Nike Scandal? | Page 6 | Syracusefan.com

Nike Scandal?

Zelda Zonk said:
I was being slightly facetious, but it almost seems like the difference is in who instigates the transaction. ?
If you're the Party who can be damaged by the information (Party 2), you're allowed to go to Party 1 to offer to purchase that information toward squelching it. But, if you're Party 1, you can't go to Party 2 to offer to conceal the information for the same transactional value. Almost makes sense, except...

If you're a 'whistleblower,' the information you have could be of value to the public. The Nike Payment Allegations, for example. So, 'threatening' to release it shouldn't be the part that is criminal. Concealing it is almost a form of complicity. If you know of a crime and don't report it... Didn't some school shooter's friends get charged for not reporting the guy, or for covering up something after the fact? Yeesh. It's a mystery wrapped in a riddle, peppered with ambiguity, and sauced with enigma.

I'm not sure how this is so wrong for Avenatti. He uncovered information, and tried to sell it to the company that would be damaged. That's a service. He would, ostensibly, have put his client into an NDA, and that would have protected Nike. It almost seems like the objection is to the savagery of the language used in the 'offer.'
Expand...
part of Avenatti's shakedown of Nike was that Nike hire him (and Geragos) a minimum of $15-$25 million to conduct a bogus internal investigation of Nike. That demand has no benefit to his client and serves only to enrich himself. That tilts the behavior away from aggressive client advocacy and into straight extortion.
 
Zelda Zonk said:
I was being slightly facetious, but it almost seems like the difference is in who instigates the transaction. ?
If you're the Party who can be damaged by the information (Party 2), you're allowed to go to Party 1 to offer to purchase that information toward squelching it. But, if you're Party 1, you can't go to Party 2 to offer to conceal the information for the same transactional value. Almost makes sense, except...

If you're a 'whistleblower,' the information you have could be of value to the public. The Nike Payment Allegations, for example. So, 'threatening' to release it shouldn't be the part that is criminal. Concealing it is almost a form of complicity. If you know of a crime and don't report it... Didn't some school shooter's friends get charged for not reporting the guy, or for covering up something after the fact? Yeesh. It's a mystery wrapped in a riddle, peppered with ambiguity, and sauced with enigma.

I'm not sure how this is so wrong for Avenatti. He uncovered information, and tried to sell it to the company that would be damaged. That's a service. He would, ostensibly, have put his client into an NDA, and that would have protected Nike. It almost seems like the objection is to the savagery of the language used in the 'offer.'
Expand...
I've had a similar discussion for a while now.
I don't see why non-violent "extortion" should be illegal.

Let's say I have lawfully obtained accurate information about person A's wrongdoing
I can publish it ...no problem.
In fact, my right to publish it is constitutionally protected.

I can also contact person A and tell him I have this information.
Person A can then make an offer to obtain my silence.
No problem.

But if I give person A the option of buying the information to prevent my publishing it...all of a sudden I'm committing a crime.
My crime apparently is telling him (threatening?) I will do something I have an absolute right to do (publish) if he doesn't want to buy the information.

Why is that illegal?
 
Col. Bleep said:
I've had a similar discussion for a while now.
I don't see why non-violent "extortion" should be illegal.

Let's say I have lawfully obtained accurate information about person A's wrongdoing
I can publish it ...no problem.
In fact, my right to publish it is constitutionally protected.

I can also contact person A and tell him I have this information.
Person A can then make an offer to obtain my silence.
No problem.

But if I give person A the option of buying the information to prevent my publishing it...all of a sudden I'm committing a crime.
My crime apparently is telling him (threatening?) I will do something I have an absolute right to do (publish) if he doesn't want to buy the information.

Why is that illegal?
Expand...

We as a society have decided as a matter of public policy that we want to protect victims of crimes. Lets say that I found out an individual is committing fraud by convincing the elderly to "invest" their life savings in a pyramid scheme. I find out and cut a deal with the con man, allowing me to get paid for my silence and allowing him to continue to victimize people.

While this might not be the actual reason extortion is a crime, it is a reason why I would support it. Another reason is probably to protect the blackmailer. Depending on the crime and/or money involved, I could see the health of the blackmailer (and potential collateral damage to innocents) be at risk.
 
