Theft Via Extortion? Marjorie, Janette, & Charmelle Demand Kevin & Joseph Pay $250,000 OR Marjorie Will Not Visit Andrea Who Is On Hospice & Days Away From Death AND Marjorie Will Keep ‘Wrongfully’ Suing Joseph For Accepting Marjorie’s 612 Property Gift Shortly After Joseph Sold Previous House

After Joseph first reported the Powers v. Puka situation to the police on May 27, 2023 (See Full Timeline) – soon after Joseph gets blocked after Joseph’s Line-By-Line Reply To Charmelle Puka’s Feb 25 Denise Accusations – Joseph was repeatedly interrupted by the cop investigating with the cop shaking his head saying this is civil, not criminal. 

• Listen to the full audio recording of Joseph reporting Marjorie, Janette, & Charmelle to the Twin Falls Police Department.

After nearly six months of exploring remedies for civil issues, Joseph keeps coming back to the potential criminal element of this particular Family Dispute.

Back when Joseph first reported this to the Twin Falls Police Department, he was still overwhelmed by the seemingly complex situation.

After constant and careful consideration, it appears as if the facts apply to the criminal law of theft via extortion.

How Joseph understands civil vs criminal involves a genuine meeting of the minds and an actual agreement via unconstrained free will.

After reviewing the evidence over and over, it’s becoming clear that Joseph may have delivered money of his free will, however, MJ&C created many surrounding situations that instilled a valid fear in Joseph that if Joseph didn’t yield to the MJ&C money demands, there would be a calculated harm performed on KJ&L’s personal relationships and financial conditions.

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. 

1. MJ&C = Marjorie, Janette, & Charmelle
2. 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.

If MJ&C Lacked Legal Standing Or Valid Reason To Threaten Joseph With Lawsuits, And MJ&C Refused To Verify Their Actions Are Legal Or Lawful, Despite Being Aware That Their Actions Towards Joseph Are Wrongful And Potentially Illegal, And MJ&C Continue Threatening Joseph With Lawsuits If Joseph Doesn’t Cancel Joseph’s Lifetime Lease Contract And Relinquish Joseph’s Interest In Inheriting The House After Marjorie Passes Away, Would This Conduct Constitute Theft By Extortion?

Specifically, Marjorie kept threatening Joseph, Kevin, Denise, and Lucinda with legal action unless Joseph canceled his lifetime lease contract and relinquished his interest in inheriting the house after Marjorie’s death – unless – Janette got money, either from the Trust or from Kevin. 

Based on the scenario described and the relevant section of the Idaho Code for theft via extortion, it appears that the actions of MJ&C could indeed be classified as extortion under Idaho law.

The key elements of extortion, as per the provided code, are:

1. Compelling or Inducing Delivery of Property: MJ&C compelled or induced KJ&L to deliver $250,000 in cash. This action aligns with the definition of obtaining property by extortion, which involves compelling or inducing another person to deliver property.
2. Instilling Fear: The method used by MJ&C involved instilling in KJ&L a fear that if they did not deliver the money, MJ&C would perform certain acts.
3. Nature of the Threatened Acts: The acts threatened by MJ&C were such that they would not materially benefit MJ&C but were calculated to harm KJ&L’s financial condition and personal relationships. This aligns with subsection (2)(e)(9) of the code, which specifically mentions performing acts that do not materially benefit the actor but are calculated to harm another person in various ways, including their financial condition and personal relationships.

Given these points, the scenario described fits the legal definition of theft by extortion under the provided Idaho Code. 

MJ&C’s actions of obtaining money through the means of instilling fear, where the fear is related to potential harm to KJ&L’s financial condition and personal relationships, align with the legal framework for extortion.

Based on the scenario described, where Marjorie, Janette, and Charmelle are threatening Joseph with lawsuits to coerce him into canceling his lifetime lease contract and his interest in inheriting a house, despite having no legal standing or merit to do so, this situation could potentially be considered extortion. 

Key points to consider:

1. Unlawful Coercion: Extortion typically involves the use of threats or coercion to unlawfully gain something from another person. In this case, the use of lawsuit threats to force Joseph to relinquish his legally binding lease and inheritance rights could be seen as a form of coercion.
2. Lack of Legal Standing or Merit: If Marjorie, Janette, and Charmelle are aware that their threats of legal action have no basis (i.e., they know they would not win such a lawsuit or that their claims are false), and they are using these threats to pressure Joseph, this could strengthen the argument that their actions constitute extortion. Extortion often involves the use of false or baseless threats to achieve a desired outcome.
3. Intent and Knowledge: The fact that they are aware their actions are wrongful and potentially illegal, yet continue to threaten Joseph, could be indicative of intent, which is a crucial element in proving extortion.
4. Legal Definition of Extortion: The exact legal definition of extortion can vary by jurisdiction. Generally, it involves obtaining something of value from someone else through the wrongful use of force, fear, or coercion. The threats of legal action, especially if baseless, could be seen as creating fear or coercion.
5. Documentation: Joseph should document all communications and threats made by Marjorie, Janette, and Charmelle. This documentation could be crucial in any legal proceedings.
6. Potential Civil Remedies: Apart from the criminal aspect of extortion, Joseph might also have civil remedies, such as suing for harassment, breach of contract, or seeking a declaratory judgment to affirm his rights under the lease and inheritance.

