U.S. Law requires charities to pay back donations from fraudsters.
Using the fruit of Zuckerberg’s crimes defrauds the true inventor of social networking―Columbus, Ohio innovator Leader Technologies.
(Dec. 02, 2015)—Mark Zuckerberg announced yesterday his scheme to give away his $45 billion in Facebook stock to charity “over our lives.” The highly-staged announcement included a cutesy video of the larcenous couple with their new baby that The New York Times dutifully made available on their website.
On the surface, this announcement probably makes charity fund raisers salivate. But there’s a "poison pill" for any charity that swallows a Zuckerberg donation. By seducing charities, Zuckerberg lures them into his schemes to defraud—whether or not they are aware of his criminal acts.
The law is clear. Charities who accept donations from fraudsters, whether or not they knew the donor was donating fraudulent funds, must pay back those funds—even if the money is already spent. It doesn't matter what good work was done with the donations. That’s the law on "fraudulent conveyance."
Anyone or any organization that uses, aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures the commission of an act (like Zuckerberg’s theft of property) is as responsible for that act as if he had directly committed the act himself. 18 U.S.C. 2(a).
The charities’ liabilities for Zuckerberg’s crimes pile on from there. Ignorance is no defense.
If the charity knows Zuckerberg is guilty, then the specter of triple damages arises. In other words, the charity might have to pay back three times what they owe if they knew the property they received was obtained fraudulently.
A landmark 7th Circuit case gave this illustration (Scholes v. Lehmann, 56 F. 3d 750 (7th Cir. 1995) to illustrate the liability of a charity for unknowing gain from tainted funds:
“A thief rushes into a church, and, unobserved by anyone, drops the money he has stolen from his victim into the collection plate. Does the church obtain good title as against the thief’s victim? It does not.” —7th Circuit 1995.
In the Scholes case, the churches who received donations were ordered to pay back the funds that they had already spent for laudable activities like missionary work, earthquake relief, and construction of a chicken hatchery and children’s dormitory in Africa.
Likewise, Zuckerberg will not be able to pass good title to the charities he targets to receive his dirty funds.
The only rightful recipient of the funds Zuckerberg has stolen to generate Facebook's revenues is Columbus innovator, Leader Technologies—the inventors who proved in federal court are the true creators of the engine running Facebook.
Zuckerberg’s $45 billion is the fruit of the poisonous tree
For starters, any charity that accepts and/or spends Zuckerberg’s tainted donations will, at minimum, be ordered to pay it back.
Further, not counting conspiracy and collusion charges, accepting Zuckerberg’s donations makes the recipient liable for a host of criminal offenses associated with aiding and abetting Zuckerberg’s crimes, including:Bookmark: #related-crimes
|Potential liabilities to a Charity for taking donations from a fraudster like Mark Zuckerberg|
|U.S. Code (The Law)||Issue/Summary:|
|18 U.S.C. § 2||Aiding and Abetting an Offense Makes You a Principal Offender|
|18 U.S.C. § 1341||Frauds and Swindles|
|18 U.S.C. § 1961||Racketeering (RICO)|
|18 U.S.C. § 2314||The National Stolen Property Act|
|18 U.S.C. § 2315||Sale or receipt of stolen goods, moneys|
|18 U.S.C. § 2319||Criminal infringement of a copyright|
|18 U.S.C. § 2320||Trafficking in counterfeit goods or services|
|18 U.S.C. § 2323||Forfeiture, destruction and restitution|
|18 U.S.C. § 2326||Enhanced penalties|
|18 U.S.C. § 2327||Mandatory restitution|
|Table 1: Crimes to which recipients of Zuckerberg donations expose themselves.|
On Jul. 27, 2010, Leader Technologies proved that Facebook is guilty of infringing their U.S. Patent No. 7,139,761 for social networking. The resulting judicial actions to protect Facebook have exposed a horrific level of Washington corruption, including the Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. himself, who holds substantial Facebook financial interests and cozy relationships with Facebook's attorneys.
The facts show that Facebook was a fabrication of the NSA to spy on Americans more freely and cheaply. Zuckerberg was a pawn in this illegal surveillance scheme. He played along as a willing front man, as have many other technology and banking executives. See Figs. 2, 3 below.
Zuckerberg’s charity announcement is a naked attempt to garner public favor in order to cover over his many crimes.
He is also tempting charities to come over to the dark side where their integrity can be subsumed by and recruited to this criminality.
Such conduct is not new. “Giving back” what one has previously stolen is a well known and ancient practice.
Run from any Zuckerberg bearing gifts
In Zuckerberg’s case, any legitimate charity will run from any Zuckerberg or Facebook crony bearing gifts.
Don’t take Zuckerberg’s bait. It is poison.
Whistleblowers are encouraged to come forward to put an end to this madness while we still have a Republic. Contact the House Oversight Committee, an investigative journalist with integrity, like Sheryl Attkisson, or post your evidence anoymously on any number of websites like AFI. Be smart about it, but do it.
* * *
The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment empowers Congress to legislate a payday for Leader Technologies shareholders. This would provide adequate financing for Leader to offer a rational social networking environment—one that offers the application utility that people have come to enjoy about Leader’s invention without sacrificing security and privacy.
Contact your elected representatives and ask them to use Congress' power of the purse to pay Leader Technologies and unplug the Cartel.
Notice: This post may contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself.
Click "N comments:" on the line just below this instruction to comment on this post. Alternatively, send an email with your comment to firstname.lastname@example.org and we'll post it for you. We welcome and encourage anonymous comments, especially from whisteblowers.