A Most Important Lawsuit!

Quitely behind the scenes without fanfare and media attention, the Thomas Moore Law Center and its team of attorneys go about the serious business of defending conservative values in the courts.  On December 15, 2008 the Thomas Moore Law Center, on behalf of its client, Kevin J. Murray filed his Complaint against the United States government in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.  Specificially, the named defendants are the Secretary of Treasury, and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.  The Complaint seeks relief from the government’s illegal action of owning and funding a religious organization/business/institution in violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  This lawsuit seeks to force the divesture of billions of taxpayer monies from a business organization that owns/operates and perpetuates religious extremeism.  Without writing another sentence, whether you are a Liberal, Conservative, Independent, Republican, Libertarian, Democrat, or Green, I should now have your attention.  Like it or not, your government is now unconstitutionally entangled with Islam!

Background:

“Plaintiff Kevin J. Murray is a United States citizen, a resident of Washtenaw County, Michigan, a federal taxpayer, and a devout Catholic. Plaintiff is also a former U.S. Marine who served honorably in harm’s way to defend our country (the United States) against Islamic terrorists.”  See  paragraph 11 of Complaint.  The designated federal judge on the case is the Hon.  Lawrence P. Zatkoff.  The magistrate judge assigned to the case is Mona K. Majzoub.1  Federal District Judges are appointed to the bench by the President for life by authority of federal statute.  Federal Magistrate Judges are appointed by the District Court Judges for eight year renewable terms.  Magistrate Judges have about as much power and authority as the District Judges want them to have including that which is conferred upon them by 28 U.S.C. § 636.  The Magistrate can often be the “decision maker” on any number of dispositive procedings or issues in a case notwithstanding that there is a “District” Judge assigned to the case.  The idea behind district judges being appointed for life by authority of a Congressional statute is that judges appointed for life would be free from influence based upon a fear of not being reelected because of how they may decide a case or controversy.  This is not the case for magistrate judges.  Obstensibly because of an overwhelming case load, Congress passed 28 U.S.C. § 631 et seq. which authorized the hiring of magistrates to assist the district court judges in handling their case loads.2

Murray complains that the U.S. Government’s involvement with AIG violates the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution because it allows the government to be directly, and indirecly involved with religious activities, specificially, the Islamic Religion by and through Shariah-based Islamic religious practices and activities.  In simpler terms, AIG is directly and indirectly involved with anti-American and anti-Jewish activities—which violates the Constitution and it offends that which is right, just, and moral under the standards and principles that the U.S. was founded. An aside is that if AIG were controlling, funding, and directly or indirectly involved with a Christian organization, the a/k/a  “right-wing” conservative extremistism, I would not likely be writing this article because it would be all over the mainstream media and the Liberals would be screaming daily until it ceased.  Even with that said, which is irrefutable in fact, I am still amazed that Liberals do not appear to be concerned or upset by the funding of AIG by and through their own tax dollars.  After all, there are Liberal taxpayers, right?

Procedure:

A defendant normally has 20 days in Federal Court in which to file and serve and file an answer to a complaint in federal court.  If the defendant is the United States (or one of its agencies), the defendant has 60 days in which to file its answer.  In this case, the Defendants’ Answer was required to be filed and served on Murray in February of this year however, that time line is interrupted if the defendant files a certain type of motion prior to answering the complaint; which is what has taken place in this lawsuit.  Treasury Secretary Geithner and the Federal Reserve have not filed an answer to the complaint but have instead filed a Motion to Dismiss.3  The Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss was filed February 27, 2009.  Murray filed his Response to the Motion on March 18, 2009.  The disposition of the Motion by the court is pending.  Of course, we will not know whether the Magistrate Majzoub will rule on the defendants’ motion or whether Judge Zatkoff, himself will rule on the issue.  If Geithner and the Board of Governors’ motion is denied, then obstensibly the defendants’ answer to the complaint will have to be filed with the court within a few days.  If the motion is granted, then I suspect the plaintiff here will appeal the decision to the Federal Court of Appeals (Sixth Circuit).  In any event, we await the court’s decision on the motion to dismiss.  Although this case is extremely important to all Americans, it is likely that the main stream media will not cover the court’s ruling on the motion therefore, I plan to monitor this case and report on the court’s ruling when it comes out.

