United States v. Klemme
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141413
| E.D. Wis. | 2012Background
- Defendant was charged in federal court with false statements to a firearms dealer, unlawful drug user possession of a firearm, and felony status, arising from two incidents in 2010–2011.
- First incident: March 5, 2011 seizure of drugs, pistol, silencer; defendant allegedly filled forms falsely denying unlawful drug use for counts 1–2, and possessed a pistol for count 3; a related state plea occurred June 13, 2011.
- Second incident: June 24, 2011 ATF visit; shotgun and other guns found; seizure of eleven long guns formed basis for count 4.
- September 14, 2011 plea to counts 1 and 3; defendant agreed to forfeiture of listed properties including the Browning shotgun; preliminary forfeiture order entered December 23, 2011.
- January 20, 2012 defendant sentenced; government filed notice of forfeiture February 14, 2012; notice advised potential claimants to file petitions.
- March 14, 2012 petitioner (mother) filed a letter seeking entitlement to the Browning shotgun, asserting transfer of ownership; later filings clarified and supplemented this claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner has standing to seek ancillary relief. | Klemme acquired an ownership interest through payments and transfer by defendant. | Petition fails to specify timing/circumstances of acquisition and does not show vested ownership. | Petition dismissed for lack of standing; failure to allege time/circumstances of acquisition. |
| Whether petitioner is a bona fide purchaser for value. | Petitioner paid off balance and acquired gun from defendant as value. | Interest arose from gift/security; knowledge of forfeiture undermines bona fide purchaser status. | Not a bona fide purchaser for value; there was cause to believe property was subject to forfeiture. |
| Whether the July 11, 2012 letter can amend the petition. | Letter provides new basis for relief and should be treated as amended petition. | Letter lacks penalty-of-perjury and timely filing; cannot cure deficiencies. | July 11, 2012 letter cannot serve as an amended petition; still failing to meet statutory requirements. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Burge, 829 F.Supp.2d 664 (C.D. Ill. 2011) (strict compliance with penalty-of-perjury requirement)
- United States v. Ginn, 799 F.Supp.2d 645 (E.D. La. 2010) (requirement to state time of acquisition)
- United States v. Kennedy, 201 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2000) (gift recipient not bona fide purchaser for value)
- United States v. Soreide, 461 F.3d 1351 (11th Cir. 2006) (untimely claims not raised in petitions)
- United States v. Strube, 58 F.Supp.2d 576 (M.D. Pa. 1999) (claims untimely when raised in response to motion to dismiss)