The investigation of strip club owner Michael Galardi and numerous politicians appears to be the first time federal authorities have used the Patriot Act in a public corruption probe.
Government officials said Tuesday they knew of no other instances in which federal agents investigating allegations such as racketeering and bribery of politicians have employed the act.
“I don’t know that it’s been used in a public corruption case before this,” said Mark Corallo, a spokesman for the Justice Department.
An attorney for one of the defendants in the Galardi case said he researched the matter for hours Tuesday and came to the same conclusion.
“I have discussed this with lawyers all over the country, and if the government has done this before, then this is definitely the first time it has come to light,” said Las Vegas attorney Dominic Gentile, who represents former Clark County Commissioner Lance Malone, Galardi’s lobbyist.
This is how you lose my vote with lightning speed.
russ
re:PATRIOT ACT: Law’s use causing concerns
Hmmm, why is this blogger infuriated? How does he know that the article’s contents are actually valid? Let’s face, newspapers have been known to, ‘lie’ by ommission or just outright lie…
For sake of argument, let’s say the article is factually correct…
So then, what’s the beef?
One has to remember that if Harry Reid or Shelly Berkley are members of the party of the, “Seditious & Sleazy” so I see this story as something that will affect that party…
Director Mitch
They nailed Capone on tax avoidance charges. RICO is used for a LOT of non-mafia prosecutions.
The job of a prosecutor is to use whatever laws that are available to put nefarious individuals in jail. If you’re pissed, you should blame the prosecutor, if anyone.
Chris Lawrence
No, maybe John is pissed because this is exactly the sort of crap people were warning about when both parties decided to sit down and package together every single law-enforcement wishlist item from the past three decades as a subtitute for sitting down and calmly considering what new legislation –if any–was strictly necessary to combat terrorism.
John Cole
Touchdown, Chris Lawrence.
drew
Mitch-
Yes, they naild Capone on tax evasion, because he was actually guilty of tax evasion!!!
RICO has been applied beyond organized crime but has nothing in the law which even smells like a possible limit to civil liberties.
RICO basicly incorporates a long list of crimes that when commited in 2 or 3 are commited in a pattern the party can be held guilty of a racekteering.
The Patriot Act was created specificly to fight terrorism by giving the police and government more power.
Justin Katz
There’s not enough info, yet, to be enraged. It’s entirely possible that the Patriot Act was invoked in a non-controversial way.
In short, Sec. 315 (the article suggests 314, which doesn’t seem to make much sense) changes the language of a separate law involving laundering to include bribery of a public official within the definition of “illegal activity.” If that clause were the relevant one in this case, then the FBI would merely have been following federal guidelines for laundering investigations, albeit with language (which does not mention terrorism) that was inserted into the law by the Patriot Act.
One could argue that such things shouldn’t have been in Patriot, but since they were, it would be contrary to the law not to apply them. At any rate, if (again: if) I’ve lucked into guessing the actual FBI usage, it doesn’t seem to be overreach to include bribery of public officials in the definition of illegal activity in a racketeering law.
drew
more…
Tax evasion laws were created with the purpose of catching tax cheats, Capone was one. This strip club owner is not a terrorist so why are they going after him with the Patriot Act.
tom scott
Drew said, “RICO has been applied beyond organized crime but has nothing in the law which even smells like a possible limit to civil liberties.”
This article
states it differently.
“The case has been watched closely over the years because of controversy over a woman’s right to end a pregnancy and national alarm over violent protesters. But it has drawn interest beyond abortion because it involves the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The act can be invoked by prosecutors and by private groups in civil lawsuits to target the masterminds of a pattern of criminal wrongdoing. Losing parties are liable for triple damages.”
So, while disagreeing about how RICO has been used, I still want to say that this was known ever since the Patriot Act was discussed.
From the John’s cited article.
“”I think probably a lot of members (of Congress) were only interested in the anti-terrorism measures,” Corallo said. “But when the Judiciary Committee sat down, both Republicans and Democrats, they obviously discussed the applications, that certain provisions could be used in regular criminal investigations.”
I think that’s lawmakers intent.
What was it P J O’Rourke said about teenage boys and carkeys?
drew
Tom-
Was your first quote from that article because I didn’t see it?
Besides that quote is meaningless for two reasons. 1. The anti-abortion groups actions were ruled by the courts not to be inviolation of RICO. 2. RICO is an anti-racketeering act. When you say “The act can be invoked by prosecutors and by private groups in civil lawsuits to target the masterminds of a pattern of criminal wrongdoing. Losing parties are liable for triple damages.” Tom, a pattern of criminal wrongdoing[s] is basicly the legal definition of racketeering. A racketeer commits a crime (like bribery) in the furtherance of another crime. Basically RICO was created to fight racketeering and organized crime. Your entire argument about RICO is just confusing.
