Blago Watch, Haiku Edition

shaggy black-haired man
orange jumpers will suit you well
do not drop the soap

inspired by that mean faced picture.....

SloRodbodan
Blagojevich
Jailosevic

Never mind Blagojevich. The arc points straight at OBAMA.

I thought you might like to read some more details about Obama's involvement with Rezko. You should write a VERY full report of this for your readers.

Now that Rezko has been convicted, both Obama and Blagojevich will VERY SOON be indicted under 18 USC 1346, which is the section under which Rezko was found guilty. In particular, Obama carried legislation to make sure board members continued to be appointed as part of an ongoing criminal enterprise--you should follow the details of this very closely. But that will be just one of MANY counts in Obama's indictment. He's as dirty as the bottom of your shoe, and he will be indicted quite soon.

Cordially yours,

John Ryskamp

Evelyn Pringle has just completed her series on Obama at opednews.com. You should review the articles, and then review the discussion of 18 USC 1346 provided, in order to see for what activities Obama will be indicted:

Final Chapter - Curtain Time for Barack Obama Evelyn Pringle 05/22/2008 2
Curtain Time for Barack Obama - Part V Evelyn Pringle 05/18/2008 9
Curtain Time for Barack Obama - Part IV Evelyn Pringle 05/16/2008 22
Curtain Time for Barack Obama - Part III Evelyn Pringle 05/15/2008 11
Curtain Time for Barack Obama - Part II Evelyn Pringle 05/13/2008 15
Curtain Time For Barack Obama - Part I Evelyn Pringle 05/12/2008 33

Here is an EXCELLENT discussion of 18 USC 1346 from:

http://www.groom.com/_library/downloads/NAPPAArticle-Feb2006.pdf.

