WPC] uPǭ+:ZwRb2LNM~ԴG l҇Ya`D*\twHG,lL^c!{m r5RYYa::|yY` \)h͎P vE!)|X̜gIP_dQ[D˅*g#aNS"J%E% 3p$vݟ|ǓJh6Y֮}IL)&CVG3-ۥdx<[ꍅΌ_Vg~ӪG@`FUӽL8V1C^)h6W:-IيZ@ۘ;07k|W;Xε6/\~jL CD3 /Eh8  -~ .t}k" 7O^SBrjL^͟b VJM 9Bә-%}HWg`#@UN %O 0:U ^ w 4   m N = 0+~ 0+D  c |TA~&-J !"$1'')H*G, 0[)/t7//*011233}3uA44z9:8:;Q<?@B 0U!C 0vC YD 0nD 0NE -+F 0XF 02G  H 0$H H 0I .I 0J 0CJ 0&K 0K 0L 0M xXN 0N 0O 0WP 0Q 0@Q 0R 0RS 0T 0U 0UV 0W 0W 0X BIY 0<fYU>YYt_[Acrobat PDFWriter0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,͓O-L z,,GBackup3|xU 3  ($USUS.,    16    _Accord,91Cong.Rec.11900(1945)(StatementofCong_Hobbs_): Thedefinitionsin F thisbillarecopiedfromtheNewYorkCodesubstantially.(.(3($ !USUS.,      0  (#$  0   }  ($USUS.,    21    _ԀPetsApp.P.150a.   ($USUS.,    17    _ԀQuotingPeoplev._Adelstein_(emphasisadded,citationomitted).Accord,Peoplev. F Ryan,232N.Y.234,235,133_N.E._Ԁ572,573(1921)(intenttoextortrequiresintentto gain 2 moneyorproperty.  ($USUS.,    22    _ԀBriefInOppositionp.17. r  ($USUS.,    24    _ԀSupran.12.   ($USUS.,    2    _ԀUnderFACE,18U.S.C.248(a),anindividualmaybesubjecttocivilandcriminal F penaltiesifhe: 2 0  (1)byforceorthreatofforceorbyphysicalobstruction,intentionallyinjures,intimidates,   orinterfereswith,orattemptstoinjure,intimidateorinterferewithanypersonbecause  thatpersonisorhasbeen,orinordertointimidatesuchpersonoranyotherpersonorany   classofpersonsfrom,obtaining,orprovidingreproductivehealthservices. J  ($USUS.,    3    _ԀCraigBradley,NOWv._Scheidler_,RICOMeetstheFirstAmendment,1994Supreme F CourtReview129(1995).(HereinafterreferredtoasBradley,FirstAmendment).  ($USUS.,    5    _ԀSee18U.S.C.1961settingforthalonglistofRICOpredicatecrimes. 7  ($USUS.,    6    _ԀAttorneyGeneralRenotestifiedthat existingFederallaws,whileperhapsapplicablein F someinstances,(are)inadequate.HearingbeforetheSenateCommitteeonLaborandHuman 2 Resources,103rdCong.1stSess.P.8(May12,1993).Likewise,Rep._Shumer_,Chairmanofthe  HouseSubcommitteeconsideringtheBill,opinedthat (t)hestatelawsareinadequatetodeal    withtheproblem.HearingsbeforetheHouseSubcommitteeonCrimeandCriminalJusticeof F theCommitteeontheJudiciary,103rdCong.,1stSess.,P.1(April1andJune10,1993).  ($USUS.,    7    _Ԁ1997WL610782at1819(N.D.Ill1997). t  ($USUS.,    8    _ԀSee,Pet.App.159a160a(SpecialInterrogatoriesandVerdictform),finding25 F violationsofstateextortionlaws,21violationsoffederalextortionlawand23examplesof 2  Travelacrossstatelinesortheuseofthemailortelephone,withintenttocommitorfacilitate  anunlawfulact,suchasextortion,understateorfederallaw.Infact, extortionistheonlyone   oftheTravelActpredicatesonwhichthesefindingscouldpossiblybebased.See,18U.S.C.  1952(b).(Itisnotspecifiedwhetheranyofthese extortioncrimesarerelatedtothefour acts   orthreatsofviolencealsofoundbythejury).  ($USUS.,    4    _ԀThejuryfoundfour(unspecified) actsorthreatsofphysicalviolencetoanypersonor F property.PetsApp.160a.   ($USUS.,    9    _Ԁ CounselforDefendants : Yourhonor...weurgethattheplaintiffshouldlistinthe F specialinterrogatorieseachparticularincidenttheyallegetoconstituteanactofforce,threator 6 violencesufficienttobeextortion. TheCourt : Absolutelynot.Tr.Trans.P.4495.   ($USUS.,    11    _ԀThisissuewasconsideredamongthe hodgepodgeofotherchallengestothe F judgement,noneofwhichneeddetainuslong, afterthe lastseriouscontentionwasdisposed. 2 _N.O.W._Ԁv._Scheidler_,267F.3d687,705,707(7thCir.,2001). u  ($USUS.,    12    _ԀId.atp.709.  ($USUS.,    13    _ԀId.,citingUnitedStatesv.Anderson,716F.2d446,450(7thCir.1983).   ($USUS.,    20    _ԀAccordingto_LaFave_ԀandScott,SubstantiveCriminalLaw(Vol.II,p.460,1986)the F onlystatesthatdonotlimit extortionto obtainingpropertyareAlaska,Colorado,Kansas, 2 NewMexico,Ohio,andWyoming.   ($USUS.,    14    _Ԁ18U.S.C.1341.AstheCourtsheldinCarpenterv.UnitedStates,484U.S.19,25 F (1987). Here,theobjectoftheschemewastotakethe(victims)confidentialbusiness 2 information...anditsintangiblenaturedoesnotmakeitanylesspropertyprotectedbythemail  andwirefraudstatutes.   ($USUS.,    15    _ԀTheAntiRacketeeringActof1934(48Stat.979)HRNo.238,79thCong.1stSess. F (1934),wasevenmoreexplicitinitspropertyrequirements.Itmadeitacrimewhenanyperson 2 (affectingcommerce) (a)obtainsorattemptstoobtain,bytheuseof(force,etc)thepaymentof  moneyorothervaluableconsiderations,orthepurchaseoforrentalofproperty,(etc.),or(b)    obtainsthepropertyofanotherwithhisconsent(etc.).Id. z  ($USUS.,    18    _Ԁ504U.S.atp.261.   ($USUS.,    25    _Ԁ Thewordstodefraudinthemailfraudstatutehavethecommonunderstandingof F wrongingoneinhispropertyrightsbydishonestmethodsorschemes,andusuallysignifythe 2 deprivationofsomethingofvaluebytrick,deceit,chicane,oroverreaching.Carpenter,supra,  484U.S.atp.27(citationsomitted). z  ($USUS.,    26    _Ԁ350U.S.atp.417.   ($USUS.,    19    _ԀAmericanLawinstitute,ModelPenalCodeandCommentaries(OfficialDraft,1980) F sec.233.4p.203: CriminalCoercionpunishesthreatsmadewiththepurposeunlawfullyto 2 restrictanothersfreedomofactiontohisdetrimentwhileextortionis...limitedtoonewho  obtainspropertyofanotherbythreats.   ($USUS.,    36    _ԀItsnotclearthatsuchathreatwouldviolatethe_Hobbs_ԀAct,whichislimitedto F obtainingproperty inducedbywrongfuluseofforce,violenceorfear....18U.S.C.1951(b)(2). 2 But.ifthe obtainingpropertyelementiseliminated,itwouldviolatetheModelPenalcodeand  thecodesofmanystates.223.4oftheModelPenalCodedefines theftbyextortionas    obtainingpropertybythreateningto...(2)accuseanyoneofacriminaloffense....( $ j  ($USUS.,    23    _ԀId. u  ($USUS.,    27    _ԀId.atp.420.  ($USUS.,    30    _ԀUnitedStatesv._Santoni_,585F.2d667(4thCir.1978)cert.den.440U.S.910(1979).  ($USUS.,    28    _ԀUnitedStatesv._Tropiano_,supra.  ($USUS.,    29    _ԀUnitedStatesv.Frazier,560F.2d884(8thCir.1977)cert.den.435U.S.968(1978). {  ($USUS.,    31    _Ԁ560F.2datp.887.  ($USUS.,    32    _ԀLewis,797F.2datp.364. s  ($USUS.,    33    _ԀId.atfn3. k  ($USUS.,    35    _ԀId.   ($USUS.,    34    _ԀBradley,FirstAmendment,p.139: F 0  Theproblemisthat,inthecasescitedbytheplaintiffs,eventhoughthelosstothe  victimmayhavebeenintangible,thedefendantneverthelesssoughttoobtainproperty,   thatis,economicadvantage....Eventhecasescitedby_N.O.W._Ԁinwhichthedefendants  primarymotivationmayhavebeenpolitical,suchasUnitedStatesv.Anderson,inwhich   thedefendant_kidnapped_Ԁanabortionclinicdoctor,allincludeddemandsforeconomic   advantageaswell. t(#(# ЀAccord,BrianMurray,Note:Protesters,Extortion,andCoercion:PreventingRICOfrom  L  ChillingFirstAmendmentFreedoms,75NotreDame_L.R._Ԁ691,720(1999)reviewingthecase ~8  lawandconcludingthatRespondents approachignoresthefundamentalnatureofextortion.  ($USUS.,    39    _ԀJames_Lindgren_,UnravelingtheParadoxofBlackmail,84Columbia_L.R._Ԁ670(1984).  .  ($USUS.,    38    _ԀItiswellsettledthatthe fearelementissatisfiedbyfearofeconomicloss.See,e.g. F UnitedStatesv.Capo,817F.2d947(2ndCir.1987)(enbanc).  ($USUS.,    41    _ԀKeefe,supra,atp.419.   ($USUS.,    42    _ԀBradley,FirstAmendment,supraatp.162.Thisisnottosaythatviolenceorthreatsof F violenceareprotectedbytheFirstAmendment.Theyarenot.E.g.N.A.A.C.P.v.Claiborne 2 Hardware,458U.S.886,916(1982).Noristhecommissionofnonviolentcrimesprotected.  See,_Adderly_Ԁv.Florida,385U.S.39(1966).Butthethreattocommitnonviolentcrimesinthe   nameofpoliticalprotestisprotectedjustasmuchasthethreattocommitlegalprotestbecause  thecivildisobedience,andtheensuingarrest,maybeanessentialpartoftheprotestactivity.   See,Bradley,FirstAmendmentatpp.163165,expandingonthistheme.  ($USUS.,    40    _ԀBradley,FirstAmendment,p.161.   ($USUS.,    10    _ԀH.J.Inc.v.NorthwesternBellTelephoneCo.,492U.S.229(1989)requiredthat F  continuityand relationshipofthepredicatecrimesmustbeestablishedbythe 2 plaintiff/prosecutorinordertoestablishthe pattern.Id.atp.24243.Ifthepredicatecrimes  havenotbeenspecified,patterncannotbeproved.  ($USUS.,    37    _Ԁ267F.3datp.709.(citationomitted).*+ (_2623  ..*D+J (_25   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  &Cases*A+J (_24   ) <DL)23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *>+J (_23  ` &<<DL&23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  &Other Authorities*;+J (_22   #DL#23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *8+J (_21    DL 23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  &Statutes*5+J (_20  h DDL23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  People v. Ryan*2+J (_19   L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  United States v. Green*/+J (_18    L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  * (_1723  Ԁ*DJ (_16   ," <DL,23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *AJ (_15   ) <DL)23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *>J (_14  ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *;J (_13   #DL#23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  TProtesers, Extortion, and Coercion: Preventing RICOCases*8J (_12    DL 23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *5J (_11  h DDL23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *2J (_10   L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  (/J &_9    L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  ( &_823  (DJ &_7   ," <DL,23   2( 4 <DL2  (AJ &_6   ) <DL)23   2( 4 <DL2    !USUS.,  __Protesers_,Extortion,andCoercion:PreventingRICOfromChillingFirstAmendment F Freedoms,75NotreDame_L.R._Ԁ691,720(1999)(>J &_5  ` &<<DL&23   2( 4 <DL2  (;J &_4   #DL#23   2( 4 <DL2  (8J &_3    DL 23   2( 4 <DL2  (5J &_2  h DDL23   2( 4 <DL2  (2J &_1   L23   2( 4 <DL2  &/J $_    L23   2( 4 <DL2   d<:Default Para\  `&Times New Roman u  ($USUS.,    1    _PursuanttoRule37.6,thisbriefwasnotauthoredinwholeorinpartbycounselfora F party,andnopersonorentity,otherthanamicuscuriae,hasmadeamonetarycontributiontothe 2 preparationorsubmissionofthisbrief.   5 '  0 .     !USUS.,  _F  InThe F SupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates  No.011118  _________________________________   Joseph_Scheidler_,Andrew_Scholberg_,TimothyMurphyandtheProLifeActionLeague.Inc.,  t Petitioners  L  v. j$  NationalOrganizationforWomen,Inc.Etal B  Respondents   __________________________________   OnPetitionforaWritofCertioraritotheUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheSeventh  Circuit l _______________________________ D BRIEFOFAMICUSCURIAE,PEOPLEFORTHEETHICALTREATMENTOF b ANIMALS N __________________________ &  (Counselasinpetition)     -(, ЇTABLEOFAUTHORITIES H KConstitutionalProvisions,Statutes,andRules > AntiRacketeeringActof1934(48Stat.979)HRNo.238,79thCong.1stSess.(Feb.27,1945)""J(#.""g3  FreedomofAccesstoClinicEntrances(FACE)statute,18U.S.C.248(a)""J(#.Q1   _Hobbs_ԀAct,18U.S.C.1951V!V!E(#. %1,37 "  A   &   &   RICO18U.S.C.1961""J(#. 2& ݈ $X" Ќ̌  &   & C  TravelAct(18U.S.C.1952)""J(#. &2& C^݈ v&0!$ Ќ̌  &   &   & ̌̌  Cases +%) ;   &   &   Carpenterv.UnitedStates,484U.S.19(1987)!!G(#.jj83,5& ݈ ,'+ Ќ -(, Ќ  &   &   Evansv.UnitedStates,504U.S.255,(1992)!!G(#.73,4& ݈ F Ќ̌  _Fasulo_v.UnitedStates,272U.S.620(1926)""J(#.66  &   &   _H.J._ԀInc.v.NorthwesternBellTelephoneCo.,492U.S.229(1989)""J(#.K3& ݈  Ќ̌  &   &   _McNally_Ԁv.UnitedStates,483U.S.350(1987)""J(#.HH73& ݈   Ќ̌  &   &   NortheastWomensCenter,Inc.v._McMonagle_Ԁ(3rdCir.1989)""J(#.E6& ݈  ` Ќ̌  &   &   _N.O.W._Ԁv._Scheidler_,267F.3d687,705(7thCir.,2001)!!G(#.A3,7& ݈ ~8  Ќ̌  &   &   _N.O.W._Ԁv._Scheidler_,510U.S.249(1994).......................................................................................7&  V  Ќ̌  OrganizationforaBetterAustinv.Keefe,402U.S.415(1971)""J(#.XXH7 .  &   & u  Peoplev.Ryan,232N.Y.234,_N.E._Ԁ572,573(1921)""J(#.  <4& u݈  Ќ̌  &   & ]  UnitedStatesv.Anderson,716F.2d446(7thCir.1983)!!G(#.A3,6& ]x݈  Ќ̌  &   & 3  UnitedStatesv.Arena,180F.3d380(2ndCir.1999""J(#.=6& 3N݈ p Ќ̌  UnitedStatesv.Capo,817F.2d947(2ndCir.1987)(enbanc).""J(#.H7 H &   &   UnitedStatesv._Enmons_,410U.S.396(1973)""J(#.64& ݈ f  Ќ̌  &   & g  UnitedStatesv.Frazier,560F.2d884(8thCir.1977)cert.den.435U.S.968(1978).""J(#.((`5& g݈ > Ќ̌  &   & Y  UnitedStatesv.Green,350U.S.415(1956)""J(#.55& Yt݈  Ќ̌  &   &   UnitedStatesv.Lewis,797F.2d358(7thCir.1986), E cert.den.479U.S.1095(1987)""H(#._57& 5݈   Ќ̌  &   &   UnitedStatesv._Panaro_,266F.2d939(2001)""J(#.66& 5݈ "  Ќ̌  &   &   UnitedStatesv._Santoni_,585F.2d667(4thCir.1978)cert.den.440U.S.910(1979).""J(#.44`5& ݈ $X" Ќ̌  &   &   UnitedStatesv._Tropiano_,418F.2d1069(2ndCir.,1969).""J(#.D5&)݈ v&0!$ Ќ̌    Others &*$( 91Cong.Rec.11900(1945)(StatementofCong_Hobbs_)""J(#.^^>3 +&* 1997WL610782at1819(N.D.Ill1997).""J(#.22 -(, ЇAmericanLawinstitute, C ModelPenalCodeandCommentaries(OfficialDraft,1980)sec.233.4 F p.203""J(#.4 2 BrianMurray,Note: L _Protesers_,Extortion,andCoercion:PreventingRICOfromChillingFirst   AmendmentFreedoms,75NotreDame_L.R._Ԁ691,720(1999)""J(#.@6  > &   & *  CraigBradley,NOWv._Scheidler_,RICOMeetstheFirstAmendment,1994SupremeCourt   Review129(1995)4!4!D(#. 1,6,7& *E݈  t Ќ̌  &   & _  HearingsbeforetheHouseSubcommitteeonCrimeandCriminalJusticeoftheCommitteeon  L  theJudiciary,103rdCong.,1stSess.,P.1(April1andJune10,1993).""J(#.Q2& _z݈ ~8  Ќ̌  &   &   HearingbeforetheSenateCommitteeonLaborandHumanResources,103rdCong.1stSess.P.8 V  (May12,1993).""J(#. 2& ݈ B  Ќ̌  &   &   James_Lindgren_,UnravelingtheParadoxofBlackmail,84Columbia_L.R._Ԁ670(1984)""J(#.ppZ7& ݈   Ќ̌  &   & !  _LaFave_ԀandScott,SubstantiveCriminalLaw(Vol.II,p.460,1986)""J(#.L4& ! "݈  Ќ̌  ModelPenalCode""J(#. 4  &   & ,#  Tr.Trans.P.4495.""J(#.^ ^ 2& ,#G#݈ \ Ќ̌  &   & #    *4 !X*]XXXX STATEMENTOFINTEREST^ #  1      & ## z4 Ќ̌    X   PeoplefortheEthicalTreatmentofAnimals,Inc.(PETA)isanonprofitcharitable  organizationthataggressivelyusesentirelypeacefulmeanstoexposeandendanimalabusewherever  itoccurs.PETAenjoysthesupportofover750,000members.WhenPETAhearsallegationsof r abuse,wethoroughlyinvestigatetheallegationsandreportourfindingstotheproperauthorities.. ^ PETAsupportersalsooccasionallyengageinnonviolentcivildisobediencetocallpublicattention  J tolawsorpracticesthattheyfindobjectionableconsistentwiththegreatestprotesttraditionsofthis |!6 nation.PETAsactionscloselyresemblethoseofmanysocialadvocacygroupsthroughoutthe h""  countryshistory,eachofwhichhas,initstime,incurredthewrathofthosewhowishnopublic T#! scrutinyandnochangeinthestatusquo#XXX]X=$#]XXXXԀInshort,PETAengagesinprotestactivitysimilartothatof @$" petitioners. ,%#  X XDespiteitspurelypeacefulcharitableprograms,PETAhasbeenthetargetoffalseallegations '!% ofinvolvementorcomplicityintheviolenceorthreatsofviolenceperpetratedbyotherpeopleor '"& groupswithinthebroad,heterogeneousanimalprotectionmovement.Thedangerofsuchfalse (#' attacksisillustratedbythiscaseinwhichthetrialcourtandtheSeventhCircuitlabeledthe F petitionersasextortionistsunderthe_Hobbs_ԀActandasracketeersunderRICOwithoutanyspecific 2 findingbythejuryastowhichactsbypetitionersconstitutedextortionateconductunderstateor  federallaw.Thislooseapplicationoffederalantiracketeeringlawstopoliticaladvocacygroups   threatensPETAsaggressiveadvocacyforthebenefitofanimalsandconstitutesadaggeratthe  throatofallothermovementswhereminorviolencemayaccompanypoliticalaction.      