RICO Lawyer & Attorney : Thomas Walker : Cosho Humphrey Law Firm : RICO Act, Federal and State Racketeering Litigation, Boise Idaho

Carl J. Mayer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, filed a Class Action RICO lawsuit against The New England Patriots and Coach Bill Belichick in The United States District Court For The District Of New Jersey. The complaint states that the core of the lawsuit is that the Defendants, during a game with the New York Jets on September 9, 2007, instructed an agent of the Defendants to surreptitiously videotape the New York Jets coaches and players on the field with the purpose of illegally recording, capturing and stealing the New York Jets signals and visual coaching instructions. The Defendants were in fact subsequently found by the National Football League (“NFL”) to have improperly engaged in such conduct. This violated the contractual expectations and rights of New York Jets ticket-holders who fully anticipated and contracted for a ticket to observe an honest match played in compliance with all laws and regulations. Plaintiffs also contend that in purchasing tickets to watch the New York Jets that, as a matter of contract, the tickets imply that each game played will be played in accordance with NFL rules and regulations as well as all applicable federal and state laws. Among several other claims, the Plaintiffs contend that Defendants violated state and federal racketeering laws.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

There are four substantive liability sections in the RICO Act: 18 U.S.C. 1962(a) through (d). Each of these sections shares common terms and concepts, including “racketeering”, “person”, “enterprise”, “association with the enterprise”, “pattern of racketeering activity”, “relationship among racketeering acts”, and “conducting the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering”. These terms have been discussed in previous posts and will be addressed in the next weeks and months.   However, I want to touch on conspiracy in this post. Conspiracy is specifically covered in the RICO Act.

Subsection 1962(d) makes it unlawful for any person to conspire with any other person to violate Subsections 1962(a), (b) or (c). As I have mentioned in my previous posts, a RICO claim is broad, but a RICO conspiracy claim is even broader. In a RICO conspiracy it is the agreement by a defendant that is necessary for liability. So, a defendant can be engage in a conspiracy even if he does not commit the substantive acts that could constitute violations of Subsections (a), (b) and (c) of Section 1962. An agreement to commit the acts is all that’s needed.

Unlike the general federal conspiracy statute, a RICO conspiracy does not even require proof of an overt act. A conspirator need only intend to further a venture which, if completed, would satisfy all elements of a civil RICO claim. Although very broad the RICO conspiracy statute is not limitless and its interpretation and application are – like most of RICO – loaded with nuances. Many courts require that a RICO conspiracy claim be pled with specificity. So, a careful review of the cases dealing with RICO, including Salinas v. U.S., 522 U.S. 52, 118 S.Ct. 469 (1997) is mandatory.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks