Legal issues continue
Every since the 979X issues, Mr.Family has been reposting old stories. Going on about Bondage night, bringing up ads Club10 has had for months, be it college ID's or Military ID discounts on the cover charge.
He is doing everything he can to make people forget one of his biggest mistakes since he began his crusade. Any comment pertaining to his attacks on the 979 billboard will not be seen on his website. He wants it to go away, but I do not think he will be able to escape it.
More and more proof pops up that Mr.Family is breaking the law. Posting possible illegally taken pictures, printing libel comments that could get him a law suit. Below will be some comments taken (with permission) from web page of Eric Roberts of Mr.Family Funnies .
As pertaining to the 979 issue. Some have said that there was nothing coming from Citadel towards Mr.Family. Well here is a few words from a Citadel employee.
An informed source at Citadel Broadcasting who spoke to me on the condition of remaining anonymous has stated the corporation is investigating the blogs that Mr. Family posted about radio station 97.9 and the accusations that its interns posed nude for money at the stations request.
The spokesperson said " Right now our legal department is looking into the matter. Our primary concern is the vicious lies this blog site was reporting about our employees/ interns. ( posing nude for money at the station’s request) We are worried that these lies will affect our employees’ personal and family life. We can imagine the emotional distress that would be caused if rumors circulate among our employees family and friends that they were posing nude for us for an extra paycheck.
It could destroy marriages, and family relationships.... We are not going to tolerate that...
We were accused of sexual harassment.... a violation of state and federal law....We are not pleased at all... legal action is quite possible....
........While these blogs have been taken down, we are concerned that they were sent via the blogsite email feature and redistributed....... We are still getting complaints and inquires from news media, so they must still be in circulation ... no retraction has been issued by the blogsite........We are also concerned about our listeners and advertisers........ We will do everything possible to protect our employees and our reputation...... We appreciate your help....
Please keep us informed..... "
Citadel is keeping a very close eye on Mr.Family, and legal action may very well be a reality.
As one former Employee of 979 has felt the harsh lie of Mr.Family effect her life. This is what she had to say when we were contacted.
I interned and worked at 97.9. I am up for a promotion with my current company. My boss asked me if I ever posed nude for the radio station. I had no and he said that information was on the internet. I called the radio station and they told me about Mr family. The station is providing me with a letter stating I never posed nude for the station. They also gave me your address, so I could tell others what happened.
As you can see, Mr.Family does not care who is effected by the lies he has spread. His only concern is what he deems to be right, and that is not the law, as he has shown many times.
Now as pertains to his pictures. Even though it has been a VERY VERY long time since he has posted them, since it has become hard for followers of his to gain them legally, an attorney has spoken out on the matter. These again are taken from an interview from Eric Roberts and attorney Susan Miller.
MFF: After a three month absence, Mr Family has started publishing pictures of the club.
When and how is picture taking legal and illegal?
Sue: A picture taken in a public place, such as a street, of parked cars or other activity visible from that street is lawful because under these circumstances the person has no reasonable expectation of privacy. Tort issues regarding invasion of privacy arise when zoom lenses or telescopes or other technology is used to photograph things not visible to the ordinary eye in the location where the picture was taken.
MFF: Can you give some examples?
Sue: Let me add first, that pictures can be taken while engaging in lawful activity or unlawful activity. The pictures are subject to legal action if they violate a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy, not newsworthy, or a reasonable person would be offended by the publication.
MFF: That’s kind of confusing.
Sue; ok, I will give you a case I was involved in. The pastor of a church was upset that an adult bookstore opened about ½ mile down the road form the church. He encouraged persons to photograph cars and email to him. He published them on the internet and even in the church bulletin. The pastor and church were sued by one of the men whose car was photographed. I defended the church on grounds of first amendment protection, freedom of religion and many other reasons. We lost. The court ruled that 1. The parking lot is private property. 2. The bookstore is open only to a certain segment of the public, those 18 years and over not the general public at large. 3. The man parking there had a reasonable expectation of privacy, ie not being photographed. 4. His being there was not newsworthy. And 5. A reasonable person would be offended by the publication and the manner that the photographs were obtained.
What made the matter worse, the person who took the picture could not be located because it was emailed. Other persons testified they used zoom lenses etc from private property to obtain photos.
and did not have permission from the property owner to do so. The bottom line the picture taking activity cost the church about 25k. The court also said the church engaged in "spying" and was not protected by the state or federal constitution. The court also questioned the practice of soliciting pictures on the internet..
MFF: Are parking lots of businesses , shopping malls etc public or private property?
Sue: They are private property, used by the public, subject to the terms and conditions set forth by the owner/lesee. For example: a fast food restaurant sign: 30 minute parking limit while consuming our food. That doesn’t mean you can shoot pictures of the strip club down the street while eating their hamburgers. Unless the owner specifically states photography is permitted, one can presume it is not. Ask for permission.
MFF: What do you think of Mr family’s picture taking activity?
Sue: I will repeat what the court said to us " How can you tell this court that these pictures were taken legally if you did not take them yourself or were present when they were taken?
You are soliciting pictures from persons over the internet, most of these persons you don’t know from Adam. At a minimum they are of dubious origin, at the worst they could have been altered or faked, or obtained through unlawful or questionable means.
You simply cannot make any representation whatsoever about most of these pictures."
I would say the same to Mr. Family. He has no way of knowing. Noting the three month absence, Mr Family may have run into the same legal problems I mentioned here. I also see the disclaimer which also indicates he probably ran into legal challenges. I appreciate Mr Family’s religious beliefs, but I fail to see how these pictures will serve any useful purpose, as he claims. It may come back to bite him. I reserve further comments until I read more of his blogs
If Mr.Family has posted pictures of cars, those people still have a right to have it removed if it shows too much of their personal property. Which is exactly what Mr.Family tries to do. He may very well find himself in legal hot water very soon.
Lies, legal issues, slander and libel, yeah, real family freindly for Luzerne county
None of the content in this blog can be used with out consent of this website. Yes, that means you Mr.Family
He is doing everything he can to make people forget one of his biggest mistakes since he began his crusade. Any comment pertaining to his attacks on the 979 billboard will not be seen on his website. He wants it to go away, but I do not think he will be able to escape it.
More and more proof pops up that Mr.Family is breaking the law. Posting possible illegally taken pictures, printing libel comments that could get him a law suit. Below will be some comments taken (with permission) from web page of Eric Roberts of Mr.Family Funnies .
As pertaining to the 979 issue. Some have said that there was nothing coming from Citadel towards Mr.Family. Well here is a few words from a Citadel employee.
An informed source at Citadel Broadcasting who spoke to me on the condition of remaining anonymous has stated the corporation is investigating the blogs that Mr. Family posted about radio station 97.9 and the accusations that its interns posed nude for money at the stations request.
The spokesperson said " Right now our legal department is looking into the matter. Our primary concern is the vicious lies this blog site was reporting about our employees/ interns. ( posing nude for money at the station’s request) We are worried that these lies will affect our employees’ personal and family life. We can imagine the emotional distress that would be caused if rumors circulate among our employees family and friends that they were posing nude for us for an extra paycheck.
It could destroy marriages, and family relationships.... We are not going to tolerate that...
We were accused of sexual harassment.... a violation of state and federal law....We are not pleased at all... legal action is quite possible....
........While these blogs have been taken down, we are concerned that they were sent via the blogsite email feature and redistributed....... We are still getting complaints and inquires from news media, so they must still be in circulation ... no retraction has been issued by the blogsite........We are also concerned about our listeners and advertisers........ We will do everything possible to protect our employees and our reputation...... We appreciate your help....
Please keep us informed..... "
Citadel is keeping a very close eye on Mr.Family, and legal action may very well be a reality.
As one former Employee of 979 has felt the harsh lie of Mr.Family effect her life. This is what she had to say when we were contacted.
