You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

HennyPenny ago

One of the prerequisites for a RICO charge is Effect on Interstate Commerce – This merely refers to anything that has any effect on commerce when that effect is not entirely limited to one state. Any economic activity of any substance normally meets the criteria.https://www.federalcharges.com/understanding-rico-conspiracy-charges/ Would that apply to a religious organization?

Seems like Trump's Executive Order re: Human Rights Abuse has a few loopholes: "notwithstanding any contract entered into … before the effective date of this order" US has already agreed to treat the Pope as a head of state with immunity against lawsuits. Unless they go after the bishops one by one. If the Catholic Church is held culpable as an institution and it's head is guaranteed immunity in prior contract with the US, I don't see how RICO or the EO would come into play.

"the prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted before the effective date of this order.https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-blocking-property-persons-involved-serious-human-rights-abuse-corruption/

Factfinder2 ago

There seems to me to be potential wiggle room in some of these areas for imaginative prosecutors and enforcers of the EO. For instance:

"RICO laws were successfully cited in NOW v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249, 114 S. Ct. 798, 127 L.Ed. 2d 99 (1994), a suit in which certain parties, including the National Organization for Women, sought damages and an injunction against pro-life activists who physically block access to abortion clinics. The Court held that a RICO enterprise does not need an economic motive and that the Pro-Life Action Network could therefore qualify as a RICO enterprise." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act#Pro-life_activists

I would argue, however, that shuffling priests around to different states DOES have an economic motive, namely, to preserve the perceived wholesomeness of the church and thus not endanger the flow of donations.

With regard to Trump's EO, I think the term "notwithstanding" is not a loophole but actually the prevention of a loophole, meaning that previous contracts will not prevent the execution of the order. https://definitions.uslegal.com/n/notwithstanding/

In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the Vatican's plea of immunity: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-lawyer-stresses-supreme-court-ruling-was-not-on-merit-of-case

"On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined an immunity appeal by the Holy See in a case that attempts to sue the Vatican for transferring a priest accused of sexually abusing a minor several decades ago."

If there are any chances at all, even slim ones, to prosecute or sanction the church, I'm hoping they will be pursued.

HennyPenny ago

Thanks for the "notwithstanding" definition. Hope there's a remedy in law.

The 2010 US Supreme Court support was eroded by Presidential interdict , if I read it right:

In the Oregon case, the Obama administration backed the Vatican and said the appeals court erred in ruling that a victim’s claim of sexual abuse by a priest falls within the exception to foreign sovereign immunity law. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-abuse-usa/supreme-court-rejects-vatican-appeal-in-sex-abuse-case-idUSTRE65R3UB20100628

There's laws and then there's politics.

Factfinder2 ago

Yes, and I do hope this DOJ will follow the law and leave politics out of it. What Obama's DOJ did in the Oregon case was an abomination in my view.

HennyPenny ago

Obamanation is right.