Rezko Verdict: Guilty

OBAMA IS SO ARROGANT he believes he can just hold more do-nothing delusional speeches and everyone will come running. LOLOL

OH NO WE WON'T OBAMA. I'll take my chances with McCain with the 18-MILLION other Dems who don't support him.

DEMS 4 MCCAIN '08
America Needs Leadership, Not Another Do-Nothing Obama Speech

Now that Rezko has been convicted, both Obama and Blagojevich will VERY SOON be indicted under 18 USC 1346, which is the section under which Rezko was found guilty.

FOR YOUR READERS:

Evelyn Pringle has just completed her series on Obama at opednews.com. You should review the articles, and then review the discussion of 18 USC 1346 provided, in order to see for what activities Obama will be indicted:

Final Chapter - Curtain Time for Barack Obama Evelyn Pringle 05/22/2008 2
Curtain Time for Barack Obama - Part V Evelyn Pringle 05/18/2008 9
Curtain Time for Barack Obama - Part IV Evelyn Pringle 05/16/2008 22
Curtain Time for Barack Obama - Part III Evelyn Pringle 05/15/2008 11
Curtain Time for Barack Obama - Part II Evelyn Pringle 05/13/2008 15
Curtain Time For Barack Obama - Part I Evelyn Pringle 05/12/2008 33

THEN, your readers should study this EXCELLENT discussion of 18 USC 1346 from:

http://www.groom.com/_library/downloads/NAPPAArticle-Feb2006.pdf.

This article provides brief guidance as to the manner in which courts have interpreted 18 U.S.C. § 1346, which generally provides that for purposes of federal mail and wire fraud statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343, respectively), a “scheme or artifice to defraud” includes a “scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right to honest services.” Specifically, this article examines the manner in which courts have interpreted the broad language of § 1346 in circumstances that do not involve the explicit bribery of public officials.
I.
Background
18 U.S.C. § 1346 was enacted in 1988, for purposes of reversing the Supreme Court’s decision in McNally v. U.S.,483 U.S. 350 (1987). In McNally, the Supreme Court overruled a long line of lower court decisions by holding that the federal mail and wire fraud statutes did not encompass schemes to defraud citizens of an intangible right to honest government service from pubic officers. Id. at 355. By enacting 18 U.S.C. § 1346, Congress restored “honest services” within the ambit of the federal mail and wire fraud statutes, meaning that a scheme to deprive the public of “honest services” by a public official could be punished as mail or wire fraud (assuming, of course, that such an instrumentality was used as part of the scheme or artifice).
II.
Judicial Interpretations of the “Honest Services” Fraud
A.
General Parameters of the Statute
Not surprisingly, the majority of cases that have analyzed the “honest services” fraud set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 1346 have involved the bribery of public officials, where the charge under § 1346 is in addition to other charges. However, there have been numerous prosecutions under § 1346 against public officials (and those who have corrupted public officials) for transactions that do not involve outright bribery, but which nonetheless involve the provision of cash or gifts to a public official in exchange for the public official’s exercise of power on behalf of the individual or entity providing the gratuity.
Courts have recognized that the term “honest services,” as used in § 1346, is incredibly broad, but the statute has survived repeated challenges asserting that it is unconstitutionally vague, with courts resorting to a “common sense” usage of the phrase “honest services.” In rejecting a constitutional void-for-vagueness challenge to the statute’s wording, one court opined that “[c]oncrete parameters outlining the duty of honest services should not be necessary. . . . The concept of the duty of honest services sufficiently conveys warning of the proscribed conduct when measured in terms of common understanding and practice.” U.S. v. ReBrook, 837 F. Supp. 162, 171 (S.D. W. Va. 1993), aff’d. 58 F.3d 961 (4 th Cir. 1995). Another court demonstrated little patience for the defendant’s void-for-vagueness challenge in the context of a kickback scheme, holding that “[i]t should be plain to ordinary people that offering and accepting large sums of money in exchange for a city councilman’s vote is a type of conduct proscribed by the language of § 1346.” U.S. v. Paradies, 98 F.3d 1266, 1283 (11 th Cir. 1996). Nonetheless, courts have refused to allow § 1346 to be used as a “catch-all” that subjects every unethical or illegal act to federal mail and wire fraud prosecution. See, e.g., U.S. v. Bloom, 149 F.3d 649, 654-56 (7 th
Cir. 1998) (noting, inter alia, that “not every breach of fiduciary duty works a criminal fraud”); U.S. v. Welch, 327 F.3d 1081, 1107 (10 th Cir. 2003) (”the right to honest services is not violated by every breach of contract, breach of duty, conflict of interest, or misstatement made in the course of dealing”). Recognizing the difficulty of interpreting the undefined phrase “honest services,” courts have attempted to establish general criteria that must be satisfied to successfully assert an “honest services” fraud claim. One of the leading circuits interpreting the scope of the honest services fraud is the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that: First, . . . honest services convictions of public officials typically involve serious corruption, such as embezzlement of public funds, bribery of public officials, or the failure of public decision-makers to disclose conflicts of interest. Second, . . . the broad scope of the mail fraud statute . . . does not encompass every instance of official misconduct that results in the official’s personal gain. Third, and most importantly, . . . the government must not merely indicate wrongdoing by a public official, but must also demonstrate that the wrongdoing at issue is intended to prevent or call into question the proper or impartial performance of the public servant’s official duties. U.S. v. Czubinski, 106 F.3d 1069, 1076 (1 st Cir. 1997) (emphasis added) (internal citations and quotations omitted), (discussing the First Circuit’s prior decision in U.S. v. Sawyer, 85 F.3d 713, 724 (1996). The Seventh Circuit has held that “[m]isuse of office (more broadly, misuse of position) for private gain is the line that separates run of the mill violations of state law fiduciary duty . . . from federal crime.” U.S. v. Bloom, 149 F.3d 649, 655 (7 th Cir. 1998). The court went on to note that “in almost all of the intangible rights cases decided . . . (before McNally or since § 1346), the defendant used his office for private gain, as by accepting a bribe in exchange for official action[,]” but also noted that “[s]ecret conversion of information received in a fiduciary capacity is a form of fraud against the owner of that information.” Id. Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit summarized its test for an honest services fraud as follows: “[a]n employee deprives his employer of his honest services only if he misuses his position (or the information he obtained in it) for personal gain” (emphasis added). Id. at 656-57.

