Articles in this document:

· RICO lawsuit back on appeal

… The county’s lawsuit alleged that … Swift Beef … employing illegal immigrants …

· Group offers to fund revival of Canyon County's RICO lawsuit

RICO lawsuit back on appeal

Bryan Dooley

Idaho Press-Tribune

August 4, 2008

CANYON COUNTY — Judicial Watch, a conservative advocacy group, plans to pay for a U.S. Supreme Court appeal of Canyon County’s lawsuit against four businesses accused of hiring illegal immigrants.

A press release on the organization’s Web site reported that Judicial Watch has filed a petition challenging the dismissal of the case by two lower court opinions.

The county’s lawsuit alleged that Syngenta Seeds, Swift Beef, Sorrento Lactalis and Harris Moran Seed cost taxpayers millions in additional public safety, education and health services funding by employing illegal immigrants. It also named Albert Pacheco, then the director of the nonprofit Idaho Migrant Council, as a defendant.

County Commissioners Robert Vasquez, David Ferdinand and Matt Beebe voted to file the suit in 2005 using the federal RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act. Attorneys said it was an unorthodox application of the law, which is generally used to prosecute organized crime.

The businesses denied the county’s claims.

In the first court showdown, U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge dismissed the case and ruled that Canyon County’s claim of paying higher expenses for social services was simply the cost of being a government entity.

A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later upheld the dismissal on the grounds that the county did not show “hiring of undocumented immigrants would increase demand for health care and law enforcement within Canyon County.”

After the county had spent $61,000 on the lawsuit, Commissioners Ferdinand and Steve Rule voted in April to continue to pursue the case, but only if the county could secure outside funding.

Commissioner Matt Beebe opposed any appeal after the original ruling. His opinion on the matter has not changed, he said Sunday.

The Idaho Press-Tribune could not reach Ferdinand for comment Sunday afternoon. But he told The Idaho Statesman earlier that commissioners had agreed to allow the Washington, D.C.-based Judicial Watch to go forward with the appeal.

This isn’t about the lawsuit,” Ferdinand told the Boise newspaper. “It’s about the interpretation of RICO by the 9th Circuit.”

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said RICO is a tool that can be used to fight illegal immigration.

“Businesses who hire illegal aliens could be subject to RICO lawsuits.” Fitton said. “The lower courts in this case have ignored the plain language of the RICO statute, and we hope the Supreme Court takes this opportunity to reaffirm the rule of law.”

- The Associated Press contributed to this report.

idahopress.com

Group offers to fund revival of Canyon County's RICO lawsuit

The case alleges that 4 businesses and a former Migrant Council director hired or assisted undocumented workers.

BY KRISTIN RODINE

Idaho Statesman

Edition Date: 08/03/08

The U.S. Supreme Court could revive Canyon County's RICO lawsuit against four agri-businesses if a national watchdog group gets its way.

Judicial Watch has volunteered to foot the cost of appealing the case to the nation's highest court, officials said Friday. The group announced on its Web site Thursday it has petitioned the Supreme Court to revisit the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that rejected the county's lawsuit in March.

The county sued Syngenta Seeds, Sorrento Lactalis, Swift Beef, Harris Moran Seed and former Idaho Migrant Council director Albert Pacheco in 2005, alleging that they knowingly hired or helped undocumented workers, ultimately costing the county millions of dollars for indigent medical care, legal services and other social services.

Attorneys for the businesses and Pacheco deny those allegations, but they haven't had to argue the facts in court because the district court judge in 2005 and the 9th Circuit judges in March all ruled the county doesn't meet the requirements to pursue the suit under the federal anti-racketeering law.

Judicial Watch contests that interpretation, as do Canyon County leaders, who spent more than $61,000 on legal fees on the case between August 2005 and September 2007.

In April, county commission Chairman David Ferdinand said he wanted to keep pursuing the case, but only if funding sources other than county tax money could be found. The cost to local government of illegal immigrants is a major national issue that deserves a hearing, he said.

Local residents have committed about $250 toward the cause so far, with more pledged, he said Friday, but now Judicial Watch has stepped forward.

"A friend of mine who is a member of Judicial Watch called me and said Judicial Watch wanted to fund the appeal," Ferdinand said, adding that he put the friend in touch with the county's attorney in the case, Chicago-based RICO specialist Howard Foster. RICO - the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act - was enacted in 1970 to fight organized crime, but has been applied on a broader basis since the early 1990s.

Commissioners have agreed to allow Judicial Watch to go forward with a Supreme Court appeal, he said, and the watchdog group is working with Foster.

"This isn't about the lawsuit," Ferdinand said. "It's about the interpretation of RICO by the 9th Circuit."

"RICO is a tool that can be used to fight illegal immigration. Businesses who hire illegal aliens could be subject to RICO lawsuits," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. "The lower courts in this case have ignored the plain language of the RICO statute, and we hope the Supreme Court takes this opportunity to reaffirm the rule of law."

idahostatesman.com