Were my rights violated?

[tranquility]

Extortion is the ideal word to use here - look up the definition. It is a threat to do anything to coerse someone to give up anything of value that you are not entitled to. They were not entitled to any money as they did not prove or even try to compel the believe that I was responsible for damage. They merely said they wanted $1625.00 for damage due to defective powerwashing. Now stop right there. This is a civil dispute period. The criminal courts are not the venue for this claim.

Then laaaaaateeeerrrr she phoned me, and asked me to come by, and look at the siding. I did days later, and she asked me to fix it. I told her it needed a new finish ect. ect. She solicited me.

It was OCP who indicated that I had broken the law in my response to their initial correspondance to me wherein they stated that they were mediators bla bla bla. They ignored facts; egging, hail, the fact that she tried to get her neighbor to pay half, for a new fence, after she put it up, that seperated their property, 31, year old siding ect. Their response was I broke the law pay or else; EXTORTION!

I hope I get to tell my side in court. She was stupid to try, and extort me, too stupid to take my offer - maybe she'll be stupid enough to sue me. 31, year old paint on aluminum siding has no value - if you don't clean egg off of painted aluminum surface immediately - your screwed. There is still egg visible on the front shudded. The back of her house shows no damage according to the beautiful pictures I took. If she were going to sue me she would have done so - shucks!

Your assertion to make things right - make what right? An allegation? A damage allegation has no assigned value until it is substantiated. That occures through civil court when no compromise is agreed! You are connecting the offer to paint for free with the damage, because of the damage, from investigation of the totallity ect.. However there is no legal connection at all - one is a civil matter, one is a criminal matter, and thats more than a leap!

I would not bring a Malicious Prosecution tort - I think that is bad advise. An abuse of process tort however is exactly correct as it only has three elements. (1) a case was brought - civil or criminal.(2) for alterior purpose - the criminal courts are not for eaxcting civil colateral adjustment. (3) some action was taken after it's incipience not inline with the proceeding - request for $500.00 at trial. The malicious prosecution has two other elements (4) the court action ended in my favor - got all those (5) No probable cause - that gives me pause. I think that they did not as the criminal charge was extortion from it's inception.

I would bring that suit to both in my current thinking - as it was a collaboration to extort me. Both signed the threat / demand.

I will speak to another attorney soon to see if a due process violation can prevail. The government did move by criminal threat to deprive me of money they were not entitled to! Albeit on behalf of woman x. It does not matter who you rob, steal from, kill, or extort for. If you are perpetrating a crime - you are guilty. The fact that it is by color of official right - just makes it more egreigious!

OK, abuse of process. Who are you accusing?

As to the extortion, please go to the page I cited earlier. Compare and contrast.

 

[Handydog]

Answer me these: why was the money demand not a part of the criminal statement of charges? Why was it not mentioned at my criminal trial? Why was it not allowed - I tried to have it entered? I wanted the judge to know what the real impetus for the charge was. The judge slammed the door on my attorney so quick when he tried to cross women x and enter it. His response was " how does this help me" What he ment was how does this help me with the charge I have to render a verdict on, because it had nothing to do with the charge against me. Property damage, or not, is erroneous to whether I was acting as a contractor, or not.

What is you definition of extortion? Tranquillity

 

[Handydog]

OK, abuse of process. Who are you accusing?

As to the extortion, please go to the page I cited earlier. Compare and contrast.

I stated that I would bring that charge to both as they conspired.

I will. I thought I had read everything regarding extotion - i'll get back later. Thanks!

 

[justalayman]

Extortion is the ideal word to use here - look up the definition. It is a threat to do anything to coerse someone to give up anything of value that you are not entitled to. They were not entitled to any money as they did not prove or even try to compel the believe that I was responsible for damage.

They merely said they wanted $1625.00 for damage due to defective powerwashing. Now stop right there. This is a civil dispute period. The criminal courts are not the venue for this claim.

Then laaaaaateeeerrrr she phoned me, and asked me to come by, and look at the siding. I did days later, and she asked me to fix it. I told her it needed a new finish ect. ect. She solicited me.

Oh, so you are going to change your story. Boy, that sure helps with credibility, or would that be veracity., you like to argue immaterial points so you decide.

