Bad Problem with John Showman, (Cue Stolen)

[Quality Cues]

So, you're a lawyer, but you feel it's OK to continually extort John into complying with your demands? Extortion is a crime, and you should know it. The fact that you have previously done it (via e-mail) and continue to do it on the Internet makes it a federal crime. Let's see who ends up in cuffs when this all plays out. Mr. Showman has committed no actual crime, but you have. You must use legal means to get you cue/money back, and not use threats of other actions if you don't. As a lawyer, you may issue a legal threat (intent) to sue, but that's it. You can't go threatening to expose a person, nor can you threaten to send the police. You have gone way beyond the pale with your bullying here. Hope you have a good lawyer.

What law school did you go to and how long have you been practicing? I think that I already know the answer to my question. In any event, according to the Black's Law Dictionary (5th ed. 1979), "extortion" is defined as "obtaining property of another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right." Id. at p. 525. The subject Showman cue in John's possession is mine, not John's, and therefore I could not possibly extort my cue out of him. Enough said.

 

[Drop The Rock]

What law school did you go to and how long have you been practicing? I think that I already know the answer to my question. In any event, according to the Black's Law Dictionary (5th ed. 1979), "extortion" is defined as "obtaining property of another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right." Id. at p. 525. The subject Showman cue in John's possession is mine, not John's, and therefore I could not possibly extort my cue out of him. Enough said.

QC

I'm not a lawyer and would never pretend to be, but you stole the words right of my finger tips if they had been in laman's terms.

:thumbup:

 

[sonny_burnett]

John called and we had a 10 minute or so chat. He apologized for his excessive delay in finishing the project, and explained what has been going on in his life. I wish that he had made that call before my thread went viral last Monday. He does not disagree with any of the facts contained in my thread, and harbors no ill will toward me for having posted it. John told me that he has about 8-10 hours left before the project is completed, and feels compelled to finish the project. While I want my cue back tomorrow, I've decided not to escalate the matter further with legal action and give John some additional time to complete the project. I'm hoping that I get the cue back with the project completed in the next week or two. I will keep you all posted as events unfold.

See you in 2 weeks when you're back to square one.

Did he actually offer to return the cue and your $700?

If so this thread was a waste of time.

I would have thought one year of his BS would have tought you a lesson.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[KRJ]

Not saying it's right or wrong, but that sounds like a very odd interpretation of whatever law.

Party A has formed a legally binding Contract with Party B. B has repeatedly breached the contractual agreement and is now withholding property of A illegally. It's illegal because the property is not B's, the return date specified in the contractual agreement has passed, and A has repeatedly demanded the property be returned.

Now A cannot tell B to return or else?

But it's quite common for people to give ultimatums in disputes.

My understanding of extortion is that it's an act to coerce an action or property that you have no legal rights to. But surely that's different in this situation?

Again, no lawyer.

Technically, SP is correct. But it matters not. This is a civil dispute and not a criminal one.

 

[nick serdula]

It would be a grand theft

In fact it is just that. And if shipped by USPS it would constitute a mail fraud.
Nick

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

What law school did you go to and how long have you been practicing? I think that I already know the answer to my question. In any event, according to the Black's Law Dictionary (5th ed. 1979), "extortion" is defined as "obtaining property of another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right." Id. at p. 525. The subject Showman cue in John's possession is mine, not John's, and therefore I could not possibly extort my cue out of him. Enough said.

This is about the funniest thing I ever heard come from a lawyer, and I've heard a lot. Using a law dictionary definition of a legal term hardly constitutes the letter of the law in practice, and you know that. These things are defined in court, and differ depending upon the jurisdiction in which the crime is alleged to have been committed.

You do not need to "obtain property" to commit extortion, it's the threat that is the crime. And it doesn't have to be goods or money, either. Attempting to get someone to comply to a demand (in this case, a demand to return your cue) by threatening them with public humiliation is certainly a special case of extortion, known as blackmail.

