diff --git a/adam-rogalski.federal-bureau-of-investigation.com/authors/vincent-b-le-corre/index.html b/adam-rogalski.federal-bureau-of-investigation.com/authors/vincent-b-le-corre/index.html index 3befbded35..2fb0b5064d 100644 --- a/adam-rogalski.federal-bureau-of-investigation.com/authors/vincent-b-le-corre/index.html +++ b/adam-rogalski.federal-bureau-of-investigation.com/authors/vincent-b-le-corre/index.html @@ -1226,7 +1226,7 @@

Continously updated crime report draft criminal RICO case targe
- 35 min read + 39 min read
diff --git a/adam-rogalski.federal-bureau-of-investigation.com/authors/vincent-b-le-corre/index.xml b/adam-rogalski.federal-bureau-of-investigation.com/authors/vincent-b-le-corre/index.xml index 5855bb0298..1e6899c9a5 100644 --- a/adam-rogalski.federal-bureau-of-investigation.com/authors/vincent-b-le-corre/index.xml +++ b/adam-rogalski.federal-bureau-of-investigation.com/authors/vincent-b-le-corre/index.xml @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ https://adam-rogalski.federal-bureau-of-investigation.com/open-letters/latest-crime-report-in-the-criminal-rico-case-targeting-mcdonalds-corporation-and-its-accomplices/ Excerpts from Draft Number 27. The content I am currently publishing online comprises only about one tenth of the entirety of Draft Number 27. TLDR; EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: McDonald’s Corporation and its accomplices have engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity as defined under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act in Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1961(5). -This crime report is written under duress. I have, so far, received multiple serious threats thus constituting the crime of witness tampering. +This crime report is written under duress. So far, I have received multiple serious threats, thereby constituting the crime of witness tampering as defined under Title 18, Section 1512 of the U. diff --git a/adam-rogalski.federal-bureau-of-investigation.com/index.xml b/adam-rogalski.federal-bureau-of-investigation.com/index.xml index 6eb90f1752..c09b84249e 100644 --- a/adam-rogalski.federal-bureau-of-investigation.com/index.xml +++ b/adam-rogalski.federal-bureau-of-investigation.com/index.xml @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ https://adam-rogalski.federal-bureau-of-investigation.com/open-letters/latest-crime-report-in-the-criminal-rico-case-targeting-mcdonalds-corporation-and-its-accomplices/ Excerpts from Draft Number 27. The content I am currently publishing online comprises only about one tenth of the entirety of Draft Number 27. TLDR; EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: McDonald’s Corporation and its accomplices have engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity as defined under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act in Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1961(5). -This crime report is written under duress. I have, so far, received multiple serious threats thus constituting the crime of witness tampering. +This crime report is written under duress. So far, I have received multiple serious threats, thereby constituting the crime of witness tampering as defined under Title 18, Section 1512 of the U. diff --git a/adam-rogalski.federal-bureau-of-investigation.com/open-letters/index.html b/adam-rogalski.federal-bureau-of-investigation.com/open-letters/index.html index 57b586fb54..91bf456210 100644 --- a/adam-rogalski.federal-bureau-of-investigation.com/open-letters/index.html +++ b/adam-rogalski.federal-bureau-of-investigation.com/open-letters/index.html @@ -1157,7 +1157,7 @@

