Supreme Court wades into Abortion issue AGAIN

[irishgrl]

Supreme Court Steps Into Abortion Dispute By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Tuesday intervened again in a long-running fight over protests outside abortion clinics.

Justices said they will consider whether an anti-abortion group's campaign against abortions, conducted outside these clinics 20 years ago, may have violated federal racketeering and extortion laws.
The court has already dealt with the same case several times before. Most recently justices ruled in 2003 that the laws were wrongly used against anti-abortion leader Joseph Scheidler and others.

That ruling, written by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, lifted a nationwide ban on protests that interfere with abortion clinic business.

An appeals court, however, questioned whether the ban should be renewed on other legal grounds.

The announcement Tuesday came as justices resolved about 20 cases that were still pending from their term. The court met for the last time Monday before beginning a three-month break.

The abortion case is one of two to reach the Supreme Court recently. A month ago, the court in a surprise announcement said that it would hear an appeal involving a parental notification law from New Hampshire. Both cases will be argued late this year.

As part of the 1998 ban, anti-abortion demonstrators were barred from trespassing, setting up blockades or behaving violently at abortion clinics for 10 years.

Although the case does not directly involve abortion, it does address an issue important to people who want to protest at clinics without the fear of lawsuits and large damage awards.

The National Organization for Women and abortion clinics filed suit to stop protests with a federal law originally intended to target mobsters. Abortion providers claimed that a coordinated effort to close down or disrupt clinics in several cities in the 1980s went far beyond the actions of individual protesters, and should be treated much like organized crime.

Protesters were accused of menacing doctors, roughing up patients and trashing clinics.

Rehnquist conceded in 2003 that abortion protesters interfered with clinic operations and in some cases committed crimes. But he said because they did not extort money or valuables from the clinics, a lower court had wrongly imposed a ban on protests.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago then renewed the case on other grounds, that the threats of violence, or violent acts, may have been enough to qualify to sue under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

NOW attorney Fay Clayton, in papers filed with the Supreme Court, cited several examples of violence during protests, including one in which a patient was beaten unconscious with an anti-abortion sign.

Jay Sekulow, representing Operation Rescue, told justices "this court put a definitive end to a meritless marathon civil RICO suit," in 2003 and should intervene now to make that clear.

The dispute has been to the Supreme Court several times. The court first ruled that the RICO law could be applied to abortion protesters. Then justices decided that the law, which requires a conclusion that someone has committed an underlying crime, was improperly used in this particular case.

The cases are Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, 04-1244, and Operation Rescue v. National Organization for Women, 04-1352.

___

On the Net:

Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/

[strandinthewind]

RICO is FAR more invasive to the civil rights of this country than the Patriot Act ever thought about being and I am mostly opposed to any further expansion of it.

[SuzeQuze]

WTF? That is a freaking long break!

[irishgrl]

RICO is FAR more invasive to the civil rights of this country than the Patriot Act ever thought about being and I am mostly opposed to any further expansion of it.

If the activity of the anti abortion crowd falls under the purview of RICO, then I am ALL FOR IT as a rationale for stopping the thug-like behavior of the kooks that terrorize the abortion clinics.

I dont have much hope of the Supremes ruling in favor of this, however, they have been coming up with very very weird stuff lately.

[strandinthewind]

If the activity of the anti abortion crowd falls under the purview of RICO, then I am ALL FOR IT as a rationale for stopping the thug-like behavior of the kooks that terrorize the abortion clinics.

I dont have much hope of the Supremes ruling in favor of this, however, they have been coming up with very very weird stuff lately.

I think you nothing about RICO and the bane of the Fourth Amendment it has become. But, as long as abortion on demand is preserved what the hell does the right against unwarranted searches and seizures matter.

[irishgrl]

I think you nothing about RICO and the bane of the Fourth Amendment it has become. But, as long as abortion on demand is preserved what the hell does the right against unwarranted searches and seizures matter.

I am against unreasonable searches/seizures but RICO hasnt been as detrimental to that as the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine has....or possibly even the Patriot Act....I admit I dont know everything about RICO but
if the terroristic activities of the anti abortion nutjobs falls under the purview of RICO, then it does, and the perpetrators should be prosecuted for it. There has to be a clear message to these eejits that they cant go to these clinics and physically harm patients, or destroy the clinic, or threaten the patients or the medical personnel. What is it going to take? enuff is enuff.
These folks have demonstrated they have no problem stalking or killing doctors who perform abortions, so, as I said, I hope it flies.

Unfortunately, I dont think it will, and you have nothing to worry about :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

I am against unreasonable searches/seizures but RICO hasnt been as detrimental to that as the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine has....or possibly even the Patriot Act....I admit I dont know everything about RICO but
if the terroristic activities of the anti abortion nutjobs falls under the purview of RICO, then it does, and the perpetrators should be prosecuted for it. There has to be a clear message to these eejits that they cant go to these clinics and physically harm patients, or destroy the clinic, or threaten the patients or the medical personnel. What is it going to take? enuff is enuff.
These folks have demonstrated they have no problem stalking or killing doctors who perform abortions, so, as I said, I hope it flies.

