# Could Acorn Be Prosecuted Under the RICO Act? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 28, 2009, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-acorn-be-prosecuted-under-the-rico-act/519235 "2009-11-28T14:18:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-acorn-be-prosecuted-under-the-rico-act/519235/41 "2009-11-30T14:11:56Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > That’s what I was talking about. That list includes “section 1503 (relating to obstruction of justice), section 1510 (relating to obstruction of criminal investigations), section 1511 (relating to the obstruction of State or local law enforcement)”. If the organization is under investigation by the California AG’s office and they’re destroying evidence doesn’t that qualify? Not so far as I can see. These are not generic “obstruction” crimes; the specifics of “obstruction of justice” in the RICO context refer to threatening or intimidating a judge or juror, and are laid out in 18 USC § 1503: > [@](#): > > Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished… 18 USC § 1510 refers to obstruction of criminal investigations by bribery or, as an officer of a financial institution, notifying the target of a criminal investigation of the existence of a subpoena: > [@](#): > > Whoever willfully endeavors by means of bribery to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to a violation of any criminal statute of the United States by any person to a criminal investigator … > . > . > . > Whoever, being an officer of a financial institution, directly or indirectly notifies— (A) a customer of that financial institution whose records are sought by a grand jury subpoena; or (B) any other person named in that subpoena; about the existence or contents of that subpoena or information that has been furnished to the grand jury in response to that subpoena… Finally, § 1511 refers to obstruction of state or local law enforcement _of gambling laws_: > [@](#): > > It shall be unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to obstruct the enforcement of the criminal laws of a State or political subdivision thereof, with the intent to facilitate an illegal gambling business … So … no. Unless there are allegations that ACORN is destroying documents that would expose their no-limit Pai Gow tables in the back office, or that they’re bribing grand jurors to no-true-bill indictments, there’s nothing in RICO that is applicable. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-acorn-be-prosecuted-under-the-rico-act/519235/42 "2009-11-30T16:34:46Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Why? The question was: Could Acorn Be Prosecuted Under the RICO Act? My response was: If so, then they most assuredly should be. To answer your question: if they are eligible to be prosecuted, that means that evidence has been found to support criminal charges. And if that is the case, then the charges should be filed and the case tried. It would be wrong to NOT try the case. ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-acorn-be-prosecuted-under-the-rico-act/519235/43 "2009-11-30T17:00:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, RICO _was_ a tool in the fight against anti-abortion groups, so part of me wants to chortle and say how funny it would be to see it also misused against ACORN. > > But no. RICO’s predicate acts were never intended to be an all-encompassing panacea against any group doing anything distasteful. Unless ACORN’s activities truly include rackteering or extortion, a possibility I regard as pretty remote, I don’t think RICO is appropriate. > [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, I’m sure, at least to the extent that I’m not aware of any credible allegations against ACORN that fit into the list of RICO predicate offenses. That is, if ACORN were engaged in loansharking and sports betting, then of course their members would be indictable under RICO… but they’re not. > > So what are the RICO predicate offenses? 18 USC § 1961(1) lists them: Slight side track, but I could see a RICO investigation into anti-abortion groups if there was any suspicion that they were facilitating or aiding the activities of people burning down abortion clinics or threatening staff as both arson and extortion are on the list you provided. On ACORN, nothing I have heard (even the wilder rumors) seems to fall under the RICO list. The closest is the embezzlement by the brother of the president. If that included embezzlement from a pension fund (I don’t know if ACORN even has one), and multiple people at ACORN were involved, maybe. But of course in that case the organization would be the victim and not the perpetrator. Jonathan ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-acorn-be-prosecuted-under-the-rico-act/519235/44 "2009-11-30T18:59:25Z")
> [@Strassia](#): > > Slight side track, but I could see a RICO investigation into anti-abortion groups if there was any suspicion that they were facilitating or aiding the activities of people burning down abortion clinics or threatening staff as both arson and extortion are on the list you provided. There was no allegation that Operation Rescue was engaged in a wide-spread pattern of arson. It’s true that the lawsuit brought by the National