Continously updated crime report draft criminal RICO case targe
- 35 min read + 39 min read
diff --git a/adam-rogalski.federal-bureau-of-investigation.com/open-letters/index.xml b/adam-rogalski.federal-bureau-of-investigation.com/open-letters/index.xml index 4d21989b41..a63f28dd3a 100644 --- a/adam-rogalski.federal-bureau-of-investigation.com/open-letters/index.xml +++ b/adam-rogalski.federal-bureau-of-investigation.com/open-letters/index.xml @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ https://adam-rogalski.federal-bureau-of-investigation.com/open-letters/latest-crime-report-in-the-criminal-rico-case-targeting-mcdonalds-corporation-and-its-accomplices/ Excerpts from Draft Number 27. The content I am currently publishing online comprises only about one tenth of the entirety of Draft Number 27. TLDR; EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: McDonald’s Corporation and its accomplices have engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity as defined under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act in Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1961(5). -This crime report is written under duress. I have, so far, received multiple serious threats thus constituting the crime of witness tampering. +This crime report is written under duress. So far, I have received multiple serious threats, thereby constituting the crime of witness tampering as defined under Title 18, Section 1512 of the U. diff --git a/adam-rogalski.federal-bureau-of-investigation.com/open-letters/latest-crime-report-in-the-criminal-rico-case-targeting-mcdonalds-corporation-and-its-accomplices/images/mcdonalds-monopoly-usa-2011-lebron-james-1-in-4.jpg b/adam-rogalski.federal-bureau-of-investigation.com/open-letters/latest-crime-report-in-the-criminal-rico-case-targeting-mcdonalds-corporation-and-its-accomplices/images/mcdonalds-monopoly-usa-2011-lebron-james-1-in-4.jpg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..c64ea31beb Binary files /dev/null and b/adam-rogalski.federal-bureau-of-investigation.com/open-letters/latest-crime-report-in-the-criminal-rico-case-targeting-mcdonalds-corporation-and-its-accomplices/images/mcdonalds-monopoly-usa-2011-lebron-james-1-in-4.jpg differ diff --git a/adam-rogalski.federal-bureau-of-investigation.com/open-letters/latest-crime-report-in-the-criminal-rico-case-targeting-mcdonalds-corporation-and-its-accomplices/images/mcdonalds-monopoly-usa-2011-lebron-james-1-in-4_huebbfad1edfa8e198fe68a27ac6a615ca_90361_840x840_fit_q90_h2_box.webp b/adam-rogalski.federal-bureau-of-investigation.com/open-letters/latest-crime-report-in-the-criminal-rico-case-targeting-mcdonalds-corporation-and-its-accomplices/images/mcdonalds-monopoly-usa-2011-lebron-james-1-in-4_huebbfad1edfa8e198fe68a27ac6a615ca_90361_840x840_fit_q90_h2_box.webp new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..81f5c047a0 Binary files /dev/null and b/adam-rogalski.federal-bureau-of-investigation.com/open-letters/latest-crime-report-in-the-criminal-rico-case-targeting-mcdonalds-corporation-and-its-accomplices/images/mcdonalds-monopoly-usa-2011-lebron-james-1-in-4_huebbfad1edfa8e198fe68a27ac6a615ca_90361_840x840_fit_q90_h2_box.webp differ diff --git a/adam-rogalski.federal-bureau-of-investigation.com/open-letters/latest-crime-report-in-the-criminal-rico-case-targeting-mcdonalds-corporation-and-its-accomplices/index.html b/adam-rogalski.federal-bureau-of-investigation.com/open-letters/latest-crime-report-in-the-criminal-rico-case-targeting-mcdonalds-corporation-and-its-accomplices/index.html index f1366c9ad4..73b57936ca 100644 --- a/adam-rogalski.federal-bureau-of-investigation.com/open-letters/latest-crime-report-in-the-criminal-rico-case-targeting-mcdonalds-corporation-and-its-accomplices/index.html +++ b/adam-rogalski.federal-bureau-of-investigation.com/open-letters/latest-crime-report-in-the-criminal-rico-case-targeting-mcdonalds-corporation-and-its-accomplices/index.html @@ -179,7 +179,7 @@ "image": "https://adam-rogalski.federal-bureau-of-investigation.com/images/usa-v-mcdonalds-banner.jpg", "datePublished": "2024-04-27T13:46:00+08:00", "dateModified": "2024-04-27T22:13:00+08:00", - "wordCount": 7341 , + "wordCount": 8105 , "author": { "@type": "Person", "name": "vincent-b-le-corre" @@ -353,7 +353,7 @@

Continously updated crime report draft criminal RICO case targe
- 35 min read + 39 min read
@@ -374,13 +374,13 @@

TLDR; EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

McDonald’s Corporation and its accomplices have engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity as defined under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act in Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1961(5).

