Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
140px-Great_Seal_of_the_United_States_(obverse).svg
(colloquial)
Long title
An Act relating to the control of organized crime in the United States
Acronyms
OCCA
  • RICO
  • Nicknames
    Organized Crime Control Act of 1970
    Enacted by
    the 91st United States Congress
    Effective
    October 15, 1970
    Citations
    Public law
    91-452
    Statutes at Large
    84 Stat. 922-3 aka 84 Stat. 941
    Codification
    Titles amended
    18 U.S.C.: Crimes and Criminal Procedure
    U.S.C. sections created
    18 U.S.C. §§ 19611968
    Legislative history
    • Introduced in the Senate as S. 30 by John L. McClellan (DAR)
    • Passed the Senate on January 23, 1970 (74-1)
    • Passed the House on October 7, 1970 (341-26)
    • Signed into law by President Richard Nixon on October 15, 1970
    The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering and allows the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes they ordered others to do or assisted them in doing, closing a perceived loophole that allowed a person who instructed someone else to, for example, murder, to be exempt from the trial because they did not actually commit the crime personally.[1]
    RICO was enacted by section 901(a) of the
    Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (Pub.L. 91–452, 84 Stat. 922, enacted October 15, 1970) and is codified at 18 U.S.C. ch. 96 as 18 U.S.C. §§ 19611968. G. Robert Blakey, an adviser to the United States Senate Government Operations Committee, drafted the law under the close supervision of the committee's chairman, Senator John Little McClellan. It was enacted as Title IX of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, and signed into law by Richard M. Nixon. While its original use in the 1970s was to prosecute the Mafia as well as others who were actively engaged in organized crime, its later application has been more widespread.
    Beginning in 1972, 33 states adopted state RICO laws to be able to prosecute similar conduct.

    Under RICO, a person who has committed "at least two acts of racketeering activity" drawn from a list of 35 crimes—27
    federal crimes and 8 state crimes—within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering if such acts are related in one of four specified ways to an "enterprise".[citation needed] Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count.[citation needed] In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity."[citation needed]
    When the
    U.S. Attorney decides to indict someone under RICO, they have the option of seeking a pre-trial restraining order or injunction to temporarily seize a defendant's assets and prevent the transfer of potentially forfeitable property, as well as require the defendant to put up a performance bond. This provision was placed in the law because the owners of Mafia-related shell corporations often absconded with the assets. An injunction and/or performance bond ensures that there is something to seize in the event of a guilty verdict.
    In many cases, the threat of a RICO indictment can force defendants to plead guilty to lesser charges, in part because the seizure of assets would make it difficult to pay a defense
    attorney. Despite its harsh provisions, a RICO-related charge is considered easy to prove in court since it focuses on patterns of behavior as opposed to criminal acts.[2]
    RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer" to file a
    civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same.[3] There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise: either the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering activity into the enterprise (18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)); or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained an interest in, or control of, the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (b)); or the defendant(s) conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise "through" the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (c)); or the defendant(s) conspired to do one of the above (subsection (d)).[4] In essence, the enterprise is either the 'prize,' 'instrument,' 'victim,' or 'perpetrator' of the racketeers.[5] A civil RICO action can be filed in state or federal court.[6]
    Both the criminal and civil components allow the recovery of
    treble damages (damages in triple the amount of actual/compensatory damages).
    Although its primary intent was to deal with
    organized crime, Blakey said that Congress never intended it to merely apply to the Mob. He once told Time, "We don't want one set of rules for people whose collars are blue or whose names end in vowels, and another set for those whose collars are white and have Ivy League diplomas."[2]
    Initially, prosecutors were skeptical of using RICO, mainly because it was unproven. The RICO Act was first used by the US Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York on September 18, 1979, in the United States v. Scotto. Scotto, who was convicted on charges of racketeering, accepting unlawful labor payments, and income tax evasion, headed the International Longshoreman's Association. During the 1980s and 1990s, federal prosecutors used the law to bring charges against several Mafia figures. The second major success was the
    Mafia Commission Trial, which resulted in several top leaders of New York City's Five Families getting what amounted to life sentences. By the turn of the century, RICO cases resulted in virtually all of the top leaders of the New York Mafia being sent to prison.

