I'm wondering if there is anything worth pursuing along these lines. Congress passed the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) as part of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. The specific goal of RICO is to punish the use of an enterprise to engage in certain criminal activity. A person who uses an enterprise to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity may be convicted under the RICO criminal statute (18 U.S.C.A. § 1963). An enterprise is defined as "any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity." A pattern is defined as "at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of [RICO's passage] and the last of which occurred within ten years � after commission of a prior act of racketeering activity." Racketeering activity includes a number of discrete criminal offenses, such as gambling, bribery, extortion, bankruptcy fraud, mail fraud, securities fraud, prostitution, narcotics trafficking, loan sharking, and murder. Beginning in the late 1970s, civil attorneys began to realize the enormous moneymaking potential of RICO's civil provisions allowing payment of treble damages, fees, and costs to successful RICO plaintiffs. It became common for supposed victims to bring civil actions against anyone who was remotely and indirectly associated with a criminal enterprise and financially solvent enough to pay a RICO judgment. Some of the targets of civil RICO claims have included accountants, bankers, insurance companies, securities firms, and major corporations such as General Motors and MCI Communications. In many cases defendants in civil RICO cases have denied any wrongdoing but have been forced to settle because they were afraid of losing and being forced to pay a huge judgment. (Source: Answers.com - http://www.answers.com/topic/rico-law) I'm thinking that the CRA's & their subscribers conspire to commit fraud by not complying with the spirit and intent of FCRA & FDCPA/FACTA and that they facilitate this by using interstate commerce and mail. What do you think? A
I think there may be a number of CAs and JDBs that could be vulnerable, particularly some of the smaller JDBs who purchase purportedly unsettled NSF checks. I think the CRAs are probably immunized by the terms of their contracts ... they needn't get their hands dirty in order to profit (and so they don't).
So one of the RICO offenses is loan sharking which, according to http://www.answers.com/topic/loan-sharking is charging excessive interest rates. So, can someone explain how a pay-day loan, is then, not loan sharking?
Remember - the RICO act was passed in 1970 - 37 years ago. Since 1981, with the exception of 8 years of Clinton, we have been "ruled" by idiots like Reagan, Bush # 1, and the shrub who is in the White House now. Justice Dept. officials appointed by these idiots always turned a blind eye towards prosecuting RICO statute violators, who are the biggest contributors to their re-election campaigns.
I would think that no following the letter and intent of the FCRA (Providing complete and accurate CR's; doing proper investigations, etc.) would make them culpable. I may be wrong, but they are in this upt to their eyeballs contract or not. What do you think?
Consumer Lawyer: probably not RICO is just not the law that would work very well against the credit reporting companies. The broadest pro-consumer laws are California's two state laws, the CLRA and the UCL. Fortunately several other states have similar laws (Iowa and Minnesota for example), but many do not. I'm not saying such a lawsuit would work, but if one did, it would be under one or both of those two laws. One of the several problems with RICO (a federal law) is that RICO cases must be brought in federal court, where the vast majority of the judges are conservative Republicans. (Please vote for Democrats straight down the line if you care about consumer rights!) Federal court is also VERY SLOW, more than twice as slow as state courts, which are not exactly fast themselves.
Richard Cornforth who is a brilliant researcher and a close personal friend of mine has done an enormous amount of work in developing RICO cases against debt collectors. I know he has helped quite a few people develop their own RICO cases against various debt collectors and even against judges. One of his students who is also a close personal friend of mine filed a federal RICO case against 740 Oklahoma State Court judges. Sadly, shortly after filing her case against the judges her head slammed against a section of concrete one dark evening at her home. And that somehow happened on a night upon which there wasn't a cloud in the sky and temps in the 80 degree range. My understanding is that she suffered a severe trauma and may not recover too well. Things like that seem to have a penchant of happening when you go messing with high officials here in Oklahoma. One gentleman in Tulsa filed RICO suits against the state attorney general and other high officials and he was stopped one evening on the way home and found a gun pushed up against his forehead and he was informed that if he wanted to live he had best get out of the state as fast as possible which he did. While Richard Cornforth claims to have had great success in teaching others how to file RICO suits he has never filed one in his own name. Now he has moved on to IRS cases and left RICO behind just as he did with void judgments. He has never tangled with IRS himself and claims that he always pays all the taxes he owes. Of course, he claims that his students have had great success in defeating IRS liens and attempts to put them in prison for violating IRS law. He was doing seminars all over the country but has now abandoned the seminar circuit and started what he calls his Helm Society Law School which he holds at various places around the country. It costs $3500 to attend his law school and that much more in hotel, transportation, meals and other expenses not to mention losing 2 weeks worth of income to attend his 2 week school. He won't tell you where the school will be held until after you have paid him his $3500. Quite frankly I'm wondering what his next area of endeavor will be once he tires of putting on his law schools or can't find enough people to pay the price to attend. He now gets between 8 and 10 new attendees per session. Quite frankly I tend to think that by the end of 2008 he will run out of people willing to pay the price, and maybe before that. I wonder what his next great project will be? Retirement on all that money?
