The Anatomy of Public Corruption

Showing posts with label Conviction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conviction. Show all posts

UPDATE: WCPD Officer Pleads No Contest to Beating Woman with Baseball Bat in Richmond

Bennett posts about Walnut Creek Officer Thompson on September 8, 2014, then on September 23 addresses Contra Costa Board of Supervisors, then on September 27, 2014 someone murders five of his relatives


UPDATE: WCPD Officer Pleads No Contest to Beating Woman with Baseball Bat in Richmond

SEPTEMBER 8, 2014 16:21 PM · 55 COMMENTS
A Walnut Creek police officer pleaded no contest in a Martinez courtroom this afternoon to charges that he donned a mask and beat a woman with a baseball bat in Richmond last month.
Gregory Thompson, a 54-year-old Martinez resident and 30-year Walnut Creek police veteran, entered the no contest pleas in Contra Costa County Superior Court to charges of felony assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury, felony vandalism and being armed in the commission of the crimes.
Dressed in a suit and tie, Thompson appeared out of custody next to his attorney in court today, weeks after bailing out of county jail in Richmond following his Aug. 16 arrest.
Thompson refused to answer questions from reporters outside the courtroom this morning and left in a waiting car.
Deputy District Attorney Barry Grove said prosecutors will ask for a one-year county jail sentence for Thompson but that he could face up to five years in state prison. His sentencing is scheduled for Oct. 10.
Grove said Thompson went to his father’s vacant home on Clinton Avenue in Richmond in the early morning hours of Aug. 16, knowing that the house had been burglarized recently, according to Grove.
When he saw an unknown woman walking near the home, he believed she was an intruder, donned a ski mask and “he took the law into his own hands and beat her with a baseball bat,” Grove said.
The woman’s car had run out of gas and she was walking in the area when Thompson attacked, prosecutors said.
Richmond police received several reports around 2 a.m. on Aug. 16 of a woman screaming and a man with a bat in the 4000 block of Clinton Avenue.
As officers arrived on the scene, witnesses pointed out Thompson, who was sitting nearby in his parked car. He wasn’t wearing his police uniform or in a patrol car at the time, police said.
Officers approached the suspect and noticed a mask lying on the car’s floorboard. A search of the car turned up a baseball bat, two guns and zip ties, police said.
The victim, who had been hiding in the bushes until police arrived, was taken to a hospital for injuries suffered in the beating and is expected to recover.
Police last month were attempting to locate a second woman who was apparently wounded when she stepped in to try to stop the attack. An off-duty firefighter also witnessed part of the attack, according to Grove.
Thompson, who identified himself as a police officer, was arrested, taken to county jail and released on bail the following day.
Walnut Creek police have said Thompson was put on paid administrative leave soon after his arrest and that the department is conducting its own investigation.
He was working most recently as a patrol officer, according to Walnut Creek police Capt. Mark Perlite.
Walnut Creek police officials were not immediately available this afternoon to comment on Thompson’s employment status.
Cartman September 8, 2014 at 4:47 PM
Boil him.
Jesse September 8, 2014 at 5:00 PM
He retired from WCPD on Friday.
Smile WC September 8, 2014 at 5:01 PM
Good time to retire.
GV pilot September 8, 2014 at 5:04 PM
Typical
Dorothy September 8, 2014 at 5:17 PM
Good grief. At least he isn’t trying to say he’s innocent.
really September 8, 2014 at 5:19 PM
He retired with a pension?
The Theorist September 8, 2014 at 5:20 PM
B__$H!7 … Double check his DNA against the database. Check all unsolved cases. His “story” stinks. If he wasn’t interrupted, she would have been hog tied and gagged in his trunk and dumped (alive/dead) who knows where after being brutally beaten and raped.
The zip ties give it away. IF he was just exacting some vigilante justice… what was he going to do? Zip tie them and leave them for police? Nope, they could still get away and identify him. Zip tie them and wait for police? Nope, he risks what happened, being arrested.
Let hope it’s thoroughly (properly) investigated and his blue shield doesn’t get him a free pass like in Concord, you know, in the interest of justice.
bumper morgan September 8, 2014 at 5:21 PM
He did the right thing. Took responsibility for his actions.
Julio September 8, 2014 at 5:44 PM
He could care less. He has his pension guaranteed. It should be taken away permanently. Paid administrated leave should be eliminated. After an officer is cleared he can get back pay. These guys have to be stopped. They are not above the law any more than these football or baseball players.
