Slashdot Mirror

If you're up against an eight-figure legal team,

You have really, really funny ideas about how much folks at the US Attorneys Office make: https://www.justice.gov/usao/career-center/salary-information/administratively-determined-pay-plan-charts. There are IT geeks making more than USAO lawyers. You don't become a prosecutor for the pay, you do it for padding the resume, or you actually have a genuine interest in seeing justice being served.

As a private individual its not impossible at all to come up with a far better qualified legal team than what the comes out of the US Attorneys office. Especially for a high profile case like Julian Assange's. You'll have lawyers climbing all over themselves to represent you pro-bono.

I wouldn't be announcing my loyalty to our cancerous justice trainwreck.

For certain the legal system in the US is not faultless. Never remotely claimed it was. However its not the rubber stamp legal system that you seem to think it is either. I generally like to believe that judges do exercise independence from the the executive branch. There is a reason why the US Supreme Court is appointed for life, so its not vulnerable to the whims of the current executive and legislator.

Is it perfect, not at all. If our legal system was perfect, we wouldn't need judges or juries.

I don't care where Assange ends

Personally, I hope he ends up back on the street, to be the windbag he's entitled to be, after he's had his day in court.

It does look a bit odd that after that, once the U.S. decides it wants to 'talk with him', suddenly the dead accusation comes back to life and requires extradition.

The court document were filed in secret March 6th 2018 and unsealed on the same day of the arrest according to the press release from the DOJ which also has a link to the seven page charge sheet at the end of the release (which doesn't allow a direct link).

Accordingly Assange has been charged:

18 U.S. Code 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

18 U.S. Code 1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers sections (a)(1), (a)(2), (c)(2)(B)(ii).

Maximum penalty 5 years jail so I would suspect that they will press further charges later.

The BBC and other sources are saying that Assange is being charged and that he is facing extradition to the US. From the Justice Department:
WikiLeaks Founder Charged in Computer Hacking Conspiracy
From the BBC:
Julian Assange: Wikileaks co-founder arrested in London
Both the Clinton's and Obummer really want his ass since WikiLeaks showed what kind of ass clowns they all were.

But here, he's an Australian citizen being extradited for so far unspecified crimes committed against a country he apparently wasn't in and isn't a citizen of.

The indictment's unsealed. The crimes are very clearly specified. Despite what Hollywood would have you believe about jurisdiction, it's not so much a question of physical location, but whose rules apply in the pursuit of justice.

Imagine if the US turned over to China everybody who spoke ill of the Chinese government, or shipped off to North Korea the people who released documents that North Korea deemed offensive.

Well, that's certainly possible. China or North Korea could request extradition (even without a treaty, though that helps), and for whatever reason, we could agree. In almost all cases (including this one), the alleged crime must be a crime in both jurisdictions, and the country that would release the accused would need to be convinced that their suitable due process would be adequately followed. That's why several countries will not extradite to the US for anything where the death penalty is an option if their own laws wouldn't allow it, and it's also why the US won't usually extradite to places it sees as having corrupt courts.

Again, the extradition is really just changing whose rules are followed during the trial. Extradition does not change the facts of a case, including what was or wasn't legal at the time the alleged crime was committed.

Yes, this technically means you're subject to the laws of every country at all times. If a German citizen is in Germany speaking ill of the Chinese government, then visits China tomorrow, they could be prosecuted there for their crimes. If they get arrested in Germany before getting to China, China could request extradition.

From what I've read, his only ties to the US are that he offended politicians there, and published documents the government (which was a foreign government for him) didn't want published.

He also (allegedly, with enough evidence for an indictment) committed a crime against the American owners of a computer system.

They do like to wrap it in official stamps though:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-e...

Here's the statement from the US DoJ. "Conspiracy to commit computer intrusion for agreeing to break a password to a classified U.S. government computer" (SIPRNet) and a bit about helping/encouraging Manning to undertake the same, apparently. The usual boilerplate about "innocent until proven guilty" is in there, of course, but also the maximum sentence they are pushing for, which seems like a rather light five years before any time off for good behaviour and other considerations.

That's not to say they won't add extra charges (or arrange an "accident", if that's your view) between now and any potential trial, but that's still considerably less than I would have expected as a starting point given all the FUD from Assange and his supporters, especially given the charges and potential sentences in prior hacking cases like Gary McKinnon and Lauri Love, or the on-going case of Marcus Hutchins. Conspiring rather than actually doing makes quite a difference, it seems.

