What Is Aggravated Menacing Legal Scope Penalties Defenses

Common Scenarios and Real-World Applications of Aggravated Menacing

The progression from a perceived slight to a criminal offense typically involves identifiable triggers, such as the presence of weapons, prior criminal history, or victim-specific vulnerabilities. Cultural and contextual factors further complicate these cases, as societal norms, gang affiliations, or mental health crises may alter the perceived severity of actions. Below, structured examples, a flowchart of escalation, and comparative legal distinctions provide a framework for analyzing these scenarios.

Five Real-World Scenarios Where Aggravated Menacing Charges Arise

1. Domestic Violence Escalation
   A spouse or intimate partner, during a heated argument, brandishes a firearm while shouting, "I’ll kill you if you ever leave me again." The threat is delivered in front of children, and the individual has a prior restraining order violation. The combination of a weapon, coercive intent, and victim vulnerability (e.g., children present) elevates the offense beyond simple assault to aggravated menacing.

   Key Trigger: Weapon use + prior history of domestic abuse + child witnesses.

2. Gang-Related Intimidation
   A member of a street gang, while standing outside a rival gang’s territory, points a handgun at an individual and states, "You have 24 hours to leave town or you’re next." The threat is made in a public space, and the victim is known to be associated with a competing gang. The premeditation, weapon involvement, and gang affiliation context amplify the severity, aligning with patterns observed in organized crime prosecutions.

   Key Trigger: Gang affiliation + weapon display + premeditated timing.

3. Workplace Retaliation with a Weapon
   An employee, after being terminated, returns to the workplace armed with a knife and confronts their former supervisor, declaring, "You’ll regret firing me." The supervisor has documented mental health concerns, and the employee has a history of workplace violence. The presence of a weapon, intent to retaliate, and victim’s known vulnerability (e.g., mental health history) meet the criteria for aggravated menacing.

   Key Trigger: Weapon possession + retaliation motive + victim vulnerability.

4. Public Confrontation with a Firearm
   During a protest, an individual pulls a pistol and shouts at a counter-protester, "I’m going to end you right here." The threat is captured on video and disseminated widely, creating a public safety risk. The use of a firearm in a crowded setting, coupled with the broadcast of the threat, distinguishes this from a private dispute, aligning with cases prosecuted under terroristic threats statutes.

   Key Trigger: Firearm in public + dissemination of threat + imminent harm risk.

5. Exploitation of Victim Vulnerability
   A caregiver, while caring for an elderly patient, repeatedly threatens the patient with a taser, stating, "If you call the police, I’ll make sure you never walk again." The patient has dementia and is unable to fully comprehend the threat’s gravity. The victim’s cognitive impairment and the caregiver’s repeated coercive behavior elevate the offense to aggravated menacing, as the vulnerability of the victim is a defining factor.

   Key Trigger: Repeated threats + weapon use + victim’s cognitive impairment.

Flowchart: Progression from Threat to Aggravated Menacing

START
│
├── Initial Incident: Verbal threat or perceived slight (e.g., argument, dispute).
│ │
│ ├─── No Aggravating Factors → Resolved as civil matter or simple assault.
│ │
│ └── Aggravating Factors Present → Proceed to assessment.
│ │
│ ├─── Weapon Involvement (e.g., firearm, knife, taser).
│ │ │
│ │ ├─── Single Threat with Weapon → Elevated to menacing (e.g., brandishing).
│ │ │
│ │ └── Repeated Threats with Weapon → Aggravated menacing (premeditation).
│ │
│ ├─── Prior Criminal History (e.g., domestic violence, restraining order violations).
│ │ │
│ │ ├─── First Offense → Simple menacing or harassment.
│ │ │
│ │ └── Repeated Offenses → Aggravated menacing (pattern of coercion).
│ │
│ ├─── Victim Vulnerability (e.g., elderly, mentally ill, child witnesses).
│ │ │
│ │ └── Exploitation of Vulnerability → Aggravated menacing (enhanced penalty).
│ │
│ └── Public or Broadcast Threat (e.g., social media, public confrontation).
│ │
│ └── Dissemination of Threat → Aggravated menacing (terroristic intent).
│
└── Legal Threshold Met → Prosecution as aggravated menacing under relevant statutes.

Key Triggers in the Flowchart:

Cultural and Contextual Influences on Aggravated Menacing Prosecutions

1. Gang Affiliation and Organized Crime
   In urban areas with strong gang presence, threats may be interpreted through the lens of organized crime statutes. For example, a threat made by a gang member to a rival may be prosecuted under terroristic threats or criminal conspiracy laws, even if the language resembles traditional menacing. Courts may consider:
   
2. Symbolic Communication: Gang signs, colors, or coded language used in threats.
3. Collective Intent: Whether the threat reflects broader gang activity (e.g., "hits" or "beats").
4. Prior Gang-Related Violence: Patterns of retaliation or enforcement mechanisms.

Example: A gang member’s threat to "handle" a snitch may be charged as aggravated menacing if paired with a history of enforced silence (e.g., prior disappearances or assaults).
5. Mental Health Crises and Threat Assessment
   Individuals experiencing psychosis, severe depression, or trauma-related episodes may issue threats that lack criminal intent. However, prosecutors must distinguish between:
   
6. Delusional Threats: Statements stemming from mental illness (e.g., paranoid delusions).
7. Knowing Threats: Deliberate communications with intent to coerce.
Courts often rely on psychiatric evaluations and threat assessment teams to determine culpability. Aggravated menacing charges may still apply if:

8. The threat is specific and actionable (e.g., naming a time/place).
9. The individual has a history of violent acts despite mental health conditions.

Example: A person with schizophrenia who repeatedly threatens to "burn down" a neighbor’s home (a delusional belief) may avoid charges if no preparatory acts (e.g., arson materials) are found. However, if the same individual has a history of setting fires, the threat could escalate to aggravated menacing.
10. Cultural Norms and Conflict Resolution
    In some communities, direct confrontation or "tough talk" is culturally normalized, leading to mis
    

    

    Penalties and Consequences of Aggravated Menacing Convictions

    Aggravated menacing convictions carry severe legal repercussions that extend beyond immediate sentencing, impacting an individual’s personal, professional, and civic life. Penalties vary significantly across jurisdictions, reflecting differences in statutory frameworks, judicial discretion, and societal priorities. Understanding these consequences—including financial burdens, incarceration risks, and long-term collateral effects—is critical for defendants, legal practitioners, and policymakers assessing the gravity of such charges. This section examines the structured penalties imposed in different legal systems, the enduring societal and legal ramifications of a conviction, and strategic defenses to mitigate adverse outcomes.
    

    Jurisdictional Penalties for Aggravated Menacing

    Penalties for aggravated menacing are determined by statutory classifications (e.g., misdemeanor vs. felony), prior criminal history, and aggravating factors such as the use of a weapon, victim vulnerability, or prior convictions. Below is a comparative table outlining typical penalties in key jurisdictions, including the United States (federal and state variations), Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia. Fines are presented in local currency unless otherwise noted (USD for U.S. federal).
    

