Georgia GOP Proposes RICO Expansion for “Loitering” Protesters
Georgia GOP Proposes RICO Expansion for “Loitering” Protesters
theintercept.com
Georgia GOP Proposes RICO Expansion for “Loitering” Protesters
6 comments
-
-
The GOP is trying really hard to turn Georgia purple.
It is absolutely disgusting to charge protesters with RICO charges for protesting regardless on which side of the fence you sit on Cop City. Frankly, the judges should throw out the cases immediately and should have sooner.
-
Dude, it's blue. It's gerrymandered to hell. The GOP suppresses voter turnout in every conceivable manner just to maintain power.
-
-
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Trump’s case, however, is a political outlier when it comes to the increased deployment of RICO charges in recent years, as it takes aim at a truly powerful cohort engaged in the very paradigm of conspiracy.
Prosecutors have cast other movement participants as part of a “criminal enterprise” for no more than fundraising or posting flyers naming police officers involved in the killing of activist Manuel “Tortuguita” Terán during a raid last January.
During a public panel last September, veteran Georgia attorney Don Samuel, who is representing a number of activists in the RICO case, noted that the state’s 109-page indictment “doesn’t allege a single racketeering act” but instead names “protected activities” as grounds for the charges.
A malicious prosecution like the Cop City RICO case, given its weakness, has a questionable chance of success in court but nonetheless spreads fear and drains movement energies and resources through lengthy trials.
359 pass, future RICO cases as flimsy and groundless as the one facing Cop City activists could have a better chance of success, as prosecutors could choose from a greater range of low-level violations, newly classified as potential “racketeering acts.”
“Any law that is written with the words ‘political affiliation or belief’ as contributing factors for enhanced penalties immediately raises serious first amendment issues,” the Civil Liberties Defense Center’s Regan told me.
The original article contains 1,044 words, the summary contains 222 words. Saved 79%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
6 comments
The First Amendment means nothing to these people
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
In all fairness there are some large scary words they don't know in that one
That's what the Second is for.