It's all about keeping customers from looking elsewhere. In the 60's, when antit-trust law meant something, the US government took IBM to court over the same type of anti-competitive practices and won.

The Government further averred that IBM predatorily priced and preannounced
                specific hardware that the Government termed "fighting machines." (Id. at 12-14.) IBM
                allegedly introduced certain products "knowing [the products] had unusually low profit
                expectations." (Id. 1 at 12 .) Allegedly, IBM "developed and announced" the specified
                hardware products "primarily for the purpose or with the effect of discouraging actual and
                potential customers from acquiring . . . [competing products] . . . in markets . . . where IBM's
                monopoly position had eroded or threatened to erode." (Id. 3 at 12.) Also, in an effort to deter
                entry and injure competition, IBM allegedly "announced future production and marketing [of
                certain products] when it believed or had reason to believe that it was unlikely to be able to
                produce and market such products within the announced time frame . . . ." (Id. 5 at 13.)
                Additionally, the Government alleged that IBM was engaged in various below cost and
                discriminatory discount conduct in marketing its products to educational and scientific
                institutions (Id. at 14-16) in order to injure peripheral manufacturers and leasing companies. (Id.
                at 16-19.)

(emphasis mine)

We need better antitrust laws again.

Bingo: according to another article, he was convicted of possession of an unregistered SBR...

https://www.justice.gov/usao-n...

I think the Bushes are despicable, but "Operation Fast and Furious" was not a Bush admin activity.

Fast and Furious was one of the operations under Project Gunrunner. Fast and Furious was another "gunwalking" operation under that program. The first one was Operation Wide Receiver, which was in 2006.

While Fast and Furious started in 2009, it was a continuation of an existing program. The new name was applied because of the new targets.

bringing up an earlier Bush admin program (called "Operation Wide Reciever") that was NEARLY as stupid but not as illegal and deadly.

Remember the bit I said about the DEA agent who broke the rules of the program? That is what you are describing here.

Under the Bush program, the guns were tagged and tracked and the Mexican government was "in the loop" rather than being victimized by it.

Remember the bit I said about the DEA agent who broke the rules of the program? That is what you are describing here.

Under the Obama program, the guns were not tagged and not tracked and the Mexican government was not aware of the program

Remember the bit I said about the DEA agent who broke the rules of the program? That is what you are describing here.

(a criminal offense normally leading to jail time, but Holder was not about to prosecute himself of course so he got away with the crime)

Contempt of Congress can be prosecuted by Congress. Golly, wonder why they didn't if it was actually as clear as you describe......

Incidentally, this is where Trump got the idea that his Attorney general should be his "wingman".

So there was this President named Kennedy.......

Except drugs are not an entirely victimless crime.

Also, see Rationalization #8, The Trivial Trap (scroll about 10% of the way down, regretfully that page has no direct links to particular paragraphs).

One limitation of Presidential pardon powers is that they can't pardon state crimes, only federal crimes. If Trump was tried and found guilty in a state court Pence could not pardon him.

Not saying anything on the chances of this actually happening...

obligatory references https://www.justice.gov/atr/us... and https://money.cnn.com/2002/01/...

The indictment alleges conspiracy to steal secrets. Which is slightly different than actually having stolen secrets. Thus the company needs to actually dispute this by saying "we didn't plan to steal secrets" or "the stolen secrets we received were not known to be stolen by us". Simply saying they didn't steal the secrets isn't a denial.

the path here is indirect and while showing the pattern of a conspiracy has many layers of companies fronting this operation. It's not entirely unlike how Uber ended up with Waymo desgins

from the primary source: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr...

According to the indictment, the defendants were engaged in a conspiracy to steal the trade secrets of Micron Technology, Inc. (Micron), a leader in the global semiconductor industry specializing in the advanced research, development, and manufacturing of memory products, including dynamic random-access memory (DRAM). DRAM is a leading-edge memory storage device used in computer electronics. Micron is the only United States-based company that manufactures DRAM. According to the indictment, Micron maintains a significant competitive advantage in this field due in large part from its intellectual property, including its trade secrets that include detailed, confidential information pertaining to the design, development, and manufacturing of advanced DRAM products.

