Talk:Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act/Archive 1

Archive 1

excellent

but surprised no civil liberties concerns sections iirc a big deal when law was first used, also, historically, companies tried to complain that a law about organized crime shouldn't apply to them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:192:4700:EDC0:419F:4CBE:7BA7:4986 (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Could be used against ACLU

• motivated by ideology
• cause harm by defending late-term abortion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.226.188 (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Internal Revenue Service Agent Found Dead, qui.tam Results

RICO Case #88-50143-WS David W. Harbin vs. United States of America, et al. was filed in the Northern Distric of Florida with qui tam notice to the Justice Department. Filed pro se and in forma pauperis, this suit detailed how Florida Title Insurance Inc. was taken over by its competitor with the assistance of an Internal Revenue Agent who had threatened the life of the owner on behalf of the local mobsters. The Plaintiff met the IRS Agent at a meeting of the White Western Mens Club. The Club meets monthly and has 12 members. Every third Thursday night they decide happens on Friday morning. The IRS Agent was found dead just days after being served by U.S. Marshals. His autopsy was conducted by a coroner who was later convicted of murder. All motions by the plaintiff were denied, including motions for discovery conference, seizure of assets of parties that failed to appear with oral arguments requested on all motions. The first "hearing" was on Appeal at the 11th Circuit Court where most of the 15 minutes allotted, was spent attempting to have the Government exhume the IRS Agent who was subject to murder investigation conducted by the IRS Inspectors Office. The Supreme Court returned a Petition for Writ of Certiorari that was filed for spacing issues. By the time it could be republished, the clerk determined it was "out of time". Bankruptcy Clerk and Federal Judges also held that Plaintiff Corporation, even dissolved, and Company that was in control and possession of the U.S. Government through seizure, could not appear through President, Chairman, Stockholder, Resident Agent or Creditor, but yet, years later, Judge Richard Smoak sentenced Mantra Entertainment owner Joe Francis to jail for contempt for not appearing on behalf of his corporation. Anyone that has experienced the wrath of a Racketeering Enterprise will understand all derrogatory posts that may try to alter the truth. The truth is this is not the first incident of the Enterprise raising its ugly head, or the last. I have a letter to the Judge I can post from a RICO Defendant that chose not to appear or answer the complaint. The reason there are no references to this case is there never was even a hearing granted on numerous motions and was a clear pattern of abuse of Judicial Discretion at the Northern District of Florida, 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court clerk intercepted it before ir was even considered —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panamaed (talk • contribs) on 4 November 2008.

See http://panamaed.wordpress.com for more.

There are no sources for this and a google search for the case number only brings up the wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccb056 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Need to separate Criminal and Civil RICO

The biggest problem with the article is that the criminal law, the vast majority of the code, is not separated in the article from the civil aspect. By analogy, there is murder, then you have Nicole Brown's family suing O.J. Simpson. Separate subject matter IMHO.

Please sign and date your posts. More importantly, can anyone out there help a non-American understand what a civil lawsuit over a wrongful death in a domestic violence case has to to with RICO? Garth of the Forest (talk) 06:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

makes no sense

I'm sorry, but the current entry on RICO makes absolutely no sense. It would be nice if someone knowledgeable about the topic could replace this with a paragraph or two (or more) of comprehensible information on the statute and its applications.

I agree

Ditto for me. I still don't quite understand who can sue who in which courts for what, exactly. David.Monniaux 17:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is federal law, so that rules out lower jurisdictions. It is criminal law, so that means the state presses charges, as opposed to civil proceedings. Of course, once a criminal case is decided, nothing prevents a civil case afterwards from being tried. What I wonder about is how a "re-certification service" both by certain US municipalities and by the International Code Council would be exempt from RICO prosecution. The services rendered are termed "evaluations", when in fact, a manufacturer has his or her product tested to a nationally accredited standard and engages a product certification service, such as Underwriters Laboratories, who not only make sure that the test complies with the law, but publish the results and routinely, at unannounced intervals, four times per year, conduct stringent factory audits to make sure that the product tested is identical to the product being sold. Then, there are municipalities and also the national NGO (ICC Evaluation Service), who re-publish the result for a fee for the purpose of facilitating the acceptance by its members. How is that not racketeering? It is like a store owner buying "protection". The evaluation service basically says: "Yup, you sure are listed alright." --Achim (talk) 02:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Osama Bin Laden

