When Might A Federal Racketeering Lawsuit Be Allowable?

When Might a Federal Racketeering Lawsuit Be Allowable?
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advise.
I try to do research to help the cause of justice.
With regard to researching the law, to better understand the law, and to try to
research this interesting intellectual question which has been presented many
times, I researched a bit to determine when a federal racketeering lawsuit might
be allowable under current federal rulings. This is general information, and not
specific to any case, or even to family law.
Not being a lawyer, and having limited knowledge of all law, I understand, as
should the reader, that my research is preliminary, and for information purposes
only.
For that reason, I have no problem relying on Wikipedia, even though it's not
authoritative. Carpe diem. Buyer beware.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpe_diem
Err, whatever. :)
So I looked around.
The statute that I noticed was US Code TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 96 > § 1964,
which says in part:
"(c) Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of

section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefor in any appropriate United States
district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of
the suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee ... "
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001964----000-.html
It seems to me, as a layperson, looking at the cases below that the "business or
property" distinction probably includes bodily harm. I do not know if case law
would allow that to include damage to my relationship with my child. I would
guess not, but a lawyer would know for sure. At least, I can guess if I had
actual business or property damages. I think, as a layperson, that these may
include lost wages due to jail, lost income due to depression, lost wages due to
unnecessary procedures, or garnished checks due to rulings based on falsified
evidence.
Firstly, I would ask myself did I suffer an injury to business or property?
"In the criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between natural persons to

break the law at some time in the future, and, in some cases, with at least one
overt act in furtherance of that agreement. There is no limit on the number
participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, no requirement that any
steps have been taken to put the plan into effect"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_conspiracy
Next I would ask myself, was this injury a part of a criminal conspiracy?
In Holmes v. Secs. Investor Protection Corp. (90-727), 503 U.S. 258 (1992), the US
Supreme Court said:
"We hold that, because the alleged conspiracy to manipulate did not proximately
cause the injury claimed, SIPC's allegations and the record before us fail to make
out a right to sue petitioner under § 1964(c)."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=racketeering%20and%2019
64&url=/supct/html/90-727.ZO.html
In this case, the "petitioner’s theory was that his injury was proximately caused
by an overt act–namely, the termination of his employment–done in furtherance of
respondents’ conspiracy"
Wikipedia talks about an overt act: "In criminal law, an Overt act (from French
ouvert,open,adj.), an open act, one that can be clearly proved by evidence, and
from which criminal intent can be inferred, as opposed to a mere intention in the
mind to commit a crime. Therefore, it is an act that, while innocent per se, can
potentially be used as evidence against someone during a trial to show his/her
participation in a crime. For instance, a rental of a van and a purchase of a gun
are overt acts as part of an assassination. The term is more particularly employed
in cases of treason, which must be demonstrated by some overt or open act."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overt_act
I would ask myself, was this injury caused by an overt act?
Wikipedia again: "In the law, a proximate cause is an event sufficiently related
to a legally recognizable injury to be held the cause of that injury. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximate_cause
I would ask myself is the overt act that I allege the proximate cause of the
injury I claim?
In BECK V. PRUPIS (98-1480) 529 U.S. 494 (2000) , the US Supreme Court held:
"The question before us is whether a person injured by an overt act done in

furtherance of a RICO conspiracy has a cause of action under §1964(c), even if the
overt act is not an act of racketeering. We conclude that such a person does not
have a cause of action under §1964(c)."
In that case, I think that the victim was fired in furtherance of a conspiracy,
but firing her was the "overt act" and it was not an act of racketeering.
I think that these may be acts of racketeering:
Wikipedia says: "Kidnapping, ... meaning snatch, ... has come to mean any illegal
capture or detention of a person or people against their will, regardless of age.
Since 1768 the term abduction was also used in this sense."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping
Wikipedia says: "Extortion, outwresting, or exaction is a criminal offense, which

occurs when a person either unlawfully obtains money, property or services from a
person, entity, or institution through coercion or intimidation or threatens a
person, entity, or institution with physical or reputational harm unless he is
paid money or property."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion
The all power Wizard of Wikipedia speaks thusly: "Harassment refers to a wide
spectrum of offensive behavior. When the term is used in a legal sense it refers
to behaviors that are found threatening or disturbing, and beyond those that are
sanctioned by society. Sexual harassment refers to persistent and unwanted sexual
advances, typically in the workplace, where the consequences of refusing are
potentially very disadvantageous to the victim.
Contents"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harassment
(Including Police Harassment)
"Unfair treatment conducted by law officials including but not limited to