Prior to the events described in the indictment, the PRC did not possess DRAM technology, and the Central Government and State Council of the PRC publicly identified the development of DRAM and other microelectronics technology as a national economic priority. The criminal defendants are United Microelectronics Corporation (“UMC”), a Taiwan semiconductor foundry; Fujian Jinhua Integrated Circuit, Co., Ltd. (“Jinhua'”), a state-owned enterprise of the PRC; and three Taiwan nationals: Chen Zhengkun, a.k.a. Stephen Chen, age 55; He Jianting, a.k.a. J.T. Ho, age 42; and Wang Yungming, a.k.a. Kenny Wang, age 44. UMC is a publicly listed semiconductor foundry company traded on the New York Stock Exchange; is headquartered in Taiwan; and has offices worldwide, including in Sunnyvale, California. UMC mass produces integrated-circuit logic products based on designs and technology developed and provided by its customers. Jinhua is a state-owned enterprise of the PRC, funded entirely by the Chinese government, and established in February 2016 for the sole purpose of designing, developing, and manufacturing DRAM.

According to the indictment, Chen was a General Manager and Chairman of an electronics corporation that Micron acquired in 2013. Chen then became the president of a Micron subsidiary in Taiwan, Micron Memory Taiwan (“MMT”), responsible for manufacturing at least one of Micron’s DRAM chips. Chen resigned from MMT in July 2015 and began working at UMC almost immediately. While at UMC, Chen arranged a cooperation agreement between UMC and Fujian Jinhua whereby, with funding from Fujian Jinhua, UMC would transfer DRAM technology to Fujian Jinhua to mass-produce. The technology would be jointly shared by both UMC and Fujian Jinhua. Chen later became the President of Jinhua and was put in charge of its DRAM production facility.

While at UMC, Chen recruited numerous MMT employees, including Ho and Wang, to join him at UMC. Prior to leaving MMT, Ho and Wang both stole and brought to UMC several Micron trade secrets related to the design and manufacture of DRAM. Wang downloaded over 900 Micron confidential and proprietary files before he left MMT and stored them on USB external hard drives or in personal cloud storage, from where he could access the technology while working at UMC.

The only thing that can be construed as bad is any of this is accessing files from your previous company after you have left the

The indictment alleges conspiracy to steal secrets. Which is slightly different than actually having stolen secrets. Thus the company needs to actually dispute this by saying "we didn't plan to steal secrets" or "the stolen secrets we received were not known to be stolen by us". Simply saying they didn't steal the secrets isn't a denial.

the path here is indirect and while showing the pattern of a conspiracy has many layers of companies fronting this operation. It's not entirely unlike how Uber ended up with Waymo desgins

from the primary source: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr...

According to the indictment, the defendants were engaged in a conspiracy to steal the trade secrets of Micron Technology, Inc. (Micron), a leader in the global semiconductor industry specializing in the advanced research, development, and manufacturing of memory products, including dynamic random-access memory (DRAM). DRAM is a leading-edge memory storage device used in computer electronics. Micron is the only United States-based company that manufactures DRAM. According to the indictment, Micron maintains a significant competitive advantage in this field due in large part from its intellectual property, including its trade secrets that include detailed, confidential information pertaining to the design, development, and manufacturing of advanced DRAM products.

Prior to the events described in the indictment, the PRC did not possess DRAM technology, and the Central Government and State Council of the PRC publicly identified the development of DRAM and other microelectronics technology as a national economic priority. The criminal defendants are United Microelectronics Corporation (“UMC”), a Taiwan semiconductor foundry; Fujian Jinhua Integrated Circuit, Co., Ltd. (“Jinhua'”), a state-owned enterprise of the PRC; and three Taiwan nationals: Chen Zhengkun, a.k.a. Stephen Chen, age 55; He Jianting, a.k.a. J.T. Ho, age 42; and Wang Yungming, a.k.a. Kenny Wang, age 44. UMC is a publicly listed semiconductor foundry company traded on the New York Stock Exchange; is headquartered in Taiwan; and has offices worldwide, including in Sunnyvale, California. UMC mass produces integrated-circuit logic products based on designs and technology developed and provided by its customers. Jinhua is a state-owned enterprise of the PRC, funded entirely by the Chinese government, and established in February 2016 for the sole purpose of designing, developing, and manufacturing DRAM.

According to the indictment, Chen was a General Manager and Chairman of an electronics corporation that Micron acquired in 2013. Chen then became the president of a Micron subsidiary in Taiwan, Micron Memory Taiwan (“MMT”), responsible for manufacturing at least one of Micron’s DRAM chips. Chen resigned from MMT in July 2015 and began working at UMC almost immediately. While at UMC, Chen arranged a cooperation agreement between UMC and Fujian Jinhua whereby, with funding from Fujian Jinhua, UMC would transfer DRAM technology to Fujian Jinhua to mass-produce. The technology would be jointly shared by both UMC and Fujian Jinhua. Chen later became the President of Jinhua and was put in charge of its DRAM production facility.

While at UMC, Chen recruited numerous MMT employees, including Ho and Wang, to join him at UMC. Prior to leaving MMT, Ho and Wang both stole and brought to UMC several Micron trade secrets related to the design and manufacture of DRAM. Wang downloaded over 900 Micron confidential and proprietary files before he left MMT and stored them on USB external hard drives or in personal cloud storage, from where he could access the technology while working at UMC.

This latest charge of a Russian "agent" charges a woman with "conspiracy to defraud the United States" - which isn't actually a crime.

Good one, Ivan!

923. 18 U.S.C. 371â"CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES
The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. 371, creates an offense "[i]f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose.

https://www.justice.gov/jm/cri...

>Judging from TFS, he was just the cyber equivalent of a peeping tom.

Hardly.

2. During his more than thirteen years of accessing protected computers without the appropriate authorizations,
Defendant accessed protected computers owned by local, state and federal governments, a police department, schools, companies and individuals.
3. Defendant developed computer malware later named "Fruitfly" and wrote variants capable of infecting computers running macOS and Windows operating systems.
4. Defendant installed the Fruitfly malware on thousands of computers ("Fruitfly
victims").
5. The Fruitfly malware gave Defendant the ability to control a Fruitfly victim's computer by, among other things, accessing stored data, uploading files to a Fruitfly victim's computer, taking and downloading screenshots, logging a user's keystrokes and turning on the camera and microphone to surreptitiously record images and audio recordings.

Read the rest of the indictment here: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1024116/download

I don't know what the guy's job is now, but after he gets out of prison I'm thinking the CIA may want to hire him.

Err.. You do realize the difference between a website and an operating system... right? You're free to use whatever search engine you want.. and google can say whatever they want. Most users don't have an operating system choice.

There have already been (won) anti-trust lawsuits against Microsoft for this exact behavior.

https://www.justice.gov/atr/ca...

First, you're likely the same sad AC attempting to appear more authoritative by making another comment pretending to be a third party. Keep in mind, if you were, it would look exactly like that post. As such, I have to assume you're probably the same sad fellow.

Second, I did actually validate my position. If you look at the thread, I've posted links that support my position. But just because I don't mind beating dead horse arguments in the street to prove you have no case:
Look at the cited Pew study... that's the supreme court.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/o...
Double voting in kansas:
https://www.denverpost.com/201...
Voter fraud:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-w...
Ice catching some non-citizens illegally voting:
https://www.ice.gov/news/relea...

So... no.

Third, my insults actually come AFTER and indifferent to my arguments. Many people don't seem to know what an Ad Hominem is in the first place. An ad hominem is not me saying 1+1=2 because logic... and you're an idiot. An Ad hominem is me saying "1+1=2" BECAUSE you're an idiot.

My arguments in this discussion are not reliant on my insults. My insults are secondary observations of another's character.

Her trial is scheduled to start later this year.

https://www.justice.gov/file/1072521/download

liar liar.

To prove you're a liar again on top of the lie just there...

Let us say we didn't do an ID at all but merely cross referenced the citizenship database with the voter registration database?

because we don't do that.

can we do that?

It would not require US citizens to do anything. The two databases would just be be compared.

I suspect that is also voter suppression, right... Liar?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/o...

Supreme court cites a pew study you would look at in that PDF if you have integrity... you don't so... meh.

https://www.denverpost.com/201...

Evidence of double voting.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-w...

Department of justice catching non-citizens voting some how even though you say that's impossible... because you're a lying retard.

https://www.ice.gov/news/relea...

Ice nabbing non-citizens voting.

I'm sorry, your tired stupid talking points fool only the fools. Peddle your sad lies elsewhere.

I'm not entirely sure the courts should care

Well, the courts *should* care, but this situation is so fucked up and illegal it's mind boggling they don't.

Take-two has committed a felony here, specifically the crime of "copyright misuse"
Take-two has violated copyright law and the rights of thousands of people that bought their client software (GTA5)

Look up title 17 (copyright law) section 1854 "Copyright Infringement - First Sale Doctrine"
https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1854-copyright-infringement-first-sale-doctrine

Right in paragraph 2, take-two has NO rights to control the specific instance of a copy once it is sold.

You are allowed to modify your own one single copy.
You are not allowed to make an additional copy of it, neither exactly as-is or modified, and distribute an additional copy, but that original first copy you can do anything you like with.
(So yes you CAN "distribute" that one copy so long as it's the copy in full, as in you don't retain a a copy of it. If it goes, you can't have it any longer)

This is a right granted by law to everyone upon purchasing a legal copy (it doesn't apply to a pirated copy, it must be legit)
Take-two is infringing on all of these peoples rights. They are also claiming rights they explicitly do not have.

