For the record: Extortion(n) Law. *the crime of obtaining money or some other thing of value by the abuse of one's office or authority.* Not sure if (according to the provided account) a service provider threatening to disable a critical business service unless rendered a sum of money the service provider cannot prove they are owed qualifies as extortion, but from the definition I found at dictionary.com, it is certainly seems to be in that general neighborhood.
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Mel Beckman <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, > > You're mistaken. This has nothing to do with being or not being an > FCC-controlled medium. It has to do with published statements that may not > be true -- which are classified as libel, not slander (slander is spoken, > libel is written). If you post it in a mailing list, or on Facebook, it's > legally considered published, as long as one other person not party to the > matter can view it. > > You're also mistaken about how the law works. The person making the > assertion has the burden of proof. If you say someone is an extortionist, > you'd better be able to prove it. All the plaintiff has to do is say "Your > honor, I've been libeled, and here are my damages. Please make the > defendant compensate me." You will be subpoenaed, and at court the judge > will turn to you and say "Where is the proof of your claims?" If you can't > deliver, the judgement will go against you. > > The plaintiff doesn't have to prove a thing. In fact, his claim will > automatically be accepted and processed by the legal system up until you > appear in court. The cost for you before that point could be thousands of > dollars. If you don't show up for court, you automatically lose. > > -mel beckman > > -mel beckman > > On Aug 16, 2016, at 4:12 PM, Jonathan Hall <[email protected]<mailto:j > [email protected]>> wrote: > > Excuse me for chiming in, here… But, if I’m not mistaken (don’t worry, I’m > not) - this doesn’t count as ‘slander’ in any way, shape or form. This mail > thread is not any kind of valid FCC controlled or public communications > device, as the internet was actually excluded from the public > communications device list under the Freedom of Speech Act in… Was it, > 1996? Which means, ‘slander’ can’t be called in this case. You could argue > that it can, but you’d lose in court in the long run. > > If you’re aiming for the defamation card? That’s a very difficult one to > prove. I’d counter the argument in a court room by asking the judge to > prove the plaintiff is NOT an extortionist scum bag. It certainly works > both ways. And either way, defamation requires some form of punitive damage > be proven in order to actually win that case. Are you saying that the > company he is referencing has some way to claim and directly correlate a > loss of income or potential loss of income, either present and/or future, > due to the comment made on a mail group? I’d love to see that > quantification on paper... > > None the less, regardless of what one accuses or says on the internet, the > usage of the word ‘extortion’ is quite open for interpretation with regards > to context, and making such a statement does not qualify for slander nor > defamation. He could feel he’s being extorted, in which case exasperating > his opinion publicly is no less legal than me telling you that I don’t > really think you’re a good lawyer. > > Good luck trying to play that card in a courtroom. > > Short and simple: One could threaten to sue over it, and one could even > try. Personally, I’d turn that court room in to a circus act if someone > tried. I’d most likely get fined in contempt a few times, but at least even > the judge will go home laughing. :) > > J > > On 16 Aug 2016, at 16:45, Anne Mitchell <[email protected]<mailto:am > [email protected]>> wrote: > > > to say "our accounting system does not track invoice details -- it only > shows the total amount due so your numbers mean nothing to us." > All the while they relentlessly levied disconnect threats with short > timelines such as: "if you don't pay us $128,000 by this Friday, > we will shut your operation down." > [...] > At one point their lawyers and accounting people had the nerve to say "our > accounting system does not track invoice details > > Are you talking with your SP's lawyers without your a legal team of > your own present and advising you? > I think one of the first things they should tell you is not to discuss > pending disputes in public. Time to get > a consultation with your own Lawyers to assist with billing dispute > resolution, ASAP. > > Not to mention that accusing someone of a crime (extortion), in public (in > this context I would argue that this is public, especially as the term > 'community' was used in the allegation) is a pretty serious thing. > > Anne P. Mitchell, > Attorney at Law > Legislative Consultant > CEO/President, > SuretyMail Email Reputation Certification and Inbox Delivery Assistance > http://www.SuretyMail.com/<http://www.suretymail.com/> > http://www.SuretyMail.eu/<http://www.suretymail.eu/> > > Available for consultations by special arrangement. > > Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) > Member, California Bar Cyberspace Law Committee > Member, Colorado Cybersecurity Consortium > Member, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Committee > Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose > Ret. Chair, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> | @AnnePMitchell > Facebook/AnnePMitchell | LinkedIn/in/annemitchell > > > > -- To him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy
