What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

AMI tries to extort Jeff Bezos (1 Viewer)

Is Threatening To Publish Bezos' Nude (or Nudish) Pics Criminal Blackmail?
Eugene Volokh | Feb. 8, 2019

Jeff Bezos alleges that the National Enquirer has (1) threatened to release photos sexted between him and Lauren Sanchez unless (2) he puts out a statement recanting allegations that various Enquirer coverage was politically motivated (and promises not to make such allegations in the future). Is this criminal blackmail?

Here is an excerpt of the email that Bezos says the Enquirer sent him:

Here are our proposed terms:

1. A full and complete mutual release of all claims that American Media, on the one hand, and Jeff Bezos and Gavin de Becker (the "Bezos Parties"), on the other, may have against each other.

2. A public, mutually-agreed upon acknowledgment from the Bezos Parties, released through a mutually-agreeable news outlet, affirming that they have no knowledge or basis for suggesting that AM's coverage was politically motivated or influenced by political forces, and an agreement that they will cease referring to such a possibility.

3. AM agrees not to publish, distribute, share, or describe unpublished texts and photos (the "Unpublished Materials").
And here's the federal extortion statute, 18 U.S.C. § 875(d):

Whoever, with intent to extort from any person ... any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate ... commerce any communication containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
here are basically four elements in this statute:

1. There has to be a transmission in interstate commerce. An email qualifies.

2. There has to be a threat to injure reputation (whether through false allegations or through true ones). A threat to publish sexually themed pictures would qualify, I think. True, Bezos's affair with Sanchez is already publicly known, but the photos, if revealed, are likely to exacerbate the damage to his reputation by making the story more vivid and memorable and by exposing him to public ridicule. (Compare State v. Pauling (Wash. 2003), which found that a similar threat was a threat "[t]o expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject any person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule." A common definition of injury to reputation is exposing someone to "hatred, contempt, or ridicule.")

3. The threat has to be aimed at getting a "thing of value." Courts have generally read this broadly, to cover anything (tangible or intangible) that's valuable to the defendant. U.S. v. Hobgood (8th Cir. 2017) holds that even extorting an apology from the victim is covered:

A "thing of value" includes intangible things—such as a "sexual relationship," for example—and "the focus of the ... term is to be placed on the value which the defendant subjectively attaches" to what he seeks. The stipulated facts concerning Hobgood's efforts to secure a mea culpa from KB constituted sufficient evidence to support a finding that an apology from KB was a thing of value to Hobgood.
4. But wait:

Not all threats to engage in speech that will have the effect of damaging another person's reputation, even if a forbearance from speaking is conditioned on the payment of money, are wrongful. For example, the purchaser of an allegedly defective product may threaten to complain to a consumer protection agency or to bring suit in a public forum if the manufacturer does not make good on its warranty. Or she may threaten to enlist the aid of a television "on-the-side-of-the-consumer" program. Or a private club may threaten to post a list of the club members who have not yet paid their dues.
That's from U.S. v. Jackson (2d Cir. 1999), which was modified later on other grounds. The case involving an attempt to extort $40 million from Bill Cosby "by threatening to cause tabloid newspapers to publish" a woman's "claim to be Cosby's daughter out-of-wedlock." All those examples have this form:

  • A has a plausible claim that B should do X (e.g., make good on a warranty, or pay a debt).
  • A is demanding that B do X.
  • A is threatening to reveal that B hasn't done X.
This is often called the "nexus to a claim of right" requirement, or just the "nexus" requirement—if the threat and the demand are connected to something to which the threatener is entitled, then the threatener is not punishable. The absence of such a nexus is the fourth element of the crime. Many states, interpreting their state laws, have required a similar showing of absence of nexus, in part on First Amendment grounds; see here for more.