Someone might want to add that RICO was used to persecute Osama bin Laden in 2001 for the embassy bombings in Kenya.

Says who?

The indictment doesn't mention the act or it's section numbers. The embassy bombings indictments and convictions aren't mentioned by law enforcement among their "notable cases". The only serious reference a google search turns up for bin-Laden and RICO mentions it in the context that RICO has never been used against al Qaeda but could. Attriti0n (talk) 04:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you are responding to someone who uses the word "persecute" rather than "prosecute" indicates you are either dealing with someone who is not interested in complying with WP:NPOV or else who does not know of what they speak. Either way, a waste of your time. Garth of the Forest (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I was actually trying to bait someone with some legal knowledge to go check this out. It gets mentioned a bit, but I can't find anything to substantiate it. The same claim appears on each wiki page related to bin Laden, al Qaeda and the case. This should be confirmed (by someone with legal knowledge) and this put to bed once and for all. Attriti0n (talk) 01:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

RICO could quite probably be applied to any Al Qaeda operatives who were arrested in the US and/or brought back to the US to be tried for crimes committed or alleged to have been committed on US soil or otherwise clearly within US jurisdiction. Otherwise, international law gets a bit more complex and I doubt RICO could be used in less cut-and-dry scenarios. Garth of the Forest (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"Brought back to the US..." Do you mean members of illegal terrorist organisations? Because, in 'normal' RICO matters, citizen nationals, in their own countries, are NOT 'arrested' by US law enforcement - agencies like the FBI having ZERO jurisdiction outside the USA. So, those citizen nationals in their own countries (i.e. not 'foreigners') cannot be 'brought back' to the US. America CAN apply to the courts of that other country for a grant of EXTRADITION - however, extradition arrangements are usually based on a principle of 'reciprocity' of offence - in other words, the alleged offence has to be illegal in both the USA and the 'other' country. Since only the US - and not, say, Europe has specific racketeering laws (racketeering not being an offence in e.g. France) then NO extradition would be possible under American RICO laws. Is this the reason why nobody from Europe present at the infamous Baur-au-Lac hotel bust (by Swiss cops, NOT the FBI) was arrested - and that no European was extradited to the US? Maybe American extra-territorial operates in the Americas - but, it sure doesn't work elsewhere. 31.49.28.120 (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I should probably take a look at it and work on revamping this article (I'm a criminal prosecutor). I won't have any time at all for at least the next week, but in the coming months I might be able to make some changes or updates. Tuckdogg (talk) 01:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Mohawk

Pkbarbiedoll 15:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC) Should something be mentioned about the Supreme Court's decision in Mohawk Industries v. Williams, 05-465, which questions whether employers can be sued for using recruiters to hire illegal immigrants?

If the case had anything to do with RICO, then yes. If not, then no. Since you seem to know something about the case you mention, why not enlighten us all? My personal opinion (which is not a legal opinion) is that if the employers knew up front that the recruiters would be hiring illegal immigrants, then they could probably be sued, but if they didn't know, then maybe not. The bigger question is, did they knowingly break the law? The more relevant question (for the purposes of this talk page) is: does it have anything to do with RICO? Garth of the Forest (talk) 06:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

legalese

Someone needs to eliminate the legalese and make it clear. Only those that graduated from law school could understand it in this current state. MafiaCapo 01:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

More to the point, only a person who graduated from law school could understand how many mistakes there are in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunshipballoons (talk • contribs) 17:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

2000s banks

I'm marking this as nocite. While it would be cool, I don't think it's well documented, and if so, Id want to see a reference.ADStark (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

lawsuits against Church dioceses

I was told that the much publicized lawsuits against Catholic dioceses in the US for the cover-up of the actions of pedophile priests, which are bringing some dioceses to the brink of bankruptcy, were brought under RICO. Is that true?

