Log In  |  Help  |  Mobile View  
Visiting Lisa OHanlon's Shares (account name: angry_jeweler_com)

 Criteria for Crimes of a Racketeering Enterprise

From:  www.DefraudingAmerica.com


Criteria for Criminal Racketeering Enterprise


Title 42 USC § 1961. Definition. As used in this chapter-(1) "racketeering activity" means:

(A) any act or threat involving ... relating to 1503 (relating to obstruction of justice), section 1510 (relating to obstruction of criminal investigations), section 1511 (relating to obstruction of State or local law enforcement), section 1951 (relating to interference with commerce, robbery or extortion), section 1952 (relating to racketeering, ...

Title 42 USC § 1962. Prohibited Activities.

(b) It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern or racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.

(c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsections (a), (b), or (c) of this section. ...

Comparing Tobacco Companies' Labeling as A
Criminal Racketeering Enterprise With The
Documented Acts of Federal Judges

In 1999, the U.S. Department of Justice filed charges against the major tobacco companies charging them with a racketeering enterprise based upon their repeated lies about the harm resulting from the use of their tobacco products. The charges were filed under the Racketeering Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

a federal judge in the District of Columbia issued a judgment on May 22, 2006, upholding the charges by the Department of Justice prosecutors. On May 22, 2009, the judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia upheld the lower court's ruling.

Referring to that appellate court ruling, an editorial in the New York Times (May 31, 2009) stated:

The unanimous riling by three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld major elements of a 2006 lower court decision that found big tobacco companies guilty of racketeering and fraud as part of a prolonged campaign to deceive and addict the public. The 1,742-page opinion, rendered by Judge Gladys Kessler, laid out in painstaking detail how the tobacco companies made false statements and suppressed evidence to deny or play down the addictive qualities and the adverse health effects of smoking.

Judge Kessler found that the companies manipulated the design of cigarettes to deliver addictive doses of nicotine, falsely denied that secondhand smoke caused diseases and falsely represented that light and low-tar cigarettes presented fewer health risks.

The appeals court not only upheld her decision as legally sound, it seemed deeply impressed by the "volumes of evidence" and "countless examples of deliberately false statements" underlying many of Judge Kessler's findings.

Compare the criminal racketeering label for the tobacco companieswhich they probably deserved−with the following series of documented actions of federal judges, including those in the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia.

Controlling Case Law Addressing
Government Bodies as RICO Participants

Controlling case law holds that government bodies whose conduct meets the definitions as applied to non-government entities also applies to them. that would include state judges, federal judges, U.S. Department of Justice, and others.

A line of cases hold that any governmental agency, court, political office or the like could serve as a RICO "enterprise." United States v. Thompson, 685 F.2d 993, 999 (6th Cir. 1982)(en banc) cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1072 (1983). Among the government units that have been held to be "enterprises" are offices of governors and state legislators, courts, court clerks' offices. See e.g., United States v. Stratton, 649 F.2d 1066, 1072-75 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Clark, 656 F.2d 1259, 1261-67 (8th Cir. 1981) Office of county judge); United States v. Frumento, 405 F. Supp. 23, 29-30 (E.D. Pa. 1975), affd, 563 F.2d 1083 (3d Cir. 1977). cert, debued, 434 U.S. 1072 (1978).


In referring to the RICO liability of government offices the court thought it inconceivable that

"in considering the ever more widespread tentacles of organized crime in the nation's economic life, Congress intended to ignore an important aspect of the economy [simply] because it was state operated and state controlled ...." (563 F.2d at 1091.)

Accepting defendants' contentions would mean that

"business organizations legitimately owned and operated by the states, even though their activities substantially affect interstate commerce, would be open game for racketeers. [The court refused] to believe that Congress had such 'tunnel-vision' when it enacted the racketeering statute or that it intended to exclude from the protective embrace of this broad statute, designed to curb organized crime, state operated commercial ventures engaged in interstate commerce, or other governmental agencies regulating commercial and utility operations affecting interstate commerce."

Decisions after Frumento expanded government activity to every conceivable government agency, court, or political office. United States v. Thompson, 669 F.2d 1143 (6th Cir), revd 685 F.2d 993 (6th Cir. 1982)(en banc), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1072 (1983)

 Corrupt and criminal activities that meet the definition or a racketeering enterprise.