This article provides brief guidance as to the manner in which courts have interpreted 18 U.S.C. § 1346, which generally provides that for purposes of federal mail and wire fraud statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343, respectively), a “scheme or artifice to defraud” includes a “scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right to honest services.” Specifically, this article examines the manner in which courts have interpreted the broad language of § 1346 in circumstances that do not involve the explicit bribery of public officials.
I.
Background
18 U.S.C. § 1346 was enacted in 1988, for purposes of reversing the Supreme Court’s decision in McNally v. U.S.,483 U.S. 350 (1987). In McNally, the Supreme Court overruled a long line of lower court decisions by holding that the federal mail and wire fraud statutes did not encompass schemes to defraud citizens of an intangible right to honest government service from pubic officers. Id. at 355. By enacting 18 U.S.C. § 1346, Congress restored “honest services” within the ambit of the federal mail and wire fraud statutes, meaning that a scheme to deprive the public of “honest services” by a public official could be punished as mail or wire fraud (assuming, of course, that such an instrumentality was used as part of the scheme or artifice).
II.
Judicial Interpretations of the “Honest Services” Fraud
A.
General Parameters of the Statute
Not surprisingly, the majority of cases that have analyzed the “honest services” fraud set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 1346 have involved the bribery of public officials, where the charge under § 1346 is in addition to other charges. However, there have been numerous prosecutions under § 1346 against public officials (and those who have corrupted public officials) for transactions that do not involve outright bribery, but which nonetheless involve the provision of cash or gifts to a public official in exchange for the public official’s exercise of power on behalf of the individual or entity providing the gratuity.
Courts have recognized that the term “honest services,” as used in § 1346, is incredibly broad, but the statute has survived repeated challenges asserting that it is unconstitutionally vague, with courts resorting to a “common sense” usage of the phrase “honest services.” In rejecting a constitutional void-for-vagueness challenge to the statute’s wording, one court opined that “[c]oncrete parameters outlining the duty of honest services should not be necessary. . . . The concept of the duty of honest services sufficiently conveys warning of the proscribed conduct when measured in terms of common understanding and practice.” U.S. v. ReBrook, 837 F. Supp. 162, 171 (S.D. W. Va. 1993), aff’d. 58 F.3d 961 (4 th Cir. 1995). Another court demonstrated little patience for the defendant’s void-for-vagueness challenge in the context of a kickback scheme, holding that “[i]t should be plain to ordinary people that offering and accepting large sums of money in exchange for a city councilman’s vote is a type of conduct proscribed by the language of § 1346.” U.S. v. Paradies, 98 F.3d 1266, 1283 (11 th Cir. 1996). Nonetheless, courts have refused to allow § 1346 to be used as a “catch-all” that subjects every unethical or illegal act to federal mail and wire fraud prosecution. See, e.g., U.S. v. Bloom, 149 F.3d 649, 654-56 (7 th
Cir. 1998) (noting, inter alia, that “not every breach of fiduciary duty works a criminal fraud”); U.S. v. Welch, 327 F.3d 1081, 1107 (10 th Cir. 2003) (”the right to honest services is not violated by every breach of contract, breach of duty, conflict of interest, or misstatement made in the course of dealing”). Recognizing the difficulty of interpreting the undefined phrase “honest services,” courts have attempted to establish general criteria that must be satisfied to successfully assert an “honest services” fraud claim. One of the leading circuits interpreting the scope of the honest services fraud is the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that: First, . . . honest services convictions of public officials typically involve serious corruption, such as embezzlement of public funds, bribery of public officials, or the failure of public decision-makers to disclose conflicts of interest. Second, . . . the broad scope of the mail fraud statute . . . does not encompass every instance of official misconduct that results in the official’s personal gain. Third, and most importantly, . . . the government must not merely indicate wrongdoing by a public official, but must also demonstrate that the wrongdoing at issue is intended to prevent or call into question the proper or impartial performance of the public servant’s official duties. U.S. v. Czubinski, 106 F.3d 1069, 1076 (1 st Cir. 1997) (emphasis added) (internal citations and quotations omitted), (discussing the First Circuit’s prior decision in U.S. v. Sawyer, 85 F.3d 713, 724 (1996). The Seventh Circuit has held that “[m]isuse of office (more broadly, misuse of position) for private gain is the line that separates run of the mill violations of state law fiduciary duty . . . from federal crime.” U.S. v. Bloom, 149 F.3d 649, 655 (7 th Cir. 1998). The court went on to note that “in almost all of the intangible rights cases decided . . . (before McNally or since § 1346), the defendant used his office for private gain, as by accepting a bribe in exchange for official action[,]” but also noted that “[s]ecret conversion of information received in a fiduciary capacity is a form of fraud against the owner of that information.” Id. Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit summarized its test for an honest services fraud as follows: “[a]n employee deprives his employer of his honest services only if he misuses his position (or the information he obtained in it) for personal gain” (emphasis added). Id. at 656-57.

Wow!
Sooooooo ahhhhh Mr. Jefferson!

Now that you out classed us in the haiku dept.,
why don't you bedazzel us with a tanka?

rod blagojevich:
if you cost barack the vote,
i hope jail is fun.

Married Mell's daughter
Rode his coattails to Springfield
Next stop: Joliet?

Madigan dances.
Blago has left the building.
Back in five-to-ten.

Okay, now my real one:

Soon we'll say "bye Rod"
Hope they get the Blackhawks games
In your concrete home

say it ain't so, Rod
public official a, wow
I promise I'll write

A Rezko in hand
is worth five-to-ten in the
cell next to G. Ryan

Rezko fallen low
lonely in his prison cell
waiting for Blago

Rezko convicted,
no where to run now blago,
is daniel webb free?

Hey Rod, when released
You'll ride the Blue Line for free.
Senior Citizen.

Virility shrinks
faced with justice's swift sword
guard thy testicles

"Stick with us and you'll
make lots of money". Wish you
didn't say that, huh?

Why did the chicken
cross the road? To make money
off Rod and Tony.

Virile testicles
Have no place in a concrete
Shoebox full of men.

Who's the biggest crook?
Is it Stroger or Daley?
It's Blagojevich!