WHO OWNS A NON-PROFIT, PART 2
WHO OWNS A NON-PROFIT?, Part 2
By Richard E. “Rick” Dennis CPP
Risk Manager and Analyst
Freelance Writer and Author
July 21, 2021
CRIMINAL CHARGES DISMISSED
SEIZED ASSETS ORDERED RETURNED, BY COURT
On August 14, 2014 Richard E. “Rick” Dennis CPP; Freelance Writer and Author, released an article on allaboutcutting.com, titled: “WHO OWNS A NON-PROFIT?” More specifically, the article, in specificity, declares and demonstrates a 501 C 3 Non-Profit isn’t and can’t be owned by an individual or group of individuals. Once setup, a 501 C 3 Non-Profit becomes an entity unto itself and is operated by a Board of Directors and is approved for operation as a 501 C 3 Non-Profit, by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Furthermore, there are Federal and State laws governing the operations of all 501 C 3 Non-Profits. Annual tax filings are found on GuideStar.Org in order for the public to verify, whether or not, an entity is actually a legitimate 501 C 3 Non-Profit. To read the entire article in detail, click on the following link:
Michigan Legislature enacted the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act. The (Client) is a business owner in the State of Michigan and was affiliated with a legally organized 501 C 3 Medical Marijuana facility as the “Agent of Process,” for said business. In this article, the identity of the formerly accused defendant will be referred to as “John Doe (Client).” Further, this article delineates the unscrupulous and fraudulent actions (Public Corruption) of a Michigan Drug Enforcement Agent in order to illegally arrest and seize the assets of an individual as well as shutting down a legally organized 501 C 3 Non-Profit. However, the charges were eventually dismissed, but only after years of legal court fights encompassing Michigan lower courts, appeal court, and Supreme Court. This legal fight cost the (Client) thousands of dollars spent in legal fees and court costs. Risk Analyst worked as part of the legal defense team and directly with David Moffitt – Attorney At Law, through authority of (Client) to end this horrible nightmare. The facts are contained in the following:
STATE OF MICHIGAN VERSUS JOHN DOE
A few years ago an individual contacted me because he found the foregoing article on the internet and asked if I would review his case file. After reading and analyzing his case file, I contacted this individual hereafter referred to as (JOHN DOE (Client), because even though his criminal charges have been dismissed, the judge in this case ordered all seized civil assets returned, the (Client’s) civil action (LAWSUIT) for damages is pending and moving forward. Upon speaking with the (Client) I was asked what I thought of his case. I was specific when I stated: “I bet I can charge the Narcotics Team with more factual criminal charges than their trying to convict you of.” In essence law enforcement made monumental errors and fatal flaws during their investigation of the (Client) as well as in the Search Warrant Applications thereafter Example:
FATAL FLAWS IN THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
· PERJURY BEFORE THE JUDICIARY – THE FIRST FATAL FLAW: The first and most significant FATAL FLAW in law enforcements criminal investigation into the 501 C 3 and the (Client) is contained in the lead investigators search warrant application and report of investigation. In the search warrant application the lead investigator identifies the (Client) as the owner of the 501 C 3 NON-PROFIT instead of in the proper context, for which, the (Client) was identified - in the Michigan Secretary of State legal documents. Example: The (Client) is identified in the legal documents as the “Agent of Process,” not the OWNER, as the lead investigator referred to (Client) as. Nothing more, nothing less.
For the record, an “Agent of Process” is nothing more than a glorified mail catcher. In truth and fact, the (Client) was not and never will be the owner of the 501 C 3 Non-Profit. Furthermore the 501 C 3 Non-Profit is run by a board of directors. The (Client) is only a member of the “Board of Directors” which governs the day-to-day business operations, e.g., “Agent of Process.”
· PERJURY BEFORE THE JUDICIARY - THE SECOND FATAL FLAW: The second most significant fatal flaw in the investigation pertains to three alleged undercover marijuana purchases by a Cooperating Individual (Informant). In the Search Warrant application, the case Agent described this individual as a willing participant. However, it was later learned this individual was working off criminal charges by being an informant. This is usual and customary with criminal drug enforcement investigations, but the individual is not freely cooperative. The informant has a vested interest. Also, this information was deliberately withheld from the Magistrate.
Further, the case Agent informed the judiciary the (Informant) had never been to the 501 C 3 Non-Profit, but the Agent failed to inform the judiciary (Magistrate) the informant was having sex with the female employee he was allegedly consummating the undercover marijuana purchases from. This information was revealed by the case Agent during his legal deposition. The other relevant fact which was concealed is the fact the (Informant) made an application to be a member of the medical marijuana club which would’ve legally qualified him to purchase Medical Marijuana there. Therefore, the Confidential Informant is in a conflict of interest, as is the lead investigator.
