- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The RICO act. What it says
Posted on 8/16/23 at 8:11 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 8/16/23 at 8:11 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Tomato tomato re: RICO
So is the federal and state law materially different in language?
1
Posted on 8/16/23 at 8:24 am to mark65mc
quote:
Sounds like Joe and Hunter.
They may very well face RICO charges some day. Under RICO, you wouldn't even need to prove Joe got any money.
Posted on 8/16/23 at 8:24 am to mark65mc
quote:
Sounds like Joe and Hunter.
You are correct sir!
Posted on 8/16/23 at 8:26 am to OceanMan
quote:
So is the federal and state law materially different in language?
No. Again, tomato:tomato per the allegations (which may not be actual facts)
Posted on 8/16/23 at 8:28 am to Meauxjeaux
quote:
I have no idea how he’s getting down votes for pointing out the simple fact.
Because the point isn’t that they’re GA RICO statutes as opposed to federal, the point is the intent of both GA’s and the federal RICO statutes were to go after organized crime, not people who challenge elections.
Posted on 8/16/23 at 8:30 am to thebigmuffaletta
quote:
the point is the intent of both GA’s and the federal RICO statutes were to go after organized crime, not people who challenge elections.
Well that wasn't the point of bringing up "interstate commerce", which started the federal/state discussion tree.
But, again: tomato/tomato.
If the allegations are proven, this was a criminal organization/enterprise. Same as organized crime.
ETA: had to bold so sky screamers didn't melt down
This post was edited on 8/16/23 at 8:33 am
Posted on 8/16/23 at 8:33 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
What are your specific acts that constitute felonies?
I don’t think RICO should be used on Trump or should it have been used on Abrams. That’s my point. It’s overzealous prosecution of political enemies
Posted on 8/16/23 at 8:36 am to SlowFlowPro
This RICO thread reminds me of a book called "Three Felonies a Day". Premise is under the monumentally large collection of Federal Statutes [criminal] on the books today, any prosecutor could potentially charge ANY citizen with 3 Felonies a day. Somewhere in beginning of the book it discusses prosecutors bragging and betting on such things, if I recall correctly.
Posted on 8/16/23 at 8:38 am to Revelator
They claim two acts is a pattern. I always considered two of anything to be a couple of anythings.
Prosecutors have gotten real creative with it. Give a person an inch and they will take a mile.
Hopefully this case brings to light the abuse of the RICO Act by prosecutors. I pray Trump will one day be able to turn it around with a civil racketeering suit against these organized actors working cohesively to bring him down.
Big Titties for Big Tatties!!
Prosecutors have gotten real creative with it. Give a person an inch and they will take a mile.
Hopefully this case brings to light the abuse of the RICO Act by prosecutors. I pray Trump will one day be able to turn it around with a civil racketeering suit against these organized actors working cohesively to bring him down.
Big Titties for Big Tatties!!
Posted on 8/16/23 at 8:44 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You know that A-C privilege doesn't apply to criminal behavior, ASSUMING they can prove the illegality.
But they are trying to criminalize the advice itself and Trumps adherence to that advice!
Posted on 8/16/23 at 8:45 am to thebigmuffaletta
quote:
not people who challenge elections.
challenging happens in courts.
these 19 people did not challenge the Georgia election result.
Arizona was challenged and we got ninjas to do deep forensics. spectacularly, the result was a Biden win by even more than the official count.
the Georgia case is about activity to overthrow the election. none of those 19 asswipes thought they had really won.
This post was edited on 8/16/23 at 8:47 am
Posted on 8/16/23 at 8:45 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You know that A-C privilege doesn't apply to criminal behavior, ASSUMING they can prove the illegality.
I’m talking about every day cases where the prosecutor and defense lawyers are interpreting the very same laws, two different and opposite ways
Posted on 8/16/23 at 8:46 am to Meauxjeaux
quote:
Not an SFP Homey, but if y’all cannot separate federal laws from state laws, y’all have real problems in arguing your points. I have no idea how he’s getting down votes for pointing out the simple fact.
Because he challenged whether the state law required the “commerce” element, then posts the state law with no commentary, then concedes the law is not materially different. He could have just said nothing at all.
As others have noted, commercial a fundamental element to the RICO concept
Posted on 8/16/23 at 8:48 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Well he's citing the federal law and Georgia is relying on its state version which I'm sure does not have that requirement
a. It shall be unlawful for any person, through a pattern of racketeering activity or proceeds derived therefrom, to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise, real property, or personal property of any nature, including money.
b. It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise to conduct or participate in, directly or indirectly, such enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.
c. It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire or endeavor to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a) or (b) of this Code section. A person violates this subsection when:
1. He or she together with one or more persons conspires to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a) or (b) of this Code section and any one or more of such persons commits any overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy;
or
2. He or she endeavors to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a) or (b) of this Code section and commits any overt act to effect the object of the endeavor.
LINK
My questions are:
1. How does the indictment define the enterprise?
2. How can you be indirectly involved yet charged with racketeering? That is very broad, don't ya think?
Posted on 8/16/23 at 8:50 am to Buddy Red
quote:
This RICO thread reminds me of a book called "Three Felonies a Day". Premise is under the monumentally large collection of Federal Statutes [criminal] on the books today, any prosecutor could potentially charge ANY citizen with 3 Felonies a day. Somewhere in beginning of the book it discusses prosecutors bragging and betting on such things, if I recall correctly.
This book enrages back the blue types
Posted on 8/16/23 at 8:51 am to OceanMan
quote:
commercial a fundamental element to the RICO
the gop judge is a kemp appointee. he was assistant district attorney under willis.
hopefully someone brings this commerce issue up pre trial.
Posted on 8/16/23 at 8:52 am to Timeoday
quote:
. How can you be indirectly involved yet charged with racketeering? That is very broad, don't ya think?
Ask Rudy, who built his career on this authoritarianism
Posted on 8/16/23 at 8:54 am to Dday63
quote:
They may very well face RICO charges some day. Under RICO, you wouldn't even need to prove Joe got any money.
Yep, under Fed law RICO has a 10 year SOL. Joe was, at a minimum, INDIRECTLY involved with the BIDEN CRIME FAMILY (the enterprise) criminal acts (the predicates).
Now, do the Clinton's!!
Posted on 8/16/23 at 8:56 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Well that wasn't the point of bringing up "interstate commerce", which started the federal/state discussion tree.
Nope, that’s not what was said. The argument was that politics was not commerce, nothing to do with interstate.
Posted on 8/16/23 at 9:00 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This book enrages back the blue types
Do feds wear blue? Or does the distinction of federal vs state law no longer matter to you ?
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News