is it TRUE?? RICO lawsuit developing against major media RE: Ron Paul

[austinchick]

I read this from another forum....ANyone can confirm if it's true?

Ron Paul 2008: RICO suit filed against ABC, MSNBC, FOX, CNN, CBS, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, The Chicago Tribune, The Miami Herald and The San Diego Herald-Tribune

Clarence Malcolm -


What the public needs to understand is that FOX, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and the other established *mainstream " mass media"/news sources [*see definition @ Wikipedia.org] are perpetrating criminal fraud (via omissions, distortions and outright lies) and a deliberate censorship of Dr. Ron Paul in 2008 Presidential race—with malice and aforethought and evil intent to control the 2008 presidential elections. This is an outrage and "We the People" need to organize against this dangerous plot and TAKE ACTION by filing "class action" criminal charges and civil suits against the owners and executives of these news sources. This illegal censorship is not only harming Americans because they wield the power to control the outcome of elections via the quantity and quality of the news coverage they provide the candidates; it constitutes an unAmerican and antiAmerican criminal enterprise; not to fail to mention a violation of the first amendment/freedom of the press. These accused individuals—the elitist media executives—exercise monopolized and Fascist-control over media/news sources with intent to get the candidate preferred by them elected while simultaneously wrongfully hiding and/or playing down the true facts, popularity and success of the Ron Paul campaign.

-


Please spread this message and let's get criminal charges and a class action lawsuit executed against this dangerous organized crime syndicate identified as the present mainstream media outlets which are collaborating in a RICO [ Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1961-1968; reference: www.ricoact.com] conspiracy to censor Dr. Ron Paul and control the outcome of the 2008 Presidential Election. This is definitely "RICO" if it can be shown that any of the accused media executives have donated money to any of the other presidential candidates, directly or indirectly! The accused individuals herein have wrongfully utilized their outrageous MONOPOLY over the media across America to injure Dr. Ron Paul and his millions of supporters; all Americans, in fact. These accused individuals need to go to prison upon conviction. They need to be criminally prosecuted and have their personal assets seized. They need to have their Federal FCC licenses revoked for participating in this criminal conspiracy. Help us spread this felony information far and wide. Let's get these elitist outlaws criminally prosecuted and civilly sued.

-




-




I'll get the ball rolling right now with my sworn affidavit, a criminal complaint:


Gage County

State of Nebraska

SWORN STATEMENT


I, Clarence Douglas Malcolm, a private criminal investigator, working with retired FBI Division Chief, Ted L. Gunderson [ ">www.tedgunderson.com] hereby swear under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of Nebraska and the United States of America that I have obtained personal and imputed knowledge that known and yet unknown owners, executives and employees in the established mainstream media including but not limited to ABC, MSNBC, FOX, CNN, CBS, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, The Chicago Tribune, The Miami Herald and The San Diego Herald-Tribune and, in fact, nearly all (if not all) news sources which have become monopolized by a few wealthy class individuals who are intentionally and with evil intent acting as co-conspirators in perpetrating crime and the unlawful censorship of Dr. Ron Paul; and, these same individuals are participating in an illegal conspiracy rising to the level of RICO to control the outcome of the 2008 Presidential Elections. The level of felony crime, corruption and conspiracy victimizing Dr. Ron Paul and the America people in these 2008 Presidential event is unprecedented in the history of the United States and needs to be investigated and prosecuted without further delay. The conspirators know they have a duty to the public to impartially cover all news worthy "news" but have colluded to create an uneven playing field favoring select candidates while ignoring or virtually disregarding Dr. Paul and others.



-


I am a bona fide Federal and State victim-witness to this crime along with countless millions of other defrauded Americans. The media owners and executives who are involved in this illegal monopoly, RICO racketeering and conspiracy include but are not limited to: David Rockefeller , Edgar Bronfman, Rupert Murdoch, Sumner Redstone and Ted Turner . Known and other yet unknown individuals working in collaboration with or for these media barons including but not limited to executives, legal consultants, representatives, news personnel and employees who are—more likely than not—actively involved in this felony crime and conspiracy and who should also be arrested and investigated for their participation. I also formally accuse these individuals of treason against the people of the United States of America…pursuant to Ted Gunderson's extensive research and other information we have obtained…who individually and collectively—more likely than not—possess evil intent to overthrow the United States Republic form of government and our hard-won national sovereignty as established by our founders and for this diabolical purpose they have used their tremendous wealth, power, influence and illegally monopolized control over this nation's media/news sources to facilitate this criminal conspiracy. For example, as documented in the February 9, 1917, United States Congressional Record wherein it was announced in pages 2947- 2948 that J.P. Morgan interests had bought 25 of America 's leading newspapers and inserted their own editors in order to control the press . Ted Gunderson has proof that this conspiracy has tremendously escalated and expanded into all other media/news sources since that time. Moreover, Ted Gunderson has meritorious information which has led him (and others including me) to believe that these conspirators and their cohorts have controlled past elections through the felonious manipulation of electronic voting machines.


Further, I hereby formally accuse the Republican and Democratic Parties via known and yet unknown members—having membership in the Counsel on Foreign Relations, an organization I believe I can easily prove to be a subversive unAmerican and anti-American criminal organization via rogues therein—of actively participating with evil intent, directly or indirectly, in the aforementioned felony crime and conspiracy in willful collaboration with the accused aforementioned outlaws in the mass media.


I have acquired much evidence to prove my meritorious criminal allegations. Moreover, henceforth, any public officers, employees and/or contractors who become aware of these felony allegations and information who refuses, neglects or otherwise fails to perform their duty to uniformly enforced the rule of law pursuant to this formal criminal complaint shall be deemed by this Federal/State victim-witness to be co-conspirators in said felony crime. I reserve my right to citizen arrest all accused felons herein named and their accomplices, cohorts and co-conspirators.



http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2008/01/ron-paul-200-11.html


Executed this 26th day of August, 2007, with intent that an immediate criminal investigation be initiated and that all accused criminals and their cohorts be arrested and prosecuted pursuant to clearly established law bearing in mind that "no one is [supposed to be] above the law" regardless of how powerful, rich or well-connected they are.


Mark: Clarence Douglas Malcolm, Federal and State Victim-Witness.

justiceranger@mail.com

www.1-free-dvd.com

www.tedgunderson.com

[Rahl]

would be wonderful (and needed) if true

[slacker921]

old, old news..
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Criminal_charges_filed_against_the_media_conspirac y_against_Ron_Paul

see how effective it was? Boy.. the media sure ran scared.

[Redcard]

It's not illegal to lie and have a bias. Unethical, perhaps.. but not illegal. If you have specific proof of defamation, or slander, or libel.. that can't be covered up by a page 5732 retraction, then by all means.. if you're the wronged party, sue. But you're not a victim if it doesn't involve you DIRECTLY.

What you're insinuating is that Ron PAUL is a Victim. And Ron Paul can probably get this suit further than we can. We're not victims, though. Not in the legal sense.

[nullvalu]

I have mixed feelings on this. On one hand, yes, we'd like to see more Paul on TV. But on the other hand, do we have the right to tell a corporation what they should air on their network? No matter how much we disagree with it?

I guess my real question is, is it illegal to distort the "news"?

[me3]

Dr. Paul would probably not support this. He's for private property rights.

Instead of wasting all of this time challenging and complaining about big media, the battle can be won on the ground with local efforts and massive canvassing efforts.

[Redcard]

I guess my real question is, is it illegal to distort the "news"?

Lie, in an attempt to libel or slander someone, or defame them through statements YOU MAKE?

Possibly. If it can be proven to a purponderance of evidence that you intentionally went out of your way to do it. It has to be without any gray areas. It can't be an "Oops, we believed a source" or a "Well, he's polling under 10% and we don't think he's a serious contender" type thing. It has to be CLEAR Tort.

And illegal isn't the right word. Actionable is the right word.

But is what Fox news doing Actionable?

Not really. Remember, these guys have convinced everyone that Obama was going to an elementry school where he learned to blow up Christians, that he might have relations to Sadaam Heussein, that he was going to convert everyone to Islam by force, and that he hated this country.

And what did THAT get them? "Oops, we're sorry."

If they can do it to Bill Clinton for years after he left office, and Bill Clinton AND Hillary are lawyers, remember that.. then I suspect there's not much that can be done.

Say what you want about Bill, Hill, or Obama. But the Fox News Machine has been screwing with Democrats FAR longer than it has been with Ron Paul. If nothing has been done thus far, I suspect nothing can be done.

[Truth Warrior]

Perhaps we could get the MSM on conspiracy ( felony ) charges.

[slacker921]

They have deliberately tampered with the election and that SHOULD be a crime.. but.. it's not going to happen.

[BillyDkid]

I have mixed feelings on this. On one hand, yes, we'd like to see more Paul on TV. But on the other hand, do we have the right to tell a corporation what they should air on their network? No matter how much we disagree with it?

I guess my real question is, is it illegal to distort the "news"?But it is more than that. The broadcast media is a public trust - not purely a private enterprise. The air waves belong to the American people and not to the networks. The merely lease them, we, supposedly own them. That they should be able to use the public air waves to spread disinformation and to censor voices to prevent the people from hearing them is an abuse of the public trust. It is wrong and it is corrupt and it should certainly be illegal.