One Reason You Should Care:

The first reason you care is that AIG (American International Group)  has received about $170 billion in government bailout funds (so far), from which it paid $454 million in retention awards and bonuses since March,  That’s approximately $2,300 per U.S. family of their tax dollars being invested in AIG and its subsidiaries.4  The U.S. Government owns a controlling interest in AIG.   If you were being asked to stroke a check for $2,300 right now; wouldn’t you want to know who, what, and how the money was going to be spent?   Of course you would.   It is sad that most Americans still have not woke up and smelled the coffee to the fact that they (the U.S. people) now own the majority and controlling interest in AIG and have a right to know, and control how and where their invested funds are being used.  Regardless of what your political or religious beliefs are, you should care how $170 billion dollars of taxes are being spent just from the veritble amount of $ involved.

Second Reason You Care, or Should Care:

AIG engages in activities that are “antithetical to our Nation’s values.”5   Given the fact that most U.S. citizens are “infidels” as defined by Islamic tenants; the activities that the $2,300 per family is earmarked for are directly against that which the taxpayers themselves believe in and stand for.  How ironic is that?   And of course, I assume that infidels care about the$450 million paid out in bonuses to AIG employees since they became majority owners.  Because taxpayer funds were expended by the U.S. Government to acquire a majority ownership interest in AIG, the Plaintiff here and you are being forced to contribute to offensive anti-American activities not to mention the direct anti-Christian and anti-Jewish purpose of the activities.  You have no choice whatsoever unless you stand up and demand accountability by Congress as to where and how your tax dollars are spent.  Perhaps, in reality, today’s taxpayers are apathetic because it is not this generation that will truly suffer i.e., actually have to pay for the Congressional indiscretion to the degree of pain the next two generations will suffer.  I suspect that you would really give a damm if you truly understood that the money invested is directly supporting Islamic extremeist’ activities whose chickens may come home to roost in your front yard–soon.

Third Reason You Care, or Should Care:

The law passed by Congress that respects the establishment of religion was the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C Sec 5201 et seq.).  The EESA was/is an express mandate by Congress for the appropriation of your funds to be used to purchase troubled assets from any fiancial institution including any insurance company established under the laws of the United States.  Murray v. Geithner seeks to protect one of our most fundamental constitutional rights.  In the First Amendment, therein lies the Establishment Clause; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”   How can anyone argue with this issue which slaps you in the face.  Congress authorized billions of dollars earmarked for the purchase of controlling interest in a business enterprise i.e., AIG.  It is irrefutable that AIG owns subsidiaries, divisions, or whatever which are engaged in Shariah supportive activities.  Moreover, AIG has insurance products that are fully and completely designed to be Shariah compliant.  For a more in-depth description of AIG’s Shariah compliant insurance products see my January post on AIG.   Murray is standing up for your right to demand that your tax dollars are not spent supporting Islamic terrorism.  On one hand we are spending billions in the “war on terror,” yet on the other hand, we are allowing our public owned entity–”AIG” to propagate Islamic beliefs and practices predicated upon Shariah law and/or through its own Shariah compliant financial products offered to the public.

Fourth Reason You Care, or Should Care:

There is a second component to the First Amendment; Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... is referred to as the Free Exercise Clause.  Stately simply, the argument should also be made that because the Government is now directly and indirectly supporting Islamic principles, by and through its funding and controlling ownership interest in AIG, it is in effect violating the Free Exercise Clause as well.  Islam and its attendant principles divide the world into two groups diametrically opposed to each other.  One group is the house of Islam where Islamic law rules.  The other group is the Dar Al Harb, the house of war–infidels (huffars, non-believers) which includes Christians and Jews.  The basic fact of the matter is that Islam is comprised of inseparable political and religious dogma which condemns other religions.  Through such condemnation, Islam is blatantly against the very core of both First Amendment clauses.  If you are supporting Islam, you necessarily are prohibiting the free exercise of other religion.  The logic is straight forward.  The Government owns AIG.  AIG owns business enterprises and merchandises Shariah compliant financial products which are specifically supporting Islamic organizations.  Islam and its Shariah compliant organizations and enterprises are anti-American, anti-Jewish and anti-Christian.  Simple logic dictates that if you invest in Shariah compliant companies your investment dollars are being directly used to prohibit the free expression and free exercise of religion. This is a violent attack on the First Amendment.

