THE R.I.C.O. STATUTE…A CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT?

When a reader of a local newspaper sent a letter to the editor titled “Our bully-in-chief rules by
intimidation” I realized that there is a law against intimidation or, to use a legal term,
“extortion”.
Before we get into the core of the subject matter we should have a better understanding of the
federal R.I.C.O statute. R.I.C.O. stands for the “Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act” . When this act was passed, Congress chose to target
"racketeering activity." The prohibited activities under this Act are:

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly or
indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity…..

(b) It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through
collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or
control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or
foreign commerce.

(c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in,
or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate,
directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of
racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection
(a), (b), or (c) of this section (18 U.S.C. § 1962)

Section 1961 of the Act defines several key terms, such as "racketeering activity," "enterprise,"
"pattern of racketeering activity" and "unlawful debt" as follows:

"Racketeering activity" generally means (1) any act or threat involving, among other things,
extortion ( See 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(A), (B)).

"Enterprise" is defined to include "any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other

legal entity, and union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity." (18
U.S.C. § 1961(4)).

The Hobbs Act defines "extortion" as "the obtaining of property from another, with his consent,
induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official
right." 18 U.S.C. S 1951(b)(2).

The next step is to understand the “legal controlling authority” bestowed to the
President of the United States. The power of the President of the United States is
clearly defined by Article II Sec. 2 which states:
1. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the
United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the
actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of
the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject
 relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to
grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except
in Cases of Impeachment.
2. He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to
make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he
shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall
appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the
supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose
Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be
established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of
such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the
Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
3. The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen
during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire
at the End of their next Session.

The Constitution gives the President very clear and limited powers. The President
has no legal controlling Authority to dictate how private enterprises conduct their
business. The founding fathers neither wanted to create a King nor a dictator to
govern the United States of America. The concept of our Republic is that we are a
Nation of Laws and no one is above it including the President or any member on
Congress.
Now that we know what the RICO act is all about and that the President Powers are
limited, let’s go over the current events of the past few weeks.
On May 2, 2009 reporter Jake Tapper of ABC reported the following:” A leading
bankruptcy attorney representing hedge funds and money managers told ABC News
that Steve Rattner, the leader of Obama administration’s Auto industry Task Force,
threatened one of the firms, an investment bank, that if it continued to oppose the
administration’s Chrysler bankruptcy plan, the White House would use the White
House press corps to destroy its reputation”.
On March 29, 2009 Politico reported that “The Obama administration asked Rick
Wagoner, the chairman and CEO of General Motors, to step down and he agreed, a
White House official said. The White House confirmed Wagoner was leaving at the
government's behest after The Associated Press reported his immediate departure,
without giving a reason.”
It is clear to me that there is at least a violation of the prohibited activities
described in (b) and (c).
Judge Napolitano constantly stated on Fox news that what the present
administration is doing “boils down to extortion”.
It appears that some politicians forget that winning an election does not mean that
they have the right to violate any Laws. Who will have the courage to remind this
President that he is not the “Godfather” and has to govern in accordance with the
Law? Article II Sec. 4 of the Constitution states: “The President, Vice President and
all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment
for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and
Misdemeanors. Who will have the courage to initiate impeachment proceeding? It
will not happen when the government is ruled by one party and the opposition does
not have the courage to bring the problem to the attention of the people. America
has sacrificed too many lives to bring freedom to people in foreign lands. Are the
American people willing to give up their own freedom?
Luigi DE Francesco