Text 8845, 191 rader
Skriven 2010-06-20 12:11:10 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Kommentar till en text av Janis Kracht (1:261/38)
Ärende: Important message from the moderator
============================================
Hello Janis,
On Friday June 18 2010 21:24, you wrote to me:
>>>> 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"
JK> or I will not tell you where your daughter is.
The result of which would be the same as when he had done nothing. So where is
the threat?
JK> Get it now?
No, I don't. A threat that has the same effect as doing nothing is not a
threat.
JK> Asking for a sum of money qualifies the action in the eyes of the law
JK> here.
I can see that US law is different from Dutch law. But I still find it odd that
one would be expected to give for free what one can sell. Especially given the
attitude of free enterprise and the reluctance against given away things for
free that seem to be engrained in US society.
JK> If I told you that in order to get a node number in Zone 1 it will
JK> cost you $500.00 even though you live down the street from me and it's
JK> free to everyone else, then I could be considered an extortionist.
JK> <grin>
No, that would not be extortion, that would be discrimination. If this were in
The Netherlands and you would be operating as a company or organisation, I
could sue you for discrimination. If your were operating as a private person,
there is nothing I could do.
>> Well, I am pretty sure it is not extortion under Dutch law.
JK> I found this online, so I thought under both our countries laws
JK> 'rapacity' or extortion would be clear in this situation:
JK> "In Dutch law extortion (afperxing) is said by Van der Linden (2, 4,
JK> 6) to be committed when " a person, from motives of rapacity, abusing
JK> his authority or the respect he inspires, or pretending a command of
JK> the Government, often with threats, exercises pressure on another and
JK> compels him to assent to
JK> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
JK> giving up that which he desires from him." It appears to be doubtful
JK> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ whether under Dutch law the
JK> crime is not confined to officials (Van Leeuwen Comm. 4, 33, 8;
JK> Damhouder, Crimiueele Praktyk 215). "
It is not confined to officials, but the key words are "threats, exercises
pressure".
Not doing something that one would not have done anyway if there had been no
contact is not considered as a threat here.
>> money took place in Aruba, so Aruban law (-Dutch law) applies.
JK> I would think it would be handled under American law, since that is
JK> where the victim of the extortion lived.
Yes, I know that the US are of opinion that they have world wide jurisdiction
when the victim is a US citizen. Most of the rest of the world do not share
that opinion however.
JK> I would think that's why the U.S. has to wait for JS to either come to
JK> America
It would be very foolish of him to voluntarily come to the US.
JK> or have him extradited after he serves his term in Peru if he is
JK> convicted.
Given that he now runs the risk of being tried for murder in the Holloway case
in the US, it is doubtful either Peru, Aruba or the Netherlands will honour an
extradition request.
JK> Too bad we're not lawyers, but I don't know who has the answers to be
JK> honest <g>. My cousin is a lawyer and teaches law at Penn State
JK> University, but I wonder if he would even know :)
I too have a cousin who is a lawyer. But she only knows Dutch law, not US law.
And presumably your cousin only knows US law.
>> Plus that it was secretly recorded and that is illegal under Dutch law.
>> If JS ever sets foot on
JK> Heh.. AFAIK, things like that are illegal here as well, but under the
JK> later security laws instilled after 9-11, who knows.
Apparently it is not illegal for the FBI to do so. How else could the FBI bring
JS to court on an extortion charge, if the evidence was obtained illegally?
JK> I don't want to know to be honest, secret recordings are that
JK> distasteful to me.
"But I didn't know". Hmmm.. translate that into German....
>> 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.
JK> Think about the example above with the nodelist... but not of a
JK> volunteer organization like Fidonet, but even some club or association
JK> group.
See above, as we see things here, that is not extortion it is discrimination.
>>> 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.
JK> Perhaps she inisted.. she may have felt she had to respond. I can
JK> understand that as well.
As I understand it, it was not her decision at all. JS contacted her lawyer who
contacted the FBI. The DFBI took action. Beth Twitty was not in the loop as I
understand it.
>> 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.
JK> I've heard of those tapes, of course, but I don't know how they would
JK> be handled in U.S. courts...
It is not likely the tapes will ever be evidence in a US court. In the unlikely
event new evidence turns up that makes a case against JS in the Holloway
disappearence, Aruba will have first shot as that is where it took place. If
both the US and Aruba file an extradition request with the Peruvians, the
Aruban request takes precedence.
So in that case, /if/ he ever becomes "available", he will be tried in Aruba.
No matter what the outcome of that trial, he will not be extradited to the US
for another trial, even if there was no death sentence hanging over his head.
"Ne bis in idem". One can not be tried twice for the same offence.
>>> It was very naive of Joran to not suspect that criminal investative
>>> teams would have been involved at that point.
It was stupid of him to draw the attention of US law enforcement. He could,
should have known that they were after his hide. He should have kept a low
profile in the direction of the US.
>> It was naive of whoever furnished the money that it would uncover
>> the truth.
JK> I would never have done something like that - give into an
JK> extortionist or a blackmailer.. but I'm not in her situation either.
It is hard to say what one would do in such a situation. But - assuming it was
her decison - the people around her should have advised against it.
>> 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?
JK> I have no reason to suspect he won't get a fair trial.
I have serious doubts.
JK> Peru's justice and court system is operated very differently than the
JK> courts in the U.S. and differently possibly than courts in the
JK> Netherlands, so we'll have to wait and see. But just because the
JK> court will be held in Peru is no reason to suspect that a fair trial
JK> is impossible.
What I have seen or heard so far, does not look good. The powers that be seem
to have already decided that he is guilty without the suspect having seen the
inside of a court room yet. Also the powers that be in Peru welcome the
distraction form some juicy scandals that they are involved in.
Not a good environment for a fair trial...
JK> I understand they have 3 judges involved for instance.
Who may be friends of he father of the victim. The father of Stephanie Floris
is a rich and influential man who has already publicly spoken on the matter.
Cheers, Michiel
--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
* Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)
|