* Articles Editor, Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, 2001–02.
1 Edward Abbey, The Monkey Wrench Gang 246 (1975). “The Monkey Wrench Gang is far more than just a controversial book—it is revolutionary, anarchic, seditious, and, in the wrong hands, dangerous. Although Abbey claimed it was just a work of fiction written to ‘entertain and amuse,’ the novel was swiftly embraced by eco-activists frustrated with the timid approaches of mainstream environmental groups like the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society. . . . Failing to see his humor, Abbey’s detractors ignored an important point: lovable pranksters in his novel kill only machines, not people, unlike the truly violent protagonists of such fictional works as [The Turner Diaries], Anthony Burgess’s A Clockwork Orange and Hubert Selby Jr.’s Last Exit to Brooklyn.” Douglas Brinkley, Introduction to Edward Abbey, The Monkey Wrench Gang, at xx (2000).
2 Racketeering Influenced and Corruption Organizations (RICO) Act, 18 U.S.C.  1961–1968 (1994).
3 See generally Huntingdon Life Sciences v. Rokke, 986 F. Supp. 982 (E.D. Va. 1997); Donna E. Correll, Note, No Peace for Greens: The Criminal Prosecution of Environmental Activists and the Threat of Organizational Liability, 24 Rutgers L.J. 773, 795 (1993); Simon Ward, Second RICO Suit Filed Against Fur Protesters, Fur Commission USA, at http://www.furcommission.com/news/newsE54.html (last visited Apr. 4, 2001).
4 See Curtis Roggow, Note, Of Rum, Rights, and RICO: Are Plaintiffs Intoxicated with the Power of Civil RICO? What’s Falling Victim to the Statute?, 40 Drake L. Rev. 577, 591 (1991).
5 18 U.S.C  1964(c).
6 See William W. Cason, Note, Spiking the Spikers: The Use of Civil RICO Against Environmental Terrorists, 32 Hous. L. Rev. 745, 747 (1995); Press Release, Fur Commission USA, Public and Private Resource Management and Protection Issues in the National Forest Systems (May 21, 1999) (on file with author).
7 See, e.g., Cason, supra note 6.
8 See Bryan Denson & James Long, Eco-Terrorism Sweeps the American West (Sept. 26, 1999), at http://www.oregonlive.com (“The crimes are acts of domestic terrorism—violence intended to change the behavior of individuals and institutions or to alter public policies. Environmental preservation is their cause, making them distinct from other terrorist acts, such as the 1995 bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City, which killed 168 people.”).
9 Steven D. Smith, Believing Like a Lawyer, 40 B.C. L. Rev. 1041, 1056 (1999).
10 See Bryan Denson & James Long, Terrorist Acts Provoke Change in Research, Business, Society (Sep. 28, 1999), at http://www.oregonlive.com (“[A] lot of ideas that used to be considered far-out are becoming mainstream”).
11 See Bryan Denson, Eco-terrorist Group Prolific: The Earth Liberation Front’s Attacks Rack Up Extensive Damages (Jan. 11, 2001), at http://www.oregonlive.com/outdoors/index. sst?/news/oregonian/01/01/nw_51elf11.html; Teresa Platt, Engaging Political Will (Mar. 4, 1999), at http://www.furcommission.com/news/newsD9.htm (last visited Apr. 1, 2001); U.S. Dept. of Justice, Report to Congress on the Extent and Effects of Domestic and International Terrorism on Animal Enterprises (Sept. 1993), available at http://www.cdfe.org/ecoterror. html.
12 See 18 U.S.C.  1961–1968 (1994).
13 Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, 18 U.S.C.  831 (1994).
