About CDon


1 friends
follow   666 comments   Followed by 1   Following 1   Ignored by 2   Ignoring 0   Ignore CDon
Registered Mar 08, 2012

CDon's most recent comments:

  • On Thu, 28 Apr 2016, 10:24am PDT in Legal rights that women have and men don't, CDon said:

    Dan8267 says

    In particular, I find the Selective Service to be morally reprehensible an Unamerican. It is a violation of the First Amendment (freedom of religion), Thirteen Amendment (ban of slavery, and Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection),

    Interesting. Which of the three (very basic and fundamental for understanding the 14th) standards of review did you run this through when you arrived at this conclusion?

  • On Fri, 8 Apr 2016, 4:34pm PDT in Can anyone explain this FIFA scandal to me?, CDon said:

    dublin hillz says

    Part of FIFA is the Concacaf region which covers north american, carribean and central american natiions. So, if any of the concacaf officials are implicated in the kickback/bribery scheme (and they were), the U.S would have full right to go after the violators for racketeering charges.

    Correct. Its probably no coincidence that Chuck Blazer, resident of NY and holding Concacaf and FIFA positions was one of the first arrested, and turned states witness. If we know for a fact that the cased "touched and concerned" NY for jurisdictional grounds with the rest flowing therefrom.

    Dan8267 says

    OK, so how did FIFA commit wire fraud? I don't follow the bakery example as bribing an employee of a Swiss company isn't wire fraud or any kind of fraud whatsoever.

    18 USC comes in to play if and only if they call or contact "their guy in the US" in the furtherance of the fraud as they did in my slight modification of the French Bakers hypo where they called their cousin who just happened to be in the US to get the $20 for the cake.

    Dan8267 says

    I'm not defending FIFA, but it's a bit scary that the U.S. government can simply make up any shit and arrest any person in the world for political reasons, and get away with that because of some obscure technicality.

    Noted - but it was the same line of wire fraud/ mail fraud cases that took down Chuck Ponzi, Bernie Madoff, et al. The law is what it is.

    Dan8267 says

    You'll have to explain this. I don't see the connection between FIFA doing business in the U.S. and a FIFA official taking a kickback from Qatar to license the World Cup to that country.

    If you read 18 USC, and the resulting caselaw, phone calls to and from the US gives the US the jurisdictional hook. Just as it was with the French bakers in the hypo calling the guy in NY for the $20 --- once FIFA picked up the phone in NY, flew in and out of JFK with kickback checks, deposited the funds into US bank accounts, the minimum contacts is satisfied for jurisdictional purposes, and everything else flows therefrom.

  • On Fri, 8 Apr 2016, 3:37pm PDT in Can anyone explain this FIFA scandal to me?, CDon said:

    Wire Fraud under 18 USC 1300 series et seq. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1343. The basic law (prior to, but carried over to the USC series) was upheld in Durand and has since been expanded significantly especially in the 1930s in connection with the expansive reading of Art I Sec VIII of the Constitution.

    Taking your bakery case further - assume the bakery was in France with 2 French citizens wanting the cake. If the offeror were to call his French brother who happened to be in the US and said, "hey, please send me $20 so I can bribe this guy and get the cake" you arguably have established a prima facie case under 18 USC because you utilized the US infrastructure (commerce) and get the jurisdictional hook via the minimal contacts doctrine - and then the 2 guys physically located in France via conspiracy. You can certainly argue that this is ridiculous for the US to have authority to prosecute under these circumstances, but that is against the trend under the caselaw. Ironically, the only justice to consistently argue against the expansive reading of 18 USC was Scalia who aint here no more. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/489/705/case.html#722

    In reality, the reason this case above would not be prosecuted is scarce federal resources. FBI and DOJ wont even think of pursuing a case unless the "cake" was 250K or more - anything less than that is strictly up to the civil system. I know this because I happen to have a client who had approximately 50K in losses and a perfect fact pattern for 18 USC. However, the federal prosecutors I spoke to cant divert guys from their large cases to pursue this one, and my guy cant justify hiring a trial lawyer and spending 20K in attorneys fees to pursue the 50k case. Thus for him, he wishes there were 3X more federal cops out there so he could get some justice.

home   top   share   link sharer   users   register   best comments   about   source code  

#housing   #investing   #politics   #economics   #humor  
please recommend patrick.net to your friends