Ceramatec's Joshi heads Matheson donation list, Oct. 8, 2010

---

Matheson has loyal following of individual donors

By Matt Canham

The Salt Lake Tribune

Published: September 5, 2010 12:00AM
Updated: October 8, 2010 01:37PM

philantrophy day 2 magid 11/1/07 Norma Matheson, left, and Barbara Pioli at Utah Philantrophy Day awards ceremony. magid photo

Washington • Rep. Jim Matheson is by far the biggest fundraiser among Utah’s three House members, representing a district that is often competitive. While he raises most of his money from political action committees run by business groups, unions and politicians, he still has a small core of committed individual donors.

The Salt Lake Tribune analyzed contributions from each of Matheson’s six House elections to determine which families rank among his top 10 contributors of all time. These loyal supporters, some of whom are quite wealthy, are limited by federal rules on how much they can give. PACs can donate $5,000 per election (convention, primary and general), while individuals can contribute $2,400 per election.

1. Ashok and Surekha Joshi

Ceramatec

Total contributions • $33,644

Matheson’s top contributors run a company that has benefited from federal earmarks secured with the congressman’s help. It’s hard to tell if their ties go beyond this. The Joshis did not return calls seeking comment.

They run Ceramatec, a Utah company that develops new uses for ceramics, including biofuels and the delivery of pain medication. Matheson has helped the company secure at least three earmarks in recent years, including a $1.6 million defense grant in 2008. Matheson hasn’t sponsored an earmark for the company in the past two years.

Back in 2008, Ashok Joshi told The Tribune he contributes for two reasons: his wife is a supporter and he hoped the contributions would help get federal funds.

“I also feel that appropriations have politics behind [them], so naturally I want my representatives to fight to get the money to Utah,” he said.

Matheson said he met the Joshis at a House party during his first campaign. “They appreciated my approach and supported me ever since.”

The Joshis have contributed $10,600 to Matheson so far this election cycle. The couple have also donated to other federal officials, such as Sen. Orrin Hatch, but in much smaller amounts. When contributions from all Ceramatec executives are combined, the company has contributed nearly $45,000 to Matheson since he first ran for office.

The Joshis have contributed $10,600 to Matheson so far this election cycle. The couple have also donated to other federal officials, such as Sen. Orrin Hatch, but in much smaller amounts. When contributions from all Ceramatec executives are combined, the company has contributed nearly $45,000 to Matheson since he first ran for office.

The Joshis have contributed $10,600 to Matheson so far this election cycle. The couple have also donated to other federal officials, such as Sen. Orrin Hatch, but in much smaller amounts. When contributions from all Ceramatec executives are combined, the company has contributed nearly $45,000 to Matheson since he first ran for office.

Internet Fraud-definition

Internet Fraud

Also found in: Wikipedia

0.01 sec.

A crime in which the perpetrator develops a scheme using one or more elements of the Internet to deprive a person of property or any interest, estate, or right by a false representation of a matter of fact, whether by providing misleading information or by concealment of information.

Unjust enrichment--definition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unjust enrichment is a legal term denoting a particular type of causative event in which one party is unjustly enriched at the expense of another, and an obligation to make restitution arises, regardless of liability for wrongdoing.^[1]

Definition:
1.n. a benefit by mistake or chance. Morally and ethically the one who gains a benefit that he or she has not paid or worked for should not keep it to the rightful owner's detriment. The party that received money, services or property that should have been delivered to or belonged to another must make restitution to the rightful owner. A court may order such restitution in a lawsuit brought by the party who should rightly have the money or property. ^[2].

2. n. A general equitable principle that a person should not profit at another's expense and therefore should make restitution for the reasonable value of any property, services, or other benefits that have been unfairly received and retained. ^[3]
-

fraud, hartvigsen hydro, brian kunzler, watermotor, peter ruyter, cargo and kraft, sweden, ceramatec, coorstek, turgo turbine, alternarive energy, h-hydro, extortion

Extortion--Elements of Offense

Elements of Offense

Virtually all extortion statutes require that a threat must be made to the person or property of the victim. Threats to harm the victim's friends or relatives may also be included. It is not necessary for a threat to involve physical injury. It may be sufficient to threaten to accuse another person of a crime or to expose a secret that would result in public embarrassment or ridicule. The threat does not have to relate to an unlawful act.

Other types of threats sufficient to constitute extortion include those to harm the victim's business and those to either testify against the victim or withhold testimony necessary to his or her defense or claim in an administrative proceeding or a lawsuit. Many statutes also provide that any threat to harm another person in his or her career or reputation is extortion.

Under the common law and many statutes, an intent to take money or property to which one is not lawfully entitled must exist at the time of the threat in order to establish extortion. Statutes may contain words such as "willful" or "purposeful" in order to indicate the intent element. When this is so, someone who mistakenly believes he or she is entitled to the money or property cannot be guilty of extortion. Some statutes, however, provide that any unauthorized taking of money by an officer constitutes extortion. Under these statutes, a person may be held strictly liable for the act, and an intent need not be proven to establish the crime.

Statutes governing extortion by private persons vary in content. Many hold that a threat accompanied by the intent to acquire the victim's property is sufficient to establish the crime; others require that the property must actually be acquired as a result of the threat. Extortion by officials is treated similarly. Some statutes hold that the crime occurs when there is a meeting of the minds between the officer and the party from whom the money is exacted.

Criminal Fraud.... What is "fraud"? Legislated definitions are too complicated so here are three simple explanations expressed in different ways.

Criminal Fraud....

What is "fraud"? Legislated definitions are too complicated so here are three simple explanations expressed in different ways.

1. "All multifarious means which human ingenuity can devise, and which are resorted to by one individual to get an advantage over another by false suggestions or suppression of the truth. It includes all surprises, tricks, cunning or dissembling (disguising, concealing), and any unfair way which another is cheated." [Black's Law Dictionary, 5th edition]

2. "Deceitful conduct designed to manipulate another person to give something of value by (1) lying, (2) by repeating something that is or ought to have been known by the fraudulent party as false or suspect or (3) by concealing a fact from the other party which may have saved that party from being cheated. The existence of fraud will cause a court to void a contract and can give rise to criminal liability. [Duhaime's Online Legal Dictionary]

3. "Lying and stealing and cheating for gain"