Reply – Re: Out of Towners?
Your Name
Subject
Message
or Cancel
In Reply To
Re: Out of Towners?
— by Ted Ted
FULL TEXT OF CASE BELOW:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/553/639.html


United States Supreme Court

BRIDGE ET AL. v. PHOENIX BOND & INDEMNITY CO. ET AL., (2008)

No. 07-210

Argued: April 14, 2008    Decided: June 9, 2008


Each year the Cook County Treasurer's Office holds a public auction to sell its tax liens on delinquent taxpayers' property. To prevent any one buyer from obtaining a disproportionate share of the liens, the county adopted the "Single, Simultaneous Bidder Rule" (Rule), which requires each buyer to submit bids in its own name, prohibits a buyer from using "apparent agents, employees, or related entities" to submit simultaneous bids for the same parcel, and requires a registered bidder to submit a sworn affidavit affirming its compliance with the Rule. Petitioners and respondents regularly participate in the tax sales. Respondents filed suit, alleging that petitioners fraudulently obtained a disproportionate share of liens by filing false compliance attestations. As relevant here, they claim that petitioners violated and conspired to violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) through a pattern of racketeering activity involving mail fraud, which occurred when petitioners sent property owners various notices required by Illinois law. The District Court dismissed the RICO claims for lack of standing, finding that respondents were not protected by the mail fraud statute because they did not receive the alleged misrepresentations. Reversing, the Seventh Circuit based standing on the injury respondents suffered when they lost the chance to obtain more liens, and found that respondents had sufficiently alleged proximate cause because they were immediately injured by petitioners' scheme. The court also rejected petitioners' argument that respondents are not entitled to relief under RICO because they had not received, and therefore had not relied on, any false statements.
 
Held: A plaintiff asserting a RICO claim predicated on mail fraud need not show, either as an element of its claim or as a prerequisite to establishing proximate causation, that it relied on the defendant's alleged misrepresentations. Pp. 6-21.
 
     (a) In 18 U. S. C. §1964(c), RICO provides a private right of action for treble damages to "[a]ny person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation," as pertinent here, of §1962(c), which makes it "unlawful for any person employed by or associated with" a qualifying enterprise "to conduct or participate ... in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity," including "mail fraud," §1961(1)(B). Mail fraud, in turn, occurs whenever a person, "having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud," uses the mail "for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice." §1341. The gravamen of the offense is the scheme to defraud, and any " 'mailing ... incident to an essential part of the scheme' ... satisfies the mailing element," Schmuck v. United States, 489 U. S. 705, 712, even if the mailing "contain[s] no false information," id., at 715. Once the relationship among these statutory provisions is understood, respondents' theory of the case is straightforward. Petitioners nonetheless argue that because the alleged pattern of racketeering activity is predicated on mail fraud, respondents must show that they relied on petitioners' fraudulent misrepresentations, which they cannot do because the misrepresentations were made to the county. Nothing on the statute's face imposes such a requirement. Using the mail to execute or attempt to execute a scheme to defraud is indictable as mail fraud, and hence a predicate racketeering act under RICO, even if no one relied on any misrepresentation, see Neder v. United States, 527 U. S. 1, 24-25; and one can conduct the affairs of a qualifying enterprise through a pattern of such acts without anyone relying on a fraudulent misrepresentation. Thus, no reliance showing is required to establish that a person has violated §1962(c) by conducting an enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity predicated on mail fraud. Nor can a first-party reliance requirement be derived from §1964(c), which, by providing a right of action to "[a]ny person" injured by a violation of §1962, suggests a breadth of coverage not easily reconciled with an implicit first-party reliance requirement. Moreover, a person can be injured "by reason of" a pattern of mail fraud even if he has not relied on any misrepresentations. For example, accepting respondents' allegations as true, they were harmed by petitioners' scheme when they lost valuable liens they otherwise would have been awarded. Pp. 6-10.
 
     (b) None of petitioners' arguments--that under the "common-law meaning" rule, Congress should be presumed to have made reliance an element of a civil RICO claim predicated on a violation of the mail fraud statute; that a plaintiff bringing a RICO claim based on mail fraud must show reliance on the defendant's misrepresentations in order to establish proximate cause; and that RICO should be interpreted to require first-party reliance for fraud-based claims in order to avoid the "overfederalization" of traditional state-law claims--persuades this Court to read a first-party reliance requirement into a statute that by its terms suggests none. Pp. 10-21.
 