14 See 18 U.S.C.  1961(1). RICO defines the following acts as “racketeering activity”:
(A) any act or threat involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, or dealing in narcotic or other dangerous drugs, which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year; (B) any act which is indictable under any of the following provisions of title 18, Unites States Code: Section 201 (relating to bribery), section 224 (relating to sports bribery), sections 471, 472, and 473 (relating to counterfeiting), section 659 (relating to theft from interstate shipment) if the act indictable under section 659 is felonious, section 664 (relating to embezzlement from pension and welfare funds), sections 891–894 (relating to extortionate credit transactions), section 1029 (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with access devices), section 1084 (relating to the transmission of gambling information), section 1341 (relating to mail fraud), section 1343 (relating to wire fraud), sections 1461–1465 (relating to obscene matter), section 1503 (relating to obstruction of justice), section 1510 (relating to obstruction of criminal investigations), section 1511 (relating to the obstruction of State or local law enforcement), section 1512 (relating to tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant), section 1513 (relating to retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant), section 1951 (relating to interference with commerce, robbery, or extortion), section 1952 (relating to racketeering), section 1953 (relating to interstate transportation of wagering paraphernalia), section 1954 (relating to unlawful welfare fund payments), section 1955 (relating to the prohibition of illegal gambling businesses), section 1956 (relating to the laundering of monetary instruments), section 1957 (relating to engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity) . . . section 1958 (relating to use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder-for-hire), sections 2251–2252 (relating to sexual exploitation of children), sections 2312 and 2313 (relating to interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicles), sections 2314 and 2315 (relating to interstate transportation of stolen property), section 2321 (relating to trafficking in certain motor vehicles or motor vehicle parts), sections 2341–2346 (relating to trafficking in contraband cigarettes), sections 2421–24 (relating to white slave traffic); (C) any act which is indictable under title 29, United States Code, section 186 (dealing with restrictions on payments and loans to labor organizations) or section 501(c) (relating to embezzlement from union funds); (D) any offense involving fraud connected with a case under title 11, fraud in the sale of securities, or the felonious manufacture, importation, receiving, concealment, buying, selling, or otherwise dealing in narcotic or other dangerous drugs, punishable under any law of the United States; or (E) any act which is indictable under the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act.
Id.
15 See id.
16 See id.  1962(a). These prohibitions provide:
It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt in which such person has participated as a principal within the meaning of section 2, title 18, United States Code, to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.
It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.
It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, orthe activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debts.
It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section.
Id.
17 Id.  1963(a).
18 See id.  1964(c).
19 18 U.S.C.  1964(a).
20 See, e.g., H.J. Inc. v. N.W. Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229 (1989); S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479 (1985); United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576 (1981).
21 See, e.g., NOW v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249 (1994); Jennifer G. Randolph, Supreme Court Review: RICO—The Rejection of An Economic Motive Requirement: NOW v. Scheidler, 85 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 1189 (1995).
22 See Scheidler, 510 U.S. at 262.
23 See Huntingdon Life Sciences v. Rokke, 986 F. Supp. 982, 992 (E.D. Va. 1997).
24 See Turkette, 452 U.S. at 593.
25 Id. at 580.
26 See id. at 581.
27 See id. at 583.
28 Id. at 580.
29 77 F.2d 384, 390 (7th Cir. 1984), aff’d, 473 U.S. 606 (1985).
30 Id. at 390.
31 Id. at 385.
32 Id. at 399.
33 Id. at 398–99.
34 Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 741 F.2d 482, 496 (2d Cir. 1984), rev’d, 473 U.S. 479 (1985).
35 Id. at 484.
36 Id. at 497–98.
37 492 U.S. 229, 249 (1989).
38 Id. at 233.
39 See id.
40 See id. at 234.
41 Id. at 244.
42 Id. at 241.
43 See H.J. Inc., 492 U.S. at 245. The Court referred to the fact that Congress did not enact explicit limitations to organized crime in another section of the Organized Crime Control Act where it could have done so. See id. The Court also relied on the observation that Congress had chosen not to do the same in other statutes such as the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. See id.
44 Randolph, supra note 21, at 1195 (discussing the split between the Third Circuit and the Second Circuit, as well as the Eighth Circuit regarding an economic motive requirement for RICO actions).
45 See N.E. Women’s Ctr., Inc. v. McMonagle, 868 F.2d 1342, 1348 (3d Cir. 1989) (holding that where economic motive is not necessary to commit the predicate offense, there is no separate economic requirement under RICO).
