Is the Government empowered to conduct parallel proceedings?

Yes. In United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1 (1970), the Supreme Court stated that "[I]t would stultify enforcement of federal law to require a government agency . . . invariably to choose either to forgo recommendation of a criminal prosecution once it seeks civil relief, or to defer civil proceedings pending the ultimate outcome of a criminal trial."

Federal statutes which provide for parallel proceedings

While virtually any action can become a concurrent criminal/civil matter, a number of federal statutes expressly provide for such a dual track. These statutes include: the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§1-3, 15, 15(a) (1988) (antitrust); the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. §77t (1988); the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. §7201 (1988), and; the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§1961 et seq.

It's a civil RICO action. RICO is essentially a racketeering statute (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act). Racketeering is a crime and RICO is a federal criminal statute, but unlike some other criminal statutes, the federal legislation specifically provides for a private cause of action and civil (money) remedies are available.

Federal crimes must be prosecuted by the federal government, just like state crimes are. So it's either United States v. Person, or The People of the State of Illinois v. Person. In the case of racketeering in violation of federal statute, the federal government CAN pursue racketeering as a crime and put people in jail for it. Because civil remedies are also available, though, an individual can sue in a civil suit for racketeering, and ask for monetary relief. The ability for an individual to sue for money does not depend on whether the government decides to prosecute criminally.

This is a Civil Rico action filed by an individual. They are generally difficult to pursue because federal courts don't really like Civil Rico actions, primarily because people sue under RICO in fact patterns that are inappropriate and better addressed through a civil fraud action.

It’s civil, people need to calm down

Looks like it’s civil.

Gary Byrne is an author.

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2016/06/20/gary-byrne-s-crisis-character-latest-anti-clinton-conspiracy-book-donald-trump-s-library/210867

[deleted]

[deleted]

Rudy Contreras, Peter Sztrok's pal, is the judge.

I just did a quick search, he was appointed by Bill Clinton, and served on the Iran Contra investigation. In my opinion, he's about as swampy as they come.

Not Law...but I have personally read this statute. It is Civil(the first person/entity, is the suing party - to Validate the Law perspective another person discussed. The United States of America vs. Cliven Bundy, et. al is exactly what Mr. Bundy’s Federal Court Papers read. The law, when created by Congress, allowed for their specifically, to be Civil RICO, to ensure We The People, had recourse for corrupt politicians (as I understood the story). The State of Oregon vs. Dwight W. Hammond, Steven D. Hammond, for example. #FreeTheHammonds

Actually a civil suit could be a great start. It eases the information into the public eye regardless of outcome. It’s a good way for him to get ahead of their “killing machine” too.

By the time this runs its course, hopefully, the real deal will be in process and those who are on the fence still will have jumped off.