Legal Advocates for Abused Women? SLAPPs and Racketeering ...

January 17, 2012 | Filed Under Crime, Government, Missouri, Paleo-Skeptic, The Law | No Comments

by Paleo-Skeptic

You would think that an organization with such a high-sounding name as ?Legal Advocates for Abused Women? might be out doing some good in the world. Maybe they would be, if they actually cared about providing services for battered women more than engaging in racketeering and violating federal law. As it stands, it?s more of a model of the evils of centralization.

First, by removing community services away from the communities which they were intended to serve, those services become less and less responsive to the individual needs of the community. A ?one size fits all? approach becomes the streamlined effort, whereas to engage in true thought lies beyond their means. This leads to heavy-handed measures where they are not warranted, and insufficient measures where they would be.

Secondly, centralization allows those service organizations to wield greater power, which naturally incentivize more precarious rent-seeking behaviors. The potential for usurpation, the ?hostile take-over,? becomes greater, not lessened, due to the disproportionate influence at the upper rungs of the structure.

Here follows a portion from the transcript of Straussner v. Hart, Cause No. 09SL-PN03697, and Hart v. Straussner, Cause No. 09SL-PN03700, which were heard at the same time. Mr. Hart is here a creditor in a bankruptcy and, having been threatened by Straussner, who was using a fake name at the time, and Hart had received a previous Order of Protection with a finding of Stalking against Straussner under the phony name, Cause No. 09SL-PN02411, a few months earlier.

Mr. Straussner is represented here by Katherine ?Evidence Tampering? Wessling, managing attorney for Legal Advocates for Abused Women and racketeer-in-chief, who has determined that Straussner was, according to their mission statement, a battered woman or child. That has a lot to do with why this organization, LAAW, is being investigated by various federal agencies, including the Office of a prominent Senator.

I will save the more appalling aspects of this for the end of the citations.

Mr. Straussner is being questioned here under cross-examination from Mr. Hart?s attorney, Mr. Cohan:

(Mr. Straussner): And I said to him, I said, I would knock the glasses off your face.
(p. 13)

(Mr. Straussner): I told him that I would knock the glasses off his face.
(p. 14)

Q: Did he have any kind of communication with you prior to the phone call that you made to him in May of 2009?

(Mr. Straussner): Umm, not that I know of, no. Not that I can recall.

Q: And when you called him, you told him who you were, is that right?

A: No.

Q: So he had no idea ?

A: Yeah, no, he knew who I was. I told him that I was Sherry?s fianc?.

Q: Okay.

A: Yes, I did. I did say that, yes.

Q: And you?re aware when you made that call that he was Sherry?s ex-boyfriend, for want of a better term, is that right?

A: Umm, actually at that time he was ? I believe he was filed as a creditor.

THE COURT: He was what?

A: Filed as a creditor. He said that she owed ? he owed her money or ? Yeah, he said that she owed him money.

THE COURT: Filed what as a creditor?

MR. COHAN: Just to clear this up, Your Honor, ?cause I think I know what he?s talking about.

Q: (By Mr. Cohan) Your fianc?e had filed for bankruptcy, is that right?

A: Correct. Correct.

Q: And he filed as a creditor in the bankruptcy ?

A: Correct.

Q: ? ?cause he thought she owed him money?

A: Yes, sir.

MR. COHAN: That?s what he?s talking about, Your Honor.

A: Yes, sir.

(pp. 20 ? 22)

What you just read there were several violations of federal law.

First, Straussner admits that he gave the fake name at a time when he knew that Hart was a creditor in the bankruptcy. Hart had initiated an objection to the discharge of debt, and hired a private investigator to conduct an asset investigation. Bringing that investigation to an end was a great part of the purpose of Straussner having brought this suit against Hart; a process known as a ?strategic lawsuit against public participation? (SLAPP); which, by the way, is outside of the mission statement for Legal Advocates for Abused Women.

What that would indicate is that the omnibus clause of Title 18 Sections 1503 was in effect, as the procedure was then pending.

??or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice??

The term ?endeavor? has been interpreted to indicate actions more inclusive than ?attempts.?

Although I am no attorney, it certainly looks like a violation of Section 1512 of Title 18, Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant:

(2) Whoever uses physical force or the threat of physical force against any person, or attempts to do so, with intent to?
???(A) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
???(B) cause or induce any person to?
??????(i) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
??????(ii) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the integrity or availability of the object for use in an official proceeding;
??????(iii) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
??????(iv) be absent from an official proceeding to which that person has been summoned by legal process

(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to?
???(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
???(2) cause or induce any person to?
??????(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
??????(B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object?s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;
??????(C) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
??????(D) be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process

(c) Whoever corruptly?
???(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object?s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
???(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so

(d) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from?
???(1) attending or testifying in an official proceeding;
???(2) reporting to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense?;
???(3) arresting or seeking the arrest of another person in connection with a Federal offense

(k) Whoever conspires to commit any offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy

More on the judicial interpretation of the term ?corruptly? may be found here. The phrase ?any persons? was included in a revision to extend protections to attorneys, parties that would not give testimony, those who would produce documents without testifying, etc.

These citations are from Chapter 73 of Title 18, which is the portion of the federal criminal code (Title 18) that deals with Obstruction of Justice crimes.

Now, there are other things going on here, such as violations of Title 18 U.S.C. ? 241 Conspiracy to interfere with rights; but I don?t want to focus on that so much.

I would rather focus on the language of Title 18 Chapter 96 ? 1961 (1) (D):

any offense involving fraud connected with a case under title 11 (except a case under section 157 of this title)

Title 11 would be the federal bankruptcy code.

I went to Chapter 96 of Title 18 to cite this, because this Chapter is known as the ?Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations statute,? which is Title IX of the RICO Act. Section 1961 is where you will find the definitions of what constitutes racketeering under the Act. Wouldn?t you know, both Sections 1503 and 1512 are listed as RICO predicate acts!

Hmmm?

Now, Mr. Straussner?s actions would constitute racketeering under the Act all by themselves; the question is? how exactly is it that engaging in racketeering might help battered women?

So, suppose Straussner was, in fact, a woman. Do SLAPPs make women safer in the absence of physical abuse? Do SLAPPs make women safer even in instances of physical abuse? What about RICO violations? Does racketeering help battered women in any way?

And why aren?t the racketeering activities mentioned in this group?s fund-raising materials?

You can look here to see if you see anything about RICO violations.

Why are your tax dollars going to pay for a criminal enterprise?

I can tell you that the Senator was the first one on top of that.

The Senator Roy Blunt, ever since his distinguished days in the House, has always been on guard against wasteful spending.

In times like these, we need that now more than ever.

Senator Blunt served as President of Southwest Baptist University back in the early 90?s, and he brings a strong moral character to his Office. It?s not that he doesn?t care, or doesn?t want to help women in abusive relationships? it?s that he wants people getting money from the government to do the things they say they?re going to do with it.

Sen. Blunt has received a 94 percent lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union. Maybe the belief that people shouldn?t be lying to the government just to get money out of them is one big reason why.

I?m not saying that all the people under Pelosi?s wings are swindlers. It?s just that the idea of getting something for nothing seems to run deep on that Left-hand side of the aisle.

There?s a greater lesson there about identity politics, but I?ll leave that aside for another time. For now, let?s just be thankful that someone is watching out for the rights of the people, and keeping the pilferers out of the public purse.

Source: http://www.publiusforum.com/2012/01/17/legal-advocates-for-abused-women-slapps-rico/

colbert super pac walker recall pipa and sopa censor sopa bill sopa pipa wikipedia blackout