Miss New Jersey Blackmail Drama Continues

76. What the blackmailer should've done was just release the pics to the media anyway, thus this scandal would've more than likely cause her to resign....or i would think miss america would have forced her to resign anyway. This is obviously a stupid blackmailer. You would think that if you really blackmail someone, you would want something in return for yourself like $$$. How is blackmailing her to resign doing you any good when you can just release the photos to the media and this alone will cause embarrasment for her and eventually force her to resign or get fired.

Posted at 12:14AM on Jul 9th 2007 by Darren

77. Janice what law school did you go to? No one has a right to happiness and a secure life. Sex scandals make a lot of people unhappy. Ask Vanessa Williams.This chick brought this mess on herself. She knew what her past was and decided to go after a high profile position anyway. Now it's biting her in the ass. But don't feel too sorry for her. She'll posing for Hef soon and making big bucks off of this.

Posted at 12:36AM on Jul 9th 2007 by Tasha

78. The person now has sent a second package of photos.
They sure are not very worried about police or prosecution.
It's just strange from all angles. A blackmailer not very bright, A pageant winner not very bright, That's all I have figured out.
TMZ said about the photos "a dozen sexy shots" in the artical, Are we getting closer to the truth?

Posted at 3:52AM on Jul 9th 2007 by Ruby

79. Hindsight is 20/20 . Remember children ,don't play in the streets . Keep your trailer park safe.

Posted at 8:49AM on Jul 9th 2007 by oprah

80. This is nothing more than a publicity stunt.

Posted at 8:46AM on Jul 9th 2007 by TBA

81. This chick is doing this herself.Free publicity.Typical Jersey Girl

Posted at 8:58AM on Jul 9th 2007 by Frank in PA

82. No Tasha'............... I am not a lawyerand Darren yes this is illegal
I believe people have a right to pursue thier dreams without being persecuted for it

It really scares me on the awfull and hateful turn this country has taken

Here's a little history lesson:

The first references to "blackmail" date from the sixteenth century, when Scotland made it a crime to obtain property by certain written threats of physical harm to person or property (1567 Scot. Parl. Acts, ch. 27). In 1722 the Waltham Black Act authorized the death penalty throughout the country for making certain written threats that demanded property as the price for refraining from physically endangering person or property (9 Geo. I, ch. 22, § 1 (1722) (repealed)). It was not until 1843 that Parliament finally extended blackmail to cover threats to expose evidence of embarrassing but noncriminal behavior (6 & 7 Vict., ch. 96, @ 3 (1843) (repealed)).

There were many other English statutes that did not mention blackmail but punished blackmail behavior; for example, the Elizabethan Informers' Statute (18 Eliz. I, ch. 5 (1576)) made it criminal for individuals to take money to suppress prosecutions. Further, at English common law, extortion by private citizens was punished, at least where the fear was the exposure of a crime that would lead to confinement (Lindgren, p. 674).

In the United States in 1796, New Jersey passed perhaps the first American statute prohibiting threats to expose any crime, not just a capital or infamous crime. In 1827, Illinois passed a statute prohibiting threats to expose "infirmities or failings" (Act of 1827, § 108 1827 Ill. Laws 145), sixteen years before similar threats were made illegal in England. In the influential Field Code (Proposed Penal Code of the State of New York (1865)), extortion was divided into three crimes: extortion (coercion seeking property), extortion under color of official right, and criminal coercion (seeking to compel action).

Modern American statutes vary considerably in the ways they define blackmail or extortion by a private person. Some statutes require that the threat accomplish its purpose. Under such a statute an unsuccessful threat may usually be prosecuted as a criminal attempt. But most modern statutes do not require that the extortionate threat succeed; the making of the threat is enough. The statutes also vary with regard to what must be demanded for the behavior to be illegal. Some statutes, for example, prohibit the obtaining of "property," or "any valuable thing." Many extortion or coercion statutes prohibit compelling action or inducing someone "to do or refrain from doing any act against his will" (Lindgren, pp. 676–677).

American blackmail and extortion statutes, unlike those in England, usually enumerate the types of prohibited threats. The most common are: (1) the threat of personal injury; (2) the threat to injure property (whether or not such an injury is physical); (3) the threat to accuse of a crime; and (4) the threat to expose any matter that would damage personal or business reputation or would expose the victim to hatred, contempt, or ridicule. Many other threats are prohibited under some state statutes: (1) the threat to commit any offense or any felony; (2) the threat to physically confine; (3) the threat to impair credit; (4) the threat to expose a secret; (5) the threat to strike or boycott, if a labor representative is seeking a personal payoff for not striking or boycotting; (6) the threat to give or withhold testimony; (7) the threat of a public official to take or withhold action against anyone or anything; and (8) the threat to inflict any other harm that would not benefit the threatener.

Because some of these prohibited threats often have legitimate uses, some jurisdictions give the threatener an affirmative defense that he genuinely believed that the property sought was due him or that he was only trying to right a wrong or obtain restitution. Other jurisdictions allow this "claim of right" defense only when the amount sought was previously ascertained, as with a preexisting debt. But some jurisdictions have not yet recognized the claim-of-right defense in any form.

Posted at 9:15AM on Jul 9th 2007 by Janice from jersey

83. note to anyone who wants to become famous: racy photos/videos may one day come back to haunt you...

Posted at 2:59PM on Jul 9th 2007 by Pete Bogs

84. "What the blackmailer should've done was just release the pics to the media anyway, thus this scandal would've more than likely cause her to resign"

That would have made more sense. I don't know whether to believe this story or not, but either Polumbo is lying or she's dealing with one stupid blackmailer(s).

Posted at 10:40AM on Jul 9th 2007 by SinCity

85. if you ask me, this is all much ado about nothing. She wouldn't be the first beauty contestant with something to hide, and she probably won't be the last. If the pics aren't that bad, then she should publish them herself! Besides nudie pics didn't hurt Vanessa Williams in the long run, did it?

Posted at 11:28AM on Jul 9th 2007 by ladycascadia

86. Not being mean but I dont think she is all that pretty-attractive maybe but pretty NAH
that pic of her looks like she has a Bugs Bunny mouth (rabbit teeth) sorry but maybe the black mailer is someone prettier than her.
I agree with others if you take pictures you dont want spread around, burn em after you see em, sooner or later they are gonna end up in the wrong hands
Sorry but she is not Hot at all, unless you like rabbits

Posted at 11:08AM on Jul 9th 2007 by BKD

87. Here's a thought: how do we know those pictures are real or just Photoshopped? Jealous people can stoop to pretty low heights. Maybe Amy ought to call their bluff...and publish the pictures if those pictures really aren't that bad like Amy says they aren't.

Posted at 12:43PM on Jul 9th 2007 by ladycascadia

88. men stay single! look they way women behave

Posted at 2:59PM on Jul 9th 2007 by The great one

89. I really doubt Amy would ever pull this off as a publicity stunt, someone is jealous of her its quite obvious. Shes done nothing but make something of herself, and put our town on the map(finally!!), and im proud of her, and im sure the rest of our town is also. Don't let them get to you Amy!!

Posted at 3:21PM on Jul 9th 2007 by M

90. maybe she did it herself.For attention.......................................................?

Posted at 12:14AM on Jul 11th 2007 by ZACK