[Redcard]

So that makes it right? The "Government" owns the bandwidth now? The Government can control who's allowed to talk?

See, that's not fair. No. I think Ron Paul would be for companies being allowed to say and do what they want without government regulation. It's not a public trust. It's private companies that have paid a lot of money to pay for the phantom product of "radio waves." They shouldn't have had to pay for those, they shouldn't have to conform to what the FCC wants, and they shouldn't be controlled to do "rightspeech" if they don't want to.

[davidkachel]

Sigh,

Yet another doomed and feeble attempt to get the government to go along with giving up their control. You can't ask the jailer to let you out of jail. It ain't gonna happen. Three different courts have told Dubya that he is doing things that are illegal. Yet he continues to do them.

The courts belong to the tyrants, not us! Just last night Bush asked Congress to pass a law that exempts companies from prosecution if they violate YOUR constitutional rights at the behest of the government. What makes you think you can ask Bush's court system to tell Bush's pals to stop chewing on your leg? It's all the same pack of wolves. If you want to save your leg, hit the wolf over the head with a big club.

[BillyDkid]

So that makes it right? The "Government" owns the bandwidth now? The Government can control who's allowed to talk?

See, that's not fair. No. I think Ron Paul would be for companies being allowed to say and do what they want without government regulation. It's not a public trust. It's private companies that have paid a lot of money to pay for the phantom product of "radio waves." They shouldn't have had to pay for those, they shouldn't have to conform to what the FCC wants, and they shouldn't be controlled to do "rightspeech" if they don't want to.
So your argument would be those with enough money to buy the airwaves are the only ones who have the right to broadcast their views? Cable is one thing, the airwaves something entirely different. In as much as they can be owned, they are owned by the American people. The broadcast companies pay the government for the privilege of using those airwaves to make boat loads of money. They should not get the additional privilege of silencing voices and promulgating their propaganda.

[Redcard]

So your argument would be those with enough money to buy the airwaves are the only ones who have the right to broadcast their views? Cable is one thing, the airwaves something entirely different. In as much as they can be owned, they are owned by the American people. The broadcast companies pay the government for the privilege of using those airwaves to make boat loads of money. They should not get the additional privilege of silencing voices and promulgating their propaganda.


No.. my argument is that Ron Paul is against government regulation, and that he's against the government jumping into people's lives. He's against the FCC, and thus, likely, against the "sale of airwaves" , to the highest bidder or otherwise. He's FOR freedom. He's for Fair Trade, and sometimes Fair Trade means selling a product that some people might not like.

My argument is that Ron Paul suing the news media because they aren't putting him on enough or in a favorable light would only result, if successful, in the government telling a business how it should do business. That's why I don't see Ron Paul going for this.

[affa]

Dr. Paul would probably not support this. He's for private property rights.


Part of the reason media corps are so large now is that they used OUR public airwaves at little or no cost (in some cases, we paid them).

[Redcard]

Part of the reason media corps are so large now is that they used OUR public airwaves at little or no cost (in some cases, we paid them).

They only became "OUR" public airwaves because the FCC and the Government SAID they were.

In truth, the airwaves should belong to the companies with the biggest transmitters. They would be the most successful companies, and thus, it's called a Free Market.

[rprprs]

In the realm of this discussion, you might find this PBS piece interesting.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01252008/watch3.html

It's about 10 minutes long, and addresses this issue best at about 5 minutes in.

Plus, there's a couple shots of "Our Guy" there too. That alone makes it worthwhile.:D

[mayavision2012]

The networks are supposed to present OBJECTIVE, UNBIASED coverage of any newsworthy event. As I understand it, the airways are not "private" but are there for the public interest.
It seems to be that "distorted" news would violate the above, but I am no legal eagle. I think that if the viewers across the country (and world!) simply STOP watching these channels and start investing in "WE THE PEOPLE" news and radio, that could be pretty effective in inself.

[hocaltar]

They would have to prove a "criminal" conspiracy.

[constituent]

The broadcast companies pay the government for the privilege of using those airwaves to make boat loads of money.

see, now, i think that's part of the problem right there.

"barrier to entry"

as is, only the rich get a voice, b/c only the rich can afford to rent said voice from the government.


that's wrong.

[affa]

They only became "OUR" public airwaves because the FCC and the Government SAID they were.

In truth, the airwaves should belong to the companies with the biggest transmitters. They would be the most successful companies, and thus, it's called a Free Market.

You are failing to recognize that since we do not have a Free Market, large corporations have taken over the airwaves.

See the problem?

[Redcard]

You are failing to recognize that since we do not have a Free Market, large corporations have taken over the airwaves.

See the problem?

And you're failing to see that a Free Market wouldn't STOP large corporations from taking over the airwaves.

[SleepingNative]

The airwaves can be viewed as analogous to an important issue when it comes to free market environmentalism, and that is to say, the public airwaves are very much part of "The Commons" of our evironment.

The Commons refers to open areas such as fishing waters or woodlands. In the absence of any clearly defined rights to these spaces, the lack of regulation means that all the fish are fished to extinction, and all the trees are logged until there's no more woods. This is because if you, as a fisherman or logger, don't do it, your neighbor most certainly will.

In the absence of EITHER of these measures (clearly defined rights or government regulation), the resource itself will simply disappear.

What constitutes the resource of our "public airwaves"?

This medium, I think it can be universally agreed, has become the "Information Commons" of our age. I would lean in the following direction:

Considering the fact that journalism is the carrier of this information, and is the only profession on Earth to be mentioned by name within our First Amendment to the Constitution, and considering the spirit in which this once noble profession was honored with this inclusion, and the obvious reasons why, I think it's fair to say there exists a clearly defined set of rights to The People for an unadulterated rendition of the facts therein. Information that is included, removed, or adulterated as the result of any political agenda acts as an affront to this crowning principle of the First Amendment: the People retain their right to this most critical resource for the perpetual enjoyment of Liberty itself.

If an opinion is what the People desire, it should be labeled as such and delivered separate to the news (if carried over the commons of the airwaves), or paid for and delivered via cable or satellite (as it is truly private in such a case), but our unadulterated recourse to the delivery of unbiased news and information is precisely what our founders meant by the very mention of this profession above all others.

Much as we are fighting for a return to free market environmentalism, which would allow us to put an end to the polluting activities of a corporation should their pollution damage the land you own or the water that runs across it, a Constitutional Republic restores to you your recourse to the only law that recognizes an affront to your being, whether it's your lungs or your lawn, as actionable. But the Constitution itself was never meant to protect these rights for you. It merely enumerated them. It is YOU who is responsible for protecting them as these are YOUR rights that have been sold to the highest bidder.

The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men. -Samuel Adams

I believe the OP is exactly correct to be eliciting the desired response from you all in joining him towards this end. Considering the establishment is actually banking on your continued apathy, I'd say it's high time we recognize what our founders actually gave us and stand up for them.

[Redcard]

And I disagree.

I think the Free Press is infringed by the government when restrictions are put upon it. I think that forcing the networks to "Buy" the airwaves that were here before the government came in, and will be here long after mankind leaves this earth for whatever goes beyond, is an infringement. I think that telling the Press what to say and how to say it is an infringement. There is a difference between Yelling Fire in a Crowded Theatre and Reporting with a Bias. A FREE Market is one in which a company can Report With Bias and the usership/readership can state "I refuse to support that company." In the current system, because only the RICH can afford to buy the bandwidth for over the air broadcasts, only the RICH can play the game, and if the rich want to play with bias, there is no alternative.

In the early 90s, a movie came out called "Pump Up the Volume." It was amateurish, obviously made for teenagers. It was about Pirate Radio, and, well, as a pirate radio operator, I found it humorous and funny. But.. what I didn't find humorous at all was the portrayal of the FCC. Granted, the FCC doesn't have swat teams running around issuing beatdowns on pimply faced radio wannabes, but they DO control what is out there on the air. That's wrong. Paying them for the right to use the air is wrong. Whether you're a big company or a little man with his radio shack transmitter hacked up to go a few miles.. you shouldn't have to be rich to have a say.

That's why Podcasting has caught on. Because those with less popular bias can get their message out. That's why you guys are all on Youtube, without your scripts and without much real experience on TV. Because you CAN be.

In the end, folks, it's about your viewpoint, and all viewpoints contain bias. If you want to sue people, go ahead. Sue them. But remember, what you are doing is asking the United States Government to FORCE the press to conform to YOUR definition of "unbiased , and unadulterated." Then ask yourself if you want that done to you.

[dannno]

It's not illegal to lie and have a bias. Unethical, perhaps.. but not illegal. If you have specific proof of defamation, or slander, or libel.. that can't be covered up by a page 5732 retraction, then by all means.. if you're the wronged party, sue. But you're not a victim if it doesn't involve you DIRECTLY.

What you're insinuating is that Ron PAUL is a Victim. And Ron Paul can probably get this suit further than we can. We're not victims, though. Not in the legal sense.

Stop being such a tool.

