This is how the Georgia prosecutors will be disbarred for charging Trump with RICO crimes
By Rachel Alexander
It is well known that RICO laws, named after the original federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, contain a lot of vague, broad provisions and "process crimes." The laws were drafted in order to ensnare the mob, since it was difficult making other crimes fit their actions. RICO laws have been used unfairly since then to target pro-life protesters, since not much else would stick. So it was no surprise when left-wing activist prosecutor Fani Willis, the Fulton County DA in Georgia, used the state's RICO laws to charge and get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, er Donald Trump and 18 others over their concerns about election fraud in the 2020 election.
Here is exactly why the State Bar of Georgia will of course disbar the prosecutors over the frivolous, harassing indictment. I received a — ahem — leaked draft of the opinion from the bar's disciplinary judge. Although the case hasn't even been tried yet, and there hasn't been a single ruling on it from a judge, of course the bar already knows it has no merit.
First of all, the bar disciplinary judge said, "The complaint at one point labels all the defendants as one 'enterprise' in a purely conclusory fashion." Willis's indictment stated, "The enterprise constituted an ongoing organization whose members and associates functioned as a continuing unit for a common purpose of achieving the objectives of the enterprise." Tsk tsk, she should have spent far more than just a few paragraphs discussing how the defendants worked together to form an enterprise.
Next, the judge said, "The complaint then confuses matters by referencing multiple enterprises: 'These enterprises engage in or participate in activities.'" Since there were various ways that election fraud was objected to, that means the indictment was poorly written since it didn't just hone in on one enterprise, but instead got bogged down listing too many ways the defendants worked together.
The judge went on, "Adding to the confusion, the amended complaint states that [the ongoing criminal enterprise in Fulton County] is the enterprise and then describes how some of the defendants — but not [all of them] — are related to [the ongoing criminal enterprise in Fulton County]." In fact, the enterprise was described so poorly that "Nothing remotely resembling a 'fact' is mentioned in these pleadings to establish an enterprise."
"In addition, the complaint and the amended complaint do not state facts establishing the required 'pattern of racketeering activity,'" the judge said. "This pattern must consist of 'predicate acts.' There must be at least two discrete predicate acts to constitute a pattern. … The predicate acts must constitute crimes … must identify the offense, the date of the offense, the person who committed the offense, and so forth."
He went on, "The complaint and amended complaint make vague references to [conversations] and [statements]. But nowhere are any facts alleged that, if true, establish the elements of these crimes. There simply are no crimes [overt acts] pled. The complaint and amended complaint fail to allege a pattern of racketeering activity."
Clearly, Willis's vague accusations such as "falsely declared victory" and "falsely claimed voter fraud" weren't fitting into the definition of a crime. As legal scholar Hans von Spakovsky put it, the overt acts listed were "perfectly legal actions that not only don't violate any laws, but are fully protected under the First Amendment."
The judge accused the prosecutors, "No attempt was made to gather evidence to support the RICO Act Lawsuit." He went on, "The allegations in the RICO Act Lawsuit would not have withstood any investigation or thoughtful reflection." He declared, "The allegation that there was a conspiracy driving the [election fraud concerns] was factually impossible."
The judge emphasized how hurt the defendants felt for being attacked by the prosecutors. "The emotional torment suffered by the defendants in the RICO Act Lawsuit was massive," he wrote. The judge found that the prosecutors violated Ethical Rule 4.4(a), using means that have "no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden." They violated ER 3.1 because the complaint was frivolous. They violated ER 8.4(d), conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, because Trump wasn't acting outside of the scope of his official duties as president.
Now, the truth is a state bar disciplinary judge really did write the findings in quotations, with the exception of the portions that have been replaced in brackets. He just wasn't writing about Willis's RICO case, he was writing about a legitimate RICO complaint brought by former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas, which I was briefly a named attorney on, filed against Maricopa County Supervisors, judges and their attorneys. The complaint was withdrawn just a few months after it was filed, without any rulings by the judge, but the bar's disciplinary judge, who has a questionable background, had no problem disbarring Thomas and pretending he already knew there was no merit to it even without any discovery, depositions, evidence, witness testimony, etc.
Since then, as the corruption in Maricopa County has massively expanded, frustration has exploded that attorneys are unable to use RICO laws to stamp out corruption, and any who dare to risk being disbarred by the left-wing controlled bars.
RICO laws are so vague and broad that they can be brought against almost anyone, and because of their murky nature, if you want to take down an attorney who filed them it's a cinch. If the State Bar of Georgia wanted to disbar Willis, the blueprint is already out there to do so. Now there are slight differences between the Georgia criminal RICO laws and the federal civil RICO laws used by Thomas, with the former beginning with an indictment and the latter with a civil complaint, but much of the essence is the same.
Von Spavkowsky concluded, "This indictment is the most outrageous, outlandish misuse of a RICO statute that I have ever seen and it fails to establish a credible violation of the law." Don't hold your breath for the disbarments.
Rachel Alexander and her brother Andrew are co-Editors of Intellectual Conservative. She has been published in the American Spectator, Townhall.com, Fox News, NewsMax, Accuracy in Media, The Americano, ParcBench, Enter Stage Right and other publications.