******* LEGACY LINK/READ ABOUT: Little Rock's Newest Corrupt Police Chief Kenton Buckner *******

Monday, July 8, 2013

Racketeering cops in Little Rock River Market

CRIMINAL RICO:18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968
A Manual for Federal Prosecutors


Sections 1512 -1513 (relating to witness/victim/informant tampering or retaliating against a witness,victim or informant)

United States v. Gotti, 459 F.3d 296, 342-43 (2d Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct.
3001 (2007); Mruz v. Caring, Inc., 991 F. Supp. 701 (D.N.J. 1998).

Extortion under Arkansas law would be "theft by threat." In the federal system, it would be a racketeering offense. Theft by threat is a class B felony in Arkansas. The threat has to be a threat of harm or a threat to cause somebody to forgo something.

The Arkansas statute provides:

"Threat" is broadly definited, and it means "a menace, however communicated, to: (i) Cause physical injury to any person or to commit any other criminal offense; (ii) Cause damage to any property; (iii) Accuse any person of a crime; (iv) Expose a secret or publish a fact tending to subject any person, living or deceased, to hatred, contempt, shame, or ridicule; (v) Impair any person's credit or business repute; (vi) Take or withhold action as a public servant or cause a public servant to take or withhold action; (vii) Testify or provide information or withhold testimony or information with respect to a legal claim or defense of another person; (viii) Bring about or continue a strike, boycott, or other collective action if a property or service is not demanded or received for the benefit of the group in whose interest the actor purports to act; or (ix) Do any other act which would not in itself substantially benefit the actor or a group he or she purports to represent but which is calculated to harm another person in a substantial manner with respect to his or her health, safety, business, employment, calling, career, financial condition, reputation, or a personal relationship."

The following pictured LRPD officers have been criminally involved in RICO activities in the Little River Market that have severely affected international & interstate commerce for the Houma-Choctaw people & Willy Dog USA. This is all under Federal jurisdiction. They are more than welcomed to MAKE the Houma-Choctaw People prove it. We are more than prepared & oh so willing to do so, we would love to question you on the stand.

This is the result of an adversarial complaint process within the LRPD that allows it's officers an open field to retaliate against violated complainants in an effort to silence them within the city of Little Rock & as per RICO statutes, severely affect their business activities locally, interstate and internationally. Willy Dog USA is a US/Canadian company with offices and a factory in Kingston, Ontario.


It is the position of the Houma-Choctaw Tribe that since about 2006, there are members of the Little Rock Police Department actively and unceasingly engaging in such illegal activities as racketeering, complainant & witness intmidation as well as retaliation aganst complaining citizens under the color of law and within the thinly veiled guise of "official duties", serving only to harass, retaliate against and financially interfere in the commercial activities of the tribe, 

MOST of these mercernary police officers live OUTSIDE of Little Rock City limit's.  This only adds insult to injury as they are not even citizens or residents of our great city but are wantonly allowed to SHOOT & KILL it's citizens if they "see fit" & can get away with it, as MANY have.

In a most documented fashion, they have criminally & tortiously interfered with the  international and interstate commerce of the Houma-Choctaw Nation's business, Willy Dog USA (main plant in Kingston, Ontario) with numerous illegal predicate acts.

RICO, a federal law that allows for up to 10 years to prove a RICO case based on said criminal serial predicate acts of police intimidation of complainants and witnesses that form an undeniable criminal pattern of predicated activities continued over the course of more than 6 but less than 10 years conducted under color of law in direct violation of state and federal statutes. The United States Justice Department is currently apprised of our tribe's obvious concerns of said illegal interference, tampering and serial police intimidations.

Increased profiling from the City of Little Rock Police Dept. started immediately after I refused to sell-out my business in the River Market District. A drunk driver at Willy D's totaled my hotdog cart. I replaced it, the former crooked manager of Willy D's was married to a River Market cop and convinced him and his buddies to, "turn the screws" in me. It has been this way ever since. One big cover-up, can't deny this email though, it's a matter of public record...

