RICO Case Against GW Bush
- Thread starter Solitaire
- Start date
-
- Tags
- george w bush rico
Um... yeah. That'll work.
Some questions:
1) Aren't RICO statutes for the government to prosecute suspected mobsters by? How can you sue in civil court under a provision of criminal law? Is there a seperate civil RICO as implied here? How the heck does that work?
2) Even if you take as truth that GWB had forewarning and subsequently covered up 9-11 (which I do not), how exactly is that illegal? So far as I know there are no laws specifying how the president is required to act in times of crisis, nor are there laws specifying that he must act to prevent acts of terror. As long as he is providing information in accordance with legal requirements he isn't violating any laws there, either. Doing as she claimed would be political suicide, morally reprehensible, and any number of other unpleasant things, but is it illegal?
3) This appears to toss every crackpot claim I've ever heard about 9-11 into a civil suit. Why? A civil suit cannot remove someone from office, I doubt you'll manage to get anybody significant in the courtroom under oath, and there's no way in hell they'll settle out of court to shut you up since that'd lend credence to this.
So basically I'm just questioning the legal and factual basis on this and wondering what the heck they think this will accomplish.
But other than that seems like a wonderful idea.
Some questions:
1) Aren't RICO statutes for the government to prosecute suspected mobsters by? How can you sue in civil court under a provision of criminal law? Is there a seperate civil RICO as implied here? How the heck does that work?
2) Even if you take as truth that GWB had forewarning and subsequently covered up 9-11 (which I do not), how exactly is that illegal? So far as I know there are no laws specifying how the president is required to act in times of crisis, nor are there laws specifying that he must act to prevent acts of terror. As long as he is providing information in accordance with legal requirements he isn't violating any laws there, either. Doing as she claimed would be political suicide, morally reprehensible, and any number of other unpleasant things, but is it illegal?
3) This appears to toss every crackpot claim I've ever heard about 9-11 into a civil suit. Why? A civil suit cannot remove someone from office, I doubt you'll manage to get anybody significant in the courtroom under oath, and there's no way in hell they'll settle out of court to shut you up since that'd lend credence to this.
So basically I'm just questioning the legal and factual basis on this and wondering what the heck they think this will accomplish.
But other than that seems like a wonderful idea.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
I believe we've finally broken the "too many lawyers" barrier the day Philip J. Berg, Esquire passed the bar.
I only had 1 college law class and know this one doesn't have legs. Or hands, arms, feet, torso and head for that matter.
Although the way RICO has been abused as of late I wouldn't be shocked if some judge w/ a political ax to grind actually gives it a hearing.
I only had 1 college law class and know this one doesn't have legs. Or hands, arms, feet, torso and head for that matter.
Although the way RICO has been abused as of late I wouldn't be shocked if some judge w/ a political ax to grind actually gives it a hearing.
Suddenly
Unregistered
S
Aoidoi said:
One word: Discovery.
Here's another: Deposition.
Clinton never took on water because of the actual lawsuits against him, it was the discovery process where they forced him to give testimony under oath and so forth. They'd love to get GWB under oath and start asking him questions, if nothing else than to see if they can make him look evasive. All it takes is a "it depends on what you mean by 'is'" type question and off we go. Not to mention if he tells a little white lie.
Hey, just found this little forgotten thread (ok, forgotten by me)... I have no experience in civil law, so I'm just trying to figure out how this would work.
So if somebody files a civil lawsuit is there automatically discovery? Are people required to give depositions in a civil case? Is there a hearing first to judge merit? Could the White House basically just not show up, and if they didn't what are the possible penalties? Can they quash (sp?) the lawsuit? What sort of merit does this guy have to show in court to get Bush under oath? Can Bush plead national security or that presidential privilege thing to get out of answering?
I'm just curious, because if there's an automatic discovery process it seems like you could completely bury someone under the load for dozens of civil cases with dubious merit. What's to stop 10,000 lawyers from all filing civil cases against the President and have him booked solid giving depositions for the next decade? (I assume there's something, just not sure what)
Does Double Jeopardy only apply to criminal matters?
Anyway, just curious. Given the way the world works I rather assume it won't work for some reason, just wondering how the pres can avoid this sort of thing.
So if somebody files a civil lawsuit is there automatically discovery? Are people required to give depositions in a civil case? Is there a hearing first to judge merit? Could the White House basically just not show up, and if they didn't what are the possible penalties? Can they quash (sp?) the lawsuit? What sort of merit does this guy have to show in court to get Bush under oath? Can Bush plead national security or that presidential privilege thing to get out of answering?