Anonymous September 8, 2014 at 5:53 PM
What an embarassment to the good police officers out there!
Saint September 8, 2014 at 5:53 PM
Since they have been taking away the Crown Vic’s and giving them soccer mom SUV’s to drive, I think all the cop’s are pissed off.
Sick Of It September 8, 2014 at 5:53 PM
Just for chits and giggles I’d like to know the whole story, no matter how twisted, how far over the line he must have “a reason”.
“Retired” AKA receiving a 30 year pension, medical and COLA huh?
This stinks to high hell. As a firm supporter of Law Enforcement this guy doesn’t need jail time as much as the community needs his pension distributed to a worthy cause.
Coggins Square September 8, 2014 at 5:59 PM
This is so shocking. I met Officer Thompson many years ago, and found him to be a very friendly and caring person, and dedicated police officer. In fact, I think he actually used to be a D.A.R.E. officer but I could be mistaken. Also, 30 years with one department is a long time.
mary September 8, 2014 at 6:17 PM
a year in county jail?? Jesus why not just slap his hands and take his bat away from him!!??? he deserves at least 5 years!! and to pay her off – NOT the taxpayers!!!
Harassed Family September 8, 2014 at 6:34 PM
Greg Thompson has in the past verbally harassed my family. Calls, complaints to the police department were not acknowledged. While I am so glad he should his true self and no one can suffer from him anymore, I am so sorry for that woman. Today is a good day.
Anon September 8, 2014 at 6:52 PM
Am sure she will have a very good civil lawsuit against him…
Cautiously Informed September 8, 2014 at 6:56 PM
Julio,
Guaranteed pension for someone who commits a crime? Not quite. The system is crazy, but not that crazy.
Blink September 8, 2014 at 7:09 PM
Sick sick sick…..that he retires with pension….sick
If criminal activity that should forfeit pension….
Pete Bennett September 8, 2014 at 7:19 PM
Hey Greg,
Remember me from Dallimonte’s bar? You know when where I used to sing Karaoke every Friday, where my Karaoke DJ Friend Ian Lotta Scott suddenly died in 2011 in one what I told the FBI was suspicious, seems you, Kenny B, former San Francisco Police Officer Lt. David Oberhoffer (Ret), and numerous other cops hung out.
I wanted to let you know I’ve been blogging and I know that Randy W. hangs there, as is did someone connected to Peter Branagh, and several BART officers now deceased.
My best bet is you, and others rigged the PG&E Gas Explosion along with Benny Chetcuti Jr. Chris Butler, Commander Wielsch and others.
Since you live near Virginia Hills Martinez which is where you tried to attack me last summer when I reminded you that it was the same cops all along for me going back to 2001 where my attorneys offices burned down.
Seems like to me there is a plethora of events on my blogs linked to you and other Walnut Creek Officers.
First Greg, tell me if you know Alicia Driscoll as you’d be the right age to have dated her. I knew and who ever investigated her case knows I knew her.
The Black Mercedes leads to you and I know that now, that leads to the my 2011 hit and run that leads to the death of Gary Collins who leads to attorneys connected to several deaths connected to Chris Butler.
You covered your name at Dallimonte’s as Greg Fish but once your picture appeared in the news I realized the connections.
Did you steal my laptop just 1/4 mile from WCPD then return it to me after you copied the same Data with PG&E?
This was another Murder of my attorney’s brother in law – 2012 – Oberhoffer has copies of my divorce files which means you might have your own copies.
http://gaspipelineexplosions.blogspot.com/2014/09/murder-by-accident-nathaniel-greenan.html
http://cnetscandal.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-cnet-players-coconspirators-and.html
Investor Fraud Summit but isn’t Rossmoor WCPD Jurisdiction – how come you weren’t invited?
Pete Bennett
Homeless (Nov 2010 to 2014)
Walnut Creek CA 94596
P: (510) 460-5641
PS: You cost me a contract worth $500,000, my offices, family and my inheritance but
Pete Bennett September 8, 2014 at 7:24 PM
Folks this is the real story – we have thirty years of Arson cases with numerous murders – you better check his house for my computers, systems and legal documents as several of my clients have died since 2010 when I was forced to flea the area over death threats.
► Check his emails for connections to Attorney’s suing PG&E, Kinder Morgan and TWA Flight 800 but send a real bomb squad to sniff for C-4 Explosives that smell like Chris Butler and Commander Wielsch.
► The Plaintiff’s Winners Circle ◄
FBI is well informed – get ready
LONG FORGOTTEN
There was an arson / murder next to my house in 1979 (est),
Caldecott Tunnel (1982)
Oakland Fire (1991)
Mauzy Bldg (1982)
Cabbage Patch (1979)
TWA Flight (1995)
Lynchings (2) (1986)
Rob September 8, 2014 at 7:41 PM
Give this guy his bat and put him in an elevator with Ray Rice – leave the camera rolling and charge for the event – and then drop the elevator from 20 stories up at the end..
Dr Doc PhD September 8, 2014 at 7:49 PM
#19 and #20 is a guy who shows up at Walnut Creek with paranoid and delusional rants and raves.
I recall it was a $1 million loss a few weeks ago. Reminder: You have to keep your stories straight to have any credibility. Nyuk. Nyuk. Nyuk.
One burger short of a Happy Meal?
Black helicopters!
Does that burger taste funny? Better check !!!
Look both ways before crossing street.
Beware of 4-door sedans with dark tinted windows.
Note men in three-piece suits and dark sunglasses.
PH dad September 8, 2014 at 7:57 PM
Uh Mayor,
I think someone is off their meds…
Alex Jones September 8, 2014 at 8:07 PM
As anyone ever seen Pete Bennett and TinFoiler at the same time? I’m guessing not!
Elwood September 8, 2014 at 8:22 PM
Pete Bennett is a bull goose loony!
Tom September 8, 2014 at 8:26 PM
If you plead “no contest”, you can’t be sued in a civil lawsuit.
I don’t know if cops lose their pension in CA if convicted of a felony, but they will retire (over being fired) to try to lock it in. If he’s eligible, forfeiture proceedings.
Pete Bennett………..thanks for sharing. I wish you well.
joebob September 8, 2014 at 9:05 PM
Paid administrative leave??? Is that the WCPD response to an off-duty officer beating an innocent woman with a bat? No wonder cops are out of control. The system covers for them.
Anonymous September 8, 2014 at 9:12 PM
He will get his pension. Being convicted of a felony applies as far as CalPERS is concerned when the act occurred and when the felony conviction occurs forward. He retired right away so he will get his pension which with his years of service should be 90% of final compensation.
HEY BONILLA AND DESAULNIER September 8, 2014 at 11:01 PM
How about crafting a new law that wipes out TAX-PAYER PAID ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE—or at least recover every f’king cent—when public servants are found to break THE LAW? Why should MY TAX DOLLARS provide for paid time off time and time again??????????????????????????????????
Cracky McGee September 9, 2014 at 4:34 AM
And this is why I want to move to Canada
GetTheFactsStraight September 9, 2014 at 5:33 AM
Tom is wrong. A no contest plea can be used against you in a civil suit and actually introduced to a jury if you plead no contest to a felony. A no contest plea has the exact same consequences as a guilty plea in a felony. In a misdemeanor case, a no contest plea may not be later introduced to a jury as an admission of responsibility. Either way, such a plea does not prevent you from being sued.
captain obvious September 9, 2014 at 6:05 AM
Don’t know you but Thank you for 30 years of service. Too bad it ended how it did. Enjoy retirement. Thank you for doing what 99% of people don’t do by not dragging out the legal process.
Mee September 9, 2014 at 6:19 AM
@Above- A year in county jail? Has he been sentenced already? Just asking.
shadowblade September 9, 2014 at 6:45 AM
GetTheFactsStraight #31
Mostly correct. A guilty plea admits wrongdoing, and can be used against a defendant in a civil trial. The no contest plea places the burden of proof on the plaintiff in a civil trial.
In criminal trials, the guilty and the no contest pleas carry the same weight.
@ Tom September 9, 2014 at 6:51 AM
When you plead “no contest” , that plea cannot be used against you as an admission of guilt if a civil proceeding arises out of the same conduct from which the criminal prosecution was based.
If pleading “No Contest” prevented you from being sued than everyone would do it and there would be no lawsuits.
The amount of blatant ignorance of the law that people state as fact is simply amazing to me. If you don’t know, keep your mouth shut.
Anon September 9, 2014 at 9:06 AM
If he is guilty NO RETIREMENT FUNDS.
clg September 9, 2014 at 9:32 AM
@Pete Bennett
Mr. Bennett you sound like you need to dry out.
I wish you the best, but please get the help you need before you harm someone or yourself.
Anon September 9, 2014 at 9:55 AM
Curious as to why he stuck around at the scene of the crime…the news reported when Richmond PD showed up, he was sitting in his car, and the victim was hiding in a bush. Kind of weird he did not leave the scene after he attacked her. Anyone know the answer to this?
@captain obvious September 9, 2014 at 10:12 AM
