Perhaps Mr. Garn's recovery will be aided when the state charges Maher and accomplices with theft by extortion 76-6-406 Utah code . The truth is a great healer and everyone will feel much better about themselves after they do their time . Let the healing , recovery , and restitution begin .
#1...Garn did say that Maher is the one who initiated the $ request...but then, again, Maher also called Garn a liar Re: Garn's other claim that there wasn't any physical contact in that hot tub. Cheryl Maher says Kevin Garn lied about hot tub contact
Tell us, Kbenn...who do you believe on the "contact" question as we establish credibility here?
Vote A: The lds bishop-turned-legislator who according to a March 23, 2010 AP article Court records show Garn was arrested for DUI in 2006, was arrested in 2006 for a DUI and who previously talked this 15 yo into a hot tub on a few occasions?
Or, Vote B, the victim?
Now, what I really find interesting, if Garn is correct -- that Maher initiated the $ request [remember, hush $ is a two-way initiation street; and Maher's not an extortionist if Garn initiated the transaction]
-- is this part of this March 13, 2010 article excerpt from the Salt Lake Tribune:
After an initial meeting with Garn and his wife in Maher's LDS bishop's office, Garn sent her a check from his personal account for $20,000, which she rejected. Maher said her husband at the time wanted more. "I will be happy to pay $150,000 to Cheryl and hope that will bring some degree of peace in her life," Garn wrote in a Jan. 21, 2003, e-mail --- months after the wealthy business owner, who has interests in everything from banks to hotels, had lost the congressional primary. Garn's bombshell blows away lawmakers
So, KBenn, besides Garn apparently not "frowning" about paying Maher this "peace" money, don't you find it rather "interesting" and rather "odd" that Maher would come to Garn, meet with Garn, his wife, and an Lds bishop in the bishop's office, and then supposedly, as both you and Garn claim, make an extortion demand in the presence of all of these witnesses -- and in front of an Lds bishop in his office of all places???
Something seems a bit off-kilter of these claims. Or, are you now telling us that an Lds bishop covered up a crime that occurred in his office -- and didn't report it to the authorities?