(13)
Background
A. “18 USC § 1343 RICO
Wire Fraud”—Elements of Wire Fraud
The elements of wire
fraud under Section 1343 directly parallel those of the mail fraud statute, but
require the use of an interstate telephone call or electronic communication
made in furtherance of the scheme.
United States v.
Briscoe, 65 F.3d 576, 583 (7th Cir. 1995) (citing United States v. Ames
Sintering Co., 927 F.2d 232, 234 (6th Cir. 1990) (per curiam)); United States
v. Frey, 42 F.3d 795, 797 (3d Cir. 1994) (wire fraud is identical to mail fraud
statute except that it speaks of communications transmitted by wire); see also,
e.g., United States v. Profit, 49 F.3d 404, 406 n. 1 (8th Cir.)
(The four essential elements of the crime of
wire fraud are:
(1) That the defendant
voluntarily and intentionally devised or participated in a scheme to defraud
another out of money;
(2) That the defendant did so with the intent
to defraud;
(3) That it was reasonably foreseeable that
interstate wire communications would be used; and
(4) That interstate
wire communications were in fact used)
(14)
CIVIL CONSPIRACY
'The elements of an
action for civil conspiracy are the formation and operation of the conspiracy
and damage resulting to plaintiff from an act or acts done in furtherance of
the common design. . . .
In such an action the
major significance of the conspiracy lies in the fact that it renders each
participant in the wrongful act responsible as a joint tortfeasor for all
damages ensuing from the wrong, irrespective of whether or not he was a direct
actor and regardless of the degree of his activity.'' (Doctors' Co. v. Superior
Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 44, citing Mox Incorporated v. Woods (1927) 202 Cal.
675, 677-78.)' (Id. at 511.)
(15)
'Conspiracy is not a
cause of action, but a legal doctrine that imposes liability on persons who,
although not actually committing a tort themselves, share with the immediate
tortfeasors a common plan or design in its perpetration.
By participation in a
civil conspiracy, a coconspirator effectively adopts as his or her own the
torts of other coconspirators within the ambit of the conspiracy. In this way,
a coconspirator incurs tort liability co-equal with the immediate tortfeasors.
Standing alone, a conspiracy does no harm and engenders no tort liability.
It must be activated by the commission of an
actual tort. ''A civil conspiracy, however atrocious, does not per se give rise
to a cause of action unless a civil wrong has been committed resulting in
damage.''
'A bare agreement among
two or more persons to harm a third person cannot injure the latter unless and
until acts are actually performed pursuant to the agreement. Therefore, it is
the acts done and not the conspiracy to do them which should be regarded as the
essence of the civil action.
' [para.s] By its
nature, tort liability arising from conspiracy presupposes that the
coconspirator is legally capable of committing the tort, i.e., that he or she
owes a duty to plaintiff recognized by law and is potentially subject to
liability for breach of that duty.' (Allied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi
Arabia Ltd., supra, 7 Cal.4th at 510-11.)
(16)
Breach of contract
is a legal cause of
action in which a binding agreement or bargained-for exchange is not honored by
one or more of the parties to the contract by non-performance or interference
with the other party's performance.
(17)
"Public or Private Trust"
Definition of
"Public or Private Trust".—"Public or private trust" refers
to a position of public or private trust characterized by professional or
managerial discretion (i.e., substantial discretionary judgment that is
ordinarily given considerable deference).
Persons holding such
positions ordinarily are subject to significantly less supervision than
employees whose responsibilities are primarily non-discretionary in
nature. For this adjustment to apply,
the position of public or private trust must have contributed in some
significant way to facilitating the commission or concealment of the offense
(e.g., by making the detection of the offense or the defendant's responsibility
for the offense more difficult). This
adjustment, for example, applies in the case of an embezzlement of a client's
funds by an attorney serving as a guardian,
A bank executive's fraudulent loan scheme, or
the criminal sexual abuse of a patient by a physician under the guise of an
examination.
This adjustment does
not apply in the case of an embezzlement or theft by an ordinary bank teller or
hotel clerk because such positions are not characterized by the above-described
factors
(18)
"Special skill"
"Special
skill" refers to a skill not possessed by members of the general public
and usually requiring substantial education, training or licensing. Examples would include pilots, lawyers,
doctors, accountants, chemists, and demolition experts.
(19)
“Psychological Abuse”,
Psychological abuse,
also referred to as emotional abuse or mental abuse, is a form of abuse characterized
by a person subjecting or exposing another to behavior that may result in
psychological trauma, including anxiety, chronic depression, or post-traumatic
stress disorder.
(20)
“Harassment”,
Aggressive pressure or pressure,
force, coercion; informal hassle
(21)
“Public Nuisance”,
An act, condition, or
thing that is illegal because it interferes with the rights of the public
generally. An obnoxious or dangerous person or group of people.
(22)
“Obstruction of Justice”,
Obstruction of justice
is the crime of interfering with the administration and due process of the law.
(23)
“Fraud”,
Deceit, trickery;
specifically : intentional perversion of
truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to
surrender a legal right b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting :
(24)
Gross Negligence”,
Gross negligence in a
civil injury case implies the defendant was not simply careless, but reckless.
(25)
Slander
The action or crime of
making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.
(26)
“Breach of Fiduciary Duty”,
The elements of a
breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim are (1) the existence of a fiduciary
relationship between
The plaintiff and
defendant; (2) the defendant's breach of the fiduciary duties arising from that
relationship;
And (3) injury to the
plaintiff, or benefit to the defendant, resulting from that breach. Jones v.
Blume, 196 S.
W.3d 440, 447
(Tex.App.-Dallas 2006, pet. denied).
(27)
“False Promise of Future Performance”,
[Presentations of false
projections of business performance
(28)
Detrimental reliance’s”,
"Detrimental
reliance" means taking an action based upon someone else's promise which,
by itself, leaves you in a worse position than when you started.
(29)
Aiding and abetting
Aiding and abetting
generally means to somehow assist in the commission of a crime, or to be an
accomplice. It involves a plan to commit a crime or to commit acts, the
probable consequences of which are criminal.
(30)
Facts
Chief Defendant Doctor
Dinesh Chandra Khare, Co-Defendant Vipul Khare, Co-Defendant GEETA Group LLC, Co-Defendant
Greg Miller of “Trillionaire Realty” and Co-Defendant John
Doe (Attorney at Law) herein having collectively conspire to devised and maintain
a “fraudulent scheme of things” to defraud Pro Se Plaintiff “Louis Charles
Hamilton II” herein for “Independent Construction Services” in obtaining a money
price fixing set at $48 U.S. Dollars per Sq. ft. for completion of all “New Construction”
to commence on (5) New Homes on properties located in Montgomery County Texas area
with the first Project being located at 3429 Nottingham Ln in Montgomery, Texas
77356.
No comments:
Post a Comment