Were my rights violated?

[Handydog]

A county government employee in his official capacity on behalf of a home owner threatened me in writing ( signed official letterhead ) that if I did not pay $1625.00 for alledged damage to siding that I would face a criminal charge unrelated to the damage claim - extortion by color of official right! I was criminally charged wherein I was found not guilty by verdict! I could not dispute the alledged property damage claim as it was not a part of my criminal trial. Does this violate my right to due process? What should I do?

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Give us all the facts instead of cherrypicking for a response.

 

[justalayman]

I thought you had something going there and then at the end:

bam, you take a left turn and ask about due process.


what are you thinking was the issue interfering with your due process?

 

[Handydog]

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.
OCP told me that I did not need a license to power wash, but I had broken the law when I offered to paint without a license! If I did not pay in ten days $1,625.00 for property damage wherein no license was required, I would face the criminal charge of acting as a contractor without a license, that the home owner was ready to testify against me in that criminal pursuit, that it may be in my best interest to pay! They fullfilled their threat.
Did the government violate my right to due process when they demanded payment by pain of punishment. I was not allowed to dispute the property damage claim; it was not pertinet in my criminal trial.
I am pursuing criminal charges against both the home owner, and the so called investigator from OCP. I have met with the Inspector General's office. If they do not act, I plan to file for a statement of charges with the commisioner ( Maryland ). I appreciate the advice. Maybe I can help someone else.

 

[justalayman]

so, did you pay the money? Were you sued by the homeowner for the damages?


Did I understand you correctly that you were charged with acting as a contractor without a license and you were exonerated?



There is a problem with how things were done but it does not involve your rights to due process.

 

[Handydog]

so, did you pay the money? Were you sued by the homeowner for the damages?


Did I understand you correctly that you were charged with acting as a contractor without a license and you were exonerated?



There is a problem with how things were done but it does not involve your rights to due process.

I did not pay. They prosecuted me for acting as a contractor without a license. I was found not guilty by verdict at trial. I thought that I had the right to dispute the property damage claim before the government moved to collect money - there position was to pay, or else. I was not sued. They tried to extort the money through the threat of criminal prosecution. They asked for $500.00 at the start of my trial to settle.

 

[justalayman]

the property damage has nothing to do with the criminal issue, unless you were being charged due to the damage. From what you wrote, you were charged with violating a law concerning certain contractors being required to be licensed.

I thought that I had the right to dispute the property damage claim before the government moved to collect money - there position was to pay, or else.

but the property damage had nothing to do with the charges levied.



I do agree it appears extortion is at play here though. It just isn't an issue of a violation of your rights to due process.

They had no right to make a demand for payment since the damages were not the issue. As well, the city (or whomever) had no right to make a demand for a civil issue on behalf of a private citizen.

As you present it, it was quite simply a threat to prosecute for the unrelated crime if you did not pay the woman for what they were claiming were damages you caused. The woman has a right to sue you in civil court if she chooses. The government had a right to prosecute for the license issue. It is just that one doesn't depend on or is involved with the other. The only relationship between the two is that because of the damages the house needed to be painted. You offered to paint the house which required you to be a licensed contractor.

 

[Handydog]

the property damage has nothing to do with the criminal issue, unless you were being charged due to the damage. From what you wrote, you were charged with violating a law concerning certain contractors being required to be licensed.






but the property damage had nothing to do with the charges levied.



I do agree it appears extortion is at play here though. It just isn't an issue of a violation of your rights to due process.

They had no right to make a demand for payment since the damages were not the issue. As well, the city (or whomever) had no right to make a demand for a civil issue on behalf of a private citizen.

As you present it, it was quite simply a threat to prosecute for the unrelated crime if you did not pay the woman for what they were claiming were damages you caused. The woman has a right to sue you in civil court if she chooses. The government had a right to prosecute for the license issue. It is just that one doesn't depend on or is involved with the other. The only relationship between the two is that because of the damages the house needed to be painted. You offered to paint the house which required you to be a licensed contractor.

Thank you justlayman. Actually the Office of Consumer Protection ( ocp )works with homeowners to mediate disputes. At first OCP told the homeowner to sue me, but then OCP ( he ) decided to attempt to extort the money. They knew that they could not prevail in a civil suit as the finish on 31 year old siding has no value!

I was told by a neighbor that the homeowner has a personal connection with OCP, and has used them with great success in the past.

The judge ruled that you don't need a license to do charity, and I did not solicit a painting contract, that I was only trying to deal with a complaint for no profit. He was not privy to the extortion.

They broke many laws: sending threatening communications ( federal ) conspiracy to extort, extortion by color of official right, extortion by written threat, malicious procecution/abuse of process, fraud ( the back of the house shows no damage) fabricating evidense ( pictures of some front damage said to be the back ), phony estimate, purjury.

My concern here is whether extortion violates due process as I was not allowed to address the property damage claim before the government moved to coerse payment of monies they were not entitled to as the claim was not adjudicated?

 

[tranquility]

They had probable cause to believe you were in violation of the contractor law requiring a license. There may be reasonable legal issues as to why this was "charity" work, but, a counter argument was that the person had a legal claim against you (albeit of slight value) and you attempted to remove that claim if she paid materials. If she agreed, you would have had a contract. It would not have been a gift. I think you may have had a better lawyer than the other side for the court to not recognize that. If that is a violation of the statute, I have no idea and don't want to spend the time to look it up as it really isn't relevant.

