Thread: Judicial Watch petitions Supreme Court on RICO

Judicial Watch Petitions Supreme Court to Hear RICO Lawsuit against Businesses that Hire Illegal Alien Criminals


Contact:
Press Office 202-646-5188

Washington, DC

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) lawsuit filed by Canyon County, Idaho against four large employers of illegal aliens (Canyon County v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., et al.). Canyon County alleges that during their employment, some of these illegal aliens committed crimes, thereby costing the county millions of dollars for criminal justice services as well as health and welfare services. Judicial Watch filed the petition for Canyon County with co-counsel Howard W. Foster, a renowned RICO expert with the Chicago law firm, Johnson & Bell, LTD.

In 1996, Congress amended RICO to include certain immigration offenses. Nonetheless, the District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Canyon County’s lawsuit, prompting Judicial Watch’s Supreme Court petition. Swift Beef Company is named as one of the defendants.

There are two central questions that arise from the appellate court ruling. First, does the term “business or propertyâ€

I am on pins and needles to find out the SCOTUS ruling on this one.

USE THE RICO IN NORTH CAROLINA, PLEASE

Yay for JW and Tom Fitton.

Go RICO go!

In 1996, Congress amended RICO to include certain immigration offenses. Nonetheless, the District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Canyon County’s lawsuit.

There are those dirty 3 words again 'Ninth Circuit Court'...

GOOOO Judicial Watch and Idaho!!

they can use the Anti-Slap rule that falls under the RICO Act

I have the utmost respect for Judicial Watch!

Originally Posted by AirborneSapper7

they can use the Anti-Slap rule that falls under the RICO Act

WHAT IS THE ANTI-SLAP RULE?

RICO offenses
Under the law, racketeering activity means:

Any violation of state statutes against gambling, murder, kidnapping, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in the Controlled Substances Act);

Any act of bribery, counterfeiting, theft, embezzlement, fraud, dealing in obscene matter, obstruction of justice, slavery, racketeering, gambling, money laundering, commission of murder-for-hire, and several other offenses covered under the Federal criminal code Title 18;

Embezzlement of union funds;

Bankruptcy or securities fraud;

Drug trafficking;

Money laundering and related offenses;

Bringing in, aiding or assisting aliens in entering the country (if the action was for financial gain);

Acts of terrorism.

Pattern of racketeering activity requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of this chapter and the last of which occurred within ten years (excluding any period of imprisonment) after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity. The U.S. Supreme Court has instructed federal courts to follow the continuity plus relationship test in order to determine whether the facts of a specific case give rise to an established pattern. Predicate acts are related if they "have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events." H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. Continuity is both a closed and open ended concept, referring to either a closed period of conduct, or to past conduct that by its nature projects into the future with a threat of repetition.

Where RICO laws might be applied
Although some of the RICO predicate acts are extortion and blackmail, one of the most successful applications of the RICO laws has been the ability to indict or sanction individuals for their behavior and actions committed against witnesses and victims in alleged retaliation or retribution for cooperating with law enforcement or intelligence agencies.

Violations of the RICO laws can be alleged in cases where civil lawsuits or criminal charges are brought against individuals or corporations in retaliation for said individuals or corporations working with law enforcement, or against individuals or corporations who have sued or filed criminal charges against a defendant.

Anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) laws can be applied in an attempt to curb alleged abuses of the legal system by individuals or corporations who utilize the courts as a weapon to retaliate against whistle blowers, victims, or to silence another's speech. RICO could be alleged if it can be shown that lawyers and/or their clients conspired and collaborated to concoct fictitious legal complaints solely in retribution and retaliation for themselves having been brought before the courts

Summary
Under RICO, a person who is a member of an enterprise that has committed any two of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes—within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and/or sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity." RICO also permits a private individual harmed by the actions of such an enterprise to file a civil suit; if successful, the individual can collect treble damages.

When the U.S. Attorney decides to indict someone under RICO, he has the option of seeking a pre-trial restraining order or injunction to temporarily seize a defendant's assets and prevent the transfer of potentially forfeitable property, as well as require the defendant to put up a performance bond. This provision was placed in the law because the owners of Mafia-related shell corporations often absconded with the assets. An injunction and/or performance bond ensures that there is something to seize in the event of a guilty verdict.

In many cases, the threat of a RICO indictment can force defendants to plead guilty to lesser charges, in part because the seizure of assets would make it difficult to pay a defense attorney. Despite its harsh provisions, a RICO-related charge is considered easy to prove in court, as it focuses on patterns of behavior as opposed to criminal acts.[2]

There is also a provision for private parties to sue. A "person damaged in his business or property" can sue one or more "racketeers." The plaintiff must prove the existence of a "criminal enterprise." The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same. There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise. A civil RICO action, like many lawsuits based on federal law, can be filed in state or federal court. [1]

Both the federal and civil components allow for the recovery of treble damages (damages in triple the amount of actual/compensatory damages).

Although its primary intent was to deal with organized crime, Blakey said that Congress never intended it to merely apply to the Mob. He once told Time, "We don't want one set of rules for people whose collars are blue or whose names end in vowels, and another set for those whose collars are white and have Ivy League diplomas."[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_ ... ations_Act

Which means that when these illegal immigration advocates file lawsuits claiming damages for their criminal lawbreaking clients they are in fact violating the RICO statute. Because their whole livelihood and professional work for hire is based upon a stream of illegal aliens to represent, yes?

Without a network of illegal aliens being in the country, the immigration law business would dwindle to a tiny stream of income but while borders are open, illegal aliens are streaming in, they have a wealth of clients, causes, cases and fees.

Wouldn't it?