified at trial, including James Kostoplis, and all three said Kostoplis saw the gun first, and seized it. But Allen’s notes contradicted that account, saying the gun was first seen and seized by a fourth, non-testifying officer, Steven Langjahr.

“This discrepancy reflected in Detective Allen’s notes,” Jones’ defense attorneys, federal public defenders Deborah Boardman and Joseph Evans, wrote in a motion, “relates directly to the credibility of the officers and the integrity of their account” and “raises the significance of the other inconsistencies in their testimony by challenging the core version of events.” Allen, they wrote, “recognized the central significance of the discrepancy when he testified” that the case “would have never come through” for federal prosecution if the officers had first said it had been Langjahr who seized the gun, then “came back later and said, ‘Oh, no, it was Kostoplis.” The defense attorneys added that “this was a stunning admission” by Allen that “the discrepant account was central to the case and central even to the original decision to authorize the matter for federal prosecution.”

Lomax, meanwhile, was indicted last fall in a 14-member heroin conspiracy headed by Antoine “Twizzy” Wiggins. The case made headlines because one of the defendants is Marlow Bates, the son of a famous Baltimore gangster who pleaded guilty to a 2009 Black Guerrilla Family prison-gang racketeering indictment, and because it involved the seizure of a small fleet of high-end luxury vehicles, including a Bentley convertible and an Aston Martin, and a 33-foot power boat. From the very beginning, though, Lomax’s attorney, Nicholas Vitek, sensed problems with police tactics involving his client.

“There are serious legal issues” with the warrant issued to search Lomax’s home, Vitek said at a Sept. 30, 2013, hearing in the case. “There is to my mind not sufficient probable cause. And even if there was sufficient probable cause, it was done in a way that violated Mr. Lomax’s rights. So there are serious legal issues with whether or not what can be recovered in the home can actually be used against him.”

Turns out, Vitek was right. The warrant was “defective because the probable cause for the warrant is premised on an illegal search that took place when the police entered Mr. Lomax’s property for the express purpose of obtaining information,” he wrote in a motion to suppress evidence filed in June. “The police crossed the curtilage of Mr. Lomax’s property and seized bags of trash without a warrant,” he continued, adding that “this warrantless search requires not only the suppression of the evidence directly obtained from the trash bags, but also all evidence that is the fruit of the poisonous tree.”

What’s more, Vitek asserted that police included in their application for the warrant to search Lomax’s home “intentional false statements or statements that were made with reckless disregard for the truth” which “misled the issuing judge, the Honorable Nathan Braverman of the District Court of Maryland, into believing that a trash pull that was conducted from Mr. Lomax’s house had been lawfully conducted when, in fact, it clearly had not.” Applying for the warrant, according to court records, were Baltimore Police detective Julie Pitocchelli and Sgt. Steven Olson.

Romano had already indicated that Lomax’s dismissal was in the works. In a massive response to defendants’ many motions contesting issues in the government’s case, which he filed on July 28, Romano wrote in a footnote that “the Government will not be responding to Lomax’s motion to suppress” because it “intends to move for dismissal of the counts in which Lomax is named as a defendant.”

Juris-Imprudence? Former Employee Claims High-Level Cabal at Baltimore’s District Court Perpetuates Longstanding Discrimination

by Van Smith

Published in City Paper, March 12, 2014

A federal lawsuit’s claims of gender-based discrimination and retaliation at Baltimore City’s district court at Wabash Avenue may get ratcheted up to accuse high-level judges and administrators of more pervasive injustices, should a federal judge rule that the complaint may be amended. Included in the newly proposed charges is an allegation that Maryland District Court’s Chief Judge Ben C. Clyburn recently quashed an investigation into the problems, which had been ordered by judge Barbara Waxman, the recently installed administrative judge of the Baltimore court. The court has been in upheaval with retirements and reassignments since the lawsuit first brought the issues to public light last year.

The initial lawsuit—a four-page handwritten document filed in Maryland federal court last February by Kim Sumner, a human-resources associate at the district court who remained in her job until resigning in January—claimed Maryland’s judiciary discriminated against her by “having a history of protecting” Lonnie P. Ferguson, the court’s longtime administrative clerk who has since retired. Sumner’s complaint called Ferguson, her supervisor, “a man in power with powerful friends” whose record of “being a sexual preditor [sic] of the women who work under him” was “condoned and has continued for many years.” Sumner’s experiences under Ferguson included an incident in 2010 when he gave her pornographic DVDs at work, and yet received only lenient discipline (“NSFW,” Mobtown Beat, Jan. 8, 2014).

Since then, Sumner has found a lawyer, Gerardine Delambo, who on Feb. 27 asked the judge in the case to approve the filing of an amended complaint—a 93-page document claiming “that the leadership of the District Court of Maryland allowed personnel management in its Baltimore City district to become ‘polluted’ with discrimination,” according to a press release emailed to City Paper by Delambo.

Sumner’s initial lawsuit made allegations against one defendant, named as “Maryland Judiciary/District Court of Maryland.” The amended complaint, if approved, would add seven more: Clyburn; associate judge John Hargrove Jr., who was the court’s administrative judge until, according to the press release, he “was removed” from the position in November; visiting judge Keith E. Mathews, who was the court’s administrative judge until March 2010, when he was succeeded by Hargrove; Ferguson, who the press release says was “forced” into retirement in November; administrative clerk Mary Abrams; division chief Angela Naylor; and deputy administrative clerk Lavone Grant, who the press release says was fired in November.

Sumner’s claims are being fought by the Maryland Attorney General’s Office, whose spokesperson, David Paulson, wrote in an email, “sorry, but we can’t comment during the litigation,” a position repeated by Maryland judiciary spokesperson Terri Bolling, who assured City Paper that Mathews—the object of some of the amended complaint’s more serious allegations—would be alerted to City Paper’s request for comment. Delambo, too, declined to comment, other than to provide the four-page press release.

The press release says that “Clyburn and top court officials in Baltimore conspired to violate [Sumner’s] free-speech rights and to discriminate against her on the basis of her race and gender, and that they were motivated also by their ‘animus,’ or hostility, against whites and women who did not engage in sexual or romantic relationships with Mr. Ferguson or Judge Mathews.” Sumner is white, as is Waxman, while the proposed defendants are African-American—and Delambo’s press release says “the work force of the District Court for Baltimore City,” about 400 people, “is alleged by Ms. Sumner to be ‘98 percent black.’”

The amended complaint says that Mathews, while married and an associate judge and administrative judge, “engaged in relationships with female employees” at the court that “were sexual and/or romantic,” that other court employees “perceived” the relationships as “sexual and/or romantic and/or adulterous,” and that at least one of those relationships involved Mathews “exploiting and/or abusing the powers of his position” to “procure” favorable employment circumstances for the “female subordinates.” Thus, the complaint continues, Mathews “perpetrated quid-pro-quo sexual harassment and/or unlawful discrimination—on the basis of race, gender, age, marital status, and/or other nonmerit factors—against qualified individuals” who were “denied the advancement of their employment interests to which they were entitled by reason of their legitimate qualifications.”

When a “subordinate male supervisor” confronted Mathews over this while he was administrative judge, the complaint contends that “Mathews responded by stating, ‘I don’t give a fuck’ about the impact” of his “improper behavior, which continued undiminished.”

As for the quashed investigation Waxman ordered into Sumner’s allegations, the amended complaint says the newly installed administrative judge started it because she was aware of Sumner’s lawsuit and “was aware also of the history of misconduct” by Mathews and Ferguson “involving abuse of the powers of their respective offices.” After it began, including “interviews of at least four employees,” Clyburn caught wind of it and ordered it to “be halted,” while also telling Waxman to give her subordinate, administrative clerk Abrams, “freedom to manage personnel matters.”

Clyburn’s directive, the amended complaint continues, “contrasted with his substantially more deferential treatment of [Waxman’s] two black male predecessors,” Hargrove and Mathews, and “constitutes invidious discrimination on the basis of gender.” Furthermore, the amended complaint continues, Clyburn’s treatment of Waxman is meant “to preserve and leave unredressed a longstanding pattern of invidiously discriminatory personnel actions” at the court and “to preclude any action or disclosures” that could support Sumner’s claims.

The amended complaint also alleges that Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D), whose wife, Catherine Curran O’Malley, is a Baltimore City district court judge, “has for years been personally aware of the above-described misconduct” of Mathews, Clyburn, and Hargrove, “and has chosen not to exercise his substantial power or prestige to bring about meaningful redress of that misconduct and its impact upon the efficiency and morale” of the court’s employees.

