He was arrested in France, for violating French laws. Trying to make a connection to American organized crime laws is a Reed Richards-level stretch.
I'm not sure what the Reed-Richards case has to do with the thread topic.
Reed-Richards is a case about whether or not a medical insurance company is
liable to cover an employee who tripped over an open file drawer, while being
a file clerk for a company.
The RICO racketeering laws are not about medical insurance company
liabilities -- rather, they address how prosecutors can legally pursue high
level criminals who discuss and plan crimes, but never carry them out, themselves.
This seems to be exactly the nature of people on social media, who repeatedly
associate with radicals, and repeatedly suggest that certain other people (whom
they don't like, or whom are political opponents) should be killed.
The RICO laws allow legal "bugging" of venues where the planning of crimes
is going on, based on preliminary evidence that these locations are visited
by those who are criminals, and by those who seem to be crime bosses in
America. Under the RICO laws, it is judged to be legally permitted for law
enforcement agencies to listen into private conversations, in order to
establish associations between low level criminals, and those who seem to
be much higher planners of criminal activities.
The relevance of the RICO racketeering laws, is that "freedom of speech"
does not necessarily imply complete freedom from prosecution for what
one is free to say; also, that "private conversations" in some cases, can
be listened to by law enforcement agencies, if there is good evidence to
believe that these private conversations are repeatedly planning and discussing
illegal activities.
---------- ----------
The application of RICO law guidelines, to the Watergate Affair, involved the
taping of private conversations by law enforcement agencies, after they
had reasonable evidence that President Nixon, and a number of his associates,
were systematically planning the hiding of evidence of criminal activities, that
they had engaged in. Although Nixon did not personally commit criminal acts
of theft or breaking and entering, investigators collected serious evidence
that he was fully involved in planning and suggesting criminal activities, for
others to carry out. Essentially, this pattern of discussing criminal activities
by a very powerful man, and associating with those who had criminal histories,
is the same pattern of criminal activity that the American Mafia families engaged in.
Note that freedom of speech in Consitutional American democracy, has NEVER
been accompanied by immunity from prosecution. Otherwise, a criminal could
openly and freely confess to his crimes, and be totally immune from prosecution.
As everyone in America should know, confessing to a crime, does not give one
immunity from being prosecuted for that crime.
The application of RICO laws by Rudolf Giuliani to the President Richard
Nixon, demonstrates that the fair rule of law in America does not support
unconditionally, private conversations. Nor does it support, unconditionally,
the actions of a President who is engaged in criminal behavior.
---------- ----------
Bringing up Reed-Richards, as an "overstretch" of the legal system (in
guaranteeing that an injured (insured) employee must be compensated for a permanent
disability, gotten on a job), is an example THAT IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE TOPIC
OF THE TOPIC OF WHETHER OR NOT A FORMER PRESIDENT IS IMMUNE FROM
PROSECUTION for criminal actions done. Even if the former president claims
that these actions were "official acts" of the President.
You may feel that the Reed-Richards legal decision was wrong, or an overreach.
But, that does not mean that other arbitrary applications of other laws, are
also overreaches by the fair rule of law in America. And, I believe that the
lower Reed-Richards decision in North Carolina, was overturned by a
higher court.
And, the RICO laws in America, as employed by the lawyer Rudolf Giuliani,
are an example that the planning of criminal activities by the President
Richard Nixon, were NOT considered by Constitutional experts at that time,
as a violation of the limited presidential immunity that a president is given,
for "official acts" of the office of the President. It is evidence that criminal
acts done by the President, are NOT automatically considered to be "offical
acts", and are NOT automatically covered by blanket immunity from prosecution.
If and when a President acts like a criminal Mafia boss, then the President (or
former president) should not be covered by "presidential immunity from
prosecution". The recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity, makes
it clear that there are GUIDELINES that an action by a President must meet, in
order for that action by the President to be considered an "official action" of the
President, and hence, to be covered by immunity from prosecution.
And, the Supreme Court specifically kicks this sort of determination (of whether
or not an action by a president, is a "responsibility of the President"), down to the
level of lower courts. The bottom line is that prosecutors must persuade juries
of American citizens, that some action of a former President were not done in
the carrying out of a Presidential responsibility, and therefore are NOT covered
by the concept of Presidential immunity.
This is why the indictments against Donald Trump, dealing with presidential
immunity from prosecution, are being rewritten to meet the guidelines of the
Supreme Court (dealing with presidential immunity), and are being re-submitted
to grand juries of American citizens, to see whether or not these citizens
think that the evidence that the prosecution has, is relevant and of high enough
quality to result in a conviction of Donald Trump for the indicted crime(s).
This is how the fair rule of law in America works.
American Presidents are NOT necessarily immune from prosecution, for all
acts that they committed as President.
Only presidential actions that were committed as the President carried
out Constitutional responsibilities of the President, are covered by
blanket immunity from prosecution.
And, it is the citizens of America, ultimately, who decide whether a specific
action committed by a President, was really a Constitutional responsibility
of the office of the President, when there is any legal question about whether
or not the President has immunity from prosecution.
A lot of the "libertarian" discussion of the topic of Presidential immunity from
prosecution, places the President above the rule of law in America. THIS, is not
defensible, Constitutionally.
Legal decisions by a single state, are NOT globally applicable, over all the
states. Neither are state legal decisions above the decisions of the Supreme
Court in America.
---------- ----------
This idea that ALL CITIZENS IN AMERICA are under the fair rule of law, in
America, is relevant in relation to a lot of associated topics...
1 The President of America, can be legally prosecuted for actions that he
decided to take, which are NOT Consitutional responsibilities of the office
of the Presidency.
2 Other American freedoms, are not absolute.
(Christians understand this very well, in their theological discussions of
the characteristics of God -- no characteristic of God, may be invoked to
destroy other characteristics of God.)
Freedom of Speech, is not cut free of the responsibility, for what we say.
The right to privacy, and private conversations, is NOT a right for those
who are engaged in planning criminal behavior.
Those who associate with known criminals, and ALLOW the planning of
crimes in a media setting that they own (such as a social media platform),
may be involved in criminal racketeering. This involves all sorts of social
media crime groups, and cyber criminal activities.
Owners and algorithm developers for social communication platforms, may
be held liable for the types of communications that they regularly
amplify (such as the amplification of posted messages that prey on
children, or teenage girls, or disaffected young people looking for
some fatherly figure to potentiate their murderous and violent
tendencies).
Owners of social media sites, that intend to spread propaganda or false
information, or intend to destroy the reputation of political enemies,
are NOT immune from prosecution by the RICO laws. (!)
Americans need to stop being so NAIVE about Consitutional freedoms.
With our massively powerful technology, the RICO laws in America
OUGHT TO BE APPLIED TO ANYONE OR ANY GROUP whose
intentions are to undercut the Consitutional freedoms of American citizens,
and whose intentions are to undercut democratic insitutions that provide
for the application of the fair rule of law to all who live in America.
In this larger horizon of topics, the topic of the level of immunity that Donald
Trump has, for actions that he decided to carry out what he was President,
ARE NOT A SEPARATE LEGAL TOPIC. They are NOT a separate "political"
topic. And, discussion of Donald Trump's behavior (or supposed behavior)
should NOT be separated from the larger discussion of the freedoms of ALL
American citizens, and the discussion of methods (such as the RICO laws)
used by law enforcement, to prosecute those who are involved in high tech
planning and excution of crimes.
