From ABC News:
The Church of Scientology faces trial on deletion fraud charges in Paris, with
the possibility that the organization, which claims around 5,000 active members
in France in addition to a bevy of Hollywood celebrities such as Tom Cruise,
could be banned in France if it loses.
While it enjoys an active
presence in the U.S. -- it has been recognized as a religious organization by
the I.R.S. since 1993 -- Scientology has faced strong opposition from French
authorities.
France has refused to acknowledge Scientology as a
religion, and Miviludes, the French government agency in charge of protecting
its citizens from sectarian manipulations, has warned French citizens against
participating.
"Scientology is a dangerous movement," Milivudes
president Jean-Michel Roulet told ABCNews.com. "It puts pressure on its victims,
it tries to intimidate them and blackmails them."
Infidel Bloggers Alliance says:
Islam is a Racketeering Organization.
The Government of the United States of America Will Eventually Bring Islamic Clerics Up Violation of The RICO Act.
What is the RICO Act?
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
Under RICO, a person who is a member of an enterprise that has committed any two of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes—within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and/or sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity." RICO also permits a private individual harmed by the actions of such an enterprise to file a civil suit; if successful, the individual can collect treble damages.
When the U.S. Attorney decides to indict someone under RICO, he or she has the option of seeking a pre-trial restraining order or injunction to temporarily seize a defendant's assets and prevent the transfer of potentially forfeitable property, as well as require the defendant to put up a performance bond. This provision was placed in the law because the owners of Mafia-related shell corporations often absconded with the assets. An injunction and/or performance bond ensures that there is something to seize in the event of a guilty verdict.
In many cases, the threat of a RICO indictment can force defendants to plead guilty to lesser charges, in part because the seizure of assets would make it difficult to pay a defense attorney.
Despite its harsh provisions, a RICO-related charge is considered easy to prove in court, as it focuses on patterns of behavior as opposed to criminal acts.[2]
There is also a provision for private parties to sue. A "person damaged in his business or property" can sue one or more "racketeers." The plaintiff must prove the existence of a "criminal enterprise." The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same. There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise. A civil RICO action, like many lawsuits based on federal law, can be filed in state or federal court. [1]
Both the federal and civil components allow for the recovery of treble damages (damages in triple the amount of actual/compensatory damages).
Although its primary intent was to deal with organized crime, Blakey said that Congress never intended it to merely apply to the Mob. He once told Time, "We don't want one set of rules for people whose collars are blue or whose names end in vowels, and another set for those whose collars are white and have Ivy League diplomas."[2]
RICO offenses
Under the law, racketeering activity means:
Any violation of state statutes against gambling, murder, kidnapping, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in the Controlled Substances Act);
Any act of bribery, counterfeiting, theft, embezzlement, fraud, dealing in obscene matter, obstruction of justice, slavery, racketeering, gambling, money laundering,
--- commission of murder-for-hire (FATWA) ---
, and several other offenses covered under the Federal criminal code (Title 18);
Embezzlement of union funds;
Bankruptcy or securities fraud;
Drug trafficking;
Money laundering and related offenses;
Bringing in, aiding or assisting aliens in illegally entering the country (if the action was for financial gain);
Acts of terrorism.
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. The U.S. Supreme Court has instructed federal courts to follow the continuity plus relationship test in order to determine whether the facts of a specific case give rise to an established pattern. Predicate acts are related if they "have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events." H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. Continuity is both a closed and open ended concept, referring to either a closed period of conduct, or to past conduct that by its nature projects into the future with a threat of repetition.
Where RICO laws might be applied
Although some of the RICO predicate acts are extortion and blackmail, one of the most successful applications of the RICO laws has been the ability to indict or sanction individuals for their behavior and actions committed against witnesses and victims in alleged retaliation or retribution for cooperating with law enforcement or intelligence agencies.
Violations of the RICO laws can be alleged in cases where civil lawsuits or criminal charges are brought against individuals or corporations in retaliation for said individuals or corporations working with law enforcement, or against individuals or corporations who have sued or filed criminal charges against a defendant.
Anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) laws can be applied in an attempt to curb alleged abuses of the legal system by individuals or corporations who utilize the courts as a weapon to retaliate against whistle blowers, victims, or to silence another's speech. RICO could be alleged if it can be shown that lawyers and/or their clients conspired and collaborated to concoct fictitious legal complaints solely in retribution and retaliation for themselves having been brought before the courts.
33 comments:
Going after Scientology is easy- they won't riot and behave in a beast-like manner.
Pastorius,
Its unlikely France will ban Islam, any time soon. Regardless of weather or not it would be a good idea to ban any belief system. The cowardly French politicians are too afraid of what Muslims would do to them, or want their votes too much to even suggest to that.
If France bans Islam we'll immediately have a world wide religious war out in the open.
I can't see it.
But the RICO, SLAPP thing deserves a lot of thought.
Epa,
I think it does deserve thought. And part of the thought process would be for those who oppose my idea to explain to me exactly how Islam is NOT a racketeering organization.
Problem for them is, Islam is a racketeering organization, so they're going to have a very hard time.
Islam calls for nations to be taken by force, and the resources of those nations to become booty to be taken by the warriors (Jihadists).
Islam calls for financial institutions to make payment (Zakat) to the Islamic organization. This payment is to be made, whether or not any of those whose money is part of the institution adhere to the Islamic organization or not.
Islam calls for non-Muslims to pay the Jizya, which is clearly a protection racket.
Islam engages in money-laundering through Zakat which goes to "Charity" which is then redistributed to Islamic terror organizations.
Islam engages in the funding of terrorism.
Islam calls for adherents to help illegal aliens to gain citizenship or residency for the purpose of making money off the crime syndicate.
Now, to get the 'powers that be' to consider RICO action in our lifetime. How?
SC&A,
I disagree that taking on Scientology is easy. It's not. Sure, Scientologists won't riot like our dear friends from the "religion of peace", but they will intimidate the French government by suing the living daylights out of them. The lawfare tactics of Scientology are very, very similar to the lawfare tactics of the stealth jihadis in the US. Go to number6enturb.wordpress.com to read what I have written about it, and to watch a video presentation by a man named Graham Berry.
I am keeping my eye on this. If France bans this evil space opera cult, then the rest of Europe will follow. And that might give our spineless government a good reason to ban the cult here in the US. Now that's a great precedent isn't it.
People will say it's impossible to take down a religion. No it isn't. I urge all of you to go to enturbulation.org and whyweprotest.net to see how a religion is being taken down slowly. You could learn a lot from the actions of the internet group known as Anonymous.
Number 6,
I hope you're right. However, Germany has already done this, and it didn't make much change that I can see. But I believe every little bit helps in the movement towards our eventual destruction of Islam in the West:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7133867.stm
From the article:
Germany's federal and state interior ministers have declared the Church of Scientology unconstitutional, clearing the way for a possible ban.
The ministers have asked Germany's domestic intelligence agency to examine whether the Church's legal status as an association could be challenged.
Scientology is not recognised as a religion in Germany.
Interesting parallels Sci and Rad Islam. Banning creates a dramatic splash, but it creates martyrs and drives the disease underground.
What is Sabine Weber, head of the Church in Germany going to do? Stop being a Scientologist?
It is more effective to keep Sci on a short leash. I want to see it placed on a subversive organizations list so you can legally ask a candidate you are interviewing if he's a Scientologist.
We can also bring pressure to exclude organizations advocating the eradication of psychiatry from all social, religious, and governmental organizations.
Didn't they used to demand a loyalty oath back in the 1950s for government employees? Maybe they should do the same again. Today, only the armed forces swear to uphold the Constitution. This should change.
I've rethought the issue of banning Scientology or any religion, and needless to say it comes with its own set of problems. Like Moar Xenu said, it only drives the subversives underground and then there is also the issue of blowback. What if the government decides to ban Christianity? Has anyone thought about that?