Worse, this one person is not distributing any code made by take-two.
He isn't including parts of the game with his software (Or at least that is both what the man claims, and is also not what take-two is claiming happened, I don't know this for certain personally. But if take-two isn't claiming that happened then until they do why should we care?)

So they are infringing his own rights of distribution of his own copyrighted work, a right granted to this man by law.

The court should care about all of the copyright violations and copyright misuse that take-two is doing here.
They need some punishment for their crimes, but instead the victim who's rights are violated gets punished. Figures.

So far there have been two indictments of American citizens for "Conspiracy against the United States": Paul Manafort and Rick Gates. Gates struck a deal in which he pled guilty, and he's now a cooperating witness.

You're talking about this indictment for Paul Manafort and Richard Gates?

Conspiracy Against the United States is a specific crime under 18 U.S.C. 371. None of these indictments were under that code. The were indicted for Bank Fraud Conspiracy which falls under 18 U.S.C. 1349 and 3551.

How many of them are about Russian collusion?

Name one.

Really? You only want one? Well, George Papadopoulos is a real good example of one. Indictment states he worked for the campaign and colluded with the Russian government.

And of course in case you missed it, he pleaded guilty to the charges.

Compared to any other investigation relating to a sitting POTUS, this investigation is moving at the speed of light.

While your statement is factually correct the narrative to which the submitter is reference is the "Trump-Russia Collusion" narrative. People want it to be true to get rid of Trump. These are all publicly available in indictments.

Papadopoulos - Perjury

His perjury was about a meeting on Clinton's emails that he had with a man whom he knew to be connected to the Russian government.

Flynn - Perjury

Perjury about his phone conversations with the Russian ambassador.

Manafort & Gates - Falsified income tax filings and bank fraud.

Hiding income that they got working for a Russia-backed politician in Ukraine and other Russian interests.

Only Pinedo, has anything to do with Russian involvement and that has to do with him selling some of the fraud services to the Russians. Pinedo wasn't involved with Trump's campaign. Each of the indictments of individuals associated with the Trump campaign have nothing to do with the operations of the Trump campaign or even involve the Russians.

It's surprising that you went to the trouble to link to the indictments that actually contradict your claims.

I mean Papadopoulous, while on the campaign, met with a Russian connected individual to get information on emails that would damage Clinton.

What possible definition of "with the operations of the Trump campaign or even involve the Russians" does that not satisfy?

While your statement is factually correct the narrative to which the submitter is reference is the "Trump-Russia Collusion" narrative. People want it to be true to get rid of Trump. These are all publicly available in indictments.

Papadopoulos - Perjury

His perjury was about a meeting on Clinton's emails that he had with a man whom he knew to be connected to the Russian government.

Flynn - Perjury

Perjury about his phone conversations with the Russian ambassador.

Manafort & Gates - Falsified income tax filings and bank fraud.

Hiding income that they got working for a Russia-backed politician in Ukraine and other Russian interests.

Only Pinedo, has anything to do with Russian involvement and that has to do with him selling some of the fraud services to the Russians. Pinedo wasn't involved with Trump's campaign. Each of the indictments of individuals associated with the Trump campaign have nothing to do with the operations of the Trump campaign or even involve the Russians.

It's surprising that you went to the trouble to link to the indictments that actually contradict your claims.

I mean Papadopoulous, while on the campaign, met with a Russian connected individual to get information on emails that would damage Clinton.

What possible definition of "with the operations of the Trump campaign or even involve the Russians" does that not satisfy?

While your statement is factually correct the narrative to which the submitter is reference is the "Trump-Russia Collusion" narrative. People want it to be true to get rid of Trump. These are all publicly available in indictments.

Papadopoulos - Perjury

His perjury was about a meeting on Clinton's emails that he had with a man whom he knew to be connected to the Russian government.

Flynn - Perjury

Perjury about his phone conversations with the Russian ambassador.

Manafort & Gates - Falsified income tax filings and bank fraud.

Hiding income that they got working for a Russia-backed politician in Ukraine and other Russian interests.

Only Pinedo, has anything to do with Russian involvement and that has to do with him selling some of the fraud services to the Russians. Pinedo wasn't involved with Trump's campaign. Each of the indictments of individuals associated with the Trump campaign have nothing to do with the operations of the Trump campaign or even involve the Russians.