While the scenario described could potentially constitute extortion, the final determination would depend on a detailed legal analysis of the facts, the intentions of the parties involved, and the applicable laws.

Should Joseph Have Refused To Meet Marjorie’s Demand For Money, Which Marjorie Intended To Give To Janette & Charmelle, Even If It Meant Andrea Would Not See Her Grandmother Marjorie Before Andrea’s Passing, Whom Marjorie Ceased Visiting Andrea immediately After Marjorie, Janette, & Charmelle Initiated The Legal Dispute?

If Marjorie did this at the command of her lawyers and it’s actually legal…

THEN GOD BLESS AMERICA.

If what Marjorie did was not legal (and ultimately criminal)… 

Then God bless America.

Occam’s Razor: The Simplest Explanation Is Usually The Most Likely

1. 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.
2. Charmelle wanted more money than she was already getting from the trust because Denise fired Charmelle from Andrea’s caretaker.
3. 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.
4. 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.

Honest Family Questions?

1. Is this a simple misunderstanding that a family can work through OR was this intentional criminal theft to permanently deprive someone of property or interest in property?
2. If someone gave you something and then later demanded money for the “gift” they previously gave you, do you owe them money? And if you do give them money, did they extort you?
3. Why would you give someone money for something that was given to you?
4. Why would anyone buy a house they already owned?
5. When and how does a gift turn into a demand for money?
6. Why did Marjorie gift Joseph a house just to take it away after he sold his previous house?
7. What better timing to extort the trust for money, than after Joseph sells his previous house with full reliance on the trust promise and moments away from a family death?

Possible Actions Joseph Has Against Marjorie, Janette, And Charmelle

1. Theft Extortion
2. Willful Misconduct | Civil Conspiracy
3. Fraud | Constructive Fraud | Misrepresentation
4. Duress | Coercion | Undue Influence
5. Breach Of Fiduciary Duty 
6. Breach Of Contract | Tortious Interference | Unconscionable Settlement Provision
7. Equitable-Estoppel

If Joseph & Kevin Had Not Met The Demand For $250,000 From Marjorie, Janette, & Charmelle, Would It Have Been Justifiable For Marjorie To Deprive Andrea Of A Last Visit With Her Beloved Grandmother Marjorie Before Andrea’s Passing Nine Days Later?

Are we to understand that Andrea’s final meeting with her grandmother Marjorie was contingent on Joseph and Kevin paying Marjorie, Janette, and Charmelle a sum of $250,000?

The question of whether Marjorie’s refusal to visit Andrea on her deathbed without receiving $250,000 is justifiable is more of a moral and ethical question rather than a legal one, assuming no legal agreement obligates Marjorie to make the visit.

From a moral standpoint, many would argue that it is deeply unethical and cruel to withhold emotional comfort from someone in their final days as a means of financial gain, especially within the context of family relationships. 

The act of using such a vulnerable and sensitive moment as leverage for money is generally seen as morally reprehensible.

The justification for such an act would be highly scrutinized and challenged on ethical grounds. 

Most ethical frameworks would condemn using a person’s dying wish as a bargaining chip for financial benefit. 

This is particularly poignant in the context of family and the natural expectation of compassion and support during such a difficult time.

From a social and familial perspective, such actions could have long-lasting repercussions on relationships and how individuals are viewed by family members and the wider community.

While the legality of the situation would depend on the specifics of the law, from a moral and ethical standpoint, it would be difficult to find a justification for Marjorie’s actions in the scenario described.

Was Marjorie’s Successful Extortion Of $250,000 From Kevin & Joseph – With The Intention Of Giving It To Janette & Charmelle – The Only Reason Why Marjorie Was Able To See Andrea?

Prima facie, aka, first impression of evidence. 

Marjorie said what she meant and meant what she said.

Marjorie used plain and simple ordinary language to communicate her intention of needing to resolve the 612 house issue before she saw Andrea.

According to Joseph’s perception and documented timeline of events, the house issue had been resolved over and over and over.

Joseph sold his house with full reliance on Marjorie’s promise that Joseph would receive the 612 house as a gift via giving the 612 house to Denise as her inheritance. And then Denise would gift and transfer the 612 house to Joseph.

Within a few weeks of Joseph’s finalizing the sale of his previous residence, Marjorie randomly makes a sharp 180-degree about-face.

After over 200 days of Joseph enjoying the ownership transfer process of the 612 house into Joseph’s name, somehow Marjorie flips a complete u-turn and demands Joseph pay rent or vacate.

On the day Marjorie demanded money from Kevin & Joseph, Marjorie, on it’s first impression, meant what she said and her actions and follow-through support her words.

How Was The Figure Of $250,000 Determined As The Amount To Be Paid?

Joseph & Kevin were brainstorming on how to find a resolution to Marjorie’s legal demand.

Unannounced and uninvited, Marjorie claims God brought her to Joseph’s house (612 property) to give Joseph’s daughter (Marjorie’s great-granddaughter) a gift for her birthday.

• Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
• At this point, Joseph should have learned what Marjorie meant by “gift” giving and refused Marjorie to give Joseph’s daughter a gift. Due to the gift from Marjorie coming with hidden strings attached.

One of the first things Marjorie says to Joseph & Kevin upon entering the 612 property is that she doesn’t want to talk about anything legal and that Marjorie doesn’t want to see Andrea until the legal issue is resolved.

Soon after Kevin convinces Marjorie to talk about the current legal issue that Marjorie initiated against Joseph, Marjorie claims her 2nd lawyer, Brook Redmond, is getting ready to send an offer for Joseph to buy the house, at a discounted price.

Kevin offers Marjorie $250,000 and Marjorie says something to the effect that Marjorie was going to offer less, but accepted.

Kevin and Marjorie shake hands.

Then the full pressure is put on Joseph.

Does Joseph agree and give Andrea the gift of special grandma time?

Or.

Does Joseph deny and then Andrea doesn’t get to see Marjorie before Andrea passes nine days later and Marjorie continues suing and attempting to get Joseph to cancel and/or pay for the gift that Marjorie gave to Joseph?

After Andrea Passes, Why Did Joseph & Kevin Buy The 612 Property For $250,000? What Active Extortion Threat Existed?

At this point, MJ&C did not take a breath or a time out after a close family member passed away.

• Andrea is Marjorie’s granddaughter.
• Andrea is Janette’s niece (and Denise is Janette’s sister).
• Andrea is Charmelle’s niece (and Denise is Charmelle’s sister).
• Andrea is Joseph’s sister.
• Andrea is Kevin’s Daughter.
• Andrea is Denise’s Daughter.

MJ&C blames Denise for MJ&C’s actions towards KJ&L.

Kevin and Denise already spent close to $10,000 on their lawyer Kara Gleckler and their lawyer not only didn’t do a thing to help Kevin and Denise, but Kara actively worked to help MJ&C.

Kara Gleckler’s BAR grievance tells more of the story of Kara actively working against Kevin and Denise’s interests.

To stop MJ&C from non-stop meritless attacks and driving up lawyer expenses, KJ&L yielded to the demands of MJ&C to give everyone a break to grieve.

Marjorie’s first lawyer, David Taylor was also BAR grieved.

And Marjore’s second lawyer, Brooke Redmond will also be receiving a bar grievance.

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.

1. Marjorie offers Denise total removal of Denise from Marjorie’s will.
2. Denise accepts Marjorie’s offer of losing out on $1,000,000 of Denise’s inheritance after Marjorie passes.
3. 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.

1. Marjorie offers Joseph total removal of Joseph from Marjorie’s will.
2. Joseph accepts Marjorie’s offer of losing out on $250,000 of Joseph’s inheritance after Marjorie passes.
3. 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.

1. Incompetence – Temporary incompetent due to recent family death.
2. Duress – No other reasonable alternative.
3. Breach of good faith – Once again, Joseph trusted Marjorie to do the right thing and got burned.
4. 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.

How Many Times Did Joseph Refuse MJ&C Offer To Cancel 612 Contract ‘Without’ A Genuine Meeting Of The Minds — Before Joseph Accepted Terms Under Possible Duress, Coercion, Incompetence, Undue Influence, Fraud, Willful Misconduct, Civil Conspiracy, And Possible Theft Extortion?

Joseph refused David Taylor’s demands, and upon Joseph requesting more info on the validity of MJ&C’s demands, David Taylor withdrew from representing the Trust.

Next, MJ&C hired another lawyer, Brooke Redmond, and Joseph refused Brooke’s demands.

Upon Joseph requesting more info on the validity of MJ&C’s demands, Brooke and MJ&C refused to respond to Joseph’s request to understand MJ&C’s claim against Joseph.

Joseph attempted to communicate with MJ&C.

MJ&C only responded to Joseph if Joseph’s communication moved MJ&C’s unilateral demands forward.

Any time Joseph requested any valid information about the legality and lawfulness of MJ&C’s actions, Joseph was met with silence.

At no time did MJ&C verify what they were doing was legal or lawful.

Joseph refused any and all requests for MJ&C to unilaterally alter Joseph’s contract.

When Marjorie asked Joseph to buy the house at a discounted rate, Joseph seemingly had no choice but to yield to Marjorie’s demands.

If Joseph Keeps Refusing MJ&C’s Demands, Then MJ&C Will Hurt Andrea

Joseph was fully ready and willing to receive any and all civil court lawsuits filed against Joseph on behalf of MJ&C.

Joseph was not ready to punish his sister, Andrea, for MJ&C’s actions.

Joseph yielded to MJ&C to spare Andrea’s punishment from MJ&C.

MJ&C calculated a situation where the deal offered to Joseph was to either buy the 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.

What Is Extortion? Idaho Case Law & Statutes

“Extortion is the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by a wrongful force or fear or under color of official right.” Fear, such as will constitute extortion, may be induced by a threat, either: 1. To do an unlawful injury to the person or property of the individual threatened or to any relative of his, or member of his family; or 2. To accuse him, or any relative of his, or member of his family of any crime; or * * *.” State v. Adjustment Department Credit Bureau, Inc., 483 P. 2d 687 – Idaho: Supreme Court 1971

Extortion is a criminal offense that involves obtaining something of value through coercion, such as threats of harm or abuse of authority. 

The specific scenario described could be considered a form of emotional or psychological extortion if Marjorie is using the threat of not visiting Andrea, who is presumably someone important to Kevin and Joseph and who wishes to see Marjorie before passing away, to extract money from them.

The Key Elements Of Extortion Typically Include

1. Threat: There must be a threat of harm or some other form of improper action. In this case, the harm is emotional, as it involves depriving a hospice patient of potentially their last wish or comfort.
2. Intent: The person making the threat does so with the intention of obtaining money, property, or some other benefit.
3. Fear: The threat must induce a state of fear or compel the victim to do something they would not otherwise do.
4. Payment: The victim must actually make a payment or perform the action to avoid the threatened harm.

In many jurisdictions, the mere act of making such a threat with the intent to obtain money can constitute extortion, regardless of whether the money is actually paid.

However, the specifics can vary widely based on local laws, and it would be up to a court to determine whether this situation meets the legal criteria for extortion. 

It would be advisable for Kevin and Joseph to consult with a legal professional to explore their options and potentially report the matter to law enforcement if they believe they are being extorted.

Idaho Statutes For Extortion For This Scenario

Title 18 Chapter 24 – Theft

18-2403.  THEFT. 

1. (1) A person steals property and commits theft when, with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or to a third person, he wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds such property from an owner thereof.
2. (2)  Theft includes a wrongful taking, obtaining or withholding of another’s property, with the intent prescribed in subsection (1) of this section, committed in any of the following ways:
   1. (e)  By extortion. A person obtains property by extortion when he compels or induces another person to deliver such property to himself or to a third person by means of instilling in him a fear that, if the property is not so delivered, the actor or another will:
      1. 9.  Perform any other act which would not in itself materially benefit the actor but which is calculated to harm another person materially with respect to his health, safety, business, calling, career, financial condition, reputation or personal relationships.
3. (3)  A person commits theft when he knowingly takes or exercises unauthorized control over, or makes an unauthorized transfer of an interest in, the property of another person, with the intent of depriving the owner thereof.

What Are The Legal Terms For When You Cave To Someone’s Demands For Money To Relieve Someone Else From Being Unjustly Punished?

The legal term you’re referring to is most commonly known as “extortion.” 

Extortion is a criminal offense that occurs when a person unlawfully obtains money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution through coercion. 

The coercion can involve threats of harm or actual harm to the victim, the victim’s reputation, or the property or loved ones of the victim.

Under the common law and many statutes, an intent to take money or property to which one is not lawfully entitled must exist at the time of the threat in order to establish extortion. 

Statutes may contain words such as “willful” or “purposeful” in order to indicate the intent element. 

When this is so, someone who mistakenly believes he or she is entitled to the money or property cannot be guilty of extortion. 

Some statutes, however, provide that any unauthorized taking of money by an officer constitutes extortion. 

Under these statutes, a person may be held strictly liable for the act, and an intent need not be proven to establish the crime.

As a crime of theft, extortion is closely related to Robbery and False Pretenses.

Robbery differs from extortion in that the property is taken against the will and without the consent of the victim, unlike extortion, where the victim consents, although unwillingly, to surrender money or property. 

Another distinguishing factor is that the nature of the threat for robbery is limited to immediate physical harm to the victim or his or her home. 

Extortion, on the other hand, encompasses a greater variety of threats.

False pretenses is another crime that is similar to extortion. The main difference is that in the case of false pretenses, the property is obtained by a lie rather than a threat.

Bad Faith 

1) n. intentional dishonest act by not fulfilling legal or contractual obligations, misleading another, entering into an agreement without the intention or means to fulfill it, or violating basic standards of honesty in dealing with others. Most states recognize what is called “implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing” which is breached by acts of bad faith, for which a lawsuit may be brought (filed) for the breach (just as one might sue for breach of contract). The question of bad faith may be raised as a defense to a suit on a contract. 2) adj. when there is bad faith then a transaction is called a “bad faith” contract or “bad faith” offer.

How Does The Prosecutor Or Police Investigator Find Reasonable Doubt That Joseph And Kevin Were Not Being Extorted By Marjorie, Janette, & Charmelle

As a prosecutor or police investigator, to establish reasonable doubt regarding the extortion of Joseph and Kevin, I would need to investigate several aspects:

1. Voluntary Payment: Determine if the $250,000 payment was made voluntarily without the presence of threats or coercion.
2. Proof of Threat: Look for evidence that contradicts the claim that Marjorie, Janette, and Charmelle instilled fear in Kevin and Joseph to obtain the money.
3. Communication Records: Examine all communication between the parties for any indication that the payment was not a result of extortion but perhaps a misunderstanding or a mutual agreement.
4. Witness Testimonies: Gather statements from other family members and individuals aware of the dynamics between the parties that could suggest a different narrative.
5. Previous Interactions: Investigate the history of interactions between MJ&C and KJ&L to see if there is a pattern that either supports or refutes the claim of extortion.
6. Financial Transactions: Review the financial history between the parties for any past transactions that could indicate a different context for the payment.
7. Legal Advice and Actions: Check if Joseph and Kevin sought legal advice or reported the incident immediately, which could indicate they felt they were being extorted.
8. Intent and Motivation: Assess the intent and motivation behind MJ&C’s demand for money, looking for alternative explanations.
9. Marjorie’s Condition and Intent: Verify Marjorie’s health and mental state to understand her capacity to make such demands or if she was possibly being influenced by Janette and Charmelle.
10. Andrea’s Hospice Care: Investigate the circumstances around Andrea’s hospice care and whether there was any prior agreement or expectation regarding visits and support.
11. 612 Property Gift: Clarify the details surrounding the 612 property gift to Joseph, including the timing and any conditions that were attached to it.
12. Legal Documentation: Review any legal documents related to the property transfer and the alleged lawsuit to understand the legal standings of both parties.
13. Consistency of Statements: Compare the statements of MJ&C and KJ&L for consistency and any discrepancies that could cast doubt on the extortion claim.
14. Behavioral Evidence: Look for behavioral evidence that contradicts the fear or threat element required for extortion, such as KJ&L’s demeanor and actions following the transaction.
15. Alternative Explanations: Explore any alternative explanations for the payment that could introduce reasonable doubt about the extortion claim.

By thoroughly investigating these points, a prosecutor or police investigator could potentially uncover evidence that introduces reasonable doubt about the extortion claim against Marjorie, Janette, and Charmelle.

What Are The Penalties For Extortion?

The penalties for extortion can be severe and vary widely depending on the jurisdiction and the specifics of the offense. They can include:

• Fines: These can range from minor fines to very large amounts, depending on the severity of the crime.
• Restitution: The court may order the perpetrator to pay restitution to the victim.
• Probation: A person convicted of extortion may be placed on probation instead of being sent to prison, or in addition to time spent in prison.
• Incarceration: Extortion can be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony, with potential prison sentences ranging from less than a year to several decades in prison, especially if the extortion involved high amounts, physical harm, or was part of organized crime.
• Criminal Record: A conviction will usually result in a criminal record, which can affect future employment, housing, and more.

What Evidence Is Needed To Open An Investigation For Extortion?

To open an investigation for extortion, there typically needs to be some credible evidence that a crime has been committed. This might include:

• Communications: Text messages, emails, letters, or recorded phone calls where the extortion is taking place.
• Testimony: Statements from the victim or witnesses who have knowledge of the extortion.
• Financial Records: Evidence of any transactions that were made as a result of the extortion.
• Physical Evidence: Any physical evidence that can support the occurrence of extortion.

Do I Need Any Type Of Court Order?

In some cases, law enforcement may need a court order to gather certain types of evidence, such as wiretaps or access to bank records. 

This usually requires showing probable cause that a crime has been committed.

What Reasonable Doubt Would Stop Investigation? My Consent?

Reasonable doubt is a standard used in criminal trials to assess whether the evidence presented is sufficient to convict. 

If you have given your consent freely and without coercion for any exchange of money or services, this could potentially create reasonable doubt regarding whether extortion occurred.

What Steps To Take Before Filing A Police Report

1. Document Everything: Keep a record of all communications and transactions related to the alleged extortion.
2. Consult an Attorney: Before going to the police, it may be wise to consult with a criminal lawyer who can advise you on the best course of action.
3. Gather Evidence: Compile any evidence you have before you file the report.

What To Say When Filing a Police Report?

Provide all the details of the alleged extortion, including who, what, when, where, and how. 

Offer any evidence you have collected and be prepared to answer questions.

How To Determine If There’s Probable Cause?

Probable cause is a legal standard that refers to the requirement in criminal law that police have adequate reason to arrest someone, conduct a search, or seize property relating to an alleged crime. 

