RBC VP in Minnesota didn't like a witness testimony in California arbitration. He calls witness in Calif. threatening to get him fired. Winess calls two superiors of Protective Life in Ohio. They and RBC reach "deal." Witness can't call on RBC offices, affecting his income. Months later, witness get "Golden Parachute," after just a few years of service (I believe, to buy his silence).
1. I got proof of tampering from L.A. D. A. long after a losing appeal. Do I have any legal options?
2. Just for the record, what Federal and most state laws have been broken? Tampering? Retaliation? Fraud? Wire Fraud? Conspiracy? It doesn't help me, but still would like your opinions on laws broken.
I asked the Los Angeles D.A. to investigate. Last year we met at a Courthouse. He gave me a disk of 40-minute phone conversation with my witness ("I received a call from Nicoski (RBC) to stay out of the (RBC) offices."..."I called my bosses to let them know...because obviously it impacts my business..." (all on disk).
D,A. said they didn't have time or resources to get involved in a tri-state situation. FBI sympathized too, advised me to call Congress.
What crimes do you see? Looks like I don't have much in civil options though!
You did not respond to second question:
What criminal charges do they face under the facts presented? Wire fraud, tampering,
fraud, retaliation, conspiracy?
PLEASE answer this question...
Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. 1512, makes it a Federal crime or offense for anyone to use intimidation or physical force to threaten another person with intent to influence the testimony of a witness in any Court proceeding.
A person can be found guilty of that offense only if all of the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt: First: That the witness was scheduled to be a witness in court; Second: That the person used intimidation/physical force against such witness; and Third: That the person did so knowingly and willfully with the intent to influence the testimony of the witness.
To act with intent to "influence" the testimony of a witness means to act for the purpose of getting the witness to change or color or shade his or her testimony in some way; but it is not necessary to prove that the witness' testimony was, in fact, changed in any way.
I'm not sure of anything else because the VP could possibly acted solely on their own and you didn't give enough facts for anything beyond the witness tampering.
I'm confused by your answer now. My research says the criminal act can occur AFTER the arbitration, and the threat need not have colored their testimony.
According to your answer, they could do all the threats after the witness testified, without committing any crimes.
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).