The Criminal Case Against Peter Gleick coming from Heartland on Valentine’s Day

“On Thursday, February 14, 2013, The Heartland Institute is releasing a 57-page report produced by its legal counsel, Jones Day, presented to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois in support of criminal prosecution in the matter…

“… So far, the U.S. Attorney has declined to prosecute Gleick.”

Read more at Heartland.org.

About these ads

6 responses to “The Criminal Case Against Peter Gleick coming from Heartland on Valentine’s Day

  1. “Lying to the press and his allies.” Really? Heartland thinks those are prosecutable?

    • Howdy Gamecok
      Lying to the press and his allies makes Peter Glieck an unethical scum being. Using interstate systems to illegally access the documents makes him a criminal.

      • That’s what Heartland should focus on, then. Saying they lied to the press is such a non sequitur it makes me doubt their case.

  2. Obtaining information by fraud is also prosecutable.

  3. Of course this is Interstate Mail & Wire Fraud :

    940 18 U.S.C. Section 1341—Elements of Mail Fraud
    “There are two elements in mail fraud: (1) having devised or intending to devise a scheme to defraud (or to perform specified fraudulent acts), and (2) use of the mail for the purpose of executing, or attempting to execute, the scheme (or specified fraudulent acts).” Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705, 721 n. 10 (1989)

    941 18 U.S.C. 1343—Elements of Wire Fraud
    “The elements of wire fraud under Section 1343 directly parallel those of the mail fraud statute, but require the use of an interstate telephone call or electronic communication made in furtherance of the scheme. United States v. Briscoe, 65 F.3d 576, 583 (7th Cir. 1995) (citing United States v. Ames Sintering Co., 927 F.2d 232, 234 (6th Cir. 1990) (per curiam)); United States v. Frey, 42 F.3d 795, 797 (3d Cir. 1994) (wire fraud is identical to mail fraud statute except that it speaks of communications transmitted by wire); see also, e.g., United States v. Profit, 49 F.3d 404, 406 n. 1 (8th Cir.)”

    In both cases the defendant (Gleick) had voluntarily and intentionally devised or participated in a scheme to defraud another out of money, by dint of having devised a scheme to falsely discredit “Heartland Institute”, and therfor, forseeably dissuade contributors from financially supporting Heartland Institute, by deliberately damaging its reputation.

    [cited in USAM 9-43.100]

  4. Definitely believe that which you said. Your favorite justification seemed to be
    on the net the easiest thing to be aware of. I say to you, I definitely get
    irked while people consider worries that they plainly do not know about.
    You managed to hit the nail upon the top as
    well as defined out the whole thing without having side effect , people can take
    a signal. Will probably be back to get more.
    Thanks

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s