Does RICO allow sueing organizations for repeat crimes committed in the course of their duties by their employees and management? David.Monniaux 12:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I request someone with legal knowledge please clean up the section "Where RICO might be used". It reads like a legal textbook, not an encyclopedia entry, is completely unintelligable to most readers in its current state.

---

A R.I.C.O. charge can only be applied to someone under the jurisidection of any level of U.S. governments (city, state, federal) judicial branch. A separate issue and the one that is in question is how is osama ben laden under the jurisidection of any U.S. judicial branch. The answer to that lies in TITLE 22 > CHAPTER 23 > § 1731 Protection to naturalized citizens abroad (can someone link the protection to its article on this site since i don't know how? also please correct my misspellings and delete my asking for corrections. thanks in advance)

WikiProject

• WikiProject Organized crime has been proposed - see link for more information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nae'blis (talk • contribs) 20:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Weasel Words

Some have said this provision is intended to force a defendant to plead guilty before indictment.

This sentences meets the criteria described in Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words for weasel words. A citation could be added, or the sentence could be clarified.

I concur. --Coolcaesar 07:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The words have been altered - if someone changes the phrasing, they need to remove the tag. ericg ✈ 17:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

2 of 35?

I've read you need 3 of 35 (not 2 of 35) underlying crimes to convict under RICO. So I made the change. Please change back if this information is incorrect. 67.42.33.65 02:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Per section 1961(5), it appears to be two acts in a ten year period, not three. So I changed the text back. Yours, Famspear 14:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

History of use

_ _ RICO not used for 1st 10 years. Leo Welch, whom Hoover had hated, headed NYC FBI office after Hoover was out, heard a Blakey lecture on RICO, and in cooperation with Rudolph Giuliani went after the five families' heads.
_ _ Those are a few points covered on PBS today (abt 12:15, 17 November 2006 (EST) on my Eastern US station), almost certainly of Fresh Air interview re Selwyn Raab's book Five Families: Rise, Decline, and Resurgence, which covers this, apparently rebroadcast in connection with its going to paperback. First hit i found was [1], but surely others are available.
_ _ (Raab also lk'd from Carlos Marcello.)
--Jerzy•t 17:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Another interesting and noteworthy (although unsuccessful) attempt to apply RICO laws was against Sonny Barger and some other members of the Hells Angels. Anyone care to add this in? If not - I will try to get to it when time permits. Garth of the Forest 07:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

totallydisputed tag

This article is a mess, and since journalists are referring people to it instead of doing actual research, it's important to recognize that there are several inaccuracies and a failure to adhere to the NPOV requirements, as well as the more arcane WP:NOR and WP:V requirements. If there are no objections, I will stub this thing down and we can start over from scratch. -- THF 04:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see specific NPOV issues. But I will agree that the article is under-referenced. The article has only two references and a small handful of external references. Perhaps what needs to be done is 1)Areas with NPOV and inaccuracies need to be specifically identified. 2)Build a bibliography of high-quality references such as case law. 3)If there is dissenting opinion on a case, this needs to be stated as well. 4)Make changes to fix the issues.Kgrr 20:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

