Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 02-08-2019, 08:57 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 22,350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Render View Post
Good plan boys. Going through a divorce really puts a man in a mellow, forgiving mood. I don't see how trying to blackmail one of the worlds most powerful men in that mood could backfire at all. Carry on.

Does anyone else feel this may have been standard practice at the Enquirer, to the point where they no longer differentiated between targets?
[tin foil hat time]

Lindsey Graham is a strong possibility to have had this happen to him. From "Trump will destroy the GOP!" to "My Lips Are Orange!", his change of heart may have been brought about by blackmail attempts by an entity which is known for blackmailing people on behalf of Trump.

[/tin foil hat time]
  #52  
Old 02-08-2019, 08:59 AM
Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 13,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
I'm not a lawyer, so can someone tell me, is the National Enquirer fucked?
Pretty much. For one thing, their immunity arrangement for the illegal campaign contributions has a "go forth and sin no more" clause -- engaging in blackmail means they lose the protection (but are still subject to prosecution based on the testimony and other information they coughed up) from that deal.
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.
  #53  
Old 02-08-2019, 09:02 AM
hajario's Avatar
hajario is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Santa Barbara, California
Posts: 15,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorsnak View Post
Counterpoint: opinion piece on CNN wherein a former prosecutor argues that he would bring charges and thinks he could win. (link)
He thinks that it’s marginal and that he might be able to convince a jury.
  #54  
Old 02-08-2019, 09:09 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,653
Some possible crimes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaPo
Paul Cassell, a law professor at the University of Utah and a former federal judge, said in a phone interview that he believed it was possible the National Enquirer had committed a criminal offense.

He said the potential crime would fall under statutes against blackmail — a threat to wrongfully expose a private fact in order to obtain a thing of value — or unlawful disclosure of an intimate image, which is commonly referred to as revenge porn. It also had the potential to involve federal charges, he said.

“The modern formulation of the crime is anything of value — and the statement that the Enquirer was trying to obtain to preserve its reputation would seem to me to qualify as something of value in their business operations.”
The "revenge porn" thing is obvious in retrospect. I'm curious about whether the laws as phrased cover this sort of behavior. If they don't, almsot certainly they should.

And the point about how they're trying to preserve their reputation is pretty interesting as well.
  #55  
Old 02-08-2019, 09:23 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 22,350
Threatening to expose revenge porn as to quash investigation into a murder...

Usually this stuff is used to get something of value - "give me $4 million and the pictures go away", "If you continue to press this issue, we will have no recourse but to...". And, if done right, can be legally hand-waved away.

But this was done as to quash an investigation into a murder. And that, maybe... after all, I'm no expert here... that, maybe, will get more prosecutoral(sp?) interest than a typical extortion scheme.
  #56  
Old 02-08-2019, 09:29 AM
Novelty Bobble is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 8,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
What's that old Arab proverb? The douche bag who is the enemy of the douche bag I don't like is...not so much a douche bag.
It's a poetic language isn't it?

I know the Duke of Wellington's classic response has been mentioned but another gem was from the UK satirical magazine "Private Eye"

Quote:
An unlikely piece of British legal history occurred in what is now referred to as the "case" of Arkell v. Pressdram (1971).

The plaintiff was the subject of an article relating to illicit payments, and the magazine had ample evidence to back up the article. Arkell's lawyers wrote a letter which concluded: "His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply."

The magazine's response was, in full: "We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr J. Arkell.

We note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off."

In the years following, the magazine would refer to this exchange as a euphemism for a blunt and coarse dismissal: for example, "We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram".
__________________
I'm saving this space for the first good insult hurled my way
  #57  
Old 02-08-2019, 10:07 AM
wguy123 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
Threatening to expose revenge porn as to quash investigation into a murder...

Usually this stuff is used to get something of value - "give me $4 million and the pictures go away", "If you continue to press this issue, we will have no recourse but to...". And, if done right, can be legally hand-waved away.

