really, is the only point that feds were surprised by how big the operation was? if so why does that mean anything?
you know i'm not the only asking that, right? i'm not making this stuff up. http://www.wsls.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSLS%2FMGArticle%2FSLS_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173352194071&path=!news!localnews "Some experts believe those additional charges could involve RICO statutes, or racketeering charges." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-pinkerton/a-step-backward-into-barb_b_51046.html But potentially looming above all other applicable laws is the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute, which Piccionelli describes as the "nuclear weapon" of enforcement mechanisms. http://www.ricolawblog.com/ Federal prosecutors announced they plan to seek a "superseding" indictment soon, meaning more charges and defendants are possible and that additional details about the case could become public. Word has it that the new indictment will include charges of violations of RICO. this is organized crime, pgabriel. it just is. it's a 9-state gambling ring associated with dog fighting. gambling is a predicate to RICO charges. they're suggesting he played his last game because Goodell seems to be a non-nonsense guy. and when you're staring at a 95% conviction rate, Goodell has a lot to consider in a league where he suspends guys who haven't even been indicted. the crime is more serious not because of what he did...but because of the near certainty of conviction before with the feds. and IF RICO gets added...and I know that's an IF....we're talking about him going away for a very, very long time.
the first was from the same article you posted at first, and from the second you apparently forgot to include "Although the civil RICO cases will be hard to make because of the requirement that the plaintiff suffer injury to his business or property by reason of the violations of RICO. Since betting on dog fights is illegal, the losing gamblers would not likely find a sympathetic judge’s ear in federal court." once again proving my point that people are overreacting.
Overreacting ? To a guy who is accused of running an illicit gambling operations across state lines and holding dog fights on his own property. Suuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrreeeeeee, we are all just overreacting.
yeah, some homies gathering to gamble on dog fights is equivlent to vinny the butcher leaning on some guy and breaking his legs who can't pay his 25% interest. but they did cross state lines. edit: we'll see what the extent of the operation was. I think there are alot of assumption being made.
No, you might want to try reading that again. The sentence before your quote: Word has it that the new indictment will include charges of violations of RICO. RICO Law Blog predicts that Vick and associates will also be facing civil RICO in the not to distant future. Notice the "civil" part? The reason he didn't quote it is that any civil cases are completely unrelated to the federal criminal case.
Many of them by you - for example, describing it as "some homies gathering to gamble on dog fights". Never mind the training of those dogs. Or the organizing of the fights. Or the killing of the dogs. Yeah, they just bet on some dog fights. That's all.
exactly, no one knows the extent of these operations. I totally agree. I don't deny they killed dogs, but that's neither here nor there, I don't even know if its a felony.
If you don't even know the laws, why would you argue so vehemently that other people are overreacting when they might actually know the laws? And if you don't know the extent of the operations, why would you make the claim that the only evidence the feds have is witnesses? Maybe, just maybe, the feds have more information that you or I?
so its okay for everyone else to make assumptions but not me. I don't understand why you are so upset that I'm debating this.
States with Animal Cruelty as Felony Provisions Alabama Arizona California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina Tennessee Texas Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming
No, I think it's OK for everyone to make assumptions. It's what people do anytime you evaluate anyone or anything anywhere since we never have 100% of the facts. What I think is weird is when one person makes a bunch of assumptions on one side while simultaneously arguing that everyone else shouldn't be making any assumptions. If you want to debate the facts or the merits, that's one thing - but I'm not seeing much of that. Your primary argument seems to be that everyone else is making assumptions / judgements.
Umm, who the hell is going to sue vick for civil RICO violations? The dogs estates? The government? How is the government going to show a private RICO injury? I've got to believe that is a typo - I can't conceive of a private plaintiff of any type being able to sue Vick on these facts.
that's fair, but its also fair to point out that the only point I made from the beginning is that everyone assumes the guy's career is over. for every blog that predicts he will be indicted on RICO charges, I can find a blog that predicts he will plead out and serve no time. but the vast majority, as usual in a celebrity case, has already predicted this guy going up for the rest of his life and the reality is we hardly ever see that happen. regardless of my knowledge of the law or lack there of.
that's civil RICO. he goes on to say there that the gamblers who might sue won't find sympathetic courts. that's why they think they'll have a hard time with CIVIL rico. the answer you're seeking is in the very part you just quoted. but the point is...i'm not the only one talking about RICO out there. it's organized crime, pgabriel. gambling is a RICO predicate.
