U P D A T E D 8/10/2008 2:09 PM
Office of the US Attorney
500 East Broward Blvd., Seventh Floor
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
Dear Honorable Sir,
I seek an interview with a lawyer Assistant of the U. S. ATTORNEY’S office at 500 East Broward Blvd., Seventh Floor Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 as soon as possible concerning MAIL FRAUD to explain my case and move the prosecution of GOLDLINE of Santa Monica forward.
TOPICS TO DISCUSS
Charges of MAIL FRAUD by GOLDLINE of Santa Monica
The Mail Fraud Statute (Title 18, United States Code, Section 1341) TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 63.
1) # § 1341. Frauds and swindles
2) # § 1343. Fraud by wire, radio, or television
3) # § 1345. Injunctions against fraud
4) # § 1346. Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud”
5) # § 1349. Attempt and conspiracy
The False Representation Statute (Title 39, United States Code, Section 3005)
501.2077 Violations involving senior citizen or handicapped person; civil penalties; presumption.
2) Any person who is willfully using, or has willfully used, a method, act, or practice in violation of this part, which method, act, or practice victimizes or attempts to victimize senior citizens or handicapped persons, and commits such violation when she or he knew or should have known that her or his conduct was unfair or deceptive, is liable for a civil penalty of not more than $15,000 for each such violation.
I accuse GOLDLINE of Wire Fraud. Wire fraud is an act of fraud using electronic communication. Black's Law Dictionary 687 (8th ed. 2005). This electronic communication can be via wire, radio, or television. 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (2007).
The Supreme Court has "several times observed that the wire fraud statute has a long arm, extending to 'everything designed to defraud by representations as to the past or present, or suggestions and promises as to the future.'" Pasquantino v. United States, 125 S. Ct. 1766, 1784 (2005) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (citing Durland v. United States, 161 U.S. 306, 313 (1896)). But the Court has also noted that an "incautious reading of the statute could dramatically expand the reach of federal criminal law, and we have refused to apply the proscription exorbitantly." Id. (citing McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350, 360 (1987)). In short, there is some recognition by the Supreme Court that given the statute's broad applicability, "a sweeping expansion of federal criminal jurisdiction in the absence of a clear statement by Congress" is discouraged. Cleveland v. United States, 531 U.S. 12, 25 (2000).
Despite the Court's warnings, however, the wire fraud statute has been applied to a wide range of activities, as well as having been applied in conjunction with a wide range of other criminal statutes. See Pasquantino (statute used to prosecute U.S. citizens for smuggling cheap liquor into Canada); United States v. King, 590 F.2d 253 (8th Cir. 1978) (statute used to prosecute individual in scheme to sell herbicide); Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (defendant charged with wire fraud, mail fraud, and bank fraud violations); United States v. Autuori, 212 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2000) (defendant charged with wire fraud and mail fraud violations); United States v. Zichettello, 208 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2000) (defendant charged with wire fraud and RICO violations).
18 U.S.C. § 1343 (2007).
Under section 1343, it is a crime for a person who has devised or intends to devise a scheme or artifice to
- defraud, or
- to obtain money or property by means of false or fraudulent
- - pretenses
- - representations, or
- - promises
- to transmit, or cause to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication, any
- - writings
- - signs
- - signals
- - pictures, or
- - sounds
- for the purpose of executing the scheme or artifice.
Much like the wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, it is simpler to say that wire fraud consists of devising a scheme or artifice to defraud and then using the nation's telecommunications networks to carry that scheme out.
A violation of section 1343 can be punished by
- a fine,
- imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or
If a violation of section 1343 affects a financial institution, the punishment will be
- a fine of not more than $1,000,000,
- imprisonment for not more than 30 years, or
- both. 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (2007).
Case Law Interpreting Section 1341
The essential elements of a violation of section 1343 are fairly simple. To sustain a charge of wire fraud under section 1343, the government must prove two things: 1) the existence of a scheme to defraud, and 2) the use of wires for the purpose of executing the scheme. See United States v. Andrade, 788 F.2d 521, 527 (8th Cir. 1986); United States v. Gordon, 780 F.2d 1165, 1171 (5th Cir. 1986); United States v. Cen-Card Agency, F. Supp. 313, 316 (D.N.J. 1989). The use of wire services to accomplish the fraud provides a "sufficient nexus with the scheme" to justify using the wire fraud statute.