Of course we are the victims. Some people here have donated thousands of dollars to this campaign, not to mention the costs of the war in Iraq?? Don't you know this is all connected? All we have to do is draw the lines that are already there.

[Just Come Home]

Dr. Paul would probably not support this. He's for private property rights.




He's also in favor of the rule of law...

[the_bee]

Sigh,

Yet another doomed and feeble attempt to get the government to go along with giving up their control. You can't ask the jailer to let you out of jail. It ain't gonna happen. Three different courts have told Dubya that he is doing things that are illegal. Yet he continues to do them.

The courts belong to the tyrants, not us! Just last night Bush asked Congress to pass a law that exempts companies from prosecution if they violate YOUR constitutional rights at the behest of the government. What makes you think you can ask Bush's court system to tell Bush's pals to stop chewing on your leg? It's all the same pack of wolves. If you want to save your leg, hit the wolf over the head with a big club.

Until people are gathered up and shipped off to some camp somewhere they will remain asleep.
I am sorry to say this is what it will take to wake them up you will never win this battle in any court in these united states of America. It makes me sad, and frustrated, and mad as hell!:mad:

[Redcard]

Stop being such a tool.

Of course we are the victims. Some people here have donated thousands of dollars to this campaign, not to mention the costs of the war in Iraq?? Don't you know this is all connected? All we have to do is draw the lines that are already there.

It is all connected.

All I'm saying is that you would have a VERY tough time proving that you were, directly slandered or libeled.

Because lying is NOT illegal. Nobody makes these reporters or newscasters take an oath in legal proceedings before they come on.

[the_bee]

bump

[SleepingNative]

And I disagree.

I think the Free Press is infringed by the government when restrictions are put upon it. I think that forcing the networks to "Buy" the airwaves that were here before the government came in, and will be here long after mankind leaves this earth for whatever goes beyond, is an infringement. I think that telling the Press what to say and how to say it is an infringement. There is a difference between Yelling Fire in a Crowded Theatre and Reporting with a Bias. A FREE Market is one in which a company can Report With Bias and the usership/readership can state "I refuse to support that company." In the current system, because only the RICH can afford to buy the bandwidth for over the air broadcasts, only the RICH can play the game, and if the rich want to play with bias, there is no alternative.

In the early 90s, a movie came out called "Pump Up the Volume." It was amateurish, obviously made for teenagers. It was about Pirate Radio, and, well, as a pirate radio operator, I found it humorous and funny. But.. what I didn't find humorous at all was the portrayal of the FCC. Granted, the FCC doesn't have swat teams running around issuing beatdowns on pimply faced radio wannabes, but they DO control what is out there on the air. That's wrong. Paying them for the right to use the air is wrong. Whether you're a big company or a little man with his radio shack transmitter hacked up to go a few miles.. you shouldn't have to be rich to have a say.

That's why Podcasting has caught on. Because those with less popular bias can get their message out. That's why you guys are all on Youtube, without your scripts and without much real experience on TV. Because you CAN be.

In the end, folks, it's about your viewpoint, and all viewpoints contain bias. If you want to sue people, go ahead. Sue them. But remember, what you are doing is asking the United States Government to FORCE the press to conform to YOUR definition of "unbiased , and unadulterated." Then ask yourself if you want that done to you.

If you are disagreeing with my post, please re-read it carefully.

You will find that, far from advocating regulation, I am advocating freedom of the press: to deliver the news.

Deceit is something else. So, just as the Common Law allows for the freedom of all entities to do as they see fit, so long as they don't trespass upon my rights, my being, or my property, what I'm saying is, given the special status put aside by our founders for the profession of journalism itself - in our First Amendment, no less - the freedom of the press to report on the news without reprisals from the government is critical.

Can I be brought to harm for being delivered a lie?

ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY! I could be sent to a war I didn't know I could have put an end to otherwise, along with millions of others. This amounts to specific harm being done to all of us, via the gross neglect of our media to deliver the news without bias, to the same extent that an accomplice to a crime is guilty for withholding the truth from its impending victims. Only now they do so out of fear for their corporate masters - like that makes it any different from an ens legis, corporate fiction, DE FACTO UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT today?!?!

Where do you see me advocating an appeal for MORE regulation?! I'm talking about setting clear lines between the news, and editorial opinion. That is what we used to have, but now they don't even bother drawing the distinction! I am suggesting this comes about from a cognizance of the damages done to the People by relaying the news upon a biased platform, instead of distinguishing news from opinion.

I'm talking about The People rising up and holding them accountable for the tort that it surely comprises! This is still a peaceful revolution, is it not?

Apathy is their best friend.