    RICO predicate offenses[edit]
    Under the law, the meaning of racketeering activity is set out at 18 U.S.C. § 1961. As currently amended it includes:
    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. The US Supreme Court has instructed federal courts to follow the continuity-plus-relationship test in order to determine whether the facts of a specific case give rise to an established pattern. Predicate acts are related if they "have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events." (H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.) Continuity is both a closed and open ended concept, referring to either a closed period of conduct, or to past conduct that by its nature projects into the future with a threat of repetition.

    Although some of the RICO predicate acts are
    extortion and blackmail, one of the most successful applications of the RICO laws has been the ability to indict and or sanction individuals for their behavior and actions committed against witnesses and victims in alleged retaliation or retribution for cooperating with federal law enforcement or intelligence agencies.
    Violations of the RICO laws can be alleged in civil lawsuit cases or for criminal charges. In these instances, charges can be brought against individuals or corporations in retaliation for said individuals or corporations working with law enforcement. Further, charges can also be brought against individuals or corporations who have sued or filed criminal charges against a defendant.
    Anti-SLAPP (
    strategic lawsuit against public participation) laws can be applied in an attempt to curb alleged abuses of the legal system by individuals or corporations who use the courts as a weapon to retaliate against whistle blowers or victims or to silence another's speech. RICO could be alleged if it can be shown that lawyers and/or their clients conspired and collaborated to concoct fictitious legal complaints solely in retribution and retaliation for themselves having been brought before the courts.
    Although the RICO laws may cover drug trafficking crimes in addition to other more traditional RICO predicate acts such as extortion, blackmail, and racketeering, large-scale and organized drug networks are now commonly prosecuted under the
    Continuing Criminal Enterprise Statute, also known as the "Kingpin Statute". The CCE laws target only traffickers who are responsible for long-term and elaborate conspiracies, whereas the RICO law covers a variety of organized criminal behaviors.[8]

    In April 2000, federal judge William J. Rea in Los Angeles, ruling in one Rampart scandal case, said that the plaintiffs could pursue RICO claims against the LAPD, an unprecedented finding. The idea that a police organization could be characterized as a racketeering enterprise shook up City Hall and further damaged the already-tarnished image of the LAPD. However, in July 2001, US District Judge Gary A. Feess said that the plaintiffs do not have standing to sue the LAPD under RICO because they are alleging personal injuries rather than economic or property damage.[24]

