Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2017

    Default What is the Statute of Limitations for a RICO Case

    My question involves court procedures for the state of: mostly beneficiaries/complainants that remained silent while profiting too long?

    Wouldn't the statute extinguish within 4 years of when the pattern had repeated so that a litigant would be expected to know they were injured?

    Chapter 96 reads twice in 10 years although holdings seem to support tolling within 4 years.

    Yes? No?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2010

    Default Re: A Huge Rico Case That Will Mostly Fail

    Did you bother to read the suit you posted?

    The statute of limitations is tolled based on the continuing violations doctrine,
    equitable estoppel, and the duress pursuant to which Weinstein threatened the Class
    if they complained.

    Start reading there and they amplify what they are asserting.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2017

    Default Re: A Huge Rico Case That Will Mostly Fail

    In no form or fashion am I condoning the activities, I am questioning the fact that many of these allegations go back well beyond 20 years.

    I'll study the substance of your response weighed against this:

    RICO Act itself does not contain a statute of limitations but the Supreme Court has held that civil RICO claims are subject to a four-year statute of limitations. Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates, Inc., 483 U.S. 143, (U.S. 1987). The statute of limitations begins running on a RICO claim according to the “injury discovery accrual rule” which ties accrual to the time when a plaintiff first knew or should have known of his injury.

    Moreover, a RICO claim matures when the plaintiff’s injury and the subsequent damages resulting there from become clear and concrete. However, the statute of limitations on a civil RICO claim tolls if the plaintiff pleads the following three elements with particularity: (1) wrongful concealment by the defendant, (2) which prevented the plaintiff’s discovery of the claim within the limitations period and (3) due diligence in pursuing discovery of the claim.

    Once a RICO claim accrues, a plaintiff must bring an action in four years. A subsequent violation, beyond the four year time period, will not revive a cause of action for the previous violations even if the pattern of racketeering activity is same and even if a plaintiff is thereby injured. The rule is liberal in that a defendant must show that a plaintiff knew or should have known of the existence of each element of the RICO claim, not simply injury. On the other hand, the rule is consistent with the underlying purpose of a statute of limitation and thus under the rule a subsequent predicate act after expiration of the statute of limitations will not save a claimant by reviving the claim.

    The number one rule in the business is that an actor NEVER speaks to anyone about matters for which they have representation............ this isn't a stretch to apply directly to the legal field where a plaintiff, represented by counsel, takes it upon himself to meet and discuss matters ex parte with defendants

    I look at the complaints and many of these ladies, for years on end willfully agreed to meet and discuss "business" matters privately and in very unprofessional settings with this guy and many seem to have had good reasons to have known better and what it was about since nothing about the methods were secret in the least bit...

    In some sense, it is sorta like highly successful "dancers" complaining from their hilltop mansions about what they 'had to to' in order to get Tony Saprano to give them a "job" at Botta Bing that afforded them the resources to many years later the ability to plunk down what had to be a hefty amount just to research and draft that complaint........

    I'm sure there will be a settlement, but, it appears to me many of these sisters should be subject to scathing rebukes for remaining silent for so long and our system does not reward those who tarry

    in 2000 held in Rotella v. Wood that the four-year statute of limitations period begins as soon as a plaintiff discovers his injury, regardless of when the fraud causing that injury is discovered.

    it almost appears argument may exist for those injured no sooner than December 2013, that truly had no idea what they were walking into, could have reasons to be adverse to those injured before and remained silent

    I know this sounds really horrible, but, it almost reads a bit like working girls, without any other employment options, suing the Chicken Ranch.

    Many of the allegations are felony crimes involving moral turpitude (speaks to clause in his contract) with ladies "suspicious" still proceeding and it is unlikely they prudently recorded what they allege, much less took it to Law Enforcement.

    1. Sponsored Links

Similar Threads

  1. Traffic Accidents: What Can You Do if You Don't Settle Your Case Within the Statute of Limitations
    By lawfacts in forum Accidents and Injuries
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-23-2017, 05:28 PM
  2. Racketeering: RICO Statute Abuse
    By r5633s in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-25-2010, 10:53 AM
  3. Defenses: Civil Limitations in Puerto Rico
    By getaclue in forum Civil Procedure
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-28-2007, 04:03 PM
  4. Initiation of Charges: Statute of Limitations in a Theft Case
    By utboy222003 in forum Criminal Procedure
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-28-2006, 06:19 AM
  5. Traffic Accidents: Statute of limitations for car accident case
    By juliem in forum Accidents and Injuries
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-20-2006, 04:46 PM
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources

Forum Sponsor
Legal Forms - Buy easy-to-use legal forms.