I strongly believe the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration), and Ronald Wood in particular, are guilty of violating the RICO act. Section 6.18.1962C-3 RICO – “Engaged in, or the Activities of Which Affect, Interstate or Foreign Commerce” Edit Text

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO)

6.18.1962C RICO – Conducting or Participating in the Conduct of the Affairs of an Enterprise Through A Pattern Of Racketeering Activity; Elements of the Offense (18 U.S.C. §1962(c))

6.18.1962C-1 RICO – “Enterprise” Defined Generally

6.18.1962C-2 RICO – “Enterprise;” Association in Fact Defined

6.18.1962C-3 RICO – “Engaged in, or the Activities of Which Affect, Interstate or Foreign Commerce” Defined

6.18.1962C-4 RICO – “Employed by or Associated with Any Enterprise” Defined

6.18.1962C-5 RICO – “Conduct or Participate, Directly or Indirectly, in the Conduct of Such Enterprise’s Affairs” Defined

6.18.1962C-6 RICO – “Pattern Of Racketeering Activity” Defined

6.18.1962C-7 RICO – “Racketeering Activity” Defined

6.18.1962C-8 RICO – Unanimity as to Acts of Racketeering Activity

6.18.1962C-9 RICO – “Unlawful Debt” Defined

6.18.1962C-10 RICO – Verdict Form and Special Interrogatories

6.18.1962D RICO – Conspiracy; Elements of the Offense (18 U.S.C. §1962(d))

6.18.1963 RICO – Criminal Forfeiture of Property (18 U.S.C.§ 1963)

6.18.1962C-3 RICO – “Engaged In, or the Activities of Which Affect, Interstate
or Foreign Commerce” Defined

The second element the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt for the offense charged in Count (no.) is that the enterprise was engaged in interstate (or foreign) commerce, or that the enterprise’s activities affected interstate (or foreign) commerce. This means the government must prove that the enterprise was involved in or affected in some way trade, or business, or travel between two or more states (between a state and a foreign country).

An enterprise is engaged in interstate (or foreign) commerce when it is itself directly engaged in the production, distribution, or acquisition of services, money, goods, or other property in interstate (foreign) commerce.

Alternatively, an enterprise’s activities affected interstate (foreign) commerce if its activities in any way interfered with, changed, or altered the movement or transportation or flow of goods, merchandise, money, or other property between or among two or more states (between a state and a foreign country). The government must prove that the enterprise’s activities had some effect on commerce, no matter how minimal or slight. The government need not prove that (name) knew that the enterprise would engage in, or that the enterprise’s activities would affect, interstate (foreign) commerce. The government also need not prove that (name) intended to obstruct, delay or interfere with interstate (foreign) commerce, or that the purpose of the alleged crime generally was to affect interstate (foreign) commerce. [May be given if relevant: Moreover, you do not have to decide whether the effect on commerce was harmful or beneficial.]

In addition, the government does not have to prove that the pattern or the individual acts of racketeering activity themselves affected interstate (or foreign) commerce. Rather, it is the enterprise and its activities considered as a whole that must be shown to have that effect. On the other hand, this effect on interstate (or foreign) commerce may be established through the effect caused by the pattern or the individual acts of racketeering activity.

Comment

See 2B O’Malley et al, supra, § 56.05; Sand et al, supra, 52-21, 52-30. See, e.g., United States v. Robertson, 514 U.S. 669 (1995