    1. 18 U.S. Code § 1962(c); see also Criminal RICO Prosecutors Manual, elaborating that "A Defendant May Be Liable for a RICO Conspiracy Offense Even if the Defendant Did Not Participate In the Operation or Management of the Enterprise"
    2. ^ Jump up to:
      a b Sanders, Alain; Painton, Priscilla (August 21, 1989). "Law: Showdown At Gucci". Time. Retrieved September 30, 2009.
    3. Jump up
      ^
      Olsen,, William P. The Anti-Corruption Handbook: How to Protect Your Business in the Global Marketplace. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
    4. Jump up
      ^
      18 USC § 1962.
    5. Jump up
      ^
      "As the Supreme Court noted in National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249, 259 n.5 (1994), one commentator has used "the terms 'prize,' 'instrument,' 'victim,' and 'perpetrator' to describe the four separate roles the enterprise may play in § 1962." (citing G. Robert Blakey, The RICO Civil Fraud Action in Context: Reflections on Bennett v. Berg, 58 Notre Dame L. Rev. 237, 307-25 (1982). See page 32 of RICO State by State: A Guide to Litigation under the State Racketeering Statutes, John E. Floyd, Section of Antitrust Law, American Bar Association, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 97-70903, ISBN 1-57073-396-1
    6. Jump up
      ^
      Van Over, Gil. "Can You Be Subject to a RICO Claim?". Dealer Magazine. Archived from the original on October 14, 2008. Retrieved September 30, 2009.
    7. Jump up
      ^
      Solo, Small Firm and General Practice Division. "Introduction: RICO State by State: A Guide to Litigation Under the State Racketeering Statutes, Second Edition". American Bar Association. Retrieved February 15, 2014.
    8. Jump up
      ^
      Carlson, K (1993). "Prosecuting Criminal Enterprises". National Criminal Justice Reference Series. United States: Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report: 12. Retrieved December 28, 2009.
    9. Jump up
      ^
      Barger, Ralph 'Sonny'; Zimmerman, Keith; Zimmerman, Kent (2000). Hell's Angel: The Life and Times of Sonny Barger and The Hell's Angels Motorcycle Club.[full citation needed]
    10. Jump up
      ^
      "Organized Crime Research". Klaus von Lampe. 2000. Retrieved December 8, 2007.
    11. Jump up
      ^
      Weigel, David. "But Why Isn't Bernard Law in Jail? (Part 2)". Slate.com. Retrieved April 24, 2012.
    12. Jump up
      ^
      Mitered in the Mob? Archived April 25, 2009, at the Wayback Machine.
    13. Jump up
      ^
      Press, Associated (2016-04-03). "Pennsylvania diocese may face racketeering suit for covering up abuse". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2017-04-07.
    14. Jump up
      ^
      "707 F.2d 862: United States vs. Dozier". law.justia.com. Retrieved May 1, 2013.
    15. Jump up
      ^
      "Inmate Locator". Federal Bureau of Prisons. Retrieved June 18, 2013.
    16. Jump up
      ^
      "Key West Police Department Called a 'Criminal Enterprise'". The New York Times. July 1, 1984. Retrieved September 30, 2009.
    17. Jump up
      ^
      Klingener, Nancy (May 22, 2005). "From wrecking to smuggling to development, corruption, investigations have long history". Key West Citizen. Archived from the original on March 20, 2007. Retrieved September 30, 2009.
    18. Jump up
      ^
      Gerber, Jurg; Jensen, Eric L. (2007). Encyclopedia of White-collar Crime. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 9780313335242. Retrieved August 16, 2014.
    19. Jump up
      ^
      Stone, Dan G. (1990). April Fools: An Insider's Account of the Rise and Collapse of Drexel Burnham. New York City: Donald I. Fine. ISBN 1-55611-228-9.
    20. Jump up
      ^
      Stewart, James B (1992). Den of Thieves (reprint ed.). Simon and Schuster. p. 517. ISBN 0-671-79227-X.
    21. Jump up
      ^
      Kornbluth, Jesse (1992). Highly Confident: The Crime and Punishment of Michael Milken. New York City: William Morrow and Company. ISBN 0-688-10937-3.
    22. Jump up
      ^
      Chass, Murray (July 17, 2002). "Baseball: A Group's Racketeering Suit Brings Baseball to Full Bristle". The New York Times. Retrieved September 30, 2009.
    23. Jump up
      ^
      "Ruling clears way for move to D.C." ESPN.com. Associated Press. January 15, 2004. Retrieved September 30, 2009.
    24. Jump up
      ^
      Weinstein, Henry (July 13, 2001). "Use of RICO Law in Rampart Cases Weakened". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved November 6, 2013.
    25. Jump up
      ^
      http://www.internationalcrimesdatabase.org/Case/947/Bin-Laden-et-al/. Missing or empty |title= (help)
    26. Jump up
      ^
      Trahan, Jennifer (2002). "Trying a Bin Laden and Others: Evaluating the Options for Terrorist Trials". Houston Journal of International Law. 24: 537-557.
    27. Jump up
      ^
      Weiner, Tim (April 13, 1999). "U.S. Case Against bin Laden in Embassy Blasts Seems to Rest on Ideas". New York Times.
    28. Jump up
      ^
      "US Indictment against Osama Bin Laden" (PDF).
    29. Jump up
      ^
      Bergen, Peter. "Beware the Holy War: an Analysis of the BBC's Documentary on Al Qaeda and Islamic Terorism". The Nation.
    30. Jump up
      ^
      Josie, Ensor (January 2, 2015). "Documents from Osama bin Laden raid to be used against British-based Student". The Weekly Standard.
    31. Jump up
      ^
      Hayes, Stephen. "The Big Reveal: the Story of How 470,000 Documents from Osama Bin Laden's Compound Finally got into the Open". The Weekly Standard.
    32. Jump up
      ^
      Weiser, Benjamin (March 12, 2014). "Interactions of Bin Laden and Son-in-Law Detailed in an F.B.I. Document". New York Times.
    33. Jump up
      ^
      Sheridan, Paul (June 10, 2006). "FBI says, "No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11"". Muckracker Report.
    34. Jump up
      ^
      "Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Williams, Shirley, et al." (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. Retrieved May 27, 2008.
    35. Jump up
      ^
      Volkman, Ernest (1998). Gangbusters: The Destruction of America's Last Mafia Dynasty. 53 Shore Road, Winchester, MA 01890: Faber and Faber, Inc. ISBN 0-571-19942-9.
    36. Jump up
      ^
      "Indictment: United States v. Conahan and Ciavarella" (PDF). September 9, 2009. Retrieved September 12, 2009.[permanent dead link]
    37. Jump up
      ^
      Morgan-Besecker, Terrie (September 10, 2009). "Ex-judges hit with 48 counts". Times Leader. Retrieved September 11, 2009.
    38. Jump up
      ^
      "Jury finds Ciavarella guilty on first of 39 counts". Times Leader. February 18, 2011. Archived from the original on February 20, 2011. Retrieved February 18, 2011.
    39. Jump up
      ^
      "Scott Rothstein Charging Document". Scribd.com. Retrieved April 24, 2012.
    40. Jump up
      ^
      http://www.sun-sentinel.com/media/acrobat/2009-12/50820067.pdf
    41. Jump up
      ^
      Weaver, Jay (June 9, 2010). "Ponzi schemer Scott Rothstein gets 50-year sentence". Miami Herald. Retrieved June 10, 2010.
    42. Jump up
      ^
      Bracamontes, Ramon. "Public corruption: Feds allege bribery, kickbacks". El Paso Times. Retrieved April 24, 2012.
    43. Jump up
      ^
      "Nine FIFA Officials and Five Corporate Executives Indicted for Racketeering Conspiracy and Corruption". United States Department of Justice. May 27, 2015. Retrieved May 27, 2015.
    44. Jump up
      ^
      Kent Faulk, Drummond sues those claiming coal company involved in Colombian deaths, The Birmingham News, April 8, 2015
    45. Jump up
      ^
      "Perception, Not Reality, Is What Counts - Connecticut Law Tribune".
    46. ^ Jump up to:
      a b Warmerdam, Elizabeth (October 29, 2014). "Trump Must Answer Students in Fed Court". Courthouse News Service. Archived from the original on June 3, 2016. Retrieved May 31, 2016.
    47. ^ Jump up to:
      a b "Cohen v. Trump". Dockets. Justia. Retrieved June 1, 2016.
    48. Jump up
      ^
      Conlin, Michele (July 23, 2015). "Trump university lawsuits may damage presidential bid". Reuters. Retrieved 1 June 2016.
    49. Jump up
      ^
      Gibb, Abbey (May 31, 2016). "Judge unseals Trump University 'playbooks'". Fox News. Retrieved June 2, 2016.
    50. Jump up
      ^
      Eder, Steve (November 18, 2016). "Donald Trump Agrees to Pay $25 Million in Trump University Settlement". The New York Times. Retrieved 18 November 2016.
    51. Jump up
      ^
      "Donald Trump Agrees to Pay $25 Million in Trump University Settlement". New York Daily News. November 18, 2016. Retrieved 18 November 2016.
    52. Jump up
      ^
      Major Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Agency, MOCA, retrieved August 28, 2016
    53. Jump up
      ^
      Message from the Minister of National Security, MOCA, retrieved August 28, 2016
    54. Jump up
      ^
      Ley Federal contra la Delincuencia Organizada28 October 1996 (in Spanish)
    55. Jump up
      ^
      Ley de Extinción de Dominio30 April 2009 (in Spanish)