There are numerous violations of WP:WEIGHT in the decisions to list some minor cases, and in the failure to recognize points of view criticizing overbreadth and abuse of civil and criminal RICO. THF 22:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What makes one case a minor case and another one not? Only POV. Surely if you were being charged under RICO, you would consider it a major case. But if I've never heard of you or your company, I would consider it a minor case. So if you simply take the point of view that any case where RICO has been applied (either successfully or unsuccessfully) as relevant - go ahead and be bold and add some "major" cases to the list. Just make sure you provide references and provide context to allow an average reader to understand how the case is relevant to an article about RICO. Garth of the Forest (talk) 07:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Please be more specific in describing how WP:WEIGHT has been violated. I fail to see it. If you want to add a "Criticisms" section or paragraph, please do so, but provide references for those viewpoints rather than just your own opinion. Garth of the Forest (talk) 07:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I propose removing the tags

The neutrality was disputed almost a year ago, but the discussion page gives no clear reason on what grounds. The second tag suggests the article contains original research, but I suggest the real issue is that the article is still under referenced. So add some "cite reference" tags in the article, rather than mis-label the entire article with the "original research" label. Finally, I don't believe the article needs a complete re-write. I think it needs a few more people adding references and fine tuning the wording. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater it doesn't seem like too many people are actively contributing, more like just a few random drive-by criticisms. BE BOLD people! Rather than just criticizing someone else's efforts - FIX IT. And forgive me if I've not followed proper protocol here (I'm a relatively new editor) but I'd like to see more people contributing good content and references to articles rather than just criticizing other people's contributions. Garth of the Forest (talk) 07:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm doing NPOV cleanup. I believe the issues that created the tags have been dealt with. I also fine that the original tagger had issues with overzealous POV tagging, which may or may not mean anything. I'm removing the tag - if any find any reason otherwise, then of course they are free to replace it and state their reasoning clearly here on the discussion page.Jjdon (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Moderately helpful point, garth, but this article is a total disaster. As noted above, the failure to distinguish between civil and criminal RICO (and the failure to understand the difference in terminology between criminal cases and civil litigation) makes this article extremely inaccurate and confusing. Personally, I don't have time to completely rewrite this, which is what's required.

We need a criticisms part

just google around and you see how many people dislike the law —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.38.243 (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, no kidding. And there's a very good argument to be made that the law and its application are unconstitutional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.85.10.194 (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I would love to hear the argument! Is there really a "good" argument that hasn't yet been made (and rejected) by the Supreme Court, or at least by a majority of circuits to have considered it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.78.82 (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

maybe u start for first witch the arguments with allready been talked about the supreme court :) rejected or not ;)

Unsource material moved from article

The following unreference material is moved from the article to here:

RICO Case #88-50143-WS David W. Harbin vs. United States of America, et al. was filed in the Northern Distric of Florida with qui tam notice to the Justice Department. Filed pro se and in forma pauperis, this suit detailed how Florida Title Insurance Inc. was taken over by its competitor with the assistance of an Internal Revenue Agent who had threatened the life of the owner on behalf of the local mobsters. The Plaintiff met the IRS Agent at a meeting of the White Western Mens Club. The Club meets monthly and has 12 members. Every third Thursday night they decide happens on Friday morning. The IRS Agent was found dead just days after being served by U.S. Marshals. His autopsy was conducted by a coroner who was later convicted of murder.

All motions by the plaintiff were denied, including motions for discovery conference, seizure of assets of parties that failed to appear with oral arguments requested on all motions. The first "hearing" was on Appeal at the 11th Circuit Court where most of the 15 minutes allotted, was spent attempting to have the Government exhume the IRS Agent who was subject to murder investigation conducted by the IRS Inspectors Office. The Supreme Court returned a Petition for Writ of Certiorari that was filed for spacing issues. By the time it could be republished, the clerk determined it was "out of time".

Bankruptcy Clerk and Federal Judges also held that Plaintiff Corporation, even dissolved, and Company that was in control and possession of the U.S. Government through seizure, could not appear through President, Chairman, Stockholder, Resident Agent or Creditor, but yet, years later, Judge Richard Smoak sentenced Mantra Entertainment owner Joe Francis to jail for contempt for not appearing on behalf of his corporation.

