Results 1 to 7 of 7
Like Tree8Likes
  • 4 Post By Newmexican
  • 2 Post By AirborneSapper7
  • 1 Post By AirborneSapper7
  • 1 Post By Judy


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Super Moderator Newmexican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Heart of Dixie



    'It's all part of the catch-me-if-you-can Obama presidency'

    Published: 4 hours ago

    Vice President Joseph Biden, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson and President Obama.

    NEW YORK – Following confirmation by the National Archives that President Obama did not sign an executive order to implement the immigration policy he announced to the nation, Washington-based watchdog Judicial Watch has called for an investigation into whether the White House has engaged in a criminal conspiracy to spend taxpayer funds on unauthorized purposes.

    “The fact that President Obama did not sign an executive order appears to involve a recognition by the White House that President Obama did not have the authority to make the changes in immigration law outlined in his Nov. 20 speech,” said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch.

    Fitton, in an interview with WND, argued executive orders are limited to facilitating the execution of laws, not altering or establishing law.

    “Barack Obama did not issue an executive order, because he does not have the authority to issue an executive order in this instance,” Fitton said.

    He believes White House counsel concluded Obama lacked the authority to defer prosecutions under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, DACA, program and decided to implement the policy through a memorandum issued by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson. The memo was never filed with the Federal Register for a period of public comment, as federal law requires agencies to do when making rules.

    “Jeh Johnson did the bidding of his boss, engaging in a political act, not a legal act, that involves misappropriating public funds to open offices and hire employees to implement the directives of Johnson’s memorandum,” Fitton said.

    Thursday, as WND reported, the National Archives and Records Administration, responsible for maintaining executive orders, said no executive order allowing millions of illegal immigrants to remain in the U.S. was ever signed or filed, confirming WND’s report Wednesday.

    In addition, the office of Texas Attorney General and Governor-elect Greg Abbott – who has filed a lawsuit against Obama’s immigration action – told WND it was aware there was no executive order signed by Obama implementing the actions outlined to the nation in his Nov. 20 speech.

    Obama did sign two executive orders in Las Vegas the day after his speech. One was a presidential proclamation creating a White House Task Force on New Americans and the other a presidential memorandum instructing the secretaries of State and Homeland Security to consult with various governmental and non-governmental entities to reduce costs and improve service in issuing immigrant and non-immigrant visas.

    ‘Criminal violations

    Fitton noted that according to Johnson’s memo, DHS will defer prosecution for three years and issue work authorization permits to qualified illegal immigrant parents of children who are U.S. citizens.

    “I have long maintained there are potential criminal violations of law in the federal government taking money for one purpose and spending it for another,” Fitton commented.

    He said the White House’s effort to suggest Obama had signed an executive order to implement his immigration plan had all the earmarks of a cover-up of a criminal conspiracy.

    “The federal government cannot spend money to violate immigration laws,” Fitton said, pointing to the Anti-deficiency Act, which prohibits government from creating an obligation to pay money before funds have been authorized.

    The penalties for violating that law are spelled out in 31 U.S. Code Section 1350.

    “We can look at impeachment as a broad fight between the branches of government,” Fitton said. “But when you have executive branch officials taking actions outside of the law, there ought to be criminal consequences in addition to the constitutional checks that you have with impeachment. I’m saying that these recent executive branch actions on immigration are ripe for criminal inquiry.”

    Fitton said Johnson “ought to be worried about going to jail for spending money he does not have the right to spend, including hiring employees to do things there’s no authorization for them to do, including issuing work permits to illegal immigrants.”

    “This amounts to a brazen, in-your-face action by Johnson, and it’s all part of the ‘catch me if you can’ Obama presidency. The Three-card Monte game Obama played with the executive order is the kind of thing gangsters do when they say, ‘Let’s not meet here, let’s go outside and meet.’

    “Not issuing the executive order has the appearance of fraud,” he said.

    Fitton said Obama wants to get credit for ordering the immigration reform, “but when it comes down to brass tacks, there are no fingerprints.”

    “Johnson may think issuing a DHS memo is smart, but what he’s really doing is rewriting immigration law like a commissar in the old Soviet system and trying to pass it off as nothing more than prosecutorial discretion. This is not representative government or regular agency rule-making.”

