Plaintiffs Continue to Seek Justice in Racine Lawsuit

The Plaintiffs in THOMAS J. HOLMES, et al., v.  JOHN DICKERT, et al., Case No. 14-CV-208 have responded to the Defendants Motion to Dismiss and the next course of action rests with the Defendants, who have 14 days to respond. Should the Defendants choose not to respond in writing, the Court may move to oral arguments, or make a decision on the Motions. Almost forgotten, is that the Racine County Circuit Court, in a decision upheld by the  Wisconsin Court of  Appeals, already ruled that Thomas J. Holmes  right to due process was violated by The City of Racine, City of Racine Common Council, City of Racine Public Safety and Licensing Committee and Kurt Whalen; in an unlawful act that also deprived Thomas Holmes to the use of his private property, business, and the ability to provide a living for his Family and himself.  See:  State of Wisconsin Court of Appeals Case No. 2011AP2282.

Thomas Holmes speaks before the Racine Common Council, January 17, 2013:

In the unanimous decision for Case No. 2011AP2282, the Court found that the Racine Common Council acted unjustly upon the unsworn complaint of Kurt Whalen, made in violation of State statutes, while the Racine Public Safety and Licensing Committee  unlawfully assumed jurisdiction over the matter and acted illegally to revoke Thomas Holmes liquor license; thus violating Mr. Holmes right to due process, while depriving him of the use of his private property.

While The City of Racine frivolously attempted to claim that an oath, or swearing of a statement was a meaningless trapping, the Court sternly reminded the City and Kurt Whalen that the statutory requirement of a sworn complaint is there to prevent baseless harassment of legitimate businesses. The Court properly concluded that Kurt Whalen, in his failure to comply with State statutes and swear to the complaint, was untrustworthy while assisting the City in violating Thomas Holmes right to due process.

The Racine Equality Project  can only ask – if the City and Kurt Whalen believe that swearing to a complaint is trivial and of no importance, why then didn’t Kurt Whalen simply swear to it? Because false swearing is a Class H Felony? And why is Kurt Whalen being employed by The Village of Mount Pleasant as the Village Administrator? Kurt Whalen, in his defense against the current lawsuit doesn’t even deny being involved in racially motivated or predicate acts – only that his level of racism is up to debate and that he didn’t commit enough predicate acts to be considered a Racketeer. From Kurt Whalen’s defense in his Motion to Dismiss for THOMAS J. HOLMES, et al., v.  JOHN DICKERT, et al., Case No. 14-CV-208, page 48:

 At best, the allegations against Wahlen indicate that Wahlen engaged in racially motivated actions (though that, too, is tenuous).  However, such actions cannot constitute predicate acts under RICO. See,e.g.Jennings, 910 F.2d at 1438 (holding that violations of “civil rights and constitutional law” are not predicate acts under RICO). And, even if these were predicate acts, there is no plausible scenario in which these actions, which occurred, at most, over six months, allege a “pattern of racketeering” against Whalen. (See supra,at Section II.B.1, collecting caselaw indicating that the commission of a few predicate acts committed within a short period of time is not a “pattern of racketeering”)

A Predicate Act is a crime which is composed of some of the elements of a more serious crime and which is committed for carrying out the greater crime.

The Plaintiffs argue that they have specifically alleged sufficient facts to plead a multitude of predicate acts as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) and Wis. Stat. § 946.82, Wisconsin’s state RICO act (“WOCCA”), including, but not limited to, violations of the following federal and state crimes:

• Extortion in violation of the federal extortion statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b);
• Extortion in violation of the Wisconsin extortion statute, Wis. Stat. 943.30;
• Bribery in violation of the federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201(b);
• Bribery in violation of the Wisconsin bribery statute, Wis. Stat. 946.10;
• Receiving an unlawful gratuity in violation of federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 201(c);
• Receiving an unlawful gratuity in violation of Wisconsin law, Wis. Stat. 11.25(1);
• Official misconduct in violation of Wisconsin law, Wis. Stat. 946.12;
• False swearing in violation of Wisconsin law, Wis. Stat. 946.32(1)(a);
• Honest services fraud in violation of federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 1346; and
• Money laundering in violation of federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i)

Below is the Plaintiffs Reply to the Municipal Defendants Motion to Dismiss:

Below is the Plaintiffs Reply to the Racine City Tavern League Defendants Motion to Dismiss:

Below is the Plaintiffs Reply to the Downtown Racine Corporation Defendants Motion to Dismiss:

Below is the Plaintiffs Reply to the Doug Nicholson and Monte Osterman’s Motion to Dismiss:

Below is the Complaint for the Lawsuit:

*UPDATED*

Racine Equality Project *WINS* Best Float in 2014 City of Racine Fourth of July Parade!

IMG_1215 2

Click on Image to enlarge.Racine Equality Project C

cropped-REP_header2