Could Acorn Be Prosecuted Under the RICO Act?

Great Debates
41

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:

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:

Finally, § 1511 refers to obstruction of state or local law enforcement of gambling laws:

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.

42

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.

43

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

44

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..

45

Saw what you did there . . .

46

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.

47

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:

48

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

49

I heard that Glenn beck destroyed memos in the 1990s

50

I’ve heard people talking about those memos, but spreading partisan rumors is quite beneath me.

51

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.

52

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.

53

ACORN doesn’t have the money.

George Soros does, though.