Our St. Johns County Commission appears to be owned and controlled by clearcutting "developers" who fund the campaigns of Commissioners. Commissioners voted 3-2 on April 15, 2025 to hire the Florida House Speaker-elect's corporate law firm as County Attorney. Is our St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners an "enterprise" covered by the criminal and civil provisions of the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The Tennessee Governor's office was found to be an "enterprise" as it existed under corrupt bribe-taking Democratic Governor Leonard Ray Blanton. See United States v. Thompson, 685 F.2d 993 (6th Cir. 1982)(en banc), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1972 (1983) Tennessee Governor Ray Blanton was convicted of selling liquor licenses. Blanton also pardoned convicted murderers for bribes and he was removed from office early as a result. Fun fact: On January 17, 1979, the day of Blanton's removal from office, I was in Nashville investigating Tennessee Valley Authority coal procurement corruption, visiting one of my mentors, the indefatigable Pulitzer Prize winning investigative reporter, Nat Caldwell. Tennessee's culture of corruption: Upon Blanton's eventual release from federal prison, several sitting justices of the Tennessee Supreme Court reportedly shook his hand at the State Capitol. Read the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit's en banc decision, upheld by the United States Supreme Court in denying the writ of certiorari:
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. William Aubrey Thompson, Thomas Edward Sisk and CharlesFrederick Taylor, Defendants-appellants, 685 F.2d 993 (6th Cir. 1982)
Argued April 26, 1982. Decided Aug. 4, 1982
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. William Aubrey Thompson, Thomas Edward Sisk, Charlesfrederick Taylor, Defendants-appellants, 669 F.2d 1143 (6th Cir. 1982)
Annotate this CaseHenry A. Martin, Haile & Martin, W. Gary Blackburn, Robert C. Watson, Nashville, Tenn., court appointed, for defendants-appellants.
Joe B. Brown, U. S. Atty., William M. Cohen, Asst. U. S. Atty., Nashville, Tenn., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before LIVELY and JONES, Circuit Judges, and PECK, Senior Circuit Judge.
JOHN W. PECK, Senior Circuit Judge.
The defendants-appellants, through motions in arrest of judgment following guilty pleas, raise the issue whether the office of the Governor of the State of Tennessee may be an "enterprise" under Title IX of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, 84 Stat. 922 (1970). This Title, one of twelve within the Act, is commonly known by the acronym RICO, from the chapter heading "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations." 18 U.S.C. ch. 96.
The pertinent facts are as follows. Each of the appellants was connected in the mid-to-late 1970's with the office of the Governor of Tennessee. In an indictment alleging that that office "was an 'enterprise' as defined by Title 18, United States Code, Section 1961(4)," the appellants were charged with violating RICO by "selling" executive clemency and immunity from extradition through the governor's office.1
The appellants argue that Congress did not intend the application of RICO to such enterprises, or that if Congress did so intend, then RICO is unconstitutional. As will become clear from this opinion, it is unnecessary for us to reach the constitutional question posed by the appellants.
INTERPRETING RICO
A. RICO's "Plain Language."
The meaning of the term "enterprise" within RICO has been often and hotly litigated. The Supreme Court has recently laid to rest the dispute whether wholly illegitimate concerns can be RICO enterprises. They can. United States v. Turkette, --- U.S. ----, ----, 101 S. Ct. 2524, 2527-34, 69 L. Ed. 2d 246 (1981).
We follow the method of interpreting statutes laid down in Turkette. In that case, the Court looked first to the statutory definition of "enterprise." See --- U.S. at ----, 101 S. Ct. at 2527. The statutory definition is on its face clear and broad. " '(E)nterprise' 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 ...." 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4). The Court noted that this language is unambiguous in including legitimate as well as illegitimate enterprises. The statutory language itself was therefore regarded as conclusive. See --- U.S. at ----, 101 S. Ct. at 2527. Accord, United States v. Sutton, 642 F.2d 1001, 1006 (6th Cir. 1980) (en banc), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 101 S. Ct. 3144, 69 L. Ed. 2d 995 (1981). The Court in Turkette recognized, however, that "there is no errorless test for identifying or recognizing 'plain' or 'unambiguous' language," and that in construing statutes "absurd results are to be avoided and internal inconsistencies in the statute must be dealt with." --- U.S. at ----, 101 S. Ct. at 2527. See also Trans Alaska Pipeline Rate Cases, 436 U.S. 631, 643, 98 S. Ct. 2053, 2061, 56 L. Ed. 2d 591 (1978); Commissioner v. Brown, 380 U.S. 563, 571, 85 S. Ct. 1162, 1166, 14 L. Ed. 2d 75 (1965). In short, courts in construing statutes must look beyond the statutes' words not only if the words themselves are unclear, but also if a discrete statutory provision is anomalous in effect. It is, therefore, "fundamental that a section of a statute should not be read in isolation from the context of the whole Act, and that in fulfilling our responsibility in interpreting legislation, we must not be guided by a single sentence or member of a sentence, but (should) look to the provisions of the whole law, and to its object and policy." Richards v. United States, 369 U.S. 1, 11, 82 S. Ct. 585, 591, 7 L. Ed. 2d 492 (1962).
Application of RICO's civil remedies to state government enterprises would result in anomalous results: district courts would not only be authorized to "prohibit any person from engaging in the same type of endeavor as the enterprise engaged in ...," but also to order "dissolution or reorganization of any enterprise ...." 18 U.S.C. § 1964(a) (emphasis added). To hold that Congress has authorized federal district courts to dissolve or reorganize the offices of the governors of the states, and that it did so sub silentio,2 is shocking and absurd.
Although the Court in Turkette stated that "(e)ven if one or more of the civil remedies (in RICO) might be inapplicable to a particular illegitimate enterprise, this fact would not serve to limit the enterprise concept," --- U.S. at ----, 101 S. Ct. at 2530, that remark must be read in proper context. Given the patent concern with organized crime's economic power that engendered RICO's enactment, application of that statute to wholly illegitimate, as well as legitimate enterprises, was a fortiori. Such application yields no startling results. In these appeals we are not presented, as was the Supreme Court in Turkette, with cases in which various of RICO's civil remedies would be merely impracticable. Dissolution or reorganization of a governmental entity would certainly not be impracticable; the question is whether these remedies were placed within district court's authority. If Congress may grant such authority sub silentio, then we have witnessed in our times the destruction of the states as sovereign political entities. Cf. National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833, 842-52, 96 S. Ct. 2465, 2470-2474, 49 L. Ed. 2d 245 (1976) (Commerce Clause does not authorize Congress to force upon the states essential choices regarding conduct of integral government functions.)
B. The Legislative History of the Organized Crime Control Act.
Having decided that the application of RICO to government "enterprises" yields anomalous consequences, we proceed to examine the history of the Organized Crime Control Act to see if the legislature clearly intended these consequences. With the highest degree of certainty by which an historical "fact" can be known, it can be said that Congress did not envision the present application of RICO in passing the Organized Crime Control Act.
In arguing to the contrary, the government points out that Title IX of the Act "shall be liberally construed to effectuate its remedial purposes." Pub. L. 91-452, § 904, reprinted in (1970) U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1073, at 1104. This language has led some courts to what we feel to be erroneous constructions of Title IX, for to determine these "broad remedial purposes" (on which Title IX itself is silent) courts have looked to the stated purposes of the entire Act.3 The Congressional Statement of Findings and Purpose that precedes the Act reads:
The Congress finds that (1) organized crime in the United States is a highly sophisticated, diversified, and widespread activity that annually drains billions of dollars from America's economy by unlawful conduct and the illegal use of force, fraud, and corruption; (2) organized crime derives a major portion of its power through money obtained from such illegal endeavors as syndicated gambling, loan sharking, the theft and fencing of property, the importation and distribution of narcotics and other dangerous drugs, and other forms of social exploitation; (3) this money and power are increasingly used to infiltrate and corrupt legitimate business and labor unions and to subvert and corrupt our democratic processes ; (4) organized crime activities in the United States weaken the stability of the Nation's economic system, harm innocent investors and competing organizations, interfere with free competition, seriously burden interstate and foreign commerce, threaten the domestic security, and undermine the general welfare of the Nation and its citizens ; and (5) organized crime continues to grow because of defects in the evidence-gathering process of the law inhibiting the development of the legally admissible evidence necessary to bring criminal and other sanctions or remedies to bear on the unlawful activities of those engaged in organized crime and because the sanctions and remedies available to the Government are unnecessarily limited in scope and impact.
It is the purpose of this Act to seek the eradication of organized crime in the United States by strengthening the legal tools in the evidence-gathering process, by establishing new penal prohibitions, and by providing enhanced sanctions and new remedies to deal with the unlawful activities of those engaged in organized crime.
