sacase;1554450 said:
But at this point he is not charged with RICO violations nor Rackateering nor gambling.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. You can't possibly be this stupid. Read the fricking indictment. It's right there. Gambling is in plain english. Racketeering is the statute alleged. Two RICO violations.
You don't know *** you are talking about and you are about to start pissing me off by arguing with me from your own pillar of ignorance. If you don't know jack**** about the law, then usually its not a good idea to argue with a lawyer.
sacase;1554450 said:
At this point, no one has even mentioned RICO or Rackateering, it hasn't even been associated with this case at all. Cobra specifically said they got him on RICO. That is not true, at this point it is only conspiracy charge.
Cobra, what exactly are the 35 charges that can result in a RICO case and do they have to charge them with 2 counts or do they have to only committ two acts.
(A) You don't know what RICO is nor what it means. Nor do you apparently know how indictments read for such violations.
(B) If you read, the indictment, which you clearly did not, then you will see the following:
"... carrying on of the unlawful activity, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, section 1952."
He is be accused of violating that provision of the USC.
Now your ignorant *** then throws out the following:
sacase;1554450 said:
But at this point he is not charged with...Rackateering
You said he is not charged with rackteering. But he is charged with violating 18 USC 1952. So let's take a look at what that is:
18 USC 1952
Without posting the entire statute, let me just point you to the title:
§ 1952. Interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises
What's that? Oh, that's right, sacase apparently doesn't know *** he is talking about.
(b) As used in this section (i) “unlawful activity” means
(1) any business enterprise involving gambling...
Hmmm... maybe so gambling is an unlawful activity defined as rackteering. Further proof sacase is ignorant about what he is talking about.
Let's look now at
RICO.
From the first sentence of the statute:
(1) “racketeering activity” means (A) any act or threat involving ...gambling.... which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year;
So gambling has to be chargeable under state law in order to be racketeering? Hmm... Maybe that's why they listed those Virginia statutes in the indictment..... maybe. Call me crazy, but that seems like a safe bet to me.
So gambling is one incident. Let's see if there is a second one. Hmm.... back in that same section:
B) any act which is indictable under any of the following provisions of title 18, United States Code:... section
1952 (relating to racketeering)
So any act in violation of section 1952 is also an act of rackteering. Wait, a minute.... that is the section we are talking about above that he was indicted under!
So let's see...
“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;
So he needs at least two acts of rackteering activity. So we go back to the definition.
So gambling that is violative of Virginia laws is one. And violating section 1952 is a second one.
That's two!
Oh my! Look like we have a RICO act indictment here, people!
Apparently sacase is dumb enough that he thinks an indictment reads "You are charged with gambing and violating RICO." No. It reads like this one does. The elements of the crime are alleged, and the actual charges are flushed out later.
Since you obviously don't know what the hell you are talking about, I would appreciate if you would keep your ignorance off the board so as to now confused anyone here.
