Add "political dissident" to the list of reasons such investigative tools can be utilized and you got yourself a Cold War Russia.
Printable View
Add "political dissident" to the list of reasons such investigative tools can be utilized and you got yourself a Cold War Russia.
That mr. egyptian got his pilot's license.
hey, Handy Sam. pull your head out of the proverbial conspiracy theory ass for two seconds and read SummitCo's post. Prosecutors are using the Patriot Act in much the same fashion as Rudy Giuliani used the RICO statutes to convict members of the Mob. Was it wrong for him to utilize a different law to prosecute previously Teflon Don's?? NO, emphatically not.
again, inquiring minds want to know.
Yet again, mr_gyptian's logic is incredibly poor and flaccid. Note what RICO stands for. Go ahead, use this lovely information highway. Then consider the comparison of RICO to presecute organized crime vs. the Patriot Act to prosecute meth manufacturers.
Also, note the lack of enforcement regarding well known IRA support here in the good ol' boy USofA. Can you say jingoist?
Understanding the blinders don't even have peepholes in your case, m_e, I'll state the obvious one more time:
Add "political dissident" to the list of reasons such investigative tools can be utilized and you got yourself a Cold War Russia.
When Prof. Bradley at Notre Dame started to build what would become RICO it was mainly for anti-trust law enforcement. The illegitimate enterprise was an add in before the law got passed.
Though not a perfect corrolation, I didn't say it was in the above.
A more apt comparison would be to Hate Crime legislation. If someone plans and then commits a murder, you prosecute them as such. Regardless of the victim's race, creed, color it's First Degree murder. A higher level of prosecution or conviction is not necessary.
The Patriot Act serves as another arrow in a prosecutor's quiver. Fine by me. If Chef Meth gets twelve years rather than three months under a provision of the Patriot Act. Tough shit, shouldn't have been cookin' in the first place.
Oh, and I've mentioned many a time my severe problems with passing the hat for the IRA. Though buster, they seem like your kind of revolutionary.
CONCLUSION: KEY CONCEPTS OF RICO JURISPRUDENCE
There are 17 key concepts of RICO jurisprudence. Before bringing any civil RICO action or before responding to any civil RICO complaint, a practitioner or party should understand and be able to apply all of these concepts:
RICO encompasses both legitimate and illegitimate enterprises. United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576 (1981).
Under RICO, section 1962(c), there must be a distinction between the RICO "person" and the RICO "enterprise." An individual cannot "associate" with himself. This is known as the person / enterprise distinction. River City Markets, Inc. v. Fleming Foods West, Inc., 960 F.2d 1458 (9th Cir. 1992).
With regard to the person / enterprise distinction, one can associate with a group of which he is a member while the member and the group remain distinct. Riverwoods Chappaqua Corp. v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A., 30 F.3d 339 (3d Cir. 1995).
RICO's person / enterprise distinction is NOT met by alleging that a corporation associated with its own employees, agents, subdivisions or affiliates. Riverwoods Chappaqua Corp. v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A., 30 F.3d 339 (3d Cir. 1995).
Under RICO, section 1962(c), there also must be a distinction between the enterprise and the racketeering activity; in other words, members of an enterprise must be linked by more than their participation in the same pattern of racketeering activity. This is known as the racketeering activity / enterprise distinction. McDonough v. National Home Ins. Co., 108 F.3d 174 (8th Cir. 1997).
A RICO enterprise need not be economically motivated. National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249 (1993).
To be liable under section 1962(c), a person must participate in the operation or management of the enterprise itself. Reves v. Ernst & Young, 507 U.S. 170 (1993).
Since 1995, a civil RICO claim cannot be based upon allegations of a securities fraud violation; a defendant must be criminally convicted of securities fraud before he can be subject to civil liability on the basis of securities fraud violations. 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).
A RICO claim can be predicated on mail and wire fraud alone but should not be so predicated. RICOAct.com.
The factors of continuity plus relationship combine to produce a pattern. H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tele. Co., 492 U.S. 299 (1989).
A close-ended pattern must generally last one year. Grimmett v. Brown, 75 F.3d 506 (9th Cir. 1996).
A plaintiff has standing only to the extent that she has been injured in her business or property "by reason of" the conduct constituting the violation; a defendant who violates section 1962(c) is not liable for treble damages to everyone she might have injured by other conduct (e.g., breach of contract or negligence) nor is the defendant liable to those who have not been injured. Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc., 473 U.S. 479 (1985); Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corp., 503 U.S. 258 (1992).
Always bring a section 1962(d) claim; never bring a section 1962(a) or (b) claim without a 1962(c) claim. RICOAct.com
A RICO claim must be brought within 4 years of accrual. Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff Associates, Inc. 483 U.S. 143 (1987).
Aa RICO claim accrues and the statute of limitations begins to run when the victim discovers or reasonably should have discovered its injury. Klehr v. A.O. Smith Corp., 521 U.S. 179 (1997); Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549 (2000).
A plaintiff can bring a federal civil RICO claim in either state or federal court. Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455 (1990).