Unfortunately, I dont think it will, and you have nothing to worry about :shrug:


RICO has been expanded from a method to catching criminal rackteers to a civil and criminal method for a witch hunt. Any lawyer who knows anything about RICO will tell you that. I am opposed to anything under RICO because I am opposed to any application of RICO past its original intent - no matter how harsh that application is to me personally.

And - if these folks are doing everything you say they are, then many other state and Federal laws exist to catch and prosecute them without further defiling the Fourth Amendment. I am a little shocked you disagree here, which leads me to believe you do not know about RICO and what it has become, which is a method of conducting witch hunts.

[strandinthewind]

Here are some articles on RICO :

http://www.aclu.org/NationalSecurity/NationalSecurity.cfm?ID=9139&c=111

http://www.varley.net/Pages/VarleyYarns/nbor.htm

:cool:

[irishgrl]

RICO has been expanded from a method to catching criminal rackteers to a civil and criminal method for a witch hunt. Any lawyer who knows anything about RICO will tell you that. I am opposed to anything under RICO because I am opposed to any application of RICO past its original intent - no matter how harsh that application is to me personally.

And - if these folks are doing everything you say they are, then many other state and Federal laws exist to catch and prosecute them without further defiling the Fourth Amendment. I am a little shocked you disagree here, which leads me to believe you do not know about RICO and what it has become, which is a method of conducting witch hunts.


I said I dont know a lot about RICO, all I do know is what it was originally intended for. But from the original article I posted, the issue was to STOP anti abortion protesters from physically harrassing abortion clinic patients, stop destroying clinics, stop harrassing doctors who perform abortions.

the State and Federal laws you mentioned have been useless against these folks, apparently even Rehnquist isnt willing to stop them:
Rehnquist conceded in 2003 that abortion protesters interfered with clinic operations and in some cases committed crimes. But he said because they did not extort money or valuables from the clinics, a lower court had wrongly imposed a ban on protests.

in case you missed it, here is the rationale for the current case:

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago then renewed the case on other grounds, that the threats of violence, or violent acts, may have been enough to qualify to sue under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

NOW attorney Fay Clayton, in papers filed with the Supreme Court, cited several examples of violence during protests, including one in which a patient was beaten unconscious with an anti-abortion sign.


I'll read your articles but Im sure I'll have comments later...

[irishgrl]

Here are some articles on RICO :

http://www.aclu.org/NationalSecurity/NationalSecurity.cfm?ID=9139&c=111

http://www.varley.net/Pages/VarleyYarns/nbor.htm

:cool:

Jason, the first article is about the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 ??? I dont see any mention of RICO, in fact it seems more likely this is related to the Patriot Act......the other article seems to be an Opinion piece, more of a rant actually...I think I will do my own research and I will share what I find :xoxo:


PS: even tho I am a card carrying member of the ACLU, I now detest them because they objected to the bill I was trying to have passed on the grounds that my bill "treated sex offenders as a separate class of people" to wit:
SB 544 (Battin)
Page 3



2. The blanket prohibition created in this bill
(you may recall, my bill REQUIRED
supervised visitation for children under 14 if a parent
had been convicted of certain sex related crimes where
the victim was a minor) eliminates judicial
consideration of the child's best interest

Judicial Council of California, the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU) and the California Judges
Association (CJA) oppose this bill because it eliminates
all judicial discretion in determining the best custody
or visitation arrangement for the child. The ACLU urges:

SB 544 is fundamentally flawed because it treats
registered sex offenders as a class of individuals to
whom it would not be 'in the best interests of the
child' to grant custody or unsupervised visitation
rights.(DUH!) Depending on the nature of the parent's crime
and the relationship between both parents and the
child, it may be in the best interest of the child for
custody to be granted to the registered sex offender
parent.


THIS bit of idiocy from my good friends at the ACLU....

[strandinthewind]

Jason, the first article is about the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 ??? I dont see any mention of RICO, in fact it seems more likely this is related to the Patriot Act......the other article seems to be an Opinion piece, more of a rant actually...I think I will do my own research and I will share what I find :xoxo:

From the first Article:

Part II -- General Concerns

There are other provisions of the bill that we believe warrant hearings and full debate and should be carefully reviewed for their due process and privacy implications. We believe these provisions raise serious civil liberties and due process concerns notwithstanding the events of September 11th.

Examples of these changes are:

Section 301 - eliminating the statute of limitations in terrorism offenses. This raises due process concerns. If the government delays in bringing a criminal charge the case may be so old that a person cannot adequately defend herself;

Section 302 - increasing all terrorism offenses to possible life sentences. This could create some very unfair results by exposing some people with limited involvement in the case to life sentences;

Section 303 --expanding RICO - the ACLU has had a long-standing concern about the RICO statute in that it is so broad and creates First Amendment concerns by prosecuting people because of "guilt by association";

________________________________________

I wrote a huge article on the damage done by the expansion of RICO from its original intent - I wish I could find it.

[strandinthewind]

I said I dont know a lot about RICO, all I do know is what it was originally intended for. But from the original article I posted, the issue was to STOP anti abortion protesters from physically harrassing abortion clinic patients, stop destroying clinics, stop harrassing doctors who perform abortions.

the State and Federal laws you mentioned have been useless against these folks, apparently even Rehnquist isnt willing to stop them: . . .

I disagree - many, though certainly not all, have been caught and prosecuted :shrug: I just do not think that essentially eradicating the Fourth Amendment justifies perhaps catching the rest when the same people enfircing the law will have to enforce the RICO statute and would seemingly be loathe to do that as well, if their law enforcement effort is the problem.

[strandinthewind]

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago then renewed the case on other grounds, that the threats of violence, or violent acts, may have been enough to qualify to sue under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

NOW attorney Fay Clayton, in papers filed with the Supreme Court, cited several examples of violence during protests, including one in which a patient was beaten unconscious with an anti-abortion sign.

I know and I am unsure that a mere threat is enough or should be enough to prosecute :shrug: but certainly the battery they mentioned would be. A threat would perhaps under a harrassment type of statute though. But, people should not go to jail for five or so years for threatening an abortion clinic any more so than they should for threatening an individual on the street.

[irishgrl]

here is what I found:
In 1970, Congress passed the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1961-1968. At the time, Congress' goal was to eliminate the ill-affects of organized crime on the nation's economy. To put it bluntly, RICO was intended to destroy the Mafia.

Throughout the 1970's, RICO's intended purpose and its actual use ran parallel to each other. Seldom was RICO used outside of the context of the Mafia, and it is not an overstatement to say that civil claims under RICO were simply not brought.

In the 1980's, however, civil lawyers noticed section 1964(c) of the RICO Act, which allows civil claims to be brought by any person injured in their business or property by reason of a RICO violation. Any person who succeeded in establishing a civil RICO claim would automatically receive judgment in the amount of three times their actual damages and would be awarded their costs and attorneys' fees. The financial windfall available under RICO inspired the creativity of lawyers across the nation, and by the late 1980's, RICO was a (if not the most) commonly asserted claim in federal court. Everyone was trying to depict civil claims, such as common law fraud, product defect, and breach of contract as criminal wrongdoing, which would in turn enable the filing of a civil RICO action.

RICO's broad application was the result of Congress' inclusion of mail and wire fraud as two crimes upon which a RICO claim could be brought. Given the breadth of activities that had historically been criminally prosecuted under the mail and wire fraud statutes, it was not difficult for creative civil attorneys to depict practically any wrongdoing as mail or wire fraud.

During the 1990's, the federal courts, guided by the United States Supreme Court, engaged in a concerted effort to limit the scope of RICO in the civil context. As a result of this effort, civil litigants must jump many hurdles and avoid many pitfalls before they can expect the financial windfall available under RICO, and RICO has become one of the most complicated and unpredictable areas of the law.

Today, RICO is almost never applied to the Mafia. Instead, it is applied to individuals, businesses, political protest groups, and terrorist organizations. In short, a RICO claim can arise in almost any context.

The purpose of this website is to simplify this very complicated area of the law and to articulate and make more predictable the legal standards that govern such claims.

and here is the outline of RICO (with commentary) (http://www.ricoact.com/ricoact/nutshell.asp)

here is the part that relates to the case at hand:

3. Extortion

What laypeople call extortion, lawyers call a violation of the Hobbs Act. The Hobbs Act states:

Whoever in anyway or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

As used in this section:

(1) The term "robbery" means the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property from the person or in the presence of another, against his will, by means of actual or threatened force, or violence, or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property, or property in his custody or possession, or the person or property of a relative or member of his family or of anyone in his company at the time of the taking or obtaining.

(2) The term "extortion" means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.

(3) The term "commerce" means commerce within the District of Columbia, or any Territory or Possession of the United States, all commerce between any point in a State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and any point outside thereof, all commerce between points within the same State through any place outside such State and all commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction.

18 U.S.C. § 1951 (emphasis added). In essence, the Hobbs Act elevates all but the simplest acts of robbery and extortion to the level of federal crimes.

This also applies:
3. Civil Remedies Under Section 1964(c)

When passed by Congress in 1970, the expectation was that most RICO claims would be brought by U.S. Attorneys in the criminal context. In the 1980s, however, RICO's tail (i.e., it's civil remedies provision) began to wag the dog. Civil RICO claims exploded, and ever since, the number of criminal RICO claims filed every year is a small fraction of the number of civil actions brought under RICO. Congress paid so little attention to RICO's civil remedy provision that it failed to specify a statute of limitations for civil RICO claims.

RICO's civil remedies provision, section 1964(c), states:

Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefore in any appropriate United States district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including reasonable attorney's fees . . . .

Although apparently straight-forward, this provision contains several nuances that must be considered before filing any civil RICO claim.


Here are the basic concepts summarized:
CONCLUSION: KEY CONCEPTS OF RICO JURISPRUDENCE

There are 17 key concepts of RICO jurisprudence. Before bringing any civil RICO action or before responding to any civil RICO complaint, a practitioner or party should understand and be able to apply all of these concepts:

1. RICO encompasses both legitimate and illegitimate enterprises. United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576 (1981).

2. Under RICO, section 1962(c), there must be a distinction between the RICO "person" and the RICO "enterprise." An individual cannot "associate" with himself. This is known as the person / enterprise distinction. River City Markets, Inc. v. Fleming Foods West, Inc., 960 F.2d 1458 (9th Cir. 1992).

3. With regard to the person / enterprise distinction, one can associate with a group of which he is a member while the member and the group remain distinct. Riverwoods Chappaqua Corp. v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A., 30 F.3d 339 (3d Cir. 1995).

4. RICO's person / enterprise distinction is NOT met by alleging that a corporation associated with its own employees, agents, subdivisions or affiliates. Riverwoods Chappaqua Corp. v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A., 30 F.3d 339 (3d Cir. 1995).

5. Under RICO, section 1962(c), there also must be a distinction between the enterprise and the racketeering activity; in other words, members of an enterprise must be linked by more than their participation in the same pattern of racketeering activity. This is known as the racketeering activity / enterprise distinction. McDonough v. National Home Ins. Co., 108 F.3d 174 (8th Cir. 1997).

6. A RICO enterprise need not be economically motivated. National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249 (1993).

7. To be liable under section 1962(c), a person must participate in the operation or management of the enterprise itself. Reves v. Ernst & Young, 507 U.S. 170 (1993).

8. Since 1995, a civil RICO claim cannot be based upon allegations of a securities fraud violation; a defendant must be criminally convicted of securities fraud before he can be subject to civil liability on the basis of securities fraud violations. 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).

9. A RICO claim can be predicated on mail and wire fraud alone but should not be so predicated. RICOAct.com.

10. The factors of continuity plus relationship combine to produce a pattern. H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tele. Co., 492 U.S. 299 (1989).

11. A close-ended pattern must generally last one year. Grimmett v. Brown, 75 F.3d 506 (9th Cir. 1996).

12. A plaintiff has standing only to the extent that she has been injured in her business or property "by reason of" the conduct constituting the violation; a defendant who violates section 1962(c) is not liable for treble damages to everyone she might have injured by other conduct (e.g., breach of contract or negligence) nor is the defendant liable to those who have not been injured. Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc., 473 U.S. 479 (1985); Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corp., 503 U.S. 258 (1992).

13. Always bring a section 1962(d) claim; never bring a section 1962(a) or (b) claim without a 1962(c) claim. RICOAct.com

14. A RICO claim must be brought within 4 years of accrual. Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff Associates, Inc. 483 U.S. 143 (1987).

15. Aa RICO claim accrues and the statute of limitations begins to run when the victim discovers or reasonably should have discovered its injury. Klehr v. A.O. Smith Corp., 521 U.S. 179 (1997); Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549 (2000).

16. A plaintiff can bring a federal civil RICO claim in either state or federal court. Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455 (1990).

17. If agreed to by the parties, RICO claims may be arbitrated. Shearson / American Express, Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220 (1987).

[irishgrl]

I disagree - many, though certainly not all, have been caught and prosecuted :shrug: I just do not think that essentially eradicating the Fourth Amendment justifies perhaps catching the rest when the same people enfircing the law will have to enforce the RICO statute and would seemingly be loathe to do that as well, if their law enforcement effort is the problem.

Jason, I fail to see how an application of RICO with respect to anti-abortion protesters wreaking violence upon clinic patients constitutes gutting the 4th Amendment!!! Please explain how this is considered an unreasonable search or seizure? What is the connect here? DO speak UP!

[irishgrl]

From the first Article:

Part II -- General Concerns
Section 303 --expanding RICO - the ACLU has had a long-standing concern about the RICO statute in that it is so broad and creates First Amendment concerns by prosecuting people because of "guilt by association";

________________________________________

I wrote a huge article on the damage done by the expansion of RICO from its original intent - I wish I could find it.

ok, now Im really curious: The ACLU states it is concerned about RICO because it creates FIRST AMENDMENT CONCERNS, (NOT 4th Amendment, you'll notice!)



