Good morning Dimitry,
Of course - I had exactly the intent to harass and annoy you in the morning
The rest of the testimony:
Intent of the entire email was explanation, information and at the very end negotiation. And even the quoted portion of the email was a response to petitioner's email. Maybe emotional response but a response is not harrasment and expressed anger by itself is not a crime.In 1989 New York Court of Appeals so often cites case, People versus Dietze the court said:Speech is often “abusive”—even vulgar, derisive, and provocative—and yet it is still protected under the State and Federal constitutional guarantees of free expression unless it is much more than that. Casual conversation may well be “abusive” and intended to “annoy”; so, too, may be light-hearted banter or the earnest expression of personal opinion or emotion. But unless speech presents a clear and present danger of some serious substantive evil, it may neither be forbidden nor penalized.Also in People versus Behlin the court siting another well-known case People versus Yablov said:"In order to sustain a count of aggravated harassment, a complaint must allege a threat which is clear, unambiguous, and immediate." Presented evidence has nothing clear and unambiguos and the entire correspondence and the entire situation showed that nothing could be far from immediate: the petitioner and the respondent were 3,700 miles apart and neither respondent nor anything in communication told that the respondent was going to do anything immediately or in the near future. In contrary, even with all misinterpretation and possible misrepresentation the nearest future was called as 7 months from the date the email was sent.In People v. Singh the court saidAn information which fails to contain nonhearsay allegations establishing "if true, every element of the offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof" is fatally defective. "`Allegations established exactly zero elements. There was no intent to harass, threaten, annoy or alarm since the evidence in its entirety was the reply and the response to petitioner's email. The threat was not clear, unambigous and immediate. Actually there was no threat at all and there was no cause of action. The threat was the offer of choosing either voluntarily or ordered by the court luxury life with happy child.But for the petitioner it was a threat. It was not imminent but clear and present danger. Danger of the court order that could disturb her tiny everyday's conveniences. She wanted a protection and she filed for the Order Of Protection. Not for the protection from the respondent - she clearly showed she didn't need it - and for the protection from the justice that could decide custody case not in her favor. In a custody case she didn't want the other side be a loving father that came to the court with only one goal - to ensure the happiness of his child. She wanted the other side looked the potential murderer and the kindnaper. Order of Protection gave her exactly this plus cost pennies apartment she wanted so much. Do I have to print the entire case law?
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).