84 Stat. 922-23 (emphasis added).
The emphasized phrases certainly indicate a Congressional concern over corruption of government by organized crime. See, e.g., United States v. Angelilli, 660 F.2d 23, 32 (2d Cir. 1981). There is, however, no cause to equate the aims of the entire Act with those of one part of it. See United States v. Grzywacz, 603 F.2d 682, 690 n.1 (7th Cir. 1979) (Swygert, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 935, 100 S. Ct. 2152, 64 L. Ed. 2d 788 (1980). The Second Circuit, although holding that RICO enterprises included government entities, was obliged to note that "the congressional discussion devoted expressly to Title IX did not state that government entities were to be the beneficiaries of RICO's substantive provisions ...." Angelilli, supra, 660 F.2d at 33. In other words, even though RICO is supposed to be a part of Congress's attack on organized crime's corruption of government, such corruption was never mentioned in the Congressional debate on RICO itself. Rather, corruption of government surfaced most often in the legislature's discussion of Title I of the bill, which provided for the creation of special grand juries authorized to report on the misconduct of public officers or employees. See 18 U.S.C. § 3333(a) (1). The remarks of Senator Byrd concerning the two titles of the bill illustrate where the legislative concern over corruption of government was expressed in the statutory scheme:
I am especially optimistic about title I of S. 30-the special grand jury provisions. Time and time again in our history, aroused citizens have demonstrated their devotion to law and order in the face of official timidity and inaction. Prosecutors and judges may be scared or bought off, but citizens, properly empowered, can step in and do the job which their officials fail to do. I believe that title I represents the best opportunity for the average citizen to play a significant role in the war against organized crime.
It is encouraging that title I absolutely requires the convening of special grand juries in our major metropolitan areas at least once every 18 months and assures them sufficient longevity to probe deeply into organized crime. Perhaps this provision can overcome some of the official dilly-dallying which, I believe, is partly responsible for some of the public apathy which we have witnessed toward this problem.
These special grand juries would have the power to inquire into the violation of Federal laws and dig deeply into the activities and operations of organized crime, including whether appropriate law enforcement officials have been properly carrying out their jobs.
Significantly, these grand juries would be empowered to issue special reports concerning noncriminal misconduct, malfeasance, or misfeasance, by a public officer or employee as a basis for a recommendation of removal or disciplinary action.
Another section of the bill which merits special attention, Mr. President, is title IX.
Recent studies of the phenomenon of organized crime, including that of the National Crime Commission, have identified its alarming expansion into the field of legitimate business as a major threat to our institutions. This penetration of legitimate business by organized crime poses two distinct but related dangers:
First, the economic strength of the underlying illegal operations of organized crime is perpetuated and made more profitable if tainted proceeds can be safely invested in legitimate enterprises, even if those enterprises are operated in a lawful manner.
Second, the free channels of trade are threatened by organized crime's propensity to obtain for itself monopoly control of its areas by whatever means are available, including brutal and strongarm tactics.
The techniques and methods used in such infiltration of legitimate business enterprises are many and varied. A few case histories will demonstrate how easily a business can fall captive to its awesome power.
The legislative proposals contained in title IX of this act, entitled "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations," constitute a carefully structured program which can drastically curtail-and eventually eradicate-the vast expansion of organized crime's economic power which operates outside the rules of fair competition of the American marketplace. Broadly speaking, this title would create strict criminal penalties for using the proceeds of racketeering activity characteristic of organized crime to acquire an interest in businesses engaged in interstate commerce, or to acquire or operate such businesses by racketeering methods.
In addition, this title, by utilizing remedies heretofore applicable in the antitrust field-the remedies of injunction, dissolution, divestiture, and reorganization-would forge a powerful new weapon for putting the syndicate out of business. By removing its leaders from positions of ownership, by preventing them and their associates from regaining control, and by visiting heavy economic sanctions on their predatory business practices this legislation should prove to be a mighty deterrent to any further expansion of organized crime's economic power.
The civil remedies of this legislation patterned after the time-tested antitrust remedies, coupled with its heavy criminal penalties, should enable the Government to take effective action to eliminate the serious threat posed to the safety and well-being of our democratic institutions by the totalitarian dictators of organized crime's closed society.