It's surprising that you went to the trouble to link to the indictments that actually contradict your claims.

I mean Papadopoulous, while on the campaign, met with a Russian connected individual to get information on emails that would damage Clinton.

What possible definition of "with the operations of the Trump campaign or even involve the Russians" does that not satisfy?

My apologies. I erred when crafting that sentence. I made the assumption that the sentence would be interpreted in the context of the Russian collusion narrative, which is that Trump owes his Presidency to the Russians.

Papadopolous's indictment features a number of false statements regarding attempting to reach out to Russian contacts. The indictment contains no evidence of Papadopolous's statements being much more than an indication that he attempted to arrange a meeting between Trump and the Russian government as well as obtain the alleged hacked Clinton emails. If anything, the indictment goes to prove just how little Papadopolous managed to accomplish. In the end he never got the emails and there was no meeting arranged between the Russians and Trump or his campaign.

Flynn, which I had accidently posted Manafort's indictment also spoke with Russians. Flynn did contact with Russians but contact was also tangential to the collusion narrative. The indictments don't contain specifics but Flynn may have done no more than communicated the preferences of the Trump Presidential Transition Team to the Russians or other nations and encourage them to keep in mind the incoming administration when voting on a UN resolution. Flynn's perjury charges almost certain arose out of a desire to avoid any potential Logan Act prosecution, something that would be a very interesting case to watch come through the pipes with regard to the authority that will be assumed and has been preemptived bestowed on the President-elect via an election.

While your statement is factually correct the narrative to which the submitter is reference is the "Trump-Russia Collusion" narrative. People want it to be true to get rid of Trump. These are all publicly available in indictments.

Papadopoulos - Perjury
Flynn - Perjury
Manafort & Gates - Falsified income tax filings and bank fraud.
Pinedo - Identity Fraud
van der Zwaan - Perjury

Only Pinedo, has anything to do with Russian involvement and that has to do with him selling some of the fraud services to the Russians. Pinedo wasn't involved with Trump's campaign. Each of the indictments of individuals associated with the Trump campaign have nothing to do with the operations of the Trump campaign or even involve the Russians.

While your statement is factually correct the narrative to which the submitter is reference is the "Trump-Russia Collusion" narrative. People want it to be true to get rid of Trump. These are all publicly available in indictments.

Papadopoulos - Perjury
Flynn - Perjury
Manafort & Gates - Falsified income tax filings and bank fraud.
Pinedo - Identity Fraud
van der Zwaan - Perjury

Only Pinedo, has anything to do with Russian involvement and that has to do with him selling some of the fraud services to the Russians. Pinedo wasn't involved with Trump's campaign. Each of the indictments of individuals associated with the Trump campaign have nothing to do with the operations of the Trump campaign or even involve the Russians.

While your statement is factually correct the narrative to which the submitter is reference is the "Trump-Russia Collusion" narrative. People want it to be true to get rid of Trump. These are all publicly available in indictments.

Papadopoulos - Perjury
Flynn - Perjury
Manafort & Gates - Falsified income tax filings and bank fraud.
Pinedo - Identity Fraud
van der Zwaan - Perjury

Only Pinedo, has anything to do with Russian involvement and that has to do with him selling some of the fraud services to the Russians. Pinedo wasn't involved with Trump's campaign. Each of the indictments of individuals associated with the Trump campaign have nothing to do with the operations of the Trump campaign or even involve the Russians.

While your statement is factually correct the narrative to which the submitter is reference is the "Trump-Russia Collusion" narrative. People want it to be true to get rid of Trump. These are all publicly available in indictments.

Papadopoulos - Perjury
Flynn - Perjury
Manafort & Gates - Falsified income tax filings and bank fraud.
Pinedo - Identity Fraud
van der Zwaan - Perjury

Only Pinedo, has anything to do with Russian involvement and that has to do with him selling some of the fraud services to the Russians. Pinedo wasn't involved with Trump's campaign. Each of the indictments of individuals associated with the Trump campaign have nothing to do with the operations of the Trump campaign or even involve the Russians.

While your statement is factually correct the narrative to which the submitter is reference is the "Trump-Russia Collusion" narrative. People want it to be true to get rid of Trump. These are all publicly available in indictments.

Papadopoulos - Perjury
Flynn - Perjury
Manafort & Gates - Falsified income tax filings and bank fraud.
Pinedo - Identity Fraud
van der Zwaan - Perjury

Only Pinedo, has anything to do with Russian involvement and that has to do with him selling some of the fraud services to the Russians. Pinedo wasn't involved with Trump's campaign. Each of the indictments of individuals associated with the Trump campaign have nothing to do with the operations of the Trump campaign or even involve the Russians.