Last August, Sumner’s case was reassigned from Maryland U.S. District Court Judge Catherine Blake to Joseph R. Goodwin, a West Virginia U.S. District Court judge. The move may have been due to the fact that a material witness in Sumner’s case—Baltimore City District Court Judge Devy Patterson Russell—is the wife of Maryland U.S. District Court Judge George Levi Russell. Judge Devy Patterson Russell’s affidavit in Sumner’s case claims that the Baltimore City district court is beset with “gender based discrimination, harassment and/or hostile work environment,” and discloses that in 2012 she filed a complaint against judge Hargrove with the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities, which disciplines judges.

According to the press release, one of the reasons Sumner resigned from her job on Jan. 3 was that “she learned that the judiciary leadership intended to ‘hide’ Mr. Ferguson” at a “‘secret’ worksite unknown to the public and the media,” enabling him to “continue to draw a salary of $115,000 per year,” so “she felt that her superiors thus viewed her as an adversary and that she would continue to be subjected to retaliation” and “would have no future in the court system.”

Whether Sumner’s amended complaint goes forward depends on a pending decision by Goodwin, after the Maryland assistant attorney general defending the Maryland judiciary, Michelle McDonald, files a response due by March 17. Delambo’s press release quotes “the rule governing such amendments” as saying that federal trial courts “should freely give leave when justice so requires.”

NSFW: Porn-DVD Incident Spawns Litigation Revealing Alleged Baltimore District Court Gender Hostilities

by Van Smith

Published in City Paper, Jan. 8, 2014

More than three years ago, Kim Sumner discovered her boss, then-administrative clerk Lonnie P. Ferguson of the Baltimore City District Court, had given her a passel of pornographic DVDs. The long-simmering aftermath of the incident, including an ongoing civil rights lawsuit brought by Sumner against the Maryland judiciary, has brought to light a tender issue: that, as Baltimore City District Court Judge Devy Patterson Russell claimed in an affidavit filed in Sumner’s case in September, there is “gender based discrimination, harassment and/or hostile work environment occurring in the District Court for Baltimore City.”

Russell’s affidavit disclosed that in June 2012 she filed a complaint with the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities, which probes allegations of improper conduct by judges, against Baltimore City District Court Judge John Hargrove Jr., who then was the court’s administrative judge. The affidavit does not summarize the substance of Russell’s complaint but states that she has been “identified as a material witness” in Sumner’s case, and that “if I am subpoenaed to testify,” then “I will attest to the facts contained in my complaint against Judge Hargrove, as well as other matters not mentioned in the complaint supporting the past and ongoing gender based discrimination and hostile work environment” in the court.

Two months after Russell’s affidavit was filed in Sumner’s case, Hargrove left his position as the court’s administrative judge to become chair of the Judiciary Task Force on Pretrial Confinement and Release, which is exploring how the state can comply with a recent court ruling that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to have a lawyer represent them at their first appearance before a court commissioner. District Court Judge Barbara Baer Waxman assumed the role of administrative judge when Hargrove, who continues to hear cases, stepped down.

A call to Ferguson’s office, meanwhile, was met with the news that he no longer works there, and that the new administrative clerk is Mary Abrams, who used to hold that position in Prince George’s County District Court.

Sumner remains a human-resources associate at the court and continues to plug ahead with her lawsuit, which contends that the penalty meted out in 2011 for Ferguson’s porn-DVD conduct—30 days unpaid leave—was insufficient and that the Maryland judiciary is “failing to protect its women” from civil rights violations.

In the lawsuit, Sumner calls Ferguson “a man in power with powerful friends” who has a “well known and documented record of being vulgar around women and being a sexual preditor [sic] of the women who work under him.” She filed the lawsuit in February 2013, claiming that “I consider myself in an isolated hostile environment.” More recently, in August, according to court documents, Sumner was made uncomfortable by Ferguson’s nearby presence as she left the courthouse. “I find this man vile and abhorrent,” Sumner wrote, adding that “he makes my skin crawl.”

The DVDs apparently were lost during an internal investigation of the incident, but Sumner describes them as “hardcore degradation of women: two black men with a white woman, or two white men with a black woman, hands on their throats choking them while they engage in sexual activity.”

Since 2011, “I have looked for legal representation,” Sumner continued, and “it is my belief that because of where I work, who I work for, who this complaint is against, and the very nature of this complaint, that I cannot even get a lawyer to help me.”

Sumner proceeded to prosecute the lawsuit on her own, fighting against a motion to dismiss filed by assistant attorneys general H. Scott Curtis and Michele McDonald, representing the Maryland judiciary. A spokesperson for the Office of the Attorney General, Alan Brody, says “we don’t comment” on cases that are, like Sumner’s, “still pending.”