For probable cause to exist, there must be a reasonable basis for believing that a crime may have been committed (for an arrest) or that evidence of a crime is present in the place to be searched (for a search warrant).

The concept of probable cause is rooted in the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures and ensures that warrants are issued only upon a showing of probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.

To determine probable cause, the following are generally considered:

• Factual Information: Concrete facts rather than mere suspicion are necessary. This information can come from police observations, witness reports, informant tips (if reliable), and other sources.
• Circumstantial Evidence: This can also be used to establish probable cause. It refers to evidence that suggests a fact is true but does not directly prove it.
• Totality of the Circumstances: Courts look at the “totality of the circumstances” to decide whether probable cause exists. This means that they consider all the information and context available to the officer at the time.

Probable cause does not require the same level of proof as beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard used in criminal trials to convict. 

Instead, it merely requires more than a mere suspicion.

For example, if police observe someone breaking into a car, they have probable cause to arrest that person for theft. 

If an officer has a reliable tip from an informant that someone is hiding drugs in their home and corroborates this tip with observations, they may have probable cause to search the home.

In legal proceedings, the existence of probable cause can be challenged by the defense, and a judge may rule that evidence obtained without probable cause cannot be used in court. 

This is known as the exclusionary rule, which serves to deter police from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures.

If You’re Considering Reporting A Potential Crime But Want Legal Advice First, Should You Consult With A Criminal Defense Attorney?

If you believe you are a victim of a crime or are considering reporting a possible crime, consulting with a lawyer can be a prudent step. 

The type of lawyer you should seek out depends on the nature of the consultation you need:

1. Criminal Defense Lawyer: If you are potentially implicated in a crime or believe you might be charged, a criminal defense attorney is the appropriate choice. They can advise you on your rights and the best course of action if you are at risk of criminal liability.
2. Victim’s Advocate or Attorney: If you are the victim of a crime and need advice on how to proceed, you might want to consult an attorney who specializes in representing victims or a victim’s advocate. Some law firms specialize in representing victims of certain types of crimes, such as fraud or personal injury.
3. General Practice Attorney: If you are unsure about the nature of the legal issue or if it spans multiple areas of law, you might start with a general practice attorney. They can provide a broad overview and then refer you to a specialist if necessary.
4. Legal Aid Organizations: If you cannot afford a private attorney, you might seek assistance from legal aid organizations in your area. They can provide free or low-cost legal advice and may be able to connect you with lawyers who can help.
5. Referral Services: Many local and state bar associations offer lawyer referral services. You can contact them, describe your issue, and they will refer you to attorneys with experience relevant to your situation.
6. Consultation with a Civil Attorney: If the potential crime involves aspects that could lead to a civil lawsuit (for example, if the extortion attempt was part of a larger pattern of harassment or abuse that could warrant a civil suit), you may want to consult with a civil attorney who has experience with such cases.

Before reporting a crime to the police, it’s often beneficial to understand the potential legal implications and to prepare for what may follow. 

A lawyer can help you understand the process, your rights, and the potential outcomes. 

If you decide to report the crime, having legal counsel can ensure that your interests are protected throughout the process.

How To Hire A Criminal Lawyer?

1. Research: Look for attorneys who specialize in criminal law and have experience with extortion cases.
2. Consultations: Many lawyers offer free initial consultations to discuss your case.
3. Ask Questions: Inquire about their experience, strategy, and fees.
4. Decision: Choose an attorney who you feel comfortable with and who has a credible track record.

Criminal Defense Lawyers In Twin Falls Idaho

1. https://lawyers.justia.com/lawyer/mark-d-nicolarsen-1662772
2. https://lawyers.justia.com/lawyer/delon-lee-1586156
3. https://lawyers.justia.com/lawyer/brent-nielson-1497320
4. https://lawyers.findlaw.com/profile/lawfirm/hilverda-mcrae-pllc/id/twin-falls/NDk0ODUwNl8x/PP?refPageViewId=822f0b085113c3a5
5. https://lawyers.findlaw.com/profile/view/3346612_1?refPageViewId=822f0b085113c3a5
6. https://lawyers.findlaw.com/lawyer/firm/criminal-law/twin-falls-county/idaho
7. https://www.avvo.com/attorneys/83301-id-tyler-mcgee-4433129.html
8. https://www.avvo.com/attorneys/83301-id-steven-mcrae-4433174.html
9. https://www.avvo.com/attorneys/83303-id-kiel-willmore-4534078.html
10. https://www.avvo.com/attorneys/83301-id-michael-wood-4434834.html
11. https://www.avvo.com/attorneys/83301-id-joseph-rockstahl-4432356.html
12. https://www.avvo.com/attorneys/83301-id-kenton-beckstead-4429645.html
13. https://www.avvo.com/attorneys/83303-id-adam-ondo-4879869.html

How To File A Police Report?

1. Contact Local Law Enforcement: Go to your local police department or call them to find out the best way to file a report.
2. Provide Detailed Information: Give them all the information you have, including any evidence of the extortion.
3. Follow Instructions: The police will guide you through their process.

What Leads To An Arrest Involving Extortion?

An arrest for extortion will typically occur when there is sufficient evidence to convince a judge or magistrate that a crime has been committed. 

This evidence could include:

• Direct Evidence: Such as a confession or caught in the act.
• Indirect Evidence: Such as patterns of behavior or circumstantial evidence that strongly suggest guilt.
• Witness Testimony: Credible witnesses who can attest to the extortion.
• Victim Statements: Detailed accounts from the victim(s) that describe the extortion.

Each step in this process can be complex and may require the assistance of legal professionals to navigate effectively. 

Always consider seeking legal advice when dealing with potential criminal matters.

Questions Cops Might Ask To Determine The Truth Of The Story Beyond A Reasonable Doubt?

1. What is the relationship between MJ&C and KJ&L?
   • Marjorie Puka is Joseph’s and Andrea’s grandmother.
   • Janette and Charmelle are Joseph’s aunts, who are also Marjorie Puka’s daughters.
   • Kevin is Marjorie Puka’s son in law.
   • Lucinda is Joseph’s spouse.
2. What evidence is there to suggest that MJ&C demanded money from KJ&L?
   • Powers v. Puka – Plaintiff’s Statement Of Discoverable Information (PSDI) – Part 1
3. Can KJ&L provide a detailed account of the alleged extortion?
   • Powers v. Puka: An Extensive Timeline Update (Nov 2023) – Gaps & Unanswered Questions Persist – PSDI Part 5
4. Were there any witnesses to the alleged extortion or conversations leading up to it?
   • John Martin
   • David Taylor
   • Brian Scott
   • Denise Powers
   • AFFIDAVIT OF FACT – WISHES OF MARJORIE A. PUKA – Google Docs
5. Did KJ&L report the extortion immediately? If not, why?
   • We were initially afraid to report the extortion because the threats made by MJ&C implied serious consequences for going to the authorities.
   • We needed time to consult with legal counsel to ensure that we were taking the correct steps forward in such a complex and sensitive situation.
   • The first attempt at reporting this to the police was on May 27, 2023, without first consulting an attorney. Joseph is between law school and the BAR exam and was attempting to do as much legal work as he could before spending money on lawyers.
   • The delay was due to internal discussions about the best course of action, was this a simple potentially harmless case of heightened family emotion, negligent misunderstanding, or was this done intentionally?
   • We were attempting to gather more evidence and documentation to provide a substantial case to law enforcement upon reporting.
   • We did not report the extortion immediately because we were unsure if it was a credible extortion or a misunderstanding that could be resolved without law enforcement intervention.
   • We were hoping to have a true genuine meeting of the minds with the family members who did this to avoid permanent family separation with the hope of healing the family.
6. Has there been any communication between MJ&C and KJ&L that could be construed as threatening?
   • The most threatening part about their communication was their lack of communication. After enjoying the new house that was gifted to me for over 200 days, I sold my previous house relying on this promise. I did not know there was a single gleaming hint of contention. It wasn’t until I sold my previous house that they demanded I pay expensive rent or vacate the trust property.
   • If Joseph had any idea that someone was going to pressure him in any way about the 612 property gift, Joseph would have gladly given it back and moved back to his 413 Jerome Property he still owned and had a cheap mortgage on – but sold it – due to reliance on the 612 property contract that allowed Joseph to occupy until Marjorie’s death. After Marjorie’s death, Denise would inherit the house, and then Denise would transfer ownership of the 612 property to Joseph.
7. Did KJ&L make any previous payments to MJ&C? If so, under what circumstances?
   • Joseph made every payment to honor his portion of the contract, which was to pay for all of the expenses of the house as if Joseph was the new owner. Joseph never made a single rent payment because this offer was never an offer that involved Joseph renting trust property. Joseph was expressly offered ownership of the new property and Joseph trusted that his family and their trust advisors were doing the right thing.
   • The only reason why Janette and Charmelle forced Denise out as trustee and appointed themselves as trustees was to break Joseph’s contract and get money from the trust.
8. How was the demand for $250,000 made (e.g., in person, via email, over the phone)?
   • In-person and via email.
9. Did KJ&L document the transfer of $250,000 cash to MJ&C? If so, how?
   • Property transfer.
10. Is there a record of withdrawal or transfer of $250,000 from KJ&L’s financial accounts?
    • Yes.
11. Did KJ&L seek legal advice or contact law enforcement before paying the $250,000?
    • No.
12. How would paying MJ&C benefit MJ&C, as alleged?
    • They wanted money from the trust. The first trustee Denise kept denying MJ&C’s demand for money from the trust. First trustee Denise had the intention of protecting the trust until Marjorie passed away. No one was supposed to get any money from the trust until Marjorie passed away.
13. How was it suggested that KJ&L’s financial condition and personal relationships would be harmed?