Are you kidding me, this piece of crap deserves nothing. No thanks, no praise, no honor. He pissed on his badge and every badge of every good officer out there. Just like the church has some bad priests the police also has their scum. He does not represent the whole force. Put him in with the general population for at least five years. Im sure he had many charma points he needs to payoff.
Tom September 9, 2014 at 10:22 AM
I stand corrected. I understand how “no contest” works. I believe people plead “no contest” from the advice of their attorney, to try to avoid a civil lawsuit. There’s a difference.
This is what I’ve been told by people in the legal profession, and I believe it’s correct. This is a blog, not a court of law.
Thank you for correcting me…….
All the painters out there September 9, 2014 at 10:32 AM
All the people posting here are painters…they paint this guy with the brush of damnation. Out of the woodwork you come, cop bashing. They are all evil.
Look. This guy “manned up” and admitted his sins. Most other high and mighty, sports celebrities, and your common gang member..all plead NOT GUILTY. This didn’t happen . He basically said “I DID IT”.
No pension? Why? So YOU go through your job for 30 years, whatever that job is. You get drunk (evil you!) and kill someone, or hurt someone in a wreck. Yes, you are wrong. Look at the recent DUI crashes reported here on Claycord. Yes you should go to prison. But does that give anyone the right to erase forever your past earnings? How about let’s just seize your property, home, car, bank account, and throw you in a hole.
This is America. Guilty until proven…and “cruel and unusual punishment” shall not be imposed.
This guy stupidly nutted up one night, likely out of frustration from being repeatedly victimized..and he “lost it” and did the unthinkable.
Yes. He should go to jail..and he’s forever ruined his name, and gave all his law enforcement brethren a black eye. This “feeds” you painters who ooze out of the woodwork.
Let the man pay his penalty and suffer the consequences. But we don’t crucify him. Leave that to ISIS.
Again September 9, 2014 at 10:43 AM
Dr.DocPhd, I sincerely hope you’re not a cop and making fun of a person who could possibly be mentally ill? There are hundreds of people who suffer from mental illness in many forms for many reasons, and if you are a representative paid for by the city of Walnut Creek then you should be completely ashamed of yourself. Your statement is equivalent to a student being bullied and also makes you and the Walnut Creek police department look pretty bad. Kind of supports that this particular police officer thought he could take the law into his own hands, you feel that way too?
jtkatec September 9, 2014 at 12:15 PM
Why would a police office take such a violent action? Beating a woman with a baseball bat? He’s an officer of the law, why won’t he just call the officer’s of that jurisdiction, tell them he’s also a police officer and has reason to believe a woman just burglarized his father’s house?. Or he could have just made a citizen’s arrest.
The actions he took do not sound like the actions of a rational person.
Princes September 9, 2014 at 3:05 PM
@ captain obvious # 39. You don’t know what your talking about . Be nice and look at your self in the mirrow. Maybe with all the hate you have they should lock you up. He is the most respectful police officer you ever meet. I will always be so proud of him for the amazing job he has Done for the walnut creek police department.
Captain Obvious September 9, 2014 at 4:43 PM
@#39. 30 years of service as a Officer, Deputy, Corrections Officer etc is not an easy task for any HUMAN. Show me proof that this wasn’t an isolated incident and I might change my tune.
30 years experience and he stays at the scene with the evidence? Yes he snapped and yes he should no longer be a cop. Does he deserve the pension he earned over the last 30 years…. ofcourse. He didn’t rape or kill anyone and until someone shows me proof this is his normal pattern………
Gregory September 9, 2014 at 5:38 PM
what is the point of beating someone while wearing a mask? to be anonymous. if you wanted to protect YOUR property, do you not agree that it would be best to let the person that you are protecting YOUR property against know that that is YOUR property and these are the consequences for over stepping YOUR boundaries?
what i see is not protection, its a very creepy and confusing assault.
to be fair, i also have zip ties in my vehicle. They make working on tge engine a lot easier in a pinch.
Gus September 9, 2014 at 6:17 PM
Princes, you are aware he just pleaded no contest to beating a woman who ran out of gas and was looking for help with a bat, right?
Or are you one of those nut jobs who marries guys on death row?
Assaulting a woman with a bat should be attempted murder. I hope she takes his entire pension.
PhilthyPHRESH September 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM
Great work, the police, you guys are doing a great job out here. Thank you.
Dr Doc PhD September 9, 2014 at 8:29 PM
@42
No.. never worked for government. I tune into city council and planning commission meetings because I am an informed citizen.
The Walnut Creek meeting videos are archived. Take a look as #19/20 in action. Go to the August 19 city council video at about 11 minutes into the meeting during public communications.
You make up your own mind.
Background September 9, 2014 at 8:37 PM
Pensions nowadays are similar to 401k’s in that most people pay into them in addition to the employer (taxpayer). This is not unlike a company matching a 401 contribution. If a public employee commits a felony while on-duty they can lose their pension. Not an issue in this case.
For background the “victim” in this case was in his father’s backyard (likely to break-in again). This able bodied woman lives 100% on government assistance and happened to be wandering around at 2:00am with no good story why she was there. In addition to be under the influence she and her other friend, who also happened to be wandering around the area at 2:00am, chose to run off when police arrived. And by the time police arrived the assault was long since over. Bottom line is he was protecting his family’s property but went too far. Keep in mind this case would NEVER have been filed if he wasn’t a cop due to a lack of evidence and her inconsistent story. Not for me to say if that’s fair or not since cops should be held to a higher standard. He should never be employed as a cop again and should serve his punishment but this is far from the crime of the century it is made out to be by the media.
Judy September 9, 2014 at 9:05 PM
Isn’t hitting someone with a baseball bat a crime, regardless of circumstances? Or place of employment? You don’t have to be a cop to be arrested. You just have to commit a crime. Hmm.
PhilthyPHRESH September 9, 2014 at 9:05 PM
So didn’t he already have the law in his hands?
JWB September 9, 2014 at 9:20 PM
@ Background
“Pensions nowadays are similar to 401k’s in that most people pay into them in addition to the employer (taxpayer). This is not unlike a company matching a 401 contribution.”
Really you don’t know that there is a huge difference between a Defined Benefit Plan and a Defined Contribution Plan?
@ Background September 10, 2014 at 9:22 AM
I am a big supported of law enforcement and WCPD, but a couple of misstatements in your email. Police still have the traditional defined benefit plan in which the retiree is paid a portion of his salary for life. They may also have a defined contribution plan in which you contribute a portion of your salary and the employer matches it.
A huge misstatement is that your average person would not have been prosecuted for assaulting someone with a baseball bat, particularly at a residence that was NOT their home. No element of self-defense here. It does sound plausible that the woman was a squatter, and I have sympathy for this, as someone who dealt with a squatter next door recently. However, it never occurred to me to go after the squatter with a baseball bat. That is crazy town. I don’t see in this case, how the officer was held to a “higher standard” The charges actually seem a bit lenient. Baseball bat attacks are closer to attempted murder/manslaughter, but possibly part of a plea bargain.
Background September 10, 2014 at 4:22 PM
#55-I agree with you. Re: pensions you are correct however many public employees pay significant portions of their paychecks into their pensions every payday. Doesn’t seem fair to take away “their” money anymore than you would take someone’s contribution into a 401k if they commit a crime. I agree with you on taking the “public” money that is part of their defined benefit when a serious crime is committed (in most cases this taxpayer would be a majority of the pension).
This case wouldn’t have been filed not because he is innocent (I don’t know if he is or not but I suspect not). It wouldn’t have been filed because there are too many inconsistencies and there is very little evidence. The victim says she was attacked on the side of the house but he I’m sure claims the assault was mutual and occurred on or inside the house. Without overwhelming proof the DA normally would not file a case. Just because it’s a crime doesn’t mean your going to be prosecuted. In most cases you won’t be. Sad but true. Only when the case is a slam drunk will it get filed by the DA. This is just reality given the high caseloads. 98% of cases result in a plea bargain on the DA’s terms and never see a jury. This is because they are only the strong cases and everyone knows the justice system would grind to a halt if every case went to a full trial.
Share:

2403. Hobbs Act -- Extortion By Force, Violence, Or Fear

2403. Hobbs Act -- Extortion By Force, Violence, Or Fear


The Deadwitness.com
In Civil Litigation
Near
Pete Bennett



In order to prove a violation of Hobbs Act extortion by the wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, the following questions must be answered affirmatively:
  1. Did the defendant induce or attempt to induce the victim to give up property or property rights? "Property" has been held to be "any valuable right considered as a source of wealth." United States v. Tropiano, 418 F.2d 1069, 1075 (2d Cir. 1969) (the right to solicit garbage collection customers). "Property" includes the right of commercial victims to conduct their businesses. See United States v. Zemek, 634 F.3d 1159, 1174 (9th Cir. 1980) (the right to make business decisions and to solicit business free from wrongful coercion) and cited cases). It also includes the statutory right of union members to democratically participate in union affairs. See United States v. Debs, 949 F.2d 199, 201 (6th Cir. 1991) (the right to support candidates for union office); United States v. Teamsters Local 560, 550 F. Supp. 511, 513-14 (D.N.J. 1982), aff'd, 780 F.2d 267 (3rd Cir. 1985) (rights guaranteed union members by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, 29 U.S.C. §  411).
  2. Did the defendant use or attempt to use the victim's reasonable fear of physical injury or economic harm in order to induce the victim's consent to give up property? A defendant need not create the fear of injury or harm which he exploits to induce the victim to give up property. See United States v. Duhon, 565 F.2d 345, 349 and 351 (5th Cir. 1978) (offer by employer to pay union official for labor peace held to be "simply planning for inevitable demand for money" by the union official under the circumstances); United States v. Gigante, 39 F.3d 42, 49 (2d Cir. 1994), vacated on other grounds and superseded in part on denial of reh'g, 94 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 1996) (causing some businesses to refuse operations with the victim sufficiently induced the victim's consent to give up property, consisting of a right to contract freely with other businesses, as long as there were other businesses beyond defendants' control with whom the victim could do business).
    Moreover, attempted extortion may include an attempt to instill fear in a federal agent conducting a covert investigation or a defendant "made of unusually stern stuff." See United States v. Gambino, 566 F.2d 414, 419 (2d Cir. 1977) (argument that FBI agent pretending to be extortion victim could not be placed in fear is not a defense to attempted extortion of the agent); see also United States v. Ward, 914 F.2d 1340, 1347 (9th Cir. 1990) (an attempt to instill fear included a demand for money from a victim who knew that the defendant was only pretending to be a federal undercover agent when he threatened the victim with prosecution unless money was paid).
    However, the payment of money in response to a commercial bribe solicitation, that is, under circumstances where the defendant does not threaten the victim with economic harm, but only offers economic assistance in return for payment to which the defendant is not entitled, is not sufficient to prove extortion by fear of economic loss. United States v. Capo, 817 F.2d 947, 951-52 (2d Cir. 1987) (solicitation of money from job applicants by persons having no decisionmaking authority in return for favorable influence with employment counselors was insufficient evidence of inducement by fear); but see United States v. Blanton, 793 F.2d 1553, 1558 (11th Cir. 1986) (inducement by fear was proven by the defendant's solicitation of a labor consulting contract, to help employer stop outside union organizing, when the solicitation was accompanied by defendant's threat to form another union and begin organizing employees if the consulting contract was not accepted).
  3. Did the defendant's conduct actually or potentially obstruct, delay, or affect interstate or foreign commerce in any (realistic) way or degree? The Hobbs Act regulates extortion and robbery, which Congress has determined have a substantial effect on interstate and foreign commerce by reason of their repetition and aggregate effect on the economy. Therefore, the proscribed offenses fall within the category of crimes based on the Commerce Clause whose "de minimis character of individual instances arising under [the] statute is of no consequence." United States v. Bolton, 68 F.3d 396, 399 (10th Cir. 1995) (upholding Hobbs Act convictions for robberies whose proceeds the defendant would have used to purchase products in interstate commerce), quoting, United States v. Lopez, --- U.S. ---, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 1630 (1995); material in brackets added; see also United States v. Atcheson, 94 F.3d 1237, 1243 (9th Cir. 1996) (robbery of out-of-state credit and ATM cards); United States v. Farmer, 73 F.3d 836, 843 (8th Cir. 1996) (robbery of commercial business); United States v. Stillo, 57 F.3d 553, 558 n.2 (7th Cir. 1995).
