Acorn and Rico? A MATCH MADE IN HELL?

[Annie]

Serious questions that will wait until after the election.

Pajamas Media » Why Aren’t the Feds Using RICO to Go After ACORN?

Why Aren’t the Feds Using RICO to Go After ACORN?

Evidence shows ACORN has committed the predicate crimes that would allow the government to prosecute them under the racketeering statute.
October 21, 2008 - by Clarice Feldman

Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers

In the Saturday afternoon thrillers that occupied us as kids, after the settlers were beset by the rustlers and thieves, the sound of pounding hoofs and a plume of dust heralded that help, in the form of the United States cavalry, was on its way.

As I watch helplessly day after day as exhausted poll workers are swamped by tens of thousands — possibly hundreds of thousands — of forged, faked, and illegal voter registrations, preventing them from doing their job and assuring a fair and orderly election, I keep waiting for the cavalry in the form of the FBI and Department of Justice. But I hear no hoof beats and see no dust.

There was a rumor circulating last week that U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald in Chicago was heading up a team looking into RICO prosecutions of ACORN, but it appears to have been wishful thinking. But now AP is reporting that two senior officials with the FBI are looking into the materials seized from ACORN office raids around the country to see if it can find evidence of coordinational national fraud on the part of ACORN.

Could the government use RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Practices Act) to stop ACORN’s outrageous conduct? I think it could. Briefly, RICO 18 U.S.C. § 1961-1968. is a federal law providing extended penalties for those who commit any two of 35 crimes — 27 federal and eight state — within a 10-year period. The underlying crimes range from gambling to terrorism and include some offenses which would seem to cover the reported acts of ACORN (e.g., bribery, mail and phone fraud).

....


The suit is brought under the Ohio Corrupt Practices Act, a state law similar to the federal RICO act. Among its factual assertions are these developed in Congressional hearings:

* From 2004-2006 ACORN has received $4.6 million in federal funds for its Housing Corporation.
* ACORN has 150 subsidiary organizations with a total operating budget of over $110 million this year.
* All the 150 subsidiaries operate from the top as a single enterprise, including the nonprofit Project Vote and the political operation known as Citizens Services.
* Citizens Services has endorsed Barack Obama and has received over $832,000 from Obama’s campaign during the primary period for services.
* ACORN and Citizen’s Services share the same board of directors. They also share office space in New Orleans.

The suit documents numerous instances of in-state predicate acts, including the following:

* Forgery, uttering forged documents, tampering with writings and records.
* Harassing people to encourage them to register multiple times; bribing people to register multiple times; registering non-existent and clearly ineligible voters (like minors); registering the same person in multiple counties; providing fraudulent and forged documents.

The suit documents numerous predicate acts committed by ACORN outside Ohio as well, specifically in Nevada, Indiana, Missouri, Colorado, Vrginia, Washington, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, New Mexico, Texas, Wisconsin, Minnesota and North Carolina.

The suit asks the court to take notice of the “lengthy and ubiquitous history of voter fraud, embezzlement, misuse of taxpayer funds” and concludes that ACORN’s pattern of fraud can no longer be dismissed as mere random unfortunate acts by some ACORN agents. Buckeye argues, and we can hardly dispute:

81. ACORN itself, and not just its agents, is responsible for the perpetration of the predicate acts articulated heretofore, in that it either acted with intent to cause these acts, or with negligence or reckless indifference as to whether these acts occurred.

82. Given its hiring, training, and compensation practices, ACORN knew or should have known that its conduct would cause fraud, and knows or should know that its conduct will cause fraud in the future.

I wonder: why the cavalry hasn’t suited up? Indeed, I can think of no good reason why it has failed to do so. Surely it’s as easy for the federal government, with all its resources, to start questioning witnesses and examining registration materials. It can examine ACORN’s books, and the materials seized from some of its offices. It can begin to prosecute this fraud which has such a damaging impact on the body politic and convinced the public that a fair election is impossible.

In the meantime, like settlers in the old Saturday afternoon oaters, we greet the band of heroes from Ohio with flowers and a hope that they will prevail in the coming battle.

The NYT is getting nervous:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/22/u...artner=permalink&exprod=permalink&oref=slogin

 

[Diuretic]

Haaaaaaaaahhhh - I have the answer.

"Evidence" is what the dill who wrote that piece thinks it is. It has to be admissible to be evidence and that is the point of an investigation. There's a a report about smoke so you go and see if there's evidence of a fire. No evidence of a fire then time to do something else. The dill who wrote the piece probably hasn't worked that out yet.

And it wasn't the US Cavalry (jeez where did this woman get her early film education?) it was the Cisco Kid and Pancho! Cisco never killed anyone by the way, he was much too noble to do that.

 

[xaxeptance449]

Serious questions that will wait until after the election.

Pajamas Media » Why Aren’t the Feds Using RICO to Go After ACORN?



The NYT is getting nervous:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/22/u...artner=permalink&exprod=permalink&oref=slogin

RICO has teeth that may well bite the Republican Party where it sits as well. On exactly the same issue. The Obama campaign is neither the Gore nor the Kerry campaign. Witness that they are not remaining silent in the face of spurious attacks. They are taking actions which is something the McCain campaign did not anticipate. "The campaign" expected the same non-reaction as in the past. Now they will have to prepare to defend themselves and they have precious little time to do that which they did not anticipate.