What’s organized crime in the USA?

Organized Crime is a common expression used a lot, but it’s easy to lose track of what it means and how it works. Today, we’ll do just that, so sit back, fasten your seat belt and enjoy the ride... A good, functional definition of organized crime in the US today, is that it’s structured, continuing and operates illegally to generate profits through illicit activities, using violence, corruption, and systematic intimidation to protect its operations and enforce its rules. 

To law enforcement, like the FBI, that it’s not a single crime, but an on-going criminal conspiracy with a structure, whose primary goals are economic gain, influence and power through illegal means. Over the years, organized crime has been defined less by a specific ethnicity (The Godfather) and more by a set of behaviors and structures. For instance, in terms of structure and organization, there’s a defined structure, often hierarchical (like the Mafia) or networked (like modern criminal groups). 

There is a chain of command with leaders, advisors, and foot soldiers. Even in the event of the arrest or death of any single member the organization continues and has systems for recruiting new members and transferring power. Unlike ideological terrorists, profit drives organized crime and the use of violence and intimidation is simply a business tool and isn’t random. It is used to eliminate rivals. enforce discipline, collect debts, silence witnesses and intimidate legitimate businesses through extortion. 

Frequently, it seeks to corrupt public officials (police, judges, politicians, union leaders) to gain protection, inside information, and immunity from prosecution. It also actively infiltrates legitimate businesses to launder money, gain social respectability, and exert control over industries like construction, trash hauling, or waterfront shipping. Of course, a crucial function of organized crime is to make illicit profits appear legitimate. 

This is done through cash-based businesses (restaurants, bars, laundromats), real estate investments, international wire transfers, and complex shell companies. To most of us, the image of organized crime is still the Italian-American Mafia (La Cosa Nostra), which dominated the 20th century (like the New York Five Families). While still active, their power has significantly declined due to the RICO Act. 

Today, it has become far more diverse and decentralized, with Mexican and Colombian cartels that control the flow of drugs, Russian and Eurasian groups specializing in cybercrime, fuel fraud, and financial scams, Asian criminal groups involved in human trafficking, counterfeit goods, and credit card fraud, plus a variety of groups like outlaw motorcycle gangs, Albanian, Nigerian, and Balkan organizations and the "Gig Economy" of crime that operates as fluid networks on specific projects rather than being part of a rigid, lifelong organization. 

Things keep on changing and organized crime in the US. has evolved from the highly structured, ethnic-based syndicates of the past into a more diffuse, globalized, and entrepreneurial ecosystem. Just be mindful of it!

Will the Supreme Court find Trump eligible?

With three recent judges appointed by Trump, and now a super conservative majority, it seems almost impossible for the Supreme Court to deny Trump a run for the presidency. That’s almost become conventional wisdom. 

This said, some qualified legal scholars argue that Trump's actions surrounding the January 6th Capitol riot constitute "insurrection" under the 14th Amendment, making him ineligible to hold office again. There are opposing voices suggesting that disqualification on these grounds sets a dangerous precedent and violates due process, raising concerns about the separation of powers. 

Others also claim that such a decision would spark a huge, popular revolt. I believe that there will be more pragmatic trends at play that might disqualify Trump. They start with with John Roberts, the Court’s Chief Justice, that might see there a golden opportunity to get rid of Trump and his antics, particularly his demented ideas about revoking the constitution and other weird and dangerous moves that would force his Court to make damning decisions that would irremediably destroy its credibility.

Just five votes are needed to deny Trump another run for the presidency and John Roberts would only need to persuade Bret Kavanaugh to weigh against the former president to reach that majority. Both Roberts and Kavanaugh are considered conservative justices, though Roberts has occasionally displayed a willingness to break from strict conservative ideology and so has Kavanaugh at least on one voting rights issue. 

Further Roberts has consistently expressed concern about the Supreme Court being perceived as a political body. He might try to persuade Kavanaugh that disqualifying Trump, despite potential ideological alignment, could be necessary to maintain the Court's legitimacy and public trust. 

Clearly, the specific legal arguments for and against disqualification will be crucial. Roberts, as Chief Justice, will play a key role in shaping the Court's discussion and interpreting the Constitution, potentially influencing Kavanaugh's final vote. I still think and hope it works out that way.

This week’s only good news

Between Trump’s criminal activities and his multiple indictments, the Maui fires and the rest of the world's problems, our deluge (of bad) daily news was somewhat enlightened by a Montana Judge siding with young activists in a first-of-its-kind climate change trial. 

