Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How to hold Washington accountable using the Racketeer Influence & Corrupt Organizations Act
Canada Free Press ^

Posted on 06/19/2013 3:36:59 AM PDT by Opinionatedtoday

Has the U.S. government deprived you of your rights? If so, please do not think that you are helpless or at the mercy of the political justice system anymore. You have legal remedies to pursue. It’s RICO time....

The bottom line is this. You can’t get justice within the political justice system in America anymore because the politicians own it. It is up to you now. What stopped the mob? The Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). What will hold the Obama administration and politicians on both sides of the aisle accountable? RICO.

Based on the response and questions I have received after writing, It’s RICO time! How to Stop the Obama Administration Crime Wave and A Warning to Public Servants in the Obama Administration: It’s RICO time!, following are some resources to use to see if your case qualifies under the RICO statues and to get the ball rolling to peacefully hold Washington accountable. It is time to stop complaining and take action. It is RICO time! ...

One of the objectives of Civil RICO, for example, is to turn victims into prosecutors, “private attorneys general,” dedicated to eliminating racketeering activity. That’s you! Remember racketeering— is the act of engaging in criminal activity as a structured group. The structured group is now government agencies....

First this American University Law Review report called, Using the Master’s Tools: Fighting Persistent Police Misconduct with Civil RICO, by Steven P. Ragland, will show you how RICO was fruitfully used to root out corrupt policemen in the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). This example can be applied to corrupt officials at the IRS and other agencies where corruption exists. Substitute the bad cops with the corrupt government workers, LAPD with the government agency in question and off you go.

(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: lapd; mafia; obama; rico

1 posted on 06/19/2013 3:36:59 AM PDT by Opinionatedtoday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Opinionatedtoday

Americans need to get grand juries to indict members
of Congress for misprision of felony AND recall them.

The other alternatives are CW2 or slavery/death.


2 posted on 06/19/2013 3:39:01 AM PDT by Diogenesis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis

What is CW2 ?


3 posted on 06/19/2013 3:59:42 AM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof, but they're true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: knarf

CW2= Civil War II


4 posted on 06/19/2013 4:01:45 AM PDT by RBW in PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RBW in PA

K, thanx ... makes more sense than Chief Warrant Officer 2nd class.


5 posted on 06/19/2013 4:03:54 AM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof, but they're true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: knarf

“...makes more sense than Chief Warrant Officer 2nd class.”

That reminds me of a time when I was having a lot of struggles in my life and I was telling a friend about my problems. She said “You need a P.O.A.!” and I said “a power of attorney?!?!?” and she said “A Plan of Action”.

She was right, I developed one, and now I always say that.

Haven’t needed a power of attorney yet!


6 posted on 06/19/2013 4:33:48 AM PDT by jocon307
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis
Americans need to get grand juries to indict members of Congress for misprision of felony AND recall them.

Excellent suggestion.

====================================================

We also need to target DOJ's Eric Holder (among others):

(1) Holder lied to the Congress when he said he had nothing to do with media scrutiny;

(2) his own testimony indicates he lied to the judge to get search warrants;

(3) Holder's falsifying official DOJ documents incurs several felonies and could involve forgery;

(4) Holder may have "pencil-whipped" official govt documents (signed off having no clear evidence of wrongdoing)......this practice incurs jail time.

============================================

REFERENCE--Frontpage Magazine--NBC News reported that the DOJ promised to review its policies regarding the seizure of information from reporters, even as it acknowledged that the search warrant issued for Rosen’s material was approved “at the highest levels” of the Department, including “discussions” with Holder.

This is not the first time Holder has “misled” Congress. Documents obtained in 2012 by Judicial Watch, pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, revealed that top political appointees at the DOJ were intimately involved in the decision to drop the voter intimidation lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party (NBPP).

That information conflicts with Holder’s testimony before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies on March 1, 2011. “The decisions made in the New Black Panther Party case were made by career attorneys in the department. And beyond that, you know, if we’re going to look at the record, let’s look at it in its totality,” Holder contended.