46 See United States v. Ferguson, 758 F.2d 843, 853 (2d Cir. 1985); United States v. Bagaric, 706 F.2d 42, 53 (2d Cir. 1983); United States v. Ivic, 700 F.2d 51, 65 (2d Cir. 1983) (holding that RICO did not apply because neither the enterprise nor the predicate acts were economically motivated, but instead were politically motivated).
47 See United States v. Flynn, 852 F.2d 1045, 1052 (8th Cir. 1988); United States v. Anderson, 626 F.2d 1358, 1372 (8th Cir. 1980).
48 McMonagle, 868 F.2d at 1345.
49 18 U.S.C.  1951 (1994).
50 McMonagle, 868 F.2d at 1350.
51 18 U.S.C.  1951(b)(2) (defining extortion as “the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right”).
52 See, e.g., McMonagle, 868 F.2d at 1350; see also, United States v. Zemek, 634 F.2d 1159, 1174 (9th Cir. 1980) (finding that the right to make business decisions is a protected property right under the Hobbs Act).
53 See 18 U.S.C.  1951(a). This section provides:
Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires to do so, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this tile or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
Id.
54 McMonagle, 868 F.2d at 1350.
55 See id. at 1348.
56 See id. at 1348–49.
57 See United States v. Anderson, 626 F.2d 1358, 1372 (8th Cir. 1980); see also Randolph, supra note 21, at 1199 (discussing RICO and economic motive requirements).
58 See Anderson, 626 F.2d at 1361.
59 Id. at 1365.
60 Id. at 1372.
61 United States v. Flynn, 852 F.2d 1045, 1052 (8th Cir. 1988).
62 See id.
63 See id.
64 See United States v. Ivic, 700 F.2d 51, 65 (2d Cir. 1983).
65 See id. 54–55.
66 Id. at 58.
67 See id. at 60–61.
68 Id. at 60.
69 See id. at 61.
70 See Ivic, 700 F.2d at 61–62. The statement of findings provides:
The Congress finds that (1) organized crime in the United States is a highly sophisticated, diversified, and widespread activity that annually drains billions of dollars from America’s economy by unlawful conduct and the illegal use of force, fraud, and corruption; (2) organized crime derives a major portion of its power through money obtained from such illegal endeavors as syndicated gambling, loan sharking, the theft and fencing of property, the importation and distribution of narcotics and other dangerous drugs, and other forms of social exploitation; (3) this money and power are increasingly used to infiltrate and corrupt legitimate business and labor unions and to subvert and corrupt our democratic processes; (4) organized crime activities in the United States weaken the stability of the Nation’s economic system, harm innocent investors and competing organizations, interfere with free competition, seriously burden interstate and foreign commerce, threaten the domestic security, and undermine the general welfare of the Nation and its citizens; and (5) organized crime continues to grow because of defects in the evidence-gathering process of the law inhibiting the development of the legally admissible evidence necessary to bring criminal and other sanctions or remedies to bear on the unlawful activities of those engaged in organized crime and because the sanctions and remedies available to the Government are unnecessarily limited in scope and impact.
It is the purpose of this Act to seek the eradication of organized crime in the United States by strengthening the legal tools in the evidence-gathering process, by establishing new penal prohibitions, and by providing enhanced sanctions and new remedies to deal with the unlawful activities of those engaged in organized crime.
Organized Crime Control Act, 18 U.S.C. 831 (1994).
71 See Ivic, 700 F.2d at 64. “The Preface to these Guidelines states that RICO is ‘most directly addressed’ to the ‘infiltration of organized crime into the nation’s economy.’” Id. (citation omitted). “Guideline VI [of the U.S. Attorney’s 1981 Manual] directs that ‘no RICO count of an indictment shall charge the enterprise as a group associated in fact, unless the association in fact has an ascertainable structure which exists for the purpose of maintaining operations directed toward an economic goal . . . . ’” Id. After Ivic, however, Congress amended in 1984 the RICO Guidelines to “provide that an association-in-fact enterprise must be ‘directed toward an economic or other identifiable goal.’” NOW v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249 (1994).