Thankstothesupportofitsmembersandsupportersaroundtheworld,PETAhasenjoyed  t notablesuccessinconvincingmultinationalcorporations,smallbusinesses,andindividualstoreduce  ` oreliminatethesufferingenduredbyanimalsattheirhands.Forexample,PETArecentlyconvinced  L  McDonalds,BurgerKing,andWendysfastfoodrestaurantstodemandmorehumaneanimalcare ~8  standardsoftheirsuppliers.PETAachievesthesevictoriesbyencouraging,protesting,cajoling, j$  writingletters,leadingboycotts,andconductinghardhittingcampaignstodrawmediaattentionto V  theplightoftheanimals.  B   .   PETAssuccessismeasuredbyahalttoanimalabuse,improvedconditionsforanimals,and   acontinuingchangeinpublicandcorporateattitudestowardtherightsofallanimals.Likethe  petitionersinthiscase,itdoesnotobtainanytangibleorintangiblepropertyfromanyofits  adversariesasameansofaccomplishingitseducationalmission.Therefore,theSeventhCircuits  opinion,whichevisceratesthe obtainingofpropertyelementfromthe_Hobbs_ԀAct,threatensPETA  withthecontinuedprospectoffederalcourtinjunctions,trebledamagecivilsuitsandevenpossible p federalprosecutionasitcarriesoutitsanimalprotectionmission. \  XӀ H  XPETAsinterestisnotpurelyhypothetical.In1997,PETAwassuedunderRICOforits z4 investigationandexposureofanimalcrueltyataNewJerseyanimaltestinglaboratoryeventhough f  theUnitedStatesDepartmentofAgriculturefinedthelab$50,000forfederallawviolationsfound R  asaresultofPETAscomplaint.HuntingdonLifeSciences,Inc.v._Rokke_Ԁetal.(_E.D.VA_ > 2:97CV597)(casesettled).OtheranimalprotectionactivistshavebeensuedunderRICOfor * peacefulprotestsandnonviolentcivildisobedienceoutsideofafurstore.Jacques_Ferber_,Inc.v.  _Bateman_Ԁetal.(E.D.PA99_CIV_Ԁ2277)(casesettled).      PETAalsohasalongstandinginterestinthiscaseasanamicus.PETAwasgranted ! permissiontoservethisCourtinthatcapacityinitsinitialconsiderationofthiscasein1994,and "  PETAlikewiseservedtheSeventhCircuit,bothin1994and1999followingthisCourtsremand. #l!  $X" B( 4 <DLX!BPETAexpressesnoviewontheissueofabortion.Itsinterestsinthiscaserelatesolelytothe %D # legalissuesraisedinthisandpetitionersbrief. v&0!$  b'"%  X    #XXX]X,)#  SUMMARYOFARGUMENT  :)#'    ` PetitionerswerefoundliableunderRICO,foroperatinganenterprisethrougha +%) patternofracketeeringactivities,specifically,extortioninviolationofstatelaw,the_Hobbs_ԀAct ,&* andtheTravelAct.The_Hobbs_ԀAct,18U.S.C.1951,forbidsaffectingcommercebyrobberyor ,'+ extortion.Itdefines extortionas theobtainingofpropertyfromanother,withhisconsent, -(, inducedbywrongfuluseofactualorthreatenedforceviolenceorfear....(_emp_.added).Hereit F isnotallegedthatthePetitionerssoughttoobtainanypropertyfromtheRespondents,andthe 2 judgeinstructedthejurythat obtainingpropertyneednotbefound.Rather,Respondentsclaim  thatthepropertyobtainmentelementwassatisfiedbecausethePetitionersinterferedwith   Respondentsabilitytooperateabortionclinicsfreefrominterference.Neitherthelanguage,the  legislativehistory,noracommonsenseunderstandingofthe_Hobbs_ԀActsupportsthedeletionof   the obtainmentelementasRespondentsurge.      