The DOJ had initially refused to turn over the documents, contending they didn’t show “any political interference whatsoever.”

Judge Reggie B. Walton in Washington, D.C. District Court disagreed. Allowing the release of the documents on July 23, 2012, he declared that they “reveal that political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case.

7 posted on 06/19/2013 4:34:47 AM PDT by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Opinionatedtoday
The problem with civil war is that there tends to be a lot of blood letting and anger for an indeterminate amount of time until both sides get exhausted and the one with the upper hand at the time wins. We have laws that protect the people we need people who are our elected officials to grow balls, organize and exicute these proceedings. Laws like rico and others can be used in a united front to fight back. So far we havent seen a glimmmer of this yet
8 posted on 06/19/2013 4:35:40 AM PDT by ronnie raygun (Yesterdays conspiracies are todays truths)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
LAUGH BREAK DOJ/Ohaha's using the 1917 Espionage Act to nail journos --- poor overworked Valerie Jarrett burned the midnight oil to come up with that one (cackle).

REFERENCE The DOJ search warrant in the Rosen case cites Section 793(d) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code ...... a person lawfully in possession of secret govt-classified info who turns it over to someone not lawfully entitled to posses it has committed a crime (The source).....anyone who conspires to help the source do that has committed the same crime (The journo).

So why the brouhaha? B/c the Obummber crew has NEVER, EVER exhibited a modicum of interest in defending US ntl security from foreign domination ---- nor has it exhibited a concern for the life and liberties of Americans.

On the contrary----via "immigration reform" Ohaha is forcing on Americans entire primitive populations of creepy savages emanating from antediluvean Third World countries.

THIS IS RICH When the Nigerian jihadist butchered the Brit soldier, then defiantly gave an interview with blood-soaked hands, Ohaha okayed $50 million to his homeland---Kenya---as a sign of Ohaha's "tolerance and compassion.".

$50 mill to another jihadist hellhole means more stupid futile nation-building ---- to subsidize living standards for dumbos still living in huts---w/ no water, electricity, adequate shelter and food.

But forget these "amenities" --- your tax dollars will build Kenyan "madrassas" to train more of these jihadist zealots to butcher innocent people.

9 posted on 06/19/2013 4:37:16 AM PDT by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Liz

send this to your Congresscritters:

Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order which further defines the law for purposes of enforcement. 5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office. 5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law, 5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”. The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.

The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311. One provision of Executive Order 10450 specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration ... of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.” Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States. It can only be “altered” by constitutional amendment. Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331which alters the form of government other by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.


5 U.S.C. 3331:
“An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service...shall take the following oath: ‘I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.’”

5 U.S.C. 3333:
“...an individual who accepts office or employment in the government of the United States...shall execute an affidavit within 60 days after accepting the office or employment that his acceptance and holding of the office or employment does not or will not violate section 7311 of this title. The affidavit is prima facie evidence that the acceptance and holding of office or employment by the affiant does not or will not violate section 7311 of this title.”

5 U.S.C. 7311 (1):
“An individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he (1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government...” [”advocate: to plead in favor of: defend by argument before a tribunal or the public; support or recommend publicly.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary] ...shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year and a day or both”

Executive Order 10450 (in part):
Whereas the interest of the national security require that all persons privileged to be employed in...the Government shall be reliable, trustworthy, of good conduct and character, and of complete and unswerving loyalty to the United States... it is hereby ordered as follows:

(a)The investigations conducted pursuant to this order shall be designed to develop information as to whether the employment or retention in employment.. of the person being investigated is clearly consistent with the interests of the national security. Such information shall relate, but shall not be limited to the following:

(4)Advocacy of use of force or violence to overthrow the government of the United States, or of the alteration of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.”


10 posted on 06/19/2013 5:13:48 AM PDT by phockthis (http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: phockthis

Got it-—thanks.


11 posted on 06/19/2013 8:46:38 AM PDT by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson