You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

Factfinder2 ago

This is wonderful news!


Here is the D.C. Suit: PDF https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/tribdem.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/5/47/547fa2d4-e7b5-11e8-8acc-aba3ca0fa959/5beb8928f2054.pdf.pdf

And here is what can legally constitute a RICO violation (racketeering activity): https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title18/html/USCODE-2010-title18-partI-chap96-sec1961.htm


In addition to the counts already filed, I believe a case could be made for a RICO violation of 18 USC 1957 (relating to engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity) based on the following premises:

1) Perpetrators of child sexual abuse were moved to other locations and their crimes kept quiet in part and primarily to protect the church's reputation for monetary reasons.

2) Disclosure of these crimes would have been considered likely to result in financial harm to the church by various means, including, and of particular interest here, by a decrease in donations and other income to the church.

3) Thus a primary motive for relocating the perpetrators and remaining silent about their crimes was monetary, including to protect the church's income stream.

4) All donations and other income received after the planning and execution of such a criminal cover-up operation should thus be considered "property derived from specified unlawful activity" per 18 USC 1957.

Of note: 1957(c) "In a prosecution for an offense under this section, the Government is not required to prove the defendant knew that the offense from which the criminally derived property was derived was specified unlawful activity."

This I realize could be a difficult float in uncharted waters, but I believe it can succeed with creative argument. I hope the Feds will also pursue this line of reasoning in a criminal case.

carmencita ago

Unchartered waters is right. I don't think this is a first. I may be mistaken, but did they not do this to the LDS? Did you notice my comment regarding DC AG Karl Racine? Put in office by Obama and B Clinton. This is my worry. I am hoping that finally something will befall those high level Lavender Mafia perverts.

Factfinder2 ago

Karl Racine is no doubt bad news but wouldn't affect this civil suit. He could make it hard for the Feds if they want to investigate DC crimes, but I don't think an overarching Federal RICO case against the church would be hindered by a local AG. We'll see.

If you mean this LDS RICO case, it seems to have been against individuals, not the church, and not using the 18 USC section 1957 charge that I'm suggesting.

carmencita ago

I am resting a little easier, thank you. I still don't trust them but we should all be watching this case closely. We have all waited so long for a day like this. A good day for All Victims.

Angelis_Solaris ago

By the way, I was born into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that's the mainstream one. I'm still technically a member, but I don't go to church or anything. I haven't seen evidence of a church conspiracy or anything like that, but regardless, I love listening to Walter Veith's lectures. Some of his lectures contain misunderstandings about the LDS church's beliefs, although they raise an important point about freemasonry and temple rituals. The temple rituals were initially based on freemasonry rituals which is really concerning. Despite that, the Book of Mormon is the "anti-masonic Bible," I've read it and it is very much an accurate description. It is pro-Jesus Christ and anti-secret societies. So I'm not sure about it all. I'm still learning