hypertechnical parsing of a statute. points out that the statute conceivably applies to the facts of a case. does not require us to apply that statute where. to do so. would violate the clear intent of Congress. Under the circumstances of this case. for us to engage in such a tortured exercise of statutory construction would demean the intent of those in Congress who sought to address the serious threat posed to the country s economy by organized crime. Because the State of Michigan has already brought Fawaz to account for his criminal conduct, it appears that the attorney general is asking us to designate the district courts as collection agencies for unpaid state taxes. presumably because he can there pursue treble damages. This. in the interest of comity. we dare not permit. If the attorney general wishes to avail himself of a civil remedy not now prescribed by state law when collecting unpaid state taxes. his desire should be brought to the attention Michigan s legislature. The attorney general relies upon the opinion in Illinois Dept of Revenue v. Phillips. 771 F.2d at 317. where the court of appeals, although expressing doubts about the application of RICO to circumstances quite similar to those in this case, nevertheless, could not say that it does not come within the framework of the statute." and thus permitted the State of Illinois to pursue treble damages. In that case, it appears that the state's initial action against the defendant taxpayer was taken in the district court under RICO. whereas, in this case. the state initially proceeded against the taxpayer in the state criminal proceeding. Because our "doubts" have ripened into a conviction that RICO does not apply to the circumstances of this case. we are not persuaded to adopt the reasoning of that opinion. <--> 848 F.2d 194 (Table) R 1 OF 1 P 7 OF 7 СТАБ P Accordingly. the judgment of the district court is affirmed. State of Mich.. Dept. of Treasury. Revenue Div. v. Fawaz 849 F.2d 194 (Table), RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 6936. Unpublished Disposition END OF DOCUMENT AUTHORITIES CITED CASES Alcorn County, Miss. v. U.S. Interstate Supplies, Inc., 731 F.2d 1160 (5th Cir. 1984). ..2, 16, 19 18 Barr v. WUI/TAS, Inc, 66 F.R.D. 109 (S.D.N.Y. 1975).... Bennett v. Berg, 685 F.2d 1053 (8th Cir. 1982), aff'd en banc, 710 F.2d 1361, cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1008 (1983).... .19 Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723 (1975)................] 16 Illinois Department of Revenue v. Phillips, 771 F.2d 312 (7th Cir. 1985)... ..21, 22, 23, 24 In Re Action Industries Tender Offer, 572 F.Supp. 846 (E.D. Va. 1983)... Landmark Savings and Loan v. Rhoades, 527 F.Supp. 206 (E.D. .9 .15 Leh v. General Petroleum Corp., 382 U.S. 54 (1965)..... Municipality of Anchorage v. Hitachi Cable, Ltd., 547 F.Supp. 633 (D. Alaska 1982).. Nardone v. United States, 302 U.S. 379 (1937)...... .22 North Barrington Development, Inc. V. Fanslow, 547 F.Supp. 207 (N.D. Ill. 1980).. .19 Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330 (1979).... Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16 (1983)...... .7, 10 Schacht v. Brown, 711 F.2d 1343 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1002 (1983)... Sedima S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc, 105 S.Ct. 3275 (1985) ..7, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 2 19 State of Md. v Buzz Berg Wrecking Co., Inc., 496 F.Supp. 245, (D.Md. 1980) State of Okla. ex rel Dep't. of Human Services v. Children's United States v Altomare, 625 F.2d 5 (4th Cir. 1980).... .7 21 United States v. Davis, 707 F.2d 880 (6th Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . ..2 United States v. Grande, 620 F.2d 1026 (4th Cir. 1980) (emphasis added), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 919 (1980).... .7 United States v Local 560, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 581 F. Supp. 279 (D.N.J. 1984), aff'd, 780 F.2d 267 (3rd Cir. 1985), cert denied, 106 S.Ct. 2247 (1986).. .18 United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354, (1984)... .10 United States v. Robinson, 763 F.2d 778 (6th Cir. 1985)..... 2 3 United States v. Sinto, 723 F.2d 1250 (6th Cir. 1983), cert denied, 105 S.Ct. 86 (1984).... 12 United States v. Thompson, 685 F.2d 993 (6th Cir. 1982) cert. denied sub nom. Sisk v United States, 459 U.S. 1072 (1982) .2 United States v. Topco Associates, Inc, 405 U.S. 596 (1972) .13 United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576 (1982).... 7, 9 STATUTES 62 Stat. 2465 (1978).. 69 Stat. 282. 84 Stat. 923.... 84 Stat. 941.... 132 Cong. Rec. E. 3531 (daily ed. Oct. 10, 1986).. |