1855 Ridge Road
Pigeon Forge, TN 37863
(865) 453-5676
Monday – Friday: 6:30 AM - 3:00 PM
CLOSED FOR LUNCH - 11:30 AM - 12:00 PM
Saturday: 6:30 AM - 11:30 AM *** Note: we cannot accept wildfire debris on Saturdays.
Sunday: Closed
TiKtoK
1855 Ridge Road
Pigeon Forge, TN 37863
(865) 453-5676
Monday – Friday: 6:30 AM - 3:00 PM
CLOSED FOR LUNCH - 11:30 AM - 12:00 PM
Saturday: 6:30 AM - 11:30 AM *** Note: we cannot accept wildfire debris on Saturdays.
Sunday: Closed
1855 Ridge Road
Pigeon Forge, TN 37863
(865) 453-5676
Monday – Friday: 6:30 AM - 3:00 PM
CLOSED FOR LUNCH - 11:30 AM - 12:00 PM
Saturday: 6:30 AM - 11:30 AM *** Note: we cannot accept wildfire debris on Saturdays.
Sunday: Closed
genamurphyphotography.smugmug.com
ex husband
Patrick Murphy Jr.
father works for Delta Airlines hartsfield intl airport
Patrick Murphy Sr.
trafficing
fraud
pacer.gov
Conspiracy to defraud.
Impersonating a professional.
forgery
Stalking 1st degree with intent for RICO
2 or more offenses
min 10 yrs prison
Enticing a child.
Trafficing 2nd degree
rackateering
Under RICO, a person who has committed "at least two acts of racketeering activity" drawn from a list of 35 crimes (27 federal crimes and eight state crimes) within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering if such acts are related in one of four specified ways to an "enterprise."[1]
Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count.[2]
In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity."[3]
A US Attorney who indicts someone under RICO has the option of seeking a pre-trial restraining order or an injunction to temporarily seize a defendant's assets and prevent the transfer of potentially forfeitable property as well as to require the defendant to put up a performance bond. An injunction or performance bond ensures that there is something to seize in the event of a guilty verdict.
This provision prevented the owners of Mafia-related shell corporations to abscond with assets. In many cases, the threat of a RICO indictment can force defendants to plead guilty to lesser charges, in part because the seizure of assets would make it difficult to pay a defense attorney.
Despite its harsh provisions, a RICO-related charge is considered easy to prove in court because it focuses on patterns of behavior as opposed to criminal acts.[4]
Enterprise defined
There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise. Either the defendant(s):
invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering activity into the enterprise (18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)); or
acquired or maintained an interest in, or control of, the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (b)); or
conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise "through" the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (c)); or
conspired to do one of the above (subsection (d)).[5]
The US Supreme Court noted that a commentator had used the terms "prize", "instrument", "victim", or "perpetrator" for these four relationships.[6]
Civil suits
RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer" to file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise." The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same.[7]
A civil RICO action can be filed in state or federal court.[8]
Both the criminal and the civil components allow the recovery of treble damages (triple the amount of actual/compensatory damages).[citation needed]
Organized crime
Although its primary intent was to deal with organized crime, Blakey said that Congress never intended it merely to apply to the Mob. He once told Time, "We don't want one set of rules for people whose collars are blue or whose names end in vowels, and another set for those whose collars are white and have Ivy League diplomas."[4]
On December 1, 1977, the federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Louisiana indicted thirteen defendants, Robert J. L'Hoste & Company, Inc. for conspiracy and racketeering activity. After the defendants moved to dismiss the indictment for overbreadth and vagueness, the grand jury returned a superseding indictment on February 27, 1978, charging the same offenses and naming eleven defendants, including the appellants. The district court denied a motion to dismiss the superseding indictment, and the first RICO trial commenced on March 13, 1978. The jury convicted the four appellants and another corporation on both the conspiracy and racketeering counts.
In May 1979, prosecutor Mark L. Webb, Northern District of California, conducted RICO trial, United States v. Sam Bailey Gang. The successful prosecution used the RICO statute to allege that a gang of postal burglars and a Nevada fence collaborated criminally in an organized crime fashion. The case did not involve a Mafia crime family.
Subsequently, US Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York employed the RICO Act in September 18, 1979, in United States v. Scotto. Scotto, who was convicted on charges of racketeering, accepting unlawful labor payments, and income tax evasion, headed the International Longshoremen's Association.
During the 1980s and the 1990s, federal prosecutors used the law to bring charges against several Mafia figures. In 1985, United States Attorney Rudy Giuliani (who would be indicted under Georgia RICO laws in August 2023;[9]) indicted 11 organized crime figures in United States v. Anthony Salerno, et al, also known as Mafia Commission Trial. Using the RICO Act, Giuliani charged the heads of New York's so-called "Five Families" with extortion, labor racketeering, and murder for hire.