I power washed a women's house which was covered in many years of dirt - aluminum siding 31, years old. It was hail damaged, and the front had been egged sometime back before the dirt covered it. All of her connected townhouse neighbors had changed their siding due to hail damage. The customer complained to me, and I met at her house, and explained that the finish on the aluminum had been undermined - that the large blight patterns were not caused by the washing - she wanted new siding. I explained that the siding was not damaged, that the finish had failed. I offered to paint it for her if she bought the materials. She refused, and got consumer protection ( ocp ) envolved. In her complaint, she said that I was inept because I had failed to get the egg of her house. There was no egg on the siding, because it had come off with the factory finish - it was not peeling anywhere, it was just gone; eaten by the protien reaction. The shutter still has egg on it.

so, did you offer to paint it for her before she went to the OCP or did you offer to paint it only after she had the OCP involved?

It was OCP who indicated that I had broken the law in my response to their initial correspondance to me wherein they stated that they were mediators bla bla bla. They ignored facts; egging, hail, the fact that she tried to get her neighbor to pay half, for a new fence, after she put it up, that seperated their property, 31, year old siding ect. Their response was I broke the law pay or else; EXTORTION!

the egging, hail, etc, has nothing to do with the matter.

I hope I get to tell my side in court. She was stupid to try, and extort me, too stupid to take my offer - maybe she'll be stupid enough to sue me. 31, year old paint on aluminum siding has no value -

really? My father has (let me calculate it; built in 1957 and this is 2013, oh ya, 56 years old) 56 yo siding and there is nothing wrong with it that a bit of washing wouldn't fix (well, power washing from a qualified person anyway) You need to stop arguing the age of the siding is what caused it to be worthless because it is simply not true.

if you don't clean egg off of painted aluminum surface immediately - your screwed. There is still egg visible on the front shudded. The back of her house shows no damage according to the beautiful pictures I took. If she were going to sue me she would have done so - shucks!

but that is a different issue than simply arguing that due to age it has no value.

An abuse of process tort however is exactly correct as it only has three elements. (1) a case was brought - civil or criminal.(2) for alterior purpose - the criminal courts are not for eaxcting civil colateral adjustment. (3) some action was taken after it's incipience not inline with the proceeding - request for $500.00 at trial. The malicious prosecution has two other elements (4) the court action ended in my favor - got all those (5) No probable cause - that gives me pause. I think that they did not as the criminal charge was extortion from it's inception.

what would those alterior purposes be? What the hell is an alterior purpose anyway?

Oh, here it is. She was apparently trying to get new furniture out of you:

http://alteriors.ca/

I will speak to another attorney soon to see if a due process violation can prevail. The government did move by criminal threat to deprive me of money they were not entitled to! Albeit on behalf of woman x. It does not matter who you rob, steal from, kill, or extort for. If you are perpetrating a crime - you are guilty. The fact that it is by color of official right - just makes it more egreigious!

You go get the checkbook. Since it appears cost is of no issue, I suspect you will find an abundance of lawyers willing to take this on for you.

 

[justalayman]

Handydog;3177814]Answer me these: why was the money demand not a part of the criminal statement of charges?

because the money was not an element of the charges and it did not alter the fact, at least per their claim, you were acting as a contractor without a license.

Why was it not mentioned at my criminal trial?

you tell me. If your lawyer didn't bring it up, you only have him to blame.

Why was it not allowed - I tried to have it entered?

Well, after I went and responded to the prior questions you go and say, now, why it was not presented in trial. Geesh.

I wanted the judge to know what the real impetus for the charge was.

irrelevant. If you want to bring a abuse of process charge, then do so but your trial was to determine whether you acted as a contractor without a license or not.

The judge slammed the door on my attorney so quick when he tried to cross women x and enter it. His response was " how does this help me" What he ment was how does this help me with the charge I have to render a verdict on, because it had nothing to do with the charge against me. Property damage, or not, is erroneous to whether I was acting as a contractor, or not.

and how does that help the judge determine whether you were acting as a contractor without a license? It has no bearing on it. Either you did or you didn't. The (claim of) the underlying abuse of process issue is a separate matter which you are welcome to address now. Hell, if you had been proven guilty, you would have lost all possibility of an abuse of process claim. The courts surely would not accept that the only reason they charged you would be because of the money issue. It would be born out that it was because you were guilty.



So, if there was no valid basis for the charges, your lawyer should have addressed it pre-trial. The fact he did not suggests even he believed, at least on its face, the charges did appear to have some validity.

 

[tranquility]

Better than reading statutes, read some law.

