Certain corrupt activities are prohibited by the Federal RICO statutes (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) codified at Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 1961 and following.
Essentially, the Federal law prohibits an association in-fact of persons who engage in a pattern of racketeering activity, defined at Title 18 U.S. Code Section 1961, to include the offense of Bribery, chargeable under the laws of the State of Ohio, and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year (a felony offense).
Title 18 U.S. Code Section 1962 sets out the actual proscribed conduct. You can read these Federal statutes by following this link: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00001962----000-.html.
Under the laws of the State of Ohio, BRIBERY can be found at Section 2921.02 of the Ohio Revised Code. You can read the statue by following this link: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2921
Let me set out for you a properly framed charge which might hypothetically be charged by the United States Department of Justice in an indictment presented to a Federal Grand Jury:
During the period November 1, 2004 and continuing to the present date, and on prior dates, at Medina, Medina County, Ohio, in the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, CHRISTOPHER COLLIER, a judge of the Medina County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas, DEAN HOLMAN, the elected prosecutor of Medina County, Ohio, and SCOTT SALISBURY, an assistant Medina County Prosecutor, and others known to the Grand Jury, did unlawfully receive income, directly and indirectly, derived from a pattern of racketeering, as defined in Title 18, Section 1961 of the United States Code, by engaging in a pattern of unlawful conduct chargeable under the laws of the State of Ohio and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year, to wit: Bribery, in violation of Sections 2921.02(A) and 2921.02(B) of the Ohio Revised Code, felonies of the third degree punishable by imprisonment from one to five years; all in violation of Title 18, Sections 1962 and 2, United States Code.
Of course, you might now be questioning as to how COLLIER, HOLMAN, SALISBURY, and others might have violated the Bribery statute, in violation of Section 2921.02 of the Ohio Revised Code. Let me now present for you hypothetical charges that might be brought in a court in the State of Ohio.
During the period November 1, 2004 and the present date, and on prior dates, DEAN HOLMAN, an elected public official of Medina County, Ohio, with purpose to corrupt CHRISTOPHER COLLIER, a judge of the Common Pleas Court of Medina County, Ohio, and to improperly influence Collier with respect to the discharge of his duty, before and after COLLIER was elected and sworn as a judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Medina County, Ohio, did offer and give to COLLIER a thing of value and valuable benefit, to wit: continued compensation and benefits from the State of Ohio for employment as judge of the Medina County Court of Common Pleas by causing COLLIER to be elected to the position of judge of the Court of Common Pleas in General Elections occurring in elections in November 2004 and again in 2010 without opposition from a Democratic opponent in such General Elections, in exchange for rulings, findings, orders and conduct, all contrary to law, in criminal cases, performed at the behest and in favor of HOLMAN, in violation of §2921.02(A), Ohio Revised Code.
Yet, another hypothetical criminal charge:
During the period November 1, 2004 and the present date, and on prior dates, CHRISTOPHER COLLIER, both before and after he was elected and sworn as a judge of the Medina County Court of Common Pleas did knowingly solicit and accept a valuable thing and valuable benefit, to wit: continued compensation and benefits from the State of Ohio received in his continued employment as judge of the Medina County Court of Common Pleas by facing uncontested election in the General Election of 2010; in exchange for such consideration and thing of value, COLLIER agreed to corrupt himself in the discharge of his sworn official duty by issuing rulings, findings, and orders, and exhibiting conduct, all contrary to law, to the intended to benefit DEAN HOLMAN, the elected county prosecutor of Medina County, Ohio, in violation of §2921.02(B), Ohio Revised Code.
That, of course, is how criminally charged conduct is properly framed! You'll never see something this competent coming out of the Medina County Prosecutor's Office! Although, you may very well see such language in a Federal indictment in the future.
PLEASE REMEMBER THAT A FEDERAL PROSECUTOR CAN CHARGE AS MANY COUNTS AS ARE JUSTIFIED BY THE EVIDENCE (UNLIKE MEDINA COUNTY WHERE EVIDENCE PLAYS NO PART IN THE CONVICTIONS OF INNOCENT CITIZENS). IN FACT, A FEDERAL PROSECUTOR CAN JUST AS WELL CHARGE TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE AS A PREDICATE OFFENSE, AS WELL!
That, of course, is how criminally charged conduct is properly framed! You'll never see something this competent coming out of the Medina County Prosecutor's Office! Although, you may very well see such language in a Federal indictment in the future.
PLEASE REMEMBER THAT A FEDERAL PROSECUTOR CAN CHARGE AS MANY COUNTS AS ARE JUSTIFIED BY THE EVIDENCE (UNLIKE MEDINA COUNTY WHERE EVIDENCE PLAYS NO PART IN THE CONVICTIONS OF INNOCENT CITIZENS). IN FACT, A FEDERAL PROSECUTOR CAN JUST AS WELL CHARGE TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE AS A PREDICATE OFFENSE, AS WELL!
This, of course, is but one theory of a potential criminal prosecution in U.S. District Court!
MUCH MORE TO COME ....
No comments:
Post a Comment