I thought Zion, RJ, and Cam all went to Duke because they were best friends and wanted to experience the collegiate lifestyle together. Eatin' ramen, skipping classes, living 12 dudes to a house ...

I find it hard to believe that some money from a 100+ billion dollar company would find its way to woo potential NBA stars to their flagship college basketball program.
 
Col. Bleep said:
I've had a similar discussion for a while now.
I don't see why non-violent "extortion" should be illegal.

Let's say I have lawfully obtained accurate information about person A's wrongdoing
I can publish it ...no problem.
In fact, my right to publish it is constitutionally protected.

I can also contact person A and tell him I have this information.
Person A can then make an offer to obtain my silence.
No problem.

But if I give person A the option of buying the information to prevent my publishing it...all of a sudden I'm committing a crime.
My crime apparently is telling him (threatening?) I will do something I have an absolute right to do (publish) if he doesn't want to buy the information.

Why is that illegal?
Expand...
Because we live in a moral and just society where we have laws protecting the right to contract freely and openly with each other. Extortion/blackmail undermine all those principles. Irrespective of the fact that a lawyer has an ethical obligation not to assist his client in committing a crime.
 
Fly Rodder said:
I thought Zion, RJ, and Cam all went to Duke because they were best friends and wanted to experience the collegiate lifestyle together. Eatin' ramen, skipping classes, living 12 dudes to a house ...

I find it hard to believe that some money from a 100+ billion dollar company would find its way to woo potential NBA stars to their flagship college basketball program.
Expand...
Reppin’ Family
 
leftytg said:
part of Avenatti's shakedown of Nike was that Nike hire him (and Geragos) a minimum of $15-$25 million to conduct a bogus internal investigation of Nike. That demand has no benefit to his client and serves only to enrich himself. That tilts the behavior away from aggressive client advocacy and into straight extortion.
Expand...
Even if Avenatti is cleared of his crimes his license to practice law has to be in jeopardy.
This guy probably violated atleast 5 professional conduct rules.
 
Col. Bleep said:
I've had a similar discussion for a while now.
I don't see why non-violent "extortion" should be illegal.

Let's say I have lawfully obtained accurate information about person A's wrongdoing
I can publish it ...no problem.
In fact, my right to publish it is constitutionally protected.

I can also contact person A and tell him I have this information.
Person A can then make an offer to obtain my silence.
No problem.

But if I give person A the option of buying the information to prevent my publishing it...all of a sudden I'm committing a crime.
My crime apparently is telling him (threatening?) I will do something I have an absolute right to do (publish) if he doesn't want to buy the information.

Why is that illegal?
Expand...
I agree with you. No one has really answered this well enough for my liking.

To me, it seems avenatti's actual crime was angering men in high places...(which is what I find terrifying in terms of where this country is headed)

If what avenatti did was illegal...then how is trump silencing his escort bimbos with NDAs not illegal?

Is it merely the STYLE of communication that is being punished?

Why is paying someone to stay silent okay but offering someone your silence for money not????

the substance of what happens in both scenarios is the same to me...every time someone pays for silence...it is the same in my opinion.

to me ...it should only be extortion if the threatened action is indeed illegal...like "i'll kill you if" or "i'll fire you if..." etc

...in my opinion no one should ever be in legal jeopardy for threatening to do a LEGAL ACTION.

I mean one could make a pretty good argument that all NDAs should be illegal if what avenatti did was illegal.
 
Last edited:
Col. Bleep said:
I've had a similar discussion for a while now.
I don't see why non-violent "extortion" should be illegal.

Let's say I have lawfully obtained accurate information about person A's wrongdoing
I can publish it ...no problem.
In fact, my right to publish it is constitutionally protected.

I can also contact person A and tell him I have this information.
Person A can then make an offer to obtain my silence.
No problem.

But if I give person A the option of buying the information to prevent my publishing it...all of a sudden I'm committing a crime.
My crime apparently is telling him (threatening?) I will do something I have an absolute right to do (publish) if he doesn't want to buy the information.

Why is that illegal?
Expand...
There really is no sincere reason to tell Person A that you have the information if not for the expectation of an offer to purchase it/the silence.