But this was done as to quash an investigation into a murder. And that, maybe... after all, I'm no expert here... that, maybe, will get more prosecutoral(sp?) interest than a typical extortion scheme.
Our life has become a real-life fictional thriller book.
  #58  
Old 02-08-2019, 10:16 AM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 1,898
Quote:
Originally Posted by wguy123 View Post
Our life has become a real-life fictional thriller book.
John Grisham is no doubt negotiating the rights as we speak.

---

Having read both pro & con arguments provided up-thread (BTW, thanks fellas!) I'd say the chances of getting a criminal conviction are...murky. A good prosecutor can make the "broad definition of 'property'" argument work, but a good defense attorney can throw shade on that with a strict "monetary only" interpretation. In the end I can see this going up the appeal chain, maybe even to SCOTUS, and by that point all bets are off. And if by chance AMI manages to skate on the criminal charges, Bezos can file a civil suit and really turn the screws.
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #59  
Old 02-08-2019, 10:16 AM
elucidator is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,793
Quote:
Our life has become a real-life fictional thriller book
"...and then the Russian submarine commander joins the CIA, and rises in the ranks until he is the only ranking admin person when the meteor hits, and becomes President, when it is revealed that he was boinking Alex Trebek's mom..."

Last edited by elucidator; 02-08-2019 at 10:17 AM.
  #60  
Old 02-08-2019, 10:22 AM
Fiveyearlurker is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,474
I mean, it's not like Trump has admitted on Twitter that he controls whether the blackmail stories get published in the National Enquirer. Oh, wait, he did.

"Watched low rated @Morning_Joe for first time in long time. FAKE NEWS. He called me to stop a National Enquirer article. I said no! Bad show"
  #61  
Old 02-08-2019, 10:22 AM
wguy123 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptMurdock View Post
John Grisham is no doubt negotiating the rights as we speak.
I hear he is going to collaborate with Tom Clancy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
"...and then the Russian submarine commander joins the CIA, and rises in the ranks until he is the only ranking admin person when the meteor hits, and becomes President, when it is revealed that he was boinking Alex Trebek's mom..."
At this point, that wouldn't even surprise me.
  #62  
Old 02-08-2019, 10:32 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,014
you mean the ghost of Tom Clancy?
  #63  
Old 02-08-2019, 10:38 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Second rule of the League of Evil Assholes is to only hire stupid lawyers.
Only stupid lawyers will work for the League of Evil Assholes

Because,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
What is the first?
Never pay your contractors, including your lawyers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
[tin foil hat time]

Lindsey Graham is a strong possibility to have had this happen to him. From "Trump will destroy the GOP!" to "My Lips Are Orange!", his change of heart may have been brought about by blackmail attempts by an entity which is known for blackmailing people on behalf of Trump.

[/tin foil hat time]
wonder if it is a dead girl, a live boy, or a satisfied farm animal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
"...and then the Russian submarine commander joins the CIA, and rises in the ranks until he is the only ranking admin person when the meteor hits, and becomes President, when it is revealed that he was boinking Alex Trebek's mom..."
Don't you mean, "Who is boinking Alex Trebek's mom?" ?
  #64  
Old 02-08-2019, 10:43 AM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptMurdock View Post
John Grisham is no doubt negotiating the rights as we speak.