However, if there is not a case exactly on point, the government will have immunity on the issue of bringing up charges. There was no malicious prosecution or abuse of process.

For the extortion claim, you must look to what the other side will argue as well as your obvious anger. They will say, on the testimony of the victim, they had probable cause that you violated the law regarding contracting without a license. While crimes are against the state and not the person, a reasonable government official may look at that as kind of a wobbler as you really weren't going out soliciting people to contract work and the State is not going to be too worse off if this one slides. With that in mind, they know they can calm down the victim and have her not press the issue if you pay for the damage she claims you caused. That's not "extortion", that's just good sense and governmental efficiency.

Finally, as to "extortion" itself, let's look to the statute(s):

� 3-701. Extortion generally.


(a) Scope of section.- This section does not apply to legitimate efforts by employees or their representatives to obtain certain wages, hours, or working conditions.

(b) Obtaining or attempting to obtain property prohibited.- A person may not obtain, attempt to obtain, or conspire to obtain money, property, labor, services, or anything of value from another person with the person's consent, if the consent is induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened:

(1) force or violence;

(2) economic injury; or

(3) destruction, concealment, removal, confiscation, or possession of any immigration or government identification document with intent to harm the immigration status of another person.

� 3-706. Extortion by written threat.


(a) Scope of section.-

(1) This section applies to any writing, whether or not the writing is signed, or if the writing is signed, whether or not it is signed with a fictitious name or any other mark or designation.

(2) This section does not apply to a good faith reasonable notice of dishonor and warning of criminal prosecution under Title 8, Subtitle 1 of this article given by a holder of an instrument to the maker of the instrument.

(b) Prohibited.- A person, with the intent to unlawfully extort money, property, or anything of value from another, may not knowingly send or deliver, or make for the purpose of being sent or delivered and part with the possession of, a writing threatening to:

(1) accuse any person of a crime or of anything that, if true, would bring the person into contempt or disrepute; or

(2) (i) cause physical injury to a person;

(ii) inflict emotional distress on a person;

(iii) cause economic damage to a person; or

(iv) cause damage to the property of a person.

THE PERSON who sent the written notice did not accuse you of a crime. The woman would have.
THE PERSON who sent the written notice was not going to extort anything of value. The woman would be getting the value.

For an explanation of the federal extortion by color of authority, see:
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm02404.htm

There you will find:

Most courts have held that a Hobbs Act violation does not require that the public official be the recipient of the benefit of the extortion, and that a Hobbs Act case exists where the corpus of the corrupt payment went to a third party. However, consistent with the federal offenses of bribery and gratuities under 18 U.S.C. � 201 (see 9 U.S.A.M. �� 85.101 through 85.105), where the corpus of the corrupt payment inures to the benefit of a person or entity other than the public official most courts have also required proof of a quid pro quo understanding between the private corrupter and the public official.

That is, the public official must corruptly benefit from the act. Think about it, otherwise, every traffic or parking ticket or letter from the IRS could be considered "extortion".

Could there be some claim on the OP's facts? Maybe. But, it's not going to be worth any attorney's time because there are more facts to come out on the other side of the ledger and the problem of governmental immunity. If the official was the victims son or someone close enough so that it was of personal benefit to him--maybe. Here? I think it is time to just let it go down as one in the win column. Maybe make a complaint to the powers that be if you'd like--but don't expect the hammer of Thor to come down on anyone's head.

 

[justalayman]

My concern here is whether extortion violates due process as I was not allowed to address the property damage claim before the government moved to coerse payment of monies they were not entitled to as the claim was not adjudicated?

.

You had no right to cure the issue prior to prosecution. The prosecution was not based on the damages but your alleged criminal acts of acting as a contractor without a license. Even if you had made the payment, they could have still prosecuted as they did.

 

[justalayman]

There you will find:
That is, the public official must corruptly benefit from the act. Think about it, otherwise, every traffic or parking ticket or letter from the IRS could be considered "extortion".

.

the official likely received warm fuzzies, i.e. friendship and companionship (not inferring any illicit relationship) from the woman. Maybe she bakes him cookies for Christmas that would be jeopardized should he not use his position to benefit the woman. A benefit is not limited to monetary compensation.

the only thing that makes a ticket or IRS demand not extortion is they are specifically allowed under the law. Otherwise they would be extortion so in a loose terminology, they are legalized extortion.

 

[tranquility]

the official likely received warm fuzzies, i.e. friendship and companionship (not inferring any illicit relationship) from the woman. Maybe she bakes him cookies for Christmas that would be jeopardized should he not use his position to benefit the woman. A benefit is not limited to monetary compensation.

the only thing that makes a ticket or IRS demand not extortion is they are specifically allowed under the law. Otherwise they would be extortion so in a loose terminology, they are legalized extortion.

The only thing I see specifically exempted from the extortion law is a demand by a holder of a dishonored check for payment if made in good faith.

 

[justalayman]

The only thing I see specifically exempted from the extortion law is a demand by a holder of a dishonored check for payment if made in good faith.

Really? Read the Constitution lately?

A1S8

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

 

[tranquility]

The necessary and proper clause does not exempt the U.S. from extortion laws. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag86_user.html and http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-1/49-necessary-and-proper-clause.html)

Also, Google "specifically".

 

[justalayman]

I'm not saying it exempts anybody from being charged with extortion. What I am saying is it exempts the laws created as being considered to be extortion. If not, a law demanding I pay property taxes or risk losing my property would be extortion. A law threatening to put me in jail if I did not pay the IRS their taste would be extortion.