Let's break Google! >How? The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations act (18 USC, Chapter 96) contains a lot of interesting items detailing what constitutes racketeering. Here's a few:
§201 (relating to bribery), §664 (relating to embezzlement from pension and welfare funds), §1028 (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents), §1029 (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with access devices), §1351 (relating to fraud in foreign labor contracting), §1425 (relating to the procurement of citizenship or nationalization unlawfully), §1426 (relating to the reproduction of naturalization or citizenship papers), §1427 (relating to the sale of naturalization or citizenship papers), §1503 (relating to obstruction of justice), §1510 (relating to obstruction of criminal investigations), §1511 (relating to the obstruction of State or local law enforcement), §1512 (relating to tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant), §1513 (relating to retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant), §1542 (relating to false statement in application and use of passport), §1543 (relating to forgery or false use of passport), §1544 (relating to misuse of passport), §1546 (relating to fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents), §1831 & 1832 (relating to economic espionage and theft of trade secrets), §1954 (relating to unlawful welfare fund payments), §1956 (relating to the laundering of monetary instruments), §1957 (relating to engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity),
(F) any act which is indictable under the Immigration and Nationality Act, §274 (relating to bringing in and harboring certain aliens), §277 (relating to aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter the United States), §278 (relating to importation of alien for immoral purpose)
I'm Donald Trump. I will shut down Google tomorrow. Thanks for your information.
David Cruz
>explain to me what an user seeing your post should understand Google fits the definition of "the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations act" — as such a well-run competent prosecution will destroy the company.
> start doing as if you were talking to an italian Talk to your officials —I'm not up on Italian political structure— but I think it would be the diplomats.
TL;DR — Help by alerting your politicians and asking them to put a bit of pressure on the US.
So ... let me get this straight. You want me to call my AG, and tell them: "I'm SURE that Google is guilty of RICO, if only you'd look!"
I'd post gore at you, but I'm not sure I wouldn't get banned. Instead, I'll just say that you're a worse OP than usual.
Kayden Turner
>>So ... let me get this straight. You want me to call my AG, and tell them: "I'm SURE that Google is guilty of RICO, if only you'd look!" How do you think these cases get started, faggot?
The sliding is unreal. Can't let Google make this go away. For years they cried for impeachment over Muh Russia and then in the same breathe are doing the exact same thing but for real
Grayson Hernandez
I was polite to you. Fuck all your holes.
I imagine you come forward with some evidence or some reason. Why should your AG waste time with a random kook, until you give them reason?
>I was polite to you. Fuck all your holes. t. Someone who doesn't realize "faggot" is thrown around on Jow Forums all day. >I imagine you come forward with some evidence or some reason. Yes; I have reasons to suspect the RICO violations; I do *not* have what would be considered proof — it is the investigator's job to obtain such proof/evidence. On the experiential side, seeing the massive fraud and abuse of H1B and what it's done to job-postings alone is enough to make me suspicious about the foreign labor fraud & fraudulent immigration application charges. > Why should your AG waste time with a random kook, until you give them reason? Because it's his job. If you absolutely need to give them a reason, take a look at that list of RICOable violations: do you *really* think something as big and arrogant as Google would be completely and utterly innocent of all of those?
Glad you're still here. I suppose threatening you with gore isn't polite, but, enh. And no I don't think "it's his job" is enough of a reason. Anyone could just pile up work over imaginary offenses - you have to give him / her /some/ reason to choose yours over someone else's. Specially with as big, and recently-popular a target as Google.
Sorry, guy - you're going "Somebody Do Something!" -- we're not your personal army - you do it. I'd be happy to see them go down, of course, but you have to give the AGs something to work with. I can tell you're from Jow Forumsthe_donald - you just assume that shouting will create a wave and someone will do something for you. Or at least you'll get to crowd-surf.
Jose Parker
>>Glad you're still here. I suppose threatening you with gore isn't polite, but, enh. >And no I don't think "it's his job" is enough of a reason. That seems like a bit self-defeating. > Specially with as big, and recently-popular a target as Google. That they're so big and powerful is quite disquieting, especially when you're privy to a bit of the disgusting tactics that go on behind the scenes. >Sorry, guy - you're going "Somebody Do Something!" -- we're not your personal army - you do it. I'd be happy to see them go down, of course, but you have to give the AGs I've already started contacting all my senators/representatives/AGs — I'm not asking anyone to do the work for me, but I *AM* asking for people to consider helping as the issue is really big. > I can tell you're from Jow Forumsthe_donald - you just assume that shouting will create a wave and someone will do something for you. Or at least you'll get to crowd-surf. Nope, not from T_D.
not saying i disagree with it being looked at, but doesnt there have to be "something" to start a investigation? >i think X is doing Y ok what makes you think that? have any evidence >i just have a feeling erm ok, just a feeling? or something a little more substantial we can work with >well, its google, they must be doing something so is that a no? no, you dont have anything more substantial >reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee do your fucking jobs
there is no doubt in my mind that this is a good angle to hit them with, but i think it needs ot have a starting "something" for any possibility of this being the route that is taken. if you have something, that is undeniable to start with, then the bigger things may follow
bump, my google put needs blood., SELL GOOGLE STOCK
Ryan Myers
>not saying i disagree with it being looked at, but doesnt there have to be "something" to start a investigation? There are "somethings" in play — the Damore info, the Veritas drops, and the employment data show *MULTIPLE* conspiracies going on.
Damore and Veritas's both are criminal in nature, and Damore's feeds into the high probability that the foreign hiring is fraudulent.
> I've already started contacting all my senators/representatives/AGs
Well, great - and do they ask you what you want them to do, or why? It's possible they're just nodding and smiling for a constituent.
Hudson Myers
>Well, great - and do they ask you what you want them to do, or why? It's possible they're just nodding and smiling for a constituent. True; which is why I would like more people to call in — at some point it transitions from "nod along" to "where there's smoke, there's fire."
i am just asking some questions, user. any questions that can be simply answered will be an asset towards lurkers in this thread. thanks for the info
look john, i dont know how you know its me when i post, but you put everyone on edge with this shit. can you cool it down a bit, yeah?
Xavier Evans
>>i am just asking some questions, user. any questions that can be simply answered will be an asset towards lurkers in this thread. thanks for the info Cool beans. Have the answers already provided helped at all?
Mason Collins
yeah, of course. i hope the answers serve everyone in the thread well. a well presented thread of info, is potent in its effect on the readers