This rambling is supposed to be a description of a supposedly "famous" RICO case. Yet, there is no meaningful citation (and "RICO Case #88-50143-WS David W. Harbin vs. United States of America, et al." is not much help) and I have located no references to this case anywhere. Maybe we can locate information on this later and rework the material. Famspear (talk) 12:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone that has experienced the wrath of a Racketeering Enterprise will understand all derrogatory posts that may try to alter the truth. The truth is this is not the first incident of the Enterprise raising its ugly head, or the last. I have a letter to the Judge I can post from a RICO Defendant that chose not to appear or answer the complaint. The reason there are no references to this case is there never was even a hearing granted on numerous motions and was a clear pattern of abuse of Judicial Discretion at the Northern District of Florida, 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court clerk intercepted it before ir was even considered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panamaed (talk • contribs) 17:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

For more go to http://panamaed.wordpress.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.147.121.85 (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The Dark Knight

I added a new section to the article--Use in popular culture--since a RICO case was used in the recent film The Dark Knight. It's not very detailed, since I've only seen the film twice, so feel free to add to it. -Dark_Wolf101 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.142.221.41 (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

"How a DA managed to use RICO is a real head scratcher." < Dude, you can't put stuff like that in wiki articles. It makes it sound more like a magazine article (non-neutral, unnecessarily flamboyant language) than an encyclopedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.55.243 (talk) 07:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Can't we just get rid of this section? I really don't think it adds any useful information, is vastly incomplete (what mob movies don't use RICO in some capacity), and just seems like the result of the crazy popularity of The Dark Knight. --Mantra002 (talk) 06:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

that would be fine by me. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

CRS sources (public domain)

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS:_RICO:_An_Abridged_Sketch,_July_11,_2006

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS:_RICO:_A_Brief_Sketch,_July_11,_2006

Technical writing

The first time 'treble damages' appears in this article, its definition needs to be shown once, '(damages in triple the amount of actual/compensatory damages)'. The definition only needs to be shown once, and always explaining the first instance. In this article, the definition is placed after the second time 'treble damages' is listed, which is incorrect technical writing. Sponsion (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

statistics

i would say it would be very interessting to have some statistics in here. how many rico cases are there each year in the USA and what says the long therm chart. i have no idea if there are 3 rico cases a year or 30 000!?? and also it is very interessting to see a long term chart to see if there is change over the years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.245.78.135 (talk) 10:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Chicago Outfit

I perceive two problems with the "Chicago Outfit" section:

1. no citation is given.
2. disposition is given for only 14 of the 15 defendants indicted. What happened to number 15? The article says that 15 were indicted. Of those, "Five defendants were convicted of RICO violations and other crimes. Six plead guilty, two died before trial and one was too sick to be tried." 5 6 2 1 = 14. Were there only 14, not 15? If there were 15, what happened to the other?

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081014073823/http://www.dealer-magazine.com:80/index.asp?article=481 to http://www.dealer-magazine.com/index.asp?article=481
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140102195850/http://www.nationalreview.com/dreher/dreher032802.asp to http://www.nationalreview.com/dreher/dreher032802.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Key West PD Section

It might be helpful to include whether or not any convictions were secured. Without this resolution, the final sentence "At trial, a witness testified he routinely delivered bags of cocaine to the Deputy Chief's office at City Hall." could inadvertently be inferred to mean that convictions were secured even if that were not the case. I myself don't know the results of the mentioned trial - unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't seem to mention this... 82.26.78.212 (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://media.theweekender.com/documents/INDICTMENT.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110220000624/http://www.timesleader.com/news/Deliberations-resume-in-CIavarella-trial.html to http://www.timesleader.com/news/Deliberations-resume-in-CIavarella-trial.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160603030031/http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/10/29/72891.htm to http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/10/29/72891.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100801120008/http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/101.pdf to http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/101.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)