    Jurisdiction	Statutory Classification	Possible Prison Term	Fines	Probation/Conditional Release	Collateral Consequences
    United States (Federal)	18 U.S. Code § 113(a)(6) – Felony	Up to 10 years (enhanced to 20+ years if involving a federal offense or hate crime)	$250,000 (or twice the gain from criminal activity)	Mandatory supervised release (3–5 years); mandatory counseling (e.g., anger management, domestic violence programs)	Firearm prohibition (18 U.S. Code § 922(g)(9)) – lifetime ban if convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence or felony. Immigration consequences (INA § 212(a)(2)) – inadmissibility or deportability for non-citizens. Loss of federal benefits (e.g., housing assistance, student loans).
    California (State)	Penal Code § 422 – Felony (Wobbler: may be charged as misdemeanor)	Felony: 2–7 years (enhanced to 3–9 years with prior convictions). Misdemeanor: Up to 1 year in county jail.	$10,000 (felony); $1,000 (misdemeanor)	Probation with mandatory counseling (e.g., batterer’s intervention program); restitution to victim.	Firearm restrictions (Penal Code § 29800) – lifetime prohibition if convicted of felony domestic violence. Child custody implications (Family Code § 3044) – presumption against awarding custody to a convicted domestic violence offender. Professional licensing revocation (e.g., healthcare, law enforcement, education).
    Texas (State)	Penal Code § 22.07 – Class A Misdemeanor (3rd-degree felony if involving serious bodily injury)	Class A Misdemeanor: 1–364 days in county jail; fine up to $10,000. 3rd-degree felony: 2–10 years in prison; fine up to $10,000.	See above.	Deferred adjudication (probation without conviction) possible; mandatory anger management or domestic violence program.	Firearm disqualification (18 U.S. Code § 921(a)(33)) – applies to misdemeanor domestic violence convictions. Immigration risks (e.g., denial of naturalization under INA § 212(a)(2)). Employment barriers (e.g., expungement restrictions for certain professions).
    Canada (Criminal Code § 264.1)	Hybrid Offense (prosecutor may elect summary conviction or indictable)	Summary conviction: Up to 18 months imprisonment. Indictable: Up to 5 years imprisonment.	Unlimited (judge discretion); victim surcharge ($100–$200).	Probation with conditions (e.g., no-contact orders, counseling); restitution to victim.	Firearm prohibition (Criminal Code § 100) – lifetime ban if convicted of domestic violence-related offenses. Immigration consequences (IRPA § 36(1)) – inadmissibility for criminality (10-year ban for summary conviction, permanent for indictable). Professional discipline (e.g., healthcare, legal, or teaching licenses).
    United Kingdom (Protection from Harassment Act 1997)	Section 4(1)(c) – Criminal Offense (aggravated menacing as "putting person in fear of violence")	Up to 5 years imprisonment (or 10 years if involving threats to kill).	Unlimited (judge discretion); victim surcharge (£100+).	Probation with restrictions (e.g., residence, association); mandatory rehabilitation programs.	Firearm licensing revocation (Firearms Act 1968) – automatic disqualification for violent offense convictions. Immigration risks (Immigration Act 1971) – deportation for non-EU nationals with criminal convictions. Employment discrimination (Equality Act 2010) – protected characteristics may influence hiring decisions.
    Victoria, Australia (Crimes Act 1958 § 3D)	Intent to Cause Fear of Violence – Felony	Up to 10 years imprisonment (25 years if involving a weapon or repeated offenses).	AUD 10,000–50,000 (judge discretion).	Probation with conditions (e.g., electronic monitoring, counseling); victim impact statements required.	Firearm restrictions (Firearms Act 1996) – lifetime prohibition for violent offenses. Visa/citizenship consequences (Migration Act 1958) – character test failures for permanent residency. Child protection orders (Family Law Act 1975) – presumption against custody for violent offenders.

    Note: Penalties may be enhanced based on judicial interpretations, plea agreements, or concurrent charges. Jurisdictions with "wobbler" statutes (e.g., California) allow prosecutors to escalate charges based on evidence severity.
    

    Long-Term Impacts of an Aggravated Menacing Conviction

    A conviction for aggravated menacing triggers a cascade of collateral consequences that persist long after sentencing concludes. These repercussions disrupt employment, housing stability, immigration status, and personal relationships, often
    

    Defensive Strategies and Legal Arguments in Aggravated Menacing Cases

    Aggravated menacing charges often hinge on subjective interpretations of intent, threat perception, and evidentiary reliability, making them highly contested in criminal proceedings. Effective defense strategies require a meticulous examination of constitutional protections, evidentiary weaknesses, and alternative legal interpretations to challenge the prosecution’s case. Below are structured approaches to defend against such allegations, including constitutional arguments, evidentiary challenges, and strategic litigation frameworks.
    

    Constitutional and Legal Defenses

    Constitutional protections, particularly under the First Amendment and Fourth Amendment, may apply depending on the circumstances of the alleged menacing. These defenses often target the prosecution’s ability to prove intent or the legality of evidence collection.
    

    Key Constitutional Arguments:
    

    First Amendment (Speech Protections): Threats must meet a true threat standard (Virginia v. Black, 2003) to lose First Amendment protection. Vague statements, hyperbolic language, or speech lacking intent to incite fear may be unconstitutionally prosecuted.

    Fourth Amendment (Unlawful Search/Seizure): Recordings or surveillance evidence obtained without proper warrants or consent may be suppressed under Mapp v. Ohio (1961).

    Fifth Amendment (Double Jeopardy): Prior dismissals or acquittals of similar charges may bar reprosecution (Green v. United States, 1957).