    Fitton emphasized the need for a criminal investigation.

    “If Washington is serious about the crisis the president has presented us, the Congress would be talking about criminal investigations for the executive branch spending this money without authorization,” he said.


  2. #2
    Senior Member HAPPY2BME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    I believe that John Boehner would become the 'defacto' president if BOTH Obama and Biden were impeached and forcefully removed from office. . . .
    Join our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & to secure US borders by joining our E-mail Alerts at

  3. #3
    Senior Member HAPPY2BME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    31 U.S. Code § 1350 - Criminal penalty

    Current through Pub. L. 113-185. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

    An officer or employee of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia government knowingly and willfully violating section 1341 (a) or 1342 of this title shall be fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both.

    (Pub. L. 97–258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 926.)
    Join our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & to secure US borders by joining our E-mail Alerts at

  4. #4
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    This is Money Laundering/Racketeering

    Politicians will personally benefit from this ILLEGAL Act


    Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes which they ordered others to do or assisted them, closing a perceived loophole that allowed someone who told a man to, for example, murder, to be exempt from the trial because he did not actually commit the crime personally.
    RICO was enacted by section 901(a) of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (Pub.L. 91–452, 84 Stat. 922, enacted October 15, 1970). RICO is codified as Chapter 96 of Title 18 of the United States Code, 18 U.S.C. § 1961–1968. Under the close supervision of Senator John Little McClellan, the Chairman of the Committee for which he worked, G. Robert Blakey drafted the "RICO Act," Title IX of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, signed into law by Richard M. Nixon. While its original use in the 1970s was to prosecute the Mafia as well as others who were actively engaged in organized crime, its later application has been more widespread.
    Beginning in 1972, 33 States adopted state RICO laws to be able to prosecute similar conduct.


    Under RICO, a person who has committed "at least two acts of racketeering activity" drawn from a list of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes—within a 10-year period, if such acts are related in one of four specified ways to an "enterprise," can be charged with racketeering. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity." RICO also permits a private individual harmed by the actions of such racketeers to file a civil suit; if successful, the individual can collect treble damages (damages in triple the amount of actual/compensatory damages).
    When the U.S. Attorney decides to indict someone under RICO, he or she has the option of seeking a pre-trial restraining order or injunction to temporarily seize a defendant's assets and prevent the transfer of potentially forfeitable property, as well as require the defendant to put up a performance bond. This provision was placed in the law because the owners of Mafia-related shell corporations often absconded with the assets. An injunction and/or performance bond ensures that there is something to seize in the event of a guilty verdict.
    In many cases, the threat of a RICO indictment can force defendants to plead guilty to lesser charges, in part because the seizure of assets would make it difficult to pay a defense attorney. Despite its harsh provisions, a RICO-related charge is considered easy to prove in court, as it focuses on patterns of behavior as opposed to criminal acts.[1]
    There is also a provision for private parties to sue. A "person damaged in his business or property" can sue one or more "racketeers". The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same.[2] There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise: either the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering activity into the enterprise; or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained an interest in, or control over, the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity; or the defendant(s) conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise "through" the pattern of racketeering activity; or the defendant(s) conspired to do one of the above.[3] In essence, the enterprise is either the 'prize,' 'instrument,' 'victim,' or 'perpetrator' of the racketeers.[4] A civil RICO action can be filed in state or federal court.[5]
    Both the federal and civil components allow the recovery of treble damages.
    Although its primary intent was to deal with organized crime, Blakey said that Congress never intended it to merely apply to the Mob. He once told Time, "We don't want one set of rules for people whose collars are blue or whose names end in vowels, and another set for those whose collars are white and have Ivy League diplomas."[1]
    Last edited by AirborneSapper7; 12-06-2014 at 01:22 AM.
    HAPPY2BME and Judy like this.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  5. #5
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Federal crime in the United States

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Jump to: navigation, search

    Federal Bureau of Investigation Seal. The FBI is the main agency responsible for investigating and prosecuting federal offences.

