The Aging Rebel by Igo 4/26/2018
Let me see if I’m getting this. SO, IF we use the example of “Red Sox Nation†in place of “Mongol Nationâ€, then that would include (by the courts finding of one in the same) ANY PERSON that had the least hint of ANY trace to the name (a grandmother wearing a pink Red Sox hat for example) could be charged with criminal conspiracy for being part “of the nation†It would in effect make a conspiracy crime out of mere possession of support gear. Never mind wearing it. Am I seeing this correctly? If so, this is a VERY dangerous precedent to set, and really effectively outlaw (or give a legal precedent to) ANYBODY having ANY trace to a group they target. Never mind having a REAL connection to, not to even go as far as to being a member.
Dar Igo,I know I have left a lot of people confused. The legal issue in the Mongols Nation case is “the distinctiveness requirement†in RICO. I’ll try again. The original intent of RICO was to prevent “criminals†from seizing control of “enterprises†like bowling allies and dairies.
Under the case law, which is an ass and goes back to the Turkette decision, prosecutors need a named DEFENDANT and a criminal ENTERPRISE. For example, US v. Cavazos, Barbeito, Pike and Portillo, and so on. The criminal enterprises in these cases, respectively, were or are the Mongols, Pagans and Bandidos.
What the government, at the suggestion of Judge Wright, did in this case was differentiate between the Mongols Nation which includes prospects, old ladies, friends of the club, retired members and so on and the Mongols Motorcycle Club, which is comprised solely of full patch members. The government assumes and will try to prove that the Mongols MC is a criminal enterprise that is tied SYMBOLLICALLY — by patch and name — to various criminal acts.
Red Sox NationProsecutors can charge anybody or any group under RICO. It is possible to indict Red Sox Nation but that does not necessarily mean every woman wearing a pink Red Sox hat could be arrested. It does mean that any cop could rip the pink Sox hat off the head of any old lady and charge her with disorderly conduct if she objected. The only thing that has kept the government from going after, say, Penn State Nation, is politics. Anybody Uncle Sugar wants to get can be got.
I can’t wait to see what a jury makes of all this. I am not comforted by the idea that this jury will be entirely comprised of people who couldn’t get out of jury duty.
The case is not about criminal defendants. The case is about symbolic expression – which technically is protected by the First Amendment. Here is the deal. It isn’t about prison. It isn’t about a criminal defendant. It is about the pink hat.
More:
http://www.agingrebel.com/16476