OBAMA HAS PROVEN HE IS "THE CHANGE CANDIDATE..."

He singlehandedly changed 18-MILLION Dems from voting Democratic to voting MCCAIN.

Now that's change you can believe in. LOL

DEMS -4- MCCAIN '08

Now that Rezko has been convicted, both Obama and Blagojevich will VERY SOON be indicted under 18 USC 1346, which is the section under which Rezko was found guilty.

FOR YOUR READERS:

Evelyn Pringle has just completed her series on Obama at opednews.com. You should review the articles, and then review the discussion of 18 USC 1346 provided, in order to see for what activities Obama will be indicted:

Final Chapter - Curtain Time for Barack Obama Evelyn Pringle 05/22/2008 2
Curtain Time for Barack Obama - Part V Evelyn Pringle 05/18/2008 9
Curtain Time for Barack Obama - Part IV Evelyn Pringle 05/16/2008 22
Curtain Time for Barack Obama - Part III Evelyn Pringle 05/15/2008 11
Curtain Time for Barack Obama - Part II Evelyn Pringle 05/13/2008 15
Curtain Time For Barack Obama - Part I Evelyn Pringle 05/12/2008 33

THEN, your readers should study this EXCELLENT discussion of 18 USC 1346 from:

http://www.groom.com/_library/downloads/NAPPAArticle-Feb2006.pdf.