Three Assistant United States Attorneys assisted in the trial: Michael Chertoff, the eventual second United States Secretary of Homeland Security and co-author of the Patriot Act; John Savarese, later a partner at Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz; and Gil Childers, a later deputy chief of the criminal division for the Southern District of New York and later managing director in the legal department at Goldman Sachs.
Time magazine called the "Case of Cases" possibly "the most significant assault on the infrastructure of organized crime since the high command of the Chicago Mafia was swept away in 1943" and quoted Giuliani's stated intention: "Our approach is to wipe out the five families."[10]
Three heads of the Five Families were sentenced to 100 years in prison on January 13, 1987.[11][12] The Genovese and Colombo leaders, Tony Salerno and Carmine Persico received additional sentences in separate trials, with 70-year and 39-year sentences to run consecutively. The Gambino crime family boss Paul Castellano and his underboss, Thomas Bilotti, were murdered on the streets of Midtown Manhattan on December 16, 1985.
-
18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)
Under section 1962(a), it is a crime to “use or invest” any income derived from a
“pattern of racketeering activity” or through “collection of an unlawful debt” to establish,
acquire an interest in, or operate “any enterprise” engaged in or affecting interstate
commerce.8 To establish an offense under section 1962(a), the government must show that
the defendant had derived income from a pattern of racketeering or collection of unlawful
debt, and then used or invested some of that income to establish or operate an enterprise
engaged in or affecting interstate commerce.9 For example, a drug dealer violates
section 1962(a) by using the proceeds of a pattern of drug trafficking crimes to invest in or
operate a legitimate business.
10
-
18 U.S.C. § 1962(b)
Section 1962(b) prohibits acquiring or maintaining an interest in, or control of, any
enterprise that is engaged in or affects interstate commerce “through a pattern of
racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt.”11 This provision makes it
unlawful to take over an enterprise that affects interstate commerce through a pattern of
racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt. For example, an organized crime figure
violates section 1962(b) by taking over a legitimate business through a pattern of
extortionate and loansharking acts designed to intimidate the owners into selling the
business.
12
-
18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)
Section 1962(c) makes it unlawful for any person “employed by or associated with
any enterprise engaged in” or affecting 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.”13 For example, employees of
8 Id. § 1962(a).
9 See, e.g., United States v. Robertson, 73 F.3d 249, 251 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Unlike § 1962(c), § 1962(a)
prohibits not the engagement in racketeering acts to conduct an enterprise affecting interstate commerce, but
rather the use or investment of the proceeds of racketeering acts to acquire, establish or operate such an
enterprise.”); United States v. Vogt, 910 F.2d 1184, 1194 (4th Cir. 1990) (identifying same elements).
10 See, e.g., United States v. Robertson, 514 U.S. 669 (1995) (per curiam) (defendant violated § 1962(a) by
investing the proceeds of narcotic offenses in a gold mine).
11 18 U.S.C. § 1962(b).
12 See, e.g., United States v. Biasucci, 786 F.2d 504, 506–07 (2d Cir. 1986) (acquisition of interests in and
control over businesses through loansharking activities involving collection of unlawful debt); see also United
States v. Jacobson, 691 F.2d 110, 112 (2d Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (acquisition of bakery’s lease as security for
usurious loan).
13 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c); see also United States v. Grote, 961 F.3d 105, 120 n.5 (2d Cir. 2020) (cautioning
that, because “some degree of discretionary authority is sufficient” to establish participation in the conduct of
the enterprise, “many ‘lower rung’ employees remain potentially subject to RICO charges for their activities
Primer on RICO Offenses (2023)
3
the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles violated this provision by using the DMV
to process fraudulent licenses and registrations for stolen vehicles in exchange for
money.14
Section 1962(c) requires the existence of two distinct entities: “a ‘person’ and an
‘enterprise’ that is not simply the same ‘person’ referred to by a different name.”15 Criminal
liability depends on showing that the person “conducted or participated in the conduct of
the enterprise’s affairs.”16 For purposes of RICO, a corporate employee (a natural person) is
distinct from the corporation itself, a legally different entity with different rights and
responsibilities due to its different legal status, even where the employee is the
corporation’s sole owner.17 Likewise, the existence of an enterprise is separate from the
pattern of racketeering activity in which the enterprise engages.
18 The enterprise is
“proved by evidence of an ongoing organization . . . and by evidence that the various
associates function as a continuing unit,” while the pattern of racketeering activity is
proved by evidence of at least two racketeering acts committed by participants in the
enterprise.19 However, evidence establishing the pattern of racketeering activity and
evidence establishing an enterprise “may in particular cases coalesce.”20
whats not funny is she going to prison for life and doesnt know it
-
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)
Section 1962(d) provides that “[i]t shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to
violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section.”21 Unlike the
general conspiracy statute applicable to federal crimes, which requires proof that at least
one of the conspirators committed an “act to effect the object of the conspiracy,”22
relating to a RICO enterprise,” though suggesting that § 1962(c) “likely shields the lowest rung of employees
from RICO liability”).
14 United States v. Alkins, 925 F.2d 541, 551–53 (2d Cir. 1991).
15 Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King, 533 U.S. 158, 161 (2001) (numbering and certain punctuation
omitted).
16 Reves v. Ernst & Young, 507 U.S. 170, 185 (1993) (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted).
17 See Cedric Kushner Promotions, 533 U.S. at 163 (“After all, incorporation’s basic purpose is to create a
distinct legal entity, with legal rights, obligations, powers, and privileges different from those of the natural
individuals who created it, who own it, or whom it employs.”).
18 United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 583 (1981) (“The enterprise is an entity, for present purposes a
group of persons associated together for a common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct. The pattern
of racketeering activity is, on the other hand, a series of criminal acts as defined by the statute.”).
19 Id.
20 Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938, 947 (2009) (quoting Turkette, 452 U.S. at 583).
21 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d).
22 Id. § 371.
Primer on RICO Offenses (2023)
4
section 1962(d) does not require the commission of an “overt” or specific act in
furtherance of a RICO conspiracy.23
The RICO conspiracy provision focuses on the “act of agreement.”24 Therefore, a
defendant who conspires to commit a substantive offense under section 1962(a), (b), or (c)
can be convicted of a RICO conspiracy, even without personally committing or agreeing to
commit a racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt, as would be required for
conviction of an underlying substantive offense.25 Nor does a RICO conspiracy require
proof that an enterprise actually existed or that a pattern of racketeering activity actually
occurred.26 Rather, it requires only that the conspirator “intend[s] to further an endeavor
which, if completed, would satisfy all of the elements” of a substantive criminal offense.27
The RICO conspiracy provision focuses on the “act of agreement.”24 Therefore, a
defendant who conspires to commit a substantive offense under section 1962(a), (b), or (c)
can be convicted of a RICO conspiracy, even without personally committing or agreeing to
commit a racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt, as would be required for
conviction of an underlying substantive offense.25 Nor does a RICO conspiracy require
proof that an enterprise actually existed or that a pattern of racketeering activity actually
occurred.26 Rather, it requires only that the conspirator “intend[s] to further an endeavor
which, if completed, would satisfy all of the elements” of a substantive criminal offense.
RICO defines “racketeering activity” as any crime enumerated in paragraphs A
through G of subsection (1).28 The listed crimes often are referred to as “predicate acts,”
because committing an enumerated crime is the foundation for a RICO offense. Criminal
acts committed outside of the United States can serve to the extent that the predicates alleged in a particular case themselves apply
extraterritorially.”29
Subdivision A includes “any act or threat involving” certain state offenses, including
murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in a controlled
substance, and other serious crimes, punishable by imprisonment for more than one
year.30 This definition does not list specific state statutes. Rather, as the Supreme Court has
held, a state statutory offense may constitute a racketeering act under subdivision A
provided it substantially conforms to the “generic” definition of the state offense
referenced at the time RICO was enacted.31 Further, the statute restricts the listed offenses
to those “chargeable under state law,” meaning that the offense must have been chargeable
under state law at the time the underlying conduct was committed.32
Subdivisions B, C, E, F, and G include “any act which is indictable under” certain
federal statutes.
33 These provisions are narrower than subdivision A because the act must
have been “indictable under” one of the listed federal statutes at the time the subdivision
was enacted. Attempts and conspiracies may not be used as racketeering acts unless they
are expressly included within the terms of the statute.34 For example, a conspiracy to
violate the Hobbs Act may be used as a predicate racketeering act under subdivision B
because the Hobbs Act statute expressly makes conspiracy a crime.as RICO predicate offenses, “but only
they think they are untouchable.
your going to be untouchable alright
in a 6x8 cell
plus your going to be a lifer
so you can enjoy all your surgery and fake body dwindling away in prison
heyj
with the money that you stole from father before you poisoned him so you can claim a settlement.
enjoy
she thinks she is a witch,
she going to be a bitch
in jail
they dont understand rico and that there life is over..
they are going to find out
have a nice sleep
i will