Keep and Bear Arms

MOBSTERS IN GOVERNMENT?
by Stephen F. Ware

I am not an attorney; therefore, this article is not meant to be a legal treatise making accusations. Rather, think about these issues. If you, I, and two of our friends acted as described below, would the federal government prosecute us? The answer would probably be a resounding yes!

Under the RICO statute, ''racketeering activity'' means, "any act or threat involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year. . .."

More than two dozen cities, states, and counties and the NAACP have filed suits against firearm manufacturers in an attempt to recover costs incurred associated with law enforcement and health care allegedly related to firearms injuries and death. The Department of Housing and Urban Development has been directed to support any public housing authority desiring to file such a suit.

These suits ignore centuries old tort law principles - the product was defective, the defect posed an unreasonable risk to the user, and the defect caused injury or death. Hey, I thought guns were designed as a mechanism of self defense. Doesn't that imply potential injury and death? Yes, but on the perpetrator of a crime, not the user. Any informed Second Amendment Activist knows the purpose of these suits is to put firearm manufacturers out of business. In other words, certain governmental bodies want to destroy (or control) the firearms industry in the United States. The lawsuit was a statement. "Do what we want, or we'll put you out of business." Sounds like extortion to me. This is step one of proving a RICO case.

Step two was the Smith & Wesson settlement. "Agree to our demands, and we'll let you out of the suit." Additionally, "We'll reward you with government contracts." This sounds like a pretty good definition of bribery. A demand followed by a reward. The demand is to give control of the business of manufacturing firearms to a governmental oversight board. The reward is not being put out of business and being given contracts based on signing the agreement.

The third piece of the puzzle is finding a way that these various governmental bodies fall under the definition of "person" or "entity" under RICO. Actually, this is easy. RICO defines these two words as follows. '''Person' includes any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property; 'enterprise'' includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity."

The governmental bodies that entered into the Smith & Wesson settlement agreement certainly hold legal interest in millions of dollars of property, and those bodies certainly hold themselves to be legal entities, otherwise, they have no right to govern!

Therefore, I believe we have met the three tests of RICO which are as follows. (1) Two or more "people" acting together to (2) commit at least two crimes falling under the RICO statute (3) and committing those two crimes within ten years of each other.

As a reasonable human being, it seems to me that Smith & Wesson and the other firearms manufacturers have at least (if not more) of a right to bring a RICO statute civil suit against the Treasury Department and the Department of Housing & Urban Development at the federal level. Additionally, the following state, city and county governmental bodies are also apparently in violation of RICO and should be made party to a civil suit. They are the states of New York and Connecticut, and the cities of Atlanta, Georgia; Berkeley, California; Bridgeport, Connecticut; Camden, New Jersey; Detroit, Michigan; Gary, Indiana; Inglewood, California; Los Angeles, California; San Francisco, California; St. Louis, Missouri, and the county of Miami-Dade, Florida.

Remember that a win under the civil provisions of RICO call for triple damages. Would that award be equal to three times the net worth of those companies that were attacked so viciously? Where's a good, freedom-loving attorney when you need one?

In my humble opinion, we have mobsters in government. And, our friend president clinton is certainly the boss of bosses, sitting at the head of the table playing godfather.

Discuss this in a forum.

	Print This Page

Written By:	Stephen Ware
	MOBSTERS IN GOVERNMENT? by Stephen F. Ware I am not an attorney; therefore, this article is not meant to be a legal treatise making accusations. Rather, think about these issues. If you, I, and two of our friends acted as described below, would the federal government prosecute us? The answer would probably be a resounding yes! Under the RICO statute, ''racketeering activity'' means, "any act or threat involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year. . .." More than two dozen cities, states, and counties and the NAACP have filed suits against firearm manufacturers in an attempt to recover costs incurred associated with law enforcement and health care allegedly related to firearms injuries and death. The Department of Housing and Urban Development has been directed to support any public housing authority desiring to file such a suit. These suits ignore centuries old tort law principles - the product was defective, the defect posed an unreasonable risk to the user, and the defect caused injury or death. Hey, I thought guns were designed as a mechanism of self defense. Doesn't that imply potential injury and death? Yes, but on the perpetrator of a crime, not the user. Any informed Second Amendment Activist knows the purpose of these suits is to put firearm manufacturers out of business. In other words, certain governmental bodies want to destroy (or control) the firearms industry in the United States. The lawsuit was a statement. "Do what we want, or we'll put you out of business." Sounds like extortion to me. This is step one of proving a RICO case. Step two was the Smith & Wesson settlement. "Agree to our demands, and we'll let you out of the suit." Additionally, "We'll reward you with government contracts." This sounds like a pretty good definition of bribery. A demand followed by a reward. The demand is to give control of the business of manufacturing firearms to a governmental oversight board. The reward is not being put out of business and being given contracts based on signing the agreement. The third piece of the puzzle is finding a way that these various governmental bodies fall under the definition of "person" or "entity" under RICO. Actually, this is easy. RICO defines these two words as follows. '''Person' includes any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property; 'enterprise'' includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity." The governmental bodies that entered into the Smith & Wesson settlement agreement certainly hold legal interest in millions of dollars of property, and those bodies certainly hold themselves to be legal entities, otherwise, they have no right to govern! Therefore, I believe we have met the three tests of RICO which are as follows. (1) Two or more "people" acting together to (2) commit at least two crimes falling under the RICO statute (3) and committing those two crimes within ten years of each other. As a reasonable human being, it seems to me that Smith & Wesson and the other firearms manufacturers have at least (if not more) of a right to bring a RICO statute civil suit against the Treasury Department and the Department of Housing & Urban Development at the federal level. Additionally, the following state, city and county governmental bodies are also apparently in violation of RICO and should be made party to a civil suit. They are the states of New York and Connecticut, and the cities of Atlanta, Georgia; Berkeley, California; Bridgeport, Connecticut; Camden, New Jersey; Detroit, Michigan; Gary, Indiana; Inglewood, California; Los Angeles, California; San Francisco, California; St. Louis, Missouri, and the county of Miami-Dade, Florida. Remember that a win under the civil provisions of RICO call for triple damages. Would that award be equal to three times the net worth of those companies that were attacked so viciously? Where's a good, freedom-loving attorney when you need one? In my humble opinion, we have mobsters in government. And, our friend president clinton is certainly the boss of bosses, sitting at the head of the table playing godfather. Discuss this in a forum.