Just how far do you perceive you can legally go in an attempt to secure your property? Threats of physical harm are OK, just because the property is "yours" and not "his"? March into his shop and take your cue back by force? Think again.

I should have kept my mouth shut here, but I've read too many threads like this and I'm sick of folks here taking private business to a public forum. It's threads like this that made me glad I decided not to make cues (or at least, not to sell them to pool players). You have now caused this man much more harm than any he could possibly have inflicted upon you. I hope you are happy with yourself.

 

[Kid Dynomite]

This is about the funniest thing I ever heard come from a lawyer, and I've heard a lot. Using a law dictionary definition of a legal term hardly constitutes the letter of the law in practice, and you know that. These things are defined in court, and differ depending upon the jurisdiction in which the crime is alleged to have been committed.

You do not need to "obtain property" to commit extortion, it's the threat that is the crime. And it doesn't have to be goods or money, either. Attempting to get someone to comply to a demand (in this case, a demand to return your cue) by threatening them with public humiliation is certainly a special case of extortion, known as blackmail.

Just how far do you perceive you can legally go in an attempt to secure your property? Threats of physical harm are OK, just because the property is "yours" and not "his"? March into his shop and take your cue back by force? Think again.

I should have kept my mouth shut here, but I've read too many threads like this and I'm sick of folks here taking private business to a public forum. It's threads like this that made me glad I decided not to make cues (or at least, not to sell them to pool players). You have now caused this man much more harm than any he could possibly have inflicted upon you. I hope you are happy with yourself.

like you said, he can not confront and physically acquire his cue back.

He has been more than fair in setting deadlines and consequences for failure.

He was trying to avoid the "HARM" you spoke of to Mr. Showman by having waited a period of close to 1 year on an item that was contractually supposed to be returned in 2 weeks!

there is not a JUDGE in this country that would not ask "BOTH" parties if they have "Done everything possible to avoid the case making its way onto his/her docket?" emails, phone calls, ultimatums do not become extortion unless additional property or payments are demand. This scenario does not involve items that do not belong to the original poster. Until the contract is "Fulfilled" the cue and deposit belong to the original poster and are "Legally" his property. To say, "Asking for the return of your own property constitutes extortion is far from what the law states, mandates or legal interpretations. I request you provide something that substantiates your premise.

Seeking the advise of law enforcement who are experts on local, state & federal laws to seek remedy is not an illegal act. If the officer investigates and "decides" to take action against mr. showman based on his/her investigation is "100%" at the officers discretion. Quality Cues is not responsible for the actions of law enforcement.

http://www.justanswer.com/law/8aonv-someone-stole-property-father-threaten.html

KD

 

[jasonlaus]

This is about the funniest thing I ever heard come from a lawyer, and I've heard a lot. Using a law dictionary definition of a legal term hardly constitutes the letter of the law in practice, and you know that. These things are defined in court, and differ depending upon the jurisdiction in which the crime is alleged to have been committed.

You do not need to "obtain property" to commit extortion, it's the threat that is the crime. And it doesn't have to be goods or money, either. Attempting to get someone to comply to a demand (in this case, a demand to return your cue) by threatening them with public humiliation is certainly a special case of extortion, known as blackmail.

Just how far do you perceive you can legally go in an attempt to secure your property? Threats of physical harm are OK, just because the property is "yours" and not "his"? March into his shop and take your cue back by force? Think again.

I should have kept my mouth shut here, but I've read too many threads like this and I'm sick of folks here taking private business to a public forum. It's threads like this that made me glad I decided not to make cues (or at least, not to sell them to pool players). You have now caused this man much more harm than any he could possibly have inflicted upon you. I hope you are happy with yourself.

Are you "special"?

 

[sonny_burnett]

Now we have a legal pissing contest. Wonderful

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[MahnaMahna]

You have now caused this man much more harm than any he could possibly have inflicted upon you. I hope you are happy with yourself.

