Re: RICO - (Was: Group order for Secret Power)

At 04:43 PM 11/7/96 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote:

>
>I cover RICO because it's a popular prosecution tool,

"popular"?  Well, only in a rather stilted point of view!


> because it is 
>the predominate vehicle for seizure and forfeiture in federal cases 
>(of which remailer and encryption issues are likely to arouse) and 
>because it represents a codification of the approach most courts take 
>when dealing with seizure cases.  In a very real way, RICO represents 
>the outer extremes of seizure cases in the United States, and is 
>probably, given the complexity of many state laws, the simplest way 
>to "grab" something.  It also has civil provisions which make 
>"private prosecutors" out of you and me.

But the odd thing is, the one entity we can't seem to attack using RICO is 
the Federal government, and probably most other governments levels.  Looked 
at purely objectively, it should be easy to demonstrate that the Federal 
government (and its representatives) have engaged in plenty of crime as a 
pattern of activity, and certainly enough to rise to the level of the 
standards of RICO. (It takes only a few instances of such crime satisfy the 
standards of RICO.)

Change the name "Federal Government" to "Organization X," and describe what 
it's done, and all the evidence will point to a clear pattern of crime. 

Now, okay, it may seem presumptuous of me to even dream of the possibility 
of using RICO against the thugs who wrote it.  But this country (USA) is 
SUPPOSED to be under the rule of law, not men, and there is no reason (other 
than, sadly, pessimism or a-priori realism) to conclude that the government 
can't be punished when it breaks its own rules.  Such punishment could come 
by way of mechanisms such as the OKC bombing, or the far more selective 
system Assassination Politics (AP).  Take your choice.





Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com

On Thu, 7 Nov 1996, jim bell wrote:

> At 04:43 PM 11/7/96 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote:
> 
> >
> >I cover RICO because it's a popular prosecution tool,
> 
> "popular"?  Well, only in a rather stilted point of view!


No, it is popular.  It is the most used federal scheme for large scale
prosecutions.  It, aside from those critical of government power to the
degree cypherpunks do, a minority by any measure, is much commended for
its flexibility and convication successes.

> > because it is 
> >the predominate vehicle for seizure and forfeiture in federal cases 
> >(of which remailer and encryption issues are likely to arouse) and 
> >because it represents a codification of the approach most courts take 
> >when dealing with seizure cases.  In a very real way, RICO represents 
> >the outer extremes of seizure cases in the United States, and is 
> >probably, given the complexity of many state laws, the simplest way 
> >to "grab" something.  It also has civil provisions which make 
> >"private prosecutors" out of you and me.
> 
> But the odd thing is, the one entity we can't seem to attack using RICO is 
> the Federal government, and probably most other governments levels.  Looked 
> at purely objectively, it should be easy to demonstrate that the Federal 
> government (and its representatives) have engaged in plenty of crime as a 
> pattern of activity, and certainly enough to rise to the level of the 
> standards of RICO. (It takes only a few instances of such crime satisfy the 
> standards of RICO.)

Incorrect.  Employees of the Federal Government can be, and have been,
prosecuted under RICO.  Many political corruption cases involve some RICO
aspects.  This should make Mr. Bell a big fan of the statute, unless he
just likes the flash of murdering officials instead.


--
Forward complaints to : European Association of Envelope Manufactures
Finger for Public Key   Gutenbergstrasse 21;Postfach;CH-3001;Bern
Vote Monarchist         Switzerland