This article provides brief guidance as to the manner in which courts have interpreted 18 U.S.C. § 1346, which generally provides that for purposes of federal mail and wire fraud statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343, respectively), a “scheme or artifice to defraud” includes a “scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right to honest services.” Specifically, this article examines the manner in which courts have interpreted the broad language of § 1346 in circumstances that do not involve the explicit bribery of public officials.
I.
Background
18 U.S.C. § 1346 was enacted in 1988, for purposes of reversing the Supreme Court’s decision in McNally v. U.S.,483 U.S. 350 (1987). In McNally, the Supreme Court overruled a long line of lower court decisions by holding that the federal mail and wire fraud statutes did not encompass schemes to defraud citizens of an intangible right to honest government service from pubic officers. Id. at 355. By enacting 18 U.S.C. § 1346, Congress restored “honest services” within the ambit of the federal mail and wire fraud statutes, meaning that a scheme to deprive the public of “honest services” by a public official could be punished as mail or wire fraud (assuming, of course, that such an instrumentality was used as part of the scheme or artifice).
II.
Judicial Interpretations of the “Honest Services” Fraud
A.
General Parameters of the Statute
Not surprisingly, the majority of cases that have analyzed the “honest services” fraud set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 1346 have involved the bribery of public officials, where the charge under § 1346 is in addition to other charges. However, there have been numerous prosecutions under § 1346 against public officials (and those who have corrupted public officials) for transactions that do not involve outright bribery, but which nonetheless involve the provision of cash or gifts to a public official in exchange for the public official’s exercise of power on behalf of the individual or entity providing the gratuity.
Courts have recognized that the term “honest services,” as used in § 1346, is incredibly broad, but the statute has survived repeated challenges asserting that it is unconstitutionally vague, with courts resorting to a “common sense” usage of the phrase “honest services.” In rejecting a constitutional void-for-vagueness challenge to the statute’s wording, one court opined that “[c]oncrete parameters outlining the duty of honest services should not be necessary. . . . The concept of the duty of honest services sufficiently conveys warning of the proscribed conduct when measured in terms of common understanding and practice.” U.S. v. ReBrook, 837 F. Supp. 162, 171 (S.D. W. Va. 1993), aff’d. 58 F.3d 961 (4 th Cir. 1995). Another court demonstrated little patience for the defendant’s void-for-vagueness challenge in the context of a kickback scheme, holding that “[i]t should be plain to ordinary people that offering and accepting large sums of money in exchange for a city councilman’s vote is a type of conduct proscribed by the language of § 1346.” U.S. v. Paradies, 98 F.3d 1266, 1283 (11 th Cir. 1996). Nonetheless, courts have refused to allow § 1346 to be used as a “catch-all” that subjects every unethical or illegal act to federal mail and wire fraud prosecution. See, e.g., U.S. v. Bloom, 149 F.3d 649, 654-56 (7 th
Cir. 1998) (noting, inter alia, that “not every breach of fiduciary duty works a criminal fraud”); U.S. v. Welch, 327 F.3d 1081, 1107 (10 th Cir. 2003) (”the right to honest services is not violated by every breach of contract, breach of duty, conflict of interest, or misstatement made in the course of dealing”). Recognizing the difficulty of interpreting the undefined phrase “honest services,” courts have attempted to establish general criteria that must be satisfied to successfully assert an “honest services” fraud claim. One of the leading circuits interpreting the scope of the honest services fraud is the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that: First, . . . honest services convictions of public officials typically involve serious corruption, such as embezzlement of public funds, bribery of public officials, or the failure of public decision-makers to disclose conflicts of interest. Second, . . . the broad scope of the mail fraud statute . . . does not encompass every instance of official misconduct that results in the official’s personal gain. Third, and most importantly, . . . the government must not merely indicate wrongdoing by a public official, but must also demonstrate that the wrongdoing at issue is intended to prevent or call into question the proper or impartial performance of the public servant’s official duties. U.S. v. Czubinski, 106 F.3d 1069, 1076 (1 st Cir. 1997) (emphasis added) (internal citations and quotations omitted), (discussing the First Circuit’s prior decision in U.S. v. Sawyer, 85 F.3d 713, 724 (1996). The Seventh Circuit has held that “[m]isuse of office (more broadly, misuse of position) for private gain is the line that separates run of the mill violations of state law fiduciary duty . . . from federal crime.” U.S. v. Bloom, 149 F.3d 649, 655 (7 th Cir. 1998). The court went on to note that “in almost all of the intangible rights cases decided . . . (before McNally or since § 1346), the defendant used his office for private gain, as by accepting a bribe in exchange for official action[,]” but also noted that “[s]ecret conversion of information received in a fiduciary capacity is a form of fraud against the owner of that information.” Id. Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit summarized its test for an honest services fraud as follows: “[a]n employee deprives his employer of his honest services only if he misuses his position (or the information he obtained in it) for personal gain” (emphasis added). Id. at 656-57.

