Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States of America v. One Te Systems Rf Power Amplifier

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION


May 16, 2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ONE TE SYSTEMS RF POWER AMPLIFIER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. JACK GERRITSEN, CLAIMANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Gary A. Feess United States District Judge

CONSENT JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE

This action was filed on July 5, 2005. Notice was given and published in accordance with law. Jack Gerritsen, who is pro se ("claimant"), filed a statement of interest and verified answer on September 21, 2005. No other statements of interest or answers have been filed, and the time for filing such statements and answers has expired. This matter has been stayed by the court since December 6, 2005. Plaintiff and claimant have reached an agreement that is dispositive of the action. The parties hereby request that the Court enter this Consent Judgment of Forfeiture.

The parties have agreed to settle this forfeiture action and to avoid further litigation.

WHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:

1. This court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this action.

2. Notice of this action has been given in accordance with law. All potential claimants to the defendants One TE Systems RF Power Amplifier, One Kenwood TMG707A Dual Bander Radio, serial number 60100221, One Yeasu FT-3000M Transceiver, One VHF Antenna, including coaxial cable, and One Diamond X5A UHF Antenna (collectively referred to hereafter as "the defendant equipment") other than claimant are deemed to have admitted the allegations of the Complaint. The allegations set out in the Complaint are sufficient to establish a basis for forfeiture.

3. In the related criminal case, United States v. Jack Gerritsen, Case No. CR 05-466 RGK, claimant was convicted of violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1362 (malicious interference with radio system operated or controlled by the United States), 47 U.S.C. §§ 333 and 561 (willful and malicious interference with radio communications), and 47 U.S.C. §§ 301 and 501 (transmitting radio signals without a license). The Judgment and Probation/Commitment Order in that matter included the condition that claimant shall not own, possess, or use any radio equipment from which broadcasts can be made by the claimant.

4. The United States of America agrees that claimant may designate one individual to whom the United States of America shall release the defendant equipment. Claimant agrees that he will not thereafter own, possess or use the defendant equipment at anytime.

5. Following entry of this Judgment, claimant shall provide the United States of America with written confirmation that the designated individual has received a copy of the Judgment and provide the designated individual's name, signature, address and telephone number. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of claimant's written confirmation, the United States of America shall release the defendant equipment to the designated individual. Claimant understands that if he is found to be in possession of, or is found to have used the defendant equipment, said equipment shall be forfeited to the United States of America without further Order of the Court.

6. Claimant hereby releases the United States of America, it agencies, agents, and officers, including employees and agents of the Federal Communications Commission, from any and all claims, actions or liabilities arising out of or related to this action, including, without limitation, any claim for attorney's fees, costs or interest which may be asserted on behalf of the claimant.

7. Plaintiff United States of America agrees that it will not seek to recover civil sanctions, attorney's fees or costs in connection with this action or the underlying seizure.

8. The Court finds that there was reasonable cause for the seizure of the defendant equipment and institution of these proceedings. This judgment shall be construed as a certificate of reasonable cause pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2465.

Approved as to form and content: DATED: May 15, 2012 ANDRE BIROTTE JR. United States Attorney ROBERT E. DUGDALE Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Criminal Division STEVEN R. WELK Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Asset Forfeiture Section /s/ KATHARINE SCHONBACHLER Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of America DATED: April 22, 2012 /s/ JACK GERRITSEN Pro Se Claimant

20120516

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.