The RICO case against the Democratic Party
This is a long and detailed post; so I summarize - The crimes committed by the members of the Democratic Party fall into a pattern of "racketeering" activity as defined by RICO. The Democratic Party as a whole may be held accountable for these actions, including arrest of their party officials, their politicians, the burrocrats that support them, the seizure of all assets held by the Democrats
Designed to combat organized crime, the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Comlpt Organizations Act was enacted as Title IX Of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (Pub. L. 91-452, 84 Stat. 922). The Act specifically prohibits any person from:
- using income received from a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire an interest in an enterprise affecting interstate commerce
- conducting or participating through a pattern of racketeering, racketeering activity or collection of an unlawful debt, the affairs of an enterprise affecting interstate commerce
- acquiring or maintaining through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt an interest in an enterprise affecting interstate commerce
- conspiring to participate in any of these activities (18 U.S.C., 1962 (a) [1988».
(Rebovich et al)
RICO addresses the corrupt abuse and misuse – usually covertly – of organizations, entities, businesses, institutions or even governments or government agencies, such that superficially legitimate entities actually operate for criminal purposes irrelevant to the entity’s purpose.
(Klayman v. Clinton et al)
Quick Note - The judge that dismissed Klayman's civil RICO suit against Clinton is "a lifelong Democrat who has long been active in liberal causes", according to the New York Times
The key elements generally required for an indictment under RICO are that the defendant, through a commission of two or more acts constituting a "pattern of racketeering activity," directly or indirectly maintains an interest in or participates in an "enterprise." RICO complaints must allege that each predicate act is a "racketeering activity" as delineated by the RICO statute. Under RICO, the commission of at least two predicate acts is necessary to constitute a "pattern.
(Rebovich et al)
RICO is the result of the concept of "compound liability" in dealing with criminal organizations
Historically, Anglo-American criminal law implicitly assumed that an act constituted the commission of one and only one crime.
However, such an approach fails to confront the dangers of organized crimes, or of conspiracy to commit crime.
Pinkerton's theory of "criminal agency."
This principle "contributed to the development of offenses such as RICO and CCE because [it] introduced the idea that liability can derive from involvement in a criminal nexus, as well as establishing that the act of joining a conspiracy can support liability
for multiple offenses
Compound Liability allows for the punishment of all that are involved in a crime, whether they committed it, organized it, or ordered it.
RICO cases may be pursued both criminally and via civil suit.
The politics of corruption
if we were to accept an understanding of criminal prosecutions as fundamentally apolitical, we would need to deny that the actors involved in any given prosecution — the police, the prosecutor, and (more controversially) the judge — have political agency and are embedded in a deeper structure of governmentality
...which is why we don't see all prosecution as "fundamentally apolitical", especially when it is used by the Democratic Party to maintain the political control it uses for other corruptions. We can see this in the propaganda trial of Zimmerman, and the previously noted dismissal of Klayman's civil RICO suit against Clinton.
The malfeasance of Democrats in public office is a separate issue, however, and not addressed by RICO law. I'll stick to RICO crimes for now.
Yes, I know that the Republican Party is corrupt, as well. We'll tend to them down the road, but we need to remember that you attack your most dangerous threat first.
What is "Racketeering"?
Under the law, the meaning of racketeering activity is set out at 18 U.S.C. § 1961.
I will italicize the violations of the Democrat Party. If you get bored easily, you can skip the full statute and look below at the next sections for instances of Democratic Party violation ;>
From the law:
(1) “racketeering activity” means (A) any act or threat involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year; (B) any act which is indictable under any of the following provisions of title 18, United States Code: Section 201 (relating to bribery), section 224 (relating to sports bribery), sections 471, 472, and 473 (relating to counterfeiting), section 659 (relating to theft from interstate shipment) if the act indictable under section 659 is felonious, section 664 (relating to embezzlement from pension and welfare funds), sections 891–894 (relating to extortionate credit transactions), section 1028 (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents), section 1029 (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with access devices), section 1084 (relating to the transmission of gambling information), section 1341 (relating to mail fraud), section 1343 (relating to wire fraud), section 1344 (relating to financial institution fraud), section 1351 (relating to fraud in foreign labor contracting), section 1425 (relating to the procurement of citizenship or nationalization unlawfully), section 1426 (relating to the reproduction of naturalization or citizenship papers), section 1427 (relating to the sale of naturalization or citizenship papers), sections 1461–1465 (relating to obscene matter), section 1503 (relating to obstruction of justice), section 1510 (relating to obstruction of criminal investigations), section 1511 (relating to the obstruction of State or local law enforcement), section 1512 (relating to tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant), section 1513 (relating to retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant), section 1542 (relating to false statement in application and use of passport), section 1543 (relating to forgery or false use of passport), section 1544 (relating to misuse of passport), section 1546 (relating to fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents), sections 1581–1592 (relating to peonage, slavery, and trafficking in persons)., sections 1831 and 1832 (relating to economic espionage and theft of trade secrets), section 1951 (relating to interference with commerce, robbery, or extortion), section 1952 (relating to racketeering), section 1953 (relating to interstate transportation of wagering paraphernalia), section 1954 (relating to unlawful welfare fund payments), section 1955 (relating to the prohibition of illegal gambling businesses), section 1956 (relating to the laundering of monetary instruments), section 1957 (relating to engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity), section 1958 (relating to use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder-for-hire), section 1960 (relating to illegal money transmitters), sections 2251, 2251A, 2252, and 2260 (relating to sexual exploitation of children), sections 2312 and 2313 (relating to interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicles), sections 2314 and 2315 (relating to interstate transportation of stolen property), section 2318 (relating to trafficking in counterfeit labels for phonorecords, computer programs or computer program documentation or packaging and copies of motion pictures or other audiovisual works), section 2319 (relating to criminal infringement of a copyright), section 2319A (relating to unauthorized fixation of and trafficking in sound recordings and music videos of live musical performances), section 2320 (relating to trafficking in goods or services bearing counterfeit marks), section 2321 (relating to trafficking in certain motor vehicles or motor vehicle parts), sections 2341–2346 (relating to trafficking in contraband cigarettes), sections 2421–24 (relating to white slave traffic), sections 175–178 (relating to biological weapons), sections 229–229F (relating to chemical weapons), section 831 (relating to nuclear materials), (C) any act which is indictable under title 29, United States Code, section 186 (dealing with restrictions on payments and loans to labor organizations) or section 501(c) (relating to embezzlement from union funds), (D) any offense involving fraud connected with a case under title 11 (except a case under section 157 of this title), fraud in the sale of securities, or the felonious manufacture, importation, receiving, concealment, buying, selling, or otherwise dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), punishable under any law of the United States, (E) any act which is indictable under the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act, (F) any act which is indictable under the Immigration and Nationality Act, section 274 (relating to bringing in and harboring certain aliens), section 277 (relating to aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter the United States), or section 278 (relating to importation of alien for immoral purpose) if the act indictable under such section of such Act was committed for the purpose of financial gain, or (G) any act that is indictable under any provision listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(B);
(2) “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any territory or possession of the United States, any political subdivision, or any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof;
(3) “person” includes any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property;
(4) “enterprise” includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity;
(5) “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;
(6) “unlawful debt” means a debt (A) incurred or contracted in gambling activity which was in violation of the law of the United States, a State or political subdivision thereof, or which is unenforceable under State or Federal law in whole or in part as to principal or interest because of the laws relating to usury, and (B) which was incurred in connection with the business of gambling in violation of the law of the United States, a State or political subdivision thereof, or the business of lending money or a thing of value at a rate usurious under State or Federal law, where the usurious rate is at least twice the enforceable rate;
(7) “racketeering investigator” means any attorney or investigator so designated by the Attorney General and charged with the duty of enforcing or carrying into effect this chapter;
(8) “racketeering investigation” means any inquiry conducted by any racketeering investigator for the purpose of ascertaining whether any person has been involved in any violation of this chapter or of any final order, judgment, or decree of any court of the United States, duly entered in any case or proceeding arising under this chapter;
(9) “documentary material” includes any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material; and
(10) “Attorney General” includes the Attorney General of the United States, the Deputy Attorney General of the United States, the Associate Attorney General of the United States, any Assistant Attorney General of the United States, or any employee of the Department of Justice or any employee of any department or agency of the United States so designated by the Attorney General to carry out the powers conferred on the Attorney General by this chapter. Any department or agency so designated may use in investigations authorized by this chapter either the investigative provisions of this chapter or the investigative power of such department or agency otherwise conferred by law.
