Search

One generation ago, in October of 1970, the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (commonly referred to by the acrimonious - arguably offensively bigoted - acronym RICO) statute became law. It was enacted for the well-motivated, but alarmingly totalitarian, goal: to seek the eradication of organized crime . . . 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. Section 1962(c) contains the core definition of RICO. Guilt requires proof that: 1) the defendant knowingly joined a criminal enterprise and participated in; 2) conduct; 3) of the enterprise; 4) through a pattern; of 5) racketeering activity; 6) which affects interstate commerce. Regarding the first and second prongs, it should be noted that there are both criminal and civil aspects of RICO and that the defendant's performance of a crime without awareness that such was sponsored by an ongoing criminal enterprise is unsatisfactory. The enterprise element is satisfied if there are at least two individuals participating. The enterprise can be a non-legal entity or can it can be a legal entity such as a corporation. Regarding the pattern requirement, this term modifies the enterprise element. It requires at least two criminal actions within a period of ten years. Racketeering requires that the crime be chargeable or indictable either federally or in a state. Racketeering includes gambling, prostitution, theft, obscenity, and the like. The interstate commerce clause satisfies the Federal jurisdiction requirements. This requires actions performed in two or more states or actions affecting the commerce of two or more states. Although not lacking for criticism in its salad days, it was also enigmatic. Perhaps its clause, that the entire statute should be construed broadly or liberally, so as to effectuate the above purpose, threw the courts and commentators for a loop. Additionally, its creation of a new form of inchoate - though not labeled as such - criminal activity was, particularly for the afficionado, exciting . . . and mystifying. That form of inchoate criminal activity was called an enterprise - more loosely structured than a corporation or even conspiracy. However, its existence was far easier to prove than a criminal conspiracy and its punishment was as severe. Over one-quarter century after its enactment, the United States Supreme Court, for the very first time, had occasion and willingness to interpret one ever-so-small aspect of the conspiracy provision included in RICO. The federal circuit courts, for that perplexing period, had divided themselves regarding the necessary facts to prove a conspiracy to violate RICO. Underlying that jurisprudential debate, was a real and felt concern that RICO's enterprise, combined with conspiracy and the RICO (statutory) construction clause, above, had diluted the time-honored, common-law principles of actus reus and the limited breadth of inchoate offenses - that is, RICO's liberal construction and conspiracy to form a criminal enterprise had perilously approached a full-fledged due process violation.

This month marks the 201st anniversary of the Bill of Rights, ratified December 15, 1791. As the United States enters the third century of its existence, the future of our society will, in great part, be judged by the continued validity and vitality of the clauses enshrined in this, as yet, best statement of fundamental human rights. Societal concerns, in the last decade, have shied from civil liberties and focused instead on economic liberties. Economic liberties, however, are no stranger to the Bill of Rights. When the original Confederated States of America fell to the United States of America, by way of the Constitution of 1787; the condition antecedent, the Bill of Rights, took two additional years to be ratified. Moreover, its legal effect at this time was not of moment. It was rather an insurance policy that the still loosely organized federal government would not conglomerate, ultimately overshadowing all liberties of the citizenry. It was drafted to be only federally-applicable, and cases interpreting it, in the early years, were few. Based on the unfortunate truth of the pessimistic observation, man's inhumanity to man, the emphasis of application of the Bill of Rights then turned to its life and liberty aspects. The debacle of American slavery, in fact, caused the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. This amendment's Due Process Clause was interpreted to include most of the clauses of the Bill of Rights; and most of its clauses concern life and liberty.

The students in the Takotna Community School completed an assignment by going out into the community and interviewing people they liked and respected. People interviewed included David Miller, Sarah Cosselman and Freddy Miller.Sally Collins lent her photgraphs for the project and Floid Pierson put the book into the computer. Mike Harrington printed the book. Jeremy Marcoe helped with the layout. Patricia Grabow was the advisor on this project. The students involved were Burf Capsul, Tyron Millwee, Tasha Millwee, and Trisha Milwee.

The California Rules of Professional Conduct and relevant sections of the Business and Professions Code regulate lawyer conduct and discipline in this state. Unlike the overwhelming majority of states in the country, California has chosen to create codes which are not based on either the older American Bar Association (ABA) Model Code of Professional Responsibility or on the more recent ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.On the one hand the California bar should be complimented for its initiative in not following the flock and in thinking through the norms of the profession on its own. However, with innovation comes an accordant danger of error. Moreso than any state, the California Bar must be ever diligent that its rules are constitutional and complete.This column is devoted to two problem areas in the present code. One problem area is likely unconstitutional on its face; and the other is regarding a gap where guidance is needed.

Liara T'Soni embarks on a quest to recover the body of Commander Shepard, while the lawless region of Omega faces a Reaper invasion and the enigmatic Illusive Man gains power.