477 F. 3d 928, affirmed.
 
     Thomas, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

************************************************

Every member concerned about their current status or their future in the NYCDCC should read this case. The above portion is the syllabus only. See the link for the full case.

After absorbing it, please think about who the guilty parties are; and why they are guilty and what evidence you have in the form of written or electronic communications from them; whether the International, the D.C., your Local and/or from Officers or Delegates which would confer standing on you as an individual and/or as a certified class

There is so much damning evidence in this case it's sickening and the 'players' in this extortive game wherein racketeering has not ended but accelerated under their watch know exactly who they are and what I am speaking of.


MAIL and WIRE FRAUD; re:


The BLUE CARD:

**   The Blue Card Vacation Wage Hobbs Act extortion scheme, approximating $81.25 Million dollars.
 
BY-LAW SECTION 21 MISAPPROPRIATION/CONVERSION:

**   The Bilello, McGinnis & Cavanaugh and Walsh By-law Sec. 21 misappropriation, reallocation and illegal conversion of wages in multiple contracts to the Welfare Fund, approximating $38 Million dollars per year, prending total man-hours recorded under each contract; allegedly verifiable via the new electronic scanners.
 
The CONTINUATION OF PREDICATE RICO ACT VIOLATIONS

**   Continuation of NYCDCC racketeering occurred while allegedly under the watchful eyes of the United States Attorneys Office and the court appointed Review Officers notwithstanding their gross dereliction of duty and negligence as the parties with standing to allegedly (cough) represent member interests; while illegally denying rank & file member due process rights for their immediate and very direct interests in both issues above.

 
The CEMENT LEAGUE & 100% FULL MOBILITY RACKETEERING:

**   Continuation of the racketeering scheme via the intentional ignoring of the NLRA in its entirety, Board precedent and long known Appellate & U.S. Supreme Court precedent as directly related to the 100% Full Mobility scheme and the recent phony/false filing of the Cement League case by the UBCJA International, in concert with the NRCC - which misappropriated the entirety of the NYCDCC's jurisdictional territory and your man-hours for wages and benefits (deferred compensation) to those not entitled to it; and which is your primary source & element for creating wealth as a District Council member.


The NYCDCC's criminal racketeering case has gone on unabated for 25-1/2 years and that fact along with the near 22-year old private contract known as the Consent Decree are both an Abortion of Justice.

The United States Attorneys Office has openly & hostilely turned a blind eye to all of it, it refuses to press further charges against the UBCJA International for their direct role in not only continuing the racketeering, but accelerating it.

The U.S. Attorney has allowed the UBCJA International & the former R.O. Dennis Walsh to abuse the NLRA, LMRA, LMRDA, ERISA, SEC & IRS regualations to the point where these public laws are unrecognizeable and the Court and two judges have allowed it and they have allowed the former R.O. to pursue a clearly illegal agenda and directly couch participants in the misappropriation of rank & file member pay raises, in direct concert with Union & Employer Trustees and Fiduciaries and the D.C & Benefit Trust Funds legal counsel in an ongoing act of criminal racketeering and hand the raises over to the Welfare Fund.
     
**   The U.S. Attorney has refused to investigate, audit, seat a grand jury or indict any of the long list of those who can & should be so charged.
     
**   The U.S. Attorney has refused to file charges or to force the Welfare Fund to remiburse members whose wages were stolen one red cent.



The U.S. Attorneys malfeasance in their direction & handling of this case is a disgrace. Ben Torrance & Preet Bhararra by their very silence thus condonde this racketeering and Judge Berman and others should act to see to it that they are removed from the case.

**   Your 'standing' in the case can no longer be denied - courtesy of the U.S. Supreme Court.


Everyone knows the line "Show me the Money", "Show me the Quan" - well, where is it? Why haven't you got yours back? Why are all you boys in NYC allowing these clowns to shit all over your Federal rights?

EXCERPT, FULL ECASE:
 Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court.
 
     The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO or Act), 18 U. S. C. §§1961-1968, provides a private right of action for treble damages to "[a]ny person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation" of the Act's criminal prohibitions. §1964(c). The question presented in this case is whether a plaintiff asserting a RICO claim predicated on mail fraud must plead and prove that it relied on the defendant's alleged misrepresentations. Because we agree with the Court of Appeals that a showing of first-party reliance is not required, we affirm.

_________________

All criminal suspects are guilty until proven innocent in a UBCJA Kangaroo Court of law, a court of law; ahh, shit - I meant innocent until proven guilty in a corruption free court of law, or are they?