Series of Documented Acts 
Comprising the RICO Offenses

A criminal racketeering enterprise requires a minimum of two contiguous acts to meet the legal definition of a racketeering enterprise. Dozens of such contiguous acts are documented at this site and in the related books..

  • Repeated cover-ups, from 1968 to 2005, by federal judges of ongoing documented corruption in the government's aviation safety offices, that enabled to occur a series of major airline disastersincluding the hijackings of four airliners on September 11, 2001.

  • Repeated cover-ups of the criminal activities in overt and covert government operations that former federal agent Rodney Stich and his coalition of other government agents discovered as part of their official duties.

  • The evidence of repeated conduct constituting obstruction of justice that they knew would continue to result in great harm to theAmerican people and to national security.

  • The evidence of repeated felony retaliation against a former federal agent and witness to retaliate against him for attempting to report high-level crimes against the United States and to criminally halt his ability to exercise the provisions of the federal crime reporting statute to report such crimes.

  • The corrupt, illegal and unconstitutional seizure and liquidation of the assets that knowingly funded his attempts to halt the corruption and the related great harm.

  • Converting the courts, and their judicial positions, into a racketeering enterprise.

  • Perpetrating a series of predicate acts, that far exceeded the legal criteria for being a criminal racketeering enterprise.

  • Each of these criminal acts were compounded by the fact that they were perpetrated by people in positions of trust, who were paid to enforce the law.

  • Expanding on the number of parties involved in the series of predicate acts were the unknownbut suspectedU.S. Department of Justiceparties that were orchestrating the multiple schemes and conspiracies and protecting each of the criminal acts of each and every one.

More RICO Details: Related Case Law


 A criminal RICO racketeering organization crime requires:

  • Two or more related predicate acts, in a conspiracy. Predicate offenses are related if they have (a) the same or similar purposes, (b) results, (c) participants, (c) victims, or (d) methods of commission.

    1. Same purposes. The participants' purpose was to block former federal agent Rodney Stich and his coalition of other insiders reporting a continuing series of corrupt and criminal acts involving key people in government.

    2. Results. The results included hindering and halting Stich's ability to properly report, publicize, and halt the ongoing corruption.

    3. Participants. The participants included the repeated acts by the same people and groups, including federal judges, Justice Department employees, lawyers, and California judges.

    4. Victims. The victims included:

      • Repeated harm to former federal agent Rodney Stich. The harm consisted of seizing his assets; depriving him through a series of unlawful and unconstitutional judicial the rights and protections guaranteed to all citizens by the laws and constitution of the United States.

      • The victims in a series of airline disasters that were enabled to occur by conditions resulting from the corrupt actions of certain people in the government's aviation safety offices, and the further criminal cover-ups and retaliatory actions by federal judges, Department of Justice employees, and others.

      • People of the United States who were harmed by the series of criminal acts and the documents actions of federal judges, Justice Department employees, and others, that enabled the crimes and resulting harm to continue.

    5. Method of commission. As it relates to the federal judges and Justice Department participants, they perpetrated a series of acts including (a) charging a former federal agent with criminal contempt of court for attempting to report the ongoing crimes against the United States; unlawfully and unconstitutionally seized and liquidated the assets the knowingly funded his exposure activities;

    6. The racketeering acts were related, the intent being to halt the reporting and publicizing of high-level criminal activities.

    7. Their actions consisted of a continuing pattern of criminal activities.

    8. All of the actions were continuing, the latest being from 1986 through 2005, and arguably continuing as judicial orders still exist in several federal courts barring the former federal agent from filing any papers in any federal district or appellate court. These orders knowingly obstructed justice by blocking the former federal agent and his coalition from reporting major and deadly criminal activities against the United States; and blocked the former federal agent from exercising federal defenses against the pattern of civil and constitutional, and criminal acts for which they are federal causes of actions for which federal defenses exist.

    9. The predicate acts and conspiracy gravely affected interstate commerce, and caused, or enabled to occur, a continuing series of major airline disasters; and also affects interstate commerce through criminal activities in areas other than aviation.


    Related Statutes and Case Law

            Title 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) provides:

It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.

            Title 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a) provides: 

Title 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) makes it "unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsections (a), (b), or (c) of this section."

In Beauford v. Helmsley, ___ S. Ct. ____ (1989), the Supreme Court held that it is not necessary to prove that multiple schemes, episodes or transactions occurred in order to establish a "pattern of racketeering activity," as long as the racketeering acts were "neither isolated nor sporadic."

