What Is RICO?
RICO stands for the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. It’s a federal law created to take down criminal organizations by targeting their leaders and finances, not just the people doing the small-time crimes.
In simple terms, a person or group can be sued under RICO if they are accused of:
- An Enterprise: A group of people or an organization that works together. This doesn’t have to be a formal crime family; it can be any group of people working toward a common, illegal goal.
- A Pattern of Racketeering: This means they committed at least two “predicate” crimes (from a long list of illegal acts like bribery, extortion, or mail fraud) over a period of time. It’s the pattern of these crimes that makes it a RICO case.
For plaintiffs like John Sweeney and Jennifer Frost, a civil RICO lawsuit is an incredibly powerful tool. If they win, they can be awarded treble damages, which is three times the amount of their actual financial losses.
Why Is Carringer Being Sued for Racketeering?
In their lawsuit, John Sweeney and Jennifer Frost allege that Judge Carringer’s actions were part of a “25-year racketeering enterprise” that involved a conspiracy with others to deprive them of their property.
The plaintiffs claim that the judge’s actions were part of a pattern of racketeering activity. The lawsuit points to specific acts that are considered “predicate” crimes under RICO, including:
- Extortion: The use of “defective warrants” and other intimidating legal maneuvers to force the plaintiffs into compliance and silence.
- Mail Fraud: Allegations that a “sham auction order” was carried out through the mail, which is a federal crime.
By accusing her of racketeering, the lawsuit argues that Judge Carringer was allegedly participating in an ongoing criminal enterprise to take the plaintiffs’ property and livelihoods.
Why We Believe These Allegations Are Credible
We have worked to spotlight judicial misconduct in the Solano County court system for years. We believe the allegations in the Sweeney lawsuit are deeply credible because they align with a long-standing pattern of bias and misconduct Carringer exhibited when in family law. We have seen how a few judges on the family court bench, including Judge Carringer, showed a rampant disregard for judicial canons, legal codes and judicial ethics, operating with impunity and very little oversight.
The claims in the Sweeney case are not isolated incidents. They are part of a broader pattern of judicial behavior that has long created serious concerns for decades. In family court, Carringer was one of “the terrible three” judges whose rulings showed a significant bias, particularly in cases involving domestic violence. She routinely disregarded credible evidence of abuse, leading to dangerous situations for children and parents.
The behavior alleged in the federal lawsuit mirrors this pattern. It shows a judge accused of abusing her power to manipulate legal outcomes and harm litigants. For us, this is not a new claim, it is a continuation of the same struggle we have been fighting for years: ensuring judges are held accountable when they allegedly use their position to harm the very people they are sworn to protect.
To add insult to injury, all of this could have been prevented with proper oversight. Judge Carringer has a long history of complaints with the Commission on Judicial Performance.