R.I.C.O

[HERESY]

Congress failed to include either a criminal or civil statute of limitations when it passed the RICO Act. Congress' oversight was easily remedied with regard to the criminal statute of limitations. Title 18, section 3282 of the U.S. Code is the "catch-all" statute of limitation for federal crimes. It states that "no person shall be prosecuted . . . unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted within five years next after such offense shall have been committed." With regard to criminal prosecutions, it is generally held that a prosecution is timely so long as the defendant has committed one predicate act (that forms part of the pattern for which he is being prosecuted) within five years or less of the indictment. See United States v. Darden, 70 F.3d 1507 (8th Cir. 1995).

 

[EDJ]

^HOW DOES THIS FEDERAL LAW(AND IT'S STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS) TIE IN WITH WITH LAWS MODELED AFTER THE RICO(I.E COCCA ACT http://198.187.128.12/colorado/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0, HIT TITLE 18, ARTICLE 17)?

 

[HERESY]

I don't understand your question.

 

[EDJ]

^WHAT YOU POSTED AND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. HOW DOES THAT APPLY TO OTHER ACTS(LIKE THE COLORADO ORgANIZED CRIME CONTROL ACT) WHICH ARE MODELED AFTER THE RICO? DO THEY UPHOLD THE SAME STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS OR CAN THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BE AMENDED TO FIT WHATEVA STATE LAW?

 

[HERESY]

What I posted was on a federal level, and as you know fed laws are different from state and civil laws, but state laws can't be inconsitant with the federal laws.

While COCCA is modeled after RICO it addresses criminal activity in a different way. I'm not familiar with Colorado law, but this might shed some light on the subject.

http://www.courts.state.co.us/coa/opinion/2006/2006q4/04CA1794.pdf

 

[JLMACN]

EDJ just curious...

did you catch a case?

5000

 

[EDJ]

^WHY WOULD I DISCLOSE THAT?

 

[2-0-NINE]

It's pretty conspicuous.

 

[EDJ]

What I posted was on a federal level, and as you know fed laws are different from state and civil laws, but state laws can't be inconsitant with the federal laws.

While COCCA is modeled after RICO it addresses criminal activity in a different way. I'm not familiar with Colorado law, but this might shed some light on the subject.

http://www.courts.state.co.us/coa/opinion/2006/2006q4/04CA1794.pdf

I'VE READ THAT(PRETTY INTERESTIN') AND I'M JUST TRYIN' TO FIgURE OUT THE DIFFERENCES IN RICO AND COCCA AND IF THERE'S N-E CONFLICT THAN CAN BE MADE.

 

[HERESY]

ANYTHING can be argued, and if the proper attorny were to make the arguement there could be something there. You have to remember that the only thing etched in stone are the supreme court rulings and the constitution, and even then the constitution is left open to interpretation, and this is what influences the supreme court.

 

[EDJ]

YUP. AND THAT'S WHY RESEARCH DICTATES WHAT IS ARgUED. AND WHEN YOU SAY "PROPER ATTORNEY", WHAT CONSTITUTES THAT?

 

[GTS]

YUP. AND THAT'S WHY RESEARCH DICTATES WHAT IS ARgUED. AND WHEN YOU SAY "PROPER ATTORNEY", WHAT CONSTITUTES THAT?

Shit a RICO case would require

 

[EDJ]

^TOO BAD HE'S gONE. I BELIEVE A PROPER ATTORNEY WOULD BE SOMEBODY THAT IS PASSIONATE ABOUT YOUR CASE LIKE YOU AND KNOWS THE INS AND OUTS AS FAR AS THE ARgUMENTS BROUgHT FORTH.

 

[EDJ]

It's pretty conspicuous.

THINK WHAT YOU WANNA THINK. AS FAR AS EVERYBODY'S CONCERNED, I'M A PREACHER AT A CHURCH.:knockout:

 

[JLMACN]

since you dont feel the need to disclose, I will assume Yes, Yes you did.

good luck homie.

I really hope it works out for you.

5000

 

[EDJ]

^RULE #1, NEVA ASSUME N-E-THANg.

 

[JLMACN]

no thats rule #3.


but I got you.

 

[HERESY]

^TOO BAD HE'S gONE. I BELIEVE A PROPER ATTORNEY WOULD BE SOMEBODY THAT IS PASSIONATE ABOUT YOUR CASE LIKE YOU AND KNOWS THE INS AND OUTS AS FAR AS THE ARgUMENTS BROUgHT FORTH.

Basically, but knowing the ins and outs are more important than passion. You can have passion all day long, but if you get in front of everyone and sound like a retard you're gonna loose your case.

 

[EDJ]

^TRUE. YOU NEED A MOTIVATIONAL SPEAKER THAT CAN BAK IT UP WITH FACTS. ON THE OTHA HAND, IF YOU HAVE SOMEBODY THAT AIN'T PASSIONATE AND "KNOWS" THE INS AND OUTS, THEN THAT JUST PUTS IN DOUBT WHAT HE/SHE DO KNOW SINCE HE/SHE AIN'T PASSIONATE ABOUT THAT.

 

[HERESY]

Or a person can get teh impression that the person simply doesn't give a shit and isn't trying to fight.