Got Fetish?

Prelude To:

A Criminal Organization Too Big To Prosecute

Our government does attack organized crime.
Now and then.
More or less.

But not the really organized, just the really obvious.

RICO & The Man

(Not to be confused with Chico & The Man)

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68 (1994)

Feds love to use RICO against an adversary that they want to eliminate. But is seems that they generally just won't use it against certain "influential" parts of our society such as political parties, teachers unions, churches, white collar professionals, or the most effective and profitable distributed crime groups in this country. Feds only use RICO - certainly their most powerful weapon - in politically correct and motivated circumstances against adversaries with no effective connections to the powers that be and no effective recourse in the media against the powers that be.

Why the focus on Racketeering (RICO) charges against all things associated with Italian-Americans?

Why isn't RICO pursued in all instances in which it is appropriate?

Could there be some anti Italian-American bias here? Might the media, themselves no strangers to the corrupting influence of money, have been too successful in their narrow depiction of Racketeering along racial lines such as with The Godfather movies and The Sopranos on HBO?

Well, we aren't going to "go there" today. But there clearly appears to be a different type of bias on the part of Feds and the Media. And this bias costs our nation BILLIONS of dollars a year, as the organized criminal element enriches themselves at our expense while the Feds are spending all of their resources chasing Hollywood and Media stereotypes .

Gotti Fetish?

Like how many bazillion dollars have the Feds spent trying to get John Gotti and his friends, family, and associates? And how about the Gambino fixation? How many federal agents and district attorneys have been trying to make something stick on them for how many years? Does anyone know how many tax payer dollars they have spent litigating, how many different charges were brought against them? Which criminals and criminal activities did the Feds relegate to lower priority in order to satisfy their Italian-American fetish?

Let's put this all in perspective. What is the total dollar amount of criminal activity that is attributed to these people that they should garner so huge a slice of tax payers money, and such a huge slice of attention in the media? Why is it that organized crime associated with Italian names exclusively draws so much of our Federal resources related to Racketeering?

OK, to be fair, the feds also go after certain Unions from time to time. Unions and Italian-Americans, they are seemingly the only RICO criminals in the eyes of our Federal Government. Let me restate that. For reasons unbeknownst to the casual observer:

"Italian-Americans and certain Unions are the only categories of RICO criminals that our Federal Government cares to prosecute."

Just to be clear, I don't have anything against Curtis Sliwa, the well known voice of the Guardian Angel's and WABC talk radio . If someone is guilty of trying to shoot someone, the guilty party should be punished. This blog entry is about the RICO blinders worn by the Feds and is not intended undermine Mr. Sliwa's right to expect that the government performs its duties with respect to the attempt upon his life. But what about the millions and billions of dollars of organized criminal activities that don't include a shooting of a famous spokesperson or allegations against Italian-Americans?

Take a step back and think: Who is guarding the hen house?

Who are the "Feds" that are supposedly going after all crimes? It would be simple to point out that these "Feds" are merely human beings. But let's be a little more accurate. These "Feds" are in actuality something much more significant than just homo sapiens. These "Feds" who are supposed to be prosecuting organized crime are in fact attorneys themselves.

How many of these Federal investigators and prosecutors were in private practise before becoming a "Fed", or go into private practise after being a "Fed"?

Does anyone out there think that our taxes are paying for impartial government attorneys?

Might anyone suspect that these Fed lawyers have a bias towards protecting their brethren attornies in private practise, perhaps related to their careers in the legal industry?

Do the white collar professionals, their organizations, and their respective lawyers who engage in any form of organized crime regularly escape investigation and prosecution?

Might anyone suspect that these Fed lawyers have a bias towards protecting their brethren attornies in private practise, perhaps related to their careers in the legal industry?

Well, one of my next blog entries will undoubtedly mention KPMG, LLC.

And does anyone out there know what the title of the prior blog entry means?