    Sarasota
    Code Corruption


    BRIAN KEISACKER



    BRIAN KEISACKER
    Harvey Ayers MUST GO PETITION

    Brian Keisacker works for Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A. in Sarasota, Florida.

    Question: if a lawyer, namely Brian Keisacker in this case who works for the law firm of Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A. does not know what due process is, ignores the legal doctrine of a meaningful opportunity to be heard, did not giving proper notice to a litigant before issuing a ruling stated notice was given when it wasn’t that was overturned by the Circuit Court and who serves on a local Sarasota County contractor board illegally as a consumer representative in violation of the ordinance then what was the purpose of going to law school at Stetson Law School? Is Brian Keisacker of Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A. untrained? Is Brian Keisacker that corrupt and one sided? Is Brian Keisacker purposefully ignorant to the law? Or is he corrupt? You decide and ask yourself, would you even dream about hiring Brian Keisacker of Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A. for any reason after discovering who he is? All the above are supported by the facts!

    It is our beliefs from personal experiences with lawyer Brian David Keisacker, who works for the law firm of Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A. that Brian Keisacker has violated Respondent’s constitution rights where Brian D. Keisacker as chairman of the Sarasota County General Contractors Licensing and Examining Board did not accord due process guaranteed under the United States Constitution and served as a consumer representative, Brian Keisacker is in clear violation of Sarasota County Ordinance 22-127(3), where Brian Keisacker earns income from the construction industry.
    Yet Brian Keisacker refuses to follow the law:

    Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., employs an attorney whose name is Brian D. Keisacker.

    Brian Keisacker works for the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., and is UNETHICAL.

    Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., employs an attorney Brian Keisacker who is a SCHEMER.

    Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., employs an attorney Brian Keisacker who ILLEGALLY serving on a construction board.

    Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., employs an attorney Brian Keisacker who is DEFIANT.

    Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., employs an attorney Brian Keisacker who is CALLOUS.

    Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., employs an attorney Brian D. Keisacker who is DELIBERATELY INDIFFERENT.

    Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., employs an attorney Brian Keisacker who is will continue to WRECK THE LIVES OF THOSE HE JUDGES IN HIS OWN HYPOCRISY.

    Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., employs an attorney Brian Keisacker who has a SMUG ARROGANCE.

    Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., employs an attorney Brian Keisacker who has VIOLATED THIS AUTHOR’S CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS RIGHTS.

    Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., employs an attorney Brian Keisacker who is UNQUALIFIED.

    Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., employs an attorney Brian David Keisacker who is WITHOUT A MORAL COMPASS AND HAS TAKEN THE UNETHICAL PATH AS AN ATTORNEY IN PURSUIT OF POWER, INFLUENCE AND GREED.

    Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., employs an attorney Brian Keisacker who' s BEHAVIOR IS UNACCEPTABLE, UNPROFESSIONAL AND BLATANT VIOLATION OF THE LAW.

    Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., employs an attorney Brian Keisacker who has displayed PROHIBITED MISCONDUCT EXHIBITED BY BRIAN KEISACKER.

    Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., employs an attorney Brian Keisacker who displays CALLOUS INDIFFERENCE.

    Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., employs an attorney Brian Keisacker who does NOT CARE ABOUT THE LAW.

    Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., employs an attorney Brian Keisacker who is NOT THE PROFESSIONAL ONE MIGHT EXPECT.

    Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., employs an attorney Brian Keisacker who is VIOLATING THE LAW.

    Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., employs an attorney Brian Keisacker who is ARROGANT.

    Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., employs an attorney Brian Keisacker who is SELF SERVING.

    Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., employs an attorney Brian Keisacker who is UNTRUSTWORTHY.

    Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., employs an attorney Brian Keisacker who is again, UNETHICAL!
    Brian David Keisacker of the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., is Immoral.

    Brian D. Keisacker of the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., is Unprofessional

    Brian Keisacker of the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., is Defiant

    Brian Keisacker of the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., has No Integrity

    Brian Keisacker of the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., is Arrogant

    Brian David Keisacker of the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., is Not Trustworthy

    Brian Keisacker of the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., is Unethical

    Brian D. Keisacker of the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., is Adverse

    Brian Keisacker of the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., has No Scruples.

    Brian Keisacker of the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., Lacks Integrity.

