Title 18, Chapter 96 of the U. S. Code, commonly known as the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) statute, provides as follows:
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 . . .
The code defines a "pattern of racketeering activity" as at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of this chapter (October 15, 1970) and the last of which occurred within ten years (excluding any period of imprisonment) after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity;
The statute's definition of "racketeering activity" includes "any act or threat involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, . . . which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year . . ." An "enterprise" is defined to include "any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity; . . ."
It's time to give you a clue as to where we're heading. You're probably well aware that "obstruction of justice" is a crime in most (maybe all) states. Our employees on the U. S. Supreme Court are undoubtedly "persons" and the Court is clearly an "enterprise," "the activities of which affect interstate or foreign commerce." Numerous Court "acts" each decade obstruct justice by blocking the enforcement of various state laws against "murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, (and) dealing in obscene matter," thereby causing a lot of extra murder, kidnapping, and so forth. Furthermore, the obstructions in question are based on interpretations of the U. S. Constitution that a fair minded jury might well consider fraudulent .
No doubt you think that the above statements are preposterous. The RICO laws were enacted to attack real gangsters, not legitimate organizations like our judicial branch of government. Blunt instruments like laws written to attack the Mafia should not be used for political purposes. OK. Let's see what the Supreme Court had to say about this.
In 1994 (NOW v. Schiedler), the U. S. Supreme Court approved the use of the RICO law to punish pro-life folks who demonstrated outside abortion clinics. The Court said that an "economic motive" was not necessary to justify using anti-racketeering laws against actions which might "use violence or fear to induce clinic employees, doctors, and patients to give up their jobs, give up their economic right to practice medicine, and give up their right to obtain medical services at the clinics." I kid you not. That's how the justices characterized the issues before them .
You may recall that the Supreme Court claims our founders intended the First Amendment to protect pornography, flag burning, topless dancing, and other obnoxious behavior from state action. In NOW v. Schiedler, the Court refused to explain why obnoxious behavior to discourage abortion wasn't entitled to the same protection. And it proceeded to bless the use of the RICO statutes to press a political agenda. So "a pattern of racketeering activity" by our judicial branch of government must be a fair target for the same weapon .
Nevertheless, there's no chance the RICO law will ever be used to hold our judicial employees accountable for their "pattern of racketeering activity." There are thousands of highly placed co-conspirators in politics, the law, the media, and academe.
The fix is in.
NOTES AND CITATIONS
1. In numerous cases, the Court contrived to "discover" "constitutional" mandates which blocked the enforcement of various state laws against murder, rape, obscenity, robbery, bribery, extortion, and other crimes. Those Court actions, which were clearly fraudulent, abetted the commission of those various crimes and caused a great surge in crime rates. The story can be found in several online essays. See, for example;
Judicial Activism Causes Crime.
Judicial Activism, the Eleventh Amendment, and the Yazoo Land Fraud
Cruel, But Not Unusual, Judicial Mischief
Our Secular Papacy and Sacred Porn
Gay Rights and the Secular Papacy
2. Some of the anti-abortion laws whose enforcement was blocked by Roe v. Wade and its progeny were passed as part of anti-obscenity laws during the 1860's and 1870's. So the Court's fraudulent abortion rulings were also part of its "pattern of racketeering activity." See Mohr, pages 219 and 220. See also the online essays Harry's Abortion and Obstruction of Justice.
3. By 2003 the politics had changed; liberals were concerned that RICO laws might be used to prosecute other (than anti-abortion) protesters. So the Supreme Court took another look at the issues decided in NOW v. Scheidler (1994). After abortionists' lawyers had used the opinion to torture members of Right-to-Life groups for nine years, the Court issued Scheidler v. NOW (2003).
In NOW v. Scheidler the Court had used approximately 2950 words to conclude that;
One need not have an "economic motive" to be prosecuted for extortion under the RICO laws.Scheidler v. NOW (2003), the Court's second look at this issue, ran to 3450 words. Its bottom line seemed to be;
One must "obtain or attempt to obtain property" to be punished for extortion under the RICO laws.If the justices saw any contradiction in all of this this, they didn't let on. Together the two opinions were approximately six times as long as the Declaration of Independence and twenty-four times as long as the Gettysburg Address.
Commentary on the Court's fraudulent flag burning opinion can be found here.
Essays which trace the development of the scams the Court employed in all these cases can be found by going to:
A Scam is Born.
Evolution of a Scam.and
Go to Main Page.
All Rights Reserved
D. J. Connolly