Finally, setting forth a "hard bargaining position," threatening to institute civil suits, or declaring "that one intends to use the courts to insist upon what he believes to be his legal rights" are not actionable. Enslen v. Village of Lombard, 128 Ill.App.3d 531, 533, 83 Ill.Dec. 768, 470 N.E.2d 1188 (1984).
The statute is unconstitutional on its face on First Amendment grounds: State v. Weinstein 898 P.2d 513 (1995).
Statute making it a crime to threaten to expose secret or asserted fact which would tend to subject anyone to hatred, contempt or ridicule or to impair his credit or business could not be interpreted as applying only to "wrongful" threats and thus could not be saved from overbreadth. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1; A.R.S. § 13-1804, subd.A, par.6.
Weinstein did the following to a landlord who owed him money:
(1) said he would file suit immediately; (2) send significant records concerning the landlord's business to the landlord's business competitor; (3) contact the landlord's parole officer and inform him that the landlord had violated parole; and (4) send press releases to the media informing them of the landlord's involvement in alleged criminal activities......Arizona Appeals Court: Perfectly legal activity.
These cases are not like the true Criminal Threat in State v. Gero, out of Cheshire County, where the Defendant "took a pistol out of his gun cabinet and said he would 'blow them away····'" 877 A.2d 201 (NH 23 June 2005).
Face it, Chief Dunn and Nashua NAACP: What you are attempting to do to me, as well as what you already have "Dunn" to me, is foul, and we are about to tell the whole World about your nonsense and the nonsense from my suspension in Ohio, in video. I will specifically tell that to Civil Defendants Timmons' and Levesque's attorney, whenever they find another one, and I will hold my Civil Suits against all of you with the tenacity of a pit bull.