- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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 9:05 am to Timeoday
Posted on 8/16/23 at 9:05 am to Timeoday
quote:
They claim two acts is a pattern. I always considered two of anything to be a couple of anythings.
Fairly certain the indictment listed more than 100 alleged acts in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy.
1
Posted on 8/16/23 at 9:06 am to Timeoday
quote:
How does the indictment define the enterprise?
quote:
How can you be indirectly involved yet charged with racketeering? That is very broad, don't ya think?
If you have questions this specific about the indictment, just read it yourself
It’s long but it’s not dense or legalese. 
Posted on 8/16/23 at 9:08 am to Revelator
They are not using that yspecific statute. They are using the state version of RICO, and it likely has a different list of predicate acts/crimes.
Posted on 8/16/23 at 9:12 am to OceanMan
quote:
Or does the distinction of federal vs state law no longer matter to you ?
It never did. It's the same thing with respect to the police state.
This post was edited on 8/16/23 at 9:15 am
Posted on 8/16/23 at 9:13 am to Indefatigable
quote:
Fairly certain the indictment listed more than 100 alleged acts in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy.
Which is what Prosecutors do. They charge 400 acts and only need two. But to call 2 (two) a pattern is incredulous.
We all know RICO is an unconstitutional act, don't we?
Posted on 8/16/23 at 9:14 am to OceanMan
quote:
The argument was that politics was not commerce, nothing to do with interstate.
Irrelevant distinction, as the GA statute does not require commerce or interstate commerce, I do not believe. That was the point of response.
Posted on 8/16/23 at 9:15 am to Timeoday
quote:
But to call 2 (two) a pattern is incredulous.
The statute requires at least 2, I believe. I imagine that wording is just to follow the statute.
Posted on 8/16/23 at 9:20 am to VOR
quote:
They are not using that yspecific statute. They are using the state version of RICO, and it likely has a different list of predicate acts/crimes.
This is something I didn’t know when I made the OP. It has since been pointed out to me by a few different posters.
Here is my problem with all of this. RICO itself could be viewed as unconstitutional. Then add to that, Dem states can expand the RICO statutes to include almost anything.
The original federal law is already too broad, and the expansion of that law by the states is even more egregious.
This post was edited on 8/16/23 at 9:26 am
Posted on 8/16/23 at 9:38 am to Revelator
quote:
This is what lots of people hate about the law. It’s written by lawyers, so only lawyers can understand it, and so that lawyers can use the same law and say it means two diametrically opposed things.
It's as if English Common Law and language doesn't exist.
Posted on 8/16/23 at 10:11 am to Auburn1968
quote:
It's as if English Common Law and language doesn't exist.
When half the legal scholars are saying one thing, and the other half, the complete opposite about the interpretation of the same law, that’s a problem.
Posted on 8/16/23 at 10:16 am to Meauxjeaux
quote:Because 90% of posters on this site do not care one whit about accurate facts, only the narrative.
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.
quote:Yes, that was demonstrated AFTER the downvotes. Not one of the downvoters knew this, when they gleefully clicked that arrow.
"but, but, but ... the state and federal statutes are not very different ....!!!!"
This post was edited on 8/16/23 at 10:23 am
Posted on 8/16/23 at 10:20 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If the allegations are proven
By ‘proven’ you mean getting a jury of leftists to convict republicans no matter what.
Posted on 8/16/23 at 10:21 am to Timeoday
quote:RICO has always been extraordinarily broad.
How can you be indirectly involved yet charged with racketeering? That is very broad, don't ya think?
The usual rote response from the mechanistic "law and order" types has been "if you aren't a crook, you've nothing to worry about."
This post was edited on 8/16/23 at 10:24 am
Posted on 8/16/23 at 10:22 am to thebigmuffaletta
quote:
By ‘proven’ you mean getting a jury of leftists to convict republicans no matter what.
We could expand that concept to the court of public opinion as well, if you want. My comment works on both levels.
Posted on 8/16/23 at 10:26 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
My comment works on both levels.
Obviously
There’s still millions of people who think Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election. A few of those millions of people post here
Posted on 8/16/23 at 10:35 am to AggieHank86
quote:
The usual rote response from the mechanistic "law and order" types has been "if you aren't a crook, you've nothing to worry about."
Whenever I hear that I say to myself, "Little do they know."
Posted on 8/16/23 at 12:10 pm to SlowFlowPro
Well since the basic definition of fraud is to deprive a person of something of value by deceit,
it seems like politics fits pretty well.
it seems like politics fits pretty well.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News