Rob wrote:
What is the legal defination of Extrotion? Are not threats to harass
unless someone complies with a certain course of action considered
extortion? Is it not true that even to threaten someone to pursue a
course of action even if it is not for the personal financial gain of
the extorter a crime?

What happens if Paul and Susan counter sue for extortion against
Lafferty, et al?


Really, OMG.

Coercion, not Extortion. Have you tried Dictionary.com???

On Jul 24, 2:16*pm, johnny_t wrote:
Rob wrote:
What is the legal defination of Extrotion? Are not threats to harass
unless someone complies with a certain course of action considered
extortion? Is it not true that even to threaten someone to pursue a
course of action even if it is not for the personal financial gain of
the extorter a crime?

What happens if Paul and Susan counter sue for extortion against
Lafferty, et al?

Really, OMG.

Coercion, not Extortion. * Have you tried Dictionary.com???

Extortion, outwresting, or exaction is a criminal offense, which
occurs, when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or
services from a person, entity, or institution, through Coercion.

( Who benefits financially by the removal of Paul and Susan?)

Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called
protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime
groups.
he actual obtainment of money or property is not required to commit
the offense. Making a threat of violence or a lawsuit which refers to
a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future
violence or lawsuit is sufficient to commit the offense. Exaction
refers not only to extortion or the unlawful demanding and obtaining
of something through force,[1] additionally, exact in its formal
definition means the infliction of something such as pain and
suffering or to make somebody endure something unpleasant.

This is getting pretty silly. Taking the definitions and trying to
make every statement into a legal crime misses the point entirely; no
legal authority would say that these actions are anywhere near the
legal boundaries for extortion. Otherwise, I expect to see legal
actions against opponents for setting a trap in a chess game (he
threatened to deny my prize money if I took a course of action), or to
complain that a draw offer in a losing position is an attempt to force
an illegal outcome. Lawsuits are for serious matters. If you think
this is inconsistent for me to say given that I have encouraged Sam to
keep his lawsuit going, let me point out that I have repeatedly said
to Sam that he should stick to the suit against Truong and drop all
the others. Phil, in his usual disingenuous way, tries to make the
absurd claim that this proves that I do not care about the truth but
only to show that Truong is guilty; of course what I mean is that the
rest of Sam's lawsuit is frivolous (eg holding Texas A+M responsible,
when they clearly had nothing to do with these postings, and are
clearly not guilty of a crime).

Jerry Spinrad

On Jul 24, 2:31*pm, Rob wrote:
On Jul 24, 2:16*pm, johnny_t wrote:

Rob wrote:
What is the legal defination of Extrotion? Are not threats to harass
unless someone complies with a certain course of action considered
extortion? Is it not true that even to threaten someone to pursue a
course of action even if it is not for the personal financial gain of
the extorter a crime?

What happens if Paul and Susan counter sue for extortion against
Lafferty, et al?

Really, OMG.

Coercion, not Extortion. * Have you tried Dictionary.com???

Extortion, outwresting, or exaction is a criminal offense, which
occurs, when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or
services from a person, entity, or institution, through Coercion.

( Who benefits financially by the removal of Paul and Susan?)

Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called
protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime
groups.
he actual obtainment of money or property is not required to commit
the offense. Making a threat of violence or a lawsuit which refers to
a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future
violence or lawsuit is sufficient to commit the offense. Exaction
refers not only to extortion or the unlawful demanding and obtaining
of something through force,[1] additionally, exact in its formal
definition means the infliction of something such as pain and
suffering or to make somebody endure something unpleasant.

On Jul 24, 2:58*pm, "
wrote:
This is getting pretty silly. Taking the definitions and trying to
make every statement into a legal crime misses the point entirely; no
legal authority would say that these actions are anywhere near the
legal boundaries for extortion. Otherwise, I expect to see legal
actions against opponents for setting a trap in a chess game (he
threatened to deny my prize money if I took a course of action), or to
complain that a draw offer in a losing position is an attempt to force
an illegal outcome. Lawsuits are for serious matters. If you think
this is inconsistent for me to say given that I have encouraged Sam to
keep his lawsuit going, let me point out that I have repeatedly said
to Sam that he should stick to the suit against Truong and drop all
the others. Phil, in his usual disingenuous way, tries to make the
absurd claim that this proves that I do not care about the truth but
only to show that Truong is guilty; of course what I mean is that the
rest of Sam's lawsuit is frivolous (eg holding Texas A+M responsible,
when they clearly had nothing to do with these postings, and are
clearly not guilty of a crime).

Jerry Spinrad

On Jul 24, 2:31*pm, Rob wrote:



On Jul 24, 2:16*pm, johnny_t wrote:

Rob wrote:
What is the legal defination of Extrotion? Are not threats to harass
unless someone complies with a certain course of action considered
extortion? Is it not true that even to threaten someone to pursue a
course of action even if it is not for the personal financial gain of
the extorter a crime?

What happens if Paul and Susan counter sue for extortion against
Lafferty, et al?

Really, OMG.

Coercion, not Extortion. * Have you tried Dictionary.com???

Extortion, outwresting, or exaction is a criminal offense, which
occurs, when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or
services from a person, entity, or institution, through Coercion.

( Who benefits financially by the removal of Paul and Susan?)

Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called
protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime
groups.
he actual obtainment of money or property is not required to commit
the offense. Making a threat of violence or a lawsuit which refers to
a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future
violence or lawsuit is sufficient to commit the offense. Exaction
refers not only to extortion or the unlawful demanding and obtaining
of something through force,[1] additionally, exact in its formal
definition means the infliction of something such as pain and
suffering or to make somebody endure something unpleasant.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Jerry,
What if someone who had something to gain financially by Susan and
Pauls removal from the board threatened to dig up information and try
to cause them public embarisment if they did not resign? I am just
saying "what if"? If someone at Vanderbilt were to say to you that
unless you removed yourself from a committee that voted on the budget
for a project of theirs you were opposed to funding or else they were
going to make public delicate personal information on you;how would
you feel and react?

You are privy to some information which is not generally known. You
therefore have some knowledge of what lies beneath a much deeper pond
that appears at first glance.

Please be so kind as to address my first premise honestly and with no
bias.

Additionally, I would like to invite you to play some email chess on
the chessworld.net server. My play is not the best but it is done in
great fun.
Rob

On Jul 24, 3:18*pm, Rob wrote:
On Jul 24, 2:58*pm, "





wrote:
This is getting pretty silly. Taking the definitions and trying to
make every statement into a legal crime misses the point entirely; no
legal authority would say that these actions are anywhere near the
legal boundaries for extortion. Otherwise, I expect to see legal
actions against opponents for setting a trap in a chess game (he
threatened to deny my prize money if I took a course of action), or to
complain that a draw offer in a losing position is an attempt to force
an illegal outcome. Lawsuits are for serious matters. If you think
this is inconsistent for me to say given that I have encouraged Sam to
keep his lawsuit going, let me point out that I have repeatedly said
to Sam that he should stick to the suit against Truong and drop all
the others. Phil, in his usual disingenuous way, tries to make the
absurd claim that this proves that I do not care about the truth but
only to show that Truong is guilty; of course what I mean is that the
rest of Sam's lawsuit is frivolous (eg holding Texas A+M responsible,
when they clearly had nothing to do with these postings, and are
clearly not guilty of a crime).

Jerry Spinrad

On Jul 24, 2:31*pm, Rob wrote:

On Jul 24, 2:16*pm, johnny_t wrote:

Rob wrote:
What is the legal defination of Extrotion? Are not threats to harass
unless someone complies with a certain course of action considered
extortion? Is it not true that even to threaten someone to pursue a
course of action even if it is not for the personal financial gain of
the extorter a crime?

What happens if Paul and Susan counter sue for extortion against
Lafferty, et al?

Really, OMG.

Coercion, not Extortion. * Have you tried Dictionary.com???

Extortion, outwresting, or exaction is a criminal offense, which
occurs, when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or
services from a person, entity, or institution, through Coercion.

( Who benefits financially by the removal of Paul and Susan?)

Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called
protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime
groups.
he actual obtainment of money or property is not required to commit
the offense. Making a threat of violence or a lawsuit which refers to
a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future
violence or lawsuit is sufficient to commit the offense. Exaction
refers not only to extortion or the unlawful demanding and obtaining
of something through force,[1] additionally, exact in its formal
definition means the infliction of something such as pain and
suffering or to make somebody endure something unpleasant.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Jerry,
What if someone who had something to gain financially by Susan and
Pauls removal from the board threatened to dig up information and try
to cause them public embarisment if they did not resign? I am just
saying "what if"? *If someone at Vanderbilt were to say to you that
unless you removed yourself from a committee that voted on the budget
for a project of theirs you were opposed to funding or else they were
going to make public delicate personal information on you;how would
you feel and react?

You are privy to some information which is not generally known. You
therefore have some knowledge of what lies beneath a much deeper pond
that appears at first glance.

I have toned myself down a bit not so much because I believe the
explanation which Susan conveyed in private email is particularly
plausible, but because it made me understand that Susan truly and
passionately believes in Paul's innocence. Of course, it is possible
that what I was told (which was not such a deep secret as seems to be
occasionally implied) was only a small part of the truth, but if I am
not being told the truth then why should I believe in the essential
honesty of the whole story? I would be glad to discuss this more, but
it seems that would be a violation of what I was given to believe was
strict privacy. I believe, incidentally, that the essential
explanation I was given could be conveyed to the public at large
without the need to reveal any details which would be uncomfortable;
some details being left fuzzy around the edges, but it would make the
general defence a bit more coherent.

And as to whether these details make anything being done to Truong or
Polgar seem like extortion, I would argue that they go exactly the
other way. They seem more like standard operating procedure under the
circumstances. The Vanderbilt analogy would be more on the order of:
Suppose I sued Vanderbilt for discrimination against me; would it be
extortion for Vanderbilt to threaten a countersuit based on another
matter which strikes me as very dubious unless I dropped the case? The
answer is no, distasteful as it might be, it is just the way the
system works.

Jerry Spinrad



Please be so kind as to address my first premise honestly and with no
bias.

Additionally, I would like to invite you to play some email chess on
the chessworld.net server. My play is not the best but it is done in
great fun.

I try to play OTB, and when I can find the time I play on ICC (my
handle, of course, is a deep secret). It would be fun, but since I
already spend more time than I should on chess I will have to decline
the offer.

Jerry Spinrad

Rob- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text