Palmer Ford, Inc. v. Wood, 471 A. 2d 297 - Md: Court of Appeals 1984
Would be a good start on some of the issues.

Zablonsky v. Perkins, 187 A. 2d 314 - Md: Court of Appeals 1963
Helps with probable cause.
I'll summarize a bit. There is no doubt the threat of criminal process to collect a debt could very well be abuse of process. Say, for example, a nightclub hired a band and supplied some equipment and the nightclub had the band manager sign a form saying he would be responsible for the return of the equipment. Later, if the equipment went missing, the proper resolution of the nightclub would be to sue the manager on his promise. Instead, if the nightclub swore out a warrant the manager stole the equipment (even though they did not have probable cause to believe he did it) to get the criminal courts involved, THAT would be an abuse. That would be an attempt to use the state's criminal process as a private collection agency. It would be �a perversion of legal process to improper ends, which might give rise to an action for abuse of process.� Note, it was not "extortion".

State v. Rendelman, 947 A. 2d 546 - Md: Court of Appeals 2008
Has to do with extortion and threats to litigate. (Make sure you go to the 2008 case.)

Link v. Link, 179 SE 2d 697 - NC: Supreme Court 1971
While not precedent, many Maryland cases use it for the proposition: "A threat to institute criminal proceedings becomes wrongful within the meaning of this rule "if made with the corrupt intent to coerce a transaction grossly unfair to the victim and not related to the subject of such proceedings". (Which is probably why you are trying so hard to disengage the criminal from the civil here.)

 

[Handydog]

I asked about the money not being an issues because Tranquillity is persisting that a criminal,and civil matter is intertwined.

It was not allowed at criminal trial as the judge woudn't allow it.

Exactly, that was my point to tranqillity - the criminal, and civil were an inappropriate mix.

Abuse of Process would have still been viable whether I lost or not.

I said all along that I offered to paint without a license - for free. Contractors don't paint for free - none I know.

Seems like your the one with the story change. Unfortunately I can't navigate as well as you with the forum tools. I do not wish to argue minutiae, or to defend myself at every turn. Remember I'm the nice guy who offers free painting. Try this one: call the cops, and tell them that a guy offered you a free paint job ( labor ) that he does not have a license, and that you want to press charges.
They made a complaint: bad wash job- they did not give any argument as to why. You screwed me, you owe me - pay or else. I pretty much think that has been my position all along.

I offered to paint for free - don't forget the free part, before ocp, and I formally retracted it via email after I realized it had been egged, and spoke with her neighbors. Again, Im showing tranquillity that the courts are seperate - they even have different names.

The finish on aluminum siding of her era has a ten year warranty - an insurance company would not give her squat. My shed was 6, years old when a tree demolished it. The insurance company prorated it. It was in perfect shape - I received a less than perfect compensation. The siding was not damaged, the finish was - you need to make that distinction.

Ulterior means other. They were not seeking justice, they wanted cash. They should have gone to the atm.

Where did I indicate that cash was no issue. It's a big issue! If it wasn't, I wouldn't be power washing!

It is a priority for me to change bad behavior. I was victimized, and my convictions are strong.

I'll let you guys know exactly how things turn out - I have no idea. All I'm sure of is what I plan today.

The office of Inspector General after interviewing me, and reviewing my documentation said the only thing that made since to him was the letter from OCP to woman x saying to sue me in small claims.

Thanks to all for your points of views, and the links! I have to work on my spelling - it is a hindrance.

 

[tranquility]

In dealing with the issue as to if it is ethical (not criminal or a tort) for an attorney to threaten presentation of criminal charges solely to gain civil advantage:
http://www.vtla.us/2012/Convention/materials/Section2-Developments_in_Legal_Ethics.pdf
The old ABA Model Code contained a fairly straight-forward prohibition.

A lawyer shall not present, participate in presenting, or
threaten to present criminal charges solely to obtain an
advantage in a civil matter.
ABA Model Code DR 7-105(A).
When the ABA adopted its Model Rules in 1983, it deliberately dropped this
provision.