Organization for Women did accuse them of extortion, based upon their practices of barricading clinic doors. However, that’s not what extortion actually means, as the Supreme Court helpfully explained when it doused the lawsuit: > [@](#): > > There is no dispute in these cases that petitioners interfered with, disrupted, and in some instances completely deprived respondents of their ability to exercise their property rights. Likewise, petitioners’ counsel readily acknowledged at oral argument that aspects of his clients’ conduct were criminal. But even when their acts of interference and disruption achieved their ultimate goal of “shutting down” a clinic that performed abortions, such acts did not constitute extortion because petitioners did not “obtain” respondents’ property. Petitioners may have deprived or sought to deprive respondents of their alleged property right of exclusive control of their business assets, but they did not acquire any such property. Petitioners neither pursued nor received “something of value from” respondents that they could exercise, transfer, or sell. United States v. Nardello, 393 U. S. 286, 290 (1969). To conclude that such actions constituted extortion would effectively discard the statutory requirement that property must be obtained from another, replacing it instead with the notion that merely interfering with or depriving someone of property is sufficient to constitute extortion. From _Scheidler, et al. v. NOW et al._. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-acorn-be-prosecuted-under-the-rico-act/519235/45 "2009-11-30T20:04:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > There was no allegation that Operation Rescue was engaged in a wide-spread pattern of arson. It’s true that the lawsuit brought by the National Organization for Women did accuse them of extortion, based upon their practices of barricading clinic doors. > > However, that’s not what extortion actually means, as the Supreme Court helpfully explained when it **doused** the lawsuit: > > From _Scheidler, et al. v. NOW et al._. Saw what you did there . . . ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-acorn-be-prosecuted-under-the-rico-act/519235/46 "2009-11-30T20:13:18Z")
All I can see is that ACORN may have a problem with protecting sensitive information, which is an issue, but certainly not nefarious or RICO-worthy…it isn’t even RICO Suave. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-acorn-be-prosecuted-under-the-rico-act/519235/47 "2009-11-30T21:26:55Z")
> [@](#): > > These are not generic “obstruction” crimes; the specifics of “obstruction of justice” in the RICO context refer to threatening or intimidating a judge or juror, and are laid out in 18 USC § 1503 Okay, I see what you’re saying. In my defense, I did check out the text of 1503 but I got bogged down. Seriously, can’t legislators write coherently? Here, in a single helpful sentence, is an explanation of what’s illegal under Title 18 of the United States Code, Chapter 96: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations: > [@](#): > > As used in this chapter - (1) “racketeering activity” means (A) any act or threat involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year; (B) any act which is indictable under any of the following provisions of title 18, United States Code: Section 201 (relating to bribery), section 224 (relating to sports bribery), sections 471, 472, and 473 (relating to counterfeiting), section 659 (relating to theft from interstate shipment) if the act indictable under section 659 is felonious, section 664 (relating to embezzlement from pension and welfare funds), sections 891–894 (relating to extortionate credit transactions), section 1028 (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents), section 1029 (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with access devices), section 1084 (relating to the transmission of gambling information), section 1341 (relating to mail fraud), section 1343 (relating to wire fraud), section 1344 (relating to financial institution fraud), section 1425 (relating to the procurement of citizenship or nationalization unlawfully), section 1426 (relating to the reproduction of naturalization or citizenship papers), section 1427 (relating to the sale of naturalization or citizenship papers), sections 1461–1465 (relating to obscene matter), section 1503 (relating to obstruction of justice), section 1510 (relating to obstruction of criminal investigations), section 1511 (relating to the obstruction of State or local law enforcement), section 1512 (relating to tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant), section 1513 (relating to retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant), section 1542 (relating to false statement in application and use of passport), section 1543 (relating to forgery or false use of passport), section 1544 (relating to misuse of passport), section 1546 (relating to fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents), sections 1581–1592 (relating to peonage, slavery, and trafficking in persons), [1] section 1951 (relating to interference with commerce, robbery, or extortion), section 1952 (relating to racketeering), section 1953 (relating to interstate transportation of