Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 08:24:43 -0400
   From: judy morris 
   Subject: Re: The Extortion Theory

    judy morris wrote:
 
    The Extortion Theory
    
    I'll flesh this out with actual quotations from law books and precedents
    in the near future.  I just wanted to share it with you now.  I have
    read all the citations, I just don't have them handy right now.
    
    1.  Contract Law states that in adhesionary contracts, ambiguities MUST
    be interpreted against the contract writer.
    An adhesionary contract is a "take it or leave it" contract where the
    terms are pre-printed and the recipient cannot negotiate the terms.
    Insurance contracts are like this.
    
    2.  Insurance Law states that ambiguities in insurance contracts must be
    interpreted in light most favorable to the insured and in terms of
    finding coverage.
    
    3.  Exclusions in Insurance contracts must be interpreted narrowly so as
    to find coverage.
    
    4.  Their must be ambiguities in all of our contracts since in almost
    all cases, the claimant and usually multiple doctors, including
    sometimes the insurance company's own doctors agree that the claimant is
    disabled and entitled to benefits.
    
    5.  The Maine Board of Medicine and most state laws conclude that what
    insurance doctors are doing IS THE practice of medicine since they do
    end up diagnosing and recommending treatment usually different from what
    the claimants' doctors recommend.
    
    6.  Pertinent Definition of Extortion from the Hobb's Act
    Extortion.- The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful
    use of actual or threatened force, violence, or FEAR, or under COLOR OF
    OFFICIAL RIGHT 18 USCA $871 et seq.; $1951
    
    7. The element of 'fear' required by the Act can be satisfied by putting
    the victim in fear of economic loss
       a. Fear of economic loss is viewed from the perspective of the victim
       b. Extortion by wrongful use of fear encompasses threats of economic
    loss...Furthermore the fear need not be the product of the defendant's
    actions.  It is enough that fear exists and the defendant intentionally
    exploits it.
       c. It is enough to sustain a conviction if ...fear exists and the
    defendant intentionally exploited it
       d. As representative Hobbs noted, the words robbery and extortion
    'have been construed a thousand times by the courts.  EVERYBODY KNOWS
    WHAT THEY MEAN."
        e. The extortionist does not have to demand money from the victim,
    only cause them to suffer pecuniary (financial loss) or give up legal
    rights.
    
    8. Racketeering is defined as a scheme to defraud using Predicate Acts -
    Mail Fraud, Wire Fraud and Extortion are all Predicate acts. You
    actually only need two Predicate Acts to file a Racketeering case.  Mail
    and Wire Fraud are simply the use of the mail or phone services in any
    scheme to defraud.
    
    9.  As you can see from the non-responsive answers, lack of cooperation
    of insurance companies with the legal process and the rules of
    Discovery,  and frequent totally unbelievable pretenses and excuses,
    that they attempt to use the legal system to drive up costs and delay a
    hearing.  Insurance companies are actually USING the legal system and
    the public's fear of emotional distress and costs associated with it as
    part of their means of extortion.  And I didn't even yet address the
    surveillance, background checks, credit checks, mud-slinging, implied
    threats to our doctors and lawyers, defamation, and collusion with
    authorities, among other things.
    
    9. In summary, every single time an insurance company delays or denies
    payment of benefits (hoping to wear down the claimant or have them give
    up) or forces a claimant to hire a lawyer and/or sue this is an act of
    extortion or attempted extortion.  Every time an insurance settlement
    occurs where the claimant gets LESS than what they were entitled to or
    otherwise  loses  money trying to get what was rightfully theirs,
    extortion has occurred.  Every time a confidentiality agreement or gag
    clause is signed under these circumstances, there is obstruction of
    justice and threatened retaliation against witnesses to the crime.
    
    10. If you look up the definition of racketeering in the dictionary, you
    will see that it can involve hired legal protection and the bribery of
    politicians
    
    11. The way it is operating today, most of the insurance industry is
    engaged in racketeering, fraud, extortion and incompetent practice of
    medicine without licenses by diagnosing across state lines and in some
    cases with no medical licenses at all.
    
    Everything up to this point I have pretty well researched and will give
    you the legal citations later.  I also have a feeling the following
    theory  of premeditated or negligent homicide would be supported by law
    and precedent.  By the way, before 1997 I knew virtually nothing about
    the law.  Since then I have researched and developed this theory.  I
    think an experienced law firm could have done in less than a month, with
    the legal research tools available to them, what it's taken me a year
    and a half (and thankfully a wonderful research assistant who quickly
    found me extortion and racketeering cases) to do.  And you can try to
    say it's not "quite extortion" or it's "legal extortion" but I'm telling
    you it's NOT LEGAL and it's not only extortion, but people have been
    convicted of extortion for far less egregious behavior than what
    insurance companies are doing DAILY. (I'll cite cases in the near
    future.)
    
    Now are you lawyers going to wait another year for ME to write up and
    file a RICO case or are you going to start acting like lawyers and
    representing your clients fully and to the fullest extent of the law?
    
    I also might add, that if UNUM has any thoughts of laundering their
    books and declaring bankruptcy, I will pursue and file for the personal
    assets of every single person who was involved in the conspiracy to
    drive me crazy, including everyone in this company that I have contacted
    in the last year who ignored me and did nothing after I informed then
    that serious criminal activity was occurring.
    
    Vindictive?  Well, UNUM may have been somewhat right on this count.
    
    However, all I really want is to force these people to act ethically,
    honor their contracts and stop abusing, harassing, intimidating and
    impoverishing people all over the country with their malicious tricks,
    word games, stonewalling,  and legal manuevers.
    
    Personally I prefer to think of myself as righteous AND right.  I didn't
    speak or accuse anyone of anything until I had done my homework.  I have
    checked and rechecked.  I have listened to the opinions of other people
    and then attempted to independently verify them.  The result is this
    post.
    
    12.  Because these acts are intentional, willful, habitual, carefully
    planned, pervasive and more, the sale of these insurance contracts
    constitutes Constructive Fraud.  Because the insurance company employees
    that make these decisions to commit fraud and extortion, or to encourage
    fraud and extortion, or to look away while their employees are engaging
    in fraud and extortion, and because they know or should know that some
    people will die or have worsening of their medical conditions, or be put
    into such emotional duress that they will commit suicide, deaths and
    injuries resulting from this are intentional and therefore murder,
    either premeditated or negligent homicide.
    
    I will flesh this out further in the future citing specific legal books,
    laws and precedents.
    
    Judydoc