Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

BREAKING: RICO Case Filed vs Clinton Foundation
Common Sense Evaluation ^

Posted on 06/21/2018 4:19:06 AM PDT by gaggs

A Former Secret Service Agent Gary Byrne Files Massive RICO Case Against Clinton Foundation, George Soros, Shareblue, Media Matters for America, David Brock, and John Podesta

BREAKING: RICO Case filed vs Clinton Foundation

This lawsuit will go after various facets of the Clinton Enterprise and their top connections - including George Soros!

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


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: clickbait; garybyrne
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 next last
To: All
DO AMERICANS WANT THE CLINTONS CONTROLLING THEIR GOVT?
The Clintons believe they can live by a separate set of rules than most Americans....and do not have to suffer the consequences of their actions.

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?"

21 posted on 06/21/2018 5:06:30 AM PDT by Liz ( Our side has 8 trillion bullets; the other side doesn't know which bathroom to use.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos
Have you actually read the allegations in complaint. The tests that he must survive are:

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)

22 posted on 06/21/2018 5:08:21 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: gaggs

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


23 posted on 06/21/2018 5:16:08 AM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson; Labyrinthos
The following implies only an entity representing all tax payers could bring charges:

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?

24 posted on 06/21/2018 5:23:28 AM PDT by MV=PY (The Magic Question: Who's paying for it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: MV=PY

Neither. It is obvious to anyone paying the scantest attention in recent years, “the rules are for little people.”


25 posted on 06/21/2018 5:31:51 AM PDT by wastoute (Government cannot redistribute wealth. Government can only redistribute poverty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MV=PY
that he was the intended victim of the racketeering activity

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.

26 posted on 06/21/2018 5:35:48 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: gaggs

Good luck Mr. Quixote.


27 posted on 06/21/2018 5:48:00 AM PDT by JZelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gaggs
Trouble is: There's no controlling legal authority.

ML/NJ

28 posted on 06/21/2018 5:48:43 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson
"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! 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).

29 posted on 06/21/2018 5:49:09 AM PDT by MV=PY (The Magic Question: Who's paying for it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: wastoute
"Neither. It is obvious to anyone paying the scantest attention in recent years, “the rules are for little people.”"

I'll remain optimistic that justice will prevail, thanks. Sometimes I even take action to help it along.

It's much more fun. ;)

30 posted on 06/21/2018 6:00:23 AM PDT by MV=PY (The Magic Question: Who's paying for it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: neverevergiveup
Will this get thrown out because of ‘lack of standing’? How was Byrne personally affected by the Clinton Foundation?

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.

31 posted on 06/21/2018 6:02:11 AM PDT by Boomer (Leftism is the Mental/Moral Equivalent of End Stage Cancer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverevergiveup

Read the suit. They targeted him specifically.


32 posted on 06/21/2018 6:07:48 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: gaggs

And who is funding Gary John Bryne?


33 posted on 06/21/2018 6:15:07 AM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson

“Read the suit. They targeted him specifically.”

Busy morning, and didn’t have time. Thanks for clarification.


34 posted on 06/21/2018 6:21:05 AM PDT by neverevergiveup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MV=PY

Typically any taxpayer lawsuits are too diffuse to convey standing.


35 posted on 06/21/2018 6:26:30 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson

It’s a state charge.

Same reason you can’t file murder charges. Only wrongful death.


36 posted on 06/21/2018 7:13:04 AM PDT by fruser1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MV=PY

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.


37 posted on 06/21/2018 7:26:57 AM PDT by wastoute (Government cannot redistribute wealth. Government can only redistribute poverty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: gaggs

Private lawsuit. Will never see the inside of a courtroom, except to be summarily dismissed.


38 posted on 06/21/2018 7:47:24 AM PDT by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MV=PY; AndyJackson
Having litigated several civil RICO cases over the years (some successful, some not), I have a pretty good understanding of standing and proximate cause, both generally and as applied to RICO claims. The general principle that you reference from the Baidsch opinion may seem simple and straight forward, but I can assure you that its application to a particular set of facts is a complex process that is often problematic.

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.

39 posted on 06/21/2018 8:58:27 AM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson

I have not read the allegation in the complaint because the complaint is 210 pages, plus exhibits, and there is a download fee.


40 posted on 06/21/2018 9:17:24 AM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 next last

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
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

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