  • -

    This crime report is written under duress. I have, so far, received multiple serious threats thus constituting the crime of witness tampering. Whether or not deaths threats were hinted at me and potentially targeting me and/or my family members remains to be clarified.

    +

    This crime report is written under duress. So far, I have received multiple serious threats, thereby constituting the crime of witness tampering as defined under Title 18, Section 1512 of the U.S. Code. Whether death threats were hinted at, potentially targeting me and/or my family members, remains to be clarified.

  • -

    I’ve been informally, and therefore illegally, gag ordered. As a result and for reasons I won’t detail now, I believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the U.S. Department of Justice knew or ought to have known, since the summer/fall of 2019, that McDonald’s Corporation and its accomplices were engaging in criminal activities.

    +

    I have been informally, and therefore illegally, gag ordered. As a result, and for reasons I won’t and/or can’t detail now—due to the gag order—I firmly believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the U.S. Department of Justice knew or ought to have known since the summer/fall of 2019 that McDonald’s Corporation and its accomplices have been engaging in criminal activities.

  • -

    The European Court of Human Rights has been notified and interim measures (rule 39 of the Court) have been requested. Case V.L.C. v. France 50552/22. The Court’s records are sealed due to the sensitiveness of some information.

    +

    I have notified the European Court of Human Rights and requested interim measures (Rule 39 of the Court) in the case V.L.C. v. France 50552/22. Due to the extreme sensitivity of some information related to the McDonald’s case, the Court’s records have been sealed. However, given the grave nature of the ongoing white-collar, criminally organized financial crimes, and in the interest of public awareness, I have decided to start publishing selected documents online around April 24, 2024. These documents are carefully redacted to protect sensitive information while informing the public.

  • I also started notifying two United States Senators: Mitt Romney1 and Chuck Grassley2.

    @@ -465,7 +465,7 @@

    (I)(C)(d)
  • Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, an analyst can indeed be someone who compiles and interprets publicly available or secondary information to detect violations of financial regulations or misconduct. This role extends beyond traditional financial analysts to include any individual who, through their analysis, enables regulatory bodies to identify and act upon regulatory breaches.
  • According to Stephen M. Kohn in his book Rules for Whistleblowers: A Handbook for Doing What’s Right: “The Dodd-Frank Act also permits analysts to file reward claims. An analyst is not a traditional original source, but rather a person who puts together public or secondary information in a manner that permits the commissions to learn that a violation has occurred.”
  • This provision is particularly pertinent to my activities, as my investigations into the criminal practices of McDonald’s do not merely interpret data but reveal systemic fraud that was not previously acted upon by regulatory bodies.
    • -
  • Given that my work exposes significant frauds followed by serious financial crimes and misconducts (money laundering and failure to alert investors), it may qualify for whistleblower protections under Dodd-Frank. This is crucial as it not only shields me from retaliation but also potentially qualifies me for rewards should the information I provide lead to a successful enforcement action by financial regulators.
    • +
  • Given that my work exposes significant frauds followed by serious financial crimes and misconducts (money laundering and failure to alert investors), it may qualify for whistleblower protections under Dodd-Frank. This is crucial as it shields me from retaliation.
  • In conclusion, my role as an analyst in this context extends beyond traditional financial analysis and enters the realm of forensic examination, where the analysis itself helps to unveil complex schemes and subsequent regulatory violations. By doing so, I embody the spirit of the Dodd-Frank Act’s whistleblower provisions, serving as a critical conduit for transparency and accountability in corporate practices. This reaffirms the legal and societal value of my investigative endeavors, positioning me as a key figure in advocating for consumer rights and ethical business conduct.

    • (I)(D) The Big Picture: A Brief, Non-Exhaustive Timeline of Events

    @@ -551,7 +551,7 @@

    available for viewing here or in my open letter to Mr. Molins.

  • This picture shows you what consumers (i.e. the victims) would see at the time of placing their orders at the McDonald’s Drive-Thru. It fraudulently and clearly states “1 CHANCE OUT OF 4 TO WIN INSTANTLY”. The probability is given irrelevant to how many “GAME STAMPS” the consumers purchase. The consumers have 1 in 4 chance of winning instantly whether they purchase an item offering 2 game stamps or 4 game stamps.
  • Let’s explore the logical implications of the claim that the chance of winning is 1 in 4, regardless of whether a consumer purchases an item that gives 2 or 4 game stamps.
  • Assumption:
    @@ -583,15 +583,38 @@

    (IV)(G) The First “1 in 4” McDonald’s Monopoly Mass-Marketing Fraud in the United States for the Year 2011

    -

    Coming soon. Maybe on April 30, 2024. The text below is just a test to check the formating.

    -

    =====================================

    -

    test

      -
    1. The small letter \(_p\) right at the beginning in the third position, in the subscript in \(P_{n,p}\) represents, in this formula, a Bernoulli trial. To explain briefly, let’s simply say, for now, that this parameter is the probability per attempt, while the small letter \(_n\) on its left side is the number of attempts. And so, the ruse of these fraudsters was to say, in essence, that a consumer, who would attempt this formula 1 time, would only then get about 1 in 4 chance to win instantly.
      2. +
    2. Similar to the 2011 instance of mass-marketing fraud in France, the American version also exhibited multiple fraudulent elements. The “1 in 4” scheme in the United States was not a singular fraud but rather encompassed two distinct types of fraudulent activities. This analysis will concentrate on the first of these two types. Furthermore, it’s my assessment that the 2011 American edition not only engaged in fraudulent misrepresentation–through its collect-to-win component–but also operated as an illegal lottery. These aspects, along with others, will be elaborated upon in subsequent sections.
      3. +
    3. I believe we will go a long way if I directly give you a brief introduction with the answer, which actually already partially gave in the executive summary, to how this criminal enterprise orchestrated by McDonald’s Corporation has successfully defrauded billions of consumers worldwide for decades while successfully flying below the radars and never getting caught (yet). It’s also important to quickly mention that I currently believe there might have been attempts, by government officials, both American and French, to cover up the crimes in an attempt to protect McDonald’s Corporation and McDonald’s France from bankruptcy. There is a lot of money at stake. An exceptional diligence is in order!
      4. +
    4. It’s crucial for you to understand that there were many different types of mass-marketing frauds and the mass-marketing fraud I focus in this section is proven not only beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond a shadow of a doubt since it’s supported by a rigorous mathematical demonstration.
      5. +
    5. But what is a fraud? Here is how an archive of the criminal resource manual of the website of the United States Department of Justice12 defines fraud:
      6. +
    6. “The statute does not define the phrase “obtained by fraud.” Fraud is defined by nontechnical standards and is not to be restricted by any common-law definition of false pretenses. One court has observed, “[t]he law does not define fraud; it needs no definition; it is as old as falsehood and as versatile as human ingenuity.” Weiss v. United States, 122 F.2d 675, 681 (5th Cir. 1941), cert. denied, 314 U.S. 687 (1941). The Fourth Circuit, reviewing a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2314, also noted that “fraud is a broad term, which includes false representations, dishonesty and deceit.” See United States v. Grainger, 701 F.2d 308, 311 (4th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 947 (1983).” (I emphasize)
      7. +
