The Safety and Licensing Committee met 06/26/2024. One of the items they took up was the recommendation to deny a Class B Beer and Reserve Class B Liquor License application for Mr. Frogs. The business is owned by Julia Nino Gomez and her son Alejondro Morales. Per her statement to the committee, Julia had previously leased Mr. Frogs to some other individuals, but she found out that they were doing illegal things, so she ended their lease and hoped to open the business back up under her own name.
The Police Department recommended denying the alcohol license applications, stating, “The Appleton Police Department has significant concerns about Ms. Gomez’s moral character and her ability and willingness to follow the law. Julia and her family were involved in a significant federal cocaine dealing prosecution in and around 2020-2021. While Julia was not charged criminally, she was likely involved or at least aware of the ongoing drug dealing operation that took place at her place of employment and at a property which she owned.”
In 2022, her son Luis Morales was sentenced to 14 years in prison for trafficking cocaine. Investigators found evidence establishing that “Morales had direct ties and confirmed contacts with Cartel Jalisco New Generation (“CJNG”), a violent Mexican cartel.” Additionally, per a memo from the City Attorney’s Office, her daughter Sandra Munoz was charged was “charged with federal offenses related to cocaine distribution,” and while Alejandro Morales, her son and Mr. Frog’s business partner, was not criminally charged, three people during interviews with authorities indicated that Alejandro was involved in selling drugs.
The committee ended up voting 3-0 to recommend the license application be denied.
I’ve prepared a transcript of the discussion for download:
This would not be the first time Julia was denied an alcohol license due to the criminal activities of her family members. In 2022, she was denied an alcohol license for Mr. Taco due to Sandra Munoz’s association with the business.
Julia attended the committee meeting and argued, “[I]t wasn’t my fault. My son, he’s still paying for his mistakes. I don’t have—I don’t know why I had to pay for his mistakes. My record is clean, and I not do anything bad. Okay? So, what is the difference? I can sell it food, but I can’t sell alcohol? What’s the difference?
She did not speak English well, so her daughter Sandra served as her interpreter at various points. Speaking as Julia’s interpreter, Sandra told the committee, “What’s the difference of her selling food and selling alcohol? If she will do something wrong, she will do it out of a food business if she really wanted to.”
Assistant City Attorney Zak Buruin spoke about the difference between selling food and selling alcohol. “[I]n terms of addressing the question of what’s the difference between selling food and selling alcohol, the answer is: a lot. One requires a pretty substantial license. The other one is not nearly so highly regulated. And the fact that there’s a lack of recognition of the difference is a little bit concerning.”
Julia, speaking through Sandra, also told the committee that she found out that the people she leased Mr. Frogs to had been doing “illegal stuff”, so she decided to end their lease and hoped to open the business back up under her own name.
Because this was an initial license application, not a renewal, the committee had more leeway to make a decision to deny as compared to a situation where they wanted to revoke an existing license. Assistant City Attorney Buruin explained in a memo to the committee, “Per §125.51(1)(a), municipalities may grant alcohol beverage license as they deem ‘proper.’ Such a decision is subject to review only to determine if the municipality acted capriciously and abused its discretion by treating similarly situated individuals differently.”
After laying out the history of the criminal investigation and findings regarding Julia’s various family members and associates, as well as her own part in the situation, Assistant Attorney Buruin concluded his memo by saying, “Information uncovered through the investigation potentially sheds light on the applicant’s ability and / or willingness to meet supervisory and accountability standards associated with the granting of an alcohol beverage license.
“As long as the Committee and Council act reasonably (as explained more extensively above) in the interests of public health, safety, peace, comfort and happiness of the community, they are empowered to grant or deny the license as they deem proper.”
The committee ended up voting 3-0 to deny the license application.
[I seems to me that when you’re facing denial of an alcohol license due to your association with a bunch of criminals, you do your self no favors by showing up to the committee meeting with a translator who is one of those associates charged with crimes, admit to the committee that you had previously leased your business to criminals, and then argue that you should be granted an alcohol license because if you were going to engage in criminal activity you would do it out of a restaurant not a bar. It also doesn’t help if your business partner has been accused by multiple people of selling drugs.]
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1204756&GUID=19135309-8977-4A3B-8147-CEBF107CF90A
Be the first to reply