Again, let me urge readers to go to enturbulation.org to see a grass-roots movement taking on a religion. It's amazing what has happened in just a few months.
Number 6,
I hope you and your friends keep up the good work against Scientology. As for us, we'll keep fighting against Islam.
Pastorius,
One problem with banning a belief system, no matter how bad it is, is that it may only drive it underground. Another is that outlawing it might lead to banning other more benign beliefs systems. We have the first amendment here in US for a good reason. Also, banning it might actually reinforce its adherence belief in it. "After all" they might think, "if our beliefs are not true, why do they have to force us to give them up?" Plus it might make the belief more appealing, beyond the fact that some people are attracted to things forbidden, people might ask why a false belief needs to be outlawed. It might make them think, "they can't fight this idea except by banning it, therefore it maybe it is true."
What I am saying is we ought to prosecute Islam under the RICO Act.
That's not the same thing as banning Islam.
Additionally, as you know, I believe we ought to prosecute those who advocate Sharia for sedition.
This is a good thread. Good post, too, Pastorius. This is an original approach to stopping or reversing the relentless Islamic political encroachment.
Two of the ways you pointed out that Islam is a racketeering organization are done OUTSIDE the U.S., so I think RICO may not apply. But four occur inside our borders, and RICO would apply. Specifically:
>>Islam calls for nations to be taken by force, and the resources of those nations to become booty to be taken by the warriors (Jihadists).<< That is being done in mosques across the U.S.
>>Islam engages in money-laundering through Zakat which goes to "Charity" which is then redistributed to Islamic terror organizations.<< I'm not sure about this one. Do mosques in the U.S. collect Zakat?
>>Islam engages in the funding of terrorism.<< This can be proven. Lot's of Islamic "charitable" organizations in the U.S. do exactly that.
>>Islam calls for adherents to help illegal aliens to gain citizenship or residency for the purpose of making money off the crime syndicate.<< This is happening now in the U.S. and can be proven also.
I think you're onto something big here, Pastorius. I'll bet this isn't an idea anyone in the government has thought of yet.
Moar Xenu! - You said, "It is more effective to keep Sci on a short leash. I want to see it placed on a subversive organizations list so you can legally ask a candidate you are interviewing if he's a Scientologist." That's also a great idea, and might apply to Islam. Somewhere along the way, some legal distinction has to separate the ideas that 1) Islam is a religion, and 2) Islam is a subversive organization. A subversive organization should not be above the law because it is a religion.
Citizen Warrior,
"A subversive organization should not be above the law because it is a religion."
I agree. If a group of christian fundamentalists called for and worked toward the violent over throw of the American government and the constitution, do you think that we would tolerate it? Well there is an ideology known as Christian Deconstructionism that wants to do away with the American Constitution and replace it with their strict interpretation of old testament law. There's also a religion called Christian Identity, which combines a perverted interpretation of the bible with Nazi ideology. Do we treat either of those fringe groups with the same respect that we do with Islamic subversives? No one in the main stream is saying that either of those groups are above the law.
Sorry, the term is Christian "Reconstructionism," not "Deconstructionism." It was a typo.
CW,
I think this is a good idea too.
I think we need to write about
Islam as Sedition
and
Islam as racketeering
repeatedly and often.
Don't forget that with sharia compliant mortgages, a fixed percentage is automatically set aside for zakat (10% if I recall correctly) . . .and we all know what zakat is funding.
Yes, Anonymous. Zakat funds terrorism. And, it is a form of money-laundering, where the money is laundered by funneling it through "Charity organizations" which then use it to fund Jihad.
lol Christian Deconstructionism - it's what they teach in theology schools.
I got some good ideas from this thread. I prefere the label "domestic enemies of the Constitution" for Sci and IslamoRads. Has a certain ring.
btw have you guise seen the AP report of the firing of the Somali Muslims over prayer breaks at Swift. Their leader is Mohamed Rage!! What really interested me was the outraged reactions of Latinos over preferential treatment.
