Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: "The Rape Crew" I found out today when I was at the Steubenville Rally with some [View all]freshwest
(53,661 posts)54. Since traditional mafia revenue from gambling, etc. businesses are legal, it seems pointless. OTOH:
Last edited Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:37 AM - Edit history (2)
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows for the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes which they ordered others to do or assisted them, closing a perceived loophole that allowed someone who told a man to, for example, murder, to be exempt from the trial because he did not actually do it.RICO was enacted by section 901(a) of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (Pub.L. 91-452, 84 Stat. 922, enacted October 15, 1970). RICO is codified as Chapter 96 of Title 18 of the United States Code, 18 U.S.C. § 19611968. While its original use in the 1970s was to prosecute the Mafia as well as others who were actively engaged in organized crime, its later application has been more widespread.
Under RICO, a person who is a member of an enterprise that has committed any two of 35 crimes27 federal crimes and 8 state crimeswithin a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and 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 (damages in triple the amount of actual/compensatory damages).
When the U.S. Attorney decides to indict someone under RICO, he or she 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.[4]
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 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; or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained an interest in, or control over, the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity; 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. In essence, the enterprise is the illegal device of the racketeers. A civil RICO action, like many lawsuits based on federal law, can be filed in state or federal court.[5]
Both the federal and civil components allow for the recovery of treble 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."[4]
[edit]
I don't know which of these would apply, since this is not a financial crime, but some of it may:
Under the law, the meaning of racketeering activity is set out at 18 U.S.C. § 1961. As currently amended it includes:
* Any violation of state statutes against gambling, murder, kidnapping, extortion, arson, robbery, bribery, 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);
Closest thing to this that I can find is this:
Catholic sex abuse cases
In some jurisdictions, RICO suits have been filed against Catholic dioceses, using racketeering laws to prosecute the highers-up in the episcopacy for abuses committed by those under their authority. A Cleveland grand jury cleared two bishops of racketeering charges, finding that their mishandling of sex abuse claims did not amount to criminal racketeering. Certain lawyers and abuse advocates[who?] have openly wondered why a similar suit was not filed against archbishop Bernard Law, who escaped prosecution by going into exile in Vatican City.[9][10]
Although a lot of it seems to be financial crimes, here is something that might somehow apply, as it is not about money here, for the most part:
Pro-life activists
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, and that the Pro-Life Action Network could therefore qualify as a RICO enterprise. The Court remanded for consideration of whether PLAN committed the requisite acts in a pattern of racketeering activity.
[edit]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RICO
I would like to see these people bankrupted and lose all their property and assets at they very least. But I'm not an attorney and our outrage at the conduct of the prosecutor, coaches and the rest may or may not yield much.
I appreciate Anonymous and Occupy going to get more details. The Apartment set up may qualify as a money making enterprise for pornography. What do you think?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
136 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
"The Rape Crew" I found out today when I was at the Steubenville Rally with some [View all]
ArnoldLayne
Jan 2013
OP
If there really is such a place...who paid for it? ..all hell is going to break loose..nt
Stuart G
Jan 2013
#3
yes, according to reports, one of the NINETEEN football coaches (NINETEEN, for a high school
niyad
Jan 2013
#14
There are over 16,000 high school football teams in the US playing 8-man to 11-man football....
OldDem2012
Jan 2013
#122
The thing that gets me about this coach who apparently didn't like what they players were doing:
deutsey
Jan 2013
#118
so I read the disclaimer on the home page--so Anonymous is a bunch of terrorists, but
niyad
Jan 2013
#13
I can't help but wonder how they feel about their own grandmothers, mothers, aunts, sisters etc. :-(
Raine
Jan 2013
#94
I keep thinking of the Penn State Case....look at what the law says in PA for example regarding the
Pachamama
Jan 2013
#89
I was sitting here reading the OP and I just about fell off my chair when I read that part...
truth2power
Jan 2013
#29
The point is that the sheriff seemed more than happy to participate in the cover up
GObamaGO
Jan 2013
#56
I agree. He should have taken the girl from the boys right there and sheltered her and call
TeamPooka
Jan 2013
#96
her parents, a doctor since she was sick, an adult woman that you trust.... you can use her phone
bettyellen
Jan 2013
#108
I didn't think I could be any more sickened than I already am over this, but I was wrong.
niyad
Jan 2013
#11
Good because that means it doesn't land in the local and corrupt sherrif's office
tavalon
Jan 2013
#81
i had heard they were first charged adult and kidnapping. kidnapping dropped and changed to
seabeyond
Jan 2013
#104
Since traditional mafia revenue from gambling, etc. businesses are legal, it seems pointless. OTOH:
freshwest
Jan 2013
#54
the feds son got in trouble for something and the sheriff got him off,... or something? i have
seabeyond
Jan 2013
#67
Yes, I think it was in the Long Beach area. Over the years I've tried to find details on it but
Raine
Jan 2013
#95
I was raised in a small town that was very big on the high school football team
Major Nikon
Jan 2013
#73