How To Hide US/State Banking Fraud In Virginia

March 28, 2023 6:31 PM

Phony Virginia bank charge supports RICO claim “Why did the US Department Of Justice allow John Wynne to operate illegal banking fraud for State and US banks? Police can’t investigate him and discovery cannot be allowed on this case”

A reporter is needed that hopefully has NCIC clearance.


RICO in Falwell's Banking Fraud Playground of VA:
Jerry Falwell JR, Donald Trump among others associated with banking fraud investor John Wynne.
Scott Garrett? - Lynchburg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._Scott_Garrett
Ken Cuccinelli? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Cuccinelli
Rustburg, VA Delegate : investigate kickback on land closing deals

https://valawyersweekly.com/2013/06/04/phony-bank-charge-supports-rico-claim/

Originally filed 9/8/2011
CVLR Performance Horses, Inc. v. John Wynne, No. 12-1591 (4th Cir. 2013)
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/virginia/vawdce/6:2022cv00034/125481?amp
Racketeer/Corrupt Organization
Cause of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/12-1591/12-1591-2013-05-29.html

Proved open ended continuity...first case in VA...review passage regarding truck.. same scheme used in equestrian center/subdivision project

--------------------------------------------

Originally filed 5/25/2018

Rivers v. United States of America (6:18-cv-00061)
District Court, W.D. Virginia
Racketeer/Corrupt Organization
Cause of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6924293/rivers-v-bowman/

Pay close attention to #17, 18, 19, 224, 294, 294-1, 376, 393, 427, 438, 439, 485, 502, 555, 568, 569, and 582

------------------------------------------
Originally filed on 6/9/2022
Rivers v. Wynne et al. 6:2022cv00034
Racketeer/Corrupt Organization
Cause of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/virginia/vawdce/6:2022cv00034/125481
Pay close attention to #3

‐------‐---------------------------------------


Citing

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24375698

Rivkin Radler
https://www.rivkinradler.com › ...PDF
Christine Spinella Davis, Daniel Wilson, Scott R. Wolf, Frank P. Tiscione, Van Cates, Michael A. Sirignano, and Michelle A. Bholan

Anyone with Anonymous Tips and Information please sent to :
1213 Culbreth Dr, #418
Wilmington, NC 28405

posted by screenname00 (8 comments total)

"rut-ro"
posted by clavdivs at 6:39 PM on March 28, 2023 [1 favorite]

So the problem seems to be, for the district court judge at least, that they caught the racket too early? How many more damaged lives need to be brought before a judge for a pattern of intent to be clear. Prick does it once, fine, no pattern. Prick does it twice, surely this is indicative of something? But the third, the fourth, just where is the line that you are, or should be, looking for, your honor?
posted by Ignorantsavage at 6:46 PM on March 28, 2023 [1 favorite]

Interesting.

I'm unfamiliar with civil RICO, but I assume there must be a reason why it's the preferred route in this case, vs. some more standard tort claim? Extra damages or something? Easier for the lawyers to get paid out, so more attractive for a firm to take the case on contingency?

On its face it looks like pretty classic fraud to me, but if the statutory shoe fits... smack 'em with it.
posted by Kadin2048 at 7:00 PM on March 28, 2023 [1 favorite]

Pull quote is not from the linked article, comment about needing a reporter with NCIC clearance doesn’t appear to be related to anything, urls below the fold aren’t linked, and the text below the fold is a real mishmash- this post needed a lot more editing before going live.
posted by eviemath at 7:03 PM on March 28, 2023 [9 favorites]

@eviemath lets discredit things based on aesthetics eh
posted by screenname00 at 7:12 PM on March 28, 2023

Is this a call to action? It's basically unparseable below the fold, which is less aesthetics than problem of coherence.
posted by sagc at 7:18 PM on March 28, 2023 [9 favorites]

So the problem seems to be, for the district court judge at least, that they caught the racket too early?

Well, it sounds like that got reversed on appeal. It seems like this was actually fairly well-thrashed-out in court, which is a lot further than most civil RICO claims seem to get, if you go by Popehat's RICO lawsplainer.

But yeah, the problem with this post is more comprehensibility than anything.
posted by BungaDunga at 7:21 PM on March 28, 2023 [4 favorites]

It's 2023, and the first two links I spot checked are from 2013. What gives?
posted by pwnguin at 7:49 PM on March 28, 2023 [3 favorites]