Thread: Can the government be held responsible?

What would happen if a terrorist got through our lax borders and attacked us? Can the government be held responsible? I think it is treasonous they are up there debating this issue and not doing anything to secure the borders. It is like some of them are thinking if we don’t get our guest worker program I could care less what else happens. The blood will be on their hands. God help us all!

Should be held responsible for sure. People warned them before, but, they didn't listen. Hope they listen now.

But they aren't. Could the politicians be put in jail? Could Bush be put there for dereliction of duty?

The President is in direct violation of his oath to uphold the laws of this land and to protect us. Right now, he is using border protection as leverage to gain amnesty in order to create more cheap labor for the vision that globalism represents. He is guilty of a conspiracy to do away with the middle class wage structure. As for an attack on our soil by terrorists, you're darn tootin' that he would be responsible. I will consider him personally responsible for any attack that may happen.

I think there's enough data and a precedence set now that we can sue those directly responsible for dereliction of duty and failure to uphold their oaths.

or is there a law i forgot about where we can't sue?

Thats a good question. They should be held responsible. I dont think anyone can sue the goverment. If it were that easy, a team of lawyers would jump in and stick-em to them. If there was even the smallest possibililty, I think they would jump on it.
I would help pay the retainers fee.

Originally Posted by kneemow

I think there's enough data and a precedence set now that we can sue those directly responsible for dereliction of duty and failure to uphold their oaths.

or is there a law i forgot about where we can't sue?

the citizens should be able to sue for civil RICO VIOLATIONS 18 U.S.C. § 1961 without an indictment by the grand jury. Violating oath of office -- perjury and false statements -- fraud, treason, aiding, abetting and enticing illegals to enter or remain in the United States are all criminal offenses.

The "Enterprise"

The term "enterprise," includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact, even though such association is not recognized as a legal entity.

The enterprise must exhibit three basic characteristics: (1) a common or shared purpose; (2) some continuity of structure and personnel; and (3) an ascertainable structure distinct from that necessary to conduct a pattern of racketeering activity.

A group or association of people can be an enterprise if the individuals have joined together for the purpose of engaging in a common course of conduct. Such an association of persons may be established by evidence showing an ongoing organization, formal or informal, and by evidence that the people making up the association functioned as a continuing unit.

Such an association of individuals may retain its status as an "enterprise" even though the membership of the association changes during the course of its existence. And a RICO enterprise need not be a single juridical entity; it can also be an "association-in-fact."

The FBI defines significant racketeering activities as those predicate criminal acts which are chargeable under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Statute. A conspiracy is a combination of two or more persons who act to accomplish an unlawful purpose and an act in the furtherance of a conspiracy by one is an act for which all are liable.


In United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576 (1981), the Supreme Court held that "a group of individuals associated in fact for the purpose of . . . . corruptly influencing and attempting to corruptly influence the outcome of state court proceedings" constituted a RICO enterprise. see also Ocean Energy II, Inc. v. Alexander & Alexander, Inc., 868 F.2d 740, 749 (5th Cir. 1989) ("if the individuals associate together to commit several criminal acts, their relationship gains an ongoing nature, coming within the purview of RICO").

The Fifth Circuit has held "the civil RICO statute itself does not impose much of a standing requirement upon plaintiffs in RICO actions: it merely provides that RICO plaintiffs must have been injured ‘by reason of' a predicate act or acts which constitute a violation of RICO section 1962." Whalen v. Carter, 947 F.2d 1087, 1090 (5th Cir. 1992) This requires that "there be some nexus" between the RICO violation and the subsequent injury. "a requirement that the nexus between the injury and the predicate act be ‘direct' may, at least in some circumstances, be overly restrictive." Zervas v. Faulkner, 861 F.2d 823, 833 (5th Cir. 198


The concept of proximate cause includes the elements of cause-in-fact and foreseeability. Nettles v. Griffith, 883 F. Supp. 136, 145 (E.D. Tex. 1995). "An act or omission is a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries or damages if it appears from the evidence that the injury or damage was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the act or omission." U.S. Fifth Circuit District Judges Ass'n, Pattern Jury Instructions (Civil Cases) 112 (1995); see also Ogle v. Shell Oil Co., 913 F. Supp. 490, 494 (E.D. Tex. 1995).

Cox v. Administrator U.S. Steel & Carnegie, 17 F.3d 1386, 1399 (11th Cir. 1994) (holding, in RICO case, that "a proximate cause is not, however, the same thing as a sole cause. Instead, a factor is a proximate cause if it is ‘a substantial factor in the sequence of responsible causation.'")