He has a point but so do you. RICO was in fact envisioned to put away real-deal gangsters, in effect the popular cliche is that it is "the crime of being a criminal". However the statute was written very broadly to the point where a lot of non-traditional gangsters can be charged and convicted of it - though conviction doesn't happen all that often because it is a hard thing to prove becuase it can get very complicated in esoteric pleading issues about RICO injury, RICO enterprise, RICO pattern, RICO continuity, etc etc etc ad nauseum. Now, PG is right in that the strictures of RICO can be stretched to meet circumstances for which it was probably not envisioned (i.e. for petty fraudsters or in this case, arguably Vick) However you are also right in that stretching the statute to meet non-traditional definitions of organized criminals has been standard practice in the civil and criminal context for the decades now. (Actually IIRC, the federal money laundering statute is even more overbroad, but I haven't read it in a while). So I can see the argument that Vick is not an intended target for RICO but hte fact is that RICO has been applied to people more sympathetic than him. Finally a word on the gambling business - I believe the indictment as I read it said he operated a business that people gambled on, but not htat he operated a gambling business. Now the difference may seem minimal (it does to me), but in reality it could be huge. For example, the NFL operates a business that lots of people gamble on, but it's not a gambling business. The indictment I read said that Vick's crew operated a prizefighting business for Dogs and sometiems charged admission and gambled on the results with their own money, but that might be different from, say, the House staging a dogfight and taking a cut of all revenues (such as in a standard sports book). I haven't studied or researched the issue of how expanisve the definition of gambling business is, btw, so I could be wrong.
i honestly don't care about the history or theory. all i have said here is that practically speaking, this case may very well be headed towards a RICO indictment. as you've said, this isn't a stretch given the way it's already been stretched for decades now. i'm with you...i'm not sure if this counts as operating a gambling business. but given the way criminal law has been stretched in the federal arena in this country, my guess would be that this is enough to meet the gambling predicate.
Ok...here's what I'm understanding about the gambling part and how it plays into RICO. http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Federal-Laws/rico.htm Regardless of whether the action is criminal or civil, a violation of RICO "requires proof of (1) the existence of an enterprise, (2) either a pattern of racketeering activity or the collection of an unlawful debt, and (3) that the enterprise be engaged in or affect interstate commerce." "Enterprise" is defined to include "any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity." "Racketeering activity" generally means (1) any act or threat involving, among other things, gambling, which is a felony under state law, or (2) an act which is indictable under certain provisions of Title 18, such as the Wire Act, the Travel Act, the Interstate Transportation of Wagering Paraphernalia Act, and the Illegal Gambling Business Act. [151]· "Unlawful debt" generally means a debt that is incurred or contracted in a gambling activity or business in violation of federal, state or local law or is unenforceable, in whole or part, due to usury laws. Congress clearly intended that evidence proving the collection of an unlawful debt would substitute for a showing that two or more predicate offenses were engaged in forming a pattern of racketeering activity. If they amend to add RICO, how is he not screwed on this, Sam?? 1. existence of enterprise -- absolutely..it was called Bad Newz Kennels; 2. collection of unlawful debt -- we know the allegations include that he paid off a debt of around $23,000 to a winner....the indictment reads that he did so directly, himself. so i'm guessing that it went the other way around...and that Bad Newz Kennels collected winnings as well won't be too hard to demonstrate; 3. interstate commerce -- already done. 9 states. This takes away the notion that RICO merely is to trap racketeers. It also deals with the "collection of unlawful debts" in the context of an enterprise which affects interstate commerce. How is that not Bad Newz Kennels? What am I missing?