When talking about extortion on the matter The ABA said:

In defending its decision, the ABA first dealt with the possibility that such threats
could amount to extortion. Model Rule 8.4(b) provides that
t is beyond the scope of the Committee's jurisdiction to
define extortionate conduct,but we note that the Model
Penal Code does not criminalize threats of prosecution
where the “property obtained by threat of accusation,
exposure, lawsuit or other invocation of official action was
honestly claimed as restitution for harm done in the
circumstances to which such accusation, exposure, lawsuit
or other official action relates, or as compensation for
property or lawful services.” Model Penal Code, § 223.4
(emphasis added); see also§ 223.2(3) (threats are not
criminally punishable if they are based on a claim of right,
or if there is an honest belief that the charges are well
founded.) As to the crime of compounding, we also note
that the Model Penal Code, § 242.5, in defining that crime,
provides that:
A person commits a misdemeanor if he accepts any
pecuniary benefit in consideration of refraining from
reporting to law enforcement authorities the commission of
any offense or information relating to an offense. It is an
affirmative defense to prosecution under this Sectionthat
the pecuniary benefit did not exceed an amount which the
actor believed to be due as restitution or indemnification
for harm caused by the offense. (emphasis supplied)
Id. (emphases added; emphasis in original indicated by underscore). SeeModel Penal
Code § 223.4 ("Theft by Extortion") ("It is anaffirmative defense to prosecution based on
paragraphs (2), (3) or (4) that the property obtained by threat of accusation, exposure,
lawsuit or other invocation of official action was honestly claimed as restitution or
indemnification for harm done in the circumstances to which such accusation, exposure,
lawsuit or other official action relates, or as compensation for property or lawful services.");
Model Penal Code § 242.5 (“Compounding”) ("A person commits a
misdemeanor if he accepts or agrees to accept any pecuniary benefit in consideration of
refraining from reporting to law enforcement authorities the commission or suspected
commission of any offense or information relating to an offense. It is an affirmative
defense to prosecution under this Section that the pecuniary benefit did not exceed an
amount which the actor believed to be due asrestitution or indemnification for harm
caused by the offense.").
The ABA concluded as follows:
The Committee concludes, for reasons to be
explained, that the ABA Model Rules do not prohibit a
lawyer from using the possibility of presenting criminal
charges against the opposing party in a civil matter to
gain relief for her client, provided that the criminal
matter is related to the civil claim, the lawyer has a well
founded belief that both the civil claim and the possible
criminal charges are warranted by the law and the
facts, and the lawyer does not attempt to exert or
suggest improper influence over the criminal process.
It follows also that the Model Rules do not prohibit a
lawyer from agreeing, or having the lawyer's client
agree, in return for satisfactionof the client's civil claim
for relief, to refrain from pursuing criminal charges
against the opposing party as part of a settlement
agreement, so long as such agreement is not itself in
violation of law.

 

[tranquility]

A final one in a paper that generally finds such things unethical:
http://mainelaw.maine.edu/academics/maine-law-review/pdf/vol37_1/vol37_me_l_rev_41.pdf

B. Waivers Benefiting Private Interests
Two recent cases have held that, as a matter of law, public policy
considerations do not prohibit waivers taken in the charge bargain-
ing process which benefit private parties. In Hoines v. Barney's Club
Inc.,
82
the California Supreme Court upheld a waiver benefiting
night club employees given by a defendant in a Nevada court in re-
turn for a dismissal of a breach of the peace charge.83 Finding that
the offer was not coercive
84
and that the prosecutor had the defen-
dant's best interests in mind,
85
the court upheld a jury verdict for
the defendant employees in the civil action
8
The court likened the
requirement that a defendant surrender a cause of action in return
for dismissal of criminal charges to the practice of requiring a guilty
plea to a lesser criminal charge in return for dismissing a more seri-
ous charge.
7
The court noted: "In requiring a release from the ac-
cused - but only by his free and voluntary election - the state
accomplishes both the imposition of the bargained-for disability and
protection for those it reasonably deems to have been innocently in-
volved.""" The court did not respond to Justice Tobriner's dissent
which questioned whether the prosecutor had any legitimate interest
in civil consequences of a decision to dismiss a criminal charge.
80A second case, Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Joy,
90
also upheld the
validity of a waiver benefiting private interests. Answering questions
put to it by a federal court, the Maryland Court of Appeals held
that public policy is not violated by an uncoerced waiver benefiting
a private party given by a defendant in return for the dismissal of
charges." The court noted that the victim had no role in obtaining
the release.
92
On the other hand, in Dziuma v. Korvettes,
9
' a New
York court rejected a waiver given to a private party because a judge
required it as a condition for a dismissal.
94
Judicial rejections of attempts to use releases taken under the
threat of prosecution to shield government agencies and law enforce-
ment agents proceed from first amendment principles. The constitu-
tional arguments are less forceful when releases are exacted to bene-
fit private persons because arguably the prosecution is not
attempting to limit an individual's right to petition the government
for a redress of grievances. However, significant public policy ques-
tions are present whenever coercive forces of the criminal justice
system are used to settle private disputes.
In addition to questions concerning the independence of the pros-
ecution function and its relationship to the civil courts, courts
should consider the effect coercion has on a citizen's freedom to con-tract. At common law, a person could avoid the effect of a release
obtained after ain arrest and under the duress of imprisonment if
there was no probable cause for the arrest, if the arrest was without
lawful authority, or if the arrest was lawful but made for an unlaw-
ful purpose.
5
Thus judgment creditors levying body executions
could not rely on waivers of false imprisonment actions secured from
imprisoned debtors in exchange for freedom.
0
Releases exacted
under these circumstances "would be a reproach to the law
'
*
7
and
they were commonly rejected.""

