ATTORNEY ANSWERS OUR QUESTIONS

HOW CAN YOU ( MR FAMILY) TELL... THESE PICTURES WERE LEGALLY TAKEN IF YOU DID NOT TAKE THEM YOURSELF OR WERE NOT PRESENT WHEN THEY WERE TAKEN? ... HE HAS NO WAY OF KNOWING.

Susan Miller is an attorney in private practice. She recently retired from the Associated Press.
Susan’s statements are her own opinion and are not to be used as legal advice. Consult your attorney. These blogs may not be reprinted without permission. Write: cspp@epix.net

Sue has graciously allows us to interview her about legal issues surrounding bloggers.
In part one, we talk about picture taking.

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 ws 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

Stay Tuned for Part 2: Libel

MR FAMILY STILL FEELING FALLOUT OVER BILLBOARD DISASTER

JUST LIKE A DOG WHO HAS SNAPPED AT ONE TOO MANY PEOPLE, MR. FAMILY HAS BEEN MUZZLED.

Straying from his usual nemesis, the g-club, Mr Family tried every trick in the book to have
97.9 radio remove their billboard, which wasn’t quite to his liking. But when he made up a story about its interns posing nude, the radio’s station owner, Citadel Broadcasting, placed it legal feet firmly on Mr Family, one squarely on his head, the other one in a place where the sun don’t shine.
Forced to remove every word he said about the radio station, Mr Family quickly scrambled to do more posts, even re-running his tirade over bondage night, this time without stealing the club’s ad.
But many if not most of his supporters are wondering what happened to the posts. Those who wasted a long distance call to Citadel are the most upset. They realize they were conned into complaining about a situation which never existed in the first place. They are embarrassed and feel used. Who can blame them. To add insult to injury, Mr Family will not respond to their inquires Any mention of the billboard or Citadel on the comments boards are being deleted by Mr Family

What a Christian way to treat your loyal supporters. Lie to them, have them waste their time and efforts to get your way, and then hide from them when the Sh*t hits the fan.

I guess Mr Family and I went to different Sunday schools. They didn’t teach me that there.
They did teach me about lying, bearing false witness by spreading lies and rumors, and taking responsibility for one’s own actions. Perhaps Mr Family wasn’t there those days at his bible school. What a shame.
And What terrible values to instill upon your children, ie it is ok to lie to get what you want.
Make up bad things about people you don’t like. Shirk responsibility. Run and hide if you get caught.

My father may have gone to a strip club in his day and with my mother’s knowledge. But he didn’t lie, gossip, or try to manipulate or use people to get his way. And when he made a mistake he admitted it and apologized. I am sure glad I had a dad like him and not like Mr. Family!

LIBEL, DEFORMATION, AND MR. FAMILY

HERE'S AN ARTICLE I FOUND ON THE INTERNET (USED WITH PERMISSION) ON LIBEL.
PAY ATTENTION AS THERE WILL BE A QUIZ AT THE END (KIDDING)
LET ME KNOW IF YOU THINK MR FAMILY IS GUILTY OF LIBEL.

The Bloggers' FAQ on Online Defamation Law provides an overview of defamation (libel) law, including a discussion of the constitutional and statutory privileges that may protect you.
What is defamation?
Generally, defamation is a false and unprivileged statement of fact that is harmful to someone's reputation, and published "with fault," meaning as a result of negligence or malice. State laws often define defamation in specific ways. Libel is a written defamation; slander is a spoken defamation.
What are the elements of a defamation claim?
The elements that must be proved to establish defamation are:
a publication to one other than the person defamed;
a false statement of fact;
that is understood as
a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.
.
Is truth a defense to defamation claims?
Yes. Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim. But keep in mind that the truth may be difficult and expensive to prove.