(Added Pub. L. 91–452, title IX, § 901(a), Oct. 15, 1970, 84 Stat. 941; amended Pub. L. 95–575, § 3(c), Nov. 2, 1978, 92 Stat. 2465; Pub. L. 95–598, title III, § 314(g), Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2677; Pub. L. 98–473, title II, §§ 901(g), 1020, Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2136, 2143; Pub. L. 98–547, title II, § 205, Oct. 25, 1984, 98 Stat. 2770; Pub. L. 99–570, title I, § 1365(b), Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3207–35; Pub. L. 99–646, § 50(a), Nov. 10, 1986, 100 Stat. 3605; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, §§ 7013, 7020(c), 7032, 7054, 7514, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4395, 4396, 4398, 4402, 4489; Pub. L. 101–73, title IX, § 968, Aug. 9, 1989, 103 Stat. 506; Pub. L. 101–647, title XXXV, § 3560, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4927; Pub. L. 103–322, title IX, § 90104, title XVI, § 160001(f), title XXXIII, § 330021(1), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1987, 2037, 2150; Pub. L. 103–394, title III, § 312(b), Oct. 22, 1994, 108 Stat. 4140; Pub. L. 104–132, title IV, § 433, Apr. 24, 1996, 110 Stat. 1274; Pub. L. 104–153, § 3, July 2, 1996, 110 Stat. 1386; Pub. L. 104–208, div. C, title II, § 202, Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–565; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§ 601(b)(3), (i)(3), 604(b)(6), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3499, 3501, 3506; Pub. L. 107–56, title VIII, § 813, Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 382; Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title IV, § 4005(f)(1), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1813; Pub. L. 108–193, § 5(b), Dec. 19, 2003, 117 Stat. 2879; Pub. L. 108–458, title VI, § 6802(e), Dec. 17, 2004, 118 Stat. 3767; Pub. L. 109–164, title I, § 103(c), Jan. 10, 2006, 119 Stat. 3563; Pub. L. 109–177, title IV, § 403(a), Mar. 9, 2006, 120 Stat. 243; Pub. L. 113–4, title XII, § 1211(a), Mar. 7, 2013, 127 Stat. 142; Pub. L. 114–153, § 3(b), May 11, 2016, 130 Stat. 382.)
The Predicates committed by the Democratic Party in specifics (I'm going to limit this to three examples per predicate, or I'll never finish):
A -Corruption Conviction of Former Rep Illuminates Larger Problem for Democrats: Corrine Brown’s behavior is hardly an isolated incident
B -Texas Sen. Carlos Uresti indicted on fraud, bribery charges
C -List of United States federal officials convicted of corruption offenses
A - Robert Maxwell "Rob" McCord plead guilty to federal charges of extortion relating to campaign fundraising
B -Democratic chairman sentenced in extortion plot
C -Trial Begins for Queens Democrat Charged With Bribery, Extortion and Fraud
Embezzlement from pension and welfare funds
A -Wall Street analyst uncovers Clinton Foundation fraud
B- Clinton Bundler Partnered With Malaysian Fund Under Investigation for Embezzling $3 Billion
C -Democrats: The Party Of Fraud
Obstruction of justice
A -House impeaches Clinton:President will face Senate trial on perjury, obstruction of justice charges
B -Siegelman was convicted on seven of the 33 counts against him: one count of bribery, one count of conspiracy to commit honest services mail fraud, four counts of honest services mail fraud and one count of obstruction of justice
C -John L. Sampson Sentenced To 5 Years For Obstruction Of Justice And Making False Statements To The FBI
Obstruction of criminal investigations
A -CNN Fact Check Confirms Clinton Aide Destroyed Mobile Devices With Hammers
B - Debbie Wasserman Schultz was caught on video threatening the Chief of the U.S. Capitol Police, Matthew R. Verderosa, for doing his job in gathering evidence on the apparent criminal activity of Imran Awan.
C - Comey/Lynch Collusion in preventing charges against Clinton
Obstruction of State or local law enforcement
A -Missouri Democratic Governor ORDERED National Guard To Stand Down During Ferguson Riots
B -Mayor 'told police to STAND DOWN while Baltimore began to burn during riots' claims damning new report
C- Berkeley Mayor Told Local Police to Stand Down So Conservatives Could Get Pummeled During Riots
- Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
A -Democratic Sen. Mark Manendo resigned Tuesday from the Nevada state Senate after a two-and-a-half-month investigation into allegations of sexual harassment revealed witness tampering
B -President May Face More Than 11 Counts (Clinton again, how surprising)
C -Democratic fundraiser has pleaded guilty in New York to witness tampering and conspiracy to evade campaign finance laws.
- Laundering of monetary instruments
A -The FBI on arrested the mayor of Birmingham, Alabama, on federal charges including conspiracy, bribery, fraud, money laundering and filing false income tax returns
B -DNC sought to hide details of Clinton funding deal
C -Clinton Campaign Money Laundering Schemes Crush Bernie Sanders
- Relating to sexual exploitation of children
I'm just going to throw out the Podestas here, and leave it at that
embezzlement from union funds
Cloud of corruption around Democrats' union patron
Any act which is indictable under the Immigration and Nationality Act, section 274 (relating to bringing in and harboring certain aliens), section 277 (relating to aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter the United States
In 1996, Congress expanded the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to
include violations of federal immigration law.
Under the new RICO provisions, a violation of certain provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) meets the definition of
racketeering activity, also known as a “predicate offense,”2 and an entity that engages in a pattern of racketeering activity for financial gain can be held both
criminally and civilly liable.3 Among other things, the
INA makes it unlawful to encourage illegal immigration
Every "sanctuary" city, and the politicians and burrocrats running it's affairs, are in violation of 8 USC 1324
- Vote Fraud is NOT listed as a RICO predicate, and yet there have been instances in which those engaged in it have been convicted under RICO; see the "How To Use It" section for deatils
A -Democracy Lost: A Report on the Fatally Flawed 2016 Democratic Primaries
B -Racketeering Lawsuit Exposing Nationwide Vote Rigging in DNC Primaries Could Derail Clinton
What? More lawsuits against the Democrats dismissed by Democratic judges..LOLOLOLOL
C -Anita MonCrief 's discussion of vote fraud conducted by front group ACORN
The argument that Geller uses against ACORN specifically on vote fraud grounds should be extended to the Democratic party as a whole; see Prosecute ACORN With RICO Immediately
How to use it
RICO laws were successfully cited in NOW v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249, 114 S. Ct. 798, 127 L.Ed. 2d 99 (1994), a suit in which certain parties, including the National Organization for Women, sought damages and an injunction against pro-life activists who physically block access to abortion clinics. The Court held that a RICO enterprise does not need an economic motive.
In fact, a group of republicans were convicted for their vote fraud conspiracy in Clay County, Kentucky, and under RICO violations. "The basis for the reversal was that the Sixth Circuit found that the prosecution was permitted to turn what could have been a straight-forward vote-buying case, even one with a RICO charge, into an impermissible examination of drug dealing and corruption"(Westberry).
When the U.S. Attorney decides to indict someone under RICO, he or she has the option of seeking a pretrial restraining order or injunction to temporarily seize a defendant’s assets; that should certainly used against members of a political party that use their power to punish citizens for the crime of wanting liberty.
under RICO, courts can enter restraining orders before conviction to prevent transfer of potentially forfeitable property. (Rebovich et al)
Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count...I'll restate this...*** per racketeering count.***
RICO also permits a private individual “damaged in his business or property” by a “racketeer” to file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an “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:
- either the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering activity into the enterprise (18 U.S.C. §
- or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained an interest in, or control of, the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (b));
- or the defendant(s) conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise “through” the pattern of racketeering activity
- or the defendant(s) conspired to do one of the above (subsection (d)).
RICO allows private plaintiffs to seek compensation from any citizen or entity that causes injury to his business or property by engaging in a pattern of specific criminal acts, called predicate offenses.12 As mentioned, certain violations of the INA serve as predicate offenses, and are defined by the RICO statute as racketeering activity
The Argument Against RICO
RICO has been criticized for introducing fresh legal concepts such as "enterprise" without specifically defining them
(Rebovich et al)
I think that for the purposes of criminal charges, the specifications in the 18 USC 1961 statute are very clear, however, there is disagreement about using RICO for civil cases...
Let me answer that by telling you the elements of civil RICO — that is, the list of things a plaintiff would have to prove to win a RICO case.
To win, a plaintiff would have to prove (1) conduct, (2) of an enterprise, (3) through a pattern, (4) of racketeering activity called "predicate acts," (5) causing injury to the plaintiff’s "business or property."
It is justifiable to use RICO against the corrupt and treasonous democong.
References and Sources
Brenner, S. (1993). RICO, CCE, and Other Complex Crimes: The Transformation of American Criminal Law? WILLIAM AND MARY BILL OF RIGHTS JOURNAL. http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1524&context=wmborj
King, M. (2003). RICO: A New Tool for Immigration Law Enforcement (Backgrounder). Center For Immigration Studies.
Klayman v. Clinton et al, No. Case 9:15-cv-80388 (UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA).
Levin, B.(2013). American Gangsters: RICO, Criminal Syndicates, and Conspiracy Law as Market Control. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review (48) http://harvardcrcl.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Levin_105-164.pdf
Rebovich, Coyle, & Schaaf. (1993). Local Prosecution of Organized Crime: The Use of State RICO Statutes (BJS Discussion Paper No. NCJ·143502). Department of Justice.
Westberry, R. (2016). Vote-Buying in Kentucky: the Clay County example. Bench & Bar. http://www.landrumshouse.com/News/Vote-Buying-in-Kentucky.pdf
Wrage, A. A. (2007). Bribery and Extortion: Undermining Business, Governments, and Security. Greenwood Publishing Group.