Defense attorneys may argue that:

11. The accused’s statements were rhetorical hyperbole (e.g., heated arguments lacking menace intent).
12. The prosecution misinterpreted cultural or contextual nuances (e.g., non-verbal gestures in specific communities).
13. Lack of specific intent to cause fear or harm exists, as required under State v. State (varies by jurisdiction).

Challenging Prosecution Evidence

The prosecution’s case often relies on witness testimony, recordings, or body language interpretations. Effective challenges focus on credibility gaps, evidentiary admissibility, and subjective biases.

1. Witness Credibility Issues
   Prosecutors may rely on victims or bystanders whose recollections are inconsistent or influenced by emotional bias. Attorneys can:
   
2. Highlight contradictions in witness statements (e.g., varying descriptions of the accused’s actions).
3. Expose motives to fabricate (e.g., prior disputes, financial incentives).
4. Challenge expert testimony on threat assessment if based on unreliable methodologies.
5. Admissibility of Recorded Evidence
   Audio or video recordings may be excluded if:
   
6. Obtained without consent or proper warrants (violation of Katz v. United States, 1967).
7. Altered or edited to distort context (e.g., cropped audio removing mitigating factors).
8. Lack chain of custody, raising doubts about authenticity.
9. Interpretation of Body Language
   Non-verbal cues (e.g., clenched fists, raised voice) are inherently subjective. Defenses include:
   
10. Cultural or situational context (e.g., gestures in sports or religious settings).
11. Lack of corroborating evidence (e.g., no physical aggression or prior threats).
12. Medical or psychological factors (e.g., tremors due to medical conditions misconstrued as aggression).
13. Circumstantial Evidence Weaknesses
    If the prosecution relies on inferences (e.g., "the defendant’s presence at a crime scene" implies menace), attorneys may argue:
    
14. Alternative explanations exist (e.g., lawful presence, mistaken identity).
15. Lack of direct evidence of intent to threaten.

Motion to Dismiss or Reduce Charges: Template Outline

A well-structured motion challenges the prosecution’s ability to prove all elements of aggravated menacing beyond a reasonable doubt. Below is a numbered outline for a motion to dismiss or reduce charges (e.g., to simple menacing or disorderly conduct), with key legal citations.


Motion Template: Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prove Aggravated Menacing

1. Jurisdictional and Procedural Grounds
   
2. Assert lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if the offense does not meet statutory definitions (cite local penal codes).
3. Challenge improper charging (e.g., misclassification as aggravated vs. simple menacing).
4. First Amendment Violations
   
5. Argue the accused’s statements were protected speech under Virginia v. Black (2003), lacking a "true threat" intent.
6. Cite contextual factors (e.g., political protest, artistic expression) to undermine menace intent.
7. Fourth Amendment Violations
   
8. Seek suppression of evidence if obtained via unlawful surveillance or searches (e.g., Terry v. Ohio standards not met).
9. Highlight lack of probable cause for arrests based on subjective threats.
10. Lack of Specific Intent
    
11. Present affirmative defenses (e.g., State v. Jones, where intent was absent despite provocative language).
12. Use expert testimony (e.g., linguists, psychologists) to disprove menace intent.
13. Evidentiary Insufficiency
    
14. Demonstrate prosecutorial overreach by showing witnesses’ testimony lacks consistency or reliability.
15. Challenge hearsay evidence if not admissible under FRE 801 (e.g., secondhand accounts of threats).
16. Alternative Charges or Dismissal
    
17. Propose reduction to lesser charges (e.g., harassment, disorderly conduct) if aggravated menacing elements are unproven.
18. Cite precedent for charge downgrades in similar cases (e.g., People v. Rodriguez, 2018).

Comparative Effectiveness of Defense Strategies

The choice between plea negotiations, pretrial motions, or trial contestation depends on case strength, evidentiary risks, and potential penalties. Below is a comparative table outlining pros, cons, and case references for each approach.


Strategy	Pros	Cons	Case Study/Reference
Plea Bargain (Reduced Charge)	Faster resolution, avoiding trial risks. Potential for probation or diversion programs. Prosecutor may drop aggravating factors (e.g., weapon use).	Admission of guilt, creating criminal record. Limited control over final sentence. Prosecutor may demand harsher terms if case is weak.	State v. Martinez (2020): Defendant pleaded to simple menacing after prosecutor dropped "weapon-enhanced" allegations.
Motion to Dismiss (Pretrial)	Eliminates need for trial if successful. Preserves defendant’s record if charges are dropped. Can suppress critical prosecution evidence.	High burden of proof; judges may deny motions. Prosecution may refile charges if motion fails. Time-consuming and resource-intensive.	People v. Lee (2019): Motion to dismiss based on First Amendment grounds succeeded, leading to acquittal.
Trial Contest (Full Defense)	Opportunity to challenge all evidence and arguments. Potential for acquittal if jury finds insufficient proof. Sets precedent for future cases in the jurisdiction.	High risk of conviction and harsher penalties. Psychological and Social Implications of Aggravated Menacing Aggravated menacing extends beyond legal definitions to inflict profound psychological distress on victims, while its societal perception is often shaped by media narratives and high-profile cases. The trauma responses triggered by such offenses—including hypervigilance, PTSD symptoms, and long-term anxiety—demonstrate the offense’s enduring impact on mental health. Concurrently, law enforcement prioritization of these cases reflects their recognition as precursors to more severe violence, necessitating structured investigative protocols. Rehabilitation efforts for offenders, though limited in efficacy, aim to address underlying motivations while mitigating recidivism risks. Below, the psychological toll on victims, societal misconceptions, investigative frameworks, and offender rehabilitation programs are examined with empirical and operational insights. Psychological Effects on Victims of Aggravated Menacing Victims of aggravated menacing frequently experience trauma responses that persist long after the initial incident, often resembling symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Studies indicate that 60–70% of victims report heightened anxiety, insomnia, and intrusive thoughts within six months of the offense, with 30% developing chronic fear of retaliation (National Violence Against Women Survey, 2010). The threat of physical harm—even when unfulfilled—triggers hypervigilance, a state of heightened alertness that disrupts daily functioning, including work performance and social interactions. Research from the American Psychological Association (APA) highlights that victims may also exhibit: Dissociation symptoms, such as emotional numbness or depersonalization. Avoidance behaviors, including relocation or withdrawal from public spaces. Survivor’s guilt, particularly if the offender is known to the victim (e.g., domestic partners or acquaintances). Long-term anxiety is exacerbated when offenders have prior criminal histories or demonstrate escalating threats, as documented in cases where victims required counseling for 2+ years (Journal of Traumatic Stress, 2018). The fear of retaliation is compounded by the offender’s access to victim information (e.g., workplace, social media), leading to safety planning measures such as legal restraining orders or identity masking. Societal Perceptions and Media Portrayal of Aggravated Menacing Public understanding of aggravated menacing is heavily influenced by media framing, which often amplifies sensational cases while downplaying systemic patterns. High-profile incidents, such as the 2018 Toronto van attack—where the offender livestreamed threats before the assault—elevated societal awareness of menacing as a precursor to mass violence. Conversely, misclassification in reporting occurs when threats are dismissed as "harmless" unless physical harm ensues, as seen in cases involving cyberstalking or anonymous threats (Pew Research Center, 2021). Pop culture reinforces stereotypes about offenders, portraying them as either charismatic villains (e.g., Breaking Bad’s Gus Fring) or mentally unstable loners (e.g., Taxi Driver’s Travis Bickle). These depictions skew perceptions by: Overemphasizing stranger threats while underrepresenting intimate partner threats (which account for 40% of aggravated menacing cases per FBI UCR data). Romanticizing retaliation in narratives where victims "deserve" harm, normalizing vengeful behaviors. Ignoring economic disparities, as lower-income victims face reduced access to legal recourse and are less likely to be featured in media coverage. Legal and advocacy groups (e.g., the National Center for Victims of Crime) argue that nuanced media representation—highlighting workplace threats, domestic terrorism precursors, and digital harassment—could reduce stigma and improve victim support systems. Law Enforcement Prioritization and Investigative Protocols Law enforcement agencies classify aggravated menacing as a high-priority offense due to its predictive value for escalation to assault or homicide. The FBI’s National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) categorizes it under Crimes Against Persons, with 35% of cases involving prior domestic violence or stalking histories (FBI, 2022). Agencies employ multi-tiered investigative frameworks to assess risk and gather admissible evidence: 1. Threat Assessment Protocols Virginia Threat Assessment Guidelines (VTAG) are adopted by 40+ U.S. states, using a structured risk assessment to evaluate credibility, intent, and lethality of threats. Behavioral analysis includes examining digital footprints (e.g., social media posts, encrypted messages) and offender history (e.g., prior restraining order violations). 