Goldline Of Santa Monica Informative - Fraud
OAKLAND PK, FLORIDA -- I accuse GOLDLINE of Santa Monica of Charges of FRAUD using the long-arm statute section 48.193, Florida Statutes (2002) which 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, public written statements of LIBEL, long distance defrauding senior citizens and telephone communication each 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.
The Mail Fraud Statute 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, USC, 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.
The Florida Statutes 817.034 3. Services.
(d) "Scheme to defraud" means a systematic, ongoing course of conduct with intent to defraud one or more persons, or with intent to obtain property from one or more persons by false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises or willful misrepresentations of a future act.
(e) "Value" means value determined according to any of the following: 1.a. The market value of the property at the time and place of the offense "Property" means anything of value
4) OFFENSES.-- (a) Any person who engages in a scheme to defraud and obtains property thereby is guilty of organized fraud, punishable as follows: 2. If the amount of property obtained has an aggregate value of $20,000 or more, but less than $50,000, the violator is guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(c) Notwithstanding any contrary provisions of law, separate judgments and sentences for organized fraud under paragraph (a) and for each offense of communications fraud under paragraph (b) may be imposed when all such offenses involve the same scheme to defraud.
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).
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
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. Materiality is a legal term which can have different meanings, depending on context. When speaking of facts, the term generally means a fact which is "significant to the issue or matter at hand". Black's Law Dictionary, 7th ed.
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 111 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 accuse GOLDLINE online in accordance with the “long arm” statute section 48.193, Florida Statutes (2002) I have published a blog in ripoffreport.org with attention to various agencies and now with this letter offer ample evidence and where to get written sworn statement corroboration.
A prior instance of FRAUD that mentioned the 20 gold Swiss franc 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 with a $39,000 fine levied against GOLDLINE was also submitted online in ripoffreport.org. This together 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 under the long arm statute is in FLORIDA, the COMPLAINANT’S home State.
Under Title 18, USC, 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.
Title 18, USC, 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.
GOLDLINE lied on every management level verbally on telephone in writing and in Email and especially on 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.
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.
501.2105 Attorney's fees.--
(1) In any civil litigation resulting from an act or practice involving a violation of this part, except as provided in subsection (5), the prevailing party, after judgment in the trial court and exhaustion of all appeals, if any, may receive his or her reasonable attorney's fees and costs from the nonprevailing party.
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). In my case obvious approval from the high level GOLDLINE management augmented and reinforced the scam. GOLDLINE account executives and lower levels of the GOLDLINE sales staff followed orders and overall much upper level management officials of GOLDLINE involvement in fraud existed.
SUGGESTED COURSE OF ACTION
The 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
I submitted to all concerned copies of the illegal GOLDLINE 20 Swiss franc promotion fliers. 15 U.S.C. §45 (USC, chapter 15, section 45) prohibits "unfair and deceptive acts or practices in commerce." Which covers illegal advertising. GOLDLINE may still be delivering these fliers 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.”
The Mail Fraud Statute (Title 18, USC, Section 1341) TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 63. 3) # § 1345. Injunctions against fraud (b) The court shall proceed as soon as practicable to the hearing and determination of such an action, and may, at any time before final determination, enter such a restraining order or prohibition, or take such other action, as is warranted to prevent a continuing and substantial injury to the United States or to any person or class of persons for whose protection the action is brought. A proceeding under this section is governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, except that, if an indictment has been returned against the respondent, discovery is governed by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
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 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.
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.
Published Internet BLOG of GOLDLINE felony fraud
google “ripoffreport” then in ripoffreport search “goldline Oakland”
Or copy and paste
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 and ongoing systematic 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 alone.
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 the walking wounded by fraud 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. For instance in my mediation with Robert Fazio, Senior vice President of GOLDLINE the most he could do was “give my money back” which had devalued in the interim not give me the true market value of the money or the property – the platinum 1oz eagle.
The Florida Statutes 817.034 3. Services.
(d) "Scheme to defraud" means a systematic, ongoing course of conduct with intent to defraud one or more persons, or with intent to obtain property from one or more persons by false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises or willful misrepresentations of a future act.
(e) "Value" means value determined according to any of the following: 1.a. The market value of the property at the time and place of the offense "Property" means anything of value.
See ripofreport.org ”Robert Fazio”
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.
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?… Why doesn’t GOLDLINE take legal action against me?… Extortion is a felony!… I am still here!… I am not hiding!… Or was the claim of extortion an idle threat to “impress” the BBB? A formal official statement of EXTORTION in defense of fraud is clearly libel. All BBB official rebuttal information submitted to ripoffreport.org and this complaint published to www.pissedconsumer.com cannot be deleted by anyone but the owner of the websites. GOLDLINE can take legal action against me anytime. But if they do they know if they speak the truth they will incriminate themselves of FRAUD.
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 an area in which he/she has actual authority in exchange for the payment of money. Calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressively stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image.
I accuse GOLDLINE of committing LIBEL with the Lisa Weedman extortion official written statement to the BBB. The EXTORTION statement was directed against me specifically “an intentional tort of libel aimed …and resulting in injuries to a Florida resident subjected defendant (GOLDLINE) to the reach of our long arm statute.” Silver, 648 So. 2d at 242. See also Achievers Unlimited, Inc. v. Nutri Herb, Inc., 7 10 So. 2d 7 16, 7 18-19 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (same); Caridu, 424 So. 2d at 849 (same); Caridu, 424 So. 2d at 849 (same) 50 Am.Jur.2d libel and slander 1-546, Fla. Stat. § 836.01 (2005).