---

Having read both pro & con arguments provided up-thread (BTW, thanks fellas!) I'd say the chances of getting a criminal conviction are...murky. A good prosecutor can make the "broad definition of 'property'" argument work, but a good defense attorney can throw shade on that with a strict "monetary only" interpretation. In the end I can see this going up the appeal chain, maybe even to SCOTUS, and by that point all bets are off. And if by chance AMI manages to skate on the criminal charges, Bezos can file a civil suit and really turn the screws.
Yeah, criminal charges are one thing, but businesses really fear civil litigation more than criminal. Criminal charges can sting, civil can cost you the business or almost as Gawker found out. And Bezos certainly has the money to throw around. So does AMI, of course, but they can't be as well-heeled as Bezos.
  #65  
Old 02-08-2019, 10:44 AM
wguy123 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
you mean the ghost of Tom Clancy?
Ha...guess I missed that news. But again, nothing would shock me at this point.
  #66  
Old 02-08-2019, 10:45 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 25,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by wguy123 View Post
Our life has become a real-life fictional thriller book.
I'm telling y'all: it's like we live in a Richard Condon novel.
  #67  
Old 02-08-2019, 10:50 AM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
… The Post's stock in trade is stories, and so publishing stories brings in income for the Post, and so ceasing to run a story would mean a decrease in the Post's income.
There is a massive weakness in that argument, though. The logic is backwards, kind of like saying a restaurant makes money by having waitstaff. A story is the exact opposite of income: it is a necessary expense, published for the purpose of supporting ad revenue. So, the monetary value of a given story can be very hard to measure.
  #68  
Old 02-08-2019, 11:06 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 82,768
Still, if a newspaper had no stories, they would be unable to make any money.

Hey, here's a novel angle: The Post is poised to publish information that Pecker would rather not be published, and so Pecker is trying to engage in a deal to stop that publication. Could one argue that Pecker is trying to incite the Post into engaging in blackmail? Probably not, both for the same "no money" reasons as the other case, and because I'm not sure if "inciting to commit blackmail" is even a crime. But it's fun to contemplate.
  #69  
Old 02-08-2019, 11:50 AM
Maastricht is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Dutch in the Netherlands
Posts: 9,221
Pecker claims innocence: "we were just settling our differences in what we (scouts honor !) thought was a legal way. But, eh, we'll look into it. Yes. "

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/08/m...zos/index.html
__________________
--------------------------------------
"There's a support group for that, it's called everybody and they meet at the bar."
  #70  
Old 02-08-2019, 12:25 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,149
Does Mr. Bezos have a few extra million dollars lying around? I hope he uses them to sue the pants off these Trumpist criminals.

It's amusing to see the Trump Gang pick on a real billionaire.

Betsy "I'd be happy to spend taxpayer dollars educating black kids as long as they go to the 'Christian' for-profit schools run by my friends" DeVos is the only actual billionaire in the whole crooked lot. Wilbur Ross has been using his position to commit insider fraud and cheat the taxpayer — when is he going to prison? — but still isn't up to a billion. Mnuchin, in the #3 slot, confines his embezzlement AFAWK to silly jet travel. (Mnuchin was in the Cabinet's #4 wealth slot, but moved up when Rex Tillerson bailed out.)
__________________
Some or all of the above statements may be intended as sarcastic.
.
andros had more faith in an American jury than I had; and he was right. I'm happy to lose a bet and hope this trend continues.

Last edited by septimus; 02-08-2019 at 12:26 PM.
  #71  
Old 02-08-2019, 02:48 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
There is a massive weakness in that argument, though. The logic is backwards, kind of like saying a restaurant makes money by having waitstaff. A story is the exact opposite of income: it is a necessary expense, published for the purpose of supporting ad revenue. So, the monetary value of a given story can be very hard to measure.
That ignores the forest for the trees. Yes, stories are a necessary expense, but they're an expense necessary for profit. A newspaper that doesn't have stories doesn't sell subscriptions/doesn't sell ads/doesn't make money.

Removing a story from a paper hurts its bottom line, costs it money. Just because the removal of the story also removes an expense doesn't change that dynamic.
  #72  
Old 02-08-2019, 03:23 PM
TroutMan's Avatar
TroutMan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,671
You're making this way tougher than it needs to be to argue that AMI was extorting a thing of value. The number one "term" in the demand email was "a full and complete mutual release of all claims that American Media...and Jeff Bezos...may have against each other." Potential claims against AMI are obviously something of monetary value.
  #73  
Old 02-08-2019, 03:42 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 35,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by TroutMan View Post
You're making this way tougher than it needs to be to argue that AMI was extorting a thing of value. The number one "term" in the demand email was "a full and complete mutual release of all claims that American Media...and Jeff Bezos...may have against each other." Potential claims against AMI are obviously something of monetary value.
But, generally speaking, a court isn't going to find it a criminal act to propose a deal to settle litigation. The law encourages settlement.

Last edited by Acsenray; 02-08-2019 at 03:43 PM.
  #74  
Old 02-08-2019, 04:34 PM
TroutMan's Avatar
TroutMan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,671
There are certainly differences of opinion on that. This law professor would disagree that this would be considered a settlement.

Not to say that he's right either, but it's not an open-and-shut case either way.
  #75  
Old 02-08-2019, 04:52 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 25,303
From TroutMan's link"
Quote:
First, AMI’s emails pretty plainly satisfy the elements of federal extortion, 18 U.S.C. §875(d), which prohibits transmitting a communication in interstate commerce “containing any threat to injure the … reputation of the addressee” in order to extort “money or other thing of value.” The emails are in interstate commerce. The threat was to Bezos’ reputation. AMI might argue that it wasn’t demanding a “thing of value,” but under federal law, that’s almost certainly wrong.

The term thing of value extends to intangibles and even to things without any transferrable monetary worth, like cessation of a criminal prosecution, continuation of a sexual relationship, or even an apology. The demand that Bezos refrain from attributing political motive to AMI could itself be a “thing of value.” But even if that were not the case, a release of potential legal claims plainly is a thing of economic value. So it appears that AMI, as a corporate entity; Fine, its lawyer; and anyone within the corporation who approved Fine’s demands could potentially be charged with felony extortion.
The links in the quote are part of the way it was presented at the link, btw, not from me.
  #76  
Old 02-08-2019, 06:01 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
...And of course there's also the question of how Pecker obtained the compromat in the first place, which probably involved someone committing a crime.
And if that crime was committed by someone in the Trump Administration, misusing government agencies to surveil Trump opponents...... then we have something truly explosive on our hands:

Quote:
... In an appearance on MSNBC on Thursday, Post reporter Manuel Roig-Franzia said that Bezos's security consultant, Gavin de Becker, believes that the National Enquirer obtained text messages from Bezos through inappropriate means.

... "Gavin de Becker told us that he does not believe that Jeff Bezos’s phone was hacked, he thinks it’s possible that a government entity might have gotten hold of his text messages,” he added.

... De Becker's assertion that Bezos's phone was not hacked raises questions as to how staffers at the Enquirer obtained messages that were allegedly sent privately between Bezos and his rumored girlfriend, former TV anchor Lauren Sanchez.
https://thehill.com/policy/technolog...-have-obtained


It's just speculation at this point. But would anyone be surprised?
  #77  
Old 02-08-2019, 06:46 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,116
Damn, that sounds like one of those old movies, where the editor is held in jail for contempt because he refuses to reveal the source.
  #78  
Old 02-08-2019, 07:56 PM
Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 28,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
But, generally speaking, a court isn't going to find it a criminal act to propose a deal to settle litigation. The law encourages settlement.


Sure, but it still depends on the nature of the settlement proposal:

"Hey Jeff, you've probably been looking for those dick pix with your lady friend that you showed me last time I was over. Well, you won't find them because last weekend when you were away I broke into your house and stole them. I'll give them back as soon as you drop your civil action against me. Otherwise I'll mail them back to your house, addressed to your wife."

Do the courts want to encourage that settlement?
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #79  
Old 02-08-2019, 08:02 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,116
But a settlement requires a tort, right? Neither side were making litigious noises at the time. There was no legal conflict to settle.
  #80  
Old 02-08-2019, 08:40 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Sure, but it still depends on the nature of the settlement proposal:

"Hey Jeff, you've probably been looking for those dick pix with your lady friend that you showed me last time I was over. Well, you won't find them because last weekend when you were away I broke into your house and stole them. I'll give them back as soon as you drop your civil action against me. Otherwise I'll mail them back to your house, addressed to your wife."

Do the courts want to encourage that settlement?
Yeah, that's kind of my understanding, too. Settlements involving threats of improper action seem unlikely to receive court protection.
  #81  
Old 02-08-2019, 10:05 PM
Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 28,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
But a settlement requires a tort, right? Neither side were making litigious noises at the time. There was no legal conflict to settle.


You can have a settlement of a dispute without it ever going to court. If two parties have a disagreement and together work out a solution without ever starting an action, that can be a binding contract. I agree with Acsenray that the courts generally encourage parties to work out their problems together. It's just that I think there will be limits to the types of settlements that they will accept.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #82  
Old 02-09-2019, 06:37 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,149
If, like me, you barely follow the news, Rachel Maddow explains some of this story.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
Heretofore I have not been a fan of this timeline, but the potential is starting to reveal itself.
"Timeline"? Are you referring to a parallel universe model? Is Schrödinger's cat alive or dead? — nether: it's gone rabid and is sitting in the Oval Office?
  #83  
Old 02-09-2019, 09:47 AM
andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
"Timeline"? Are you referring to a parallel universe model? Is Schrödinger's cat alive or dead? — nether: it's gone rabid and is sitting in the Oval Office?
There has been some suggestion that we might be living in, if not the Darkest Timeline, at least a very dark one. I'm prepared to shave down to a goatee and become evil andros if that's what it takes to get us back into a better one.
  #84  
Old 02-09-2019, 10:49 AM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
If, like me, you barely follow the news, Rachel Maddow explains some of this story.
Damn, I had spaced on the fact that Khashoggi was with WaPo. So, AMI was saying, “stop trying to discover the truth about the killing of your own employee.” That is a level of depravity that exceeds vile.
  #85  
Old 02-09-2019, 11:01 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by andros View Post
There has been some suggestion that we might be living in, if not the Darkest Timeline, at least a very dark one. I'm prepared to shave down to a goatee and become evil andros if that's what it takes to get us back into a better one.
Nah, just need to get Tom Hanks to release the copy of the alternate ending to Big that he keeps locked away, and the universe should come back into alignment.
  #86  
Old 02-09-2019, 12:18 PM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
But, generally speaking, a court isn't going to find it a criminal act to propose a deal to settle litigation. The law encourages settlement.
I’ve been on this earth a long time. I have been witness to a lot of legal action, some which was settled. Commission disputes, other employer/employee disputes, divorce disputes. Yes, I am aware that the law encourages settlement.

But never once have I seen any party refer to releasing or withholding privately taken non-commercial naked pictures of the other party as a condition of a settlement. Really, I can’t imagine it. Can you imagine a divorce proceeding where the husband offers not to release naked pictures of his ex-spouse in exchange for child custody? Can you imagine a judge formalizing and legitimizing that agreement?

Can you find any cite of any court case where the threat to release privately taken non-commercial naked selfies was treated as a legitimate negotiating point?

I find the attempts to pretend that this was a legitimate tactic very amusing in a Giuliani sort of way. Fox can probably convince the Red State rubes that this is the way corporate law works, but that doesn’t make it true.
  #87  
Old 02-09-2019, 12:42 PM
Dangerosa is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 22,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
I

I find the attempts to pretend that this was a legitimate tactic very amusing in a Giuliani sort of way. Fox can probably convince the Red State rubes that this is the way corporate law works, but that doesn’t make it true.
And all that ignores the fact that somehow AMI got the dick pics. Unless Ms. Sanchez was the provider of such - AMI is in receipt of material gotten illegally. That isn't a strong negotiating point either for AMI.
  #88  
Old 02-09-2019, 01:03 PM
Dale Sams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by wguy123 View Post
Our life has become a real-life fictional thriller book.
With a guy named Pecker who has dick pics???

Please. If this isn't proof we live in a 13 year olds sim...
  #89  
Old 02-09-2019, 01:16 PM
Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,217
The list of stupid from AMI is getting so long.
  #90  
Old 02-09-2019, 01:21 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,116
My question is: the immunity agreement rests on AMI not engaging in subsequent criminal activity, but so far, this is just an allegation. Bezos would have to agree to press charges (little doubt he will) and AMI would have to be convicted of extortion, or whatever, before the immunity agreement is voided. They will most likely be fighting tooth-and-nail against this.
  #91  
Old 02-09-2019, 02:42 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 35,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
My question is: the immunity agreement rests on AMI not engaging in subsequent criminal activity, but so far, this is just an allegation. Bezos would have to agree to press charges (little doubt he will) and AMI would have to be convicted of extortion, or whatever, before the immunity agreement is voided. They will most likely be fighting tooth-and-nail against this.
I don’t think a prosecutor has to wait for you to be convicted to move ahead with charges that you pleaded guilty to under an immunity agreement, does he? That would be a pretty weak deal on the prosecutor’s part.

I guess I’ve never read the actual text of an immunity agreement, but I’d be autofocus it were so difficult to enforce.

Last edited by Acsenray; 02-09-2019 at 02:43 PM.
  #92  
Old 02-09-2019, 02:45 PM
EddyTeddyFreddy's Avatar
EddyTeddyFreddy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Exurbia, No'thuh Bawst'n
Posts: 13,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
Yeah, criminal charges are one thing, but businesses really fear civil litigation more than criminal. Criminal charges can sting, civil can cost you the business or almost as Gawker found out. And Bezos certainly has the money to throw around. So does AMI, of course, but they can't be as well-heeled as Bezos.
Among other things, civil litigation has a lower standard of proof (more likely than not, preponderance of the evidence) than criminal (beyond a reasonable doubt). Makes it generally easier for the party bringing suit to prevail.
  #93  
Old 02-09-2019, 04:04 PM
Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 28,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Sams View Post
With a guy named Pecker who has dick pics???



Please. If this isn't proof we live in a 13 year olds sim...


And let us not forget that the nickname of Pecker's lawyer is Dildo.

Really, this combination can't be cited frequently enough.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #94  
Old 02-09-2019, 06:54 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve MB View Post
Pretty much. For one thing, their immunity arrangement for the illegal campaign contributions has a "go forth and sin no more" clause -- engaging in blackmail means they lose the protection (but are still subject to prosecution based on the testimony and other information they coughed up) from that deal.
The question I’m interested in is: how far does AMI have to go to violate that clause; do they have to be criminally convicted, or is a criminal indictment sufficient to invalidate the immunity agreement? And could a grand jury indict without obligating a prosecutor to move to trial?

Last edited by kaylasdad99; 02-09-2019 at 06:55 PM.
  #95  
Old 02-09-2019, 07:03 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
I don’t think a prosecutor has to wait for you to be convicted to move ahead with charges that you pleaded guilty to under an immunity agreement, does he? That would be a pretty weak deal on the prosecutor’s part.

I guess I’ve never read the actual text of an immunity agreement, but I’d be autofocus it were so difficult to enforce.
“autofocus”?
  #96  
Old 02-09-2019, 07:23 PM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
The question I’m interested in is: how far does AMI have to go to violate that clause; do they have to be criminally convicted, or is a criminal indictment sufficient to invalidate the immunity agreement? And could a grand jury indict without obligating a prosecutor to move to trial?
Remember, there are other things in the non-prosecution agreement in addition to the requirement not to commit any more crimes. They have also pledged to give truthful and complete answers to anything they are questioned about and to turn over any documents and records that the prosecution requests.

Here is the agreement.

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...Agreement.html

So it seems to me that the prosecutors could call the AMI executives into their office and question them about their actions. And if they lie about anything, the deal’s off. If they withhold information, the deal’s off. The prosecutors could require them to turn over all documentation about the source of the Bezo photos. If they hold back anything, the deal’s off.

And the agreement says that the agreement is void if they commit any crimes, not if they are convicted of any crimes. IANAL, but if the prosecutors decide that what they did was a crime, they’re toast. The prosecutors aren’t obligated to give them a chance to present their harebrained theories about things of value to a jury before they void the agreement. But that’s just my opinion and it may involve some wishful thinking.

But it’s probably not going to get that far. They’ll get him on the lies.

Last edited by Ann Hedonia; 02-09-2019 at 07:24 PM.
  #97  
Old 02-09-2019, 07:23 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
“autofocus”?
Maybe “astonished.”

Last edited by kaylasdad99; 02-09-2019 at 07:25 PM.
  #98  
Old 02-09-2019, 07:35 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
Remember, there are other things in the non-prosecution agreement in addition to the requirement not to commit any more crimes. They have also pledged to give truthful and complete answers to anything they are questioned about and to turn over any documents and records that the prosecution requests.

Here is the agreement.

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...Agreement.html

So it seems to me that the prosecutors could call the AMI executives into their office and question them about their actions. And if they lie about anything, the deal’s off. If they withhold information, the deal’s off. The prosecutors could require them to turn over all documentation about the source of the Bezo photos. If they hold back anything, the deal’s off.

And the agreement says that the agreement is void if they commit any crimes, not if they are convicted of any crimes. IANAL, but if the prosecutors decide that what they did was a crime, they’re toast. The prosecutors aren’t obligated to give them a chance to present their harebrained theories about things of value to a jury before they void the agreement. But that’s just my opinion and it may involve some wishful thinking.

But it’s probably not going to get that far. They’ll get him on the lies.
While I’m liking the groove you’re laying down, simply on account of the fact that it discomfits a turdblossom like Pecker, if the SDNY used the fact of this incident to go after AMI, wouldn’t it look a lot like the federal prosecutor was doing it ON BEHALF of Bezos?

Surely the immunity agreement doesn’t call for AMI to let the SDNY bird-dog them indefinitely.

Does it?
  #99  
Old 02-09-2019, 08:01 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
While I’m liking the groove you’re laying down, simply on account of the fact that it discomfits a turdblossom like Pecker, if the SDNY used the fact of this incident to go after AMI, wouldn’t it look a lot like the federal prosecutor was doing it ON BEHALF of Bezos?
Wait, so, if you are mugged, and the mugger is caught and convicted, did the DA not prosecute on your behalf?

Quote:
Surely the immunity agreement doesn’t call for AMI to let the SDNY bird-dog them indefinitely.

Does it?
No, it basically means the SDNY has AMI's admission of guilt which they can use in court (immunity was forfeited). What the penalty would be is not clear to me.
  #100  
Old 02-09-2019, 08:29 PM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,156
Let’s see. An entertainment magazine got a hold of embarrassing naked pictures of the owner of a major news outlet, and threatened to release those pictures unless the major news outlet changed its reporting and printed lies for dissemination to the American public. Furthermore, there is reason to believe this action was coordinated with people in the highest levels of government, in part to cover up the murder of a reporter by a sovereign government, a government with business ties to the entertainment magazine.

And there is debate over whether this is illegal or even wrong or even bad? Just how far down the rabbit hole have we fallen?

But to answer your question, the non-prosecution document clearly says that can be questioned about absolutely anything for the next 3 years, they don’t have to prove a connection to the existing campaign finance case. And if we’ve learned anything in the past few years, it’s that federal prosecutors are hard-assed about pretty much everything.

And I don’t think it will look like they are working on behalf of Bezos. I don’t think enough attention is being paid to the “they were trying to force a major news outlet to print lies” part of the scandal. The American people were the intended victims.

This article has an interesting slant, the author points out that AMI’s actions are clearly criminal at the state level in both NY and FL. In NY it’s 2nd degree coercion, in FL it’s threats extortion. Neither of those laws has a requirement regarding “thing of value”,and they both fit the current situation perfectly.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...-SDNY-with-AMI

And the prosecution agreement doesn’t specify federal crimes, so committing state crimes would violate the agreement.

Last edited by Ann Hedonia; 02-09-2019 at 08:30 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:43 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017