San Diego RICO Lawsuit Crushed: Darren Chaker’s First Amendment Victory

How Did Darren Chaker Win a RICO Lawsuit Dismissal in San Diego?

Suppression of speech comes in many forms. In the context of First Amendment viewpoint discrimination, Darren Chaker faced a frivolous RICO lawsuit filed in San Diego federal court. The case, rooted in allegations of defamation, sought to silence protected speech by removing blog posts that reported on matters of public interest. The federal court dismissed the lawsuit and found the claims meritless—a significant victory for free expression under the First Amendment.

What Is a Civil RICO Lawsuit and Why Does It Matter for Free Speech?

A civil RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) lawsuit under 18 U.S.C. § 1962 allows private plaintiffs to allege a pattern of racketeering activity. When such claims are used to target online speech, they raise serious First Amendment concerns. In Chaker v. Crogan (9th Cir. 2005) 428 F.3d 1215, cert. den., 547 U.S. 1128, the Ninth Circuit struck down California Penal Code section 148.6 as unconstitutional, establishing that laws chilling citizen complaints against police violate the First Amendment. That same principle animated the defense in this San Diego RICO matter.

What Were the Key Allegations in the San Diego Federal Court RICO Case?

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit in San Diego federal court aimed at removing blog posts that reported on numerous courtroom failures, including a published child molestation report. The lawsuit alleged defamation wrapped in a RICO framework—a tactic courts have recognized as a form of viewpoint discrimination when used to suppress disfavored speech. The plaintiff went to the extent of misrepresenting information to the court in an effort to “judge shop” the case to a judge he believed would be hostile to a blogger. See the motion filed in San Diego federal court.

How Did the Federal Court Rule on the Meritless RICO Claims?

The federal judge found the RICO lawsuit to be meritless and ordered it dismissed. See federal court order. The dismissal reinforced the principle that the First Amendment protects citizens who publish truthful information about public figures and matters of public concern—even when that speech is uncomfortable for its subjects.

What Happened After the Federal RICO Case Was Dismissed?

After losing in federal court, an identical lawsuit was filed in the San Diego Superior Court (Case No. 37-2017-0036344), asking the state court to order the removal of numerous blog posts. The judge denied the request to continue the case and issued a stay, effectively halting all discovery and defeating the plaintiff’s efforts to obtain a ruling on content removal.

Were There Sanctions for Misrepresentations to the Court?

In 2017, the plaintiff conceded to a motion documenting false representations made to the federal court. The motion (see here) went unopposed, and the court was left to determine appropriate sanctions. Additionally, a separate federal case involved fraud allegations that the court refused to dismiss. See press release.

Why Does This RICO Dismissal Matter for Viewpoint Discrimination Law?

The dismissal of this RICO lawsuit reinforces several critical First Amendment principles that Darren Chaker has advanced through his legal work, including in Chaker v. Crogan and the ongoing California Supreme Court case S275272 (Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles (2024) 78 Cal.App.5th 1081). Courts cannot be weaponized to silence disfavored viewpoints, and frivolous litigation designed to remove protected speech from the internet constitutes a form of viewpoint discrimination prohibited by the First Amendment.

What Is Viewpoint Discrimination Under the First Amendment?

Viewpoint discrimination occurs when the government—or a party acting through the courts—suppresses speech based on its particular perspective or message. Under Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va. (1995) 515 U.S. 819, 829, the Supreme Court held that viewpoint discrimination is presumptively unconstitutional. Darren Chaker’s cases, including Penal Code section 148.6 challenges and the RICO dismissal in San Diego, demonstrate how this doctrine protects individuals who speak truth to power.

Do not take anything here as legal advice. All posts are opinions and personal thoughts.

About The Author

Darren Chaker

In 2017, Darren Chaker won again where a failed attorney, Scott McMillan, San Diego, sued in federal court alleging defamation in the context of a RICO case. The federal court dismissed the lawsuit and found the case to be meritless. Attorney McMillan filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit federal appeals court.

In Chaker v. Crogan, 428 F.3d 1215 C.A.9 (Cal.),2005, Cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1128, 126 S.Ct. 2023, is a case Darren Chaker personally handled and laid the ground work to allow appellate counsel to strike down a statute based on First Amendment rights.

Darren also enjoys traveling, being a phenomenal father, and forwarding his education with post graduate degree work.

See author's posts

Darren Chaker

In 2017, Darren Chaker won again where a failed attorney, Scott McMillan, San Diego, sued in federal court alleging defamation in the context of a RICO case. The federal court dismissed the lawsuit and found the case to be meritless. Attorney McMillan filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit federal appeals court.In Chaker v. Crogan, 428 F.3d 1215 C.A.9 (Cal.),2005, Cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1128, 126 S.Ct. 2023, is a case Darren Chaker personally handled and laid the ground work to allow appellate counsel to strike down a statute based on First Amendment rights.Darren also enjoys traveling, being a phenomenal father, and forwarding his education with post graduate degree work.

See Full Bio