A
criminal RICO action requires a predicate act cataloged in the RICO statute. One of those is 18 USC 1028, which reads (as the lawyers say)
in pertinent part:
(a) Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (c) of this section—
(1) knowingly and without lawful authority produces an identification document, authentication feature, or a false identification document;
(2) knowingly transfers an identification document, authentication feature, or a false identification document knowing that such document or feature was stolen or produced without lawful authority;
(3) knowingly possesses with intent to use unlawfully or transfer unlawfully five or more identification documents (other than those issued lawfully for the use of the possessor), authentication features, or false identification documents;
(4) knowingly possesses an identification document (other than one issued lawfully for the use of the possessor), authentication feature, or a false identification document, with the intent such document or feature be used to defraud the United States;
Subsection C of 1028 reads:
The circumstance referred to in subsection (a) of this section is that—
(1) the identification document, authentication feature, or false identification document is or appears to be issued by or under the authority of the United States or a sponsoring entity of an event designated as a special event of national significance or the document-making implement is designed or suited for making such an identification document, authentication feature, or false identification document;
(2) the offense is an offense under subsection (a)(4) of this section; or
(3) either—
(A) the production, transfer, possession, or use prohibited by this section is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce, including the transfer of a document by electronic means; or
(B) the means of identification, identification document, false identification document, or document-making implement is transported in the mail in the course of the production, transfer, possession, or use prohibited by this section.
I’m guessing they mean to make a case on (a)(4) based on the incorrect birthdate. Which is going to require proof she knew the birthdate she used to apply for citizenship was in error, and that error defrauded the American government.
Yeah, sure.
I don’t know enough of the argument to opine, but search warrants are fishing expeditions, to some degree. I can give you an example from civil litigation. Before law school, I was a legal assistant working with two lawyers on a case involving civil engineering design for a then new building at UT Austin. It was a very large building that had generated a lot of documents. UT was the plaintiff, so we (representing the engineers who designed the drainage system that failed to contain a heavy rainfall) asked UT for all documents related to the project. They complied, and I was ushered into a very large room filled with documents. Letters, memos, blueprints, change orders (this was long before electronic communications lie email). I was given 8 hours to find what I wanted, and UT would copy it.
Fishing expedition. I was looking not only for a history of the project, but anything that would provide us a defense. I’ve never worked a criminal case involving a search warrant, but that’s what HSI was looking for in Omar’s home. Basically, anything that would be incriminating.
But it still sounds like a very thin reed. It’s my understanding Omar was a minor when she came to this country, and later she applied for citizenship. She may have relied on what she was told by her family as to her birthdate . If she did, it’s hard to say she committed fraud by using that date in her citizenship application. There’s also the question of fraud, which does not simply mean you got your birthdate wrong. If she knew, say, the year was off (apparently HSI thinks she’s younger than she says she is), is that fraud? Or just an error?
When does an error in paperwork rise to a RICO violation? It’s just a little hard to see how this plays out in court, except as a vindictive prosecution.
BTW, this is why the plumber says the statute of limitations
doesn’t apply:5) “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;
That is, actually, a kind of statute of limitations. Under RICO, HSI has to show Omar committed two acts of fraud, the last being within the last 10 years. That would be a fraud per (a)(4), above. This is not getting any easier to prosecute, because the fraud (it seems) was committed on her citizenship application. When else did she fraudulently misidentify herself for the purpose of defrauding the government? When she filed to run for office? If they can’t prove at least two acts, one within the last 10 years, they can’t bring a RICO prosecution. So the application error/“fraud” would be over 10 years old, and that is barred by the statute. Pretty sure that’s what they’re looking for.
Fishing expedition.
Getting her birthdate wrong there ain’t the same thing as getting it wrong on her application. And it’s not clear yet that either could be fraudulent.
But it doesn’t have to be clear yet. HSI still has to make its case to a grand jury. And it may, or may not, have documents that further that case.
Granted, this may all be eyewash.
This Reuters article indicates Omar became a citizen at 17 as a minor, via her father’s naturalization. That was in 2000. So what has happened since 2016 that is a predicate act which could connect to what her father did in 2000, and connect to her acts in 2000? When she was 17?
All the hallmarks of another Trump hard fail.