Mail and wire fraud were a part of the scheme, as defendants used the mails and telephone to carry out their schemes. The mails were used in filing court papers, used to notify plaintiff of these filings,  More than two, actually dozens of instances, of such mail and wire fraud occurred, in a pattern of racketeering activity.


IH.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.  vs.  U.S.        (June 26, 1989), the court held:

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations aCt (RICO), 18 U.S.C. ' 1961-1968, which is Title IX of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (OCCA), imposes criminal and civil liability upon persons who engage in certain "prohibited Activities," each of which is defined to include, as a necessary element, proof of a "pattern of racketeering activity." ' 1962. "Racketeering activity" means "any act or threat involving" specified state law crimes, any "act" indictable under specified federal statutes, and certain federal "offenses." ' 1961(1). A "pattern" requires "at least two acts of racketeering activity" within a 10-year period. ' 19651(5).

Continuity of racketeering activity likewise may be demonstrated in a variety of ways. Continuity is centrally a temporal concept, and may be either closed−or open-ended. A party alleging a RICO violation may demonstrate continuity over a closed period by proving a series of related predicates extending over a substantial period of time. Otherwise, it must be shown that the predicates establish a threat of long-term racketeering activity−for example, because the predicates themselves involve a distinct threat of such activity; because they are part of the regular way of doing business for an ongoing entity such as a criminal association or legitimate business; or because they are a regular means of conducting or participating in an ongoing RICO enterprise. Although proof of multiple criminal schemes may be relevant to this inquiry into continuity, it is not the only way to show continuity.

   (c) Neither RICO's language nor its legislative history supports a rule that a defendant's racketeering activities form a pattern only if they are characteristic of organized crime. No such restriction appears in RICO's test. Nor is there any language suggesting that RICO's scope should be limited to acts of an association rather than an individual acting alone.

          RICO Requires no more than a slight effect upon interstate commerce. United States v. Doherty, 867 F.2d 47, 68 (1st Cir. 1989). United States v. Murphy, 768 F.2d 1518, 1531 (7th Cir. 1985). cert. denied, 106 S.Ct. 1188 (1986).


Predicate acts were related to the common purpose of the enterprise, being to halt the former federal agent from reporting and publicizing the ongoing criminal activities. See United States v. Bonanno Organized Crime Family, 683 F. Supp. 1411, 1437 (E.D.N.Y. 1988).


The racketeering activity is not required to benefit the enterprise. The participants in the scheme are not required to have personally profited, though some did.  United States v. Killip, 819 F.2d 1542, 1`549 (10th Cir. 1987.


Some defendants agreed to join conspiracy with knowledge that other members were to commit at least two acts of racketeering. United States v. Leisure, 844 F.2d 1347, 1367 (8th Cir. 1988). See ' 1962(d), defendant agreed to join conspiracy with knowledge that other members were to commit at least two acts of racketeering.


In  Shearin v. E.F. Hutton Group, Inc., 885 F.2d 1162 (3d Cir. 1989). The court held that Shearin, a pro se plaintiff, could recover for being fired, if she proved that it was an overt act in furtherance of an alleged ' 1962(d) conspiracy to bilk Hutton customers for trust services which were never performed. In Sedima the court noted that standing to sue under '' 1962(a)──(c) is based on proof that the predicate racketeering acts caused injury to plaintiff's business or property. 473 U.S. at 495. The court also held that Sedina did not foreclose the possibility that harm arising from a conspiratorial overt act, distinct from the predicate acts listed in ' 1961(1), could confer standing under ' 1962(d). 885 F.2d at 1169-70.


Congress limited the force of Rule 8(b) by loosening the statutory requirements for what constitutes joint criminal activities.United States v. Friedman, 854 F.2d 535, 561 (2d Cir. 1988); United States v. Castellano, 610 F.Supp. 1359, 1396 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). If a defendant is not named in a conspiracy or RICO count, he may be charged in a separate court, in the same indictment, if he is alleged to have participated in the same series of acts or transactions that constituted the conspiracy or RICO offense.


