Trump judge drops RICO claims against conservative conspiracy theorists behind Project 1599

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (CN) — U.S. District Judge Rossie Alston dismissed RICO claims on Thursday against the conservative lobbyists behind Project 1599 and the YouTube series “Predator DC.”

“Even if plaintiff had plausibly pled that defendants’ actions amounted to wire fraud and extortion, the alleged acts differ in purpose, results, victims, and methods of commission,” the Donald Trump appointee said. “As a result, they do not constitute related predicate acts that establish a pattern of racketeering activity.”

An anonymous lawyer and former military officer brought racketeering, defamation and conspiracy claims against convicted conservative fraudsters and conspiracy theorists Jack Burkman and Jacob Wohl. The lawyer sought over $10 million in damages after he claimed false accusations the pair made calling him a pedophile forced him into bankruptcy after losing his job and housing.

Alston found the injuries stemming from the duo’s YouTube series were personal rather than business as required for a RICO claim. According to the complaint, the pair lured the plaintiff to a home in August 2021 under the impression he was meeting a 36-year-old he met on Tinder when they and other men with firearms supposedly ambushed him and accused him of intending to have sex with an underage teen.

“In this video, defendants Wohl and Burkman made false and defamatory statements of fact, which referenced plaintiff either directly or by implication and which otherwise presented plaintiff in a false light,” the plaintiff said.

Attorney Mark Cummings of Sher Cummings, representing Burkman and Wohl, emphasized that the plaintiff’s version of events is the only version presented at this stage and that his clients dispute the allegations against them.

The plaintiff claims that the pair told him they wouldn’t release any footage so long as he didn’t go to the police. The pair released episode four of their predator series in February 2022, where they explicitly called the plaintiff a pedophile.

“Defendants Wohl and Burkman undertook this course of conduct against plaintiff with malice towards him, with the purpose of damaging his reputation, as well as his ability to work as a lawyer and otherwise to earn a living,” the plaintiff said. “Plaintiff has also suffered, and continues to suffer, the loss of educational and professional opportunities, as well as the loss of income and diminished capacity to earn money in the future, because of the defendants’ wrongful conduct.”

The plaintiff’s landlord told him to move, and he lost his jobs at Johns Hopkins University and an immigration law firm after the pair posted the video.

The plaintiff attempted to combine the duo’s YouTube series conduct with their 2020 election robocall scheme to illustrate a racketeering enterprise. Burkman and Wohl pleaded guilty in Ohio to one felony count of telecommunications fraud after they called thousands of Black voters and presented false information to try and pressure them not to vote in the 2020 election.

A federal judge in New York found them liable for violations of the Voting Rights Act and the Ku Klux Klan Act for the same conduct. They are facing criminal charges in Michigan, and the Federal Communications Commission ordered them to pay a record $5.1 million fine in 2021.

Alston ruled that the pair’s combined conduct failed to add up to the work of a criminal enterprise.

“These allegations are insufficient to establish that Project 1599 was an enterprise under RICO because they fail to show that Project 1599 operated with the longevity required by the law,” Alston said.

Cummings said Alston saw through the plaintiff’s attempt to litigate a personal injury claim through a RICO claim, which the government created to deal with gangs and drug rings. Cummings, an adjunct professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, said he’s concerned with the overuse of RICO claims.

“I just thought it was a stretch to pull those cases and try to turn it into a RICO case,” Cummings said. “I think Rico’s often abused.”

Alston also found the complaint lacked evidence that either of these ventures resulted in raising funds.

“The complaint fails to specify whether and how these unknown individuals provided defendants with funds,” Alston said. “Plaintiff thus falls short of plausibly pleading wire fraud claims because the complaint fails to state with sufficient particularity what defendants obtained from the misrepresentations made.”

Alston rejected the defamation and conspiracy claims because of a lack of jurisdiction, insisting they would be better litigated in state courts.

Burkman and Wohl enjoy an extensive history of falsely accusing politicians of sexual misconduct and encouraging far-right conspiracy theory campaigns, according to other outlets’ reporting. Burkman declined to comment when called. Cummings did not begin representing the pair until this most recent litigation.

In 2014, Burkman organized a protest against the Dallas Cowboys’ signing of openly gay football player Michael Sam to their practice squad.

Burkman and other conspiracy theorists labeled the 2017 killing of 27-year-old Democratic National Committee employee Seth Rich a political assassination he claimed was connected to the dissemination of DNC emails to WikiLeaks.

In 2016, Wohl and Burkman offered a female law professor money to make sexual assault claims against former FBI Director Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election.

In 2019, Wohl and Burkman attempted to convince young Republican men to make false accusations of sexual assault against then-presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg.

A woman claimed in 2020 that Wohl and Burkman paid her and another woman to make fabricated sexual assault allegations against Dr. Anthony Fauci.

Attorney John Wood, representing the plaintiff, did not respond to a request for comment. Alston dismissed the claims without prejudice, leaving the opportunity to file the claims in a state court. It is unclear whether the plaintiff will appeal Alston’s judgment.