wagering paraphernalia), section 1954 (relating to unlawful welfare fund payments), section 1955 (relating to the prohibition of illegal gambling businesses), section 1956 (relating to the laundering of monetary instruments), section 1957 (relating to engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity), section 1958 (relating to use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder-for-hire), section 1960 (relating to illegal money transmitters), sections 2251, 2251A, 2252, and 2260 (relating to sexual exploitation of children), sections 2312 and 2313 (relating to interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicles), sections 2314 and 2315 (relating to interstate transportation of stolen property), section 2318 (relating to trafficking in counterfeit labels for phonorecords, computer programs or computer program documentation or packaging and copies of motion pictures or other audiovisual works), section 2319 (relating to criminal infringement of a copyright), section 2319A (relating to unauthorized fixation of and trafficking in sound recordings and music videos of live musical performances), section 2320 (relating to trafficking in goods or services bearing counterfeit marks), section 2321 (relating to trafficking in certain motor vehicles or motor vehicle parts), sections 2341–2346 (relating to trafficking in contraband cigarettes), sections 2421–24 (relating to white slave traffic), sections 175–178 (relating to biological weapons), sections 229–229F (relating to chemical weapons), section 831 (relating to nuclear materials), (C) any act which is indictable under title 29, United States Code, section 186 (dealing with restrictions on payments and loans to labor organizations) or section 501 (c) (relating to embezzlement from union funds), (D) any offense involving fraud connected with a case under title 11 (except a case under section 157 of this title), fraud in the sale of securities, or the felonious manufacture, importation, receiving, concealment, buying, selling, or otherwise dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), punishable under any law of the United States, (E) any act which is indictable under the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act, (F) any act which is indictable under the Immigration and Nationality Act, section 274 (relating to bringing in and harboring certain aliens), section 277 (relating to aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter the United States), or section 278 (relating to importation of alien for immoral purpose) if the act indictable under such section of such Act was committed for the purpose of financial gain, or (G) any act that is indictable under any provision listed in section 2332b (g)(5)(B); (2) “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any territory or possession of the United States, any political subdivision, or any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof; (3) “person” includes any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property; (4) “enterprise” includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity; (5) “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; (6) “unlawful debt” means a debt (A) incurred or contracted in gambling activity which was in violation of the law of the United States, a State or political subdivision thereof, or which is unenforceable under State or Federal law in whole or in part as to principal or interest because of the laws relating to usury, and (B) which was incurred in connection with the business of gambling in violation of the law of the United States, a State or political subdivision thereof, or the business of lending money or a thing of value at a rate usurious under State or Federal law, where the usurious rate is at least twice the enforceable rate; (7) “racketeering investigator” means any attorney or investigator so designated by the Attorney General and charged with the duty of enforcing or carrying into effect this chapter; (8) “racketeering investigation” means any inquiry conducted by any racketeering investigator for the purpose of ascertaining whether any person has been involved in any violation of this chapter or of any final order, judgment, or decree of any court of the United States, duly entered in any case or proceeding arising under this chapter; (9) “documentary material” includes any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material; and (10) “Attorney General” includes the Attorney General of the United States, the Deputy Attorney General of the United States, the Associate Attorney General of the United States, any Assistant Attorney General of the United States, or any employee of the Department of Justice or any employee of any department or agency of the United States so designated by the Attorney General to carry out the powers conferred on the Attorney General by this chapter. ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-acorn-be-prosecuted-under-the-rico-act/519235/48 "2009-11-30T21:39:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > There was no allegation that Operation Rescue was engaged in a wide-spread pattern of arson. It’s true that the lawsuit brought by the National Organization for Women did accuse them of extortion, based upon their practices of barricading clinic doors. > > However, that’s not what extortion actually means, as the Supreme Court helpfully explained when it doused the lawsuit: > > From _Scheidler, et al. v. NOW et al._. Thanks for that. That is an interesting clarification on what extortion means. If the perpetrator does not materially benefit directly from the victims loss, it does not count. Is that requirement unique to extortion? If I attempt to steal money safe, but instead burn up the money by mistake, is it theft, attempt theft, or just vandalism? What if broke up the safe in such a way that anyone walking by could take as much as they could carry without every trying to take any for myself? What crime would that be? I have never heard anything about any mainstream anti abortion group actually being involved in arson, bombings or murders, but I can see the logic of such a connection. If some evidence that the leadership of those groups were funneling money or providing assistance to the radicals that commit such crimes, RICO would be a charge to consider. But in, ACORN’s case, even if we assume all the allegations are true and they are doing all the bad things they are accused of, RICO doesn’t make any sense. Jonathan ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2009, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-acorn-be-prosecuted-under-the-rico-act/519235/49 "2009-12-02T01:10:43Z")
I heard that Glenn beck destroyed memos in the 1990s ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2009, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-acorn-be-prosecuted-under-the-rico-act/519235/50 "2009-12-02T01:28:58Z")
I’ve heard people talking about those memos, but spreading partisan rumors is quite beneath me. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2009, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-acorn-be-prosecuted-under-the-rico-act/519235/51 "2009-12-02T02:58:05Z")
> [@Strassia](#): > > Thanks for that. That is an interesting clarification on what extortion means. If the perpetrator does not materially benefit directly from the victims loss, it does not count. Is that requirement unique to extortion? If I attempt to steal money safe, but instead burn up the money by mistake, is it theft, attempt theft, or just vandalism? What if broke up the safe in such a way that anyone walking by could take as much as they could carry without every trying to take any for myself? What crime would that be? It’s almost impossible to nail down the answers without having an actual law to look at. As an example, at common law, the crime of larceny required that the actor take and carry away the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive him of its possession. The “taking” element requires that the accused gain possession and control of the property. For the most part, today’s theft laws are codified versions of common law larceny. So – you attempt to steal the safe, but burn up the money by accident. Assuming you never gained control of the safe or the money, and never moved it, this would not be sufficient to convict on common law larceny. There have been some real “off on a technicality” cases involving the elements of crimes. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2009, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-acorn-be-prosecuted-under-the-rico-act/519235/52 "2009-12-02T07:30:18Z")
> [@](#): > > There have been some real “off on a technicality” cases involving the elements of crimes. I ran into one myself. I was doing a disciplinary hearing at work. An inmate had been at an outside hospital and started yelling, threatening people, throwing chairs around, and busting some windows. One of the rules he was charged with breaking was #104.13: _“An inmate shall not engage in conduct which disturbs the order of any part of the facility. This includes, but is not limited to, loud talking in a mess hall, program area or corridor, talking after the designated facility quiet time, playing a radio, televison or tape player without a headphone or through a headphone in a loud or improper manner, or playing a musical instrument in a loud or improper manner.”_ Can you see where I’m going with this? The rule says an inmate shall not disturb the order **of any part of the facility**. The inmate argued that the rule did not prohibit him from disturbing the order at a hospital which was miles away from any prison. And he was right so I had to find him not guilty on that charge. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Scud](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f08c70/32.png) [@Tom\_Scud](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Scud)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2009, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-acorn-be-prosecuted-under-the-rico-act/519235/53 "2009-12-02T14:58:30Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > Dear God, > > If you could do something to ensure that Diebold sells its voting machine division to ACORN, I promise to start believing in you. > > Your pal, > XXXXXXXXCrow > > CMC fnord! ACORN doesn’t have the money. George Soros does, though. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-acorn-be-prosecuted-under-the-rico-act/519235.md?page=2)