Recently, however, a "materiality" requirement has developed. A matter is material if "a reasonable man would attach importance to its existence or nonexistence" in determining a course of action, or "the maker of the representation knows or has reason to know that its recipient regards or is likely to regard the matter as important" in determining a course of action, even though a reasonable man might not. Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 22 n.5 (1999) (quoting RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 538 (1976)). The court explains that based "solely on a 'natural reading of the full text,' materiality [is] not an element of the fraud statutes." Id. at 21 (1999) (internal citations omitted). However, because a statute is presumed to incorporate common-law understanding of an issue when it is codified, and fraud required a material misrepresentation in the common law, "under the rule that Congress intends to incorporate the well-settled meaning of the common-law terms it uses, [the Court] cannot infer from the absence of an express reference to materiality that Congress intended to drop that element from the fraud statutes." Id. at 21-23. Therefore, materiality is a requirement.
18 U.S.C. § 1346 (2007).
Section 1346 merely states that the term "scheme or artifice to defraud" includes a scheme or artifice to defraud another of the intangible right of honest services. Section 1346 was enacted to counter the Supreme Court's decision in McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350, 360 (1987). See United States v. Sawyer, 239 F.3d 31, 39 (1st Cir. 2001).
According to United States v. Rybicki, 287 F.3d 257 (2d Cir. 2002), the elements necessary to establish the offense of honest services fraud are:
1) a scheme or artifice to defraud for the purposes of depriving another of the intangible right of honest services where it is reasonably foreseeable that the scheme could cause some economic or pecuniary harm to the victim that is more than de minimis and
2) use of the mails or wires in furtherance of the scheme. Rybicki at 266.
The enactment of section 201346 has greatly complicated statutory analysis of the wire fraud statute. "While the legislative history of § 1346 seems to indicate an intention to resurrect the pre-McNally case law relating to the deprivation of intangible rights by use of the mails," some case law has determined that "pre-McNally cases construing the prior statute are not binding, and that the new offense was defined by statute, … not by pre[-]McNally judicial decisions." United States v. Adler, 274 F. Supp. 2d 583, 586 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (interpreting the mail fraud statute). In short, the effect of section 1346 remains to be seen, but there is general acceptance of the notion that "convictions under § 1346 that involved schemes ...in which the defendant breached or induced the breach of a duty owed by an employee or agent to his employer or principal that was enforceable by an action at tort" must be upheld. Rybicki at 264.
George W. BUSH
The President’s Leadership in Combating Corporate Fraud
The Administration continues to pursue an aggressive agenda to fight corporate fraud and abuse:
o Exposing and punishing acts of corruption
o Holding corporate officers and directors accountable
o Protecting small investors, pension holders and workers
o Moving corporate accounting out of the shadows
o Developing a stronger, more independent corporate audit system
o Providing better information to investors.
Since the exposure of the corporate fraud scandals, the President has taken decisive action to combat corporate fraud and punish corporate wrongdoers.
· In February, the President announced strong, effective pension reforms to protect America's workers. The President outlined a comprehensive proposal to remove obstacles to savings and toughen protections of retirement assets. The House took quick action and approved the President's reforms on a bipartisan basis. To date, the Senate leadership has not brought pension reform to the Senate floor. Nonetheless, the President was able to incorporate several of his initiatives into the corporate governance bill he signed in late July.
· On March 7, 2002 the President announced his "Ten-Point Plan to Improve Corporate Responsibility and Protect America's Shareholders," based on three core principles: information accuracy and accessibility, management accountability, and auditor independence. Following the President’s proposals, the SEC took decisive action to implement the "Ten Point Plan" to improve the quality of corporate disclosure and the accountability of executives and auditors. The SEC proposed rules and adopted policies consistent with all ten of the President's reforms.
I accused GOLDLINE online to the FTC, Attorney General of Florida and California in October 2007, and the USPS June 23, 2008 and now herewith in accordance with the “long arm” statute section 48.193, Florida Statutes (2002) testify to my local US ATTORNEY. I have published a blog in ripoffreport.org with attention to various agencies and now with this letter offered ample evidence and where to get written sworn statement corroboration but no information or report of progress so far has passed between the Attorney General of Florida, the office of the US Attorney and me.