"Just google the it"??? Why should we listen to a half-literate Slashdot poster writing insults when we have source material to read?

Unlike you, Zero Hedge helpfully links to the original indictment.

>"It is also legal to possess a firearm you make yourself, to carry a firearm you make yourself, to use a firearm you make yourself. "

Not if you are a felon or fall under other laws that prevent you from possessing or carrying a firearm. That was my point. It is not the act of MAKING it that might be illegal, but HAVING it might be, depending on who and where you are.

Here is just Federal: https://www.justice.gov/sites/... (section 1)

Once he's in a US court, he will DEFINITELY stand on trial both for the fraud AND for the copyright charges. Why wouldn't they?

Because doing so requires prosecutors to obtain special permission from New Zealand in order to do so. If they decided to charge and prosecute Kim Dotcom for the copyright charges without seeking the permission from New Zealand then it would be in violation of extradition treaties which would make other states question whether to extradite individuals in other cases.

https://www.justice.gov/usam/u...

I agree the FCC does an important job of keeping the bands organised. To anyone who says they don't serve a purpose I'd like to image a world where your favorite TV, radio, or WIFI devise needs to be tuned across the entire spectrum in order to find clear channels. actually TV is so wide bandwidth it probably never would have taken off without the FCC.

However, I wouldn't say they prevent fake distress calls. If anything one could say they facilitate them in the same way the phone company facilitates fake 911 calls, by making it easier to make distress calls. As the crime they are going to be charged with is more likely to fall under fraud/obstruction/wreckless endangerment than operating outside of approved band/power. That would be a crime even if there was no FCC, though I'm sure the FCC helps with the investigation if able. Unless these were some sort of noise misinterpreted as distress calls, in which case I'm going to request citation as it sounds interesting and I can't find it online.

Recent examples:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-e...
https://detroit.cbslocal.com/2...

Allowing Law Enforcement to be a revenue stream - especially when the revenue stream funds the agency doing the enforcement incentivizes bad behavior on the part of law enforcement (regardless of political leanings) .Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division.

It was a 9mm, not exactly small caliber.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndia/pr/cedar-rapids-felon-sentenced-twenty-years-federal-prison-after-attempting-extort/

All the juicy details are in the indictment.

Have you never seen the FBI Warning at the beginning of every DVD or VHS? The FBI is part of DOJ.

  There are both civil and criminal copyright statues, very much like you can sue someone for taking your money in order to try to get some of it back, and the government can prosecute theft criminally. Just this week in the news a major star was suing their manager for allegedly stealing the celebrity's money. That civil suit, to recover the money, doesn't bar criminal prosecution if in fact a crime was committed.

Most copyright cases can be adequately handled by a civil case, and the FBI doesn't spend their resources on it if a civil suit will do instead. The FBI can and does criminally prosecute when the criminal activity justifies prosecution based on:
The scale and seriousness of the offense(s)
Criminal history of the offender(s)
Culpability of each offender
Availability of civil remedies
Likely outcome of the case
Whether the offender has simply ignored prior civil judgements
Other factors specific to each case

Page 7 of this document has an article for FBI agents on this topic:
https://www.justice.gov/usao/f...

I live in Virginia. Near my residence MS-13 members cut off a guys dick and duct taped it inside of his mouth before killing him. They left his body in the street.

Source? The most recent one in VA was about the gang lured and killed a high school boy (Hispanic) because they believed he was a member of a rival gang. Nothing saying about what you said. Also, 10 members of the gang were arrested and convicted. If you want to spout something serious, show us the source first, or you are just a lier and hypocrite.

It is true that no direct guilty pleas for collusion have occurred (but in the nature of plea deals that shouldn't be surprising). As for the idea that no one has been indicted in that context, that's simply false. See here https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0... or heck, read the indictments yourself https://www.justice.gov/file/1... .

ATF agents playing Keystone Kops and entrapping mentally-disabled people. And arresting people with rock-solid alibis (like being in federal prison at the time of their supposed offense). The IG issued a pretty scathing report: https://oig.justice.gov/report...

The report concluded that all the ATF’s storefront operations were characterized by “poor management, insufficient training and guidance to agents in the field, and a lax organizational culture that failed to place sufficient emphasis on risk management in these inherently sensitive operations.”

