Yes I said stealing, and I stand by my statement this is a prime example of RICO
Remember: In order for anything to be considered RICO (Racketeering Influence and Corrupt Organizations) it must involve more then one person conspiring to commit a crime
Under RICO, a person who has committed “at least two acts of racketeering activity” drawn from a list of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes—within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering if such acts are related in one of four specified ways to an “enterprise”. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of “racketeering activity.”
RICO also permits a private individual “damaged in his business or property” by a “racketeer” to file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an “enterprise”. The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same. There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise: either the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering activity into the enterprise (18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)); or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained an interest in, or control of, the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (b)); or the defendant(s) conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise “through” the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (c)); or the defendant(s) conspired to do one of the above (subsection (d)). In essence, the enterprise is either the ‘prize,’ ‘instrument,’ ‘victim,’ or ‘perpetrator’ of the racketeers. A civil RICO action can be filed in state or federal court.
Both the criminal and civil components allow the recovery of treble damages (damages in triple the amount of actual/compensatory damages).
Although some of the RICO predicate acts are extortion and blackmail, one of the most successful applications of the RICO laws has been the ability to indict and or sanction individuals for their behavior and actions committed against witnesses and victims in alleged retaliation or retribution for cooperating with federal law enforcement or intelligence agencies.
Violations of the RICO laws can be alleged in civil lawsuit cases or for criminal charges. In these instances charges can be brought against individuals or corporations in retaliation for said individuals or corporations working with law enforcement. Further, charges can also be brought against individuals or corporations who have sued or filed criminal charges against a defendant.
Anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) laws can be applied in an attempt to curb alleged abuses of the legal system by individuals or corporations who utilize the courts as a weapon to retaliate against whistle blowers, victims, or to silence another’s speech. RICO could be alleged if it can be shown that lawyers and/or their clients conspired and collaborated to concoct fictitious legal complaints solely in retribution and retaliation for themselves having been brought before the courts.
Under the law, the meaning of racketeering activity is set out at 18 U.S.C. § 1961. As currently amended it includes:
- Any violation of state statutes against gambling, murder, kidnapping, extortion, arson, robbery, bribery, dealing in obscene matter,
- Any act of bribery, counterfeiting, theft, embezzlement, fraud, dealing in obscene matter, obstruction of justice, slavery, racketeering, gambling, money laundering, commission of murder-for-hire, and many other offenses covered under the Federal criminal code (Title 18);
- Embezzlement of union funds;
- Bankruptcy fraud or securities fraud;
- Money laundering and related offenses;
Pattern of racketeering activity requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of this chapter and the last of which occurred within ten years (excluding any period of imprisonment) after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity. The U.S. Supreme Court has instructed federal courts to follow the continuity-plus-relationship test in order to determine whether the facts of a specific case give rise to an established pattern. Predicate acts are related if they “have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events.”
We have discussed Lin O’Dell many times here because there is so much to write about when it comes to her.
Lin O’Dell Bad Business,Murder, Undue influence (Part 1)
Lin O’Dell Mark Plivelich & ALL of their associates (Part 2)
She is the Washington State Bar Associations Hearings Officer who decides if someone is fit to practice law in this state who is robbing and abusing people all over the state
So we’ve got a lady named Paula who went into Colville attorney Pruitt Hamm’s office for a divorce, and came out with a guardian ward. But not before Pruitt Hamm made exparte contacts with Lin O’Dell’s attorney in Idaho, Pamela Massey. Soon thereafter, Massey and O’Dell forged documents claiming that Ms. Fowler’s mother, Norma Shank, had revoked an irrevokable trust, that Norma Shank had done in 2000, and only after Norma Shank was diagnosed with dementia, did this new will appear with the assistance of attorney Lin O’Dell, attorney Richard Wallace, and Idaho attorney Paula Massey.
This woman Norma had an estate worth 4.1 million dollars as of the end of 2011, it is now down to 1 million and no one knows where the 3 million went.
Well Lin O’Dell knows where it went but she is not telling anyone in spite of 3 different Judges asking and then ordering her to give them the info: Problem with that is that they never enforce it.
Judge Joseph Valente’s Report
Just to add to the confusion: Paula’s ex-husband who is still leaching off of Paula was charged with felony elder abuse for ripping off Paula’s mother and Lin O’Dell paid his legal fees to defend him with her mother’s funds. Can you imagine being made to pay for the defense of someone who had committed criminal acts against you? Ms O’Dell now has him and his new wife living with Paula to keep tabs on her activities so they can suck the remaining million dollars out of Paula’s account.
Paula’s guardianship has been terminated around 3 times in both Washington and in Idaho yet O’Dell still refuses to give this woman her money to defend herself or her freedom.
It seems part of Ms O’Dell’s tactics are to completely dehumanize her victims, down to having her dogs shot. Making her live in a car at a rest stop while she sold her property out from under her, to taking her cars, the rest of her dogs, all of her horses, and anything else of value whether it’s monetary or sentimental.
She has even tried to get Paula’s 1st ex-husband on board to destroy her. He refused, even though he was threatened.
The scariest thing here: She has over 50 other clients she is doing this to, I know of one who is so terrified that they left all of their money and left the state because of threats from Lin O’Dell’s killer boyfriend.
So why aren’t these Judges doing more, hell why aren’t they doing anything? We may never know. Judging from Valente’s Report, (which she claimed in the last order where Guardianship was terminated once again was a favorable report for her) that he is outlining everything she did wrong yet he was one of the main folks destroying records for her. Judge Baker can be a dirty foul wench, but Judge Monasmith is usually where the BS buck stops, he is generally the last hope anyone in Stevens County ever has yet he has done nothing to enforce his own orders.
She is also not licensed to practice law in Idaho yet there she is taking over trusts and depleting accounts in that state using her Washington State Bar License.
It could be that she is the Bar Disciplinary Hearings Officer and she may be threatening them, she has Joseph Nappi backing her up since he was the one who chose her for the position and he is involved in the same type of scams.
There are 1000’s more documents showing the accounting or lack thereof, and as of this date there is only 1 million 10 thousand left of this woman’s money, so by next year they will have taken the entire 4 million dollars. Since it seems to go down atleast 1 million dollars every year.