I interned and worked at 97.9. I am up for a promotion with my current company. My boss asked me if I ever posed nude for the radio station. I had no and he said that information was on the internet. I called the radio station and they told me about Mr family. The station is providing me with a letter stating I never posed nude for the station. They also gave me your address, so I could tell others what happened.
As you can see, Mr.Family does not care who is effected by the lies he has spread. His only concern is what he deems to be right, and that is not the law, as he has shown many times.
Now as pertains to his pictures. Even though it has been a VERY VERY long time since he has posted them, since it has become hard for followers of his to gain them legally, an attorney has spoken out on the matter. These again are taken from an interview from Eric Roberts and attorney Susan Miller.
MFF: After a three month absence, Mr Family has started publishing pictures of the club.
When and how is picture taking legal and illegal?
Sue: A picture taken in a public place, such as a street, of parked cars or other activity visible from that street is lawful because under these circumstances the person has no reasonable expectation of privacy. Tort issues regarding invasion of privacy arise when zoom lenses or telescopes or other technology is used to photograph things not visible to the ordinary eye in the location where the picture was taken.
MFF: Can you give some examples?
Sue: Let me add first, that pictures can be taken while engaging in lawful activity or unlawful activity. The pictures are subject to legal action if they violate a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy, not newsworthy, or a reasonable person would be offended by the publication.
MFF: That’s kind of confusing.
Sue; ok, I will give you a case I was involved in. The pastor of a church was upset that an adult bookstore opened about ½ mile down the road form the church. He encouraged persons to photograph cars and email to him. He published them on the internet and even in the church bulletin. The pastor and church were sued by one of the men whose car was photographed. I defended the church on grounds of first amendment protection, freedom of religion and many other reasons. We lost. The court ruled that 1. The parking lot is private property. 2. The bookstore is open only to a certain segment of the public, those 18 years and over not the general public at large. 3. The man parking there had a reasonable expectation of privacy, ie not being photographed. 4. His being there was not newsworthy. And 5. A reasonable person would be offended by the publication and the manner that the photographs were obtained.
What made the matter worse, the person who took the picture could not be located because it was emailed. Other persons testified they used zoom lenses etc from private property to obtain photos.
and did not have permission from the property owner to do so. The bottom line the picture taking activity cost the church about 25k. The court also said the church engaged in "spying" and was not protected by the state or federal constitution. The court also questioned the practice of soliciting pictures on the internet..
MFF: Are parking lots of businesses , shopping malls etc public or private property?
Sue: They are private property, used by the public, subject to the terms and conditions set forth by the owner/lesee. For example: a fast food restaurant sign: 30 minute parking limit while consuming our food. That doesn’t mean you can shoot pictures of the strip club down the street while eating their hamburgers. Unless the owner specifically states photography is permitted, one can presume it is not. Ask for permission.
MFF: What do you think of Mr family’s picture taking activity?
Sue: I will repeat what the court said to us " How can you tell this court that these pictures were taken legally if you did not take them yourself or were present when they were taken?
You are soliciting pictures from persons over the internet, most of these persons you don’t know from Adam. At a minimum they are of dubious origin, at the worst they could have been altered or faked, or obtained through unlawful or questionable means.
You simply cannot make any representation whatsoever about most of these pictures."
I would say the same to Mr. Family. He has no way of knowing. Noting the three month absence, Mr Family may have run into the same legal problems I mentioned here. I also see the disclaimer which also indicates he probably ran into legal challenges. I appreciate Mr Family’s religious beliefs, but I fail to see how these pictures will serve any useful purpose, as he claims. It may come back to bite him. I reserve further comments until I read more of his blogs
If Mr.Family has posted pictures of cars, those people still have a right to have it removed if it shows too much of their personal property. Which is exactly what Mr.Family tries to do. He may very well find himself in legal hot water very soon.
Lies, legal issues, slander and libel, yeah, real family freindly for Luzerne county
None of the content in this blog can be used with out consent of this website. Yes, that means you Mr.Family
posted by Bloodsword6 at Tuesday, January 23, 2007
28 comments