Hoffman, Daman dhoffman@littlerock.org

Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 3:23 PM
To: fraud101@gmail.com

Hi Ean,
I was wondering if you have any carts you no longer use that you would want to sell?

Daman Hoffman
River Market, A Little Rock Parks & Recreation Division

(501) 375-2552 OfficE
(501) 413-0504 SMS
(501) 375-5559 Fax

Sgt. Jeffrey Plunkett


Regardless of whether the action is criminal or civil, a violation of RICO "requires proof of (1) the existence of an enterprise, (2) either a pattern of racketeering activity or the collection of an unlawful debt, and (3) that the enterprise be engaged in or affect interstate commerce." [150]  Section 1961 defines several key terms, such as "racketeering activity," "enterprise," "pattern of racketeering activity" and "unlawful debt" as follows:
"Racketeering activity" generally means (1) any act or threat involving, among other things, gambling, which is a felony under state law, or (2) an act which is indictable under certain provisions of Title 18, such as the Wire Act, the Travel Act, the Interstate Transportation of Wagering Paraphernalia Act, and the Illegal Gambling Business Act. [151]·
"Enterprise" is defined to include "any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity." [152]·
Officer Mitch Mcintire
"Pattern of racketeering activity" "requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of this chapter and the last of which occurred within ten years (excluding any period of imprisonment) after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity." [153]·  
"Unlawful debt" generally means a debt that is incurred or contracted in a gambling activity or business in violation of federal, state or local law or is unenforceable, in whole or part, due to usury laws. [154]  Congress clearly intended that evidence proving the collection of an unlawful debt would substitute for a showing that two or more predicate offenses were engaged in forming a pattern of racketeering activity. [155]

In 1989, the United States Supreme Court rejected the Eighth Circuit's test that a pattern of racketeering activity required proof of multiple illegal schemes. [156]  The term "pattern" requires a two-prong showing of a "relationship" between the predicate offenses and the threat of a "continuing activity." [157]

Officer Greg Key
A relationship is established where the conduct amounts to a pattern that embraces offenses having the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or were interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and not merely isolated events. [158]  Continuity will be found where the predicate offenses amount to or pose a threat of continued conduct. [159]  For example, since Congress was concerned with long-term activity, continuity may be demonstrated by a series of predicate offenses over a substantial period of time, rather than a few weeks or months with no threat of future conduct. [160]  Continuity may also be shown by a few predicate offenses within a short period of time with the threat of the acts extending indefinitely into the future. [161]

A predicate racketeering activity involving gambling could arise as either violations of a particular state statute or as one of the enumerated provisions in Title 18, such as the Wire Act, the Travel Act, the Interstate Transportation of Wagering Paraphernalia Act or the Illegal Gambling Business Act. [162]  In United States v. Tripp, the defendant argued that his activities did not constitute "gambling" under either Ohio or Michigan law, but rather larceny by trick since the poker games in question were rigged. [163]  The court rejected the defense's argument and found that traditional gambling existed, because the poker games began honestly and subsequent thereto the dealer inserted a marked deck of cards. [164]  Even if the element of chance were eliminated, the court found that the conduct still fell within the parameters of the state statutes. [165]

In proving a nexus between the racketeering activity and interstate commerce, it is not necessary that the alleged acts directly involve interstate commerce. [166]  Thus, evidence that the supplies used in an illegal Maryland bookmaking operation originated outside the state was sufficient to show a nexus between the enterprise and interstate commerce to trigger RICO. [167]  Even minimal evidence is sufficient to demonstrate a nexus. [168]  Therefore, merely traveling between states in furtherance of an illegal gambling operation will establish a nexus to interstate commerce. [169]

No comments:

Post a Comment

You are welcome to email your tips, corrections and/or comments to: fraud101@gmail.com please indicate if you wish to remain anonymous or otherwise. We will post your comment without edit.

Popular Posts