    Brian Keisacker of the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., is unworthy adjective dishonest, or morally wrong

    Brian D. Keisacker of the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., is sketchy adjective informal dishonest or not reliable

    Brian Keisacker of the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., Is conniving: adjective dishonest in a clever way, especially in order to get something that you want or in order to harm someone

    Brian Keisacker of the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., Has exhibited Illegal Behavior.

    Brian Keisacker of the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., Is Unqualified to serve on the Sarasota County General Contractors Licensing and Examining Board

    Brian D. Keisacker of the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., is DANGEROUS.

    Brian Keisacker of the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., is DISHONEST

    Brian David Keisacker of the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., is IMMORAL

    Brian Keisacker of the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., is ARROGANT

    Brian Keisacker of the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., is POMPOUS

    Brian Keisacker works for the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., has violated Rule # 4-8(d) governing the Florida Bar as follows:

    (d) engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, including to knowingly, or through callous indifference, disparage, humiliate, or discriminate against litigants, jurors, witnesses, court personnel, or other lawyers on any basis, including, but not limited to, on account of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, national origin, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic status, employment, or physical characteristic;

    Brian Keisacker works for the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., has been instrumental in violating constitutional rights and complicit in committing a due process violations.

    Brian David Keisacker works for the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., has been complicit in injustice.

    Brian Keisacker of the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., has violated due process and a meaningful opportunity to be heard in several cases.

    Brian Keisacker works for the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A.: The law is the law and Brian Keisacker has purposefully violated Section 22-127(3) of the Sarasota County Ordinance, Brian Keisacker, Shame on BRIAN KEISACKER!

    • The content of this website is protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which are beliefs based on personal experiences with Brian Keisacker as well as the law; and court orders issued by the Circuit Court. Sarasota County Ordinance 22-127(3) which Brian Keisacker has willingly and purposefully violated by serving on the Sarasota County General Contractors Licensing and Examining Board as a consumer representative, which states... “The citizen at large member shall be selected for appointment from Sarasota County resident applicants deriving no income from any source connected with the construction industry. “ Thus Brian Keisacker has, and clearly and willfully violating the law, ethics and his credibility, etc.

    • Florida Statute 489.131(10) “...The consumer representative may be any resident of the local jurisdiction who is not, and has never been, a member or practitioner of a profession regulated by the board or a member of any closely related profession.” Brian Keisacker is a construction attorney who works for the law firm of Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., and represents dozens of clients in matters that are directly related to the construction industry.


    • “Prepare and file pleadings, motions, and responses to all aspects civil litigation in areas including foreclosure, boundary disputes, construction defects…”

    • A lawyer (Brian Keisacker) who has willfully violated ethics and clearly established law is not trustworthy and is in fact unethical and unprofessional. The opinions stated herein are supported by the law, the facts and personal experiences and are protected under free speech per the First Amendment of the United States of America.
    • The law firm of Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A. are not the target of these remarks. They are only being pointed out as to where Brian David Keisacker (Florida Bar number 12156) currently works.

    • Brian David Keisacker (attorney, lawyer) works for Ulrich, Scarlett, Wickman & Dean, PA,713 S Orange Ave Ste 201 Sarasota, FL 34236-7755. The phone number for Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A. is 941-955-5100. Brian Keisacker’s phone number is 941-704-6735.
    brian-keisacker-unethical-behavior-3
    BRIAN KEISACKER

    unethical-lawyer-brian-keisacker

    BRIAN KEISACKER

    brian-keisacker-unethical-3

    BRIAN KEISACKER

    brian-keisacker-caution-2
    BRIAN KEISACKER

    brian-keisacker-ethics-
    BRIAN KEISACKER
    brian-keisacker-ignorance-of-the-law
    BRIAN KEISACKER

    brian-keisacker-ignorance-of-the-law-666
    BRIAN KEISACKER
    brian-keisacker-ethics

    BRIAN KEISACKER


    brian-keisacker-mistake-of-law-copy
    BRIAN KEISACKER
    brian-keisacker-is-deceitful

    BRIAN KEISACKER

    brian-keisacker-no-morals

    BRIAN KEISACKER



    BRIAN KEISACKER