RICO Case Study

1133 Words5 Pages
38. Dale Anderson acted complicity with C Langstan when forcing Saratoga, Wyoming to ship waste via Rawlins to Casper. Dale Anderson acted complicity when forcing Rawlins to haul waste to Casper. 39. The illegal activities of Anderson and Langston are proximal and arguable the causation of the damages to the Plaintiff, and others. The damages to the Plaintiff includes, but are limited to defamation, wrongful terminations, and violation of good faith and fair dealing. 40. Elements of RICO were written in broad terms. To state a claim, a plaintiff must allege four elements: (1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity.[5] Each element of a RICO claim requires additional analysis: an “enterprise” is marked…show more content…
The racket of using a position of power to force others to pay more for waste disposal so that your family makes more money, is no better then Organized Crime extorting business and…show more content…
The following is an analysis of the 1st Amendment to determine if tThis act was not Job required.he speech is protected: 1. Did the individual demonstrate that his or her speech address a matter or matters of public interest and concern? When Plaintiff informed the Director of the marriage relationship he was informing the director of a violation of law (nepotism), that allowed and caused additional violations of Law that endangered Human Health and the environment. Arguing that the Landfill endangered Human Health and the environment was difficult until the fire. The fire proves the argument of Plaintiff to be correct! This Act was not Job Required! When Plaintiff informed the City that C Langston was married to the Dale Anderson he spoke as a citizen in an attempts to curtail the continued damages being done by Defendants. This is a matter of public interest and concern, which violates the Law. How much more does a citizen required to do to stop the government from damaging the citizen than point out that they are violating the Law. Discussing the fact that C Langston does not archive emails as required by law is a covering damages done to the Plaintiff. 2. Did the individual demonstrate that his or her speech was a significant or motivating factor in the employer 's
Open Document