Moar Xenu!, do you mean Rage Boy? Do you have a link you could share that involves Rage Boy? I know CAIR was involved. Here's a brief about the story:
Company Concedes to Ramadan
The company has since un-conceded. Good for them.
Here is a post I wrote in response to this one: http://number6enturb.wordpress.com/2008/09/20/can-a-religion-be-prosecuted-under-rico/
number 6,
I just made direct linked to your editorial,"Can A Religion Be Prosecuted Under RICO?," so more people will see it. You guys might want to read it, it is kind of interesting.
Pastorius,
He maybe fighting a different battle, but I think number 6 makes a couple of valid points.
Damien,
What points did he make that you believe are valid. I'll answer them.
He got the first one so wrong that I didn't feel like addressing the other ones. But, if you are swayed by them, I will answer them.
Pastorius,
I may not read this blog, but I am aware of the problems with Islam in the West. Sorry if I misunderstood what your stance is.
I blame Muslims for tarring their own religion by letting the fundamentalists spew their propaganda. It makes it tough for others to trust them and to trust that Islam is a religion of peace. But still, prosecuting the whole religion under the RICO laws is problematic. Why not specific organizations (like CAIR) and individuals like a certain rich Saudi prince who try to silence authors writing about them.
Scientology may not be as evil as fundamental Islam, but it's worth going after. I joined this fight, to tell you the truth, to learn how best to go after our dear friends in the religion of peace. This fight against Scientology, I hope, will be a spring board against bigger sharks in the water.
I think the fight against Scientology is a worthy fight.
Remember the goons who went after the head of Paramount in the wake of Tom Cruise's demoralizing contract talks?
Scientology is also dangerous, in my opinion.
But, it's nothing compared to Islam.
Islamic "moderation" is an illusion, from what I can see. There are Muslims who live lives of moderation, but I don't believe their religion tells them to do so.
Pastorius,
Most certainly their religious text does not tell them to do so. But one point number 6 made was how do you charge an entire religion with a crime? Even belief systems that almost everyone in our society rightfully regards as evil, such as Nazism are never charged with a crime. How do you charge a belief system with a crime? I'm not saying there are no good or evil beliefs, but without people to act on them, beliefs are powerless. Plus how do you punish a belief? You can punish people, but you can't punish a belief system.
Beyond that what about the Muslims who know what the Koran says but don't follow it and attempt to hold onto their faith without embracing Jihad or Sharia? They may not be being logically consistent, but they still exist. Than what about those who associate themselves with Islam, but are largely Muslims in name only, like Bosch says he used to be?
Damien,
Ok, I see why you think this is a question worth answering. I am not a lawyer and I have no specialized knowledge of RICO, so my answer could be off.
You said: " ... how do you charge an entire religion with a crime?"
I say: You don't have to charge the entire religion with a crime. The point of the RICO Act is that it "provides for extended penalties for criminal acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization."
Note that, as the law is explained at Wikipedia, "a person who is a member of an enterprise that has committed any two of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes—within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering."
So, the point is, RICO actually takes away much of the government's responsibility to establish the existence of the wider crime organization, and instead says that if the government can prove an organized conspiracy among a few individuals to perpetrate two crimes out of a list of 27 - within a 10 year period - then the government can pursue charges AGAINST THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO CONSPIRED TOGETHER without having to prove the existence of the entire organization.
Back in the 50's and 60's J. Edgar Hoover, the head of the FBI, denied that there was any evidence for an organized crime syndicate called the Mafia. The reason he did this, from what I understand, is there was no way to prove such a large conspiracy.
RICO charges are brought by an individual who has been damaged by the criminal enterprise. And, note that the Wiki entry says, while
"the plaintiff must prove the existence of a "criminal enterprise", the defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, THE DEFENDENTS AND THE ENTERPRISE ARE NOT ONE AND THE SAME.
The Wiki entry then goes on to say,
"There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise."
The Wiki entry does not explain what those four possible relationships are, but the point is, the law is specific about what those relationships may be. (I will have to study this more)
Note that the Wiki entry says that the Key West Police Dept. was brought up on charges, for instance. And then it says,
"Several high-ranking officers of the department, including Deputy Police Chief Raymond Cassamayor, were arrested on federal charges of running a protection racket for illegal cocaine smugglers."
Clearly, if the crime went to the Deupy Chief, the conspiracy did not run all the way to the top. And yet, the entire Key West Police Dept. was brought up on charges. Why? I would assume (but, of course, I could be wrong - we need a lawyer specializing in RICO) the reason for this is because the conspiracy was proved that a number of individuals worked together to use the color of authority of the Key West PD for the perpetration of certain crimes.
Note also that RICO was used in the Milken case. Drexel was threatened with RICO charges because "corporations are responsible for theit employees crimes."
They avoided the charges by pleading guilty to lesser charges, but the threat of the RICO Act was instrumental in Drexel pleading guilty to those charges.
Note also that "Pro-Life Activists" were brought up on RICO charges (as they should have been, in my opinion). Pro-Life Activists were Christians, of course. So there is an instance of the government using RICO to attack Christians. And, as I said, I think it applied in that case.
So, to be specific, Islam, as a whole, can not be brought up on criminal charges. It is wrong for me to word it that way. But RICO was established to make conspiracy charges stick without proving a conspiracy "all the way to the top."
If the government had to prove such a conpsiracy in Mafia crimes, it would never be able to make anything stick.
Do you see what I mean?
Am I wrong here?
I think the purpose of IBA is to inform and propose ideas. Certainly, we may be wrong about the ideas we propose, but I don't see a lot of other ideas coming from other bloggers.
The kernel of my idea is not absolutely wrong. Clearly RICO can be used against members of a religion to prove conspiracy to commit crime.
And clearly, there are many Imams in the United States who are working within such a conspiracy.
Yes, we can't charge all of Islam, but it would seem clear we can bring down enough key players to scare the rest into shutting down operations.
Does that make sense?
Damien,
You said: "Even belief systems that almost everyone in our society rightfully regards as evil, such as Nazism are never charged with a crime."
I say: The Nuremberg Trials were an effective proseuction of the key players of the Nazi government for the crimes they perpetrated in the name of that government. Individuals were convicted of crime which they did not properly commit, but instead only, they only participated in a conspiracy.
From Wiki:
"The indictments were for:
Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of crime against peace
Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace
War crimes
Crimes against humanity ..."
The people who were convicted did not pull the triggers, drop the Zyklon B capsules into water, round up Jews, or any of the other actual crimes. Instead, they participated in the conspiracy, and as Wiki notes, they did so in the name of the Nazi government.
I disagree with your basic idea that we can not try an ideology. Ideologies only become dangerous when they are expressed through institutions. Islamic Mosques, Islamic Academic Institutions, Islamic Media Outlets, and Islamic governments are the institutions which act on the ideology of Islam, and as such they are responsible for the crimes they conspire to commit, just as the Nazi Government was found responsible for the crimes they committed.
Pastorius, you said, "And clearly, there are many Imams in the United States who are working within such a conspiracy."
Good point. Completely true. The MAPPING SHARIA PROJECT is documenting just such conspiracies right now. I think RICO could be used to shut down Imams and their followers, and maybe even shut down whole mosques.
That may, as several people have suggested before, "force them underground," but that would be better than letting them preach jihad out in the open and in the mainstream. Let jihad skulk in the shadows in excoriated disrepute rather than proudly expressed in mosques and conventions. You'd get a lot fewer Muslims acting on it.
I don't believe it's possible to completely get rid of jihad, Muslims or Islam. But jihad and Shari'a can be kept suppressed, and that would be a LOT better than what we've got now.
Yes, you and I are in agreement on that.
Post a Comment