The Fifth Reason You Care, or Should Care:

The fifth reason you care, or should care, about Murray v. Geithner is that the Government is of course, fighting the lawsuit.  The Government is not yet fighting the lawsuit on the facts or “merits” of the case yet.  Rather than answer the complaint with written admissions or denials, the Government has chosen to date to fight the lawsuit on the basis of procedural arguments i.e., the principles of “standing,” and jurisdiction.  The last thing you should want to see happen here is that a court decides that Kevin Murray does not have standing to sue.  ’Standing” is the legal principle which a plaintiff must have suffered some direct or substantial injury or be likely to suffer such an injury if a particular wrong is not redressed. A defendant must be the party responsible for perpetrating the alleged legal wrong.7  The United States Supreme Court has historically made it extremely difficult for a taxpayer to challenge the expenditure of funds in support of policies or programs that he is forced to support.  However, in a very important case, Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 88 S. Ct. 1942, 20 L. Ed. 2d 947 (1968) a taxpayer was granted standing to challenge expenditures that would benefit parochial schools.

Geithner’s Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit and its attendant arguments are included here .   The Plaintiff’s Response to the U.S.’s Motion to Dismiss the case is available from the Thomas Moor Law Center for your download.  In the meantime at You Tube, The Future of Western Civilization gives you plenty to think about as your tax dollars assist the expansion of culture that wages a Jihad against you.

Leave a comment please and I invite you to Digg it, leave a Kudo, or a give me a Technorati vote even if you disagree with my position. Thanks for coming by.

Tasmania, Malta, and Ireland have one thing in common.

These countries use a voting system referred to as STV (Single Transferrable Vote).  For the second time in less than a decade, the proponents of STV here in British Columbia have been successful in getting a Referendum on the ballot.  There are less than 11 days remaining before the polls close on the issue and we find out how STV did the second time around.  By the way, advance voting for the 39th Provincial Election begins on May 6th.  The voters of B.C. will decide again whether to keep the current one vote person per candidate system or change it (I did not say “improve” it) to a system called STV.  I know how impressed all of the readers will be with STV simply by noting the impressive list of locations in which STV is currently used.  I’m just saying–whatever electoral system Malta is using is reason enough for many people to believe a “reform” is overdue.  What is really interesting here is that the push for STV to become the law of the land in B.C. did not first originate in California!  We have all grown accustomed to the fact that the really great new reform ideas come from California.  I’m thinking that if STV is successful here in B.C.; maybe we can export it to the U.S.!  Might be some tariffs attached though.  Okay, enough with the tongue and cheek stuff, let’s talk about STV and FPTP (First Past The Post).  However, I have to say this.  I’m a little disappointed, if not peaved, about the fact that the Government website, which is supposed to be neutral with respect to the referendum, uses the word “REFORM” at the top of the page designed to inform the B.C. citizens of what is going on.  The simple definition of reform is to “make changes in something in order to improve it.”  Does the Government’s use of the word “reform” in and of itself present a clear case of bias?  Who says that by going to STV, the current system will be improved?  The answer is the proponents of STV say so but our Government should not be validating the referendum by calling it a 2009 Referendum on Electoral Reform. What say you?

What is STV?

It’s sort of simple, but sort of complicated.  The idea is this.  Rather than have a one vote per person going only to one candidate, you could have your vote split up and help elect other candidates whom were not your first choice.  In effect, your one “transferrable” vote could help elect a second, third, fourth, and so on, choice.  The whole concept is designed to minimize, if not eliminate, the principle of “majority rule.”  Proponents of STV would like say, “Why should someone who obtains a majority of the vote in an election district (called “ridings” in B.C.) be the single elected representative for that district?  My only answer to that question is self-evident; “Because he or she received the majority of the votes, duh!”  However, the STV people will counter and say, “Yes, but what about the 49% of the folks that did not vote for the majority candidate?  They receive no representation at all.”  Their solution is this.  Let’s expand the geographical size of the election district and increase the number of people to be elected (to at least a minimum of two) and then we can have two people elected to more proportionately represent the district.  One reply I have to that argument is this.  Why not simply allow the folks in the enlarged geographical area to elect their own candidate by a majority vote in the first place.  In that situation (using the current FPTP voting system), the person elected in that geographical area becomes the representative for the folks that the STV people were trying to merge into the a different district.  See what I mean.  It’s simple but sort of complicated.  Let me confuse you more.  Here’s how the transfer of your vote system works.  Let’s say there are 10,000 “valid votes” cast in a district.  The legal formula promulgates that this number is divided by the number of “positions” to be elected plus one.  Three positions to be filled would require that the 10,000 valid votes be divided by 4.  Add one vote to the result of that division and the sum is the magic number a candidate is striving for.  This first mathematical exercise is necessary to determine the “quota” of votes necessary for a candidate to be elected.  In other words, any candidate that receives 2501 in our example would be elected.  Say one person received at least 2501 “first choice” votes.  All of the votes the winning candidate received above the quota are deemed to be “surplus” votes.  A whole new mathematical formula now kicks in to find out who the second elected candidate is.  After that, we do more math to determine who the third elected candidate is.  Here’s the link to see how this other math is crunched.  Or, alternatively if you would rather just see a simple example in pdf format, click here.