Agents lost track of a fully automatic assault rifle and lost $35,000 worth of store “merchandise” in a burglary. The ATF paid such high prices for guns that potential victims of the sting legally bought guns from gun stores and sold them to friendly Fearless Distributing. One entrepreneur stole three ATF guns from the store. The next day he returned and sold one of them back. One of the men agents charged with selling them drugs had an airtight alibi. He was already in prison. ATF agents said Jones sold them six grams of marijuana on March 7. Problem was, Jones reported to a federal prison in Pennsylvania to start a sentence on March 1, according to Chris Burke, spokesman for the federal Bureau of Prisons - on an ATF case. "He was definitely in our custody," Burke said. "He never left."

We can probably guess why the channel was removed. Some of the videos seemed to be making medical claims about the drugs, and the descriptions had links where you could buy them...

It might also have something to do with what happened to Google back in 2011 , where they settled a case with the US Department of Justice regarding advertisements for rogue online pharmacies, for $500m.

Followed by a shareholder lawsuit regarding the same issue, which they settled for something like $250m.

Looking at the wording in Fair Housing Act, it doesn't seem to prohibit targeted advertisement. It's illegal to refuse renting or selling based on a protected class when someone makes an offer, or mention such preference in the advertisement, or falsely claim that the housing is unavailable. However, targeted advertisement does not fall under any of those illegal acts because the advertisement itself does not mention the preference. One can argue that if someone finds housing through another way, then as long as the landlord does not refuse the offer on the basis of protected class, and the real estate agent or mortgage broker does not refuse the transaction on the basis of protected class, there would have been no violation.

But IANAL.

I must hate myself to bother this much a Russian troll like yourself, but the indictment of the Internet Research Agency and the associated group of Russians has plenty of evidence in it. And I'm sure they will find out just how much more evidence there is against them if they decide to leave Russia and go to a country with an extradition treaty with the US. That sort of indictment is not an idle threat, as another Russian hacker extradited to the US from Spain found out the hard way.

I guess you can go back to apologia to the Russian invasion of Ukraine if you want to by pretending that the overthrow of Yanukovych was actually the done by the US government. I'm sure you have a wonderful Gish Gallop to justify that nonsense.

So nice to see some accountability for these people. I also saw this today:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-n...

So - since we're talking about Texas and if it's Texas voter fraud has to be pro-Republican:

https://www.houstonchronicle.c...

https://empowertexans.com/arou...

https://www.justice.gov/usao-s...
Since this one was vague about party affiliation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Here's the one you're fond of: https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/lo...
Notice it's primaries and run-offs. You can't be sure she wasn't voting Republican to try to make sure the weaker / less harsh on her issues person was the opponent. She may or may not have been a Republican, I don't know, I don't know her and I'm not a Republican, but sabotaging the opposition in primaries isn't unheard of. In Texas we have open primaries, she could still have voted Democrat in the actual election had her butt not been in a sling.

Oh look, another one that makes a point of avoiding the mention of party affiliation - isn't it incredible how left-leaning journalist fail to mention these sorts of things when reporting on their own kind? http://www.themonitor.com/mvtc...
Considering the perp was basically hired from Illinois to do the bribery campaign I'm going to say it's fairly safe to say they're Democrats. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr...

http://www.star-telegram.com/n...

You notice when it's Republican they make a point of saying so but when they're not - for lack of further info I'll call this one unknown.....
https://www.twincities.com/201...

So - since we're talking about Texas and if it's Texas voter fraud has to be pro-Republican:

https://www.houstonchronicle.c...

https://empowertexans.com/arou...

https://www.justice.gov/usao-s...
Since this one was vague about party affiliation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Here's the one you're fond of: https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/lo...
Notice it's primaries and run-offs. You can't be sure she wasn't voting Republican to try to make sure the weaker / less harsh on her issues person was the opponent. She may or may not have been a Republican, I don't know, I don't know her and I'm not a Republican, but sabotaging the opposition in primaries isn't unheard of. In Texas we have open primaries, she could still have voted Democrat in the actual election had her butt not been in a sling.

Oh look, another one that makes a point of avoiding the mention of party affiliation - isn't it incredible how left-leaning journalist fail to mention these sorts of things when reporting on their own kind? http://www.themonitor.com/mvtc...
Considering the perp was basically hired from Illinois to do the bribery campaign I'm going to say it's fairly safe to say they're Democrats. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr...

http://www.star-telegram.com/n...

You notice when it's Republican they make a point of saying so but when they're not - for lack of further info I'll call this one unknown.....
https://www.twincities.com/201...

Mother Jones? Why not just read the indictment itself? It says EXACTLY what I said it does: https://www.justice.gov/file/1...