How does this play out? Let's return to Hobgood, where the defendant demanded an apology from his ex for her supposed mistreatment of him during their brief relationship. Had he done this simply by threatening to reveal the mistreatment—"apologize to me for beating me, or I'll tell all our friends how you beat me"—then the nexus element would have been satisfied, and he would have been off the hook. But he was threatening to do something else, which meant that he failed the nexus requirement:

Hobgood's threats were "wrongful" in the sense that they had no causal nexus to a claim of right. His threats to disseminate information that KB was an exotic dancer and prostitute were not related to why he thought she owed him an apology. Hobgood's speech is a far cry from a consumer complaint aimed at receiving a refund or a club manager's public identification of members who are delinquent on paying their dues. In those cases, the speaker has a plausible claim of right to the thing of value, and the threat is related to that right. Not so here.
State v. Pauling (Wash. 2003) reached a similar result applying Washington state extortion law:

The trial court concluded that Pauling knowingly and intentionally attempted to obtain the $5,000 judgment from Doe by threat and that such threat communicated to Doe an intent to continue to send the nude photos to friends, family, and neighbors. Clearly, there was no nexus between the threat to send nude photos to family and friends and the collection of a lawful judgment. This conduct is sufficient to establish the crime of extortion....
For the same reason, I don't think the nexus requirement covers what the National Enquirer is accused of threatening. Even if the Enquirer has a plausible claim of right to the apology for allegations of political influence (perhaps if the allegations were indeed incorrect)—and a plausible claim of right to having Bezos promise not to repeat those allegations—the threat to publish the photos is not "related to that right."

Finally, note that the Washington extortion statute, which basically has the same elements as the federal statute (though without the need for interstate communications), may also apply here: Though the messages were presumably sent to Washington from out of state, Washington law covers any "person who commits an act without the state which affects persons or property within the state, which, if committed within the state, would be a crime." Bezos is apparently a Washington resident.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bucky86 said:
CNBC Now‏Verified account @CNBCnow

FollowFollow @CNBCnow

More

BREAKING: Jeff Bezos reportedly gives info to federal prosecutors related to National Enquirer report

Dont mess with the richest man in the world.
Of course he did.  He just had to get it out publicly first so his attorney wasn't using criminal prosecution to gain an advantage in a civil case.

 
Wow, you can really tell the pundits that support Trump without them saying so.  Apparently  this  ISN'T extortion because a lawyer is involved and this is just lawyers doing lawyer stuff.  Happens every day.  Of course if a non-lawyer did this OF COURSE this is extortion.

Think about it.  It makes sense.

 
Wow, you can really tell the pundits that support Trump without them saying so.  Apparently  this  ISN'T extortion because a lawyer is involved and this is just lawyers doing lawyer stuff.  Happens every day.  Of course if a non-lawyer did this OF COURSE this is extortion.

Think about it.  It makes sense.
Hey, it's just good old fashioned bartering.  If you use your snowblower to clear my driveway I'll mow your lawn twice next spring.

 
Is Threatening To Publish Bezos' Nude (or Nudish) Pics Criminal Blackmail?
Eugene Volokh | Feb. 8, 2019

Jeff Bezos alleges that the National Enquirer has (1) threatened to release photos sexted between him and Lauren Sanchez unless (2) he puts out a statement recanting allegations that various Enquirer coverage was politically motivated (and promises not to make such allegations in the future). Is this criminal blackmail?

Here is an excerpt of the email that Bezos says the Enquirer sent him:

And here's the federal extortion statute, 18 U.S.C. § 875(d):

here are basically four elements in this statute:

1. There has to be a transmission in interstate commerce. An email qualifies.

2. There has to be a threat to injure reputation (whether through false allegations or through true ones). A threat to publish sexually themed pictures would qualify, I think. True, Bezos's affair with Sanchez is already publicly known, but the photos, if revealed, are likely to exacerbate the damage to his reputation by making the story more vivid and memorable and by exposing him to public ridicule. (Compare State v. Pauling (Wash. 2003), which found that a similar threat was a threat "[t]o expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject any person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule." A common definition of injury to reputation is exposing someone to "hatred, contempt, or ridicule.")

3. The threat has to be aimed at getting a "thing of value." Courts have generally read this broadly, to cover anything (tangible or intangible) that's valuable to the defendant. U.S. v. Hobgood (8th Cir. 2017) holds that even extorting an apology from the victim is covered:

4. But wait:

That's from U.S. v. Jackson (2d Cir. 1999), which was modified later on other grounds. The case involving an attempt to extort $40 million from Bill Cosby "by threatening to cause tabloid newspapers to publish" a woman's "claim to be Cosby's daughter out-of-wedlock." All those examples have this form:

  • A has a plausible claim that B should do X (e.g., make good on a warranty, or pay a debt).
  • A is demanding that B do X.
  • A is threatening to reveal that B hasn't done X.
This is often called the "nexus to a claim of right" requirement, or just the "nexus" requirement—if the threat and the demand are connected to something to which the threatener is entitled, then the threatener is not punishable. The absence of such a nexus is the fourth element of the crime. Many states, interpreting their state laws, have required a similar showing of absence of nexus, in part on First Amendment grounds; see here for more.

How does this play out? Let's return to Hobgood, where the defendant demanded an apology from his ex for her supposed mistreatment of him during their brief relationship. Had he done this simply by threatening to reveal the mistreatment—"apologize to me for beating me, or I'll tell all our friends how you beat me"—then the nexus element would have been satisfied, and he would have been off the hook. But he was threatening to do something else, which meant that he failed the nexus requirement:

State v. Pauling (Wash. 2003) reached a similar result applying Washington state extortion law:

For the same reason, I don't think the nexus requirement covers what the National Enquirer is accused of threatening. Even if the Enquirer has a plausible claim of right to the apology for allegations of political influence (perhaps if the allegations were indeed incorrect)—and a plausible claim of right to having Bezos promise not to repeat those allegations—the threat to publish the photos is not "related to that right."

Finally, note that the Washington extortion statute, which basically has the same elements as the federal statute (though without the need for interstate communications), may also apply here: Though the messages were presumably sent to Washington from out of state, Washington law covers any "person who commits an act without the state which affects persons or property within the state, which, if committed within the state, would be a crime." Bezos is apparently a Washington resident.
So, in the Bill Cosby case, how is there a nexus between the 40 Million dollars and publishing her story?

 
JuniorNB said:
Exactly the reason I don't have an ounce of respect for Cruz. To watch him cower and suck up to Trump now makes me sick. He called Cruz' wife ugly and his father a murderer and Cruz still kisses his ###. I'd rather lose my next election than be that much of a pansy.
Oily Weasel.

 
Rove! said:
And again, like the Bezos story, we need to understand the difference between a “business offer” and extortion.

a careful legal analysis is needed.  
Yeah if only this board had a lawyer or two. 

 
JuniorNB said:
Exactly the reason I don't have an ounce of respect for Cruz. To watch him cower and suck up to Trump now makes me sick. He called Cruz' wife ugly and his father a murderer and Cruz still kisses his ###. I'd rather lose my next election than be that much of a pansy.
Come on Ted. 

 
Calling their bluff publicly was probably the best way to ensure the photos never saw the light of day. Because I can’t imagine the Enquirer publishing them now. 

 
Calling their bluff publicly was probably the best way to ensure the photos never saw the light of day. Because I can’t imagine the Enquirer publishing them now. 
Was thinking the same thing. Usually people get blackmailed over information. But in this case, knowing the photos exist doesn't hurt him nearly as much as if they were actually published. And even if they are published, no one will want to see them because it will feel like abetting an extortionist.

 
All jokes aside, wasn't this whole scheme a huge miscalculation by AMI? Once they published the story about the affair, they gave up any real leverage they had over him. He was already tabloid fodder, would the pics really have caused that much more humiliation? (I mean, maybe if he had Trump's "Super Mario Kart" problem).

If you're going to blackmail the richest man in the world who also happens to own one of the best newspapers in the world, make sure you've really got the goods on him.

 
I will always remember Lauren Sanchez from when FOX launched their own all-sports network, and she was one of the anchors.

She referenced a pitcher leading the league in air-uh, and then said it two more times. 

 
I will always remember Lauren Sanchez from when FOX launched their own all-sports network, and she was one of the anchors.

She referenced a pitcher leading the league in air-uh, and then said it two more times. 
Help me out here - what does this have to do with Bezos or AMI?  I’ve been racking my brain for 5 minutes and I’ve got nothing.

 
Calling their bluff publicly was probably the best way to ensure the photos never saw the light of day. Because I can’t imagine the Enquirer publishing them now. 
Legally they probably should though, otherwise their argument that they were negotiating a legal settle and the pics are newsworthy becomes an even more transparent lie.  

 
Help me out here - what does this have to do with Bezos or AMI?  I’ve been racking my brain for 5 minutes and I’ve got nothing.
Rack no further.

Bezos was sending his (Richard) picks to Ms. Sanchez. Richard is a euphemism for the male genitalia.

Ms. Sanchez was a former anchor on the FOX sports network who once referred to a major league pitcher and the amount of earned runs he gave up per nine innings as air-uh, rather than the correct pronunciation of earned run average, or E..R..A  

 
Legally they probably should though, otherwise their argument that they were negotiating a legal settle and the pics are newsworthy becomes an even more transparent lie.  
Or it looks even more like they were extorting him and carried through on their threat.  They’re in a no-win now. 

