U.S. Supreme Court - Reliance Is Not A Required Element Of A Civil RICO Claim
On June 9, 2008 Justice Thomas delivered the opinion in Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co., --- S.Ct. ----, 2008 WL 2329761 (U.S.) for a unanimous court holding that a plaintiff asserting a RICO claim predicated on mail fraud need not show, either as an element of its claim or as a prerequisite to establishing proximate causation, that it relied on the defendant's alleged misrepresentations. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO or Act), 18 U.S.C. 1961 - 1968, provides a private right of action for treble damages to “[a]ny person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation” of the Act's criminal prohibitions. The question presented in this case is whether a plaintiff asserting a RICO claim predicated on mail fraud must plead and prove that it relied on the defendant's alleged misrepresentations.
I have a slam dunk RICO case against Sallie Mae, Inc. for FTC Holder like violations,etc but the Corrupt District Judge would not allow me to present any EXHIBITS or read a my own letter. He said it was hearsay, since I stated what a person said to me in the letter, in a drugging conspiracy case. When I showed two attorneys the letter afterword they told me he was crazy not to allow for me to read the letter. This has to be the most corrupt case Idaho has ever seen or ever will see.
Thanks for your comment. Although I can't give you specific legal advice because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, I can comment generally on your post. I have never experienced a "slam duck" RICO case. Frankly, there is no such thing. Regarding the judge's ruling excluding evidence contained in your "own letter", your letter is hearsay. Apparently, you were not able to qualify the letter under one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule. Thus, the judge's ruling was correct.