    In the United States, a federal crime or federal offense is an act that is made illegal by U.S. federal legislation. In the United States, criminal law and prosecution happen at both the federal and the state levels; thus a “federal crime” is one that is prosecuted under federal criminal law, and not under a state's criminal law, under which most of the crimes committed in the United States are prosecuted.
    This includes many acts that, if they did not occur on U.S. federal property or on Indian reservations or were not specifically penalized, would otherwise not be crimes or fall under state or local law. Some crimes are listed in Title 18 of the United States Code (the federal criminal and penal code), but others fall under other titles; for instance, tax evasion and possession of weapons banned by the National Firearms Act are criminalized in Title 26 of the United States Code.
    The Canadian Constitution Act, 1867 grants that country's Parliament the exclusive power to legislate criminal laws (see also Criminal Code of Canada). This includes many acts (such as vehicular homicide and rape) that, if they did not cross US state or territory lines, would otherwise be prosecuted, in the US, at the state or local level.
    Numerous federal agencies have been granted powers to investigate federal offenses to include, but not limited to, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Drug Enforcement Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Internal Revenue Service, and the Secret Service.
    Mail fraud which crosses state lines or involves the (national) United States Postal Service is a federal offense. An equivalent offence, under Canadian criminal law, is theft from mail[1] (section 356 of the country's Criminal Code).
    Other federal crimes include aircraft hijacking, kidnapping, bank robbery, child pornography, tax evasion, counterfeiting, art theft from a museum,[2] damaging or destroying public mailboxes, immigration offenses, and since 1965, assassinating the President or Vice President, although these were not made federal crimes until after President John F. Kennedy's assassination.[3]
    In drug-related federal offenses mandatory minimums can be enforced. A mandatory minimum is a federally regulated minimum sentence for offenses of certain drugs.
    Prosecution guidelines are established by the United States Attorney in each federal judicial district and by laws that Congress has already established.
    Judy likes this.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  6. #6
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    That's correct, assuming he's Speaker of the House at the time.
    HAPPY2BME likes this.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at

  7. #7
    Super Moderator Newmexican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Heart of Dixie
    The Department of Justice would have to bring the RICO charges.

    Read about the new hires in the Department of Justice since Holder was confirmed. This is just one part

    Links to the entire expose is here - this is a massive amouunt of info

    “I know a case of almost 300 non-citizens who were registering and voting in Virginia. That information was sent to the Holder Justice Department, which refused to do anything about it, despite the fact that it’s a federal felony to engage in that type of behavior,” he said.

    In addition to picking and choosing which cases to take up, the authors allege Holder is also fostering a hostile atmosphere within the civil rights division toward anyone not marching in lockstep with his political agenda. They say it’s an accusation the inspector general documented in his report.

    “It documents the extensive bullying and intimidation of anyone perceived to be a conservative. This is done by other liberal, career lawyers and it has been approved of by the Obama political appointees who refuse to do anything about it,” said von Spakovsky.

    Part of the problem, he said, is the track record of Holder packing the Justice Department with political allies as quickly as possible.

    “This administration has bent and broken federal rules on hiring to put political cronies of the president and his party into career positions as well as hiring almost exclusively from liberal advocacy organizations,” said von Spakovsky, who added that clearing out the bullies and the political operatives from these key positions is much harder to do than most people realize.

    “The rules governing career positions are extremely strict, and firing someone is very, very difficult. This administration has shown it has no interest in firing or disciplining liberal career folks who engage in this kind of behavior. One particular employee who is still in the civil rights division actually committed perjury by lying to the inspector general’s investigators when they were looking at the problems in the civil rights division. She was neither disciplined nor terminated for committing perjury. In fact, she was treated as a hero by the Obama folks who were there,” said von Spakovsky.

    Fund and von Spakovsky say Holder’s approach to racial issues also extends to mass fraud and fleecing American taxpayers to further an agenda, seen most clearly in the Pigford case, they say.
    Read the article at.:

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-24-2014, 10:45 PM
  2. Nutter’s executive order on ICE detainers will put more violent criminal aliens on
    By JohnDoe2 in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-19-2014, 01:12 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-21-2013, 07:03 PM
  4. Executive Order: Further Amending Executive Order 13381
    By Dixie in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-30-2007, 02:28 PM
  5. Still Believe the New World Order Is Just A Conspiracy
    By ruthiela in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-06-2006, 03:11 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts