- Joseph was not ready to punish his sister, Andrea, for MJ&C’s actions.
- Joseph yielded to MJ&C to spare Andrea from being punished by MJ&C.
- MJ&C calculated a situation where the deal offered to Joseph was to either buy the 612 house or punish Andrea.
- Joseph chose to not punish Andrea.
Read Full Story: Theft Via Extortion? Marjorie, Janette, & Charmelle Demand Kevin & Joseph Pay $250,000 OR Marjorie Will …
Legal Definition Of Harm, Injury,
- Loss of or damage to a person’s right, property, or physical or mental well-being. FindLaw
- “negligent infliction of severe mental and emotional distress.” Cramer v. Slater, 204 P. 3d 508 – Idaho: Supreme Court 2009
- (2) The term “serious harm” means any harm, whether physical or nonphysical, including psychological, financial, or reputational harm, that is sufficiently serious, under all the surrounding circumstances, to compel a reasonable person of the same background and in the same circumstances to perform or to continue performing labor or services in order to avoid incurring that harm. Cornell Law School
- [T]he foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff, the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered, the moral blame attached to the defendant’s conduct, the policy of preventing future harm, the extent of the burden to the defendant and consequences to the community of imposing a duty to exercise care with resulting liability for breach, and the availability, cost, and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved (citations omitted). Rife v. Long, 908 P. 2d 143 – Idaho: Supreme Court 1995
- Every person has a general duty to use due or ordinary care not to injure others, to avoid injury to others by any agency set in operation by him, and to do his work, render services or use his property as to avoid such injury. [Citations omitted.] The degree of care to be exercised must be commensurate with the danger or hazard connected with the activity. [Citations omitted.] Sharp v. WH Moore, Inc., 796 P. 2d 506 – Idaho: Supreme Court 1990
- “Any person who, under circumstances or conditions likely to produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any child to suffer, or inflicts thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care or custody of any child, willfully causes or permits the person or health of such child to be injured, or willfully causes or permits such child to be placed in such situation that its person or health is endangered, is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one (1) year, or in the state prison for not less than one (1) year nor more than ten (10) years.” State v. Halbesleben, 75 P. 3d 219 – Idaho: Court of Appeals 2003
- The word “willfully,” when applied to the intent with which an act is done or omitted, implies simply a purpose or willingness to commit the act or make the omission referred to. It does not require any intent to violate the law, or to injure another, or to acquire any advantage. State v. Halbesleben, 75 P. 3d 219 – Idaho: Court of Appeals 2003
Andrea’s doctors documented Andrea’s mental age as a minor [child], not an adult.
Denise had legal guardianship over Andrea when MJ&C potentially theft extorted Joseph for $250,000.
Joseph was fully ready and willing to receive any and all civil court lawsuits filed against Joseph on behalf of MJ&C for their silent unilateral (wrongful) actions without a genuine meeting of the minds or an actual agreement as to the material terms.
—.
Joseph was not ready to punish his sister, Andrea, for MJ&C’s actions.
Joseph yielded to MJ&C to spare Andrea from being punished by MJ&C.
MJ&C calculated a situation where the deal offered to Joseph was to either buy the 612 house or punish Andrea.
Joseph chose to not punish Andrea.
If Joseph could have continued refusing MJ&C’s demands while also sparing Andrea, that’s what Joseph would have done.
However, Marjorie made it crystal clear to KJ&L that Marjorie refused to visit Andrea on her deathbed unless KJ&L bought the house.
KJ&L and Andrea were all innocent.
Janette wanted money from the trust and Trustee Denise refused every time.
It appears as if Janette was best able to attack Denise by forcing Denise’s children to suffer via impossible decisions.
Powers v Puka: Civil Breach Or Criminal Theft?
On December 22, 2022, MJ&C obtained $250,000 from KJ&L by extortion when they compelled and induced KJ&L to deliver $250,000 cash by means of instilling in KJ&L a fear that, if the property (in the form of $250,000 cash) was not delivered, that MJ&C will perform acts that both benefited MJ&C but was also calculated to harm KJ&L’s financial condition and personal relationships.
- MJ&C = Marjorie, Janette, & Charmelle
- KJ&L = Kevin, Joseph, & Lucinda
According to Idaho Code § 18-2403(2)(e)(9), a person is guilty of theft by extortion if they compel or induce another person to deliver property by instilling a fear that failure to deliver the property could harm the other person’s health, safety, business, career, financial condition, reputation, or personal relationships.
Occam’s Razor: The Simplest Explanation Is Usually The Most Likely
- Janette wanted money from the trust because she wasn’t getting any and Janette believed that Joseph and Charmelle were getting money from the trust.
- Charmelle wanted more money than she was already getting from the trust because Denise fired Charmelle from Andrea’s caretaker.
- Marjorie wanted Kevin & Joseph to pay Janette & Charmelle’s money demand, not the trust because Denise protected the trust and kept stopping Janette & Charmelle’s constant money demands from the trust.
- Janette and Charmelle wanted to cut Denise out of an inheritance so they could get even more money because Janette & Charmelle believed Denise had enough money, and Janette & Charmelle didn’t have enough money.
Possible Actions Joseph Has Against Marjorie, Janette, And Charmelle
- Theft Extortion
- Willful Misconduct | Civil Conspiracy
- Fraud | Constructive Fraud | Misrepresentation
- Duress | Coercion | Undue Influence
- Breach Of Fiduciary Duty
- Breach Of Contract | Tortious Interference | Unconscionable Settlement Provision
- Equitable-Estoppel
Three (3) Days After Andrea Passed, Why Did Joseph & Denise Sign A Petition To Dissolve The Trust And Cancel Marjorie’s 612 Property Gift? What Active Extortion Threat Existed?
Marjorie’s unconscionable offer to Denise that Denise accepted while susceptible to undue influence.
- Marjorie offers Denise total removal of Denise from Marjorie’s will.
- Denise accepts Marjorie’s offer of losing out on $1,000,000 of Denise’s inheritance after Marjorie passes.
- Marjorie offers to Denise that instead of Denise getting her fair share of $1,000,000 that instead, Janette and Charmelle will now split Denise’s $1,000,000 share.
Marjorie’s unconscionable offer to Joseph that Joseph accepted while susceptible to undue influence.
- Marjorie offers Joseph total removal of Joseph from Marjorie’s will.
- Joseph accepts Marjorie’s offer of losing out on $250,000 of Joseph’s inheritance after Marjorie passes.
- Marjorie offers to Joseph that instead of Joseph getting his fair share of $250,000 that instead, Janette and Charmelle will now split Joseph’s $250,000 share.
Who in their right mind would offer this contract and who in their right mind would accept this contract?
Under UCC § 2-302(1), an unconscionable contract is voidable.
An unconscionable contract is one that “is so grossly unreasonable or unconscionable in the light of the mores and business practices of the time and place as to be unenforceable according to its literal terms”. Gillman, 73 N.Y.2d at 10
In other words, an unconscionable bargain is one that “no person in his or her senses and not under delusion would make on the one hand, and as no honest and fair person would accept on the other”. Christian v. Christian, 42 N.Y.2d 63, 71 (1977)
Furthermore, the inequality being “so strong and manifest as to shock the conscience and confound the judgment of any [person] of common sense” (Mandel v Liebman, 303 N.Y. 88, 94).
The contract (petition) MJ&C forced upon Denise and Joseph caused nearly $1,000,000 in damages.
In addition to MJ&C’s offer being unconscionable, Denise and Joseph may have the presumption of undue influence – due to being someone “who has suffered the trauma of recent death in the family”. Gmeiner v. Yacte, 592 P. 2d 57 – Idaho: Supreme Court 1979
This means, that if Denise and Joseph get the presumption of undue influence, MJ&C will have to convince the court why Denise and Joseph were not under undue influence.
With Denise and Joseph getting the presumption of undue influence, the burden of proof gets shifted to MJ&C.
MJ&C would then have to prove that Denise and Joseph were not under undue influence.
Other possible reasons why Denise and Joseph signed MJ&C’s petition to cancel Denise’s $1,000,000 inheritance and Joseph’s $250,000 inheritance.
- Incompetence – Temporary incompetent due to recent family death.
- Duress – No other reasonable alternative.
- Breach of good faith – Once again, Joseph trusted Marjorie to do the right thing and got burned.
- Breach of genuine meeting of the minds on material issues – No one discussed or agreed to cutting Denise and Joseph out of one million dollars.
