Three casino companies have filed a $267 million racketeering lawsuit against former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and a prominent racetrack owner over a controversial law that requires casinos to funnel part of their revenues to struggling horse tracks.
The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago on June 12, 2009, grew out of a federal investigation into an alleged pay-to-play scheme the former governor is accused of running.
U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald has requested a three month extension of time to bring an indictment against Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, stating that he needed more time to review thousands of telephone intercepts and to interview new witnesses. William A. Jacobson, Associate Clinical Professor of Law, Cornell Law School, opines in his Blog, Le-gal In-sur-rec-tion, that, it looks likely that Fitzgerald will seek an indictment under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act charging Blagojevich with conspiracy to violate RICO through a corrupt enterprise, namely, the Office of the Governor of the State of Illinois.
For some unexplained reason landowners who feel they have gotten the short end of the stick from zoning officials often sue under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), or a state law equivalent. These cases are almost always unsuccessful. The latest appeals court decision dealing with these issues was issued by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Gillmor v. Thomas, 490 F.3d 791, (10th Cir. 2007),a case brought by several landowners against Summit County, Utah and its zoning regime. The landowners brought suit against several County Officials alleging that their administration of Summit County's zoning ordinances constitutes a pattern of extortion in violation of RICO. The United States District Court concluded that the county officials had not committed any illegal predicate acts as required to support a RICO claim. Consequently, it granted summary judgment against the landowners and dismissed their case. The landowners appealed to the Tenth Circuit.
The Tenth Circuit held that the landowners' allegations that the administration of county's zoning ordinances by county officials constituted a pattern of extortion in violation of RICO were sufficient to establish a causal connection between the officials' alleged racketeering activities and some injury to landowners’ business or property, as required to have standing to bring RICO claims against the officials. However, the Appellate Court found that the county officials' enforcement of presumptively valid county zoning ordinances against landowners did not constitute a pattern of extortion under the Hobbs Act, and thus the officials' enforcement actions were not predicate acts, as would support the landowners' RICO claims. The court noted that most of the officials' actions were simply the normal administrative duties required to enforce the zoning ordinances, including explaining to landowners either how the zoning scheme worked, or rejecting allegations of the scheme's invalidity.
The Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court was correct in finding that the landowners could not prove the existence of any predicate acts, as required by § 1961 of RICO.Enter keywords:
