Attempted Extortion under federal law, the Hobbs Act 18 U.S. Code Section 1951 (variation 1: fear)
(This form follows from a jury instruction like this one ( https://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/767 ).  The true Rule of Law is a fill-in-the-blank jury instruction.  (Something the DJT jurors didn't have in New York; they didn't even have a written copy of the 55 pages of jury instructions, which essentially guarantees a conviction under the circumstances of that trial (which could convict anyone of anything). If unwritten (hidden) jury instructions aren't ruled UnConstitutional, then it's time for El Kabong's Impeachment guitar solo.  A fill-in-the-blank form guides jurors (or a plaintiff filing a complaint) through questions about the elements of a civil claim for money or a criminal charge.  There's no Accordingly-Moreover-Indeed inflated mumbo-jumbo in a jury instruction—the Rule of Law: "the law is definite and knowable" (Cheek v. US) because Everyday People need clarity in their busy lives, not to step into some legal trap.  Inflated mumbo-jumbo is lawyer-judge job security.  The first phase of civil litigation (filing and the motion to dismiss) can and must be automated with fillable webforms.  If a judge disagrees with the form's result, the judge must give a reason why.  I estimate, with motion-to-dismiss webforms, a 1000x efficiency increase for that phase—and True, Objective Rule of Law (not "make it come out right" FAKE-Scalia law)—for the first motion to dismiss, which will also set up the issues for summary judgment, the next phase, which will then be significantly more efficient.  This efficiency increase will free up judge-time for criminal dockets (not conferences and golf).

DRAFT webform that Congress must make part of a web-based federal court Civil Case Cover Sheet to wrest the courts from the corrupt clutches of the lawyer-monopoly-mob. Some of the dumbass lawyers will say this form is "biased towards plaintiffs." To the extent it might be, it's a plaintiff's form that explains options and would be used to file a complaint by web. Defendants will have their own Response or Motion form that they can supplement. (This is in progress and will be periodically updated)
Published by the Make America Geeky Again anti-corruption project with 1st Amendment tool of Berman's targeted Congressional campaigns: Get Rid Of The Fokken Lawyers -- GROTFL legislation
MakeUSAgeeky.com JusticeMyAss.org


Did the alleged extortionist attempt to obtain property from you (property includes money)?

Did the alleged extortionist threaten you either directly or indirectly, with either words or actions? A threat does not have to be explicit. An example of an explicit threat is: "If you don't pay me, I will do something to you." An implicit threat: "You can expedite the release of your money by doing something." Holding money (or a person) hostage, where the defendant has no credible right to hold it -- and then demanding something in exchange for the release -- is extortion. The tricky thing about extortion (and the reason why many people extort and don't know it's illegal) is that they watch TV where cops "have a hammer" over a suspect and use that leverage to get something from him. Police are permitted to do that when investigating a crime. Ordinary citizens can commit extortion when they do it.

Did the threat make you experience fear?

Did the alleged extortionist have a right to threaten you? (This is a tricky question, and it's how many people become extortionists and don't know it. Also, a plaintiff may believe he or she is a target of extortion when the alleged extortionist actually has a right to make these threats. Police officers, for example, have the right to make threats during an investigation, which would be extortionate threats if non-officers made them.)

Q5 placeholder