    Hobbs Act violations may be supported by proof of a direct effect on the channels or instrumentalities of interstate or foreign commerce, as for example, where the threatened conduct would result in the interruption of the interstate movement of goods or labor. See United States v. Taylor, 92 F.3d 1313, 1333 (2d Cir. 1996) (extortion of money, unwanted labor, and subcontracts on construction projects by threatened shutdowns and labor unrest); United States v. Hanigan, 681 F.2d 1127, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 1982) (robbery of three undocumented alien farm workers while they were traveling from Mexico to the United States in search of work); United States v. Capo, 791 F.2d 1054, 1067-68 (2d Cir. 1986), vacated on other grounds, 817 F.2d 947 (2d Cir. 1987) (scheme to extort local job applicants had a potential effect on interstate applicants who might otherwise be hired).
    Indirect effects on such commerce are also sufficient, as for example, where the obtaining of property and resulting depletion of the victim's assets decreases the victim's ability to make future expenditures for items in interstate commerce. Taylor, supra (depletion of contractors' assets). However, the Seventh Circuit has distinguished Hobbs Act cases involving depletion of a business' assets from those involving the depletion of an individual employee's assets which, the court has ruled, are not as likely to satisfy the jurisdictional requirement of the Hobbs Act. United States v. Mattson, 671 F.2d 1020 (7th Cir. 1982); United States v. Boulahanis, 677 F.2d 586, 590 (7th Cir. 1982). Other circuits have agreed where the extortion or robbery of an individual has only an "attenuated" or "speculative" effect on some entity or group of individuals engaged in interstate commerce thereby diminishing the "realistic probability" that such commerce will be affected. See United States v. Collins, 40 F.3d 95, 100 (5th Cir. 1994) (conviction for robbery of a computer company employee reversed on grounds that theft of victim's automobile with cellular phone had an insufficient effect on his employer's business); United States v. Quigley, 53 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 1995) (upholding the acquittal, following guilty verdict, of defendants who beat and robbed two individuals in route to buy beer at a liquor store).
  4. Was the defendant's actual or threatened use of force, violence or fear wrongful? Generally, the extortionate obtaining of property by the wrongful use of actual or threatened force or violence in a commercial dispute requires proof of a defendant's intent to induce the victim to give up property. No additional proof is required that the defendant was not entitled to such property or that he knew he had no claim to the property which he sought to obtain. See United States v. Agnes, 581 F.Supp. 462 (E.D. Pa. 1984), aff'd, 753 F.2d 293, 297-300 (3d Cir. 1985) (rejecting claim of right defense to defendant's use of violence to withdraw property from a business partnership).
    However, the Supreme Court has recognized a claim-of-right defense to Hobbs Act extortion in labor-management disputes. In a 1973 decision, the Court reversed the conviction of union-member defendants who had used violence against an employer's property, during an otherwise legitimate economic labor strike, in order "to achieve legitimate union objectives, such as higher wages in return for genuine services which the employer seeks." United States v. Enmons, 410 U.S. 396, 400 (1973). The Court reasoned that the legislative history of the Hobbs Act disclosed that Congress had been concerned with attempts by union officials to extort wages for unwanted and fictitious labor, to which employees were not entitled, as contrasted with the policing of legitimate labor strikes in general. Therefore, the Court concluded that the union members' use of violence during the strike was not "wrongful" for purposes of Hobbs Act extortion. The Supreme Court also made a broadly worded statement that
    "wrongful" has meaning in the Act only if it limits the statute's coverage to those instances where the obtaining of the property would itself be "wrongful" because the alleged extortionist has no lawful claim to that property.
Id.
In its labor-management context, the claim-of-right defense is not applicable where defendants do not have legitimate labor objectives. The labor claim-of-right defense has been held not to excuse the following kinds of coercive demands:
  • payoffs to union officials and employee representatives in violation of the federal labor laws (29 U.S.C. § 186); United States v. Quinn, 514 F.2d 1250, 1259 (5th Cir. 1975) (solicitation of church donation in return for removal of labor pickets); United States v. Gibson, 726 F.2d 869 (1st Cir. 1984) (request for payoff to remove pickets);
