EFTA02636721.pdf

From: DAVID SCHOEN Sent: Friday, March 22, 2019 12:16 PM To: J Subject: Re: Follow up Eve= more important would be proof of travel schedule - proof not physically th=re during time period - 9/2001and weekly as alleged. Only real threat criminally is rape even though b=sed on 100% false facts. SOL as opposed to 5 year SOL and obviously m=st inflammatory along with 14-15 year old age claim. Easy to make a f=lse claim. On Mar 22, 2019, at 8:10 AM, 1 <[email protected]> wrote: house=descripitions as you rightly point out are highly inaccurate , mostl= fabrications . new law in new york revives statutes . i= circumstances separate from prostitution . tricky <=div> On=Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 1:07 PM DAVID SCHOEN wrote: I would like to get a sense of your lawyers' plan. I sup=ose one school of thought is to ignore it but I believe the guy has put too=much work into it and sees dollar signs too much to just go away if you ign=re it. Again the only real danger is the criminal charge and the poss=bility of a prosecutor who prefers headlines and trophies to research and i=vestigation. Another respo=se would be for AD to respond by letting him know in no uncertain terms tha= this is a fully fabricated claim. He can lay out that you have admit=ed to many things when there was any basis in fact to them; but this has no=basis in fact. That this matter was raised years ago by guy in FL and=he was told it is a false claim. Again, I doubt this would have any i=pact in the guy. It is possible he has been duped and he should take t=e ethical implications of what he is doing seriously - not just unethically=threatening or filing criminal complaint on false claim - but pursuing a ca=e he has been told unequivocally is 100% false. You would not want hi= to be able to say down the road he believed it, but gave you chance to res=ond before filing and you declined and so he did his due diligence. Another view would be to try to pr=empt him by AD reporting the extortion effort to the bar and even to the NY=DA. Not necessarily going to get a sympathetic ear and might turn the= on to something they otherwise would not know about the lawyer is bluffing= But i tend to doubt he is bluffing. It costs him nothing to file the=criminal complaint (especially if he doesn't believe there will eth=cal consequences or even money damages for civil action against him and her=; but who knows. I don't play poker or Russian roulette. Another course would be to resp=nd and have a lawyer want to hear him out, etc. to give you more time to in=estigate and/or to get him deeper into extortion and professional/ethical v=olations (e.g. he fully commits to you pay him he doesn't file crim=nal charges; you don't and he does). Less risk in reporting h=m then as it would be tough for the DA to take the case knowing the extorti=g lawyer will be a primary witness at any criminal case. EFTA_R1_01866385 EFTA02636721  The most important thing to me is a strategy t=at eliminates (or dramatically minimizes) a criminal case. That is a g=me changer. You cannot live your whole life in fear of some crook fil=ng a false criminal complaint on fabricated 20 year old facts; but you need=a solid plan on how to deal with such a development when, as now, it arises= If AD meets with the guy h= must be armed for bear in terms of showing the guy this is a completely fa=ricated claim, on the chance the guy has been duped. If the guy is a c=ook then he is not going away. If you knew you could show some facts claimed are impossible then lever=ge shifts dramatically (and I am not sure I would disclose that in specific=terms at this point). By this I mean not in NY in September 2001, house did=not look then as described, not in NY for all the regular meetings she clai=s, etc. On Mar 22, 2019, at 7:44 AM, J <[email protected]</=» wrote: all fabrications from publicly filed cases. no m=re . he came and made a proposition 500k we s=id statute of limits. and no eveidence he never cam= back and then this lawyer took it on On Fri, Mar 22, 2=19 at 3:31 AM < wrote: Rule 3.4(e) of the NY Rules of Professional Conduct prohi=its a lawyer from threatening to bring criminal charges solely to gain adva=tage in a civil case and in fact making such a threat might constitute exto=tion. The rule is limited obviously by the "sole=y" language. It is intent that matters and that is difficult t= discern and prove. If for example a lawyer threatens to turn someone=in for tax fraud unless he gets satisfaction in some non tax related case i= is easy. However, under the disciplinary rules th=t were the predecessor to these and which in this point had similar languag=, there is an interesting formal opinion that says when the lawyer threaten= criminal charges but offers implicitly or expressly to refrain from doing s= if you pay her money, there is a presumption that the rule is violated and=that the threat or filing of criminal charges was not based on an honest be=ief of crime or an intent to seek justice. He seems to have done just=that. The real danger you face is the filing of rare charges in NY in this environment and with all the bad press especially r=cently. He knows that and he knows there is no statute of limitations= What is your theory in where he/she got the detai=s (from the FL lawyer?)? How did she come to the FL lawyer originally= Why didn't she do something then? Are his details accurate in the layout from 2001? Were you in NY alll t=e time then? How about specifically in September 2001? =/div> Might be worth putting a good investigator on this quickly. =1 don't want to undercut any legal advice you might be getting. Would a charge here violate any outstanding obligation= in FL? Are you still on paper there? It would be bizarre if an= problem there from alleged 2001 conduct. 2 EFTA_R1_01866386 EFTA02636722  Get the new AOL app: mail.mobile.aol.com <http://mail.mobile.aol.com> &n=sp; please note The information contained in this communication is<=r>confidential, may be attorney- client privileged, may constitute inside=information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is th= property of JEE Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this c=mmunication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawf=l. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us im=ediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to [email protected] <mailto:jeevacation@=mail.com> , and destroy this c=mmunication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. copyright=-all rights reserved &=bsp; please note The information contained in thi= communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, mayconstitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the a=dressee. It is the property of JEE Unauthorized use, disclosure or co=ying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited communication in error, p=ease notify us immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to [email protected], an= destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all att=chments. copyright -all rights reserved 3 EFTA_R1_01866387 EFTA02636723