 
Rack no further.

Bezos was sending his (Richard) picks to Ms. Sanchez. Richard is a euphemism for the male genitalia.

Ms. Sanchez was a former anchor on the FOX sports network who once referred to a major league pitcher and the amount of earned runs he gave up per nine innings as air-uh, rather than the correct pronunciation of earned run average, or E..R..A  
Ah - thanks.  I tried to not read about the lady as I didn’t want to think impure thoughts and post about it.  Thanks for trying to get me banned.

 
zftcg said:
All jokes aside, wasn't this whole scheme a huge miscalculation by AMI? Once they published the story about the affair, they gave up any real leverage they had over him. He was already tabloid fodder, would the pics really have caused that much more humiliation? (I mean, maybe if he had Trump's "Super Mario Kart" problem).

If you're going to blackmail the richest man in the world who also happens to own one of the best newspapers in the world, make sure you've really got the goods on him.
Yeah, this. Blackmailing him after it's been reported and he's getting divorced? 

Like hi, he already lost the net worth of the 3rd richest person in the world and his family, and we all knew the pictures exist. You think he's that threatened by people seeing pictures of his schlong? 

 
All Bezos has to do is hire multiple firms to flood the internet with thousands of wiener pics under his name. That way nobody will know which one are really his.

stolen from reddit

 
Am I the only one wondering why Bazos is sending her pics of his junk? Does he really believe that she cares about anything but his net worth? He can’t be that delusional can he? Though I guess getting blackmailed by AMI has done wonders for his popularity.

 
Trump did not leak messages between Bezos and mistress, AMI lawyer says

Am I missing something or is this another case of denying something you were never accused of? 
A WaPo reporter suggested it was a rumor that a government agency (unstated which government) had obtained the texts, and Roger Stone himself had suggested they got them from a US agency. So it was out there.

I don’t know if anyone knows about the nature of the data yet. It wouldn’t be easy for Sanchez’s brother to download texts en masse for transfer to someone else. But if it’s just snips that could be he brother, but I think there must be something different in them or how they’re held that is leading to these rumors.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Am I the only one wondering why Bazos is sending her pics of his junk? Does he really believe that she cares about anything but his net worth? He can’t be that delusional can he? Though I guess getting blackmailed by AMI has done wonders for his popularity.
I know nothing about his relationship with this woman, but even powerful men often cheat to feel like someone really likes them.  No reason to believe Bezos is immune to ego stroking, whether or not she was genuine about it. 

 
Am I the only one wondering why Bazos is sending her pics of his junk? Does he really believe that she cares about anything but his net worth? He can’t be that delusional can he? Though I guess getting blackmailed by AMI has done wonders for his popularity.
Don't you think that the whole rich guy/gold digger thing goes entirely non-mentioned and both sides pretend it is genuine love blooming?  Even though they rarely talk now and she won't hold his hand anymore, I'm sure there was a time when Melania pretended that she was attracted to Trump physically. And I'm sure there was a small part in his mind that wanted to believe it and pretended that it was true. I'm sure the ritual is the same with all billionaires.

 
Don't you think that the whole rich guy/gold digger thing goes entirely non-mentioned and both sides pretend it is genuine love blooming?  Even though they rarely talk now and she won't hold his hand anymore, I'm sure there was a time when Melania pretended that she was attracted to Trump physically. And I'm sure there was a small part in his mind that wanted to believe it and pretended that it was true. I'm sure the ritual is the same with all billionaires.
Trump, I’m sure, is a realistic rich guy. He knew no one was banging him because they wanted to. I believe it was Karen McDougal who said that he offered her cash after the first time they got together.

 
Trump, I’m sure, is a realistic rich guy. He knew no one was banging him because they wanted to. I believe it was Karen McDougal who said that he offered her cash after the first time they got together.
Trump has a bigger ego than anyone I know. And is also more delusional. I guarantee you there was a time in his life that he thought he was attractive to these women.

 
Trump, I’m sure, is a realistic rich guy. He knew no one was banging him because they wanted to. I believe it was Karen McDougal who said that he offered her cash after the first time they got together.
Trump has a bigger ego than anyone I know. And is also more delusional. I guarantee you there was a time in his life that he thought he was attractive to these women.
Yes. Karen McDougal, for instance, was a famous Playboy model and she didn't want the cash. She genuinely liked him.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top