Tuesday, Nov. 12, the federal court in San Francisco in the Planned Parenthood vs. David Daleiden case heard jury instructions from Judge William Orrick. Part of those instructions dealt with RICO (racketeering charges) against Daleiden.
An excerpt from those RICO instructions:
Plaintiffs PPFA, PPGC, PPCFC, PPOSBC, and PPPSGV claim that all defendants are liable to them under the RICO statute. I will now instruct you on the limits of plaintiffs’ RICO claim. As relevant here, there are two different ways to violate RICO: (1) conducting the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering or (2) conspiring to do so. Plaintiffs allege both theories.
RICO refers to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act. This does not mean, however, that RICO is limited to organized crime. When Congress enacted RICO, it wanted to reach persons who use legitimate and illegitimate enterprises to commit racketeering.
The word “racketeering” has certain implication in our society. Use of that term in this statute and in this courtroom should not be regarded as having anything to do with your determination of whether plaintiffs have established the elements of the claim. The term is only a term used by Congress to describe the statute.
The RICO claim asserted by plaintiffs in this case is a civil claim subject to the civil burden of proof of preponderance of the evidence.
Plaintiffs first allege that each of the defendants conducted or participated in the conduct of the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.
Plaintiffs must prove each of the following elements by a preponderance of the evidence:
First, there was an ongoing enterprise with some sort of formal or informal framework for carrying out its objectives consisting of a group of persons associated together for a common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct;
Second, the defendant was employed by or associated with the enterprise;
Third, the defendant conducted or participated, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity. To conduct or participate means that the defendant had to be involved in the operation or management of the enterprise; and
Fourth, the defendants’ conduct or participation in the enterprise was the cause of plaintiffs’ damages.
An enterprise need not be a formal entity such as a corporation and need not have a name, regular meetings, or established rules….
The closing arguments by Planned Parenthood attorney Jeremy Kamras following the judge’s jury instructions included RICO charges. Plaintiff Planned Parenthood gets one closing argument, which they made Tuesday, then the Daleiden side gets to make a closing argument, then Planned Parenthood gets final rebuttal.
MR. KAMRAS: What about RICO? (Document displayed)
MR. KAMRAS: Another claim that Ms. Trotter discussed.
Here, the causation requirement will be satisfied, as you can see in the instruction, if the damages are caused by the predicate acts, or if the damages are caused by the pattern of acts as a whole, or both.
As you will recall from Ms. Trotter, the predicate acts are Mr. Daleiden’s production and transfer, even use of fake IDs, his transfer to Ms. Merritt and other conspirators for use in the ongoing fraudulent scheme.
And as the evidence has made clear, Mr. Daleiden would not have been able to infiltrate the Planned Parenthood conferences and clinics and otherwise gain access to doctors and staff without the use of those fake IDs, and the pattern of acts as a whole that constituted the RICO scheme….