Note, one case is precedent for this situation.
Food Fair Stores v. Joy 283 Md. 205 (1978)

 

[justalayman]

It was not allowed at criminal trial as the judge woudn't allow it.

because in the criminal trial it was not relevant. In the actions you are considering it is very relevant. They are intertwined, just not in the manner you are trying to tie them together.

Abuse of Process would have still been viable whether I lost or not.

yes but the chances of a court agreeing with the charge had you been found guilty drops drastically. It then looks a lot more like a convicted person attempting to revolt in any way they can. As well, it shows the charges were valid and as such, why they were levied becomes less important.

Using your argument, if I committed murder and was approached by the DA who said; I understand why you did it and I don't really believe it would be in everybody's best interest to prosecute this. My concern is the family is going to suffer because of this. If you can find your way to compensate them adequately, I can see my way to not making prosecution my first priority.

I then refuse and the DA prosecutes.

Based on your arguments, the prosecutor is abusing the system, not because I committed the crime but he sees my action not so egregious it should necessarily be prosecuted but without the prosecution, he cannot ensure the family will receive just compensation, even though they could initiate a wrongful death suit. The courts are in the business of doling out justice. Sometimes that justice comes in the form of taking action to ensure an injured party is made whole and nothing more. I see your situation as one of those situations.

I said all along that I offered to paint without a license - for free. Contractors don't paint for free - none I know.

irrelevant. In fact, wrong. If a contractor believes he has injured a party and a free paint job or free labor for a paint job is determined to be the price of making that person whole so the matter can be settled without going to court, then a free paint job it is.

Seems like your the one with the story change. Unfortunately I can't navigate as well as you with the forum tools. I do not wish to argue minutiae, or to defend myself at every turn. Remember I'm the nice guy who offers free painting. Try this one: call the cops, and tell them that a guy offered you a free paint job ( labor ) that he does not have a license, and that you want to press charges.
They made a complaint: bad wash job- they did not give any argument as to why. You screwed me, you owe me - pay or else. I pretty much think that has been my position all along.

nice guy, bad guy; irrelevant. In one post you stated you had first offered to paint the house before OCP was involved. In the other post she had involved OCP before you offered to paint the house.

Your attempt to muddle that issue with irrelevant commentary suggests you do not wish to actually address the varied stories. Again, perception of veracity is affected.

I offered to paint for free - don't forget the free part, before ocp, and I formally retracted it via email after I realized it had been egged, and spoke with her neighbors.

you can't unring a bell.

The finish on aluminum siding of her era has a ten year warranty - an insurance company would not give her squat. My shed was 6, years old when a tree demolished it. The insurance company prorated it. It was in perfect shape - I received a less than perfect compensation. The siding was not damaged, the finish was - you need to make that distinction.

and my father's 56 year old siding is still under warranty? Of course not but the warranty is, like so may things you bring to the table, irrelevant. You made a statement and I said you are wrong. My father's siding, while it would not have new siding value, surely isn't without value as you said all siding at least 10 years old would be.

Ulterior means other. They were not seeking justice, they wanted cash. They should have gone to the atm.

I know what Ulterior means. You (mis)typed Alterior. I was simply making fun of it

Where did I indicate that cash was no issue. It's a big issue! If it wasn't, I wouldn't be power washing!

who do you think is going to finance the suit then?