The PA was created to FIGHT TERRORISM, not to fight the drug war, etc..
I am not an attorney, but I am an accountant and we need to know a lot of law as it applies to businesses. Since RICO can be used civilaly (hence the triple damages bit above) I know the law fairly well.
russ
Now if there is something serious about the Partiot Act that I personally think we should be concerned about is probable problem of the federal police forces subverting the local police forces with spurious claims of terrorism…
This can be stopped by a concerned and proactive citiznery…
Consider the following DOJ site where there is a, ‘Q&A’ by Jeffrey G. Collins
U.S. Attorney Eastern District of Michigan
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/mie/ctu/FAQ_Patriot.htm
An intelligent and proactive citizenry will read this and then watch to see if the actions of federal and local police forces step over the boundries indicated by Collins…
Dixie Flatline
I don’t see how this is “Republican Stupidity.”
To begin with, no one ever said the sole and exclusive aim of the Patriot Act was to combat terrorism, and even a cursory review of it (in either draft or passed form) would reveal that to be the case. Further, the law was drafted and passed with the overwhelming support of both parties. I suppose it’s Bush’s fault for signing the thing, but odds are his veto would have been overturned.
And now we have an FBI agent using a provision of the Patriot Act in a non-controversial way to catch a criminal. Unless he was acting on the direct orders of Ashcroft, I fail to see how this is a GOP issue.
But you know, it’s the spooky Patriot Act, so I guess I understand.
greg
Keep your laws off my lap dances.
James
Keep your laws off Tommy Chong’s (rather nice) collection of pipes and bongs, too.
The Patriot Act hard at work, keeping adults from purchasing glass tobacco pipes. (Sure, they’re used for smoking pot 99% of the time, but should the gub’mint preemptively decide that for you?)
tom scott
Drew, you’re absolutely correct on my bad link. It takes you back to John Coles original article. I can no longer find the article I ref’d.
My point was that all laws will be subverted. What I found particularly bad about the National Organization of Women lawsuit was that it pursued criminal law in a civil case. With the tripling of damages an organization can easily be bankrupted into silence. Did it work? No, after years of litigation it was thrown out. That doesn’t mean that there were not severe pecuniary damages inflicted. Will it be tried again? Certainly. Will it be successful another time? Probably.
This is kinda’ off topic of the misuse of the Patriot Act. I used it as an example of how a law will be exploited to achieve desired objectives. I’m not all that sure that many of the things allowed by the Patriot Act were not intended by the lawmakers. That’s why I included the P J O’Rourke comment. And the full quote from “Parliament of Whores” is:”Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.”
Robin Roberts
The bottom line is as Chris Lawrence discusses above. The PATRIOT Act was not enacted solely to fight terrorism but to enact a long existing laundry list of law enforcement wishes. Most but not all were by their language terrorism investigation related.
Frankly, the “outrage” that the PATRIOT Act had reforms in it more general that terrorism is getting old.
drew
Tom-
Racketeering is also a civil tort(meaning people can sue to get monetary damages), it has always been that way. RICO just instituted the triple damages part to punish law breakers in a more severe fashion.
NOW wasn’t attempting to bankrupt these anti-abortion groups into silence either. First of all these anti-abortion groups need very little money to operate (enough to buy some poster board and a felt pen, basicly) NOW wanted the legal system, under RICO, to issue an injuncition to prevent these groups from physically blocking clinic enterances. The Supreme Couurt ruled (correctly IMO) that the use of RICO in this situation would limit free speech.
RICO = FIGHT RACKETEERING
PA = FIGHT TERROR
Your anology is 100% bogus.
tom scott
Drew,
My apologies if my bogus arguments offended. I was responding primarily to this sentence in your post.
tom scott
I did that last post in Word then cut ‘n pasted it and apparently the links didn’t transfer. Here they are:
Reason Magazine
Las Vegas
source
Sorry about that.
cameron
“This is how you lose my vote with lightning speed.”
This sort of thing could happen a hundred times over and I doubt they would lose your vote John.
Jon Koppenhoefer
Well, well, well. It seems that a lot of ‘realists’ don’t see a problem here, because ‘it’s done all the time’ and ‘what did you starry-eyed fools think would happen’.
While we’re being treated to a rousing cheer of ‘suck it up’ from people who should be worried, the government is proving once again that if you give a man a hammer, he’ll treat everything like a nail.
Conservatives and liberals alike should be wondering why Congress is so quick to hand power to the President, not just this particular President, but any President.
But some folks are too busy proving how ‘realistic’ they are. Wait until they get the knock on the door form their local terrorism police on a neighborhood sweep for ‘likely suspects’.
It can’t happen here, can it?