Text 8825, 132 rader
Skriven 2010-06-18 21:24:22 av Janis Kracht (1:261/38)
   Kommentar till text 8715 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Important message from the moderator
============================================
Hi Michiel,

>>> Maybe you can help me there becuase I do not understand the
>>> extortion part. when i look up "extortion" in my dictionary I see
>>> that it translates into "afpersing". But afpersing involves some kind
>>> of threat. Like "pay me or I wil kill your cat"

or I will not tell you where your daughter is.

Get it now?  It's a demand,"act or practice of wresting anything from a person
by force, by threats, or by any undue exercise of power". (Webster's
dictionary)

Asking for a sum of money qualifies the action in the eyes of the law here.

If I told you that in order to get a node number in Zone 1 it will cost you
$500.00 even though you live down the street from me and it's free to everyone
else, then I could be considered an extortionist.  <grin>

>> Extortion in this case was van der Sloot telling Mrs. Twitty that he
>> would not give information of value to Mrs. Twitty unless a sum of
>> money was paid.

>So it is all right to offer information for sale but it is not ok to refuse to
> give the information unless paid. Weird...

It's Not ok to demand money, when it's NOT warranted... especially given the
amount of money that Joran was demanding but I doubt that was especially a
factor ($ amount, I mean).

>> He contacted her and said he had information about the whereabouts of
>> her daughter's remains.. but she had to pay him to get it. That is
>> extortion in this country.

>Well, I am pretty sure it is not extortion under Dutch law.

I found this online, so I thought under both our countries laws 'rapacity' or
extortion would be clear in this situation:

"In Dutch law extortion (afperxing) is said by Van der Linden (2, 4, 6) to be
committed when " a person, from motives of rapacity, abusing his authority or
the respect he inspires, or pretending a command of the Government, often with
threats, exercises pressure on another and compels him to assent to
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
giving up that which he desires from him." It appears to be doubtful
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
whether under Dutch law the crime is not confined to officials (Van Leeuwen
Comm. 4, 33, 8; Damhouder, Crimiueele Praktyk 215). "

>money took place in Aruba, so Aruban law (-Dutch law) applies.

I would think it would be handled under American law, since that is where the
victim of the extortion lived.  JS wasn't a victim of extortion, Mrs. Twitty
is/was.  I would think that's why the U.S. has to wait for JS to either come to
America or have him extradited after he serves his term in Peru if he is
convicted.  Too bad we're not lawyers, but I don't know who has the answers to
be honest <g>.  My cousin is a lawyer and teaches law at Penn State University,
but I wonder if he would even know :)

> Plus that it wa
>secretly recorded and that is illegal under Dutch law. If JS ever sets foot on

Heh.. AFAIK, things like that are illegal here as well, but under the later
security laws instilled after 9-11, who knows.  I don't want to know to be
honest, secret recordings are that distasteful to me.

> Aruban soil again, he will not be extradited to the US for extortion.

I'm not sure about that.

>Don't het me wrong. I think it is despicable to do this to Beth Twitty. The ma
> will do anything to get money. But I see no crime here.

Think about the example above with the nodelist... but not of a volunteer
organization like Fidonet, but even some club or association group.

>> contacts her taunting her with supposed information.. so she hands it
>> over to the authorities here.. I can understand that.

> That I can understand too. The authorities should have told her that it would
> not lead anywhere and that paying JS would be a waste of money.

Perhaps she inisted.. she may have felt she had to respond.  I can understand
that as well.

>> I don't know that anything was recorded secretly but it may have >> been.

> That was what was reporetd in the news here.

Yes, later I saw that as well.

>> Again, I'm no expert in foreign law and what they could have or
>> could not have done.  And it really doesn't matter <g>

> The matter of secretly recording was extensively discussed here by lawyers
>after the famous "de Vries tapes". The consensus was that it is illegal and an
> evidence obtained that way is inadmissible in court.

I've heard of those tapes, of course, but I don't know how they would be
handled in U.S. courts...

>>> The conversation was secretly recorded and JS thought he was talking
>>> to Beth Twitty's attorney, not to an undercover FBI agent.

>> It was very naive of Joran to not suspect that criminal investative
>> teams would have been involved at that point.

> It was naive of whoever furnished the money that it would uncover the truth.

I would never have done something like that - give into an extortionist or a
blackmailer.. but I'm not in her situation either.

>> I think it is hard to say he is innocent with Stephanie's blood on his
>> clothes.

>Sure, it does not look good for him. All the evidence points in his direction.
> he still deserves a fair trial. Everyone deserves a fair trial. It does not
> look he will get it. His Peruvian lawyer has stepped down because he was
>threatened with death. How can one expect a fair trial under those conditions?

I have no reason to suspect he won't get a fair trial.  Peru's justice and
court system is operated very differently than the courts in the U.S. and
differently possibly than courts in the Netherlands, so we'll have to wait and
see.  But just because the court will be held in Peru is no reason to suspect
that a fair trial is impossible.  I understand they have 3 judges involved for
instance.

Take care,
Janis

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag
 * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)