Defendant was aware of the "essential nature" of the enterprise, which was a group of persons associated for the purpose of luring people into rigged card games. United States v. Joseph, 835 F.2d 1149, 1152 (6th Cir. 1987); in United States v. Gallo, 667 F. Supp. 1359, 1401, (S.D.N.Y. 1985), the defendant must have knowledge of the enterprise and at least some of its criminal activities; Defendant must have been aware of at least the general existence of the enterprise (United States v. Castellano, 610 F.Supp. 1359, 1401 (E.D.N.Y. 1985); in order to prove RICO conspiracy count government must show the existence of a "unified agreement to participate in the affairs of the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering ...."


The court held that § 1962(c) does not require concerted criminal activity, only that an individual commit at least two acts of racketeering while participating in the conduct of an enterprise. United States v. Castallano, 610 F.Supp. 1359, 1392-1396 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). Id at 1394.

RICO Violations Involving A
 Continuing Series of Airline Disasters

Dozens of separate predicate acts were perpetrated to block former federal agent Rodney Stich from reporting ongoing criminal activities in high-level overt and covert operations involving government employees. That constituted claims under ' 1962(a),(b), (c), and (d), in factual allegations.

     1. RICO violators within the FAA conspired to halt the former federal agent from carrying out his federal air safety responsibilities responsibilities while he was a government air safety investigator for the Federal Aviation Administration. He was directly responsible for the safety activities at the world's most crash-plagued airline at that time, United Airlines, where internal government and non-government corruption was rampant with crash-causing or permitting misconduct.

     2. RICO violators within the FAA conspired to harm the FAA airline safety inspector so as to obstruct his carrying out the government air safety duties.

     3. RICO violators in the U.S. Department of Justice conspired to block the FAA inspector from reporting the ongoing criminal activities related to a continuing series of airline disasters. These actions included, for instance:

  • Blocking his reports of corrupt and criminal activities while he was a federal agent.

  • Blocked the effectiveness of his appearance, while a government agent, as he circumvented their block and appeared before a federal grand jury in Denver. 

  • Charged him with criminal contempt of court when he attempted to report the federal crimes that he sought to report under the mandatory requirements of the federal crime reporting statute.

  • Participated in the corrupt seize of the assets that funded his attempts to expose and halt the ongoing corruption.

  • Aided and abetted the repeated massive violations of his civil and constitutional rights that were parallel efforts to halt his exposure activities, and which were occurring through sham legal actions in the California courts.

            4. Federal judges as RICO violators, entered the conspiracy, and continued actively from 1969 to 2005. Their predicate acts included:

  • Repeatedly blocking the former agent's efforts to report and seek a halt to the federal crimes involved with airline disasters, and then in blocking his attempts to report the criminal activities that he and his coalition of other government agents and insiders sought to report.

  • Issued a series of unlawful and unconstitutional orders, with criminal intent, to halt his attempts to circumvent the cover-ups in other government entities and report them under the federal crime reporting statute and another statute that applied.

  • Joined Department of Justice employees to charge the former federal agent with criminal contempt of court for attempting to report the criminal activities that by that time included employees of the U.S. Department of Justice and federal judges.

  • Corruptly, through violation of federal laws and constitutional protections, seized and liquidate the $10 million in assets that they knew were funding the former agent's attempts to report and halt the ongoing corruption.

  • Aided and abetted, in a conspiracy, the continuing massive violations of state and federal laws and constitutional protections by a series of sham lawsuits filed by lawyers and law firms from 1982 through 2005.

     5. Lawyers as RICO participants, that engaged in a series of sham lawsuits from 1982 to 2005, that violated blocks of state and federal laws and constitutional protections, that required the corrupt cooperation of California judges and federal judges. 

      6. California judges that were active participants in the predicate acts from 1982 to 1988, and then rejoined the conspiracy in 2002. They:

  • Repeatedly violated dozens of state statutes, controlling state law, federal laws, and constitutional protections, to insure the success of the scheme by the CIA-FBI-front law firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross.

  • Repeated violated every relevant procedural due process attempts by the former federal agent.

 The evidence showed a nexus between the racketeering activities and the enterprise, the goal of which was to prevent the reporting and exposure of a continuing pattern of corrupt and criminal activities that were inflicting, and would continue to inflict, great harm upon the United States.

Creation date: Sep 22, 2011 5:20 pm     Last modified date: Sep 22, 2011 5:20 pm   Last visit date: Oct 25, 2016 4:52 am     link & embed ?...
    Report Objectionable Content   
Select a Color