Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Goldman Sachs, Bain Capital & Mitt Romney Sued for Racketeering By ME! [View all]
Lawsuit Filed in Los Angeles Federal Court Oct. 18 at 3:47 pm.
As reported late Friday night in DU LBN (here), yours truly sued Goldman Sachs, Bain Capital, Mitt Romney and his Gang (Paul Traub, Barry Gold, MNAT law firm, Colm Connolly and Michael Glazer) for Racketeering.
Specifically, the United States Code Title 18 Section 1961 through 1965 permits private citizens to sue people who are not being prosecuted; because they're organized criminal enterprise is so powerful - that no one will prosecute them. To address these issues of people being Above the Law, Section 1964(c) permits a citizen to become a "Private Attorney General".
Congress was well aware that powerful crime lords can have undue influence over the federal system of justice. To address such cases like Capone, where he appeared to be untouchable (just like Romney has been thus far), Congress even provided treble damages to motivate U.S. to become "Private Attorney Generals" and resolve "Prosecutorial Gaps". This Civil Right was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in its Sedima case decision of 1995.
Our "Prosecutorial Gap" in this Racketeering case exists because of Romney's "retroactive" secrets. Mitt claims he was retired from Bain Capital as CEO in 1999; but we all know that he is lying about that. As Romney was caught on this issue, he flip flopped and claims he was CEO of Bain Capital until August 2001; and he then "retroactively" resigned back to February 11, 1999.
Mitt Romney's law firm Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell ("MNAT"
also has a law firm partner from 1999 to August 2001; Mr. Colm F Connolly. On August 2, 2001, Colm Connolly was promoted to a position of power & corruption that assured there would be a "Prosecutorial Gap". As is detailed at the Department of Justice Office of Legal Policy Resume that;
Colm Connolly became the DE United States Attorney on August 2, 2001
Where, for his next sever years as chief federal prosecutor, Colm Connolly's office refused to investigate and/or prosecute his form partner (MNAT) and/or their clients Goldman Sachs, Bain Capital, Mitt Romney and his Gang.
For more on this story you can read the DailyKos Diary with links to other stories (here). The orange realm thread has over 10,000 Facebook likes; because that blogger told the story well and succinctly.
As for my brief, it is a rant. When one writes anything, a book, play, film; you are instructed to write from the heart and then reduce it to proper form. It was my plan to file it on October 31, 2013 (my birthday); but something came up that forced my hand to file it sooner.
If the corruption doesn't reach into California too;
then I'll AMEND my Complaint to be more "legal" true to form.
We've got them by the proverbial's, with the evidence being confessions, public docket records and much more (because they "believed" Romney was going to be POTUS and handpick the "friendly" US Attorney General Sheldon Adelson was paying for). So they left an evidence trail any high school student could prosecute them with. Fortunately for U.S. and my case;
Romney Didn't Make It!
[br]
[hr]
[br]
UPDATE
Most people misunderstand "Civil" RICO.
- - - The Racketeering Influences Corruption Organizations ACT of 1970 was provided to U.S. by Congress, to handle sophisticated efforts in organized crime that assaults upon interstate commerce unlawfully.
A proviso of the RICO act is United States Code Title 18 Section 1964(c) - that states;
(c) Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefor in any appropriate United States district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee,
This "Civil Right" granted by Congress, who wanted it to be utilized so much so - that it is a Law (incentive) one can recover treble damages.
[br]
- - - - This civil right has been affirmed as Constitutionally sound
The United States Supreme Court addressed the issues of who, what and why Congress granted Civil RICO and the right to become a "Private Attorney General" in the 1995 case of Sedima v Imrex - where the court ruled that;
Finally, we note that a prior-conviction requirement would be inconsistent with Congress' underlying policy concerns. Such a rule would severely handicap potential plaintiffs. A guilty party may escape conviction for any number of reasons—not least among them the possibility that the Government itself may choose to pursue only civil remedies. Private attorney general provisions such as § 1964(c) are in part designed to fill prosecutorial gaps. Cf. Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330, 344, 99 S.Ct. 2326, 2333, 60 L.Ed.2d 931 (1979). This purpose would be largely defeated, and the need for treble damages as an incentive to litigate unjustified, if private suits could be maintained only against those already brought to justice. See also n. 9, supra.
In sum, we can find no support in the statute's history, its language, or considerations of policy for a requirement that a private treble-damages action under § 1964(c) can proceed only against a defendant who has already been criminally convicted. To the contrary, every indication is that no such requirement exists. Accordingly, the fact that Imrex and the individual defendants have not been convicted under RICO or the federal mail and wire fraud statutes does not bar Sedima's action.
In sum, we can find no support in the statute's history, its language, or considerations of policy for a requirement that a private treble-damages action under § 1964(c) can proceed only against a defendant who has already been criminally convicted. To the contrary, every indication is that no such requirement exists. Accordingly, the fact that Imrex and the individual defendants have not been convicted under RICO or the federal mail and wire fraud statutes does not bar Sedima's action.
[br]
[hr][br]
- - - - The remarks that the U.S. Government choosing only to pursue Civil Remedies does NOT prevent a citizen from seeking same; is exactly on point here. The DE Bankruptcy Court had the right to only fine Paul Traub's firm $750,000; but it has NO right to fail to refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney. As a matter of fact it is a command of Congress that judges are to NOTIFY & REFER criminal matters to federal authorities per 18 U.S.C. 3057(a).
When the Judge and US Trustee (commanded to do the same under 28 USC 586(a)(3)(F)) refused to go by the law - with the compounding issue that (even if they had) they would have been Notifying & Referring the matter to the CORRUPT U.S. Attorney Colm Connolly
Obvious creates a "Prosecutorial GAP" in need of being filled!
119 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