In August, the case was reassigned from Maryland U.S. District Court Judge Catherine Blake to another federal judge—Joseph R. Goodwin, who sits on the bench in West Virginia’s Southern District courthouse in Charleston. No reason was given for transferring the case to a judge from another state, but Russell’s presence as a material witness may have had something to do with it: Her husband is Maryland U.S. District Judge George Levi Russell.

Within weeks of taking over the case, Goodwin denied the state’s dismissal motion, handing Sumner a David-and-Goliath win by allowing her to proceed.

Sumner, Goodwin wrote, “has pleaded facts sufficient to show that the offending conduct was unwanted and based on her sex” and that it was “sufficiently severe and pervasive to create an abusive work environment.” Moreover, Goodwin continued, Sumner’s allegations are “sufficient to impute the behavior to her employer,” the Maryland judiciary, because she asserts that Ferguson’s conduct “has been condoned and has continued for many years, while the Maryland Judiciary either looked the other way, or when complaints were filed, applied minimal punitive actions.”

Shortly after Goodwin’s ruling, Sumner got an attorney: Gerardine Delambo, a solo practitioner in Baltimore. Asked why she took the case, Delambo says, “being a former Maryland state employee, I have great empathy for employees who have disputes with their superiors.”

Goodwin has set an ample schedule for the case to be litigated: Trial currently is set for next January in Baltimore.

Delambo, meanwhile, says she will be filing an amended complaint soon, explaining that it’s a “massive undertaking and a work in progress” and that “more individual defendants” will be added. If Sumner’s allegations are true—that Ferguson “has had sexual relationships with multiple women at the same work location at the same time” and “has transferred out those women that he is through with or women that fight him and try to report him”—there may yet be more plaintiffs coming forward too. And given Russell’s affidavit, gender-based hostilities are still thought to be ongoing—though the recent shuffling of staff may have helped soften them.

Rogues or Regulars? Federal Inmate-Beating Probe Conflicts with Official Line at Maryland Prison Agency

by Van Smith

Published in City Paper, Feb. 20, 2013

An FBI investigation into a Maryland inmate’s 2008 beatings at Roxbury Correctional Institute (RCI) in Hagerstown is challenging the Maryland prison agency’s official take on the exhaustively investigated incident, court records show, prompting agency spokespeople to attack the probe’s direction and mount an impassioned defense of the agency.

Yet the FBI’s contention, revealed in recent court filings, that the beatings stemmed from institutionalized, extra-legal retribution for inmates who strike officers—an angle fiercely denied by Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (DPSCS) spokespeople—is echoed in ongoing federal lawsuits brought by inmates who claim to have been unlawfully assaulted by staff who then took steps to cover up the incidents.

The FBI’s take on what gave rise to the 2008 beatings was made public in early February, in a criminal conspiracy case against two former correctional officers, 26-year-old Ryan Lohr (“And the Beating Goes On,” Mobtown Beat, Jan. 30) and 28-year-old Dustin Norris. The case is being prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division (CRD), which has extensive experience with cases involving public-safety officers assaulting their charges and attempting to cover up the crimes.

Lohr’s guilty plea and criminal charges filed against Norris portray a practice in which the newly hired correctional officers were instructed by their colleagues that inmates who strike officers will be beaten with intent to injure them—conduct that Lohr and Norris knew to be unlawful. Lohr, Norris, and six others—four officers and two supervisors, all identified only by two-letter initials, and none of whom have been publicly charged in federal court—then allegedly worked to obstruct the investigation that followed beatings inflicted on inmate Kenneth Davis. In Norris’ charging document, one of the supervisors is alleged to have told Norris, after leaving the scene of the beating, that, “I had to get mine too,” presumably a reference to striking the inmate.

An FBI press release about Lohr’s case includes a statement by Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez, CRD’s chief, that “the U.S. Constitution protects inmates and the Justice Department will continue to vigorously prosecute correctional officers who use their official position to assault inmates or to cover up crimes committed by their fellow officers.”

DPSCS and the Maryland State Police conducted high-profile investigations of the incident, resulting in multiple firings and criminal prosecutions of officers. Most of the firings were upheld after administrative challenges, but the criminal cases, in large part, resulted in jury acquittals. Court records show only officers were disciplined or prosecuted by Maryland authorities, so the inclusion of two supervisors in court documents involving Lohr and Norris indicates the FBI’s investigation reaches higher up the chain of command.

