Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [infoguys-list] Not a good thing - clarification

Expand Messages
  • oracleintl@aol.com
    Just to be clear, the chopped up way that my e-mail came thru made it look like the comment in parens was mine -- it was not. Generally speaking, extortion
    Message 1 of 3 , Apr 2, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Just to be clear, the chopped up way that my e-mail came thru made it look
      like the comment in parens was mine -- it was not.

      Generally speaking, "extortion" is the more technical term for "blackmail,"
      and to say that extortionate threats are limited to "lawful acts" is just
      plain stooopid.

      Very few criminal codes have a provision for both -- most call it either
      blackmail, or extortion, to use threats to coerce people to do something against
      their will.

      Where there is a distinction, blackmail is always a specific kind of
      extortion. Some statutes define blackmail as extortion put in writing, and some
      statutes define blackmail as an extortionate threat to expose a person to
      prosecution, embarrassment, ridicule, etc., as opposed to a threat of violence.

      That being said, the author apparently got confused about the "otherwise
      lawful acts" aspect of extortion. I'll explain.

      Suppose Rick and his wife are getting divorced, and she believes that he has
      been squirreling away loads of money in secret accounts - naturally wanting
      her piece of that action. Suppose I investigate and find that Rick routinely
      gets paid by checks payable to him personally, and only declares to the IRS
      whatever income is associated with a W-2 or 1099.

      Can I go to Rick and say, "You have been a very bad boy. I pay my taxes,
      you should pay yours, and your wife said I could feel free to screw up your
      life. I put all that evidence in an envelope, and I sent it to the IRS."?

      Of course I can say that. There's no extortion -- there's nothing he can do
      about it. There is no, "I am going to X if you don't Y."

      On the other hand, if I threaten to do it as a way to make him settle
      favorably, even though turning him over to the IRS would be otherwise lawful, it is
      still a crime to use the threat to coerce him.

      There is another thing you should be aware of along this same line -- a
      wicked little concept called "constructive extortion." Even if you don't
      actually say the words, you can be prosecuted for constructively extorting him if
      you effectively did the same thing.

      "Gee Rick, in the course of my investigation, I discovered . . ., and ya
      know, it would be a real shame to find yourself in jail for filing fraudulent
      tax returns and affirmative acts of evasion. That would truly suck. I sure
      hope it doesn't come to that."

      That would be constructive extortion.

      Finally, I know of no statute where the offense is not complete once the
      threat is made -- the person does not have to comply with the extortionate
      demand to complete the offense.

      I hope this serves to clarify things; the person who wrote that article was
      a boob.

      Bill E. Branscum, Investigator
      Irascible Curmudgeon,
      Contumelious Cynic,
      Inveterate Skeptic &
      Incorrigible Purveyor of Pointed Prose

      Oracle International
      Naples, FL 34101
      (239) 304-1639 V
      (239) 304-1640 F
      (239) 641-6782 C
      _www.FraudsAndScams.com_ (http://www.FraudsAndScams.com)





      In a message dated 4/2/2009 8:42:29 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
      oracleintl@... writes:




      I dunno if this story has merit or not, but this part tells me that the
      writer is a nit wit.

      This is a classic extortion: Controlling someone’s free will by threatening
      to perform a lawful act. (Blackmail is the threat is to perform an unlawful
      act in order to control someone else’s free will.)


      Bill E. Branscum, Investigator
      Irascible Curmudgeon,
      Contumelious Cynic,
      Inveterate Skeptic &
      Incorrigible Purveyor of Pointed Prose

      Oracle International
      Naples, FL 34101
      (239) 304-1639 V
      (239) 304-1640 F
      (239) 641-6782 C
      _www.FraudsAndScams_www.Fr_http://www.FraudsAnhttp://www_
      (http://www.fraudsandscams.com/) )

      In a message dated 4/2/2009 7:05:39 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
      _suesarkis@..._ (mailto:suesarkis@...) writes:

      Americans asked for it and now they have it. Karl Marx is laughing his rear
      off as is Nakita Kruschev.

      ___http://foxforum.http://foxforum.http://foxforuhttp://foxfht_
      (http://foxforum.http//foxforuhttp://foxfhttp://foxforum.h_)
      (_http://foxforum.http://foxforuhttp://foxfhttp://foxforum.h_
      (http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/author/judgenapolitano/_) )
      (__http://foxforum.http://foxforum.http://foxforuhttp://foxfh_
      (http://foxforum.http//foxforuhttp://foxfhttp://foxforum._)
      (_http://foxforum.http://foxforuhttp://foxfhttp://foxforum._
      (http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/author/judgenapolitano/) ) )

      April 2, 2009 1:14 PM
      _Our Government Engaged In EXTORTION With Our Banks!_
      (__http://foxforum.http://foxforum.http://foxfohttp://foxfhttp://_
      (http://foxforum.http//foxforuhttp://fohttp://foxforum.http:/_)
      (_http://foxforum.http://foxforuhttp://fohttp://foxforum.http:/_
      (http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/04/02/napolitano_fdic/) ) )

      By Judge Andrew Napolitano
      FOX News Senior Judicial Analyst
      The Federal government committed extortion and they’re not being held
      accountable. What’s next? Listen to this: I recently met with the Chair and
      CEO of
      one of the country’s top 10 bank holding companies. His bank is worth in
      excess of $250 billion, has no bad debt, no credit default swaps, no
      liquidity
      problems, and no subprime loans. He told me that he and others were forced
      by
      Treasury and FDIC threats to take TARP funds, even though he did not want or
      need them.
      There is simply no authority in the U.S. Constitution for Congress to
      exercise the level of control it now seeks over private industry.
      The FDIC — with Treasury backing — threatened to conduct public audits of
      his bank unless his board created and issued a class of stock for the Feds
      to
      buy. The audit, which he is confident his bank would survive, would cost it
      millions in employee time, bad press, and consequent lost business.
      He pleaded with the Feds to leave his successful bank alone. He begged his
      board to let him tell the Feds to take a hike. But they gave in. The Feds
      are
      now just a tiny shareholder, but want to begin asserting more and more
      control. This is a classic extortion: Controlling someone’s free will by
      threatening
      to perform a lawful act. (Blackmail is the threat is to perform an unlawful
      act in order to control someone else’s free will.) There are no exceptions
      in
      the statutes prohibiting extortion for government persons
      This happened in September 2008, but the demands for more control are more
      recent. It sounds to me like Paulson, Geithner, Bernanke, and Sheila Blair
      have
      all read a biography of Benito Mussolini. I guess they skipped the last
      chapter.
      There is simply no authority in the U.S. Constitution for Congress to
      exercise the level of control it now seeks over private industry. In fact,
      this
      level of control will wind up costing the businesses that took TARP
      (voluntarily
      or involuntarily) money since they will lose key employees who will go to
      work elsewhere and because the reporting requirements will take time and
      time is
      money. The Constitution basically says that if the government wants to take
      time or freedom or money from someone or something, it must sue for it. It
      cannot just give itself the authority to do so via legislation.
      Our liberties are slipping away right before our eyes.

      ************************<WBR>**<WBR>*Feeling the pinch at the grocery store?
      less. (__http://food.http://food._ (http://food.http//food.)
      <_WBhttp://food.WBhttp://foo_ (wbhttp://food.http://food.) <WBRhttp_
      (_http://food.http://food.<WBhttp://food.http://food.<WBRhttp_
      (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001) ) )

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      ************************<WBR>**Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make d
      less. (_http://food.http://food.<WBhttp://food.http://food.<WBRhttp_
      (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001) )

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





      **************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or
      less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Slipinn@aol.com
      Well said Bill. That s one of the best descriptions of extortion I have read. Thank you, Chuck Chambers _www.chambersagency.com_
      Message 2 of 3 , Apr 2, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Well said Bill. That's one of the best descriptions of extortion I have read.

        Thank you,

        Chuck Chambers
        _www.chambersagency.com_ (http://www.chambersagency.com)



        In a message dated 4/2/2009 9:20:39 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
        oracleintl@... writes:




        Just to be clear, the chopped up way that my e-mail came thru made it look
        like the comment in parens was mine -- it was not.

        Generally speaking, "extortion" is the more technical term for "blackmail,"
        and to say that extortionate threats are limited to "lawful acts" is just
        plain stooopid.

        Very few criminal codes have a provision for both -- most call it either
        blackmail, or extortion, to use threats to coerce people to do something
        against
        their will.

        Where there is a distinction, blackmail is always a specific kind of
        extortion. Some statutes define blackmail as extortion put in writing, and
        some
        statutes define blackmail as an extortionate threat to expose a person to
        prosecution, embarrassment, ridicule, etc., as opposed to a threat of
        violence.

        That being said, the author apparently got confused about the "otherwise
        lawful acts" aspect of extortion. I'll explain.

        Suppose Rick and his wife are getting divorced, and she believes that he has
        been squirreling away loads of money in secret accounts - naturally wanting
        her piece of that action. Suppose I investigate and find that Rick routinely
        gets paid by checks payable to him personally, and only declares to the IRS
        whatever income is associated with a W-2 or 1099.

        Can I go to Rick and say, "You have been a very bad boy. I pay my taxes,
        you should pay yours, and your wife said I could feel free to screw up your
        life. I put all that evidence in an envelope, and I sent it to the IRS."?

        Of course I can say that. There's no extortion -- there's nothing he can do
        about it. There is no, "I am going to X if you don't Y."

        On the other hand, if I threaten to do it as a way to make him settle
        favorably, even though turning him over to the IRS would be otherwise
        lawful, it is
        still a crime to use the threat to coerce him.

        There is another thing you should be aware of along this same line -- a
        wicked little concept called "constructive extortion." Even if you don't
        actually say the words, you can be prosecuted for constructively extorting
        him if
        you effectively did the same thing.

        "Gee Rick, in the course of my investigation, I discovered . . ., and ya
        know, it would be a real shame to find yourself in jail for filing
        fraudulent
        tax returns and affirmative acts of evasion. That would truly suck. I sure
        hope it doesn't come to that."

        That would be constructive extortion.

        Finally, I know of no statute where the offense is not complete once the
        threat is made -- the person does not have to comply with the extortionate
        demand to complete the offense.

        I hope this serves to clarify things; the person who wrote that article was
        a boob.

        Bill E. Branscum, Investigator
        Irascible Curmudgeon,
        Contumelious Cynic,
        Inveterate Skeptic &
        Incorrigible Purveyor of Pointed Prose

        Oracle International
        Naples, FL 34101
        (239) 304-1639 V
        (239) 304-1640 F
        (239) 641-6782 C
        _www.FraudsAndScams_www.Fr_http://www.FraudsAnhttp://www_
        (http://www.fraudsandscams.com/) )

        In a message dated 4/2/2009 8:42:29 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
        _oracleintl@..._ (mailto:oracleintl@...) writes:

        I dunno if this story has merit or not, but this part tells me that the
        writer is a nit wit.

        This is a classic extortion: Controlling someone’s free will by threatening
        to perform a lawful act. (Blackmail is the threat is to perform an unlawful
        act in order to control someone else’s free will.)

        Bill E. Branscum, Investigator
        Irascible Curmudgeon,
        Contumelious Cynic,
        Inveterate Skeptic &
        Incorrigible Purveyor of Pointed Prose

        Oracle International
        Naples, FL 34101
        (239) 304-1639 V
        (239) 304-1640 F
        (239) 641-6782 C
        _www.FraudsAndScams_www.Fra_http://www.FraudsAnhttp://www._
        (http://www.fraudsanhttp//www_)
        (_http://www.fraudsanhttp://www._ (http://www.fraudsandscams.com/) ) )

        In a message dated 4/2/2009 7:05:39 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
        __suesarkis@aol._su_ (mailto:_suesarkis@...) _
        (mailto:_suesarkis@..._ (mailto:suesarkis@...) ) writes:

        Americans asked for it and now they have it. Karl Marx is laughing his rear
        off as is Nakita Kruschev.

        ____http://foxforum.http://foxforum.http://foxforum.http://foxfo_
        (http://foxforum.http//foxforum.http://foxforuhttp://foxfht_)
        (_http://foxforum.http://foxforum.http://foxforhttp://foxfht_
        (http://foxforum.http//foxforuhttp://foxfhttp://foxforum.h_) )
        (__http://foxforum.http://foxforum.http://foxforuhttp://foxfht_
        (http://foxforum.http//foxforuhttp://foxfhttp://foxforum.h_)
        (_http://foxforum.http://foxforuhttp://foxfhttp://foxforum.h_
        (http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/author/judgenapolitano/_) ) )
        (___http://foxforum.http://foxforum.http://foxforum.http://foxf_
        (http://foxforum.http//foxforum.http://foxforuhttp://foxfh_)
        (_http://foxforum.http://foxforum.http://foxforhttp://foxfh_
        (http://foxforum.http//foxforuhttp://foxfhttp://foxforum._) )
        (__http://foxforum.http://foxforum.http://foxforuhttp://foxfh_
        (http://foxforum.http//foxforuhttp://foxfhttp://foxforum._)
        (_http://foxforum.http://foxforuhttp://foxfhttp://foxforum._
        (http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/author/judgenapolitano/) ) ) )

        April 2, 2009 1:14 PM
        _Our Government Engaged In EXTORTION With Our Banks!_
        (___http://foxforum.http://foxforum.http://foxforum.http://foxfohtt_
        (http://foxforum.http//foxforum.http://foxfohttp://foxfhttp://_)
        (_http://foxforum.http://foxforum.http://foxfhttp://foxfhttp://_
        (http://foxforum.http//foxforuhttp://fohttp://foxforum.http:/_) )
        (__http://foxforum.http://foxforum.http://foxfohttp://foxfhttp://_
        (http://foxforum.http//foxforuhttp://fohttp://foxforum.http:/_)
        (_http://foxforum.http://foxforuhttp://fohttp://foxforum.http:/_
        (http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/04/02/napolitano_fdic/) ) ) )

        By Judge Andrew Napolitano
        FOX News Senior Judicial Analyst
        The Federal government committed extortion and they’re not being held
        accountable. What’s next? Listen to this: I recently met with the Chair and
        CEO of
        one of the country’s top 10 bank holding companies. His bank is worth in
        excess of $250 billion, has no bad debt, no credit default swaps, no
        liquidity
        problems, and no subprime loans. He told me that he and others were forced
        by
        Treasury and FDIC threats to take TARP funds, even though he did not want or
        need them.
        There is simply no authority in the U.S. Constitution for Congress to
        exercise the level of control it now seeks over private industry.
        The FDIC — with Treasury backing — threatened to conduct public audits of
        his bank unless his board created and issued a class of stock for the Feds
        to
        buy. The audit, which he is confident his bank would survive, would cost it
        millions in employee time, bad press, and consequent lost business.
        He pleaded with the Feds to leave his successful bank alone. He begged his
        board to let him tell the Feds to take a hike. But they gave in. The Feds
        are
        now just a tiny shareholder, but want to begin asserting more and more
        control. This is a classic extortion: Controlling someone’s free will by
        threatening
        to perform a lawful act. (Blackmail is the threat is to perform an unlawful
        act in order to control someone else’s free will.) There are no exceptions
        in
        the statutes prohibiting extortion for government persons
        This happened in September 2008, but the demands for more control are more
        recent. It sounds to me like Paulson, Geithner, Bernanke, and Sheila Blair
        have
        all read a biography of Benito Mussolini. I guess they skipped the last
        chapter.
        There is simply no authority in the U.S. Constitution for Congress to
        exercise the level of control it now seeks over private industry. In fact,
        this
        level of control will wind up costing the businesses that took TARP
        (voluntarily
        or involuntarily) money since they will lose key employees who will go to
        work elsewhere and because the reporting requirements will take time and
        time is
        money. The Constitution basically says that if the government wants to take
        time or freedom or money from someone or something, it must sue for it. It
        cannot just give itself the authority to do so via legislation.
        Our liberties are slipping away right before our eyes.

        ************************<WBR>**<WBR>*Feeling the pinch at the grocery store?
        less. (___http://food.http://food.h_ (http://food.http//food._)
        (_http://food.http://food_ (http://food.http//food.) )
        <__WBhttp://food.WBhttp://WBht_ (wbhttp://food.WBhttp://foo_)
        (_wbhttp://food.wbhttp://foo_ (wbhttp://food.http://food.) ) <WBRhttp_
        (__http://food.http://food._ (http://food.http//food.)
        <_WBhttp://food.WBhttp://foo_ (wbhttp://food.http://food.) <WBRhttp_
        (_http://food.http://food.<WBhttp://food.http://food.<WBRhttp_
        (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001) ) ) )

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

        ************************<WBR>**<WBR>*Feeling the pinch at the grocery store?
        less. (__http://food.http://food._ (http://food.http//food.)
        <_WBhttp://food.WBhttp://foo_ (wbhttp://food.http://food.) <WBRhttp_
        (_http://food.http://food.<WBhttp://food.http://food.<WBRhttp_
        (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001) ) )

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

        ************************<WBR>**Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make d
        less. (_http://food.http://food.<WBhttp://food.http://food.<WBRhttp_
        (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001) )

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





        **************New Low Prices on Dell Laptops – Starting at $399
        (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220433304x1201394525/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doubl
        eclick.net%2Fclk%3B213540718%3B35046385%3Be)


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Ricky Gurley
        ... Your explanation makes perfect sense to me, Bill! Thank you for taking the time to explain extortion and blackmail to us, Bill. These are probably crimes
        Message 3 of 3 , Apr 2, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com, oracleintl@... wrote:
          >
          > Just to be clear, the chopped up way that my e-mail came thru made it look
          > like the comment in parens was mine -- it was not.
          >
          > Generally speaking, "extortion" is the more technical term for "blackmail,"
          > and to say that extortionate threats are limited to "lawful acts" is just
          > plain stooopid.
          >
          > Very few criminal codes have a provision for both -- most call it either
          > blackmail, or extortion, to use threats to coerce people to do something against
          > their will.
          >
          > Where there is a distinction, blackmail is always a specific kind of
          > extortion. Some statutes define blackmail as extortion put in writing, and some
          > statutes define blackmail as an extortionate threat to expose a person to
          > prosecution, embarrassment, ridicule, etc., as opposed to a threat of violence.
          >
          > That being said, the author apparently got confused about the "otherwise
          > lawful acts" aspect of extortion. I'll explain.
          >
          > Suppose Rick and his wife are getting divorced, and she believes that he has
          > been squirreling away loads of money in secret accounts - naturally wanting
          > her piece of that action. Suppose I investigate and find that Rick routinely
          > gets paid by checks payable to him personally, and only declares to the IRS
          > whatever income is associated with a W-2 or 1099.
          >
          > Can I go to Rick and say, "You have been a very bad boy. I pay my taxes,
          > you should pay yours, and your wife said I could feel free to screw up your
          > life. I put all that evidence in an envelope, and I sent it to the IRS."?
          >
          > Of course I can say that. There's no extortion -- there's nothing he can do
          > about it. There is no, "I am going to X if you don't Y."
          >
          > On the other hand, if I threaten to do it as a way to make him settle
          > favorably, even though turning him over to the IRS would be otherwise lawful, it is
          > still a crime to use the threat to coerce him.
          >
          > There is another thing you should be aware of along this same line -- a
          > wicked little concept called "constructive extortion." Even if you don't
          > actually say the words, you can be prosecuted for constructively extorting him if
          > you effectively did the same thing.
          >
          > "Gee Rick, in the course of my investigation, I discovered . . ., and ya
          > know, it would be a real shame to find yourself in jail for filing fraudulent
          > tax returns and affirmative acts of evasion. That would truly suck. I sure
          > hope it doesn't come to that."
          >
          > That would be constructive extortion.
          >
          > Finally, I know of no statute where the offense is not complete once the
          > threat is made -- the person does not have to comply with the extortionate
          > demand to complete the offense.
          >
          > I hope this serves to clarify things; the person who wrote that article was
          > a boob.
          >
          > Bill E. Branscum, Investigator
          > Irascible Curmudgeon,
          > Contumelious Cynic,
          > Inveterate Skeptic &
          > Incorrigible Purveyor of Pointed Prose
          >
          > Oracle International
          > Naples, FL 34101
          > (239) 304-1639 V
          > (239) 304-1640 F
          > (239) 641-6782 C
          > _www.FraudsAndScams.com_ (http://www.FraudsAndScams.com)


          Your explanation makes perfect sense to me, Bill!

          Thank you for taking the time to explain extortion and blackmail to us, Bill. These are probably crimes that even the P.I. working criminal defense cases does not get to see very often.

          Rick.


          Risk Management Research & Investments, Inc. & Thoth Data Systems
          Mailing Address: 2101 W. Broadway PMB 326, Columbia, MO. 65203
          Office Address: 1 E. Broadway Suite Z, Columbia, MO. 65203
          Direct Office Number: (573) 234-6876
          Office Phone: (573) 234-4647 Ext. 110
          Car Phone: (573) 529-0808
          Cell Phone: (573) 529-4476
          Toll Free Phone: (888) 571-0958
          Toll Free Fax: (877) 795-9800
          EMERGENCY LINE: (573) 234-4871

          RMRI, Inc. Websites
          (1) http://www.rmriinc.com
          (2) http://rmriinc.bestcyberinvestigator.com

          RMRI, Inc. Blogs
          (1) http://rmriinc.blogspot.com/index.html
          (2) http://rmriincspace.spaces.live.com/
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.