Please dont do that jpgoodrow. We really need to unite in this time of need. Do you really think John McCain has anymore substance than Obama? This is OUR (dems) time...I really believe electing the "same ol' guy" won't bring about any change in our present economic and diplomatic stagnation. Now that Obama is the nominee, we should try to rally against him and swallow his message of change. Trust me, once the general election comes, he'll be talking much more about the specifics. It just makes me so sad that some Hillary supporters can even say such a thing..Hillary will forever be an asset to the Democratic cause. We desperately need her(although some Obama supporters pretend we dont) and we desperately need voters like you. DONT TURN TO THE DARK SIDE lol

Keep an open mind and think about it before you throw your vote away to George Bush III.

Jpgoodrow: I agree entirely with you.He wanted the rest of the delegates no matter what and asked for the half of MI.delegates plus he got 4 more gained by Hillary.What a way to make his way to the nomination, but he forgets that we have Nov. coming up. SURPRISE!

Common sense tells me that these bloggers have way too much education and way too much time on their hands.

Media is in love with this junior snake oil salesman
Barack Hussein. He has been getting massive buld-up
and free-ride from the so-called Media for a long time. I can not imagine such a shallow, inexperience, no expertise,ashamed of his muslim background, Barack Hussein as our President.
It is a clear choice. American war hero John McCain or Media's ex drug-pusher Barack?.
McCain's lifetime experience or Barack Hussein's cheap talk and snake oil?. Good luck to all who like
the taste of his snake oil.

The Stupid SUPERDELIGATES Supportet That black MUSLIM.
I hope most of Hillarys Supportes will VOTE for MC CAIN.

As a disabled veteran of Trumans war [Korean coflict]
I cannot understand how any true American citizen could vote for a confirmed Muslim. Wake up folks the Muslims have vowed to defeat and destroy us from within.

John Ryskamp offers very interesting information. Thanks!

For jpgoodrow: Great comment! Love It!

jpgoodrow: I agree entirely with you. BO wanted the nomination no matter what and ask for half of MI. delegates and got four more gained by Hillary. Nice way to go! But is he forgetting that Nov. is coming?SURPRISE BO!

To Liberal, but not stupid: DITTO!!!!

Only that Rezko is Obama's neighbor as it owns the lot next to his home. BO u are corrupt.

dancer
You seem like a reasonable person but you don't understand how upset Hillary voters are. Not only was Hillary personally insulted and demeaned but her supporters were too. We were told that Obama voters were educated which means that Hillary voters were not. Well I have news for you. We, the majority of seniors and women were (or still are) your teachers, your professors, your bank managers, your Presidents of Wall Street, industry and a host of multi million dollar corporations and to top that off we gave Obama supporters the freedoms they have today. Obama conveniently threw his grandma under the bus and never thanked her for raising and educating him when his father deserted the family. He also threw his friends away when it suited him to do so. He has more baggage than the Clintons and today his friend Tony Rezko was convicted in Chicago. I don't call that change. John McCain is an honorable man who voted across the aisle many times and he has one thing Obama does not have - experience. Obama needs to apologize to Hillary and to her supporters before we would even think of listening to him. I know his ego will get in the way and he will not do that so I will be voting for a good man, McCain or staying at home in November.

Thomas Jefferson, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICAN, once wrote in a letter to James Madison: "I hold that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and is as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."

Senator Clinton:

SAY NO TO VP! DO NOT SURRENDER.
WE WANT YOU TO TAKE THIS TO DENVER!

sign the petition: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/3/hillary-clinton-stay-in-the-race

To rattle-brain that still can't accept the truth. They were told here many times that the Rezco trial had no leanings to any wrong-doing or charges against a candidate, unmentioned by name in the court trial documents. Even so, they spit their filth all over this blog as if they were the prosecuters, judge and jury. Today, they have been proven wrong and again spit their filth all over this blog. What really is a disgrace is the bloggers who engage in posting this false filth. Noone of common sense is influenced not will it change a thing in this election. If it was news, the news would be on it. It is filth from some web site. Any nutcase can open a web site and write filth. And you who post it with not a fact one that can be backed up are as dumb as a box of rocks.

OK so Nixon was making V for Victory signs...my bad.

Hillary has just announced she will endorse Senator Obama on Friday.

MSNBC- now

Hillary will suspend her campaign on Friday.

MSNBC-now