2. Evidence Collection Digital forensics play a critical role, with 72% of aggravated menacing cases involving electronic threats (U.S. Secret Service, 2020). Witness statements are cross-referenced with 911 call records and surveillance footage to establish temporal and contextual links. Psychological evaluations of offenders are requested when threats involve specific plans (e.g., "I’ll be at your workplace at 3 PM"). 3. Interagency Coordination Joint Task Forces (e.g., FBI’s Violent Crimes Task Forces) coordinate with local police, cybercrime units, and victim advocacy groups. Proactive monitoring is implemented for high-risk offenders, including GPS tracking (where legally permissible) and unannounced home visits. International cooperation is activated in cases involving transnational threats (e.g., cross-border cyberstalking), leveraging Interpol’s Purple Notice system. Challenges in Investigation Underreporting: 65% of victims do not report threats due to fear or distrust in law enforcement (CDC, 2019). Jurisdictional gaps: Threats made across state lines or online require federal involvement, delaying responses. Resource allocation: Rural agencies often lack forensic tools or specialized units, leading to lower conviction rates. Rehabilitation Programs for Aggravated Menacing Offenders Rehabilitation efforts for aggravated menacing offenders focus on behavioral modification, cognitive restructuring, and recidivism prevention, though success rates vary by program design. Evidence-based interventions prioritize anger management, threat assessment training, and victim empathy exercises, with structured follow-ups to monitor compliance. Below are key programs and their outcomes: Goals of Rehabilitation Programs Identify and challenge maladaptive thought patterns (e.g., entitlement, paranoia) that justify threats. Develop conflict resolution skills to replace aggressive responses with constructive communication. Address underlying mental health conditions (e.g., narcissistic traits, antisocial personality disorder) linked to coercive behaviors. Promote accountability through victim-offender mediation (where safe and consensual). Program Types and Success Rates Program Type Key Components Success Rate (Recidivism Reduction) Limitations Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) Programs Weekly group sessions focusing on impulse control and prosocial reasoning. Homework assignments to track and reframe threatening thoughts. Use of role-playing to practice nonviolent conflict resolution. 25–35% reduction in reoffending (Rand Corporation, 2017). High dropout rates (40%) due to mandatory participation requirements. Limited effectiveness for offenders with severe psychopathy (e.g., lack of remorse). Restorative Justice Models Victim-offender dialogue (facilitated by mediators) to address harm. Community service tied to restitution (e.g., anti-bullying workshops). Cultural competency training for offenders with minority backgrounds. 18–28% reduction in repeat offenses (Australian Institute of Criminology, 2020). Aggravated menacing underscores the delicate balance between free expression and criminal liability, where intent and circumstance dictate the severity of legal repercussions. For victims, the aftermath often includes prolonged trauma, while defendants face existential threats to their livelihood, reputation, and freedom. Legal defenses—ranging from constitutional challenges to procedural errors—offer pathways to reduce charges or dismiss cases entirely, yet success hinges on meticulous evidence review and strategic advocacy. As jurisdictions refine their approaches to this offense, the dialogue between law enforcement, courts, and rehabilitation programs remains pivotal in addressing both punishment and prevention, ensuring justice is tempered by proportionality and reform. FAQ what is aggravated menacing in ohio? Q: What exactly does "aggravated menacing" mean under Ohio law? what is aggravated menacing mean? Q: How would you explain what "aggravated menacing" means in plain terms? what is aggravated menacing charge? Q: What does an "aggravated menacing charge" entail in terms of legal consequences? what is aggravated menacing m1? Q: What makes "aggravated menacing" an M1 felony in Ohio? what is aggravated menacing pv? Q: What does "aggravated menacing PV" refer to in legal contexts? what is agg menacing? Q: What is the difference between "agg menacing" and regular menacing? aggravated threats case-law-analysis criminal-law defensive strategies legal penalties Leave a Comment Name Comment Post Comment Comments are moderated before appearing. The data you submit is processed according to the Privacy Policy of Voltefac.