A prior instance of FRAUD brought forth and prosecuted on many levels by a Missouri senior citizen couple against GOLDLINE resulted in a CONSENT ORDER Missouri Case No. AP-06-24 that mentioned the 20 gold Swiss franc with a $39,000 fine levied was also submitted online in ripoffreport.org. This coupled with the many complaints about fraud in ripoffreport.org most mentioning the 20 gold Swiss franc indicates that the 20 gold Swiss franc scam against me was not a one-time affair but a systemic GOLDLINE management authorized procedure used over and over again. This Missouri Consent Order also proves the proper prosecuting venue for the Dept of Justice is in FLORIDA, the COMPLAINANT’S home State.
The long-arm statute section 48.193, Florida Statutes (2002) authorizes a State to exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant, as long as the exercise of jurisdiction is consistent with federal due process requirements. MAIL FRAUD, wire fraud, false Internet advertising, Email and telephone communication crosses State lines and easily comes under this statute. Businesses that send faxes, make phone calls, or mail documents to commit fraud can and will be now sued in Florida for claims of fraud, negligence or other wrongful conduct arising out of their long-distance commercial activity, under a far-reaching recent decision by the Florida Supreme Court.
Under Title 18, United States Code, Section 1014,
it is a federal crime to commit fraud using a wire communication that travels in interstate or foreign commerce. 18 U.S.C. 1343 reads as follows
Fraud by Wire, Radio or Television (Wire Fraud) -
Whoever having devised, or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises transmits, or causes to be transmitted, by wire, radio or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing the scheme or artifice shall be or imprisoned for more than 20 years, fined or both.
GOLDLINE lied on every management level verbally and in writing in GOLDLINE fliers and on the GOLDLINE website.
On the matter of the 20 gold Swiss franc GOLDLINE communicated false information. "Communicates false information" means to communicate information that is false, and that the communicator knows is false, under circumstances in which the information may reasonably be expected to be believed. USC, Title 18 Sec 1037
(a) CRIMINAL VIOLATION -- Whoever engages in any conduct, with intent to convey false or misleading information, under circumstances where such information may reasonably be believed and where such information concerns an activity which would constitute a violation of section 175, 229, 831, or 2332a, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(b) CIVIL ACTION -Whoever engages in any conduct, with intent to convey false or misleading information, under circumstances where such information concerns an activity which would constitute a violation of section 175, 229, 831, or 2332a, is liable in a civil action to any party incurring expenses incident to any emergency or investigative response to that conduct, for those expenses.
(c) REIMBURSEMENT -- The court, in imposing a sentence on a defendant who has been convicted of an offense under subsection (a), shall order the defendant to reimburse any person or entity incurring any expenses incident to any emergency or investigative response to that conduct, for those expenses.
Title 18, United States Code, Section 1349 Attempt and conspiracy
You have fraud when someone:
1) Lies to you to maximize their profit
2) Conceals from you important downside negative information such as fees using in this case a high- pressure salesman and a talking points flier.
3) You justifiably rely on the lie or concealment because of their expertise
4) You are hurt one way or another because of the lie or concealment
GOLDLINE did all this and used the US MAIL wire transfers, the Internet and public carriers such as FedEx in the commission of their grand larceny felony fraud crime.
501.206 Investigative powers of enforcing authority.
If, by his or her own inquiry or as a result of complaints, the enforcing authority has reason to believe that a person has engaged in, or is engaging in, an act or practice that violates this part, he or she may administer oaths and affirmations, subpoena witnesses or matter, and collect evidence.
My complaint against GOLDLINE has sufficient jurisdictional facts to bring the action within the ambit of Florida’s long-arm statute, section 48.193, Florida Statutes (2002), i.e., whether defendant performed any of the acts delineated in the statute. Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499, 502 (Fla. 1989). If such facts are alleged, the next inquiry is whether sufficient “minimum contacts” are demonstrated to satisfy due process requirements of the United States Constitution. Id. “Factors that go into determining whether sufficient minimum contacts exist.” Taskey v. Burtis, 785 So. 2d 557,t559 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
SUGGESTED COURSE OF ACTION
The USPS INSPECTION SERVICE or an appropriate Investigative agency assigned by the Chief of the Criminal Division should include as one of their planned strategies to send investigators to get sworn statements from the people mentioned as GOLDLINE’s employees when and where the mail fraud and other fraudulent infractions against the elderly in the formal complaint took place
1) Ross, Clinton former GOLDLINE employee
2455 S St Andrews Pl, Apt 432
Los Angeles, CA 90018-2047
2) Lee, JC former GOLDLINE employee
2461 Santa Monica Blvd
Santa Monica, CA 90404-2138
3) Gershon, David
Los Angeles, CA
Home phone (213) 413-8821
All victims of GOLDLINE in ripoffreport.org in the matter of the 20 gold Swiss franc should be interviewed. Their names should be gathered from GOLDLINE in DISCOVERY prior to legal action and sworn statements be taken with special attention to questions of MAIL FRAUD, wire fraud, the misrepresentation of the value of the 20 Swiss gold franc, an imported foreign coin, high pressure GOLDLINE salesmen illegal selling methods, improper sales using the telephone as an impromptu and sudden unannounced confirmation of purchase and the preponderance of violations against senior citizens.
On Thursday April 10th 2008, I heard on radio for the first time "Buy at Goldline, there are no high pressure salesmen, they are not allowed" Of course this is ex post facto and the word “now” is omitted because historically all complaints on RIPOFFREPORT.ORG and the Missouri Consent Order Case No. AP-06-24 mention high-pressure salesmen and the 20 gold Swiss franc. Goldline’s agent consistently, deceitfully and forcefully urged client John Quirindongo, a 75 yr old senior citizen and others that buying the 20 gold Swiss franc coins, a foreign overpriced numismatic product not normally used for speculation by first time buyers would be a better investment than client’s current in May of 2006 USA platinum 1oz eagle investments..
The fraudulent numismatic 20 gold Swiss franc flier we now know was aimed solely at the first time buyer not the savvy numismatic coin dealers depriving knowledgeable criticisms from expert numismatic traders, wholesalers and merchants.
3000 ne 16 ave #310d
ft lauderdale fl 33334
954 564 6624
All pertinent and related investigations leading to Federal Court prosecution should commence with all deliberate speed due to my advanced age of 75, sight impairment and geriatric health conditions that severely limit my mobility.
I also submitted online a timeline and documentation of the ugly scam with specific dates and names in DIARY form with documents on RIPOFFREPORT.ORG written totally unedited as I uncovered the deceit and the failed mediation with GOLDLINE to make me whole developed. The timeline proves that GOLDLINE committed Fraud a civil or criminal wrong. Fraud by GOLDLINE included intentions to deceive, including statements, acts, concealments, and omissions involving a breach of legal duty, trust or confidence by concealing the fees of the 20 gold Swiss franc which resulted in monitory injury to me who as a first time buyer senior citizen justifiably relied on GOLDLINE to be truthful.
I submitted to all concerned copies of illegal GOLDLINE 20 Swiss franc promotion fliers which were and may still be delivered by FedEx designed to deceive consumers. I included my critique of the GOLDLINE flier pointing out misleading wording and deceitful behavior. The same talking points were also used by high-pressure GOLDLINE salesmen adding “GOLDLINE has been in business over 40 yrs and Joe Battaglia the CEO has a radio show. We know what we are doing.”
Published Internet BLOG of GOLDLINE felony fraud
google “ripoffreport” then in ripoffreport search “goldline Oakland”
Or copy and paste
Claims of EXTORTION by GOLDLINE
GOLDLINE employee Lisa Weedman wrongly accuses me of EXTORTION in a rebuttal to the Better Business Bureau. See ripoffreport.org. If it truly is EXTORTION why doesn’t GOLDLINE go to the Police? All submitted to ripoffreport.org cannot be deleted by anyone but the owner of the website.
Extortion (Black's Law Dictionary - 6th Edition) is defined as: "The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right." GENERAL RULE: The usual fact situation for a Hobbs Act charge under color of official right is a PUBLIC OFFICIAL trading his/her official actions in a area in which he/she has actual authority in exchange for the payment of money.
I am not using covertness nor the “COLOR of official right” but am using the LAW openly and publicly without attorney to right the wrong of GOLDLINE fraud. This is expected of a victim of fraud and perfectly legal. I document meticulously the GOLDLINE scam by publishing to ripoff.org. and also document previous multiple fraud the GOLDLINE swindle in the Missouri Consent Order Case No. AP-06-24. Many others defrauded by GOLDLINE are also documented in ripoffreport.org. Lisa Weedman’s bogus rebuttal to the BBB contains 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay, false unfounded innuendo, phony spin and downright lies Nowhere does GOLDLINE address my assertions honestly and most important not one sworn statement has been produced from any particulars I have mentioned. GOLDLINE refuses or cannot address my affirmations of multiple FRAUD. Nothing has been submitted by GOLDLINE in rebuttal as corroboration.
Definition of Fraud
All multifarious means which human ingenuity can devise, and which are resorted to by one individual to get an advantage over another by false suggestions or suppression of the truth. It includes all surprises, tricks, cunning or dissembling, and any unfair way which another is cheated. Source: Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th ed., by Henry Campbell Black, West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minnesota, 1979.
Criminal and civil frauds differ in the level of proof required. 1) For civil cases that burden is a “preponderance of evidence.” 2) In criminal fraud the standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Three elements are required to prove fraud: 1) a material false statement made with an intent to deceive (scienter), 2) a victim’s reliance on the statement and 3) damages. I believe I have proven systemic CRIMINAL FRAUD by all management levels of GOLDLINE “beyond ALL doubt.”
Burden of Proof Decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court
In Keyes v. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 413 U.S. 189 (1973), the United States Supreme Court stated: “There are no hard-and-fast standards governing the allocation of the burden of proof in every situation. The issue, rather, ‘is merely a question of policy and fairness based on experience in the different situations.’” For support, the Court cited 9 John H. Wigmore, Evidence § 2486, at 275 (3d ed. 1940). In Keyes, the Supreme Court held that if “school authorities have been found to have practiced purposeful segregation in part of a school system,” the burden of persuasion shifts to the school to prove that it did not engaged in such discrimination in other segregated schools in the same system.
I submit that GOLDLINE defrauded not only me. Now “the burden of persuasion shifts to“ GOLDLINE to prove that they GOLDLINE did not defraud in a ”PURPOSEFUL” manner many others including Dr. Kyung Park of Los Angeles and others who published similar complaints online against GOLDLINE in ripoffreport.org. GOLDLINE must explain the fraudulent 20 gold Swiss franc flier and the Missouri Consent Order Case No. AP-06-24. GOLDLINE must explain why others found in DISCOVERY who will be uncovered because all points to a widespread ongoing and longtime nationwide scheme conspiracy will also complain of fraud. They were defrauded but perhaps were not computer literate at that time, died of old age or didn’t know of ripoff.org their only defense. They are in GOLDLINE’s old files waiting for their story of GOLDLINE fraud to be told to reveal similar illegal felony scams by GOLDLINE. Some defrauded clients mediated or went for arbitration quietly but were treated unfairly making the GOLDLINE scam always profitable for GOLDLINE giving GOLDLINE the impetus to ever keep continuing the scam. Even when GOLDLINE quietly “loses” GOLDLINE makes money. The client who did not know how to redress FRAUD was ever reluctant to hire a lawyer because of the cost settled and received much less than their initial investment which in my case was the platinum 1 oz eagle or for the other clients a standard typical gold bullion the customary investment always advised by honest precious metals brokers to first time buyers.
From: ASKDOJ [Add to Address Book]
Subject: RE: FRAUD
Date: Aug 6, 2008 4:09 PM
Thank you for contacting the Department of Justice. This is an automatic acknowledgement that your e-mail was received. It will be reviewed in the order it was received.
cc Michael Mukasey U.S. Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
cc Bill McCullum
Attorney General State of Florida
The Capitol PL-01
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050
cc R. Alexander Acosta
99 NE 4th Street
Miami, FL 33132
cc Federal Trade Commission
Consumer Response Center
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20580
cc Mail Fraud Report (PS 8165 SEP 2005)
USPS Inspection Service Support Group
222 S. Riverside Plaza Ste 1250
Chicago IL 60606-6100
Review about: Precious Metals.