RICO Statutes: Good....Bad?

[PoliticalChic]

1. While not necessarily good by nature, human beings are clever. Often, criminally clever, as in the case of ‘organized crime.’ Early on, these folks figured out that a hierarchy served several vital functions:
a) like any pyramid club the top constantly benefited from the work of those below, and
b) it took advantage of the legal loophole that freed from penalty those who didn’t actually commit the crimes.


2. ‘The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,(RICO, 1970) … provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows for the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes which they ordered others to do or assisted them, closing a perceived loophole that allowed someone who told a man to, for example, murder, to be exempt from the trial because he did not actually do it.’ Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gkqQr8QdnM]Is This the End of Rico? - YouTube[/ame]





3. The law, replete with onerous sentences was so successful against ‘la cosa nostra’ that many convicted wiseguys opted to become witnesses for the government.
“For a wiseguy snitch, a letter from a prosecutor singing his praises and recommending leniency was the jackpot. The attractiveness of a 5(k) letter or Rule 35 letter presented us with a huge problem no one in law enforcement want to admit. There was the real and constant chance of suborning perjury- inducing a criminal to lie.”
Lawson and Oldham, “The Brotherhoods,” p. 476

a. Of course, the problem with using ‘cooperators’ is that they testify in the hopes- not promises- of lighter sentences or no time at all. This is a powerful reason for the ‘cooperator’ to lie. It is up to the jury to ascertain whether or not the testimony is reliable.




4. The lead prosecutor, Robert Henoch in the Federal District Court case against former NYPD detectives Eppolitto and Capacarra, used convicted organized crime killers as witnesses against the two detectives. Prosecutor Henoch explained why the government uses ‘cooperators:’
“ If the case was about the murder of a drug dealer, it will involve violent criminals and drug dealers, because those are the kinds of people who know the most about violent criminals and drug dealers. Wall street brokers testify in an insider-dealing case, nurses in medical malpractice suits. The same thing applies to violent crime.” Lawson and Oldham, Op.Cit., p.612-613




5. So…..can we agree that the decision of legislators to use ‘dirty’ or ‘disreputable’ individuals in pursuit of the greater good is acceptable? Here is the question: what would the correct understanding of a law maker who refused to endorse the RICO statutes, knowing that this would favor racketeers, killer, drug dealers, etc.?


Is there an explanation that would have justified behavior which forbid prosecutors from ever using such witnesses?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yup!

No responses, and I fully agree!

There is no way to validate the actions of those who would behave, after careful consideration, in a manner that supports the enemies of our citizens, our laws, and our government.
Therefore…how does one explain the actions of the Democrat Party?




Compare the actions of Democrat legislato rs with respect to the intelligence community, with the RICO statutes use against organized crime:

1. Democrat Ron Dellums, famously declared in 1975, "We should totally dismantle every intelligence agency in this country piece by piece, brick by brick, nail by nail." Congressman Ron Dellums: National Security Risk

a. In 1982, Dellums voted against the legislation that makes it a felony to publicly expose the identities of U.S. covert intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources. There had been attempts by malevolent malcontents to undermine U.S. intelligence operations by publicly revealing information intended to enable our enemies to identify intelligence personnel and thus destroy their usefulness and endanger their lives. Ibid.

2. [Democrat] “Senator Frank Church and his allies claimed that an assertive legislative role would bring the United States “back to the genius of the Founding Fathers.” This assertion was made despite the fact that American presidents from 1789 to 1974 were given wide latitude to conduct clandestine operations they believed were in the national interest.”
http://hnn.us/articles/380.html


3. “The damage done to the CIA by this congressional oversight regime (Democrat-controlled Pike and Church Committees) is quite extensive. The committees increased the number of CIA officials subject to Senate confirmation, condemned the agency for its contacts with unscrupulous characters, prohibited any further contact with these bad characters, insisted that the United States not engage or assist in any coup which may harm a foreign leader, and overwhelmed the agency with interminable requests for briefings (some 600 alone in 1996).” Ibid





So…if we agree that RICO’s use of convicted killers is good in pursuit of the protection of our citizens, why “condemn the agency for its contacts with unscrupulous characters, prohibited any further contact with these bad characters,…”???

Who the heck did they think we'd be trying to subvert in al-Qaeda???


I have the answer.
RICO is used against the “Five Families of Organized Crime.”

But the government is controlled by the biggest crime family, the Democrat Party, which does not recognize of the protection of our citizens in its job description. They hate America....and Americans.