In Ocean Energy II, Inc. v. Alexander & Alexander, Inc., 868 F.2d 740, 749 (5th Cir. 1989) the court held "if the individuals associate together to commit several criminal acts, their relationship gains an ongoing nature, coming within the purview of RICO"; Alcorn County, Mississippi v. U.S. Interstate Supplies, 731 F.2d 1160, 1168 (5th Cir. 1984) (enterprise composed of defendant corporation, two of its salesmen, and county clerk); United States v. Elliott, 571 F.2d 880, 898 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 953 (197 (RICO reaches any group of individuals "whose association, however loose or informal, furnishes a vehicle for the commission of two or more predicate crimes."); United States v. Masters , 924 F.2d 1362, 1366 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 919 (1991) (enterprise composed of law firm, two police departments, and three criminal defendants);

Pattern of Racketeering

The Supreme Court has held that "a pattern of racketeering is established when there is proof that (1) the predicate acts are related; and (2) the acts 'amount to, or that they otherwise constitute a threat of, continuing racketeering activity.'" McDonough, 750 F. Supp. at 371 (quoting H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., 492 U.S. 229, 106 L. Ed. 2d 195, 109 S. Ct. 2893 (1989)). Therefore, a RICO plaintiff must sufficiently plead predicate acts of racketeering, that the acts are related, and that a threat of continuing racketeering activity exists.

Congress has enumerated the predicate acts which may form a basis for a RICO claim in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1). Section 1961(1) lists five different categories of criminal offenses that could potentially constitute predicate acts. Subsection (A) provides that "any act or threat" involving a variety of criminal offenses "which is chargeable" under state law may serve as a RICO predicate. 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(A) (199 (emphasis added). Subsection (B) provides that "any act which is indictable" under any of a variety of enumerated federal criminal statutes may serve as a RICO predicate. 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(B) (199.

The facts establish a relationship between the RICO violation and the Plaintiff's claims not merely a relationship between the particular predicate acts and the Plaintiff's claims. See 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c); Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corp., 503 U.S. 258, 265-66 (1992).
As the Supreme Court held the RICO proximate cause requirement is not a strict one. Rather, it reflects "common-law principles of proximate causation." 503 U.S. at 267. The doctrine is not inflexible or rigid: "At bottom, the notion of proximate cause reflects ‘ideas of what justice demands, or of what is administratively possible and convenient.'" Id. at 268 The Supreme Court held that the test requires only "some direct relation between the injury asserted and the injurious conduct alleged." Id.

In Whalen v. Carter, 947 F.2d 1087, 1090 (5th Cir. 1992), the court stated "the civil RICO statute itself does not impose much of a standing requirement upon plaintiffs in RICO actions: it merely provides that RICO plaintiffs must have been injured ‘by reason of' a predicate act or acts which constitute a violation of RICO section 1962." This standard requires simply that "there be some nexus" between the RICO violation and the subsequent injury. Id. at 1091 and "a requirement that the nexus between the injury and the predicate act be ‘direct' may, at least in some circumstances, be overly restrictive." Zervas v. Faulkner, 861 F.2d 823, 833 (5th Cir. 198; see also Ocean Energy II, Inc. v. Alexander & Alexander, Inc., 868 F.2d 740, 746 (5th Cir. 1989) (indicating that "direct" injury not necessarily required by RICO); Raybestos Prods. Co. v. Younger, 54 F.3d 1234, 1243 (7th Cir. 1995) ("How ‘direct,' of course, cannot be reduced to a single, uniformly applicable equation."). In Nettles v. Griffith, 883 F. Supp. 136, 145 (E.D. Tex. 1995) the court held "An act or omission is a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries or damages if it appears from the evidence that the injury or damage was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the act or omission." U.S. Fifth Circuit District Judges Ass'n, Pattern Jury Instructions (Civil Cases) 112 (1995); see also Ogle v. Shell Oil Co., 913 F. Supp. 490, 494 (E.D. Tex. 1995). Each of the RICO violations of the defendant, its employees and/or agents and legal county directly caused or contributed to the injury of the Plaintiff and each knew their criminal acts would.


A criminal racketeering enterprise investigation may be initiated when facts or circumstances "reasonably indicate" that two or more persons are engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity as defined in the RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. 1961(5).

mamie, thank you thank you thank you for this erudition. So? Wouldn't Bush qualify? He went on tv and demanded that a guest worker program be voted in...demanding his right to commit treason and demanding that the senate follow suit??

RR

Do we have connections with constitutional lawyers who can file legal action against Bush for failure to perform the duties for which he was hired; i.e., defend American borders. It is the demand of the people for which he represents?

The liar spends billions per week in Iraq to protect America (what a joke) but won't spend a plug nickel to build a fence around our borders. And you know, terrorists have come across that Mexican border. It is a matter of when, not if.

Originally Posted by RoadRunner

mamie, thank you thank you thank you for this erudition. So? Wouldn't Bush qualify? He went on tv and demanded that a guest worker program be voted in...demanding his right to commit treason and demanding that the senate follow suit??
RR

I would think that everyone would qualify --Kerry, Kennedy, McCain, they all make up the "criminal enterprise." And though the people couldn't get a U.S. Attorney to file criminal charges, they could file a civil suit and possibly a criminal suit too.

Originally Posted by Dianne

Do we have connections with constitutional lawyers who can file legal action against Bush for failure to perform the duties for which he was hired; i.e., defend American borders. It is the demand of the people for which he represents?

considering the 'leadership' isn't happy with Senator Jeff Sessions and he's gonna be on corporate America's list, he might be available soon -- he was a U.S. Attorney