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.
- Intend to or devise a plan to defraud or to obtain your money or property;
- By false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises;
- Using, or causing to be used, wire, radio, television (Internet?) communication in interstate or foreign (Berlin?) commerce;
- 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:
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.
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
- directly or indirectly receives income derived from a pattern of racketeering activity;
- to directly or indirectly use or invest such income or proceeds of such income to acquire an interest in, operate, or establish any enterprise;
- 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:
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!
- See; http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1343.html
- See; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud_in_the_factum
- See; http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/fraud-in-the-factum.html