misc.legal.computing Google Group

Re: Suing Former Partner?

2008-07-11T10:18:36Z

mm wrote:
The torso is a larger target and that's why police are trained to aim
for it. A head shot is more likely to kill but they don't aim for the
head because it's a smaller target. Same for aiming for the gun (to
shoot it out of the bad guy's hand) or aiming for a leg.

Re: Suing Former Partner?

2008-07-11T10:18:29Z

OK, yes, I was thinking of an exclusive OR (A or B but not both)
where-as the extortion could be read as a non-exclusive OR ("A and/or
B.") As much work as I do with computers, I'm surprised at myself for
not seeing that right away.

Legal Directions

2008-07-09T18:22:10Z

Pulls in RSS feeds from around the internet into one informational
site for the legal industry.
[link]

Re: Suing Former Partner?

2008-07-09T11:32:57Z

In article <fbg674p8jkd58ge5hsa6381e17pa0 g2...@4ax.com>,
Substitute 'criminal' for 'actionable', and that -is- a good first-cut
summary.
This is the law, what makes you think 'logic' has anything to do with it?
*GRIN*
I repeat "HOW you say it makes *all* the difference". The same 'sentiment'
can be expressed in two different statements -- one of which *IS* extortionate

Re: Suing Former Partner?

2008-07-09T11:32:47Z

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 06:30:03 -0400 from Seth <se...@panix.com>:
Neither one is actionable, of course. It's just Bonomi talking
through his hat again.
Neither one is a "statement of fact", of course, because what will
happen in some future contingency isn't a fact. Both are threats, and
both are quite proper threats since they threaten civil action to

Re: Suing Former Partner?

2008-07-09T11:32:50Z

It isn't any particular magic words you use, but the purpose of the
letter taken in the context it was sent. The proper demand letter
puts the recipient on notice of the legal claim of right which the
sender is alleging, so that they know what it is and can respond to it
accordingly. The threat to sue is specific. It is a threat to sue

Re: Suing Former Partner?

2008-07-08T10:30:11Z

On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 06:51:16 -0400, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com
Then it's not just extortion that raises interesting issues, but
almost every crime.
I think the US child porn statutes apply to certailn crimes committed
outside the US, but .....
If you are inclined to email me
for some reason, remove NOPSAM :-)

Re: Suing Former Partner?

2008-07-08T10:30:07Z

Interesting. I am getting an idea for a TV situation-comedy script. A
man walking down the street is robbed at gunpoint, and the robber runs
away with the wallet. The man shouts,"Give me back my money, or I'll
...." But then he stops, hesitates, and eventually hurries to a nearby
phone booth, searches frantically through his pockets for a quarter,

Re: Suing Former Partner?

2008-07-08T10:30:03Z

In article <87t3745vfe0iq5vsu8m8i8a6fvbf8 cj...@4ax.com>,
So "Pay me, or I'll sue" is actionable, but "If you don't pay me, I'll
sue" isn't? Logically, the only state under which they differ is if
he pays you and you sue anyway.
Or is it the "what I am legally owed" part that makes the difference?
Or the fact that "other collection actions" isn't "sue"? (I'd think

Re: Suing Former Partner?

2008-07-07T10:51:19Z

In article <p0mu64dgq06m56f47bfud8a6d4vq8 ib...@4ax.com>,
*HOW* the thing is said _does_ make all the difference in the world, =legally=.
"Pay me, or I'll sue!" is actionable.
"If you fail to pay me what I am legally owed, I will be forced to take other
collection actions." is *NOT*.
The first is a 'demand for action', enforced by a threat for failure to comply.

Re: Suing Former Partner?

2008-07-07T10:51:16Z

In article <6sse64t6mubslpmfojepqsn3ef1vu ck...@4ax.com>,
"Fact specific" - the answer depends on exactly _how_ the 'threat' was
written/conveyed. Conveyed correctly, the answer is 'no'. Done sloppily,
the answer is "quite possibly".
It would take some *very* special circumstances for this to _not_ be

Re: Suing Former Partner?

2008-07-07T10:51:13Z

In article <smeh64tjsnp3qnsrf15tc99qqbirm cc...@4ax.com>,
[[.. sneck ..]]
I suggest you actually _read_ some of the statutes on the subject. :)
Almost all say something very close to: "whomsoever shall cause another
to voluntarily give .... money, or other thing of value, ... under threat
of...." Many jurisdictions have a separate crime (sometimes another 'degree'

Re: Suing Former Partner?

2008-07-06T10:27:52Z

Actually, they don't. This is not a toggle switch with a logically
excluded middle; it is rather a system of logically overlapping and
not mutually exclusive subsets. The extortionate version does not
bind the speaker to a promise regarding what he will or won't do if
the condition _is_ met: thus, whether or not the suspect pays back the

Re: Suing Former Partner?

2008-07-06T10:27:49Z

Another disadvantage of threatening to call the police is that when,
in movies, the bad guy kills the one who's threatening him. I'm sure
it happens in RL too.
More below.
On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 06:31:57 -0400, Mike Jacobs <mjacobs...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On tv, and in real life when the cops are involved, it seems that

Re: Suing Former Partner?

2008-07-05T11:17:52Z

<snip>
I'm sorry but I'm having a problem seeing the difference between "Pay it
back or I WILL call the cops" and "Pay it back and I will NOT call the
cops." Semantically and logically, they would seem to parse to the same
thing (that if person A reverses deed B, where deed B could be "not
making good on a check" or "filching office supplies", then the cops