I do absolutely see a crime when the Nat Enquirer 'hunts' personal information about an individual, as in the Bezos case. They apparently followed him everywhere, based on a schedule provided by the brother, and paid off people toward invading Bezos' privacy. That, absolutely, has to be considered extortion, as that personal information isn't related to a crime and exposing it has no value to the community, nor does it protect anyone. This was "non-violent," but certainly criminal.
 
Zelda Zonk said:
There really is no sincere reason to tell Person A that you have the information if not for the expectation of an offer to purchase it/the silence.

I do absolutely see a crime when the Nat Enquirer 'hunts' personal information about an individual, as in the Bezos case. They apparently followed him everywhere, based on a schedule provided by the brother, and paid off people toward invading Bezos' privacy. That, absolutely, has to be considered extortion, as that personal information isn't related to a crime and exposing it has no value to the community, nor does it protect anyone. This was "non-violent," but certainly criminal.
Expand...

Oh, you mean person A isn't doing it because he has such high moral scruples and just wants to make that person aware that what he is doing is wrong, so that he stops? ;)
 
shantydaze said:
We as a society have decided as a matter of public policy that we want to protect victims of crimes. Lets say that I found out an individual is committing fraud by convincing the elderly to "invest" their life savings in a pyramid scheme. I find out and cut a deal with the con man, allowing me to get paid for my silence and allowing him to continue to victimize people.

While this might not be the actual reason extortion is a crime, it is a reason why I would support it. Another reason is probably to protect the blackmailer. Depending on the crime and/or money involved, I could see the health of the blackmailer (and potential collateral damage to innocents) be at risk.
Expand...
Following this logic (and I think you make a great case), it should also be illegal for the individual to accept the bribe even if he did not ask for it.
 
RandygoCuse said:
Following this logic (and I think you make a great case), it should also be illegal for the individual to accept the bribe even if he did not ask for it.
Expand...
Well, the person accepting the bribe could be guilty as an accessory a crime after the fact.
 
CardiacCuse said:
I agree with you. No one has really answered this well enough for my liking.

To me, it seems avenatti's actual crime was angering men in high places...(which is what I find terrifying in terms of where this country is headed)

If what avenatti did was illegal...then how is trump silencing his escort bimbos with NDAs not illegal?

Is it merely the STYLE of communication that is being punished?

Why is paying someone to stay silent okay but offering someone your silence for money not????

the substance of what happens in both scenarios is the same to me...every time someone pays for silence...it is the same in my opinion.

to me ...it should only be extortion if the threatened action is indeed illegal...like "i'll kill you if" or "i'll fire you if..." etc

...in my opinion no one should ever be in legal jeopardy for threatening to do a LEGAL ACTION.

I mean one could make a pretty good argument that all NDAs should be illegal if what avenatti did was illegal.
Expand...

The law allows parties to freely contract with each other. Extortion takes away one party's ability to contract freely, however, as that party is being unduly influenced. So, yes, the style of communication is one of the reasons what Avenatti did allegedly gave rise to crime.

In the Trump scenario, he had an affair and approached his mistresses with an offer - do not talk about the affair and I will pay you. The mistress had a choice whether to give up something of value (information about the dalliances of a candidate for President) for value or to sell the information to the highest bidder. As long as the mistress was not threatened in anyway, she had the ability to freely decide whether to contract with Trump for her silence or try to sell her story to the media.

The other issue for Avenatti is the amount demanded. His client was a coach of a AAU team that previously was under contract with Nike. For reasons that I do not know, Nike decided to end its contractual relationship with the coach (hmm . . . maybe Nike, after watching the trials of a competitor's employees, decided it wanted to distance itself from similar relationships).

Lets say the contract was breached or Nike acted inappropriately such that the coach was damaged. There likely would not have been anything improper for an attorney to make a settlement demand as long as the demand was based on the actual or suspected damages suffered by the plaintiff. Avenatti's demand does not appear to based on damages suffered by his client; rather, he allegedly made a demand based on the damage the lawsuit would cause Nike. Further, he put his own interests before the interests of his client by including in the demand he requirement that he be retained and paid by Nike to perform an investigation.