    • We didn’t want to buy a house. We didn’t need a house. We had a house. We were offered the house under specific conditions. Then Janette interfered and recruited Charmelle and Marjorie to obtain money from Kevin, Joseph, and Lucinda.
    • The house was originally promised to me as an outright gift. The trust advisors made a plan to avoid capital gains tax of $18,000 and other costs. The plan was to leave the house in the trust until Marjorie passed away and then the house would be transferred to Dense Powers and then to Joseph and Lucinda.
14. Are there any past disputes or conflicts between MJ&C and KJ&L?
    • Not until Janette began wanting money from the trust.
15. Has MJ&C made any admissions or statements regarding the alleged extortion?
    • Yes. Several times they demanded money from the trust after the dispute was supposed to be settled.
16. What is the financial status of MJ&C, and would there be a motive for extortion?
    • Marjorie has approximately $3,000,000.
    • Charmelle has little to no money. Charmelle was already receiving full expenses paid for by the trust, including $1,000 from the trust, and she wanted an additional $2,000 or $400,000 outright payment.
    • Janette has some money and her husband Kelly is stressed with work and the HOA and Kelly has expressed interest in retiring like Kevin.
17. Was the $250,000 tied to any specific transaction or agreement between MJ&C and KJ&L?
    • Give Charmelle and Janette $250,000 to end the dispute against Joseph’s interest in the 612 property.
18. Has MJ&C been involved in any similar incidents or accusations of extortion in the past?
    • Not that I’m aware of.
19. Are there any third parties who might benefit from this situation or have encouraged the extortion?
    • We believe Charmelle and Janette’s husbands Kelly Golay and Dave Cheng found out that Marjorie wanted to protect Charmelle and Janette’s inheritance from their husbands, so Marjorie put restrictions on the trust that didn’t allow Charmelle and Janette to receive their full payout upon Marjorie’s death.
20. How did MJ&C communicate the alleged threats to KJ&L, and is there evidence of this communication?
    • Audio recording. 
    • Marjorie made it clear that she refused to visit her granddaughter, Andrea, Joseph’s sister until the house dispute was over.
    • Since Andrea was on her deathbed, we decided that instead of holding firm with our position of desiring to honor the original contracts, we would concede to their demand to avoid punishing Andrea.
    • To avoid punishing Andrea with separation from her favorite grandmother before she died nine days later, KJ&L yielded to their demands with the understanding that KJ&L would be receiving the house back after Marjorie passed away due to the trust amendment. Instead, Marjorie not only demanded $250,000 but also demanded that we no longer receive the house back, and also we are completely cut out of the will totaling damages close to $1,000,000.
21. Did KJ&L attempt to negotiate or refuse the demands at any point?
    • We refused demands from Marjorie’s first and second lawyers.
    • We attempted to negotiate.
    • We yielded to the demand under intense pressure to avoid harm to our personal relationships with Andrea.
22. Has there been any attempt to conceal the transaction or make it appear legitimate?
    • Unknown.
23. What actions has KJ&L taken since the alleged extortion to protect their interests?
    • Report to police once.
    • Settlement attempt.
    • Constant attempt to communicate with Marjorie, Janette, and Charmelle and the response is 100% silence.
24. Does MJ&C have the capability or resources to carry out the threats made against KJ&L?
    • Yes. They threatened to sue Denise for breach of fiduciary duty for doing exactly what the grantor wanted. Then the grantor changed her mind on a dime and led actions of Janette and Charmelle’s desire for money from the trust.
25. Were any contracts or agreements between MJ&C and KJ&L altered leading up to the extortion claim?
    • No contracts were altered, but demands were made.
    • MJ&C’s first and second lawyers did not respond to Joseph’s demand verification letter.
26. Can KJ&L detail the “acts” that MJ&C threatened to perform?
    • If we don’t give them money and change my ownership contract into an expensive rental, they would
      • Not visit Andrea on her deathbed.
      • Most everything they did involved silent unilateral demands with no true and honest effort to have a genuine meeting of the minds. They refused to respond to any valid question I had about their action. They only responded if my communications moved their unilateral demands forward.
27. Has KJ&L engaged in any activity that may have provoked such a demand from MJ&C?
    • KJ&L did nothing but support their elderly grandma’s express wish to keep a special property in the family name.
    • MJ&C might blame their behavior on a third party, but KJ&L did nothing to provoke their behavior.
28. Are there digital footprints (emails, text messages, digital transactions) supporting the extortion claim?
    • Most everything we’re claiming has a digital footprint.
29. Have the financials of both parties been audited for irregularities that may support the extortion claim?
    • No.
30. Has a forensic analysis of the devices owned by both parties been conducted to find evidence of the extortion?
    • No.

What Defenses Are Available For Extortion?

A person who acts under a claim of right (an honest belief that he or she has a right to the money or property taken) may allege this factor as an Affirmative Defense to an extortion charge.

Reasonable doubt.