Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 31, 2025 - Epoch Times

10:01

Supreme Court Issues 7-2 Decision

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	In a new decision issued late last week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that crimes of violence may be committed through inaction, meaning that moving forward, even if you technically committed no violent actions, you might have still committed violence under the law.
	Let's go through the details of this case together.
	Although, before we begin, I will quickly mention that, speaking of crimes, On the back end of this YouTube channel, I can see that 41% of you are not yet subscribed.
	And I don't know about the technicalities of the law, but to me, that is an act of violence.
	And so please, like this video so that I can reach ever more people via the YouTube algorithm, and also consider subscribing to the channel.
	We report a lot of interesting stories that get brushed under the rug of the typical news cycle, and by subscribing, you support the channel, but also you'll get all of our episodes delivered directly into your newsfeed every time we publish them every single week.
	Getting back to the Supreme Court ruling, let me give you a brief background on this case.
	Back in 2017, there was a mobster by the name of Salvatore Fatsal Delgado.
	He was operating over in Queens, New York, as an associate of the Genovese crime family.
	And specifically, he was helping to run an illegal sports gambling operation.
	Now, Fatsal was not the owner of the operation.
	He was just running it on behalf of a made member of the family.
	Now, what eventually happened, just like you see in the mob movies, is that Fatsal Found himself in a position where he needed to kill someone.
	Now, this official explanation is obviously vague, but suffice it to say, Fat Sal decided to take out Mr. Joseph Bonelli.
	But he did not want to get his own hands dirty.
	And so what Fatsal did is that he used a third party to hire members of the Crips gang to carry out the contract killing.
	Fatsal Delegati, he plays the order, and then he gave the Crips gang members a.38 revolver to get the job done.
	He basically subcontracted it out, provided the gun, but he did not want to do the killing himself, which is a point that becomes relevant later.
	Now, the police, they intercepted the gang members before they were able to actually carry out the hit.
	And then eventually, the feds, they figured out what had happened.
	They arrested Fatsal Delgadi in 2017 and indicted him on several charges, including the following.
	Conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering.
	Attempted murder in aid of racketeering.
	Conspiracy to commit murder for hire.
	Operating an illegal gambling business.
	And, most relevant to our discussion, possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence under Section 924C of the Hobbs Act.
	Now, a federal jury in New York wound up convicting Mr. Delgadi on all counts back in March of 2018, and he was sentenced to 300 months behind bars, which is 25 years in prison.
	However, Mr. Delgadi appealed that ruling.
	His argument for the appeal was actually quite interesting.
	The last charge that he was hit with, the possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence under the Hobbes Act, it contributed five years to his overall sentence.
	But Delgadi claimed That he did not commit a crime of violence and therefore that particular statute did not apply to him.
	Now, for your reference, quote, And then, going into this specific subsection, Section 924C specifically authorized enhanced punishments for a firearm in connection with a crime of violence.
	Basically, that particular section, it allows for enhanced punishments if a perpetrator used a gun in connection to a crime of violence.
	This is what's known as a predicate.
	Quote, A predicate is an event that takes place before an offense and serves as the basis for a conviction or sentence enhancement.
	And so, in plain English, it means that the prosecutors used, as the predicate, the other offenses that Mr. Delgadi was facing, such as racketeering, attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder for hire, and so on.
	They claimed that those charges established the crime of violence predicate, and so on top of that, because there was a gun involved, that.38 revolver, they tacked on the last charge.
	Possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence under Section 924C of the Hobbs Act.
	And because of that possessed gun, he was given another five years in prison.
	Without that charge, he would have only been given 20 years, but with that charge, it was 25. And so, Delgady appealed that decision.
	His argument was that none of the other charges qualified as crimes of violence under the law.
	Quote, Salvatore Fatsel Delgatti challenged the five years added to his sentence tied to his 2018 conviction of attempted murder and other crimes.
	Delgatti said he never used the physical force required to meet the definition of a crime of violence.
	Instead, he said, he hired members of the Crips gang through an intermediary to carry out a killing and gave them a.38 revolver for the crime.
	Essentially, he was arguing that his conviction for attempted murder did not actually count as a crime of violence, Because no physical force on his part was used.
	It's the classical defense of the mob, where the higher-ups don't get their hands dirty, and it's the henchmen who do.
	Now, his appeal bounced around the legal system for a while, before finally landing in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, who just last week ruled against Mr. Delgado.
	In a 7-2 split decision, you had Justices Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Sam Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Alina Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett reject the mobster's argument.
	Alright, just to pause here for a super quick moment.
	Listen, it's obvious that the financial system is not looking too great.
	After being pumped up with trillions of virtually free government dollars for many, many years now, well, the stock bubble might actually burst in the near future.
	And in that process, unfortunately, it could take away the nest egg of anyone who happens to be exposed to it.
	And so, Consider taking this opportunity to diversify into something which is beyond the grasp of Washington D.C. and Wall Street, physical gold and silver.
	And the best company to use, in my opinion, is the sponsor of today's episode, American Hartford Gold, who I should mention is also my own personal gold and silver bullion dealer.
	And besides myself, they have thousands of 5-star reviews from other Americans, and they also have an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau.
	And working with them is rather simple.
	They have a huge selection of coins, bars, and rounds to choose from.
	They have super friendly staff who you can call and they can set up either gold delivery directly to your doorstep or they can even set you up in a gold IRA.
	And then lastly, best of all, if you tell them that Roman sent you, they will throw in a free gold coin with your first qualifying purchase.
	So give them a call.
	The number is 866-242-2352.
	That's 866-242-2352.
	Or you can simply text Roman to 65532.
	I'll also throw a link to their website.
	Writing for the majority of the court, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the following, It was widely accepted that one could commit murder by refusing to perform
	a legal duty, like feeding one's child.
	Meaning that, according to the majority opinion of the court, an act of violence can occur even through inaction.
	Which is a fascinating interpretation, which I'm sure the mobsters did not anticipate.
	However, it's worth mentioning that two justices did not agree with that line of reasoning.
	To that end, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a dissenting opinion, To which Justice Katonji Brown Jackson joined, wherein he gave an example of a lifeguard who sits idly by while watching someone drown in water and writes the following, quote, Instead of leaping into action, the lifeguard chooses to settle back in his chair, twirl his whistle, and watch the swimmer slip away.
	The lifeguard is a bad man.
	In many states, he may be guilty of a serious crime for failing to fulfill his legal duty to help the swimmer.
	But does the lifeguard's offense also qualify as a crime of violence involving the use of physical force against the person of another?
	The court thinks so.
	I do not.
	Which is, frankly, a good point.
	Not trying to save someone from drowning as a lifeguard is obviously negligent, but is it an act of physical violence?
	Well, even though a common understanding of that term would make you think it's not, The majority decision of this court legally makes it so.
	Moving forward, you no longer have to commit an overt act of violence to meet the definition of a crime of violence under the Hobbes Act.
	But let me ask you, do you agree with this interpretation?
	Or do you think that the law should be clear and that violence should mean violence without interpretations like this?
	Please leave your thoughts in the comments section below.
	I'd love to know your thoughts.
	I'll be reading through them later tonight as well as into the week.
	Uh, yeah, I mean, that's pretty much it.
	But pretty much no matter what your thoughts on the matter are, this is what it is.
	The U.S. Supreme Court ruled as they did in a 7-2 decision, and now you no longer have to commit a physical act of violence to be charged under the crime of violence subsection of the Hobbs Act.
	Very interesting.
	If you'd like to go deeper into this case, I will throw both the majority opinions as well as the dissenting opinions.
	You can find them down in the description box below if you want to dig more into the legal rationale.
	And as you're making your way down there to those links, if you haven't already, do consider smashing those like and subscribe buttons so that this video can reach ever more people via the YouTube algorithm, and so that you can get all of our episodes as we release them every single week.
	And then until next time, I'm your host, Roman from The Epic Times.

▲