Long Beach woman pleads guilty to illegally shipping large quantity of ammunition to the Philippines

Disir

Platinum Member
Sep 30, 2011
28,003
9,607
910
LOS ANGELES – A Long Beach woman has pleaded guilty to federal offenses for illegally shipping tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition to the Philippines.

Marlou Mendoz, 61, pleaded guilty Monday in U.S. District Court to three counts of failing to provide the required written notice to freight forwarders that she was shipping ammunition to a foreign country.

Marlou Medoza admitted she sent .22-caliber ammunition and bullets to the Philippines in three shipments in June 2011. The shipments contained 131,300 rounds, the defendant admitted in court.

Marlou Mendoza, who remains free on bond, is scheduled to be sentenced April 20 by U.S. District Judge George H. Wu. As a result of the three guilty pleas, she faces a statutory maximum penalty of 15 years in federal prison.

In a related case unsealed last year, Mark Louie Mendoza, Marlou Mendoza’s 31-year-old son, was charged with illegally shipping hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of firearms parts and ammunition to the Philippines – munitions that were concealed in shipments falsely claimed to be household goods.

...The money laundering charge against Mark Mendoza alleges that during the first six months of 2011, he transferred more than $650,000 in proceeds generated by the illegal ammunition exports from an account in the Philippines to a money remitter in Los Angeles.
Long Beach woman pleads guilty to illegally shipping large quantity of ammunition to the Philippines

Mark lives in the Phillippines. It might take a minute.
 
Did she take what doesn't belong to her?

Did she hurt someone unnecessarily?

Did she in any way shape or form infringe on the rights of another?

Based on your synopsis, it looks like the answer is no. Call me crazy, but I don't think the government should prosecute anyone for whom we cannot answer yes to one of the above questions. To me, this sounds like it should be a civil matter between a shipping company and its customer.
 
Mark Mendoza is part of a smuggling ring.
 
Did she take what doesn't belong to her?

Did she hurt someone unnecessarily?

Did she in any way shape or form infringe on the rights of another?

Based on your synopsis, it looks like the answer is no. Call me crazy, but I don't think the government should prosecute anyone for whom we cannot answer yes to one of the above questions. To me, this sounds like it should be a civil matter between a shipping company and its customer.
hold on there!! before you get all uppity about gun rights remember none of these people are white, so you might want to check with fox news first before you form an opinion, what if the guns are going to mexicans or worse mooslimz we all know you right wing gun nazis would hate that.
 
Did she take what doesn't belong to her?

Did she hurt someone unnecessarily?

Did she in any way shape or form infringe on the rights of another?

Based on your synopsis, it looks like the answer is no. Call me crazy, but I don't think the government should prosecute anyone for whom we cannot answer yes to one of the above questions. To me, this sounds like it should be a civil matter between a shipping company and its customer.
hold on there!! before you get all uppity about gun rights remember none of these people are white, so you might want to check with fox news first before you form an opinion, what if the guns are going to mexicans or worse mooslimz we all know you right wing gun nazis would hate that.

Race and Nazis in response to a post that neither mentions nor has anything to do with either.

We've never seen that before.

Were you trying to ironic? Witty? I don't get it.
 
Did she take what doesn't belong to her?

Did she hurt someone unnecessarily?

Did she in any way shape or form infringe on the rights of another?

Based on your synopsis, it looks like the answer is no. Call me crazy, but I don't think the government should prosecute anyone for whom we cannot answer yes to one of the above questions. To me, this sounds like it should be a civil matter between a shipping company and its customer.
hold on there!! before you get all uppity about gun rights remember none of these people are white, so you might want to check with fox news first before you form an opinion, what if the guns are going to mexicans or worse mooslimz we all know you right wing gun nazis would hate that.

Race and Nazis in response to a post that neither mentions nor has anything to do with either.

We've never seen that before.

Were you trying to ironic? Witty? I don't get it.
did i commit a thought crime?
 
Did she take what doesn't belong to her?

Did she hurt someone unnecessarily?

Did she in any way shape or form infringe on the rights of another?

Based on your synopsis, it looks like the answer is no. Call me crazy, but I don't think the government should prosecute anyone for whom we cannot answer yes to one of the above questions. To me, this sounds like it should be a civil matter between a shipping company and its customer.
hold on there!! before you get all uppity about gun rights remember none of these people are white, so you might want to check with fox news first before you form an opinion, what if the guns are going to mexicans or worse mooslimz we all know you right wing gun nazis would hate that.

Race and Nazis in response to a post that neither mentions nor has anything to do with either.

We've never seen that before.

Were you trying to ironic? Witty? I don't get it.
did i commit a thought crime?

No, you just made a stupid statement that has nothing to do with the point at hand.
 
Did she take what doesn't belong to her?

Did she hurt someone unnecessarily?

Did she in any way shape or form infringe on the rights of another?

Based on your synopsis, it looks like the answer is no. Call me crazy, but I don't think the government should prosecute anyone for whom we cannot answer yes to one of the above questions. To me, this sounds like it should be a civil matter between a shipping company and its customer.





A monumentally stupid assessment.
 
Did she take what doesn't belong to her?

Did she hurt someone unnecessarily?

Did she in any way shape or form infringe on the rights of another?

Based on your synopsis, it looks like the answer is no. Call me crazy, but I don't think the government should prosecute anyone for whom we cannot answer yes to one of the above questions. To me, this sounds like it should be a civil matter between a shipping company and its customer.

Stop eating paint chips.
 
Did she take what doesn't belong to her?

Did she hurt someone unnecessarily?

Did she in any way shape or form infringe on the rights of another?

Based on your synopsis, it looks like the answer is no. Call me crazy, but I don't think the government should prosecute anyone for whom we cannot answer yes to one of the above questions. To me, this sounds like it should be a civil matter between a shipping company and its customer.

Stop eating paint chips.

Now there's brilliant retort.

The way you used logic and reason to dissemble my point...the way you countered with irrefutable evidence in support of your position...really impressive. Nay, thrilling!

You were the president of your high school debating team, weren't you?
 

Forum List

Back
Top