If this is actually the case, then he did a GREAT job! I don't give a shit how he feels about himself, but I am happy for him!

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

like you said, he can not confront and physically acquire his cue back.

He has been more than fair in setting deadlines and consequences for failure.

He was trying to avoid the "HARM" you spoke of to Mr. Showman by having waited a period of close to 1 year on an item that was contractually supposed to be returned in 2 weeks!

there is not a JUDGE in this country that would not ask "BOTH" parties if they have "Done everything possible to avoid the case making its way onto his/her docket?" emails, phone calls, ultimatums do not become extortion unless additional property or payments are demand. This scenario does not involve items that do not belong to the original poster. Until the contract is "Fulfilled" the cue and deposit belong to the original poster and are "Legally" his property. To say, "Asking for the return of your own property constitutes extortion is far from what the law states, mandates or legal interpretations. I request you provide something that substantiates your premise.

Seeking the advise of law enforcement who are experts on local, state & federal laws to seek remedy is not an illegal act. If the officer investigates and "decides" to take action against mr. showman based on his/her investigation is "100%" at the officers discretion. Quality Cues is not responsible for the actions of law enforcement.

http://www.justanswer.com/law/8aonv-someone-stole-property-father-threaten.html

KD

Again, it's perfectly fine for the man to request his cue back, it's not at all OK to use threats of retaliation to strong arm the guy into doing so. This is clearly a case of a guy being 100% in the right and yet handling it wrong.

It's also not OK to call the guy a thief and a pathological liar, but libel is not a crime, only a tort... unless you live in a state that has a statute making libel a crime. In Colorado criminal libel is a class 6 felony. In Florida (the state Mr. Showman lives in) there are five types of criminal libel. One of them allows charges to be brought against the publisher of said libel, so much of the defamation that is allowed to go on here in AZ could lead to charges being brought against Mike Howerton himself.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/criminal-libel-statutes-state-by-state

 

[Kid Dynomite]

Again, it's perfectly fine for the man to request his cue back, it's not at all OK to use threats of retaliation to strong arm the guy into doing so. This is clearly a case of a guy being 100% in the right and yet handling it wrong.

It's also not OK to call the guy a thief and a pathological liar, but libel is not a crime, only a tort... unless you live in a state that has a statute making libel a crime. In Colorado criminal libel is a class 6 felony. In Florida (the state Mr. Showman lives in) there are five types of criminal libel. One of them allows charges to be brought against the publisher of said libel, so much of the defamation that is allowed to go on here in AZ could lead to charges being brought against Mike Howerton himself.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/criminal-libel-statutes-state-by-state

You are using the words retaliation and strong arm inappropriately. Exercising quality cues rights are neither of those things.

Publishing his experience is his freedom of speech!

Just like, enquiries to law enforcement are mikes legal rights.

Retaliation is inaccurate as long as the info is accurate and not libelous.

Strong arm is inaccurate as the use of force is absent. Public opinion and outrage does not have enough harm to rise to the classification of strong arm!

Kd


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[shadowmoss]

Life

Just got told to look at this thread, Its amazing how some people conduct themselves. I get curious as to what has he produced (your repair time frame) in the last year? How many cues? Who got them?.Is this his only means of income? He should think about working for someone because running a successful business is beyond him. How many people reading this are saying "Crap when will I ever see my order finished?"

I've been in business for 30 years When someone lies to me that will be the last time I acknowledge or deal with him again.

Good luck on seeing your cue again.

 

[NYC cue dude]

Again, it's perfectly fine for the man to request his cue back, it's not at all OK to use threats of retaliation to strong arm the guy into doing so. This is clearly a case of a guy being 100% in the right and yet handling it wrong.

It's also not OK to call the guy a thief and a pathological liar, but libel is not a crime, only a tort... unless you live in a state that has a statute making libel a crime. In Colorado criminal libel is a class 6 felony. In Florida (the state Mr. Showman lives in) there are five types of criminal libel. One of them allows charges to be brought against the publisher of said libel, so much of the defamation that is allowed to go on here in AZ could lead to charges being brought against Mike Howerton himself.

The minute that Mike confirms that he has received his cue (I hope he's not holding his breath), Mike H should permanently ban Showman. And Sloppy Pockets should go, too.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/criminal-libel-statutes-state-by-state

John showman, whom from here on out shall be referred to as Scumbag, is in breach of contract. He is currently, illegally, holding possession of nearly $8K of another's property. Scumbag was given many opportunities to return said property.

The aggrieved party has shown incredible restraint. He publicly, published the truth, in detail. By giving Scumbag an opportunity to avoid this well deserved "humiliation", he showed a measure of humanity I would have never. It's ironic that you call this "extortion".

The aggrieved demanded the return of his property AND the money, paid in advance, for work never done. That Scumbag still refuses to comply should show everyone reading this thread, and the public at large, that the only reason he has now agreed to do the work is because he doesn't have the measly $700 to refund with the cue. Imagine that, world famous artist and cue maker, John Scumbag Showman, can't even scrounge up $700 to make this right. How embarrassing for him, but more importantly, his name and legacy. This is exactly how he will be remembered when he's gone. This is what he will leave his children. And allow of it is well deserved and of his own making.

 

[Poolplaya9]

Again, it's perfectly fine for the man to request his cue back, it's not at all OK to use threats of retaliation to strong arm the guy into doing so. This is clearly a case of a guy being 100% in the right and yet handling it wrong.

It's also not OK to call the guy a thief and a pathological liar, but libel is not a crime, only a tort... unless you live in a state that has a statute making libel a crime. In Colorado criminal libel is a class 6 felony. In Florida (the state Mr. Showman lives in) there are five types of criminal libel. One of them allows charges to be brought against the publisher of said libel, so much of the defamation that is allowed to go on here in AZ could lead to charges being brought against Mike Howerton himself.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/criminal-libel-statutes-state-by-state

I think you will find the reality is that it is going to be real difficult to get a judge to consider your notifying the offender that you may use legal avenues available to you try to get your own property back such as calling the police or filing a suit as being "retaliation" if those avenues themselves were reasonable and applicable (as they would appear to be in this case).

It is ok to call a guy a thief or a pathological liar or anything else if it is true, or if you present it as opinion and not fact. To have a libel case against someone they have to have said something untrue and presented it as a fact and not an opinion, it had to be intentional with malicious intent or at the very least they had to know it was untrue and would do harm, and in many cases you have to actually have harm come from it. Short of that you have no libel.

The law is super clear on websites and their responsibility in regards to libel. Websites have no responsibility whatsoever for what people independently say on their website. This is federal law and is fully supported by case law many times over.

The one gray area is if the owners/operators of a site actively encouraged or solicited the libel and in that case there are a court of two that has ruled the site owner/operator was responsible as well but most courts disagree with them on that and feel that the libel would actually have to come directly from the site owners/operators themselves, not just that they encouraged or solicited it. None of them see libel if the owner/operators didn't even encourage or solicit it though and the federal law is clear is this regard.

 

[KRJ]

Again, it's perfectly fine for the man to request his cue back, it's not at all OK to use threats of retaliation to strong arm the guy into doing so. This is clearly a case of a guy being 100% in the right and yet handling it wrong.

It's also not OK to call the guy a thief and a pathological liar, but libel is not a crime, only a tort... unless you live in a state that has a statute making libel a crime. In Colorado criminal libel is a class 6 felony. In Florida (the state Mr. Showman lives in) there are five types of criminal libel. One of them allows charges to be brought against the publisher of said libel, so much of the defamation that is allowed to go on here in AZ could lead to charges being brought against Mike Howerton himself.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/criminal-libel-statutes-state-by-state

Dude, give it a rest. Look up the definition of libel. If Showman did as the OP alleged, he has NOT one worry in the world. And please, it's quite obvious now that you are trying to discourage or "extort" folks NOT to call out Showman. Well, that's not going to work.

