Posted on 06/21/2018 4:19:06 AM PDT by gaggs
The Clinton Foundation admits only to "mistakes” in disclosing donors. Among its "mistakes" was the mishandling of a $2.35 million donation from the chairman of Uranium One, a company acquired by the Russians (later used to assume control of 20 percent of U.S. uranium production). The shocking compromise of US ntl interests was signed off under Hillary Clinton’s watch at the State Department. The Clinton Foundation is expected to refile some of its tax forms b/c its IRS returns were falsified (a felony)....the organization says it “mistakenly combined” government grants with other donations.
WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO YOU IF YOU SUBMITTED FALSIFIED TAX RETURNS?
Bill Clinton's MO is to travel the globe, flaunting his "do-goodism"....his secret accounts, business interests, and other evidence of his money laundering, are everywhere. Get ahold of his travel reimbursement records --- a clue to where his secret accounts are.
===============================================
Here's yet another Foundation "clerical error." Several state and federal agencies the Clintons listed as donors told news outlets they did not contribute to the Clinton Foundation.
<><> EPA said there's no record of donations to the Clinton Foundation.
<><> The “Office of Minority Health and Human Services,” is listed but it's not clear what this donation referred to, or even which federal or state office it came from.
<><> The Arkansas Dept of Human Services received a donor "gift receipt" but said they never expended tax dollars to the Foundation.
BTW, can all the alleged Foundation donors who took a tax write-off come up w/ "gift receipts?"
To demonstrate standing, a plaintiff must plead, at a minimum, “(1) the defendant's violation of 18 USC § 1962, (2) an injury to the plaintiff's business or property, and (3) causation of the injury by the defendant's violation. This third requirement is satisfied if the defendant's injurious conduct is both the factual and the proximate cause of the injury alleged.” Baisch v. Gallina, 346 F.3d 366 (2d Cir. 2003)
Evening cycle story here:
Former Secret Service agent Gary Byrne files RICO case against Clinton Foundation
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3664853/posts
Correct. In order to survive a motion to dismiss, Byrne will have to show that his business or property has been damaged as a result of the racketeering activity, that he was the intended victim of the racketeering activity, and that the racketeering activity was the proximate cause of the injury. Stated another way, to survive a motion to dismiss, Byrne must allege in detail that defendants carried out or conspired to carry out a pattern of racketeering activity through the "Clinton enterprise" with the specific intent of causing harm to Byrne's business or property, and the harm was an intended and foreseeable consequence of the racketeering activity.
But the following implies an individual taxpayer could bring charges:
To demonstrate standing, a plaintiff must plead, at a minimum, “(1) the defendant's violation of 18 USC § 1962, (2) an injury to the plaintiff's business or property, and (3) causation of the injury by the defendant's violation. This third requirement is satisfied if the defendant's injurious conduct is both the factual and the proximate cause of the injury alleged.” Baisch v. Gallina, 346 F.3d 366 (2d Cir. 2003)
Which prevails?
Neither. It is obvious to anyone paying the scantest attention in recent years, “the rules are for little people.”
No. That argument is disposed of in Basich cited above. The reakateering activities only have to be the "proximate cause" of injuries to Byrne. He does not have to demonstrate that the conspirators intended to target him specfically - though I think his allegations cover him there anyway. They certainly did intend to target him and did so, if the facts stated are true.
Good luck Mr. Quixote.
ML/NJ
Good! If the logic holds, then any taxpayer has standing. Maybe we even have some ambitious attorneys who could pull together a class action lawsuit (assuming sufficient personal security).
I'll remain optimistic that justice will prevail, thanks. Sometimes I even take action to help it along.
It's much more fun. ;)
Every voter in America was affected. The money from this Clinton Criminal Enterprise helped to fund the Hitlery Clinton Presidential campaign. We all have standing. If she had been elected; it's very possible it would have been the end of our republic as we know it.
Read the suit. They targeted him specifically.
And who is funding Gary John Bryne?
“Read the suit. They targeted him specifically.”
Busy morning, and didn’t have time. Thanks for clarification.
Typically any taxpayer lawsuits are too diffuse to convey standing.
It’s a state charge.
Same reason you can’t file murder charges. Only wrongful death.
I will believe it when I see it. For the life of me I can’t understand why we are not three months into Watergate 2.0.
Private lawsuit. Will never see the inside of a courtroom, except to be summarily dismissed.
The concept of "standing" is not unique to RICO. To have standing to sue in federal court, the plaintiff must have suffered harm that is separate and distinct from the harm suffered by the public at large. For this reason, mere taxpayer status rarely provides standing to sue in federal court because the plaintiff has not suffered harm that is separate and distinct from the harm suffered by taxpayers as a whole.
In order to have standing within the context of a civil RICO claim, the plaintiff must have been the intended victim of the racketeering activity. Suppose, for example, that I own a pub next to a social club where gangsters are known to hang out and engage in racketeering activity, but they have never specifically directed their racketeering activity towards me. The gangsters sometimes eat and drink in my pub, but because they are known to engage in murder, extortion, arson, bribery, robbery, illegal gambling, and narcotics trafficking, and other racketeering activity, my other customers feel uncomfortable and so they stop coming in and I lose money. Even though the racketeering activity has clearly harmed my business, I do not have standing to commence a civil RICO suit because I am not the intended victim of the racketeering activity.
In addition to standing, the plaintiff must show that the racketeering activity is the proximate cause of the injury to its business or property. Proximate cause requires that the injury to the plaintiffs business was not only the result of racketeering activity, but that the injury was the intended or foreseeable result of such activity. Although proximate cause and standing are often tied together, they are distinct elements of the RICO claim in that standing refers to the intended victim and proximate cause refers to the intended or foreseeable result.
I have not read the allegation in the complaint because the complaint is 210 pages, plus exhibits, and there is a download fee.
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.