116 Cong.Rec. 606-07 (emphasis added).
Many other examples from the legislative history can be cited to show that although Congress was concerned with corruption of government by organized crime (as who is not?), RICO was aimed at organized crime's economic power. See, e.g., Remarks of Sen. McClellan, 116 Cong.Rec. 591-92; Remarks of Sen. Hruska, id. at 602; Remarks of Sen. McClellan, id. at 8670; Remarks of Sen. Dole, id. at 36296; Remarks of Rep. Cellar, id. at 35196; Remarks of Rep. St. Germain, id. at 35200; Remarks of Sen. McClellan, 155 Cong.Rec. 9566-71 (introduction of S. 1861, predecessor of RICO's). See also McClellan, The Organized Crime Act (S. 30) or Its Critics: Which Threatens Civil Liberties? 46 Notre Dame Law. 55, 140-42 (1970).
C. Internal Evidence of RICO's Scope.
At an earlier stage of these prosecutions, the district court (under another presiding judge) held that the enterprise element of RICO must cover government entities because two of the "racketeering activities" enumerated in § 1961 of RICO-bribery under state and federal law, and extortion under color of state law-"can only be committed in the context of governmental activity." United States v. Sisk, 476 F. Supp. 1061, 1062 (M.D. Tenn. 1979). However, under both federal and Tennessee law, bribery can be committed by those outside of government. See 18 U.S.C. § 201; T.C.A. §§ 39-801, 39-803, 39-805, 39-809, 39-812, 39-816, 39-821, 39-824. Moreover, RICO does not contain the phrase "extortion under color of state law," but rather refers to acts indictable under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951. The Hobbs Act covers far more than extortion "under color of state law." See 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b) (2). The inclusion of bribery and Hobbs Act violations in RICO's long list of "racketeering activities" therefore does not even suggest that Congress intended "enterprises" to include government entities.
Our holding today does not mean that RICO cannot be used to reach corruption of government by organized outside forces. Nor do we suggest that public officials are immune from RICO actions. Rather, we hold that RICO's remedial provisions show that government entities are neither appropriate nor intended RICO "enterprises." See Tarlow, RICO: The New Darling of the Prosecutor's Nursery, 49 Ford.L.Rev. 165, 206 (1980). Following Turkette, the corrupting organizations may themselves be charged as RICO enterprises, and the evils Congress feared and legislated against can be fought. See, e.g., United States v. Whitehead, 618 F.2d 523, 525 n.1 (4th Cir. 1980) (enterprise was prostitution ring protected by bribed prosecutor); United States v. Herman, 589 F.2d 1191, 1194 (3d Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 913, 99 S. Ct. 2014, 60 L. Ed. 2d 386 (1979) (enterprise was bail bonding firm that bribed magistrates).4 It would, however, be a perversion of Congress's intent to continue to allow the potent weapons created in RICO to be lifted casually against every instance of venality in state and local governments.
UNDER THE AVALANCHE, OR, THE VOYAGES OF "ENTERPRISE"
The district court, although inclined to grant the defendants' motions in arrest of judgment, was deterred by the "judicial momentum" toward classing government entities as RICO enterprises. The government refers to an "avalanche" of precedent adopting this rule: United States v. Angelilli, supra, 660 F.2d at 30-35 (2nd Cir. 1981); United States v. Sutherland, 656 F.2d 1181, 1198 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Lee Stoller Enterprises, Inc., supra, 652 F.2d at 1316-19 (7th Cir. 1981); United States v. Long, 651 F.2d 239, 241 (4th Cir. 1981); United States v. Stratton, 649 F.2d 1066, 1074 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Clark, 646 F.2d 1259, 1261-67 (8th Cir. 1981); United States v. Bright, 630 F.2d 804, 829 (5th Cir. 1980); United States v. Altomare, 625 F.2d 5, 7-8 (4th Cir. 1980); United States v. Karas, 624 F.2d 500, 504 (4th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1078, 101 S. Ct. 857, 66 L. Ed. 2d 800 (1981); United States v. Baker, 617 F.2d 1060, 1061 (4th Cir. 1980); United States v. Bacheler, 611 F.2d 443, 450 (3d Cir. 1979); United States v. Grzywacz, supra, 603 F.2d at 685-87 (7th Cir. 1979); United States v. Frumento, supra, 563 F.2d at 1089-92 (3d Cir. 1977); United States v. Brown, supra, 555 F.2d at 415-16 (5th Cir. 1977); United States v. Dozier, 493 F. Supp. 554 (M.D. La. 1980); United States v. Barber, supra, 476 F. Supp. at 184-85 (S.D.W. Va. 1979); United States v. Sisk, supra, 476 F. Supp. at 1062 (M.D. Tenn. 1979); United States v. Vignola, 464 F. Supp. 1091, 1095-96 (E.D. Pa. 1979), aff'd mem., 605 F.2d 1199 (3d Cir. 1979); cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1072, 100 S. Ct. 1015, 62 L. Ed. 2d 753 (1980); United States v. Salvitti, 451 F. Supp. 195, 199 (E.D. Pa.), aff'd mem., 588 F.2d 824 (3d Cir. 1978).
The sheer number of these cases is imposing, and the metaphor of an avalanche is apt, for the practice of construing "enterprise" to include government entities has truly snowballed. Many of the cases above5 simply cite earlier precedent without further considering the enterprise issue.
More important, in most of these cases the implications of RICO's remedies were either not raised or not considered. Two exceptions to this rule are Angelilli, supra, and Barber, supra. As noted above, we believe Angelilli misapplies the Supreme Court's statement in Turkette that "(i)t is untenable to argue that (the existence of RICO's remedies) limits the scope of the criminal provisions." See 600 F.2d at 34 (quoting --- U.S. at ----, 101 S. Ct. at 2530). This is not, like Turkette, a case where certain remedial provisions are simply not feasible, but one where their application would raise grave constitutional questions. As the Supreme Court has often counseled us to do, we adopt a narrower reading of the statute in order to avoid these constitutional doubts. See, e.g., Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 99 S. Ct. 2545, 61 L. Ed. 2d 176 (1979); Lynch v. Overholser, 369 U.S. 705, 82 S. Ct. 1063, 8 L. Ed. 2d 211 (1962).
An alternative would be to follow the lead of the other court that expressly addressed the implications of RICO's remedies and hold that because these remedies are discretionary, "(t)here is no binding correlation between Title IX's remedial options and the question of whether Congress intended to omit public entities from the meaning of enterprise." Barber, supra, 476 F. Supp. at 189. Yet the grant of an "unthinkable" (id.) remedial power cannot be ignored because its exercise is discretionary. There is an anomaly within RICO, and it must be dealt with: either RICO's definition of enterprise or its remedial provisions must be modified if each is to accommodate the other in this case.
The legislative history convinces us that it is the definition of enterprise that should yield. Congressional debates clearly indicate that what was considered important and novel in Title IX was the provision of new remedies for dealing with organized crime. See Remarks of Sen. McClellan, 116 Cong.Rec. 591; Remarks of Sen. Hruska, id. at 602 ("(T)he principal value of this legislation may well be found to exist in its civil provisions which employ the time-tested antitrust remedies of injunction, divestiture, dissolution, and reorganization ...."); Remarks of Sen. Byrd, id. at 607. See also McClellan, supra, 46 Notre Dame Law. at 191.
It is the existence of these novel remedies that distinguishes RICO from more traditional means of attacking corruption in government (such as the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951) and that renders RICO's application to a government entity inappropriate.
After the avalanche, it is time for the spring thaw. The judgments of conviction are vacated.
The provisions of RICO allegedly violated in this case state:
(c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsections (a), (b), or (c) of this section.
18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)-(d). The relevant statutory definitions provide:
As used in this chapter-
(1) "racketeering activity" means (A) any act or threat involving murder, kidnaping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, or dealing in narcotic or other dangerous drugs, 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 1084 (relating to the transmission of gambling information), section 1341 (relating to mail fraud), section 1343 (relating to wire fraud), 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 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), sections 2314 and 2315 (relating to interstate transportation of stolen property), sections 2341-2346 (relating to trafficking in contraband cigarettes), sections 2421-24 (relating to white slave traffic), (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), or (D) any offense involving fraud connected with a case under title 11, fraud in the sale of securities, or the felonious manufacture, importation, receiving, concealment, buying, selling, or otherwise dealing in narcotic or other dangerous drugs, punishable under any law of the United States;
(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;
18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)-(6).
