Replies

You are wrong. One of the purposes of the RICO statutes was to go after ‘organized crime’, but it includes those who control, manage or operate organization is a manner that violates the RICO statutes.

Handing out phoney doctor’s excuses is not one of the RICO predicate acts.

One of the purposes of the RICO statutes was to go after ‘organized crime’, but it includes those who control, manage or operate organization is a manner that violates the RICO statutes.

You're right, we should go after Organizing for America and the Unions.

It depends. It is fraud. If it can be proved that an organization such as a union or the DNC was organizing and paying for those doctors to commit this fraud it sounds like a RICO offense to me. My guess is that RICO offenses occurred at many levels in the organizing, funding and instigating of this mob.

It is also actually illegal to purposefully interfere with someones contract relationship with another. I dare say that the unions and Democratic organizations have done this by using funds to organize and instigate public employees to break their legal contracts.

As per Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act.

RICO offenses Under the law, racketeering activity means:

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);

Embezzlement of union funds;

Bankruptcy fraud or securities fraud;

Drug trafficking; long-term and elaborate drug networks can also be prosecuted using the Continuing Criminal Enterprise Statute;

Bringing in, aiding or assisting aliens in illegally entering the country (if the action was for financial gain);>

Acts of terrorism.

Pattern of racketeering activity requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of this chapter 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 U.S. Supreme Court has instructed federal courts to follow the continuity-plus-relationship test in order to determine whether the facts of a specific case give rise to an established pattern. Predicate acts are related if they "have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events." (H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.) Continuity is both a closed and open ended concept, referring to either a closed period of conduct, or to past conduct that by its nature projects into the future with a threat of repetition.

Also about the law against interfereing with a legal contract per Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act.

Tortious interference, also known as Intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of tort, occurs when a person intentionally damages the plaintiff's contractual or other business relationships. This tort is broadly divided into two categories, one specific to contractual relationships (irrespective of whether they involve business), and the other specific to business relationships or activities (irrespective of whether they involve a contract).