 |
After the federal RICO statute became effective in 1970, states were initially slow to enact similar racketeering laws because the impact and effectiveness of the federal law was still unclear.
Today, at least 30 states have State RICO Acts that enable a citizen to sue for racketeering, which means you sue to have peope found guilty of committing crimes, and you recover damages as well as expose the crimes.
I have filed RICO actions against the corrupt judges, Clerk’s Office employees, District Attorney, U.S. Attorneys, and County Sheriff’s Deputies. This information is a follow-up to today’s TV Show. I will add more later and a link to my RICO Lawsuits.
The state RICO statutes have important differences from the federal RICO Act. The state RICO statutes often use a broader list of criminal offenses and incorporate crimes under state law. The elements of many state RICO statutes are more easily established than the federal statute. Longer statutes of limitations may exist under state RICO statutes than under the federal RICO Act. In addition, state RICO laws may allow recovery for damages not included in the federal RICO Act. Treble damages are available!
The first state to enact a RICO statute patterned after the federal statute was Hawaii, whose law became effective in 1972. Hawaii was followed by Pennsylvania in 1973, Florida in 1977, Arizona and Puerto Rico in 1978, and Rhode Island in 1979.
The largest and most rapid growth of state RICO statutes occurred during the 1980s, when twenty-three states enacted RICO statutes generally patterned after the federal version. These states are: New Mexico (1980), Georgia (1980), Indiana (1980), New Jersey (1981), Utah (1981), Colorado (1981), Idaho (1981), Oregon (1981), Wisconsin (1982), Illinois (1982), Connecticut (1982), North Dakota (1983), Nevada (1983), Louisiana (1983), Mississippi (1984), Washington (1985), Ohio (1986), Tennessee (1986), New York (1986), Delaware (1986), North Carolina (1986), Oklahoma (1988), and Minnesota (1989).
The idea behind enacting state RICO acts alongside the federal act was to empower local and state authorities with the tools to address enterprise criminality in their communities. It stands to reason that local authorities are much more knowledgeable than their federal counterparts when it comes to localized crime..
See Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Local Prosecution of Organized Crime: The Use of State RICO Statutes 3 (1993).
Arizona — Arizona Racketeering Act, Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 13-2301 to -2318 (1998)
California — California Control of Profits of Organized Crime Act, Cal. Penal Code §§ 186-186.8 (West 1998)
Colorado — Colorado Organized Crime Control Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 18-17-101 to -109 (West 1999);
Connecticut – Corrupt Organizations and Racketeering Act (CORA), Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §§ 53-393 to -403 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999);
Delaware — Delaware Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §§ 1501-1511 (1995 & Supp. 1998);
Florida — Florida RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act), Fla. Stat. Ann. §§ 895.01-.09 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999); Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act, Fla. Stat. Ann. §§ 772.101-.190 (West 1997 & Supp. 1999);
Georgia — Georgia RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act, Ga. Code Ann. §§ 16-14-1 to -15 (Harrison 1998 & Supp. 1999);
Hawaii — Organized Crime Act, Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 842-1 to -12 (1993 & Supp. 1998);
Idaho — Racketeering Act, Idaho Code §§ 18-7801 to -7805 (1997 & Supp. 1999);
Illinois — Narcotics Profit Forfeiture Act, 725 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. § 175/1-9 (West 1992 & Supp. 1999);
Indiana — Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, Ind. Code Ann. §§ 35-45-6-1 to -2 (Michie 1998);
Louisiana — Louisiana Racketeering Act, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 15:1351-1356 (West 1992 & Supp. 1999);
Michigan — Criminal Enterprises Act, Mich. Stat. Ann. §§ 28.356F-.356X (Law. Co-op. 1999);
Minnesota — Minn. Stat. Ann. §§ 609.901-.912 (West Supp. 1999);
Mississippi — Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, Miss. Code Ann. §§ 97-43-1 to 11 (1994);
Nevada — Racketeering Act, Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 207.350-.520 (Michie 1997 & Supp. 1997);
New Jersey — New Jersey RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 2C:41-1 to -6.2 (West 1995);
New Mexico — Racketeering Act, N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 30-42-1 to -6 (Michie 1997 & Supp. 1999);
New York — Organized Crime Control Act, N.Y. Penal Law §§ 460.00-.80 (McKinney 1989 & Supp. 1999);
North Carolina — North Carolina Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 75D-1 to -14 (1990 & Supp. 1998);
North Dakota — Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, N.D. Cent. Code §§ 12.1-06.1-01 to .1-08 (1997);
Ohio — Ohio Corrupt Activities Act, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 2923.31-.36 (Anderson 1996 & Supp. 1998);
Oklahoma — Oklahoma Corrupt Organizations Prevention Act, Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, §§ 1401-1419 (West Supp. 2000);
Oregon — Oregon Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 166.715-.735 (1997);
Pennsylvania — Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 911 (West 1998);
Rhode island — Rhode Island Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Statute, R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 7-15-1 to -11 (1992 & Supp. 1998);
Tennessee — Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act of 1989, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-12-201 to -210 (1997);
Utah — Pattern of Unlawful Activity Act, Utah Code Ann. §§ 76-10-1601 to -1609 (1995 & Supp. 1996);
Washington — Criminal Profiteering Act, Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §§ 9A.82.001-.904 (West 1988 & Supp. 1999);
Wisonsin — Wisconsin Organized Crime Control Act, Wis. Stat. Ann. §§ 946.80-.88 (West 1996 & Supp. 1998).
The above list is dated 1999, so check your state if not on the list.
I, William M. Windsor, am not an attorney. This website expresses my OPINIONS. The comments of visitors or guest authors to the website are their opinions and do not therefore reflect my opinions. Anyone mentioned by name in any article is welcome to file a response. This website does not provide legal advice. I do not give legal advice. I do not practice law. This website is to expose government corruption, law enforcement corruption, political corruption, and judicial corruption. Whatever this website says about the law is presented in the context of how I or others perceive the applicability of the law to a set of circumstances if I (or some other author) was in the circumstances under the conditions discussed. Despite my concerns about lawyers in general, I suggest that anyone with legal questions consult an attorney for an answer, particularly after reading anything on this website. The law is a gray area at best. Please read our Legal Notice and Terms.
{jcomments on}