Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRoy Den Hollander sued media for Trump coverage in 2016.
https://abovethelaw.com/2016/08/lawyer-sues-basically-all-mainstream-media-for-rico-violations-for-how-they-report-on-donald-trump/For those who may not have caught the latest news, Roy Den Hollander is the alleged killer of the son of a NJ Federal Judge and the critical wounding of her husband. He was found dead with an apparently self inflicted gunshot wound. He was apparently a rabid Trumper going back to the 2016 campaign.
In 2016 Den Hollander tried to sue the mainstream media for RICO violations on how they were reporting on then candidate Trump. Is this significant? Was Trump behind the suit? Maybe if we had his financial data we could find out?
Aug 26, 2016 at 10:00 AM
If you do a Google search on Roy Den Hollander, as I just did, you may discover that basically every result is a story about some absolutely ridiculous lawsuit he has filed. There was the time he sued a nightclub claiming that requiring him to buy a $350 bottle of vodka was a human rights violation. Or the time he sued a bunch of night clubs for violating the 14th Amendment by having Ladies Nights. Or the time he sued Columbia University for offering womens studies courses. Or the time he wanted to file a lawsuit to force women to register for the draft. And these are all stories from just the first page of Google results (or following links from those stories). But, you get the idea.
And now hes back with a new lawsuit. Hes basically suing the entire mainstream media claiming that how they report on Donald Trump is a RICO violation. No, really.
This is an action against the above named defendant news reporters and commentators (Reporters) for violating the civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et al., (RICO) by repeatedly committing the racketeering activity of wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, when they (1) create and cause to be broadcast and disseminated false and misleading news reports concerning the Donald J. Trump candidacy for President of the United States (Trump Candidacy); (2) provide commentary based on a false set of facts or fail to reveal the alleged factual basis for the assertion of their judgments; and (3) lobby on various news-talk shows in furtherance of their opposition to the Trump Candidacy.
And to think, Id been looking for an opportunity to point people to Ken Popehat Whites Lawsplainer entitled ITS NOT RICO, DAMMIT:
Would it be RICO if . . .
NnnnoooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
No.
But how do you know? I havent even described the case yet.
Its never RICO!
I mean, not literally never. But I can say with a very high level of confidence that if youre asking me, its not RICO.
But its an important case! And the facts are terrible! This defendant did really bad things.
Thats not what RICO means. RICO is not a fucking frown emoji. Its not an exclamation point. Its not a rhetorical tool to convey you are upset about something. Its not a petulant foot-stomp.
RICO is a really complicated racketeering law that has elaborate requirements that are difficult to meet. Its overused by idiot plaintiff lawyers, and its ludicrously overused by a hundred million jackasses on the internet with an opinion and a mood disorder.
Theres more at that link. You should read it if you ever wonder if a case is a RICO case.
The lawsuit prattles on and on, but its not RICO. And, of course, its not going anywhere, because of the First Amendment. And, honestly, the court might as well just say No, go away and point to the First Amendment, but instead will be forced to waste its time in writing up a more comprehensive explanation for why the media reporting, no matter how much you disagree with it, is not breaking the law.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
0 replies, 916 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (2)
ReplyReply to this post