Court records show that DPSCS concluded that the beatings Kenneth Davis received while in handcuffs—four in a 24-hour period on March 8 and 9, 2008—were “an isolated matter involving rogue officers and that no additional training or supervision was necessary.”

The FBI’s contention that other correctional officers schooled Lohr and Norris in the practice of beating and injuring inmates who strike officers is “a ridiculous supposition,” DPSCS spokesperson Rick Binetti wrote in response to City Paper’s inquiries. Binetti contends that Lohr’s guilty plea, along with DPSCS’ record of disciplining the officers involved in the Davis beatings, “stand as strong evidence that [Lohr’s] perception about how he was supposed to conduct himself as a professionally trained DPSCS correctional officer was wrong. It certainly wasn’t what he was taught at the correctional academy.”

Binetti’s colleague, DPSCS communications manager Danielle Lueking, posted an online comment on a recent City Paper story (“Guilty plea suggests inmate beatings were institutionalized at Maryland prison,” The News Hole, Feb. 5, 2013), strenuously defending the department. “It is quite a stretch,” Lueking wrote, “for the City Paper to suggest that the comments of one [former] officer, who just plead [sic] guilty to federal [conspiracy] charges, that the use of excessive force in one of Maryland’s correctional facilities is ‘institutionalized’ in any form.”

At least two ongoing federal lawsuits filed by other inmates—Benjamin Davis (no relation to Kenneth Davis) and Heru Segu—claim correctional officers illegally assaulted them in circumstances similar to those described in the case against Lohr and Norris, and both involve officers who were caught up in the investigative aftermath of the Kenneth Davis beatings.

Segu’s case, filed in 2007, survived DPSCS efforts to have it dismissed and is on track for a jury trial. He alleges that a correctional officer who was tried and acquitted in state court of assault charges over the Kenneth Davis beatings, “repeatedly punched” Segu “in the face” while he was handcuffed, “without provocation while other officers watched and took no action,” according to court records. Subsequently, the officers allegedly took steps to cover up the assault by filing reports saying that Segu had been the attacker.

Benjamin Davis’ case was filed in 2008 and alleges he was assaulted and deprived of medical care in retaliation for aiding investigations into unlawful use of force by correctional officers. Much of the litigation has explored the department’s handling of the Kenneth Davis matter—including the role of a lieutenant who may be the “supervisor ES” identified as a co-conspirator in Lohr’s guilty plea in the Kenneth Davis case.

In a recent letter to City Paper, Benjamin Davis says the lieutenant helped “frame” him on a “fraudulent assault allegation” of which he was “ultimately exonerated.” In Lohr’s plea, the supervisor is described as having destroyed videotape that would have provided key evidence about Kenneth Davis’ beatings.

In his letter, Benjamin Davis says that, in light of Lohr’s case, with its indication that other officers and supervisors may also face federal charges, “I am inclined to refuse any settlement” offer to end his litigation. (Court records show his case is expected to be settled without a trial.) While “there is no dispute that some inmates do assault some officers,” the letter states, “for decades” correctional staff “have not only been inflicting physical violence on the inmate population, they have also been manipulating the criminal justice system to aide them in covering up such abuse.”

Whether the FBI’s investigation into Kenneth Davis’ beatings will extend to other instances of allegedly unlawful violence and cover-up remains to be seen. But the FBI press release about Lohr’s plea says “the case is ongoing.”

Biker Bust: Baltimore Man Nabbed in FBI Motorcycle-Club Probe in Philadelphia

by Van Smith

Published in City Paper, Feb. 13, 2013

The FBI has a long, storied history of infiltrating and prosecuting the Outlaws Motorcycle Club (OMC) as an organized-crime gang, including some high-profile cases in recent years. On Jan. 31, a Baltimore man put himself squarely in the middle of one such probe in Philadelphia by allegedly phoning in threats in an effort to collect money owed for about two pounds of methamphetamine, court documents show. What the Baltimore man didn’t know is that the person he allegedly threatened was pretending to be a biker-gang member and was actually working undercover to infiltrate the OMC on behalf of the FBI.

The man who made the alleged phone calls, 42-year-old Michael James Privett of 6600 Gary Ave. in East Baltimore’s O’Donnell Heights neighborhood, was charged with “collection of extensions of credit by extortionate means,” which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. Privett appeared in Maryland U.S. District Court on Feb. 5, after his arrest, and his case was transferred to federal court in Philadelphia.