After you study both sides of the issue, you will be confronted with an important question.   If the referendum passes, the number of electoral geographical districts in B.C. will be reduced from 85 ridings to 20. The total number of elected officials will remain the same at 85.    Here’s good example of how that might impact the folks.  Let’s say STV is the system used in the U.S.  The electoral district that now includes New Mexico for Congressional representation is now merged with Texas.  The total number of elected representatives will stay the same but the process to determine who wins the election is STV.  Let’s say there are 32 representatives in the House of Representatives from Texas (which is correct).  Let’s also say New Mexico has 3 representatives in the House of Representatives (which is correct).  Based upon STV, all 35 representatives could come from Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, El Paso, Austin, Fort Worth, Wichita Falls and so on.  The folks in Santa Fe, or Clovis, New Mexico now have no representation.  You think that wouldn’t happen; you’re wrong.  Just because the folks in New Mexico cast their vote in order of choice, i.e., first choice, second choice and so on does not mean that any of the candidates located in the heretofore New Mexico geographical area received enough votes to meet the quota nor does it mean that after all the “transfer math” is done a candidate from that geographical area will be elected.  Study the examples provided by the B.C. Government or go to NOSTV.org to see exactly how this type of elected representation can, and likely will happen in B.C.  If you live in an area outside of Vancouver, you could likely end up with a representative or group of representatives all from within the greater Vancouver area.  How many more MLA’s do you think the Vancouver area needs?  There are now several from Surrey, several from Vancouver, a couple from North Vancouver, seven MLA’s from Langley, three from Richmond, a few from Delta, White Rock and so on.

An STV Prediction — Who has the better marketing plan?

No doubt about it.  The pro-STV people have the better marketing plan this time; hands down.  If you go to both websites you will see what I mean.  Here’s the Pro STV site enlarged. OR Here’s the No to STV site enlarged. Everyone knows that when it gets down to the nitty gritty it’s the marketing of an issue or candidate that makes the difference, not necessarily the facts.  I’m just saying; look at the Senate race in Minnesota for crying out loud!  Marketing, text-messaging and donations is where it’s at.  You can’t expect to just present facts and expect to win.  I’m really disappointed in Norman Grdina, the financial contact with the No BC-STV Campaign Society.  Unfortunately, Mr. Grdina is a forensic accountant—not a marketing expert.  It is kinda cool that he is a Notre Dame alum but he should have studied marketing instead of accounting.  In the event you missed it when you were at the B.C. Elections Government website, the taxpayers contributed $1,000,000 to the funding of the marketing campaigns.  I have no idea why yet, but according to the website, B.C. Elections was required by law to give each organization $500,000 in cool cash to get the word out.  In these tough economic times, doesn’t that piss you off?  Does me.  Heck, if we were going to throw some money away; we could have simply gave it to GM or Chrysler.  In any event, we’ve paid for much of the marketing hype on the Pro STV vs. No STV campaigns.  Unfortunately, I believe the Pro STV got a much bigger bang for their buck and will likely win.  I’m clearly against changing the current FPTP (First Past The Post) system we are using but I do believe Jamie Deith and  STV folks have done a much better job of marketing their “non-message.”  It reminds me a lot of the “Change you can believe in” slogan that was so very successful for obama.

We’ll all decide here in a few days.  I just hope the folks that have a inkling for change will do some research before they cast their vote to STV.  Please vote No on the STV referendum.  Please leave me a comment, a Digg, a Kudo, or a Technorati vote even if you disagree with my position.  Thanks for coming by.

Shouldn’t Presidential Candidates be held to the same conduct standard you are held to?

Why do we allow Presidential candidates and other politicians to make promises that we the voters “rely” on and then simply ignore the fact that they do not fulfill their promises?  Not only do they not fulfill their promises–they often show a clear artifice of intended deception, and do precisely opposite than what they represented, in order to obtain your vote.  Why do we not hold politicians to the same standards that we ourselves are held to under the penal code of the United States Government.  I can answer the question easily.  Because there is not a federal or state prosecutor with the moral strength to enforce the U.S. penal code.  Do politicians have governmental immunity for being prosecuted for commiting wire fraud and/or fraud on the factum?  No.  Why shouldn’t we insist; no demand, that politicians who clearly commit fraud under a probable cause standard be prosecuted for fraud on the voter?  Don’t you at least believe a Presidential candidate should be held to a higher standard than a Congressional candidate?  Afterall, the President can walk into office and immediately effect your life, libery and pursuant of happiness without much more than a blink of his eye.  You doubt that, then see Executive Orders.  Obama has already had a major affect on your life, your children’s life and your grandchildren’s life.  Don’t you think he should be scrutinized strictly against what his “give me your vote” promises were?

What is wire fraud you ask?  What is fraud on the factum you ask?  What about RICO?  Should Presidential candidates and other prominent politicians be charged with RICO violations where there can be shown that their commission of fraud is a part of a criminal enterprise?  What is RICO you ask?  Seee below.

What is Wire Fraud?

AT 18 U.S.C. § 1343 United States Criminal Code the crime of wire fraud is defined as follows:

Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.1

Okay, let’s break down the elements of the crime.

1. Intend to or devise a plan to defraud or to obtain your money or property;
2. By false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises;
3. Using, or causing to be used, wire, radio, television (Internet?) communication in interstate or foreign (Berlin?) commerce;
4. writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing the plan to defraud or obtain your money or property;

is guilty of federal wire fraud.  Wow!  Do you know of any prominent politician that made promises to the United States voters with the intent to defraud the voters of their vote (whether from the left or the right) or with the intent to take your money (increase your taxes beyond imagination) using a false pretense, representation (change you can believe in) or promise (95% of all Americans will receive a tax cut) while using the radio and television with pictures and sounds for the purpose of obtaining your vote and ultimately your property?  Do you know of anyone that may have committed wire fraud just to get elected?  How different is a politician’s misrepresentations for the purpose of obtaining your property (by increasing tax burden) vis-à-vis your vote under false pretenses than what Madoff has admitted to doing. Madoff has apparently admited to fraud in the big time.  Hasn’t Obama comitted fraud in the big time as well?  I think so, and apparently so do others.  Many people (including those who voted for him) believe that Obama has lied to the voter.  These people may not think in terms of whether his conduct is in violation of the criminal code but perhaps everyone should start holding politicians to the same standard of conduct that all citizens are held to.  Why would we think differently?  By the way, for those of you who really do not know of the many misrepresentations that Obama made as a part of his artifice to defraud you of your vote and property, let me know and I will be happy to then list them in a separate post.  I believe most people already know of his lies in less than 75 days into his Presidency.  By the way, for example of a average citizen’s outrage; see: Not the Change We Voted For.

What is fraud in the factum?