    7. Consider this straightforward analogy to better understand the nature of fraud: Imagine a jewelry store that advertises and sells rings purported to contain 12 carats of gold. However, the actual gold content in the jewelry is only 6 carats. This would undoubtedly constitute fraud. Similarly, if a vendor claims to sell 100% milk but dilutes it with water so that it only contains 50% milk, yet still fraudulently advertises it as 100% milk, this too is a clear case of fraud.
      8. +
    8. In essence, this is precisely what McDonald’s Corporation and its accomplices are accused of doing: they advertise false probabilities of winning their sweepstakes to encourage consumers to spend more money. However, fraudulent advertising by McDonald’s isn’t limited to misleading probabilities. It can also involve other forms of deception, such as inaccurately representing product specifications. An example from China, which I will detail later, demonstrates how dimensions of a product were fraudulently advertised. While the fraud in China did not involve sweepstakes, the underlying modus operandi—misrepresenting the truth to enhance consumer spending—is identical.
      9. +
    9. In cases of white-collar and financial crimes, the motive is almost invariably financial gain. However, it’s important to remember that mass-marketing fraud represents just one facet of this extensive criminal RICO case. Other offenses include money laundering, obstruction of justice, corruption of foreign officials, and corruption and/or attempts to corrupt American law enforcement officers, among others. We will delve deeper into these aspects in due course.
      10. +
    10. Here is a screenshot from a TV advertisement featuring NBA basketball superstar LeBron James. In this commercial, McDonald’s blatantly lies, asserting that the probability of winning are 1 in 4 per attempt, where each attempt corresponds to one game stamp:
      + + + + + + + +
      + +
      + + + +
      +
      +{#mcdonalds_monopoly_usa_2011_lebron_james_1_in_4}
      11. +
    11. The video from which this screenshot was captured can be viewed in this post13 on X (formerly Twitter). As you can clearly see, McDonald’s unequivocally states that the probability of winning is 1 in 4, while the fine print, barely legible, confirms the obvious: “Odds based on 2 Game Pieces (each has 2 Game Stamps).”
      12. +
    12. In other words, the calculation for the winning probability is actually based on 4 game stamps, since 2 game pieces each contain 2 stamps, effectively making it 2 × 2 = 4.
      13. +
    13. So, in the United States, for the 2011 edition of this mass-marketing fraud, McDonald’s Corporation and their thousands of accomplices, which include among other persons, the franchisees, fraudulently claimed to consumers, the victims, who include millions of innocent child-victims, that they had a per attempt probability–in which 1 attempt was 1 game stamp–of 1 in 4 chance to win instantly. It was a vicious lie and a vicious fraud: this wasn’t the probability of winning instantly per attempt. It was, in reality, the result of the sum of what we call in probability theory the probability mass function (PMF) of the hypergeometric distribution for obtaining at least \(k\) successes, summing from \(i=k\) to the minimum of \(n\) and \(K\), each term calculating the probability of exactly \(i\) successes in a sample of size \(n\) from a population of \(N\) with \(K\) successes and represented by the following expression:
      +$$P_{N, K, n}(X \geq k) = \sum_{i=k}^{\min(n, K)} \frac{{\binom{K}{i} \cdot \binom{N-K}{n-i}}}{{\binom{N}{n}}}$$
    -

    Therefore, and to make the demonstration easier to understand we can also say that the “1 in 4” result wasn’t the result of the probability to win but was, approximately, the result of the sum of the probability mass function (PMF) of the binomial distribution for obtaining at least \(k\) successes, summing from \(i=k\) to \(n\), where each term within the sum calculates the probability of achieving exactly \(i\) successes in \(n\) trials.

    -

    And so, the probability of at least \(k\) successes of a certain event happening would therefore be defined by the following expression:

    -

    $$P_{n,p}(X \geq k) = \sum_{i=k}^{n} \binom{n}{i} p^i (1-p)^{n-i}$$

    +

    I will continue the in-depth explanations and analysis tomorrow, May 1, 2024.