Records in the case also document threats over the meth deal made by a second person calling from Baltimore, but City Paper has been unable to determine whether that person has been arrested and charged too. The assistant U.S. attorneys handling the case, Jason Bologna and Robert Livermore, said in an email that “our investigation is ongoing, so we don’t have any comment at this time.”

The threats were received by the undercover’s phone just after the president of OMC’s Philadelphia chapter, Roland L. “Bugs” Sells of Churchville, Md., was arrested Jan. 31 on federal meth-dealing charges.

Sells, who was paroled in 1978 after a 1972 second-degree murder conviction in Ohio, had been keeping the meth at his Churchville home, near Belair, but was worried that his wife knew about it, so he transferred the drugs to the OMC clubhouse in Philadelphia on Jan. 17. While there, according to court documents, he told other OMC members, including the undercover, that “this shit can’t be in the clubhouse,” and “if the bosses find out, I’m going to be dead and so are you.” In subsequent days, the undercover and Sells spoke repeatedly about how the meth would be sold, and on Jan. 31 they met at the Philadelphia parking lot where Sells was arrested.

Almost immediately after Sells’ arrest, the undercover’s phone started receiving threatening messages. The first, allegedly left by Privett, referred to the undercover’s property being held hostage until payment was made. “I don’t got time for games, man,” the message said, “You want your bikes back, you need to come up with my money. Can’t get a hold of Bugs. Guess I have to start taking people apart, that’s all. See you around.”

The next message came from someone else using a Baltimore-area phone and was more direct: “You can believe one thing. You can fuck with me all you want to, but motherfucker, trust me, your family is in danger. Fuck you.”

The last one included in the court documents, also allegedly left by Privett, starts out by listing two street addresses, then says, “I’ll have the address for your son’s house in Florida this week. I got the tag numbers, I got your bike, I got your trailer. I want my money. Your whole family is going to be in danger if not. You need to pick up the fucking phone. You’re supposed to meet Bugs today; now he’s not answering the phone either. As far as I’m concerned, both you all in the same boat.”

Court documents reflect that Privett has a prior criminal history for second-degree assault and malicious destruction of property, and that he’s 6 foot 3 inches and 240 pounds. A man with the same name was being initiated into the Chosen Sons Motorcycle Club at the Haven Place strip club in Baltimore on April 24, 2008, when a brawl erupted, resulting in the shooting death of Norman Stamp, a 44-year Baltimore police veteran and co-founder of the club, according to press accounts at the time. Attempts to confirm Privett’s association with the Chosen Sons—which, when it was formed in the 1960s, was only open to law enforcers—were unsuccessful. Court documents in Privett’s case in Philadelphia describe him as a “patched” OMC member.

The Philadelphia probe comes on the heels of large FBI-investigated cases brought last year against the OMC in Georgia and Indiana. The Indiana case involves scores of defendants accused of running “an extensive criminal network” that “‘pumped a deadly mixture of drugs, violence, and fraud’” into “Indianapolis and throughout the Midwest,” according to a press release issued by the U.S. Attorney’s Office there, while using “violence and the threat of force to collect personal debts from individuals.”

In Georgia, for two years, the FBI used undercovers—including one who was exposed while the probe was underway, thanks to a suspected public corruption leak that put the undercover’s identity in the OMC’s hands—to help build a drugs-and-guns case involving meth and cocaine against OMC members and affiliates. The case agent wrote in court documents that the investigation “uncovered 3 law enforcement officials that are maintaining close, unprofessional relationships” with targeted club members, and that through such relationships, “members often gain information that is obstructive to FBI investigations and dangerous to the safety of FBI informants.”

In the Philadelphia case, though, the FBI undercover ended up in danger not due to a public corruption leak or the OMC’s close relationships with law enforcers, but because two guys in Baltimore, allegedly including Privett, were owed money for meth. It’s a risk that comes with the job—and quickly resulted in criminal consequences for Privett.

Spicing It Up: Fells Point Smoke Shop Nabbed in Bath Salts Sting Helps in Fake-Pot Probe

by Van Smith

Published in City Paper, Aug. 29, 2012

Just-released records in Maryland’s federal court show the Dragon’s Den Smoke Shop in Fells Point and the Tobacco Shop in Bel Air are part of an ongoing drug investigation into the distribution of synthetic marijuana, sometimes marketed as “Spice” and “K2,” which was banned last year. The role each shop played is spelled out in a warrant for the seizure of more than $2.2 million from M&C Wholesale, a company in Laguna Niguel, Calif., south of Los Angeles, suspected of supplying synthetic marijuana to head shops, including the Dragon’s Den and the Tobacco Shop.