t &   & &A  & &AAǍ̌  &   & A  󀀀 ARGUMENT & AA  Ќ̌    THE_HOBBS_ԀACT(ANDTHEREFORERICO)WASNOTVIOLATEDBYTHE   ЀPROTESTACTIVITIESOFPETITIONERS  x    Petitionersaremembersofanunpopularpoliticaladvocacymovement.Whiletheir <  generalantiabortionpositionissharedbymanyAmericans,thetacticstheyemploy!blockading n(  clinics,harassingpatientsandstaff,etc.!arewidelycondemned.Norarethesepetitioners Z  necessarilyinnocentofallcriminalactivity.Thereisampleevidenceintherecordofthiscase F  suggestingviolationsofstatetrespassing,destructionofproperty,andperhapsotherlaws,andthe 2  FreedomofAccesstoClinicEntrances(FACE)statute,18U.S.C.248(a) #  2           However,asexplainedinmySupremeCourtReviewarticlewrittenaftertheCourtsfirst  decisioninthiscase,_ #  3      _Ԁ(andbeforeIhadanycontactwithanyofthepartiestothiscase)violation  ofthesestatutesdoesnotconstituteaviolationofRICObecauseneitherFACE,trespassing,nor   actsorthreatsofviolence  #  4      ׀areamongthelisted predicatecrimesnecessarytoconstitutea t RICOviolation.D  #  5      ׀Indeed,thereasonthattheFACEstatutewasdemandedbyprochoice ` advocateswasbecauseexistingfederalandstatelaws(including,presumably,RICOand L extortion)wereinadequateindealing_withabortionprotestors. #  6      ׀Althoughrespondentscomplaint ~8 inthiscasemadereferencetosuchcrimesasmurder,arson,andkidnappingcommittedby F certainantiabortionzealots,therewasnoproofofanysuchcrimeshavingbeencommittedby 2 thepetitioners,andtheseclaimsweredismissedbythetrialjudge.h #  7      ׀Accordingly,thejuryverdict  againstpetitionerswasbasedentirelyonextortion!eitherundertheHobbsAct,theTravelAct   (18U.S.C.1952)orstatelaw. #  8      ׀However,justwhatactsorthreatsthejurymighthavebeen  referringtointhisverdictwereneverspecified,andthetrialjudgerefusedpetitionersrequestto   askthejurytobespecific.X  #  9           Thus,inacasereminiscentofKafkasTheTrial,petitionerswerefoundliablefor  `  obstruct(ing),delay(ing)oraffect(ing)commerceby obtainingpropertyfromanother...by  L  wrongfuluseofactualorthreatenedforce,violenceorfearunderstateandfederalextortion ~8  laws,wherenopropertywasobtained,theparticularactsthataffectedcommercewerenot j$  specifiedbythejuryandthestateswhoselawswereviolatedwerenotidentified.Moreover, V  theseunspecifiedactswerethenfoundtoconstitutea patternofracketeeringactivityin B  violationofRICO.7 #  10      ׀Thevaguenessofthisverdict,andthedifficultyofotherprotestgroups, .  suchasPETA,inavoidingRICOviolationsinlightofthiscase,rendersitadisturbingprecedent.     YettheSeventhCircuitbrushedofftheseconcerns,consigningthisissueto nonserious  claims.d #  11      ׀Thecourtofappealscorrectlyidentifiedthe defendantsprimarycontentionasbeing  thattherewasno obtainingofpropertyheredespitetheexplicitrequirementoftheHobbs F Act. #  12      ׀However,thecourtthenansweredadifferentcontention,statingthat thiscircuithas 2 repeatedlyheldthatintangiblepropertysuchastherighttoconductabusinesscanbeconsidered  propertyundertheHobbsAct.| #  13      ׀WeagreethatintangiblepropertycansatisfytheHobbsAct,   justasitcantheMailFraudstatute.0 #  14      ׀Butjustas fraudrequiresthatthevictimbedefraudedout  of property,tangibleorintangible,asthisCourtheldinMcNallyv.UnitedStates,483U.S.350   (1987),sotheHobbsAct,withitsexplicit obtainingpropertyelement,mustlikewiseinvolve   propertyobtainment.  t   AsthisCourthasobserved,theHobbsAct,likeitspredecessor,the1934Anti  L  RacketeeringAct,  #  15      ׀wasdrawnfromtheNewYorkCode.Evansv.UnitedStates,504U.S.255, ~8  261,n.9(1992).  #  16      ׀BoththeNewYorkCodeonwhichtheactwasbased,aswellasits j$  predecessorFieldCode,definedextortionas theobtainingofpropertyfromanother,withhis V  consent,inducedbyawrongfuluseofforceorfearorundercolorofofficialright.Id. B    AstheNewYorkcasescitedbythisCourtinUnitedStatesv.Enmons,410U.S.396   (1973),makeclear,anaccusedcouldnotbeguiltyofextortionunlesshe wasactuatedbythe  purposeofobtainingfinancialbenefitforhimself...410U.S.atp.406,n.16. #  17      ׀TheCourt  reiteratedthispointinEvans,notingthattheHobbsActcovers actsbyprivateindividuals  pursuanttowhichpropertyisobtainedbymeansofthreats,forceorviolence.!8 #  18      ׀504U.S.atp.  261. p Ї  Forcingsomeonetodosomethingagainsthiswill,bycontrast,isrecognizedbythe F ModelPenalCode,$ #  19      ׀aswellasthecodesofmoststates,asthecrimeof criminalcoercion,not 2 extortion.Onlyafewstatesdonotlimitextortionto obtainingproperty.