Fraud in the Factum is a type of fraud where misrepresentation causes one to enter a transaction without accurately realizing the risks, duties, or obligations incurred.   Determination of whether an act constitutes fraud in the factum depends upon consideration of “all relevant factors.” Fraud in the factum usually voids the instrument under state law.2  Another definition is: fraud in which the deception causes the other party to misunderstand the nature of the transaction in which he or she is engaging esp. with regard to the contents of an instrument (as a contract or promissory note)3  Can we argue here that the execution of a vote (the transaction) using the voting ballot is arguably a situation where a voter enters into a transaction often without accurately realizing the risks incurred in voting in the manner in which she/he does.  If you voted for Obama on the basis of his deliberate misrepresentation, deception, promises, and use of his charisma to perpetrate a scheme or artifice without fully understanding the risks to your life, liberty, property and pursuant of happiness; do you not feel defrauded?  If so, you might ask what is your remedy?  Well, since fraud in the factum is a generally a state law, not a federal law, perhaps your vote should be voided just as if it were a negotiable instrument or contract.  Afterall, Presidents are elected upon the basis of a state by state electoral college, then state law should control–not federal law or the absense thereof.  If your vote was casted in reliance of deceptive misrepresentations or promises then shouldn’t your vote be recinded and thereby perhaps causing a recall of the popular vote in the state which you reside?  Of course this assumes that the representations and promises were made in an intended deception i.e., for you to rely on them; you did rely upon them; the promises/misrepresentations were important (material) and such reliance resulted in injury or damages, for example a substantial increase in your tax burden or the tax burden of your heirs.  Interesting question, is it not?  An extremely important point to contemplate is this.  The novel, 1984 writen by George Orwell was published in 1949! Thirty five years before the time came but yet today we almost recognize the reality of his novel.  I say this because I believe sooner or later we will hold Presidential Candidates to some level of legal integrity with respect to their representations and their intentional conduct after they take office compared to what they promise in their campaigns.  I make this prediction while hoping that it will not be thirty-five years before its time.

Let’s talk about RICO.  Civil RICO and Criminal RICO.

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act is ingenious, intrusive, vague, powerful, and adaptive!  It’s the long-term “gotcha” of federal criminality.  I say this, if we’re going to continue to use and capitalize on RICO type federal statutes then you (the people) should demand that it’s promulgation include deceptive and corrupt political behavior.  Why should it not.  Politicians are granted a certain degree of immunity primarily for what they say on the House or Senate floor or otherwise in the good faith execution of their duties.  With that said, politicians are not immune from criminal prosecution and should be held to the same standard you are as citizens with respect to deceptive, fraudulent, conduct involving misrepresentations and perpetuation of criminal artifices in order to be elected or remain in elected office.  When a politician engages in a behavior that is patently fraudulent and knowing and clearly against the representations made to his constituency, he or she should be subject to criminal prosecution.  In some cases I believe the violations are so onerous that RICO should be considered.

The The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act was passed by Congress with the intent to eliminate the ill-affects of organized crime on the nation’s economy. To put it bluntly, RICO was intended to destroy the Mafia.   One RICO authority, Mr. Jeffrey Ernest Grell states on his website, RICOACT.com; 

 ”Today, RICO is almost never applied to the Mafia. Instead, it is applied to individuals, businesses, political protest groups, and terrorist organizations. In short, a RICO claim can arise in almost any context.”

If RICO, civil or criminal can be applied to political protest groups or may otherwise arise in “almost any context” then let’s consider it application to politicians.  The statute and its attendant definitions are exposed at:

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (”RICO”) Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68 (1994) which provides in part Prohibited activities

 It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt in which such person has participated as a principal within the meaning of section 2, title 18, United States Code, to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce. A purchase of securities on the open market for purposes of investment, and without the intention of controlling or participating in the control of the issuer, or of assisting another to do so, shall not be unlawful under this subsection if the securities of the issuer held by the purchaser, the members of his immediate family, and his or their accomplices in any pattern or racketerring activity or the collection of an unlawful debt after such purchase do not amount in the aggregate to one percent of the outstanding securities of any one class, and do not confer, either in law or in fact, the power to elect one or more directors of the issuer.

 It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of any unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.

 It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.

 It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section.:  (emphasis added).

Okay, let’s break this down in the most basic and simplistic form in the context I am advocating: Any politician (elected or not-elected?) whom

1. directly or indirectly receives income derived from a pattern of racketeering activity;
2. to directly or indirectly use or invest such income or proceeds of such income to acquire an interest in, operate, or establish any enterprise;
3. which is engaged in or affect interstate or foreign commerce.

would conceivably be guilty of a RICO crime or under a different standard be civilly liable for triple damages to injured parties.  Of course the questions presented are: 1) What is a “pattern of racketeering activity,? and, 2) What is an “enterprise?”  There are volumes of federal judicial case law which attempt to answer those questions in a host of criminal and civil contexts.  There are statutory definitions for us to read and consider.  Those three key and important definitions are as follows:

 Definitions

As used in this chapter -

(1) “racketeering activity” means . . . (B) any act which is indictable under any of the following provisions of title 18, United States Code: . . . section 1341 (relating to mail fraud), section 1343 (relating to wire fraud), . . .