72 See Ivic, 700 F.2d at 64–65.
73 See United States v. Bagaric, 706 F.2d 42, 53 (2d Cir. 1983).
74 See id. at 51.
75 See id. at 51–53.
76 See id. at 53.
77 Id. at 57.
78 Id.
79 18 U.S.C. 831 (1994).
80 See Bagaric, 706 F.2d at 53.
81 See id. at 57.
82 Id. at 53.
83 See United States v. Ferguson, 758 F.2d 843, 853 (2d Cir. 1985).
84 Id. at 847.
85 See id. at 853, 855.
86 See id. at 853.
87 Id.
88 See NOW v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249, 259 (1994).
89 See id. at 253.
90 See id.
91 See id. at 252.
92 Id. at 253.
93 Id.
94 Petitioner’s Brief at 6, NOW v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249, 259 (1994) (No. 92–780).
95 See Scheidler, 510 U.S. at 254.
96 Respondent’s Brief at 23, NOW v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249, 259 (1994) (No. 92–780).
97 Id. at 18 (quoting Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 15, 27 (1983)).
98 Scheidler, 510 U.S. at 262.
99 See id. at 261–62.
100 Id. at 258–59.
101 See id. at 258.
102 See id. at 260.
103 Id. (citing United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 580 (1981)).
104 See Huntingdon Life Sciences, Inc. v. Rokke, 986 F. Supp. 982 (E.D. Va. 1997); Correll, supra note 3, at 773.
105 986 F. Supp. at 984.
106 Id.
107 Id.
108 Id.
109 Id.
110 Id.
111 Huntingdon, 986 F. Supp. at 985.
112 Id.
113 Id. at 984.
114 Id.
115 Id. at 989.
116 Id.
117 Huntingdon, 986 F. Supp. at 985.
118 Id. at 986.
119 Id. at 990.
120 Id. at 991.
121 Id. at 992.
122 Id. at 990.
123 Huntingdon, 986 F. Supp. at 988.
124 Id.
125 See Cason, supra note 6, at 754–55.
126 Ward, supra note 3.
127 18 U.S.C.  1964(c) (1994).
128 See NOW v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249, 259 (1994).
129 United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 580–81 (1981).
130 Scheidler, 510 U.S. at 257.
131 See id. at 255–57 (finding that the concerted efforts of defendants to disrupt the operations of a clinic’s business operations qualified as an association).
132 See id. at 259.
133 See N.E. Women’s Ctr., Inc. v. McMonagle, 868 F.2d 1342, 1350 (1989) (upholding a Hobbs Act claim for anti-abortion protestors’ interference with a clinic’s business); United States v. Zemek, 634 F.2d 1159, 1159 (1980) (stating that the right to make business decisions is a protected property right under the Hobbs Act).
134 Alexander M. Parker, Note, Stretching RICO to the Limit, 45 Duke L.J. 819, 821 (1996).
135 See Christopher Manes, Green Rage: Radical Environmentalism And The Unmaking Of Civilization 45, 46 (1990).
136 Correll, supra note 3, at 775.
137 Id. at 776.
138 Id.
139 Andrew Rowell, Green Backlash: Global Subversion of the Environmental Movement 100 (1996).
140 Correll, supra note 3, at 776.
141 Id.
142 See generally Derek Wall, Earth First! and the Anti-Roads Movement (1999).
143 Rowell, supra note 139, at 152.
144 Id.
145 Id.
146 Id.
147 Id. at 166.
148 Wall, supra note 142, at 43–44; Rick Scarce, Eco-Warriors: Understanding The Radical Environmental Movement 56–100 (1990).
