Thread: "Progressive Insanity" Haunts SF

San Francisco's reputation as a "progressive" Mecca for those who have lost the ability to apply common sense to everyday situations is legendary.

It is also a shining example of the arrogant elitism that has overwhelmed the mayor, the Board of Supervisors, and most so-called "servants of the people" in this fog-infested fairyland.

Most major American cities are struggling mightily to save their municipalities from the cancer of illegal aliens by adopting new laws, ordinances, and enforcement actions to prevent invading criminals from coming in the first place, and to encourage those already there to get the hell out.

It's called responsible governance, a term rarely used when discussing elected officials in San Francisco.

Instead of working to make this once great city safe for citizens and tourists alike, this bastion of progressive insanity has gone the other way by arrogantly designating itself as a "Sanctuary City."

Irresponsible leftists in power here even went so far as to run ads to attract illegal aliens, at a cost of $80,000 in taxpayer's cash.

Progressive insanity also caused this center of commerce and sophistication to shield juvenile illegal aliens from deportation, including those guilty of felony crimes.

That bit of progressive insanity cost San Francisco millions in housing costs and air fare as The City went the extra mile to assure that dangerous felons were sent home at taxpayer expense, sans the stigma and indignity of being deported by Uncle Sam.

Sill, liberals smirked arrogantly as they recklessly squandered taxpayer money.

This, they gloated, was "progressive humanity" at it's very best.

"No human being is illegal" was adopted as the idiotic mantra of progressives urgently in need of schooling about American citizenship and the priceless value thereof.

However, arrogant smirks and silly catch phrases are starting to be in short supply these days, now that progressive insanity has lead to the murder of three American citizens by an illegal alien who should have been deported years ago.

Specifically, Tony Bologna and his sons Michael and Matthew were shot to death by Edwin Ramos who authorities say is a member of a street gang and who has been charged with three counts of murder.

Edwin Ramos has a long rap sheet, much of which was compiled before the alleged killer reached the age of 18. Because of his age, San Francisco blindly shielded Ramos from deportation, thereby setting the stage for the viscous murder of three members of the Bolgna family.

As it turns out, the unintended consequences of progressive insanity may end up costing San Francisco taxpayers many millions more.

That is because of a legal claim filed on behalf of the victims' family which contends that San Francisco's sanctuary policies played a "substantial" role in the slayings of Tony Bologna and two of his sons.

Taxpayers could be left holding the bag for even more millions if the family of Tony Bologna and his sons file a wrongful death lawsuit after the legal claim has been adjudicated.

The only possible benefit from this nightmare would be if Gavin Newsom's political aspirations were to be torched as a result of this tragic episode.

Newsom fancies himself as a contender for the California governor's mansion in 2010. With any luck, this Sanctuary City outrage will end all hopes that Newsom has for a career in politics.

Newsom is, after all, a perfect example of "Progressive Insanity," at it's very worse and most treacherous.

The mindset of San Franciscans is completely idiotic. Say anything to them about their foolishness and you get your head snapped off. The perversity of this peculiar city is legendary. I hope they pay dearly for what has happend to this family. It will just help to sink California even further into debt.

ALL sanctuary cities deplete their city and state treasuries and rob economic welfare and services from taxpaying American citizens.

Shouldn't those who shield gang members be charged with aiding and abetting in terrorist activities? What are gangs but terrorist organizations?
Is not protecting gang members from federal law a form of racketeering?

Sanctuary cities should lose all federal funding.

The Bologna family should perhaps consider suing under the RICCO Act--gangs are organized crime and San Francisco officials shielded illegal alien gang members.

In 1970, Congress passed the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1961-1968. At the time, Congress' goal was to eliminate the ill-affects of organized crime on the nation's economy. To put it bluntly, RICO was intended to destroy the Mafia.

Throughout the 1970's, RICO's intended purpose and its actual use ran parallel to each other. Seldom was RICO used outside of the context of the Mafia, and it is not an overstatement to say that civil claims under RICO were simply not brought.

In the 1980's, however, civil lawyers noticed section 1964(c) of the RICO Act, which allows civil claims to be brought by any person injured in their business or property by reason of a RICO violation. Any person who succeeded in establishing a civil RICO claim would automatically receive judgment in the amount of three times their actual damages and would be awarded their costs and attorneys' fees. The financial windfall available under RICO inspired the creativity of lawyers across the nation, and by the late 1980's, RICO was a (if not the most) commonly asserted claim in federal court. Everyone was trying to depict civil claims, such as common law fraud, product defect, and breach of contract as criminal wrongdoing, which would in turn enable the filing of a civil RICO action.

RICO's broad application was the result of Congress' inclusion of mail and wire fraud as two crimes upon which a RICO claim could be brought. Given the breadth of activities that had historically been criminally prosecuted under the mail and wire fraud statutes, it was not difficult for creative civil attorneys to depict practically any wrongdoing as mail or wire fraud.

During the 1990's, the federal courts, guided by the United States Supreme Court, engaged in a concerted effort to limit the scope of RICO in the civil context. As a result of this effort, civil litigants must jump many hurdles and avoid many pitfalls before they can expect the financial windfall available under RICO, and RICO has become one of the most complicated and unpredictable areas of the law.

Today, RICO is almost never applied to the Mafia. Instead, it is applied to individuals, businesses, political protest groups, and terrorist organizations. In short, a RICO claim can arise in almost any context.

The purpose of this website is to simplify this very complicated area of the law and to articulate and make more predictable the legal standards that govern such claims.

http://www.ricoact.com/

This morning by phone, my mother told me that Mrs. Danielle Bologna is SUING SF over the murder of her husband and sons by an ILLEGAL alien GANG member last June.