This is the most fucked-up thing I’ve read in quite a long time.
Buying one thing does not entitle me, morally or legally, to a different version of the same thing. It certainly doesn’t entitle me to a better version of the that thing. If I bought a tracfone at Walmart, can I take a iPhone from the Apple Store? I bought a phone, so the store I took it from shouldn’t matter, right?
But does that mean your next door neighbor, who saw you do it, should: a.) call the cops, or b.) publish a website with your personal information and solicit additional information from others?
:dubious:
Probably not, but if someone commits a crime they can’t reasonably expect a clean and unsullied reputation (and a high school student surely has the self awareness to understand that they are a party to breaking the law). Since it’s not criminal (I don’t think?) you probably shouldn’t call the cops, but it looks like the OP went to the school board first and they chose not to act.
They did act. They charged the family tuition for the year an allowed the son to graduate.
Exactly. The proper authority has already settled the matter.
The real issue here is that it takes a public school $12k to educate one student for a year. Geez o pete.
If it makes you feel any better, apparently in 2012 it was $14K, according to the OP in a previous thread (already linked to earlier in this thread).
Since the kid is blameless, but, according to the sleaze-master OP, is NAMED in a derogatory manner, and has now reached his majority, he is in the position to sue OP’s ass for defamation.
By demanding payment as a precondition of removing the harmful content, he is dipping at least a toe, into extortion.
The beef is with the parents - by naming the child, who is blameless, he is opening himself to action from the kid.
Truth is an absolute defense to defamation.
“Mr. X paid a paltry $8k for a $48k education”. That doesn’t change the fact that services were stolen.
Wronged parties, including the government, routinely settle for less than they want. Prosecutors accept pleas for lesser offenses. The IRS negotiates down back tax bills. Businesses write off bad debt. And, it would appear, school districts sometimes accept partial payment of tuition debt. The school district took action. They probably figured $8,000 was the best they could do, and let it go.
Chief Inspector Bizerta here is not in a position to try to reclaim the remaining amount through vigilantism. The school district settled the matter to its satisfaction, as evidenced by the fact that they let the guy graduate and took no further action in the intervening three years. If Chief Inspector Bizerta wants to take the school district to task for this, he should do so. Trying to apply his own standard of punishment to the family is going beyond the role of private citizen.
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
I still think that this is extortion by the OP and she should get legal counsel. Hopefully before the subject of her website also sees an attorney about extortion.
Hopefully the OP will return to shed more light on this subject.
Truth isn’t a defense to blackmail. Truth is typically the reason that blackmail is effective.
IIRC, the presence of malice is what makes a factually true statement defamatory.
Here we have no motive EXCEPT malice.
If I go to a wedding and, when the line about “if anyone knows any reason…” comes around I whip out a copy of the groom’s arrest record and start reading it aloud, while activating the projection system to run the brides pR0n performance, I have done nothing but state truths.
You can bet I’ll get at least 3 Summons out of it - bride, groom, and church. Additionally, if small children are present to view the video, the parents are going to have a beef.
Truth is almost always a defense to libel - defamation is a different animal.
This may well vary by jurisdiction.
To my completely non-lawyer eyes, I don’t see how this would be blackmail. Bizerta’s free to put up the website, the money is technically unpaid, and bizerta’s not asking for the money herself. Its like she’s asking someone to return money they’ve stolen or else she’ll keep a “This guy stole money” website up.
On the other hand, despite the apparent cost, I can’t get too worked up over a kid going to a school he’s technically not supposed to based on geography. Everyone should have access to the best schools no matter how much you can afford and this is a public school, not a private one. I’d actually encourage people to do this
I think the difference here is the “wrongs,” aren’t wrongs that the law will address. In the school tuition “wrong,” the school board is not going to take any further action. And the law doesn’t seem to prohibit a person from posting the truthful claims at issue here.
So far as I can determine, the OP was not asking for your opinion of his moral stature.
I knew plenty of kids attending public schools in El Paso who lived out of district (usually Canutillo), out of state (New Mexico), or out of the country (Cd. Juárez). There were lots of kids coming over the bridge each day for school in the 90s. I don’t know if that’s changed.
I spoke with a former school board member who told me they didn’t bother enforcing residency. They got so much money from the state and the feds that all they cared about was attendance, regardless of whether the kids were supposed to be there or not.
Compare that to my NJ relatives, who have had an inspector come by to verify that the kids lived where they said they did.