I am not using covertness nor the “COLOR of official right” because I hold no official office and I am not using “force, violence or fear” 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. as well as www.pissedconsumer.com 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 official rebuttal to the BBB contains:
a. 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay, false unfounded innuendo, phony spin and downright lies
b. Nowhere does GOLDLINE address my assertions at all but she goes off on a tangent dishonestly and
c. not one sworn statement has been produced from any particulars I have mentioned in my critique of the 20 gold Swiss franc flier or with people employees of GOLDLINE who were instrumental in defrauding me.
d. GOLDLINE refuses or cannot address my affirmations of multiple FRAUD.
e. Nothing has been submitted by GOLDLINE in rebuttal as corroboration or the covert non-response in the GOLDLINE official refutation of fraud in BBB with
f. non answers to never-asked-for- GOLDLINE high pressure advice “to diversify”,
g. unwelcomed-high-pressure-sales-pitch with never mentioned inordinate-high-fees and
h. the high 20 gold Swiss franc sales price which covertly lost 50% of value immediately and stood to lose 30% more on sale but both high buying and selling fees were kept quiet until it was time to sell,
i. a never given 10% “discount” advertised on the GOLDLINE website,
j. the 20 gold Swiss franc touted criminally as a prime investment by GOLDLINE done so alone among precious metal brokers
k. the biggest lie in the GOLDLINE flier among many lies “you get more gold for your money” and
l. other multi-unorthodox GOLDLINE fraudulent schemes and lies articulated by me in my 20 gold Swiss franc flier critique and in ripoffreport.org but never addressed in the Lisa Weedman rebuttal to the BBB and
m. instead and most important Lisa Weedman libeled me and rationalized Robert Fazio violating Florida Statutes d817.034 3. Services (d) and (e) when I asked to be made whole.
In accordance with all GOLDLINE felony fraud crimes SPECIAL ATTENTION must be given to:
4. Chapter 817, relating to fraudulent practices. CRIMES
775.0844 White Collar Crime Victim Protection Act.-- took effect July 1, 2001
(1) This section may be cited as the "White Collar Crime Victim Protection Act."
(2) Due to the frequency with which victims, particularly elderly victims, are deceived and cheated by criminals who commit nonviolent frauds and swindles, frequently through the use of the Internet and other electronic technology and frequently causing the loss of substantial amounts of property, it is the intent of the Legislature to enhance the sanctions imposed for nonviolent frauds and swindles, protect the public's property, and assist in prosecuting white collar criminals.
(3) As used in this section, "white collar crime" means:
(a) The commission of, or a conspiracy to commit, any felony offense specified in:
3. Chapter 815, relating to computer-related crimes. 2. Commits the offense for the purpose of devising or executing any scheme or artifice to defraud or obtain property
4. Chapter 817, relating to fraudulent practices. 817.06 Misleading advertisements prohibited; penalty.
11. Chapter 896, relating to offenses related to financial transactions.
(b) A felony offense that is committed with intent to defraud or that involves a conspiracy to defraud.
(c) A felony offense that is committed with intent to temporarily or permanently deprive a person of his or her property or that involves a conspiracy to temporarily or permanently deprive a person of his or her property.
(d) A felony offense that involves or results in the commission of fraud or deceit upon a person or that involves a conspiracy to commit fraud or deceit upon a person.
(4) As used in this section, "aggravated white collar crime" means engaging in at least two white collar crimes that have the same or similar intents, results, accomplices, victims, or methods of commission, or that are otherwise interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated incidents, provided that at least one of such crimes occurred after the effective date of this act.
(5) Any person who commits an aggravated white collar crime as defined in this section and in so doing either:
(a) Victimizes 10 or more elderly persons, as defined in s. 825.101(5);
(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of chapter 921 or any other law, an aggravated white collar crime shall be ranked within the offense severity ranking chart at offense severity level 9.
(7) In addition to a sentence otherwise authorized by law, a person convicted of an aggravated white collar crime may pay a fine of $500,000 or double the value of the pecuniary gain or loss, whichever is greater.
(8) A person convicted of an aggravated white collar crime under this section is liable for all court costs and shall pay restitution to each victim of the crime, regardless of whether the victim is named in the information or indictment. As used in this subsection, "victim" means a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of the offense for which restitution may be ordered, including any person directly harmed by the defendant's criminal conduct in the course of the commission of the aggravated white collar crime. The court shall hold a hearing to determine the identity of qualifying victims and shall order the defendant to pay restitution based on his or her ability to pay, in accordance with this section and s. 775.089.
(a) The court shall make the payment of restitution a condition of any probation granted to the defendant by the court. Notwithstanding any other law, the court may order continued probation for a defendant convicted under this section for up to 10 years or until full restitution is made to the victim, whichever occurs earlier.
(b) The court retains jurisdiction to enforce its order to pay fines or restitution. The court may initiate proceedings against a defendant for a violation of probation or for contempt of court if the defendant willfully fails to comply with a lawful order of the court.