The District Court Judge Kathy Seeley, found that the policy Montana uses in evaluating requests for fossil fuel permits is unconstitutional because it does not allow the state agencies to evaluate the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. It marks the first time a US court has ruled against a government for violating a constitutional right based on climate change, said Harvard Law School Professor Richard Lazarus.

In pure Greta Thunberg’s juvenile spirit, the plaintiffs were between the ages of 5 to 22. Claire Vlases was 17 years old when she became a plaintiff in the case. Now 20 and working as a ski instructor, she said climate change hangs over every aspect of her life. 

The spokesperson for Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, decried the ruling as “absurd” and said the office planned to appeal. She criticized Seeley for allowing the plaintiffs to put on what Flower called a “taxpayer-funded publicity stunt.” To place the issue into context, we’re talking about a state, not a federal court, and the ruling is based on a state, and not the US Constitution, but it sounds like a major win for the climate plaintiffs. 

Only a few states, like Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and New York, have constitutions with similar environmental protections, so stay tuned for more similar actions. Should the ruling stay after the State Supreme Court’s appeal, it will be up to the Montana Legislature to determine how to bring the state’s policies into compliance. This promises to take time as Montana is a fossil fuel-friendly state where Republicans dominate the legislature and will surely drag their feet...

Are Trump supporters as criminal as he is?

Since 2015, I’ve said that Trump supporters fell into four categories. The first one being of mean, evil humans, bent on exploiting others. The second was made of pure imbeciles. The third one of gullible (mostly folks that are deeply religious), finally a mixture of these three traits. 

My feeling is that if Trump is as criminal as his past deeds and behavior have shown us all, and has no regard for rule of law, what can be said of those who supported him and still want him to be president of the USA? 

Are they as morally corrupt or are they ignoring the meaning of their blind faith in that man? I would say yes. At the same time, I’m told by some “smart and reasonable” individuals (in fact very naïve ones) that people have diverse reasons for supporting a political figure and their decisions may not solely be based on an evaluation of their character or their adherence to the rule of law. 

While some individuals may still support Trump despite allegations of criminal behavior, it doesn't automatically mean that they share the same viewpoints or disregard for the rule of law. This to me sounds wrong. They’ll go as far as saying that his electorate can be accommodating enough to tolerate any leader as long as their personal issues are handled to their satisfaction. 

This, in my book, is called hypocrisy. I realize that people's political beliefs and support for a particular candidate can be influenced by a variety of factors, such as policy positions, ideology, party affiliation, personal experiences, or a desire for certain outcomes, but it remains essential that these issues fall within the limits of contemporary law and generally accepted social behavior. 

While it remains essential to engage in respectful and open dialogue to understand different perspectives and address concerns constructively, one can’t accept values that run contrary to current culture and rule of law. 

I realize that it’s difficult to make assumptions about people who supported Trump, but it remains crystal clear that two-thirds of Republicans, 70 percent of voters who supported his 2020 campaign and a little more than half of white evangelical Christians want Trump to run again. Such a nice group... 

Poor America!

FIFA uncovered

As the world is mesmerized by the on-going 2022 soccer world cup, Netflix has been showing its documentary about FIFA and its wrongdoings that are using the same ingredients as what goes inside the more repulsive bribery crimes. 

If you can see that film and read between the lines, you will realize why Switzerland and its infamous banking network is a must-have headquarters location for world sporting federations, including of course, the International Olympic Committee. 

We just finished watching the four-part series and have found it as much entertaining as it was informative. Without spoiling the story we came up with two take-away. 

First. it took the US Justice Department to bring down Sepp Blatter and the house of FIFA, while none of the European governments lifted one finger to bring up the scandal into the open (instead, France’s President Sarkozy was the one igniting part of it with Qatar candidacy). 

Second, the two men in command, Blatter and Platini didn’t end up in prison as they should have, with the help of the Swiss Government that “delegated” the pains to the executives and associates below their chain of command, and Blatter even had the guts to claims “absolutely no responsibility” for the mess. 

So, if you don’t see the piece, you’ve got the gist of it. 

Waiting to watch Trump's last act

Like a large number of Americans, I wish to see Trump incarcerated. Maybe I’m kidding myself, but if I had done half of what he’s done, I certainly would be jail and most of my countrymen would too.

So what’s the hold up? Decorum, mostly and secondarily, fear from the beast. Can you imagine, jailing an ex-president. It’s never been done before! Americans are slaves from their own concocted etiquette, they also respect authority figures unlike anyone on the planet, except for the British and their monarchy perhaps.