This was the practice in the following cases: United States v. Grzywacz, 603 F.2d 682, 686-87 (7th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 935, 100 S. Ct. 2152, 64 L. Ed. 2d 788 (1980); United States v. Frumento, 563 F.2d 1083, 1091 (3d Cir. 1977), cert. denied sub nom. Millhouse v. United States, 434 U.S. 1072, 98 S. Ct. 1256, 55 L. Ed. 2d 775 (1978); United States v. Brown, 555 F.2d 407, 415-16 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied sub nom. Seymour v. United States, 435 U.S. 904, 98 S. Ct. 1448, 55 L. Ed. 2d 494 (1978); United States v. Barber, 476 F. Supp. 182, 184-85 (S.D.W. Va. 1979)
This distinction between government and private enterprises in cases involving government officials has been overlooked by courts that cite Whitehead and Herman as "government-enterprise" cases. See United States v. Lee Stoller Enterprises, Inc., 652 F.2d 1313, 1318 n.9 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 102 S. Ct. 636, --- L. Ed. 2d ---- (1981) (so citing Herman); Angelilli, supra, 660 F.2d at 33 (so citing Whitehead)
E.g., Sutherland, Stratton, Altomare, Karas, Baker, Bacheler, Dozier and Vignola. One of the earliest cases in the Court of Appeals that applied RICO to government entities, and one on which many of the later cases rely, is Frumento. On its facts, Frumento is arguably limited to "state operated commercial ventures engaged in interstate commerce, or other governmental agencies regulating commercial and utility operations affecting interstate commerce." 563 F.2d at 1091 (footnote omitted). It is a considerable leap from Frumento to apply RICO indiscriminately to every government enterprise
34 comments:
Not posting my comments, not posting actual proof or evidence for your claims, all of these despicable accusations without merit being justified by "First Amendment." So use Constitution aa a shield from consequences of dishonest behavior. Shame on such a scoundrel who does that.
"Pete" whines and complains about "not posting" his dumb 'ole comments. Get your own blog, you mewling mendacious defender of the indefensible, hiding behind anonymity to threaten SLAPP suits and criminal prosecution. Pray for "Pete' to come out of the closet and identify himself.
We shall never surrender to authoritarianism and the odd notion of hiring BRADLEY, GARRISON & KOMANDO, P.A. as putative "County Attorney." This is not normal.
It's indefensible that thousands of people voted for commissioners and they did their duty and voted on an issue? When democracy doesn't go your way then it's bad and everything is corrupt? I don't think so. I think you guys are Karens... entitled to have your way all the time no matter what.
Doesn't matter if you surrender or not. They voted on something and that's the way it's gonna be. It's not everyone else who is authoritarian... you just got a problem with democracy.
Well now quite possibly the county can now sue Ed Slavin through BKG, for the libel, slander, false claims, conspiracy theories, defamation, baseless accusations, fantasy narratives, character assassination, lies, punitive damages, remedy, compensatory damages, maybe even a night in the county jail for inciting a riot. People like Doris influenced to commit crimes against public servants over these conspiracy theories.
Poor perseverating pestilential "Pete." Sock puppet for clearcutting and corruption and one-party rule? Born with a silver foot in his mouth?" (in the immortal words of the late Texas Governor Ann Richards about the first President George Bush.) Pete just threatened me, again, with a SLAPP lawsuit and incarceration. Showed his "unclean hands" by mentioning what the Establishment did to Doris Taylor.
BKG is private so you're not protected. You made bogus claims and libel before Komamdo was hired. These are people who you defamed and who have nothing to do with the county attorney position. Those are the people who should sue you. And Doris was influenced by your conspiracy theories and battered a police officer. You people are crazy and in need of induction, suit etc.
Who is "Pete" and why does s/he perseverate? "Why do the heathen rage?" (Psalm 2). BGK is a government contractor. BGK is owned by County Attorney RICHARD CHRISTIAN KOMANDO, Florida House Rules and Ethics Committee Chair, by Speaker-designate SAMUEL PAUL GARRISON, and by former State Senator ROBERT MILNER BRADLEY, JR., current St. Johns River Water Management Division Chair (through 2028). All public figures. No libel. Truth. Likewise, ETM is a government contractor. Where did "Pete" study law? Trump University? Cheap shots showing actual malice and willful disregard of the truth by a sock puppet for the Establishment Pray for "Pete" to find a hobby.
They got someone in that firm who doesn't have anything to do with the county yet you defamed the law group, made bogus claims, baseless accusations, injurious claims in need of damages. Slander, libel, defamation, it's all in this website. The evidence is here.
BKG should sue you for defamation because you're making baseless but harmful accusations against their group... just because you don't like the results of democratic process. You should move to Russia or China if you don't like democracy.