@ #  20      ׀Thusitiscritical,if  aRICOjudgementisbasedonextortionunderstatelaw,toidentifywhichstateslawswere   violated.Thiswasnotdonehere.    Thetrialcourtignoredthe obtainmentelementinitsinstructionstothejuryinthiscase,   insteadtellingthemthat, (i)tdoesnotmatterwhetherornottheextortionprovidedaneconomic  t benefittoPLAN. #  21      ׀Inshort,itisrespondentsposition,asspelledoutintheirBriefin  ` Opposition,thatbythreateningdemonstrationsunlessabortionclinicsclosed,andinotherwise  L  interferingwiththeclinicsoperations,petitionersthereby obtainedthepropertyofthe ~8  clinics.  #  22       j$    Respondentsarguethat,sincethepropertyinquestioncanbeintangible,itfollowsthatit B  neednotbe obtainedbythedefendant.'4  #  23      ׀Thismisconstruesthenatureofintangibleproperty. .  Information,asinCarpenter  #  24      ׀wherethedefendanttradedonproprietaryinformationofhis   employerTheWallStreetJournal,isclearlyproperty.Butthefactthatitisintangibledoesnot  meanthatitcannot_bestolen(inafraudcase)" #  25      ׀orobtainedbythreatinanextortioncase.Getting  someonetocloseanabortionclinic,whileitmaybeadeprivationofpropertyfromthevictims  pointofview,isnotanobtainmentofpropertybythedefendant.Werethedefendantseekingto  drivethevictimoutofbusinesssothatthedefendantcouldthentakeoverthatbusiness,this p  wouldbepropertyobtainmentandwouldviolatethe_Hobbs_ԀAct,eventhoughtthedefendantdid \ notacquirethephysicalaspectsofthevictimsbusiness.See,e.g.,UnitedStatesv._Tropiano_, F 418F.2d1069(2dCir.1969)cert.den.397U.S.1021. 2    Respondentscitearaftofoldercases,includingUnitedStatesv.Green,350U.S.415,   420(1956),andmanycourtofappealscasestosupporttheirclaim.Butnoneoftheholdings  supportthepropositionthatinterferencewithanothersuseofpropertyinterestsissufficientto   violatethe_Hobbs_ԀAct,thoughthereissomedictuminthesecasestothateffect.     InGreen,thisCourtheldthatthe_Hobbs_ԀActcoveredaunionrepresentativesthreatening  ` violenceinordertoobtainapaymentfor imposed,unwanted,superfluousandfictitious  L  servicesbyunionmembers.# #  26      ׀Thatis,itwasnotnecessaryforthedefendanttoattemptto ~8   obtainpropertyforhimself.Itwassufficientthathesoughttoobtainitfortheunion j$  members.(| #  27      ׀Infact,allofthecases(exceptthoseinvolvingabortionclinics)citedbyRespondent V  involvedefendantswhosoughttoobtain property,i.e.economicadvantage,whetheritbethe B  righttoengageinthetrashbusiness,_*0 #  28      _Ԁmoneythatthedefendantnevershoweduptoreceive,+ #  29      ׀or .  abusinesscontract._) #  30      _     However,thefactthatsomedefendantsdidntsucceedinobtainingthepropertythey  sought,asinFrazierwherethedefendantdidntshowuptoreceivearansompayment,ledsome  courtstodeclarethat thegravamenoftheoffenseisthelosstothevictim.,L  #  31      ׀Likewise,in  UnitedStatesv.Lewis,797F.2d358(7thCir.1986),cert.den.479U.S.1095(1987),wherethe p defendantsschemewassofarfetchedthatithadlittlechanceofsuccess,thecourtdeclaredthat \  thedefendantwouldhaveviolated1951if,forexample,hehadsimplydemandedthatthe H victimburn$1millioncash.-  #  32      ׀TheLewiscourtfurtherdeclaredthatthedefendants gain z4 couldalsosimplybethehumiliationofthevictim..  #  33       f    Thesedecisionswereinturnrelieduponbycourts,suchastheSecondCircuitinUnited > Statesv.Arena,180F.3d380(2ndCir.1999)cert.den.531U.S.811(2000)andtheThirdCircuit * inNortheastWomensCenter,Inc.v._McMonagle_,868F.2d1342(3rdCir.1989)whenthey  concludedthatinterferingwithabortionclinicsrighttodobusinessalsoconstitutedextortion. F Butthisconclusionwaswrong._0 #  34      _ԀWhiletherighttodobusinessiscertainly property,the 2 defendantdoesntviolatethe_Hobbs_ԀAct whenavictimismerelyforcedtopartwithproperty,  astheNinthCircuitrecentlyheldinUnitedStatesv._Panaro_,266F.2d939,948(2001). Rather,   theremustbeanobtaining:someone!eithertheextortionerorathirdperson!mustreceivethe  propertyofwhichthevictimisdeprived./  #  35             Butwhyshouldthisbeso?Isntthedamagetothevictim,andtheculpabilityofthe  t defendant,preciselythesameifthedefendantseeks$1millionforhimselfasifhedemandsthat  ` thevictimburn$1million,astheSeventhCircuithypothesizedinLewis?Therearetwoanswers  L  tothisproposition. ~8    Thefirstisthat,justbecausetheeffectonthevictimandtheculpabilityofthedefendant V  arethesamedoesnotmeanthatcrimeAisthereforethesameascrimeB.Asapracticalmatter, B  threateningsomeonethatyoullbeathimupnowifhedoesntgiveyoumoney,orthreatening .  thatyoullbeathimuptomorrow,havethesameimpactonthevictimandthesameculpability   forthedefendant.Yetthefirstcrimeisrobbery,thesecondextortion!adistinctionmadebythe  _Hobbs_ԀActitself.Likewise,thisCourtheldin_Fasulo_v.UnitedStates,272U.S.620(1926),that  threateningsomeonethroughthemailsisextortion,butnotmailfraud,eventhoughthethreat  mighthaveexactlythesameconsequencesasafraudulentstatement.Extortion,asdemonstrated  above,islimitedtocrimesinwhichthedefendantobtains,orattemptstoobtain,property.By p Respondentsreasoning,threateningtopunchanantiabortiondemonstratorunlesshestops \  demonstratingwouldnowberobbery,andthreateningtocallthepolicewouldnowbe H extortion,_% #  36      _Ԁsincetheclinicoperatorwouldbe interferingwiththerightofthevictim,asthe F  courtbelowputit,8, #  37      ׀todemonstrate. 2   ThesecondproblemwiththeLewishypotheticalliesintheFirstAmendment.AsJustice   _Souter_ԀrecognizedinhisconcurringopinioninNOWI,510U.S.249,264, [_c]onduct_Ԁallegedto  be_Hobbs_ԀActextortionmayturnouttobefullyprotectedFirstAmendmentactivity....Ifthe    obtainingpropertyelementisremovedfromthe_Hobbs_ԀAct,thenthreateningtodemonstrate   peacefullyoutsideanabortionclinic,andtherebyinterferewithbusiness,becomesa_Hobbs_ԀAct  t violation.3 #  38      ׀Thisistheparadoxofextortion:threateningtodothatwhichislegalbecomes  ` illegal._1  #  39      _ԀButwhentheactionthreatenedisprotectedbytheFirstAmendment,itisclearly  L  unconstitutionaltocriminalizethethreatunlesspropertyissoughtbythedefendant.64  #  40      ׀ ~8    InOrganizationforaBetterAustinv.Keefe,402U.S.415(1971),acivilrightsgroup V  demandedthattherespondentceasehis _blockbusting_realestatesalespracticesortheywould B  distributepamphletscriticalofhim.TheCourtstruckdownaninjunctiononthe_pamphleteering_ .  asapriorrestraint,and,intheprocess,alsomadeitclearthattheoriginalthreattothe   respondentwasprotected: Theclaimthattheexpressionswereintendedtohaveacoercive  impactonrespondentdoesnotremovethemfromthereachoftheFirstAmendment.4  #  41          AsIinterpretedthiscasein1994:  0   (#(# 0  Thisisnotextortion,butnotbecausethethreatistoperformsomelegitimateactivity \ since,asnotedabove,threatstoperformlegitimateactsmayneverthelessbethebasisof H anextortioncharge.Norisitthattheactthreatenedisconstitutionallyprotected.IfX z4 threatensamerchantthatCOREwillpicket,legally,outsidehisstoreanddriveaway f   businessunlesshecontributes$500toCORE,thisisprobablyextortionaswell.Rather, R  thereasonmustbe,asinKeefe,thatthethreatistoperformalegalact,andthegoalisto F achieveapoliticalend,ratherthantoobtainpropertyfromaparticularvictim._5 #  42      _2(#(#    Inconclusion,the obtainmentelementisanintegralpartofthe_Hobbs_ԀAct.It   distinguishesextortionfromthecrimeof criminalcoercion.Toreaditoutofthe_Hobbs_ԀAct,as  thecourtbelowdidinthiscase,istosubjectallpoliticalprotests,orthethreatthereof,which   haveatendencytointerferewithbusiness,toprosecution.Butthisresultwouldclearlyviolate   theFirstAmendment.  t