I'm just curious, because if there's an automatic discovery process it seems like you could completely bury someone under the load for dozens of civil cases with dubious merit. What's to stop 10,000 lawyers from all filing civil cases against the President and have him booked solid giving depositions for the next decade? (I assume there's something, just not sure what)
Does Double Jeopardy only apply to criminal matters?
Anyway, just curious. Given the way the world works I rather assume it won't work for some reason, just wondering how the pres can avoid this sort of thing.
TillEulenspiegel
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 30, 2003
- Messages
- 2,302
Its called sovereign immunity ( that's a fancy way of saying a goverment offical can duck responcibility) supposedly based on the concept that the government can't sue itself.
The official cannot be held fiscaly responsible for an act performed as an act of thier "office". However personal criminal conduct or civil breaches may be addressed when it is extra-office or when the official becomes a citizen again. I.E citizen Clinton can be sued for playing grab ass. Any lawyers out there? I get it approximatly correct?
The official cannot be held fiscaly responsible for an act performed as an act of thier "office". However personal criminal conduct or civil breaches may be addressed when it is extra-office or when the official becomes a citizen again. I.E citizen Clinton can be sued for playing grab ass. Any lawyers out there? I get it approximatly correct?
The RICO act is a favorite of conspiracy theorists because it has the word "conspiracy" in it.
They wrongly think the name of the act means they can "sue" the government under it for engaging in whatever "evil conspiracy" they happen to believe in.
This is wrong in just about a zillion different ways, but, in particular, they don't seem to know the difference between criminal and civil law.
They wrongly think the name of the act means they can "sue" the government under it for engaging in whatever "evil conspiracy" they happen to believe in.
This is wrong in just about a zillion different ways, but, in particular, they don't seem to know the difference between criminal and civil law.
Some Friggin Guy
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2003
- Messages
- 854
Aoidoi said:
I can't speak of any "Civil RICO" situation, however, I can see where this could potenially lead, if we assume that Bush had fore-knowledge (Is that even a word?) of the attacks.
If they can get any evidence that he had prior knowledge of the attacks and did not act to stop them, then by definition, he has become an accessory befroe the fact of murder-one. In many states, this is punishable as if the accessory had committed the act, themselves.
Setting up some kind of civil case against Bush might also nail him with obstruction of justice.
Since the President is not above the law, this would be a major blow to his administration, not to mention the neo-conservatives who support him.
Granted, this is all predicated on the idea that he did have advance knowledge, which I refuse to speculate on. I am simply telling you where this could go if there is evidece he did.
Suddenly
Unregistered
S
Aoidoi said:Hey, just found this little forgotten thread (ok, forgotten by me)... I have no experience in civil law, so I'm just trying to figure out how this would work.
So if somebody files a civil lawsuit is there automatically discovery? Are people required to give depositions in a civil case? Is there a hearing first to judge merit? Could the White House basically just not show up, and if they didn't what are the possible penalties? Can they quash (sp?) the lawsuit? What sort of merit does this guy have to show in court to get Bush under oath? Can Bush plead national security or that presidential privilege thing to get out of answering?
I'm just curious, because if there's an automatic discovery process it seems like you could completely bury someone under the load for dozens of civil cases with dubious merit. What's to stop 10,000 lawyers from all filing civil cases against the President and have him booked solid giving depositions for the next decade? (I assume there's something, just not sure what)
Does Double Jeopardy only apply to criminal matters?
Anyway, just curious. Given the way the world works I rather assume it won't work for some reason, just wondering how the pres can avoid this sort of thing.
Generally speaking once a civil lawsuit is started by a fling of a complaint, the other side answers the complaint and then moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim. This is basically a "yes, but so what?" motion; that even if you assume all factual allegations by the plaintiff the plaintiff still will lose as a matter of law. This is where immunity type claims would get tossed around, that you can't sue a government official for a discretionary act made within official duty and so on.
If it gets past this off we go to discovery. There are myriad rules and such that govern this, but in general discovery can be liberally had. This is where claims of executive privilege and national security get tossed around. Claims of "oppressive discovery" could also be a factor here.
After discovery, there is another round of motions, usually called "Motions for Summary Judgement," where it is claimed that there is no material question of fact, so a jury is not necessary and the court should just rule on the evidence as discovered. If these are denied, we have a jury trial, then motions to set aside the verdict, for a new trial, and so forth. Then appeals.
Double jeopardy does only apply to criminal matters, but civil law has things like "res judicata," and claim and issue preclusion that pretty much mean the same thing, just that there are small differences.