excessive force, profiling, threats, coercion, and racial, ethnic, religious,
gender/sexual, age, or other forms of discrimination."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_Harassment
Note that law enforcement officials might include for these purposes police,
prosecuting attorneys, and child support enforcement officers. I don't know.
I would ask myself, was the overt act that I allege an act of racketeering?
One nice note, in SCHEIDLER V. NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN, INC. (01-1118) 267
F.3d 687 (2000), the court referenced a previous decision and wrote:
"We granted certiorari and reversed, concluding that RICO does not require proof
that either the racketeering enterprise or the predicate acts of racketeering were
motivated by an economic purpose. See Scheidler, 510 U.S., at 256—262"
This is nice because in a racketeering charge, the plaintiff who alleges that a
racketeering conspiracy intended to take his/her children is motivated by Title
IV-D funds, or by a particular political agenda (e.g. state power or anti-father
sentiment), or any other single purpose, doesn't need to show internal documents,
etc indicating that purpose.
I do not believe I have to ask myself if the conspirators profited from their
conspiracy, although obviously I would think as a layperson it would be helpful to
show their motivations.
On the flip side in ROTELLA V. WOOD (98-896) 528 U.S. 549 (2000), the US Supreme
Court seems to have set a statue of limitations at 4 years from the moment at
which the victim realizes that he's been victimized:
"In February 1985, petitioner, Mark Rotella, was admitted to the Brookhaven
Psychiatric Pavilion with a diagnosis of major depression. Rotella v. Pederson,
144 F.3d 892, 894 (CA5 1998). He was discharged in 1986. In 1994, Brookhaven’s
parent company and one of its directors pleaded guilty to charges of criminal
fraud perpetrated through improper relationships and illegal agreements between
the company and its doctors. Rotella learned of the plea agreement that same year,
and in 1997 he filed a civil RICO claim against respondents, a group of doctors
and related business entities, in Federal District Court."
I would ask myself, do I reasonably believe that the claim that I may make is
still timely?
In HUMANA INC. V. FORSYTH (97-303) 525 U.S. 299 (1999), the US Supreme Court held:
"When federal law is applied in aid or enhancement of state regulation, and does
not frustrate any declared state policy or disturb the State’s administrative
regime, the McCarran-Ferguson Act does not bar the federal action."
" ... the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which provides:
" “No Act of Congress shall be construed to invalidate, impair, or supersede any
law enacted by any State for the purpose of regulating the business of insurance,
or which imposes a fee or tax upon such business, unless such Act specifically
relates to the business of insurance.” 15 U.S.C. § 1012(b)."
" ... Because RICO advances the State’s interest in combating insurance fraud,
and does not frustrate any articulated Nevada policy, we hold that the McCarran-
Ferguson Act does not block the respondent policy beneficiaries’ recourse to RICO
in this case. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in this opinion, the judgment of
the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is"
I would ask myself, if the offender an insurance company, does this action not
frustrate state policy?
So here is my list that I would consider. I'm sure it's not complete, and parts
of it may be wrong, but it's a start.
* Did I suffer an injury to business or property?

* Was this injury a part of a criminal conspiracy?
* Was this injury caused by an overt act?
* Is the overt act that I allege the proximate cause of the injury I claim?
* Was the overt act that I allege an act of racketeering?
* Do I reasonably believe that the claim that I may make is still timely?
* If the offender an insurance company, does this action not frustrate state
policy?
I would consider these questions with the advise of a lawyer who is a member of
the federal bar association.

When Might A Federal Racketeering Lawsuit Be Allowable?

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

When Might A Federal Racketeering Lawsuit Be Allowable?

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

When Might A Federal Racketeering Lawsuit Be Allowable?

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

When Might a Federal Racketeering Lawsuit Be Allowable?

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advise.

I try to do research to help the cause of justice.

"(c) Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of

Firstly, I would ask myself did I suffer an injury to business or property?

"In the criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between natural persons to

I would ask myself, was this injury caused by an overt act?

"The question before us is whether a person injured by an overt act done in

I think that these may be acts of racketeering:

Wikipedia says: "Extortion, outwresting, or exaction is a criminal offense, which

(Including Police Harassment)

"Unfair treatment conducted by law officials including but not limited to

" ... the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which provides:

* Did I suffer an injury to business or property?

You might also like