· BROKEN CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF EVIDENCE AND DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE – When an evidence review along with the Chain of Custody of the evidence was authorized by the judge in this matter, it was determined the surveillance cameras seized from the 501 C 3 Non-Profit were vandalized and broken as well as missing power cords. The items were located in the evidence room of the law enforcement agency and were presented to the defendant and the lawyer in the presence of the Assistant District Attorney on metal carts, in unsealed boxes. Therefore, this evidence which could’ve been used by the defendant to demonstrate his innocence was deliberately destroyed while in the custody of the Sheriff’s Office.
· IMPROPER ITEMIZATION OF EVIDENCE AND FAILURE IN ESTABLISHING A LEGAL CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF EVIDENCE – Yet another problem encountered during this process was: all of the medical marijuana evidence; seized during the operation, was combined from several locations, instead of individually logging said evidence from each location where it was found. Again, failing to establish a legal Chain of Custody of evidence.
TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE
Certainly, the Magistrate would’ve never readily signed an application for a Search Warrant if he would’ve known this vital information and the deliberate man made flaws in the case. Notwithstanding there are a myriad of other instance identified by the Risk Analyst which were reported as fact to the judiciary, by the case Agent, when in truth and fact they were completely false. The other travesty’s of justice in this case are:
· Other Search Warrants were obtained by the Drug Task force which were piggy backed off of the fraudulent one, resulting in civil asset forfeitures from the (Client’s) personal unrelated businesses and bank accounts as well as cash and assets from the 501 C 3 Non-Profit along with (Clients’s) parents.
· It should be noted, both of (Client’s) parents died during this process with each one being under intense undue stress, caused by an unscrupulous law enforcement agent.
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS – 4th AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION
During the Risk Management and Analysis of (Client’s) case, it was determined law enforcement violated his 4th Amendment Rights, e.g.,: The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. In addition, it sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Therefore, the facts will lead a reasonable person to believe: This entire law enforcement operation was a well crafted plan to shut down the 501 C 3 Medical Marijuana dispensary, falsely accuse and arrest the (Client) as well as seizing as many assets as possible while using fraud, deceit and his power as a law enforcement officer as the method of operation (MOA). This was not the handiwork of an inexperienced Drug Enforcement Agent, but the handiwork of an experienced, but unscrupulous individual who knows how to use trickery and collusion to his advantage to punish innocent people. Abuse of Power. The real oddity in this case is: Risk Analyst contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Detroit, Michigan to alert them of this law enforcement scheme, but Risk Analyst never heard from them. This type of public corruption case and civil rights violations are exactly the ones the FBI and the Department of Justice are supposed to investigate.
CIVIL ASSETS FORFEITURE LAW
Although highly controversial, civil asset forfeiture laws allow the police to take (and keep) large sums of cash or property suspected of either being used to commit crimes or obtained through criminal means (e.g. goods purchased with "dirty" money). I worked in drug enforcement for 16 years as both an Undercover Agent and as an Enforcement Agent. In my day, an enforcement agent had to have high probable cause to effect a civil assets forfeiture. The forfeiture usually resulted from a Drug Enforcement criminal arrest and conviction. Today, all a law enforcement has to do is think a suspect a person in possession of a large quantity of cash, obtained the funds from an illegal enterprise without any proof whatsoever.
In the (Client’s) case the seizure of assets precluded a conviction. The irony of the case is: The (Client) was offered a plea bargaining deal by the Sheriff’s Office prior to being convicted. More specifically, the Sheriff’s Office offered the (Client), in exchange for a guilty plea and the complete forfeiture of all seized assets, the (Client) would receive a suspended sentence. Notwithstanding, the (Client) has maintained his innocence in this matter and prevailed in the end.
Lastly, Risk Analyst was informed this is standard operating procedure for this Michigan Sheriff’s Office. Search Warrant, Arrest, Assets Seized, Plea Bargain, and Assets Forfeited. The record shall reflect, seized assets are divided up between the Law Enforcement Agency, the District Attorney’s Office, and the Courts. In Risk Analysts opinion, this is just a racket to seize peoples assets. When an individual arrestee doesn’t have the funds to fight the system, it usually ends up in a Plea Bargain and a conviction – whether guilty or not, and a loss of everything the individual owns. After this, the Attorney General Office should scrutinize every case this particular Drug Enforcement Agent has ever worked, for impropriety. However, in this case - the (Client) prevailed and justice was served!!
“Until Next Time, Keep Em Between The Bridle!!”
Richard E. "Rick" Dennis
Freelance Writer and Author