No basis for the pejorative assertions of "Pete." I have a God-given First and Ninth Amendment right to criticize our local government and all of its works and pomps. The BGK contract is a contrary violation of public policy. See Restatement of Contracts, 2d, Sec. 178 (Contract Violation of Public Policy). Reminds me of the no-bid contract our Anastasia Mosquito Control District of St. Johns County award to Bell Helicopter in 2006. We, the People organized against this $1.8 million contract, which was falsely stated to be "sole source" by AMCD management. AMCD cancelled contract and we got a full refund of deposit. Likewise, the unwise decision to hire "influence" of BGK was wrong. Nothing you say convinces me otherwise. "Pete" is uncouth to threaten me repeatedly on this blog with "libel" or incarceration for expressing a contrary opinion. Then "Pete" further shows his weak arguments by repeatedly telling me to move to a dictatorship like "Russia or China" and suggesting I "don't like democracy," Where did "Pete" study logic? Where did "Pete" go to law school?
I previously informed "Pete" about my successful federal court case against ex-Sheriff DENNIS OWEN TROTTER. TROTTER threatened me with a libel case. He went to federal prison. Everything I wrote about Sheriff TROTTER was true.
Is "Pete" attempting to solicit legal representation from BGK? Is it "barratry" for him to try to stir up litigation? What is his interest?
Vexatious threats of libel or incarceration for doing my job? I am not afraid of pipsqueak cowardly "Pete." Perseverating bully "Pete" refuses to identify himself/herself/itself. Wonder why?
877.02 Solicitation of legal services or retainers therefor; penalty.—
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person or her or his agent, employee or any person acting on her or his behalf, to solicit or procure through solicitation either directly or indirectly legal business, or to solicit or procure through solicitation a retainer, written or oral, or any agreement authorizing an attorney to perform or render legal service, or to make it a business to solicit or procure such business, retainers or agreements; provided, however, that nothing herein shall prohibit or be applicable to banks, trust companies, lawyer reference services, legal aid associations, lay collection agencies, railroad companies, insurance companies and agencies, and real estate companies and agencies, in the conduct of their lawful businesses, and in connection therewith and incidental thereto forwarding legal matters to attorneys at law when such forwarding is authorized by the customers or clients of said businesses and is done pursuant to the canons of legal ethics as pronounced by the Supreme Court of Florida.
(2) It shall be unlawful for any person in the employ of or in any capacity attached to any hospital, sanitarium, police department, wrecker service or garage, prison or court, for a person authorized to furnish bail bonds, investigators, photographers, insurance or public adjusters, or for a general or other contractor as defined in s. 489.105 or other business providing sinkhole remediation services, to communicate directly or indirectly with any attorney or person acting on said attorney’s behalf for the purpose of aiding, assisting, or abetting such attorney in the solicitation of legal business or the procurement through solicitation of a retainer, written or oral, or any agreement authorizing the attorney to perform or render legal services.
(3) Any person violating any provision of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(4) This section shall be taken to be cumulative and shall not be construed to amend or repeal any other valid law, code, ordinance, rule, or penalty now in effect.
History.—ss. 1-4, ch. 59-391; s. 1146, ch. 71-136; s. 1425, ch. 97-102; s. 37, ch. 2006-12.
BKG isn't government therefore they should sue you. You aren't protected by the First Amendment when you libel and defame a private entity and you aren't protected by government either. You're not government, but if you were, you'd still manage being sued somehow I'm convinced if it. Just no scruples or decency.
768.295 Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) prohibited.—
(1) It is the intent of the Legislature to protect the right in Florida to exercise the rights of free speech in connection with public issues, and the rights to peacefully assemble, instruct representatives, and petition for redress of grievances before the various governmental entities of this state as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and s. 5, Art. I of the State Constitution. It is the public policy of this state that a person or governmental entity not engage in SLAPP suits because such actions are inconsistent with the right of persons to exercise such constitutional rights of free speech in connection with public issues. Therefore, the Legislature finds and declares that prohibiting such lawsuits as herein described will preserve this fundamental state policy, preserve the constitutional rights of persons in Florida, and assure the continuation of representative government in this state. It is the intent of the Legislature that such lawsuits be expeditiously disposed of by the courts.
(2) As used in this section, the phrase or term:
(a) “Free speech in connection with public issues” means any written or oral statement that is protected under applicable law and is made before a governmental entity in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a governmental entity, or is made in or in connection with a play, movie, television program, radio broadcast, audiovisual work, book, magazine article, musical work, news report, or other similar work.
(b) “Governmental entity” or “government entity” means the state, including the executive, legislative, and the judicial branches of government and the independent establishments of the state, counties, municipalities, corporations primarily acting as instrumentalities of the state, counties, or municipalities, districts, authorities, boards, commissions, or any agencies thereof.
