Evidence

Post #346,001 by beepster 8/9/11 3:55:48 PM Reply	Evidence You seem to be missing the point. If there is evidence inside the US (and it appears there may be) of, say, bribery or phone hacking..there are laws against these things (that are not RICO)...and they could be used to go after news corp and the executive team. To use RICO to try and make the UK case apply here and to go after Murdoch directly? That's stretching the law beyond current precedent..which is at least cursory evidence of someone having a serious grudge against Murdoch directly. And no, not saying that Obama is dictating...but the very public stance he and his administration have taken against the US based operations of news corp certainly are not hurting. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #346,002 by jake123 8/9/11 4:43:49 PM Reply	What are you talking about According to US law, bribing police of other nations by a US firm is illegal. News Corp clearly did so. What's the problem here?
Post #346,003 by beepster 8/9/11 5:15:24 PM Reply	Thats not RICO, thats FCPA that's the problem here. Going the RICO route means you have much less interest in the actual crime and much more interest in prosecuting the organization and executives, regardless of their specific knowledge. And you'd be hard pressed, given that, to convince anyone that such a case wasn't politically motivated. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #346,004 by Another Scott 8/9/11 5:19:27 PM Reply	You understand what "investigation" means, right? Well-sourced information coming out of the Department of Justice and the FBI suggests a debate is going on that could result in the recently launched investigations of News Corp. falling under the RICO statutes. They're investigating. No charges have been filed yet. Nobody's been prosecuted yet. Nobody's been convicted yet. Nobody's been thrown in prison yet. There is no "case" yet. It's an investigation. <sheesh> Cheers, Scott.
Post #346,039 by beepster 8/10/11 10:13:15 AM Reply	I do And implicating the use of RICO is obviously lost on you Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #346,056 by crazy 8/10/11 4:01:44 PM Reply	Actually, easily pressed > And you'd be hard pressed, given that, > to convince anyone that such a case wasn't politically motivated. So what your saying if the case isn't based on a mafia style smoking gun organization, RICO should never be applied? Go ahead, tell me this one is political. It is a core corrupt organization that shields it's members from prosecution as much as it can, while tolerating and sometimes encouraging their continued illegal (and HARMFUL to others) behavior. Yet not "mafia" like. Go ahead, support the child rapers. ======================================================== Catholic sex abuse cases In some jurisdictions, RICO suits have been filed against Catholic dioceses, using racketeering laws to prosecute the highers-up in the episcopacy for abuses committed by those under their authority. A Cleveland grand jury cleared two bishops of racketeering charges, finding that their mishandling of sex abuse claims did not amount to criminal racketeering. Certain lawyers and abuse advocates[who?] have openly wondered why a similar suit was not filed against archbishop Bernard Law, who escaped prosecution by going into exile in Vatican City.[9][10] ========================================================
Post #346,057 by beepster 8/10/11 4:20:25 PM Reply	Interesting Actually I see the differences and theneasy application of that in the case of the church, as there was clear evidence from other locations of knowledge and inaction over many years. Trying to tell me this is a similar thing? Right now this is concentrated in one org and no evidence of knowledge at the top. I can see how this makes me support sexual abuse. Guess I'll go register now Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #346,062 by S1mon_Jester 8/10/11 7:42:36 PM Reply	So if there were evidence of knowledge at the top RICO would apply fine? Actually in all seriousness, it's unlikely that RICO charges will apply to NewsCorp. The alleged acts in the hacking scandal have not risen to the level of fraud that is required under RICO, said Douglas Abrams, a professor at the University of Missouri School of Law who has written a book on civil RICO cases. "The general rule of thumb for a RICO action is: if you think you have one, you don't," Abrams said. One pitfall includes a 2010 Supreme Court ruling that curtailed U.S. lawsuits over conduct occurring abroad. In the wake of that decision, trial courts have taken a dim view of using RICO for "extraterritorial conduct." http://www.reuters.c...TRE76C5RG20110713
Post #346,063 by boxley 8/10/11 7:51:29 PM Reply	you dont seriously think doj gives a rats ass about judges? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #346,082 by beepster 8/11/11 10:35:35 AM Reply	That's what I've been saying all along trying to raise this to RICO status is outside of the law's scope..and if they were really pursuing it...it would almost necessarily be political motivation. (and I'm NOT saying it was Obama doing it...but the environment in the exec branch based on the "war" with news corp's most visible arm..fox news.) Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #346,087 by S1mon_Jester 8/11/11 11:33:25 AM Reply	Actually...I only saw references to one person talking about it. It bounced around a lot. But all the sources I saw pointed back to one journalist.

Welcome to IWETHEY!