How stupid do you have to be to extort the worlds richest man?

S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
TacoMac said:
That's the entire problem: Lawyers are doing most of the talking. In legal terms, that's not extortion. That's called a quid pro quo - something for everybody. It's actually perfectly legal.

Now, if some unknown entity that hadn't identified himself and slipped an envelope under the door making demands, then yeah. That's extortion. But when the whole thing is done in the open with lawyers representing both sides and everybody being fully aware of everything being said, that can hardly be construed as extortion.
Click to expand...
i call bullshite..you can ABSOLUTELY know who is extorting you..since when does it have to be a secret to qualify?:wall:

BTW..your 5 minutes are up.
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Herb & Suds said:
That would be the very definition of a "pecker wrecker" sorry someone needed to say it :hump: Happy Friday


Every time I see a MEGA hat wearing shopper in the grocery they grab a copy of TNE
Click to expand...
i pulled up to a trump truck this morning and as luck would have it, his window was open.

i asked how he could support that traitor to our country and all he said was 'winning':wall:
 
Hugo Phurst

Hugo Phurst

Well-Known Member
I wonder if Bezos ever plays dirty?

One might think that someone that rich would have their own private "Security Force" to take care of such matters.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
TacoMac said:
That's the entire problem: Lawyers are doing most of the talking. In legal terms, that's not extortion. That's called a quid pro quo - something for everybody. It's actually perfectly legal.

Now, if some unknown entity that hadn't identified himself and slipped an envelope under the door making demands, then yeah. That's extortion. But when the whole thing is done in the open with lawyers representing both sides and everybody being fully aware of everything being said, that can hardly be construed as extortion.
Click to expand...
It's blackmail. As Dandy says, whether or not a crime was comitted is debatable. What's not debatable is Bezos can sue and no doubt can better afford the legal costs than AMI's shareholders will be willing to pay. Slap them with a lawsuit and let his lawyers talk to their lawyers. AMI will settle rather than face years of legal wrangling.

Don't argue with me about this, argue with WaPo.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2019/02/08/are-national-enquirers-emails-jeff-bezos-coercion-blackmail-neither-or-worse/?utm_term=.e012a2bcdb3b
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
TacoMac said:
And the fact that it's even debatable means there's reasonable doubt, ergo not a crime.
Click to expand...
You mean every court trial where lawyers debate over evidence should end with no conviction?

What you said is nonsense. TBH
 
TacoMac

TacoMac

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
You mean every court trial where lawyers debate over evidence should end with no conviction?

What you said is nonsense. TBH
Click to expand...
Wrong. They're not debating over evidence. They're debating over whether what happened constitutes extortion.

When you find a bound, dead body with a gunshot wound to the back of the head, there is no doubt a crime has been committed. Which crime has been committed is debatable, but that a crime has been committed is not.

When you have a situation like this where all the evidence is out in the open, and it's debatable whether or not a crime has even occurred, then what do you think the odds really are that you'll ever find 12 random people that will all agree a crime has occured?

It's less than zero. I deal with this sort of thing every day.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
TacoMac said:
Wrong. They're not debating over evidence. They're debating over whether what happened constitutes extortion.

When you find a bound, dead body with a gunshot wound to the back of the head, there is no doubt a crime has been committed. Which crime has been committed is debatable, but that a crime has been committed is not.

When you have a situation like this where all the evidence is out in the open, and it's debatable whether or not a crime has even occurred, then what do you think the odds really are that you'll ever find 12 random people that will all agree a crime has occured?

It's less than zero. I deal with this sort of thing every day.
Click to expand...
That what trials are all about -- debating whether or not a crime was committed. A judge may declare a lawsuit or criminal charges are frivolous after arguments are made before him. But nobody would take what you are saying seriously -- "Just because they are debating this in public makes it not a crime". That is so dumb I'm struggling with believing you said that. Do you want to correct my paraphrasing what you said?
 
captainmorgan

captainmorgan

Well-Known Member
Bezos knows what he's doing, he didn't make this public in the hope the authorities would save him from the pecker and prosecute him for what he did to Bezos. A judge will look at the pattern of conduct and throw out AMI and peckers non prosecution agreement. The special counsel will do the rest and destroy pecker and AMI and send him to prison and Bezos can laugh from the wings.
 
TacoMac

TacoMac

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
That what trials are all about -- debating whether or not a crime was committed.
Click to expand...
That's actually not true most of the time. To be charged with a crime at all, you must have sufficient probable cause that a crime was committed. The question is, more times than not, was this particular person the one who perpetrated the crime.

Fogdog said:
"Just because they are debating this in public makes it not a crime".
Click to expand...
That's where you're wrong.

Lawyers can't determine it. Judges, who would ultimately sign an arrest warrant, would be deciding it as well. So would a district attorney who applied for the warrant.

Again, if it's widely debatable, then there's so much reasonable doubt already that no DA worth his salt would touch it with a 10 foot poll, let alone a sitting judge.

In the end, extortion is almost always a one way street. Example: I get pictures of you having an affair. I tell you if you don't pay me money, I'll give the pictures to your wife.

What this is isn't that. It's more that they both have dirt on each other, and one is simply saying "If you don't show the dirt you have on me, I wont show the dirt I have on you."

It's not the same thing. Both parties have something to lose. It's more of a quid pro quo than outright extortion. To criminally charge over that would, in the end, do far more harm to Bezos than it would the Enquirer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top