Look, Im against unreasonable searches and seizures as much as the next person, but Im telling you the Patriot Act is FAR more invasive that what you've shown me so far....

[strandinthewind]

Jason, I fail to see how an application of RICO with respect to anti-abortion protesters wreaking violence upon clinic patients constitutes gutting the 4th Amendment!!! Please explain how this is considered an unreasonable search or seizure? What is the connect here? DO speak UP!

RICO itself has gutted the Fourth Amendment. The discovery provisions within that statute are horrid and essentially the govt. can do anything it wants to you with just the mere suggestion by a third party that you have exhibited a pattern of racketeering activitities over state lines - oncluding essentially warrantless searches - which mirrors the Patriot Act. That is why I often content the Patriot Act is really not that big of a deviation from the current law. Also, under RICO, the govt. can essentially seize all your assets and never realy return them. How about them apples. That is why I hate RICO and think it should not be applied outside of the organized crime context in which it was originally written. But, for the sake of argument, protesting and harrassing an abortion clinic hardly appears to satisfy the criteria of RICO in any form.

[strandinthewind]

Here are some more articles:

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12161&c=206

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0202/0202patriot.htm

http://sflaborcouncil.org/control/assets/packet%20patriot%20II%20report.pdf

http://billroggio.com/archives/2004/05/a_critical_issu.php

http://www.omnicenter.org/justicecollection/patriotact.htm#usapatriotact

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/23/patriot.act/

Not that many lay people know or care about RICO - but that is the source of all of this civil rights bruhaha today.

[strandinthewind]

As for the First Amendment and RICO:

PROTECTING ANTI-ABORTION PROTESTS, PROTECTS ALL
By CHARLES LEVENDOSKY
Casper Star-Tribune
On Feb. 26, a nearly unanimous U.S. Supreme Court protected the right of protest for anti-abortion demonstrators -- and for everyone else, as well.

The 8-to-1 decision (Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc.) will not be popular with those who find the tactics of Operation Rescue and others who actively oppose legal abortion threatening, destructive and coercive.

The National Organization for Women filed a class action lawsuit against the Pro-Life Action Network (PLAN), Joseph Scheidler, Operation Rescue and several individuals, claiming a nationwide conspiracy to shut down abortion clinics through the use of extortion.

NOW had won their lawsuit at the federal district court level and at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The district court entered a permanent nationwide injunction prohibiting the anti-abortion organizations from obstructing access to abortion clinics, from trespassing on clinic property, from damaging clinic property, or from using violence or threats of violence against the clinics, their employees or their patients. The appellate court upheld that injunction as well as the damages awarded by the jury which heard the case in the district court.

Scheidler and company appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and there the judicial tide turned.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote the opinion for the high court. NOW had sued the anti-abortion groups asserting they had committed numerous acts of extortion within the meaning of a federal criminal law, the Hobbs Act. NOW also asserted that the groups' nationwide pattern of criminal activity violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

The Hobbs Act defines extortion as "the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right."

In the decision, Rehnquist acknowledges: "There is not dispute in these cases that petitioners (Scheidler, et al.) interfered with, disrupted, and in some instances completely deprived respondents (NOW, et al.) of their ability to exercise their property rights."

Even the attorney for the anti-abortion groups readily admitted in oral argument that his clients' conduct was criminal, agreeing that his clients had committed trespass and the destruction of property, among other things.

However, the crux of the lawsuit rested on whether the anti-abortion groups had committed extortion. Rehnquist writes: "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 (Scheidler, et al.) did not 'obtain' respondents' (NOW, et al.) property."

Rehnquist describes the actions of the anti-abortion groups as a crime of coercion -- the use of force or threat of force to restrict another's freedom of action -- but not extortion.

Rehnquist sums up the high court's position: "Because we find that petitioners did not obtain or attempt to obtain property from respondents, we conclude that there was no basis upon which to find that they committed extortion under the Hobbs Act." Since there was no pattern of extortion, according to the high court, the severe penalties of RICO do not come into play. RICO requires a prior showing of and a conviction for a pattern of serious criminal activity.

RICO allows both criminal penalties and heavy civil liabilities. Both law enforcement and private citizens can bring action against those who engage in conduct covered by the act. One can receive a 20-year sentence for a single criminal violation of RICO. A private citizen can receive three times the actual damages suffered as well as attorneys' fees from a person who, in acting against the citizen, violated RICO.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a short concurring opinion, which was joined by Justice Stephen Breyer, points out the dangers involved in using RICO. And this is really the heart of the matter. Ginsburg writes that a decision in favor of NOW would have ramifications far beyond the original intent of the RICO act.

In a footnote to the Ginsburg concurrence, she notes that at oral argument, the U.S. Solicitor General was asked: "Do you agree that your interpretation would have been applicable to the civil rights sit-ins?" He responded: "Under some circumstances, it could have if illegal force or threats were used to prevent a business from operating."

The use of RICO to punish protests with which we disagree would inevitably stifle all protests. NOW unwisely took an approach against anti-abortion activists that might have struck back like a snake. For example, women protesting against unfair labor practices or unequal pay -- if a few people in the protest were to engage in destructive acts -- could find themselves the target of a RICO prosecution.

The severity of RICO penalties, whether criminal or civil, when used against legitimate free speech activities like demonstrations, protests or marches would soon silence even the most significant voices of dissent. Often, it is through dissent that we hear the full spectrum of minority opinions.

The Supreme Court was correct in reversing the lower federal courts' rulings. In its decision, the high court ensured the right of protest for everyone across the social-political spectrum -- for now.

Unfortunately, the USA PATRIOT Act creates a new federal crime of "domestic terrorism" that extends to "acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of criminal laws" if they "appear to be intended to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion."

Under the Patriot Act, would an anti-abortion protest fall under this new crime? The high court agreed that coercion was used by the protestors.

Does a march for peace in the nation's capital become an act of domestic terrorism if someone throws a rock through a window of a business? The march is certainly "intended to influence the policy" of the Bush administration. Does a march for peace of 250,000 individuals constitute "intimidation"?

The Supreme Court will undoubtedly face this issue in the near future. Let us hope the grit and respect for First Amendment activities that informed the Scheidler decision remain intact.


Copyright Casper Star-Tribune
March 2, 2003

http://fact.trib.com/1st.lev.protestnoextort.html
___________________________________________

He has a point :shrug: unless you think no one should be able to protest an abortion clinic :shrug: I think they have a Constitutional right to be there peacefully.

Here are some more:

http://www.fsu.edu/~crimdo/rico.html

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_rico.htm

[irishgrl]

I know and I am unsure that a mere threat is enough or should be enough to prosecute :shrug: but certainly the battery they mentioned would be. A threat would perhaps under a harrassment type of statute though. But, people should not go to jail for five or so years for threatening an abortion clinic any more so than they should for threatening an individual on the street.

actually a threat IS enuff, take a look at the stuff I posted on page 2:

3. Extortion

What laypeople call extortion, lawyers call a violation of the Hobbs Act. The Hobbs Act states:

Whoever in anyway or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

I am not sure if the Hobbs Act is included in RICO.....if not, then this avenue of litigation may not pan out. If so, this may have legs.

[strandinthewind]

actually a threat IS enuff, take a look at the stuff I posted on page 2:


it should not be - I mean what constitutes a threat - a peacful protest outside the clinic :shrug: I cannot believe you are actually arguing this. I mean under your rationale, if you said something more than once on the net and it was a treat - well, they can prosecute you under RICO - that is scary and unfair.

[strandinthewind]

actually a threat IS enuff, take a look at the stuff I posted on page 2:


I am not sure if the Hobbs Act is included in RICO.....if not, then this avenue of litigation may not pan out. If so, this may have legs.

3. Extortion

What laypeople call extortion, lawyers call a violation of the Hobbs Act. The Hobbs Act states:

Whoever in anyway or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

I think we are talking about two different things. Extortion is a crime. A threat is not for the most part. I mean I cannot call Burger King and threaten to blow them up. That is a crime and not one under RICO if I do it only once and within state lines (for the most part). But, what about if I call Burger King and say "If you do not stop this behavior, I am going to organize a national protest and your sales will fall to nothing and we will not relent until you comply" - that certainly fits the borad def. in the Hobbs Act and perhaps a liberal def. of RICO - but where is the crime? Same with an abortion clinic - I can organize 1,000 people everyday to go and peacefuly protest within a safe distance from the clinic in a direct effort to thwart that clinics patrons and I have committed no crime and, in fact, an participating in Constitutionally protected speech..

[irishgrl]

Even the attorney for the anti-abortion groups readily admitted in oral argument that his clients' conduct was criminal, agreeing that his clients had committed trespass and the destruction of property, among other things.

WHY weren't they prosecuted then? If the Attorney can stand up and say that his client's conduct was criminal, and Rehnquist states the conduct was criminal, WHERE IS THE PENALTY? WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE? So much for the state and federal laws that are supposed to protect us....

Im still not sure I follow your assertion that RICO itself guts the 4th Amendment...from what I read, for a person to be prosecutable under RICO, they have to have been charged/convicted of the underlying crimes of extortion/bribery/robbery etc....so, it looks to me like a RICO conviction is only possible if the core crime has been successfully litigated FIRST

[strandinthewind]

WHY weren't they prosecuted then? If the Attorney can stand up and say that his client's conduct was criminal, and Rehnquist states the conduct was criminal, WHERE IS THE PENALTY? WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE? So much for the state and federal laws that are supposed to protect us....

