The David Letterman case has caused a great deal of discussion about blackmail, and whether the alleged circumstances of his particular case should constitute a crime. But it raises another important issue for me. I can imagine Andy Rooney (of 60 Minutes) saying:
"Do you ever wonder why so many law suits that are settled are designated confidential, secret and sealed?"The answer is that they are frequently the result of blackmail and extortion, which has become an accepted and common practice in our legal system. Here is the way that it works:
A claim is made or a suit is instituted and the parties and their counsel meet in order to discuss settlement. The claimant (the plaintiff) and his or her attorney warn that if the matter goes to trial, the public will learn some very embarrassing details about the defendant. The way to avoid the public airing of these embarrassing moments is to pay money and settle the case. The defendant agrees to the settlement, the amount of which may not only serve to compensate the plaintiff but provide a bonus for secrecy as well. The defendant extracts a promise that the settlement and all facts upon which it is based shall remain secret and confidential. Frequently the court will acquiesce in a request to seal the record. So we not only have blackmail and extortion operating within the system, it frequently receives the unwitting imprimatur of the court.
Is there anything wrong with this picture? I think most of us would agree that if a case is settled so as to prevent the disclosure of purely private matters, no harm -- no foul. But what of the priest who has molested children, the company that is continuing to sell a dangerous and defective product, the doctor who is guilty of repeated malpractice, the serial sex harasser or any other matters in which the public or other similar claimants have a vital interest? Thus, not only have we condoned and allowed extortion and blackmail, but in the process, we may have deprived the public of essential information.
Vicki Iovine: Girlfriends' Guide: A Year Of Sexual Blunders By Powerful Men: Blame It On High School
David Letterman is this week's Exhibit A in the ongoing case of Powerful Men v. Sexual Integrity, having climbed over Roman Polanski, who was last week's winner. Congratulations, David.
For example, if a child has been molested by a priest, in any case the child's name would be protected and the priest's name would not (unless it could identify the child). It is the church would would insist on non-disclosure in order to settle, not the victim, on threat of never settling and dragging the case through the courts with all the resources at the Church's disposal, inflicting financial distress on the victim.
It’s not generally considered illegal to sell a story, or to identify the pros and cons of the various options associated with such a venture. But New York’s larceny/extortion statute is nonetheless being used in the Letterman case to subject Halderman to potential punishment for having allegedly given Letterman the option to buy a story, and for suggesting what the consequences would be if Letterman were to choose not to buy it.
Don’t lawyers, agents and show business executives have such discussions all the time? Isn’t it sometimes pointed out, emphatically, that it would be ruinous for a person to pick one option over another? Aren’t deadlines sometimes imposed, thereby pressuring people to make quick decisions?
I see nothing that’s significantly different, in a legal context, about what Halderman allegedly did. Do you?
This is a crime involving what someone says than what he actually does. But, conspiracies -- which I have my reservations about -- are also crimes of speech. They seem to be digested by the legal system as if they were acts.
I'd be interested in what the judge has to say.
Agents and show business executives enter into discussions and negotiations and I doubt there is a take it or leave approach.
How many plaintiffs are silenced to the detriment of others who may be suffering in a like manner because a defendant can afford to keep them quiet with a bribe large enough that a less than wealthy person would have trouble turning it down, given the realities of everyday life?
Healthcare reform without tort reform is absurd!!! And not reform for malpractice, or the healthcare industry itself, but all businesses and all forms of torts (legalized extortion). When people are forced to pay a settlement because it costs less than winning the bogus suit, there is a real problem!!!!!!!!!!
David Sarokin (no relation to Judge Sarokin, as far as I know)
P.S. Let's find out if we are related. Our family is originally from New Jersey.