Many states have statutes and court rules which prohibit the filing of frivolous lawsuits. This can mean filing a lawsuit in which there is no factual or legal basis supporting it and, in some cases, filing a lawsuit that has some legal basis, but was filed for an improper purpose. So, from that standpoint, it could be "illegal" to threaten a lawsuit if the lawsuit would be deemed frivolous.
 
Alsacs said:
Even if Avenatti is cleared of his crimes his license to practice law has to be in jeopardy.
This guy probably violated atleast 5 professional conduct rules.
Expand...

Just read an article that he hasn't paid taxes in over a decade... Didn't even file... How do you get away with that for so long?
 
shantydaze said:
The law allows parties to freely contract with each other. Extortion takes away one party's ability to contract freely, however, as that party is being unduly influenced. So, yes, the style of communication is one of the reasons what Avenatti did allegedly gave rise to crime.

In the Trump scenario, he had an affair and approached his mistresses with an offer - do not talk about the affair and I will pay you. The mistress had a choice whether to give up something of value (information about the dalliances of a candidate for President) for value or to sell the information to the highest bidder. As long as the mistress was not threatened in anyway, she had the ability to freely decide whether to contract with Trump for her silence or try to sell her story to the media.

The other issue for Avenatti is the amount demanded. His client was a coach of a AAU team that previously was under contract with Nike. For reasons that I do not know, Nike decided to end its contractual relationship with the coach (hmm . . . maybe Nike, after watching the trials of a competitor's employees, decided it wanted to distance itself from similar relationships).

Lets say the contract was breached or Nike acted inappropriately such that the coach was damaged. There likely would not have been anything improper for an attorney to make a settlement demand as long as the demand was based on the actual or suspected damages suffered by the plaintiff. Avenatti's demand does not appear to based on damages suffered by his client; rather, he allegedly made a demand based on the damage the lawsuit would cause Nike. Further, he put his own interests before the interests of his client by including in the demand he requirement that he be retained and paid by Nike to perform an investigation.

Many states have statutes and court rules which prohibit the filing of frivolous lawsuits. This can mean filing a lawsuit in which there is no factual or legal basis supporting it and, in some cases, filing a lawsuit that has some legal basis, but was filed for an improper purpose. So, from that standpoint, it could be "illegal" to threaten a lawsuit if the lawsuit would be deemed frivolous.
Expand...
Good post. They sucked Avenatti in by having the Boies Schiller lawyers say that paying the $1.5M demanded by the client (Gary Franklin) wouldn't be a problem. By saying that, they segregated Franklin's settlement demand from the lawyers' demand for hush money for themselves. I wonder if Gary Franklin knew that his lawyers were holding up any payment to him so they could personally enrich themselves for keeping quiet? In reality, Nike was probably never going to actually agree to pay the $1.5M to Franklin, but that's not the way lawyers are supposed to care for their clients' interests.
 
orangemass said:
Just read an article that he hasn't paid taxes in over a decade... Didn't even file... How do you get away with that for so long?
Expand...
Most of us don’t have to worry about being audited.
It’s like 1 in 50000 for private citizens.
 
CardiacCuse said:
I agree with you. No one has really answered this well enough for my liking.

To me, it seems avenatti's actual crime was angering men in high places...(which is what I find terrifying in terms of where this country is headed)

If what avenatti did was illegal...then how is trump silencing his escort bimbos with NDAs not illegal?

Is it merely the STYLE of communication that is being punished?

Why is paying someone to stay silent okay but offering someone your silence for money not????

the substance of what happens in both scenarios is the same to me...every time someone pays for silence...it is the same in my opinion.

to me ...it should only be extortion if the threatened action is indeed illegal...like "i'll kill you if" or "i'll fire you if..." etc

...in my opinion no one should ever be in legal jeopardy for threatening to do a LEGAL ACTION.

I mean one could make a pretty good argument that all NDAs should be illegal if what avenatti did was illegal.
Expand...
The bimbos would have committed the crimes, not Trump. He would have been the extortion victim
 
Adidas:

4255000C-AFC9-4E8A-9ACD-BC7999D1B49F.png
679EF647-A9C2-4163-A8F2-5145BE9836CB.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
167,618
Messages
4,716,206
Members
5,909
Latest member
jc824

Share this page

Online statistics

Members online
310
Guests online
2,617
Total visitors
2,927
Totals may include hidden visitors.


Top Bottom