Comments on: Update: Indictments in Roberts sex/extortion case still pending

By: TC

TC — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 02:07:52 +0000

Texas, aint adultry still on the books as being against some law?

File a suit against both of them for adultery. Or better yet file a criminal complaint against them!

Outside of that, seems like something is seriously f***ed up in Texas! I mean, daaum don’t they realize that folks have been kilt n shit fer less?

By: cowpill

cowpill — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 14:35:37 +0000

As I have seen on many occasions, the threat of litigation does promt payment in some cases because even though the accused might be innocent it is easier to pay a settlement that to fight it in court. To me this is extortion, but economics dictate this as legal so it continues, what these lawyers have shown is criminal intent to defraud a person of his right to privacy(if there is such a thing).

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 13:56:48 +0000

It’s not the threat of LITIGATION, Ima… it’s the threat of disgorging private (and embarrassing) information.

That’s what blackmail IS. The litigation threat was ENTIRELY a vehicle for publication of said information.

That’s wwhy I listed most such cases as merely “fraud”, not necessarily blackmail.

By: Ian Maitland

Ian Maitland — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 13:33:47 +0000

“I’ve always assumed that upholding the right to contract was one of the bedrocks of this blog.”

If Roberts offered a “no strings,” “discreet” sexual encounter and that was accepted, then Roberts is threatening a breach of contract. If the men paid tens of thousands of dollars to Roberts to prevent her making the encounters public, then that would likely be a case of duress, which would make the second “contract” voidable. The victims of the ambushes should be able to recover their tens of thousands of dollars. Cold comfort perhaps, but at least they get to cry all the way to the bank.

By: Ima Fish

Ima Fish — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 12:45:52 +0000

“it’s the threat of litigation that brings the payment.”

So every time a party settles because of a threat of litigation a crime of extortion has been committed? I’m really curious where the “gun to the head” portion of this crime exists.

By: Colin P. Varga

Colin P. Varga — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 12:45:34 +0000

I believe there are two separate issues. The victim is committing a wrong (which may be criminal in some states I suppose) the victim is trying to have sexual relations outside of marriage. The woman lawyer seems to be engaged in an extortion racket. If the first is a crime let the men be prosecuted, if society will be better for it. However, the greater harm is being done by the lawyers. Often we judge the victims, why was the victim walking in an unsafe area, etc. That the lawyers can make an argument for their case is apparent but I believe a judge &/or jury can see through the text of their “case” and see the intent. The lawyers picked the victims based on the possibility of public embarrassment. Potential victims who would not be embarrassed were probably ignored, so the woman was not looking for men to have sex with but men who could be extorted.

Of course go to trial would mean that a jury would have to listen to testimony about a lawyer having sex, and this might present a reason for a judge to throw out the case.

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 12:02:13 +0000

Ima Fish,

There is no form of blackmail that does not fit that pattern. You are arguing for the decriminalisation of ALL blackmail.

Perhaps you meant to and think that’s OK, but that’s not what society as a whole thinks, nor is it the standard of law at this time.

By: Ima Fish

Ima Fish — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 11:31:46 +0000

Ted, that is exactly why I specifically said that no one pointed a gun to the “victims” heads.

Please explain to me where anything similar to having a gun pointed at their heads occurred?

They willingly had sex and they willingly paid to keep it quiet.

Sure, they were not happy about paying. I wasn’t happy when I bought my last vehicle. I’m not happy when I go to the grocery store. No one is happy when they have to turn over money. But that doesn’t make it criminal.

The “victims” paid for quiet and got it until the police were involved and screwed up their deal.

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 17:34:05 +0000

This is quite claerly extortion… the claim itself is utterly ridiculous, it’s the threat of litigation that brings the payment.

And of course, the same thing happens all the time in other cases, as he pointed out… and I think most of those are immoral and unjust as well.

By: cowpill

cowpill — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 09:59:24 +0000

I think personally that the defense lawyer has a point but; is misguided in his defense. What he is claiming is no different than what the RIAA or litigants in california do with the disabilities laws, the difference here is proving that the defendants show malice or deception in their actions; which can be done with a few e-mails, letters and even to some extent testimoney of the victims. Whether these Gentleman chose to pay it is still extortion if the request for payment is less than honorable