If agreed to by the parties, RICO claims may be arbitrated. Shearson / American Express, Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220 (1987).
<< Return to Top
A poor man had so many children that he had already asked
everyone in the world to be godfather, and when still another
child was born, no one else was left whom he could invite.
He knew not what to do, and, in his perplexity, he lay down
and fell asleep. Then he dreamt that he was to go outside the
gate,
and ask the first person he met to be godfather. When he awoke,
he determined to obey his dream, and went outside the gate, and
asked the first person who came up to him to be godfather. The
stranger presented him with a little glass of water, and said,
this is a wonderful water, with it you can heal the sick, only
you must see where death is standing. If he is standing by the
patient's head, give the patient some of the water and he will
be healed, but if death is standing by his feet, all trouble
will be in vain, for the sick man must die. From this time forth,
the man could always say whether a patient could be saved or
not, and became famous for his skill, and earned a great deal
of money. Once he was called in to the child of the king, and
when he entered, he saw death standing by the child's head and
cured it with the water, and he did the same a second time, but
the third time death was standing by its feet, and then he knew
the child had to die.
Once the man thought he would visit the godfather, and tell him
how he had succeeded with the water. But when he entered the
house, the strangest things were going on within. On the first
flight of stairs, the broom and shovel were disputing, and
knocking each other about violently. He asked them, where does
the godfather live. The broom replied, one flight of stairs
higher up. When he came to the second flight, he saw a heap of
dead fingers lying. He asked, where does the godfather live.
One of the fingers replied, one flight of stairs higher. On
the third flight lay a heap of dead heads, which again directed
him to the flight beyond. On the fourth flight, he saw fishes on
the fire, which frizzled in pans and baked themselves. They,
too, said, one flight of stairs higher. And when he had
ascended the fifth, he came to the door of a room and peeped
through the keyhole, and there he saw the godfather who had
a pair of long horns. When he opened the door and went in,
the godfather got into bed in a great hurry and covered himself
up. Then said the man, sir godfather, what a strange house-hold
you have. When I came to your first flight of stairs, the shovel
and broom were quarreling, and beating each other violently.
How stupid you are, said the godfather. That was the boy
and the maid talking to each other. But on the second flight I
saw dead fingers lying. Oh, how silly you are. Those were some
roots of scorzonera. On the third flight lay a heap of dead
men's heads. Foolish man, those were cabbages. On the fourth
flight I saw fishes in a pan, which were hissing and baking
themselves. When he had said that, the fishes came and served
themselves up. And when I got to the fifth flight, I peeped
through the keyhole of a door, and there, godfather, I saw
you and you had long, long horns. Oh, that is not true. The
man became alarmed, and ran out, and if he had not, who knows
what the godfather would have done to him.
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970.Quote:
Originally posted by mr_gyptian
When Prof. Bradley at Notre Dame started to build what would become RICO it was mainly for anti-trust law enforcement. The illegitimate enterprise was an add in before the law got passed.
Though not a perfect corrolation, I didn't say it was in the above.
Lovely backpedal you've got there. Did you learn that at dance school?
Exactly.Quote:
A more apt comparison would be to Hate Crime legislation. If someone plans and then commits a murder, you prosecute them as such. Regardless of the victim's race, creed, color it's First Degree murder. A higher level of prosecution or conviction is not necessary.
Geez, you can't even be consistent within the same post. You do make me so bored.Quote:
The Patriot Act serves as another arrow in a prosecutor's quiver. Fine by me. If Chef Meth gets twelve years rather than three months under a provision of the Patriot Act. Tough shit, shouldn't have been cookin' in the first place.
welcome back Buster, how was nap time??
back pedal? And I quote "Prosecutors are using the Patriot Act in much the same fashion as Rudy Giuliani used the RICO statutes to convict members of the Mob. Was it wrong for him to utilize a different law to prosecute previously Teflon Don's?? NO, emphatically not."
I did not say prosecutors are using the Patriot Act exactly as Rudy used RICO. I said in "much the same fashion." And it was a different strategy and law than previously used.
Lastly, in saying I don't have a problem with prosecutors utilizing the Patriot to convict criminals is not inconsistent with my opinion that Hate Crime legislation is redundant. Hate crime legislation has to do with motive. The Patriot Act(in the Meth case) has to do with the crime commited. Therefore if you are producing Meth it violates both production of narcotic laws and apparently chemical weapons statutes. Whereas, if for example you murder someone and have plotted to do so beforehand regardless of why. you still planned and carried out a murder. Thus a prosecutor charges the accused with first degree murder.
oh and Handy Sam, lay off the Murphy's Oil. It's not for oral consumption.
I find Grimm's far more interesting than your Tales From The White House. They do, however, both seem to require an extraordinary degree of gullibility. The funny thing is how much sense Grimm's makes in comparison.Quote:
Originally posted by mr_gyptian
welcome back Buster, how was nap time??
oh and Handy Sam, lay off the Murphy's Oil. It's not for oral consumption.
people in jail never have to worry about where their next meal is coming from... or getting evicted by their landlord... oh how I envy such security
Interesting news!
They're passing Patriot act II bit by bit!
Why have a discussion when you can slip it in under the radar? A camera in every house, a file on every citizen! That's the American way!
After all, I have nothing to hide! And the government can do only good! I trust them entirely! Security before freedom!
http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/.Pi...gerprints3.jpg
I bet mr_egyptian just can't wait for that new chip implant.
He's your hero...
If Congress had intended the overbearing powers granted by USA PATRIOT act to be used outside of terrorism mitigation, they would have passed the law long ago. LEOs are abusing these powers, most of which shouldn't have been granted in the first place.
PATRIOT was clearly anti-terrorism legistlation and a power grab by authoritarian elements in congress (on both sides) and the administration.
What are we at these days?
Quote:
Originally posted by mr_gyptian
When Prof. Bradley at Notre Dame started to build what would become RICO it was mainly for anti-trust law enforcement. The illegitimate enterprise was an add in before the law got passed.
Though not a perfect corrolation, I didn't say it was in the above.
A more apt comparison would be to Hate Crime legislation. If someone plans and then commits a murder, you prosecute them as such. Regardless of the victim's race, creed, color it's First Degree murder. A higher level of prosecution or conviction is not necessary.
The Patriot Act serves as another arrow in a prosecutor's quiver. Fine by me. If Chef Meth gets twelve years rather than three months under a provision of the Patriot Act. Tough shit, shouldn't have been cookin' in the first place.
Oh, and I've mentioned many a time my severe problems with passing the hat for the IRA. Though buster, they seem like your kind of revolutionary.
CONCLUSION: KEY CONCEPTS OF RICO JURISPRUDENCE
There are 17 key concepts of RICO jurisprudence. Before bringing any civil RICO action or before responding to any civil RICO complaint, a practitioner or party should understand and be able to apply all of these concepts:
RICO encompasses both legitimate and illegitimate enterprises. United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576 (1981).
Under RICO, section 1962(c), there must be a distinction between the RICO "person" and the RICO "enterprise." An individual cannot "associate" with himself. This is known as the person / enterprise distinction. River City Markets, Inc. v. Fleming Foods West, Inc., 960 F.2d 1458 (9th Cir. 1992).
With regard to the person / enterprise distinction, one can associate with a group of which he is a member while the member and the group remain distinct. Riverwoods Chappaqua Corp. v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A., 30 F.3d 339 (3d Cir. 1995).
RICO's person / enterprise distinction is NOT met by alleging that a corporation associated with its own employees, agents, subdivisions or affiliates. Riverwoods Chappaqua Corp. v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A., 30 F.3d 339 (3d Cir. 1995).
Under RICO, section 1962(c), there also must be a distinction between the enterprise and the racketeering activity; in other words, members of an enterprise must be linked by more than their participation in the same pattern of racketeering activity. This is known as the racketeering activity / enterprise distinction. McDonough v. National Home Ins. Co., 108 F.3d 174 (8th Cir. 1997).
A RICO enterprise need not be economically motivated. National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249 (1993).
To be liable under section 1962(c), a person must participate in the operation or management of the enterprise itself. Reves v. Ernst & Young, 507 U.S. 170 (1993).
Since 1995, a civil RICO claim cannot be based upon allegations of a securities fraud violation; a defendant must be criminally convicted of securities fraud before he can be subject to civil liability on the basis of securities fraud violations. 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).
A RICO claim can be predicated on mail and wire fraud alone but should not be so predicated. RICOAct.com.
The factors of continuity plus relationship combine to produce a pattern. H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tele. Co., 492 U.S. 299 (1989).
A close-ended pattern must generally last one year. Grimmett v. Brown, 75 F.3d 506 (9th Cir. 1996).
A plaintiff has standing only to the extent that she has been injured in her business or property "by reason of" the conduct constituting the violation; a defendant who violates section 1962(c) is not liable for treble damages to everyone she might have injured by other conduct (e.g., breach of contract or negligence) nor is the defendant liable to those who have not been injured. Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc., 473 U.S. 479 (1985); Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corp., 503 U.S. 258 (1992).
Always bring a section 1962(d) claim; never bring a section 1962(a) or (b) claim without a 1962(c) claim. RICOAct.com
A RICO claim must be brought within 4 years of accrual. Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff Associates, Inc. 483 U.S. 143 (1987).
Aa RICO claim accrues and the statute of limitations begins to run when the victim discovers or reasonably should have discovered its injury. Klehr v. A.O. Smith Corp., 521 U.S. 179 (1997); Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549 (2000).
A plaintiff can bring a federal civil RICO claim in either state or federal court. Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455 (1990).
If agreed to by the parties, RICO claims may be arbitrated. Shearson / American Express, Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220 (1987).
<< Return to Top
But face it. You're a neo maxi zoom dweebie, what would you be doing if you weren't out making yourself a better citizen?
side note: Nice cut and paste. YOu really think anybody gives a shit about this?