149 C. Berlet, Hunting the Green Menace, The Humanist, July/Aug. 1991, at 29.
150 See J. Franklin, Green Blood, S.F. Bay Guardian, Apr. 20, 1994, at 21.
151 Rowell, supra note 139, at 175.
152 Id.
153 J. Franklin, First They Kill Your Dog, Muckraker 1, 7 (1992).
154 See Rowell, supra note 139, at 171.
155 See id.
156 Id.
157 Id. at 1–3.
158 See id. at 179.
159 Id.
160 Rowell, supra note 139, at 181.
161 Id.
162 Id.
163 Id.
164 Id.
165 See generally Scarce, supra note 148.
166 See id. at 98.
167 See Brian Denson, Ideologues Drive the Violence, Sep. 27, 1989 (interview of Jonathan Paul, animal rights activist), at http://www.oregonlive.com (last visited Apr. 1, 2001).
168 See Denson, supra note 8.
169 Id.
170 Id.
171 See id.
172 See id.
173 See Amalie Young, Mouthpiece For Eco-terrorist Takes 5th Amendment Before Grand Jury, at http://www.infoshop.org/news5/elf_tria1.html (last visited Apr 2, 2001).
174 See Denson, supra note 8.
175 Brian Denson, Eco-Terrorist Group Prolific, Jan. 11, 2001, at http://www.oregonlive. com (last visited Apr. 2, 2001).
176 Id.
177 See Denson, supra note 8.
178 See Brian Denson, Ideologues Drive the Violence, Sept. 27, 1999, at http://www. oregonlive.com (last visited Apr. 2, 2001).
179 See Jan Faust, Earth Liberation Who? Oct. 23, 1998, at http://archive.abcnews.go. com/sections/us/DailyNews/elf981022.html (last visited Apr. 2, 2001).
180 Id.
181 Brian Denson, Can Sabotage Have a Place In a Democratic Community? Sept. 29, 1999, at http://www.oregonlive.com (last visited Apr. 2, 2001).
182 Id.
183 See id.
184 See Denson, supra note 178.
185 Id.
186 Denson, supra note 181.
187 Al Baker, A Federal Case in Suffolk: Eco-Terrorism or Adolescence in Bloom?, N.Y. Times, Feb. 18, 2001, at 33.
188 See id.
189 See id.
190 Denson, supra note 181.
191 Id.
192 See id.
193 See Denson, supra note 8.
194 See id.
195 Brian Denson, supra note 181.
196 Id.
197 See generally Raymond Carr, Modern Spain (1980).
198 See generally Bruce Hoffman, Inside Terrorism (1999).
199 See generally Christopher McCrudden, Mainstream Equality in the Governance of Northern Ireland, 22 Fordham Int’l L.J. 1696 (1999).
200 See generally Walter Reich, Origins of Terrorism: Psychologies, Ideologies, Theologies, States of Mind (1998).
201 See discussion infra Part III.
202 See generally Mark Kurlanksky, The Basque History Of The World (2000).
203 See infra, Part III.
204 See generally Rowell, supra note 139; Scarce, supra note 148; Wall, supra note 142.
205 Id.
206 See Joseph Kahn, A New Role For Greens: Public Enemy, N.Y. Times, Mar. 25, 2001, at 3.
207 18 U.S.C.  1964(c) (1994).
208 See Huntingdon Life Sciences, Inc. v. Rokke, 986 F. Supp. 982 (E.D. Va. 1997); Note, And Forgive Them Their Trespasses, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 890 (1990).
209 See Kahn, supra note 206, at 3.
210 See generally Dan Barry & Al Baker, For ‘Eco-Terrorism Group, a Hidden Structure and Public Messages, N.Y. Times, Jan. 8, 2001, at 5 (interviewing FBI agents frustrated by the difficulty of finding and infiltrating eco-terrorist groups).
211 See Brian Denson, Eco-Terrorist Group Prolific, Jan. 11, 2001 (reporting damages caused by ELF in Vail, Colorado attack), at http://www.oregonlive.com (last visited Apr. 2, 2001).
212 See Parker, supra note 134, at 821.
213 See Rowell, supra note 139, at 165.
214 See Randolph, supra note 21, at 1189; Roggow, supra note 4, at 591.
215 See Paul F. Campos, Against the Law 30–49 (1996).
216 Edmund Anders, Bush Angers Europe by Eroding Pact on Warming, N.Y. Times, Apr. 1, 2001, at 3.
217 See Kahn, supra note 206, at 3.