(3) A person or governmental entity in this state may not file or cause to be filed, through its employees or agents, any lawsuit, cause of action, claim, cross-claim, or counterclaim against another person or entity without merit and primarily because such person or entity has exercised the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue, or right to peacefully assemble, to instruct representatives of government, or to petition for redress of grievances before the various governmental entities of this state, as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and s. 5, Art. I of the State Constitution.
(4) A person or entity sued by a governmental entity or another person in violation of this section has a right to an expeditious resolution of a claim that the suit is in violation of this section. A person or entity may move the court for an order dismissing the action or granting final judgment in favor of that person or entity. The person or entity may file a motion for summary judgment, together with supplemental affidavits, seeking a determination that the claimant’s or governmental entity’s lawsuit has been brought in violation of this section. The claimant or governmental entity shall thereafter file a response and any supplemental affidavits. As soon as practicable, the court shall set a hearing on the motion, which shall be held at the earliest possible time after the filing of the claimant’s or governmental entity’s response. The court may award, subject to the limitations in s. 768.28, the party sued by a governmental entity actual damages arising from a governmental entity’s violation of this section. The court shall award the prevailing party reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in connection with a claim that an action was filed in violation of this section.
(CONTINUED)
(5) In any case filed by a governmental entity which is found by a court to be in violation of this section, the governmental entity shall report such finding and provide a copy of the court’s order to the Attorney General no later than 30 days after such order is final. The Attorney General shall report any violation of this section by a governmental entity to the Cabinet, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. A copy of such report shall be provided to the affected governmental entity.
History.—s. 1, ch. 2000-174; s. 1, ch. 2015-70.
Is "Pete" a lawyer?
If "Pete" is a lawyer, is he aware that posting as a sock puppet on matters in which he is involved may run afoul of Florida Bar rules?
Has "Pete" every filed a SLAPP lawsuit?
Is "Pete" attempting to solicit law business to file a SLAPP?
Well guess what... this isn't like that. That's a private entity and not everyone at that group has something to do with SJC number one. Number two your libel against the group before his appointment could bring action and any fallout from the defamation after he no longer represents the county could warrant a suit. Your insignificance and senility protects you slightly
It's "your job" to libel, slander, and defame a law group with baseless accusations of corruption? Who pays you to do that so they can be sued as well? This uncouth tabloid will be your undoing.
That doesn't protect you from suit for libel and defamation against a law group. Key word is group along with the fact that you've made harmful accusations without one bit of proof of evidence attached. You should be ashamed but you're not because you are without decency, honesty, and sense.
You run afoul of decency, honesty, integrity, ethics, values, and understanding the position that you put yourself in. That's a law group you're defaming and then claiming the right to constitutional right do so? Constitutional right to defame people with conspiracy theories and lies? You've lost all morality and values.
I'm not part of BKG but I tell you I might just send them an email and tell them where they can find an easy defamation case.
They can sue you later when they aren't representing the county because after all this libel is still gonna be on this website. I might just have to contact them and tell them I wouldn't do business with BKG because of what I've seen here.
Waiting on an answer from "Pete." As Adlai Stevenson said to the Soviet Ambassador at the United Nations during the Cuban Missile Crisis, "I'm prepared to wait until Hell freezes over for an answer."
You've not offered any actual proof or evidence for your libelous accusations and defamatory claims. I owe you answers to nothing until you produce something. I started asking you questions weeks ago and I've not gotten one answer. Nice try turning the tables though buddy.👍
How many times did Atheist "Pete"-zza News accuse Ed of libel and defamation on this page, while he himself commits the most vile slander, naming a woman, and claiming she "battered a police officer." Where's your "proof and evidence" Pete? Or don't your own rules apply to you? You rant on and on about scruples and ethics, but you are a dirty, lying lawyer with a proclivity for creating psychotic pictures of people you don't like. There's only one thing you do like, and that is $$$$$$$. Your support of Komando is all about developer dollars$$$$$$$$$ that you can't get enough of.
Libeling Doris over and over again while hiding behind his internet aliases shows what a dirtbag Atheist Pete-zza News is. He makes gruesome pictures of her too. What a sick, sick F.
It's not libel if it's public record. Is St Johns County guilty of libel because they posted the arrest report on the St Johns County Clerk of Court website? Take it up with them.. and seek help for your intellectual disabilities.
Post a Comment