  • sham fees which labor unions are not entitled to collect under the labor laws; United States v. Wilford, 710 F.2d 439, 444 (8th Cir. 1983) (economic coercion of dues and initiation fees from truck drivers who were self-employed or who were told they would receive no member benefits);
  • employee payments which violate existing labor contracts; United States v. Russo, 708 F.2d 209, 215 (6th Cir. 1983) (under threat of job loss, employees' payment of health and pension contributions which labor contract required employer to pay);
  • employer payments to labor unions which are not included in existing labor contracts; United States v. Traitz, 871 F.2d 368, 381-82 (3d Cir. 1989) (violence used to collect fines on employers for non-compliance with union rules which were not made part of the labor contract);
  • demands that a non-union employer cease business operations during a sham union organizing campaign; United States v. Edgar Jones, 766 F.2d 994, 1002-03 (6th Cir. 1985) (violent campaign by union officials and union-represented competitor to drive the non-union employer out of business under the pretext of persuading employees to join the union and enforce area wage standards);
  • employer payments for labor consulting to establish a bogus "sweetheart union" and thereby discourage legitimate organizing by other unions; United States v. Blanton, 793 F.2d 1553 (11th Cir. 1986).
  • construction contractors' payments of money, wages for unwanted and superfluous employees, and subcontracts with employee representatives which were unrelated to the hiring of employees. United States v. Taylor, 92 F.3d 1313, 1319 and 1333 (2d Cir. 1996) (extortion of contractors by leaders of minority labor coalitions).
Several courts of appeals have limited the claim-of-right defense to the context of labor-management disputes by refusing to extend the defense to extortionate violence and economic fear in commercial disputes and public corruption cases. United States v. Debs, 949 F.2d 199, 201 (6th Cir. 1991) (violence against union members in retaliation for support of opposition candidate for union office); United States v. Castor, 937 F.2d 293, 299 (7th Cir. 1991) (violent threats to obtain consent to enter into business arrangement); United States v. Zappola, 677 F.2d 264, 269 (2d Cir. 1982) (beating of debtor to coerce repayment of purported debt); United States v. Porcaro, 648 F.2d 753, 760 (1st Cir. 1981) (franchisor's violence to compel franchisee to vacate premises); United States v. French, 628 F.2d 1069, 1075 (8th Cir.1980) (public official's kickbacks on bail bond settlements); United States v. Cerilli, 603 F.2d 415, 419 (3d Cir. 1979) (solicitation of political contributions); United States v. Warledo, 557 F.2d 721, 729-730 (10th Cir. 1977) (violence by Native Americans to compel railroad to pay reparations for tribal lands).However, other courts have held that the extortionate use of fear of economic harm in commercial disputes is subject to a claim-of-right defense on the grounds that, unlike violence, the use of economic fear is not inherently "wrongful." See United States v. Kattar, 840 F.2d 118, 123-24 (1st Cir. 1988) (threat to expose church to litigation unless purported "award" for information was paid to defendant was not a legitimate use of economic fear where the information was false and defamatory); United States v. Clemente, 640 F.2d 1069, 1077-78 (2d Cir. 1981) (extortion of bogus consulting payments from subcontractor coerced by the threat of labor unrest against the subcontractor's principal).Where the claim-of-right defense applies, courts have generally held that the Government must prove that the defendant knew that he was not entitled to receive the property which he sought to obtain. United States v. Arambasich, 597 F.2d 609, 611 (7th Cir. 1979) (demand by labor union official on employer that the official and others be hired for no-show employment using threat of labor unrest); United States v. Sturm, 870 F.2d 769, 774 (1st Cir. 1989) (in prosecution involving debtor's withholding of property from a creditor-bank, "the term 'wrongful' requires the government to prove, in cases involving extortion based on economic fear, that the defendant knew that he was not legally entitled to the property that he received."); United States v. Dischner, 974 F.2d 1502, 1515 (9th Cir. 1992) (failure to instruct that defendant must know he had no entitlement to property he sought by use of economic fear did not rise to the level of plain error; but "knowledge of the extortion encompasses knowledge of the lack of lawful claim to the property.").
[cited in USAM 9-131.010]



Share:

Anchor links for post titles

Popular Posts

Blog Archive

Labels

Recent Posts

Popular Posts

Labels

Recent Posts

Pages

Labels

Blog Archive

Recent Posts