The seizure occurred July 25, the same day a multi-agency federal crackdown on banned designer drugs descended on 91 communities in 31 states, according to a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) press release. Dubbed “Operation Log Jam,” the operation netted nearly 100 arrests and the seizure of more than $36 million and more than five million packets of synthetic weed and “bath salts,” designer stimulants that also were banned last year. Baltimore was not among Operation Log Jam’s long list of targeted communities, but Laguna Niguel was, perhaps due to the M&C Wholesale money seizure.

Last winter, the Dragon’s Den was implicated in an undercover DEA operation that resulted in an indictment against a Baltimore man, Carlo D’Addario, for allegedly supplying bath salts to distributors in Virginia (“Undercover in the Dragon’s Den,” May 30). The disclosure of the shop’s role in the fake-pot investigation came in court filings made public on the afternoon of Aug. 21, after City Paper went to press with an Aug. 22 article about the sentencing of Holly Renae Sprouse, D’Addario’s co-defendant in the Virginia bath salts case (“Bath Time,” Mobtown Beat, Aug. 22).

Sprouse, after prosecutors filed a motion recognizing her “substantial assistance” in prosecuting D’Addario, received a lenient, 20-month prison sentence on Aug. 14 for her role in the alleged conspiracy. The trial in the case, initially scheduled for May, has since been rescheduled twice. D’Addario is currently set to stand trial starting on Oct. 22.

The investigation leading to the M&C Wholesale seizure began last September, according to the warrant, when a DEA undercover officer entered the Tobacco Shop and purchased a gram of “Hysteria,” a fake-pot brand, for $20. In November, the same undercover officer returned to the shop and purchased another three grams of Hysteria for $47. The place was raided in December, turning up invoices for its wholesale purchases of the substances, branded not only as Hysteria, but also “Black Sabbath” and “Game Over.”

Using contact information from the invoices seized from the Tobacco Shop, agents arranged for a confidential source to order fake-pot products from the wholesaler in early April, and have it delivered to the Dragon’s Den in Fells Point. Two packages arrived there on April 4 and 5, containing packages of “Dr. Feelgood,” “Game Over XXX,” “Brain Freeze,” and “Black Sabbath,” along with documentation of the purchases from M&C Wholesale.

The operation then began surveillance of M&C Wholesale’s offices in Laguna Niguel, watching on June 11 and 12 as operators and employees managed incoming and outgoing deliveries. Later, in July, investigators were contacted by a courier-service employee that made and picked up deliveries there, and had seen its operations. The courier informed them that the only activity going on inside was “eight to 10 individuals seated around a table handling piles of a green herb-like substance.”

The investigation also probed M&C Wholesale’s financial transactions, learning that it gets paid for providing supplies to smoke shops with names such as “Puff N Snuff,” “Happy Daze,” “Up in Smoke,” and “Sky High Smoking Accessories.” Payments would enter an M&C bank account at Wells Fargo. Then, on July 24—the day before the seizure—$2.2 million was transferred from that account to another Wells Fargo account, held in the name of individual who is a signatory of M&C Wholesale’s account.

CP searched federal court records as well as those in Orange County, Calif., where Laguna Niguel is located, and found nothing to suggest M&C’s owners and operators have been charged with any crimes. Two phone numbers for them were included in the warrant. One of the numbers has been disconnected, and messages left at the other were not returned.

According to the Operation Log Jam press release, the probe is a partnership of seven federal law-enforcement agencies—DEA, IRS Criminal Investigations, FBI, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Postal Inspection Service, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration Office of Criminal Investigations—in tandem with “countless state and local law enforcement members.” DEA administrator Michele Leonhart is quoted, saying “this enforcement action has disrupted the entire illegal industry, from manufacturers to retailers,” and emphasizing that “we are committed to targeting these new and emerging drugs with every scientific, legislative, and investigative tool at our disposal.”

Gun Trouble: Arizona Machine-Gun Probe Prompts Dispute Over Seized Maryland Gun Collection

by Van Smith

Published in City Paper, June 6, 2012

It’s been nearly seven years since 58-year-old auto mechanic and gun collector David Bord made a purchase that has caused him no end of grief: a Hatton Industries machine gun, which he got at the Armory, a gun store near Annapolis, in exchange for 10 pistols and $10,000. What Bord didn’t learn until almost three years later—in spring 2008, when agents of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) visited him—was that the gun was suspected of being part of an allegedly fraudulent gun-registration ring based in Arizona.

