Straw v. Kloecker et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 3/26/2014. Mailed notice by judge's staff. (srb,)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
ANDREW U. D. STRAW,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN F. KLOECKER, and
LOCKE LORD LLP,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 14 C 1420

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pro se plaintiff Andrew Straw ("Straw") has filed a motion for reconsideration of this
Court's March 5 Memorandum Opinion and Order ("Opinion") that dismissed this ill-conceived
civil RICO action. Straw, whose In Forma Pauperis Application ("Application") accompanied
his Complaint, had supported the Application with a letter that explained that he was a lawyer
admitted in Virginia and Indiana as well as in this District Court, but that he is unable to engage
in the active practice of law at this time because of unspecified disabilities.
Regrettably Straw's current Request To Reconsider reflects a continuing
misunderstanding of civil RICO in spite of this Court's effort in the Opinion to provide a patient
explanation of fatal deficiencies in his current action. Thus, for example, he attempts to wiggle
out from under the Opinion's explanation of the "person-enterprise" concepts that control any
attempted invocation of civil RICO's Section 1962(c) (18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)) by asserting for the
first time that Paddock Publications (the client represented by Locke Lord LLP in Cook County
Circuit Court litigation brought by Straw) is purportedly also a RICO "enterprise" -- a brand-new
assertion not even suggested in Straw's Complaint. To make a bad pun, that notion is really
grasping at a nonexistent straw, for that effort to recharacterize the activities of a lawyer

representing a client in the manner reflected by Complaint Ex. B (or any other aspect of the
Complaint) as "conduct[ing] or participat[ing], directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such
enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity" (the language of Section 1962(c))
is something that can be done only through Straw's distorted legal lens. Alexander Pope had it
right in his Essay on Criticism:
All seems Infected that th' infected spy,
As all looks yellow to the jaundic'd eye.
That is equally true of Straw's repeated "justification" for the damages he seeks here:
Because the defamation case below was for $5,000,000, and there is no disputing
that defendant represents the defendant below, and the purpose of defendant's
representation (including the letter here at issue) was to defend that case, and the
multiplier for RICO is statutory triple the damages, and the case below and its
damages claim is the only logical place to look for the appropriate damages
amount, $15,000,000 is the proper amount.
As Straw would have it, he can attach an arbitrarily outre figure to his damage claim against
Paddock Publications and others in his defamation lawsuit, then springboard from that to a
threefold claim in this action. That act of self-levitation is all of a piece with Straw's
misconception as to the operation (more accurately, the nonoperation) of civil RICO in this case.
In sum, this Court sees no reason to reconsider the conclusion that it reached in its
original Opinion. Straw's request to reconsider is denied.

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Dated: March 26, 2014

-2-