special counsel indictments Sixteen counts of conspiracy to defraud the US Government https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-923-18-usc-371-conspiracy-defraud-us by obstructing official activities of the DOJ and the FEC were recently released by the Special Counsel Robert Mueller against Russian citizens, whom apparently used identity theft and basic impersonation and wire fraud to obtain funds and promote a particular political candidate. Are individuals who illegally enter the U.S. and obtain the most basic funding and use it to promote a political agenda able to be prosecuted under the same legal theory? Can millions of these individuals be indicted? Because they benefit from a perceived relaxation in the enforcement of immigration laws and obtain access to public benefits, can they be implicated in a conspiracy to defraud and obstruct the FEC?
Can millions of these individuals be indicted? Yes, they can indicted. Anyone (as an individual or a group who conspires) who commits a crime can be indicted. (But, it's a fantasy to think that millions would be indicted as part of a conspiracy.) The reason many people are not indicted for crimes is because they are not caught by law enforcement (LE) or because of the lack of the sheer numbers of LE required to pursue all criminals. And, if criminals are caught, the reason they may or may not be indicted is either prosecutorial discretion, i.e., a prosecutor decides not to indict because the crime isn't very serious. Or, probably much more relevant, is that there simply are not enough personnel in a county or state attorney's office to prosecute everyone who could be indicted. Prosecutors must oftentimes make decisions on who to indict and consider their available time, the seriousness of the crime, the available evidence and the possibilities of the success of their indictments. And, of course, politics sometimes comes into play; prosecutors may or may not pursue indictments because of political expediency, i.e. deporting an model citizen who also happens to be in the country illegally. But political pressure can work both ways, for and against prosecutorial discretion. Depending on your persuasion, it's either a bug or a feature in our legal system. But political influence and public opinion can also lead to changes in the legal system, as it is the representational branch of our governmental system that legislates the laws that the judicial system uses and enforces. If enough criminals are not indicted for a particular crime, and social or political pressure comes to bear, chances are good the legislative branch will take action. That's the way the system works.
The UN has a copy of the extradition treaty between the US and Brazil, the short version of it is that the treaty lays out in Article II an exhaustive list of crimes that are extraditable, skimming the list I don't see defamation (since of course in real life it's not a federal crime). As a general principle, Country A won't extradite someone to Country B if the conduct they are accused of in Country B is not a crime in Country A, if Country A does not think Country B would provide a fair trial, or if the person is convicted if the punishment likely to be imposed by Country B would be illegal under the laws of Country A (this comes up a lot with extradition from Europe to the US if a possible punishment for the crime is death). So in your hypothetical Brazil would probably be unwilling to extradite its own citizen for the crime the US accuses them of. I think another part of your question is whether the US or Brazil would have jurisdiction over this defamation. In theory, both could claim jurisdiction over it. In practice most criminal conduct is criminal relatively universally, especially among similarly geolocated countries, so the rest of this paragraph is assuming both countries did consider the defamation criminal and extraditable. As a matter of judicial effectiveness an Internet crime would probably be prosecuted in the country where the person resides. There would likely be a language barrier too, if the US court would have to employ a Portuguese translator. However, this is all largely a political question more than a legal one, if the US really wanted to make an example of this person in their own country the US could try to use political leverage to get Brazil to extradite them. The US could also wait until the person travelled abroad and petition the third country to imprison and extradite them. That's something that happens more commonly for citizens of a country that the US does not have an extradition treaty with.
There is nothing to forgive. The question presupposes that it is a crime to lay eyes on classified information. Crimes related to classified information generally have an element of intent. For example, from 18 USC 793 (emphasis added): (a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation ... (b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe ... The other subsections are similar, but subsection (e) is most directly applicable to the present hypothetical, so here it is in full: (e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; Seeing the files is not per se a crime. Finding the files and failing to ensure that they are returned to the government (or retuning them to the government while transmitting the information to unauthorized parties) is a crime.
if they do admit to to such fraudulent behavior, either in writing or over the phone, what legal action can I take against them? First of all, the intermediary with whom you are dealing will not admit fraud in writing or over the phone. Most likely the intermediary knows where, when, and how to give a candidate or employee directions that are sought to advance the intermediary's fraudulent purposes. The intermediary's practices sound in violation of Georgia's Fair Business Practices Act (FBPA), OCGA 10-1-390 et seq. The Attorney General is in charge of receiving and processing/channeling all complaints pursuant to the FBPA. See 10-1-395(c). Apropos of your mention of scamming and "foreign nationals", you might want to report the intermediary with the USCIS if you reasonably suspect the intermediary's fraudulent practices extend to obtaining visas for its employees. 18 USC § 1546 sanctions the act of "procur[ing] by means of any false claim or statement" any document of authorized stay or employment in the US. You will have standing to sue the intermediary only if it does something unlawful to you. Even if you end up suing the intermediary, there is a chance that your case would be presided by some corrupt judge/narcofelon whose "philosophy" in court consists of favoring "employers and [...] anybody who's powerful". In line with one of the comments, you might also want to consider denouncing the intermediary publicly. When doing so, you need to ensure that you prove or are able to prove the statements of fact you make about the intermediary. In this publication, I made statements of fact that I can readily prove by showing evidence, such as excerpt(s) of a contract with the crooked intermediary as well as excerpts of his deposition. The only reason why I refrained from disclosing other fraudulent practices this intermediary incurred is that neither these were not recorded nor did he reflect them in writing (your evidence need not be in the form of sworn/notarized documents or court filings; records such as emails would be fine). It is comforting that you are not planning on dealing further with that kind of employer. On paper the intermediary might assure you that you retain full control of your resume, yet that will not prevent him from pressing you in ways you could hardly prove later on.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no crime under US law known as &quot;despotism&quot;. However, many of the actions that might be called &quot;despotism&quot; are crimes, civil violations, or possibly violations of police regulations. &quot;use of excessive force&quot;, &quot;false arrest&quot;, &quot;illegal detention&quot;,. and &quot;deprivation of civil rights&quot; might apply, as might various other charges or causes of suit. In particular there is 42 U.S. Code § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights often known simply as &quot;section 1983&quot;. This provides that: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. ... This means that if a police officer or other government official takes action based on his or her authority as a police officer or government official that deprives someone of rights, the person deprived can sue the police officer or official in court, and collect damages directly and personally from the officer. This is limited by qualified immunity. That says that is a point of law has not been &quot;clearly established&quot; police can not be sued for violating it. The exact limits of when qualified immunity applies is a complex topic that has been the subject of many legal cases, quite a few decided by the US Supreme Court. The rules have changed over time. But what has not changed is that clear violations of constitutional and statutory rights by the police and others can give grounds for a federal lawsuit against the people who committed such violations. qualified-immunity, section-1983
"Civic obligations" are based on one's personal moral philosophy, best discussed on Philosophy SE. On the legal front, in the US, there is no (existing) legal basis for simply declaring some random thing to be "top secret", even if it has great potential to be used for evil purposes. If this is research conducted under the umbrella of the Dept. of Defense, it might be classified, but a garage inventor is not subject to the laws regarding classified documents. Congress could pass a law prohibiting promulgating research on time travel, but even if such a law were found to be constitutional (unlikely, on First Amendment grounds, see this), one cannot be penalized for breaking the law before it becomes a law.
Yes. The absence of immunity for a U.S. President's unofficial acts was established both in the Nixon Administration and later in the Clinton Administration. In practice, a prosecutor would be loath to file such charges absent very, very solid probable cause, and a court would often be very deferential in accommodating the President's schedule and, for example, in allowing appearances by telephone when allowed by law, or by electing not to seize the President's passport as a bail condition to be free pending trial, as would be common for someone facing felony charges pending trial. But, ultimately, the President does not have the right to either defer the charges until the completion of his term, or to any immunity from charges for his or her unofficial acts.
Reading some background on Stefan Molyneux (Wikipedia) would indicate that he is a (Canadian) right-wing provocateur (Merriam-Webster) and there is no legal logic to his claim that anyone involved with the migrant caravan - either as a refugee or a person giving aid - is committing an act of treason. Provocateurs - on the political left or right - seek to incite arguments and/or movements on social or political issues with emotion and not on legal frameworks or logical discussion. Provocateurs use words and phrases that can be identified as Dog-whistles (Wikipedia). Calling out "treason" and accusing one of being a traitor are examples of dog whistles. The legal reasoning against leveling calls of treason against anyone helping the caravan members are many; the migrants are not (from the U.S. Constitution:) levying war against them (the US), or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.... because: • None of the countries of origin of the migrants are currently in armed conflict with the U.S. • None of the migrants - alone or as a whole - are armed to engage the U.S. or are a threat to the U.S. • The refugees are easily identified as economic migrants, political refugees or those fleeing violence (domestic, communal, sectarian). • According to Refugee law (Wikipedia) and US Federal law, migrants have a right to due process at the border. • There is no clear proof of an ulterior motive or funding for the migrants in the the caravans. There could be - now or in the future - Americans or American-based aid groups helping individuals or the group as a whole with necessities with food and safety while they travel or after they arrive at the border. But the fact remains that each migrant - when and if they reach the US border - will be legally assessed individually as a migrant or refugee. The aid they may have received is really no different than what many NGOs provide who help arrange a refugees' processing through legal immigration channels, in some instances in conjunction with a US Government agency or with an arm of the United Nations. Such aid by an American is not treasonous for the legal reasoning above.