If he messed up, he's gotta take it. Just the way the world works. And if folks can't post stuff on the internet that is not 100% accurate, you might as well shut the whole thing down.

 

[ElCorazonFrio]

I think you will find the reality is that it is going to be real difficult to get a judge to consider your notifying the offender that you may use legal avenues available to you try to get your own property back such as calling the police or filing a suit as being "retaliation" if those avenues themselves were reasonable and applicable (as they would appear to be in this case).

It is ok to call a guy a thief or a pathological liar or anything else if it is true, or if you present it as opinion and not fact. To have a libel case against someone they have to have said something untrue and presented it as a fact and not an opinion, it had to be intentional with malicious intent or at the very least they had to know it was untrue and would do harm, and in many cases you have to actually have harm come from it. Short of that you have no libel.

The law is super clear on websites and their responsibility in regards to libel. Websites have no responsibility whatsoever for what people independently say on their website. This is federal law and is fully supported by case law many times over.

The one gray area is if the owners/operators of a site actively encouraged or solicited the libel and in that case there are a court of two that has ruled the site owner/operator was responsible as well but most courts disagree with them on that and feel that the libel would actually have to come directly from the site owners/operators themselves, not just that they encouraged or solicited it. None of them see libel if the owner/operators didn't even encourage or solicit it though and the federal law is clear is this regard.

Why are you even arguing with this guy? He had a story about being threatened with extortion by someone who stole from him. He was too cheap to hire a lawyer wearing $30 shoes, so his legal advice was to give in to someone extorting him.

I know a guy who was a boat repairman eons ago. He fixed a boat with a large hole in the hull (homonyms are fun!). He never got paid, so one night he calls his lawyer to give him a heads-up before heading over to the deadbeat's house with a ball peen hammer. He smashed the hull of the boat where he repaired it, called his lawyer and sat on the tailgate of his truck until the police came.

The cops had their weapons drawn when they got out of the car, so he kicked the hammer to the ground, laced his fingers behind his head and gave them his lawyer's contact information.

I think this should be a lesson to everyone: If you don't want to lose something, get a contract of any sort in writing. Document everything, like when you give a cue to a repairman, get a receipt saying that the cue is yours.

Or simply use exquisite repairmen like RAT at muellers. They have the insurance to back the work and the expertise to do it correctly.

Because, let's face it, I've looked at JS's cues and they aren't all that fantastic. He is a great forger of cues from 50 years ago...but, then, you'd have to be an absolute idiot to not be able to forge copies of ANYTHING from 50 years ago.

I'm happy to learn there are so many suckers, tho.

 

[ElCorazonFrio]

Dude, give it a rest. Look up the definition of libel. If Showman did as the OP alleged, he has NOT one worry in the world. And please, it's quite obvious now that you are trying to discourage or "extort" folks NOT to call out Showman. Well, that's not going to work.

If he messed up, he's gotta take it. Just the way the world works. And if folks can't post stuff on the internet that is not 100% accurate, you might as well shut the whole thing down.

I think I'd like hanging out with you.

Best, ECF

 

[Quality Cues]

As the OP of this thread, I request that everybody take the wait and see if I get my cue back in the near future approach. Do I want my cue back tomorrow, yes. Is that going to happen, no. I can only hope that John was straight with me on the phone today and will finally be true to his word and finish the project and return my cue to me in the very near future. That's all I ever wanted.

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

As the OP of this thread, I request that everybody take the wait and see if I get my cue back in the near future approach. Do I want my cue back tomorrow, yes. Is that going to happen, no. I can only hope that John was straight with me on the phone today and will finally be true to his word and finish the project and return my cue to me in the very near future. That's all I ever wanted.

With that request, I'll gladly back out of here. I'll be happy to read that this matter got resolved to your liking, if that indeed comes to pass.