Hacker News Reader

Comment by thucydides | Hacker News Reader

Not correct. If you threaten to expose a crime unless you are paid money, you have committed blackmail. It is blackmail even if you have a legal right to demand the money.

Note that each act separately is fine: you can demand money; you can threaten to report a crime. You just can't make the report conditional on receiving money.

View on HN

> If you threaten to expose a crime unless you are paid money, you have committed blackmail.

That might make sense if the crime in question weren't the non-payment of that money. Saying, "If you don't pay what you owe, I'll report you" doesn't sound like it could possibly be blackmail.

There are a lot of IANALs here, I'd love to hear an actual lawyer comment on this.

I'm not quite a lawyer. I represented criminal defendants throughout my third year of law school. I earned my Juris Doctor in May and will hear if I passed the Maryland bar in November.

"I try to unravel the paradox [of blackmail] and provide a coherent basis for distinguishing legitimate from illegitimate threats. In brief, I argue that the key to the wrongfulness of the blackmail transaction is its triangular structure. The transaction implicitly involves not only the blackmailer and his victim but always a third party as well. This third party may be, for example, the victim's spouse or employer, the authorities or even the public at large. When a blackmailer tries to use his right to release damaging information, he is threatening to tell others. If the blackmail victim pays the blackmailer, it is to avoid the harm that those others would inflict. Thus blackmail is a way that one person requests something in return for suppressing the actual or potential interests of others. To get what he wants, the blackmailer uses leverage that is less his than someone else's. Selling the right to go to the police involves suppressing the state's interests. Selling the right to tell a tort victim who committed the tort involves suppressing the tort victim's interests. And selling the right to inform others of embarrassing (but legal) behavior involves suppressing the interests of those other people."

James Lindgren, Unraveling the Paradox of Blackmail, 84 Colum. L. Rev. 670, 672 (1984)

That still doesn't quite answer the question: If the money is paid, there is no crime to begin with. The transfer isn't selling the right to go to the authorities, it's resolving the crime of non-payment in the first place.

I am an actual lawyer.

Threats mean you're using the threat of police action (criminal procedures) to gain an advantage in a civil dispute.

Fuck the civil dispute ("You owe me money". "No I don't"). This guy is past that.

Badclient has a criminal beef with the bad guy in SF, in addition to the civil dispute.

Two separate things going on. Civil. Criminal.

Don't mix them up.

Strategically you don't write demand letters. They're a waste of time. I refuse to write them for clients.

Just act. Step 1, the bazooka. (Step 2 is that a judge orders restitution under pain of jail if the bad guy doesn't pay).

So, badclient, tomorrow is Monday. Load your bazooka.

Tips on how to load the bazooka?

It's near impossible getting the SF DA on the phone. My call to NYPD put me in touch with an investigator who insisted I just got conned in one of those work from home schemes. One contact at SF DA told me I should contact NYPD and they'd turn it over to SF. So I guess I should try walking into my local police station with all the documents?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com