Im still not sure I follow your assertion that RICO itself guts the 4th Amendment...from what I read, for a person to be prosecutable under RICO, they have to have been charged/convicted of the underlying crimes of extortion/bribery/robbery etc....so, it looks to me like a RICO conviction is only possible if the core crime has been successfully litigated FIRST

Often RICO is never prosecuted. It is just alleged so the warrantless searches can happen and the property seized.

As for the lack of prosecution, they very well may have been and that prosecusion was not part of this case. But, if they were not, they should have been. But, the lack of prosecution under a correct method cannot warrant or validate an improper prosecution under RICO.

[irishgrl]

it should not be - I mean what constitutes a threat - a peacful protest outside the clinic :shrug: I cannot believe you are actually arguing this. I mean under your rationale, if you said something more than once on the net and it was a treat - well, they can prosecute you under RICO - that is scary and unfair.

actually the terminology went a bit further, as in threat that made another fear for his/her safety...a "threat" in LAW is more than just saying the words, it also implies fear of imminent harm.....much like the common misconception people have of assault vs. battery, where an assault is a threat of harm and the battery is the actual harm.....

by the way: protests outside abortion clinics are RARELY peaceful. This is WAR to these folks.

[irishgrl]

Often RICO is never prosecuted. It is just alleged so the warrantless searches can happen and the property seized.

As for the lack of prosecution, they very well may have been and that prosecusion was not part of this case. But, if they were not, they should have been. But, the lack of prosecution under a correct method cannot warrant or validate an improper prosecution under RICO.

well, it remains to be seen whether a RICO prosecution is improper...I also read that seldom do these cases survive a motion to dismiss.......

[strandinthewind]

. . .

by the way: protests outside abortion clinics are RARELY peaceful. This is WAR to these folks.
then the ones that are not should be prosecuted under the local law. But, you cannot deny someone their right to protest under the First Amendment just because someone else does not do it peacefully. -- are you actually that nuts on abortion that you are arguing that :eek:

[strandinthewind]

well, it remains to be seen whether a RICO prosecution is improper...I also read that seldom do these cases survive a motion to dismiss.......

No - it is improper. Go read the statute and tell me how it possibly applies here. There is no racketeering - period. It is the exercise of free speech that if not peaceful - must be prosecuted under the appropriate law. Now, if they found a network in two states that was advocating specific violence or other illegal activity and there was a clear and provable pattern of that - I'd say fire away under RICO - but I am not sure they showed that here, though I read this case a long time ago.

[strandinthewind]

. . . I also read that seldom do these cases survive a motion to dismiss.......

Thus, they prosecution uses a meritless charge to get around the Fourth Amendment - which is just wrong and horrifying to me. I mean if I do not like it when the prosecution does it in regular cases, I have to not like it in this case.

[irishgrl]

I think we are talking about two different things. Extortion is a crime. A threat is not for the most part. I mean I cannot call Burger King and threaten to blow them up. That is a crime and not one under RICO if I do it only once and within state lines (for the most part). But, what about if I call Burger King and say "If you do not stop this behavior, I am going to organize a national protest and your sales will fall to nothing and we will not relent until you comply" - that certainly fits the borad def. in the Hobbs Act and perhaps a liberal def. of RICO - but where is the crime? Same with an abortion clinic - I can organize 1,000 people everyday to go and peacefuly protest within a safe distance from the clinic in a direct effort to thwart that clinics patrons and I have committed no crime and, in fact, an participating in Constitutionally protected speech..

if these protester's limited their activities to SPEECH alone, this would be a non issue. Unfortunately they do NOT limit their activity to speech alone (protected or otherwise) When patients are accosted, shoved, beat unconscious, then these nutjobs SHOULD BE PROSECUTED, but every case that broaches the subject of anti-abortion protesters seems to let these folks off seemingly without a scratch...in fact the ban on protesting has been lifted so that now protesters can be closer than ever as they exercise their FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS :mad: which can include blocking the doorway etc....this just makes me sick because at NO OTHER CLINIC do you have people interfering with patients or their caregivers :mad: :mad: :mad:

[strandinthewind]

if these protester's limited their activities to SPEECH alone, this would be a non issue. Unfortunately they do NOT limit their activity to speech alone (protected or otherwise) When patients are accosted, shoved, beat unconscious, then these nutjobs SHOULD BE PROSECUTED, but every case that broaches the subject of anti-abortion protesters seems to let these folks off seemingly without a scratch...in fact the ban on protesting has been lifted so that now protesters can be closer than ever as they exercise their FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS :mad: which can include blocking the doorway etc....this just makes me sick because at NO OTHER CLINIC do you have people interfering with patients or their caregivers :mad: :mad: :mad:

I may be wrong, but I have never heard of anyone beating anyone unconscious in such a situation that was not prosecuted. In fact, I seem to rememeber the prosecution of several people who bombed clinics, etc. So, I think that might be hyperbole :shrug:

[irishgrl]

No - it is improper. Go read the statute and tell me how it possibly applies here. There is no racketeering - period. It is the exercise of free speech that if not peaceful - must be prosecuted under the appropriate law. Now, if they found a network in two states that was advocating specific violence or other illegal activity and there was a clear and provable pattern of that - I'd say fire away under RICO - but I am not sure they showed that here, though I read this case a long time ago.

and if the network was based on the internet? that asked its members to "go to your neighborhood Planned Parenthood clinic on such and such day and stand in front of the door and yell at the patients as they come in for their procedures.."
you get the idea....email action alerts are VERY common.........I wonder if they DO have evidence of this? Why else would the Appellate Court want to RETRY this under RICO unless there was some NEW aspect to develop?
I say, its still up to the court to decide improper.....since we arent privy to discovery, we really cant say.......

[strandinthewind]

a google of "prosecution violence abortion clinics" produces a bunch of articles on this - too many to list here :laugh:

[irishgrl]

a google of "prosecution violence abortion clinics" produces a bunch of articles on this - too many to list here :laugh:

I must be the only person on the PLANET who doesnt GOOGLE.........:]

[strandinthewind]

and if the network was based on the internet? that asked its members to "go to your neighborhood Planned Parenthood clinic on such and such day and stand in front of the door and yell at the patients as they come in for their procedures.."
you get the idea....email action alerts are VERY common.........I wonder if they DO have evidence of this? Why else would the Appellate Court want to RETRY this under RICO unless there was some NEW aspect to develop?
I say, its still up to the court to decide improper.....since we arent privy to discovery, we really cant say.......

they would have to block access to the clinic (FACE ? ) or be openly violent or commit some other crime (or conspire to) for RICO to apply. Protesting in a peaceful and lawfu manner is not enough. I mean that is a double edged sword - there must be some protests you advocate - do you want that standard (the mere alerting of a protest) to be applied then :shrug:

RICO is often asserted to circumnavigate the fourth amendment, which I suspect is why it was applied here. I just cannot abide that no matter my thoughts on the people it is being applied against. But, they could have enough to go forward with a valid RICO claim here, but that case would tread dangerously close to the freedom of speech/assembly concepts.

[strandinthewind]

I must be the only person on the PLANET who doesnt GOOGLE.........:]

that explains a lot ;) :xoxo: :angel: ;) :wavey: :D

[irishgrl]

that explains a lot ;) :xoxo: :angel: ;) :wavey: :D

my research is every bit as good as YOURS my dear! Google seems like potluck if you ask me.....

AND: I am NOT talking about PEACEFUL protests, only violent or harassing ones.
as I said, these protests outside Abortion clinics are RARELY peaceful, this is a WAR folks, the fundies want control over women's bodies...and BY GOD, I am not going to stand by and say/do nothing.....

[irishgrl]

they would have to block access to the clinic (FACE ? ) or be openly violent or commit some other crime (or conspire to) for RICO to apply.

precisely. please RE-READ the original post, there HAS BEEN VIOLENCE. As well as clinic blocking. If that's what it takes, then RICO apparently applies.

Again, we will see what the freakin' MIB decide, but as I said, from what they've been handing down lately, I dont expect anything good for women's rights....

[strandinthewind]

precisely. please RE-READ the original post, there HAS BEEN VIOLENCE. As well as clinic blocking. If that's what it takes, then RICO apparently applies.

Again, we will see what the freakin' MIB decide, but as I said, from what they've been handing down lately, I dont expect anything good for women's rights....

Well, RICO was not really originaly put forth to address that - but it has been broadened to encompass it - which I object to. I do not think it is worth gutting the Fourth Amendment. I think law enforcement should prsecute them via the reg. law. I know you will never admit that because an abortion clinic is involved :shrug:

[irishgrl]

Well, RICO was not really originaly put forth to address that - but it has been broadened to encompass it - which I object to. I do not think it is worth gutting the Fourth Amendment. I think law enforcement should prsecute them via the reg. law. I know you will never admit that because an abortion clinic is involved :shrug:

No, I agree that they should be prosecuted via normal channels, but if I read RICO rightly, there should have already been a related prosecution. Maybe the defendants WERE prosecuted via regular channels, I couldnt tell that from the article...

But here's the thing: I dont see how prosecuting anti-abortion protesters under RICO violates 4th Amendment at ALL! have these defendants been illegally searched or seized?

I also want to say that in my reading, I noticed that the author commented that one of the prime targets in these RICO searches is computer hard drives, therefore, maybe there has been some internet hanky panky going on? Just a thought...


finally, I have said three times now that I dont agree with unreasonable searches or seizures. I dont know if RICO is the answer or not. I dont have all the facts re: discovery or why the Appellate Court felt compelled to retry this under OTHER grounds. Hopefully the answer will become clear in time...