They're also a bit too credulous as too much religiosity will do that to most people. Americans should remember that before become a politician, Trump already was a criminal, so he know one things or two about breaking the law, to the point that it’s become second nature to him. 

As for the decision by the House Jan. 6 committee to subpoena Donald Trump, this could if be a trap set for him to force the hands of Merrick Garland and speed up and indictment, should the disgraced president decide not to accept Congress’ invitation. 

I can’t wait to watch the beginning of Trump’s soap opera last installment where he’ll star this time… behind bars!

The trees that fell in my yard…

On October 12, we experienced the first snowfall of the season while most of the leaves were still hanging on to the trees. 

Leaves and snow never go well together and, as a result, they were a huge number of broken trees and limbs all over town. Our yard didn’t escape the incident as two aspen trees were laying there as I woke up that morning…

I alerted my neighbor and sent a picture to my son as he’s is a “specialist” on fallen trees (he had two massive trees torn off his property during a hurricane-like windstorm in September 2020 in Salt Lake City. 

Knowing the “rules” so to speak, he reminded me that if my neighbor’s tree fell on my property, it was my responsibility to handle the tree removal service, not the neighbor’s. 

Conversely, if my tree had fallen on my neighbor’s property, it would become their responsibility to take care of its removal. Poor tree maintenance or other careless manners of handling a tree would of course not qualify. 

Sounds counter-intuitive, but it’s the law, at least in Utah, but also in my native France! Because of that, it’s not uncommon for neighbors to disagree with each other over the tree falling on their property due to a storm. 

In my case, my neighbor was great, he said “Don’t worry, me and my son will take care of that!” I offer to help, but after I return from my morning stroll with my wife, the trees were no longer there! 

A good bottle of wine and some chocolate compensated him for his good deed!

Can a city name be trademarked?

I wondered about this following the brouhaha surrounding Vail Resorts' decision to trademark the “Park City” name.

What must be underscored is that the process of trademarking “Park City” was actually initiated by Powdr Corporation, the previous owner of our local resort, so let's be clear about it, Vail Resorts didn't actually start the food fight, it was the brainchild of a friendly corporate entity that did everything it could to “poison the well” of public opinion, when it lost its legal fight against the Colorado resort.

But I'm going off subject; yes, it's indeed possible to trademark a city name if it is used as a brand name for a specific product or service. For example, “New Orleans” is a registered trademark for a line of doors and window guards.

Trademarking a city name does not mean that one owns the city name, nor does it mean that one owns the city; it merely prevents other companies from using the city’s name in association with the product or service for which the trademark as been applied for.

In the case of Park City, and the current prevalence of “snow parks” or even “bike dirt parks” at mountain resorts, it becomes pretty obvious to see why an entity like Powdr, early on, and now Vail Resorts would want to grab that name for its own promotional purpose!

We lost a Judge

I'm sorry by the passing of Justice Scalia for his family and friend and especially for not passing at his home. I must say that I am not sorry for the Nation.

Scalia, whose health wasn't so good, probably took one too many junkets paid for by his friends looking to influence him. In that ultimate case, it was J B Poindexter & Co Inc of Houston, Texas.

I guess some form of corruption works fine in all branches of government.

Unlike what the Conservatives are wishing for, he should be replaced as soon as possible. We can't have the third branch of government idle or disfunctional for more than a year.

What's a grand Jury?

Following all the recent, racially-tainted police incidents, a vast majority of people doesn't even know what a grand jury is, so today, I'll attempt to fill this gap and share my feelings about it. A grand jury is used to investigate potential criminal conduct, determine if criminal charges are appropriate and performs both accusatory and investigatory functions.

Technically, it's meant to screen out incompetent or malicious prosecutions. Interestingly, the United States is the only country that still uses grand juries and only half of the states actually use them. As it can be composed to up to 23 citizens, it gets its “grand jury” name from the fact that it's larger than the 12 people usually found in a traditional jury.

One of the biggest problem with grand juries is that jurors are not a representative sampling of the community and are not necessarily qualified to understand what's expected of them. Further, unlike potential jurors in regular trials, grand jurors are not screened for bias or other improper factors. Finally, grand jury proceedings are held secret; no judge is present; only a prosecutor leads the proceedings and the defendant has no right to present his case.

All of the above doesn't sound quite right to me and might suggest an urgent review of the practice leading perhaps to its abolition. At least, that's my two-cent...