In December 2009, as a result of an ATF tip involving Bord’s purchase at the Armory, Baltimore County police raided Bord’s home and business and seized a large part of his gun collection. Bord says they took 25 firearms worth $250,000, nearly all of them 35 to 50 years old, based on a faulty warrant, and that the guns are now in ATF’s possession.

“They said the guns weren’t registered with Maryland or the [United States],” Bord says of the Baltimore County police who took his guns, “but every single one of the guns is—I showed them the paperwork. They know everything is legal, and they still refuse to return them. Every single one of them is legal and registered, but the idiots still won’t back down.”

Bord’s ongoing efforts to have the guns returned to him include a lawsuit against Baltimore County, which is scheduled for trial in September, having survived the county’s attempt last year to have it dismissed. In addition, Bord says he asked the Maryland U.S. Attorney’s Office to file a federal lawsuit seeking to keep two of the guns, which it did in April; Bord hopes this strategy will mean a federal judge will review the legal issues involved in the guns’ return, and that he will prevail.

Meanwhile, in 2010, Hal Paul Goldstein—the owner of the Armory—and another Maryland licensed firearms dealer, Randolph Benjamin Rodman, were charged in a 39-page, 107-count federal indictment in Arizona, along with four Arizona dealers: George Dibril Clark III, Lorren Marc Kalish, James Patrick Arnberger, and Idan C. Greenberg (“Blunderbusted,” Mobtown Beat, Aug. 5, 2010). The six stand accused of “harvesting” serial numbers from older machine guns made before May 19, 1986, and welding the numbers onto newer machine guns they had manufactured, in order to evade a federal machine-gun ban that prohibits citizens from possessing or transferring machine guns made after 1986.

The Arizona case has been fraught with battles between the government and the defendants, who have claimed prosecutors have not been forthcoming with required disclosures of evidence. During an August 2011 hearing, U.S. District Judge Roslyn O. Silver, after hearing of evidence-sharing problems experienced by the defendants, said, “I’m going to consider dismissing the case” if the issues persist, according to a court transcript. A jury trial is scheduled for August.

The 34 machine guns at issue in the Arizona indictment include the Hatton Industries weapon that Bord purchased from Goldstein, according to court records.

In addition to the Arizona charges, Goldstein was indicted in Maryland federal court in December, charged with unlawful possession of machine guns and firearms. On May 24, Goldstein filed a court notice consenting to having the Maryland case transferred to Arizona, where he intends to plead guilty to a single count of improper firearms record-keeping.

Goldstein’s attorney, Joseph Conte, declined to comment for this article, as did the Maryland U.S Attorney’s Office, whose spokesperson, Marcia Murphy, wrote in an e-mail that “since there is litigation pending, I don’t think we will have comment on either” the criminal charges or the forfeiture case involving Bord’s weapons. Bord, though, is openly indignant about his predicament. As a collector for more than 30 years, he says “my firearms paperwork is beyond reproach,” and he’s aghast that, despite the fact that he produced proof that his weapons were registered with the proper authorities, law enforcers continue to keep his property.

Bord says ATF agents like to say that their agency’s acronym stands for “Always Think Forfeiture,” since taking and keeping people’s guns is an important part of their law-enforcement strategy. (Indeed, a few years ago, ATF suffered a dustup when it ordered Leatherman tools for its trainees inscribed with the words “Always Think Forfeiture,” then recalled the order after a member of Congress complained.)

Bord’s lawsuit against Baltimore County over the seizure of his guns asserts that the two police officers named as defendants—Detective Erik Socha and Cpl. Anthony Kidwell—undertook the raids on Bord’s home and business based on faulty warrants “in order to intimidate” Bord and cause him “economic injury,” but also “for gratuitous sport rather than for proper law-enforcement purposes,” according to court documents. The lawsuit also contends that Socha and Kidwell, when presented with Bord’s firearms paperwork after the raids, said “save it for court,” that the paperwork was “wrong” or “bull___t,” and “words to the effect” that Bord “would never get his property back.”

The county’s filings in the case, meanwhile, say the police and ATF are keeping the weapons while they continue “their investigation to determine if the weapons. . .are a violation of state or federal law.” Bord was accused of a misdemeanor firearms offense in Baltimore County Circuit Court after the raids, but in 2011 prosecutors tabled the charges.