Re: Mentioning Defendant's Statement Re. Prior Crimes in New Civil Complaint - Extort
Quote:
Quoting
cwb
Where exactly did I say that I intend to malign him publically? He's a dishonest person who has cheated former employers and taxpayers. I believe this is relevant, though I understand why it's not admissible. In any case, I agree that it's probably not a good idea to mention this is the complaint, although it might make sense to bring up at a later stage. Perhaps I was hoping that mentioning it might make him feel guilty, which could result in a quicker settlement.
"Perhaps the IRS would not be interested, however it could be a substantial amount of money he received, and they might find it worth investigating if they received an anonymous tip." You want to use it as blackmail and you have malignant purposes behind your idea. If he's such a bad guy why didn't you report this when it happened? Even anonymously to the IRS then and not now when you think it might benefit you?
Re: Mentioning Defendant's Statement Re. Prior Crimes in New Civil Complaint - Extort
Quote:
Quoting
Taxing Matters
Complaints filed in court are public record. So if you put it in the complaint, there will be others who will see it (at least the court clerk and judge) and any one in the public would have access to it. So doing that does indeed air the complaint publicly.
Thanks, I wasn't aware that all complaints become public record shortly after filing. I did later read that complaints are protected from defamation actions, but I agree that mentioning his statement isn't worth the risk since it doesn't directly relate to the case. Note however that I never wanted to accuse him of corruption. I wanted to state that he told me he committed corruption, which he did. Not sure if that would matter.
Quote:
Quoting
Taxing Matters
Two points on that. First, the statute of limitations for prosecution on federal felony tax offenses, including tax evasion, is six years. It is too late for the IRS and DOJ to criminally prosecute him for it. So he doesn’t have the worry of prison over this. Second, all the IRS can do at this point is assess the extra tax he owes plus interest and penalty. That would be expensive for him, but for the IRS to succeed, it needs to prove the amount of the unreported income.
Yes, it's been too long and it's unlikely the IRS would be able to obtain any solid evidence. Reporting him could however cause them to review his returns since then, which might raise more red flags worth looking into. But that has nothing to do with my case, which hopefully is strong enough to prevail on its own. Even if it isn't, I can live with it and move on.
Quote:
Quoting
adjusterjack
You're delusion if you think that will help your case at all, ever. It won't.
I prefer to call it curious or stubborn.
Quote:
Quoting
qwaspolk69
"Perhaps the IRS would not be interested, however it could be a substantial amount of money he received, and they might find it worth investigating if they received an anonymous tip." You want to use it as blackmail and you have malignant purposes behind your idea. If he's such a bad guy why didn't you report this when it happened? Even anonymously to the IRS then and not now when you think it might benefit you?
Anonymous and blackmail are incongruent. I could still report him anonymously after our dispute is over, but I probably won't. That doesn't mean he is innocent.
Re: Mentioning Defendant's Statement Re. Prior Crimes in New Civil Complaint - Extort
Quote:
Quoting
cwb
Thanks, I wasn't aware that all complaints become public record shortly after filing. I did later read that complaints are protected from defamation actions, but I agree that mentioning his statement isn't worth the risk since it doesn't directly relate to the case. Note however that I never wanted to accuse him of corruption. I wanted to state that he told me he committed corruption, which he did. Not sure if that would matter.
Yes, it's been too long and it's unlikely the IRS would be able to obtain any solid evidence. Reporting him could however cause them to review his returns since then, which might raise more red flags worth looking into. But that has nothing to do with my case, which hopefully is strong enough to prevail on its own. Even if it isn't, I can live with it and move on.
I prefer to call it curious or stubborn.
Anonymous and blackmail are incongruent. I could still report him anonymously after our dispute is over, but I probably won't. That doesn't mean he is innocent.
He is legally innocent actually. He hasn't been convicted of anything you're accusing him of doing. Morally probably not. But morality doesn't really matter in the criminal justice system. Innocent until proven guilty.
Re: Mentioning Defendant's Statement Re. Prior Crimes in New Civil Complaint - Extort
Quote:
Quoting
cwb
Thanks, I wasn't aware that all complaints become public record shortly after filing. I did later read that complaints are protected from defamation actions, but I agree that mentioning his statement isn't worth the risk since it doesn't directly relate to the case. Note however that I never wanted to accuse him of corruption. I wanted to state that he told me he committed corruption, which he did. Not sure if that would matter.
In California, most statements made in documents filed with the courts in the course of litigation are generally privileged and this privilege shields the party making those statements from a defamation claim. But not all such statements are protected. In order to be protected, the statements must have some relevancy to the litigation that is taking place. A California appeals court explained the California Supreme Court’s limitation on the litigation privilege as follows:
The [Supreme] court also addressed the nature of the communications protected by the privilege: “The usual formulation is that the privilege applies to any communication (1) made in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings; (2) by litigants or other participants authorized by law; (3) to achieve the objects of the litigation; and (4) that have some connection or logical relation to the action.” (Silberg, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 212.) Later in this opinion, however, the court effectively conflated the last two factors into one: “The requirement that the communication be in furtherance of the objects of the litigation is, in essence, simply part of the requirement that the communication be connected with, or have some logical relation to, the action, i.e., that it not be extraneous to the action. A good example of an application of the principle is found in the cases holding that a statement made in a judicial proceeding is not privileged unless it has some reasonable relevancy to the subject matter of the action.” (Id. at pp. 219-220.)
Nguyen v. Proton Technology Corp., (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 140 at 146-147.
So, if you make a potentially defamatory statement in a court pleading, motion, or other paper that has no reasonable relevance to the current litigation you are not protected by the litigation privilege and thus could be sued for the alleged defamatory statement. Here, your statement that he claimed to have taken kickbacks while working for the state is not at all relevant to your present dispute and thus I think it extremely likely the California courts would say you would not be protected by the litigation privilege here.
Note that while you may make the distinction that he only said he did it and not assert that he actually took kickbacks, that will make little difference in the harm to his reputation. You still have the problem that you need to show that what you said was true to successfully defend the claim. If all you have is your testimony on that, you’d be rolling the dice that the jury would find you more believable than him. The issue of why you are only bringing this to light now, 10 years later, would likely work against you there as the jury may well ask “if this was true, why didn’t cwb report this a decade ago and expose the corruption?” If you don’t supply a good answer to that in your case, you’d have a problem.
Quote:
Quoting
cwb
Yes, it's been too long and it's unlikely the IRS would be able to obtain any solid evidence. Reporting him could however cause them to review his returns since then, which might raise more red flags worth looking into.
I used to work for the IRS and reviewed a lot of claims about others cheating on their taxes. Most of them never saw anything but the shredder box. Why? Because the person making the assertion provided no useful details to support the claim that would enable the Service to determine if in fact there might be something worth going after. The IRS has limited resources and doesn’t want to waste them chasing down vague leads that may go nowhere. If you could provide some specific facts that support that he got kickbacks, e.g. amounts, dates, names of persons paying the bribes, etc., that would certainly get the attention of IRS personnel. But simply stating “Joe Blow told me over ten years ago he was taking kickbacks” doesn’t give the IRS much to work with. The more detail you can provide, the better. You may certainly provide your tip to the IRS anyway; it’s easy to do and costs you nothing. Just don’t be surprised if nothing ever comes of it if you lack details of what he did.