(4) “enterprise” includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity;

(5) “pattern of racketeering activity” requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of this chapter and the last of which occurred within ten years (excluding any period of imprisonment) after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity;

So, arguably, Obama is guilty and/or liable under the provisions of RICO if the following facts could be proved:

a) Obama is a person who directly or indirectly receives income derived from a pattern (two or more acts) of racketeering activity; and

b) he directly or indirectly used or invested such income or proceeds thereof to acquire an interest in, or operate, or establish any enterprise which is engaged in interstate or foreign commerce.

How might of Obama engaged in a racketeering activity?  There are quite the litany of acts which constitute a racketeering activity listed in 18 U.S.C. § 1961 however, the two most likely applicable here are the wire fraud and mail fraud provisions referred to above.  So, if it can be shown by probably cause that Obama violated the mail fraud and/or wire fraud provisions of 18 U.S.C. 1341 or 18 U.S.C. 1343 two or more times then the requirement for a pattern of racketeering activity is fulfilled in order to bring a RICO charge or claim.  The next question is, “what is the enterprise” prong on the statute and how might that apply to the Obama campaign or Presidency?  That’s straight forward and rather simple.  Obama is an individual who many can argue committed the requisite criminal acts or at least conspired to commit the requisite acts.  If not Obama himself individually or personally, he arguably did so by association with his own political campaign organization or in any event as a member of a “group” associated in fact.  The factual questions that are relevant are this.  Was Obama’s campaign itself an enterprise that he directly or indirectly used income derived from the racketeering activity to acquire an interest in, operate or establish?  If not the campaign, then what about the Presidency?  Is it an enterprise in which Obama directly or directly used or invested income in which was derived from a racketeering activity, that is to say from wire or mail fraud?  Next we have to ask; “did Obama directly or indirectly receive income from wire or mail fraud?  If you, like many citizens already have, conclude that Obama has turned out to be a liar and has deceived his voters then it goes without saying that he did indeed use the “mail or wire” services of the United States in order to further his deception, scheme or artifice to become elected and take your property.  These indeed are ugly questions to ask but forget your political affiliations for a moment and simply ask yourself.  Why do we not hold these people accountable for their intended fraud on the voters, citizens, and constituencies?  I know some will say that if we did hold politicians to a criminal standard or civil liability for their fraud we might not have anyone to step forward and serve.  What a bunch of crap that argument is.  I’m not talking about some politician that is unable to fulfill a campaign promise.  I’m referring to those individuals who engage in illegal conduct.  Those politicians who engage in deceptive practices i.e., knowingly make false representations and promises that they do not intend to fulfill but want you to believe and rely on such misrepresentations in order to give them your vote should be held to the same standard that you as a citizen would be held to.

Again, this article does not list and analyze Obama’s specific conduct, promises, misrepresentations etc. in order to clearly identify how and why he should be arguably charged with a crime or otherwise be held to civil liability–I will leave that to others who are more resourceful and more knowledgeable of the facts.  Also you should be advised there is a vast amount of information and law out there regarding the “conspiracy” to commit the subject crimes, i.e., “mail fraud,” “wire fraud,” and RICO violations that I did not cover here in this post intentionally.  Finally, your should note that the civil application of RICO is arguably just as on point as the criminal sanctions overviewed here however, federal judges in particular have been extremely active in attempting to limit the application of civil RICO liability.  What took place in the 90’s was that creative lawyers were using the civil RICO provisions to “flood” the federal courts with more civil cases than the Article 3 Judges thought was proper and thus began to create some rather onerous hoops for civil litigants to jump through.  You can spend many hours researching this issue.  With respect to Obama; if indeed he is a fraud (and let not your heart be troubled, I think he is and has always been in over his head) we know the only real remedy that would ensue is impeachment proceedings initially.  That being said, I do believe that U.S. citizens should be able to demand criminal prosecution for the type of criminal violations I have described here.  Parting shot.  The only way that this would likely come about is through extremely creative lawyering before an extremely brave and ambitious conservative judge.  

Obama is insecure and addicted to attention and power.  America, beware!

1. See; http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1343.html
2. See; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud_in_the_factum
3. See; http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/fraud-in-the-factum.html