What is a statement of verifiable fact?
A statement of verifiable fact is a statement that conveys a provably false factual assertion, such as someone has committed murder or has cheated on his spouse.
Is there a difference between reporting on public and private figures?
Yes. A private figure claiming defamation — your neighbor, your roommate, the guy who walks his dog by your favorite coffee shop — only has to prove you acted negligently, which is to say that a "reasonable person" would not have published the defamatory statem.......
Corporations are not always public figures. They are judged by the same standards as individuals.
If I write something defamatory, will a retraction help?
Some jurisdictions have retraction statutes that provide protection from defamation lawsuits if the publisher retracts the allegedly defamatory statement.IWhat if I change the person's name?
Do blogs have the same constitutional protections as mainstream media?
Yes. The US Supreme Court has said that "in the context of defamation law, the rights of the institutional media are no greater and no less than those enjoyed by other individuals and organizations engaged in the same activities."
What if I republish another person's statement? (i.e. someone comments on your posts)
Generally, anyone who repeats someone else's statements is just as responsible for their defamatory content as the original speaker — if they knew, or had reason to know, of the defamation. Recognizing the difficulty this would pose in the online world, Congress enacted Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides a strong protection against liability for Internet "intermediaries" who provide or republish speech by others. See the Section 230 FAQ for more. But Section 230 is not a panacea. While the vast weight of authority has held that Section 230 precludes liability for an intermediary's distribution of defamation, one California court has held that the federal law does not apply to an online distributor's liability in a defamation case. The case, Barrett v. Rosenthal, is under appeal to the California Supreme Court (EFF filed an amicus brief in this case).
What are some examples of libelous..... statements?
The following are a couple of examples from California cases; note the law may vary from state to state. Libelous (when false):
· Charging someone with being a communist (in 1959)
· Calling an attorney a "crook"
· Describing a woman as a call girl
· Accusing a minister of unethical conduct
· Accusing a father of violating the confidence of son
How do courts look at the context of a statement?
For a blog, a court would likely start with the general tenor, setting, and format of the blog, as well as the context of the links through which the user accessed the particular entry. Next the court would look at the specific context and content of the blog entry, analyzing the extent of figurative or hyperbolic language used and the reasonable expectations of the blog's audience. What is "Libel Per Se"?
When libel is clear on its face, without the need for any explanatory matter, it is called libel per se. The following are often found to be libelous per se: A statement that falsely:
· Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for crime;
· Imputes in him the present existence of an infectious, contagious, or loathsome disease;
· Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office, profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him general disqualification in those respects that the office or other occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with reference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits;
· Imputes to him impotence or a want of chastity.
Of course, context can still matter. If you respond to a post you don't like by beginning "Jane, you ignorant slut," it may imply a want of chastity on Jane's part. But you have a good chance of convincing a court this was mere hyperbole and pop cultural reference, not a false statement of fact.
What is a "false light" claim?
Some states allow people to sue for damages that arise when others place them in a false light. Information presented in a "false light" is portrayed as factual, but creates a false impression about the plaintiff (i.e., a photograph of plaintiffs in an article about sexual abuse, because it creates the impression that the depicted persons are victims of sexual abuse). False light claims are subject to the constitutional protections discussed above.
What is trade libel?
Trade libel is defamation against the goods or services of a company or business. For example, saying that you found a severed finger in you're a particular company's chili (if it isn't true).

LIES MR FAMILY TOLD ABOUT CITADEL INTERNS MAY COST WOMAN HER JOB!

If you read the comments section of my last blog, you will see a comment form a woman. Her boss asked her if she posed nude while working at Citadel. The woman is up for a promotion with her current employer.
Her boss said he heard nude pictures 97.9 interns were on the internet. Horrified, she called 97.9 radio and was told about Mr Family, and his cruel and vicious lies. According to the woman, the station is providing a letter, saying she never posed nude.
This is very sad indeed. I do not know where to begin or how best to help this poor woman Mr Family inflicted so much pain upon. Let me begin by repeating his lies, so everyone can understand exactly what he said. Luckily, I saved Mr. Family’s now infamous and deleted blogs.
Reference: Mr. Family Blog Called " Citadel Broadcasting Corporation" ( Now Deleted)

Lie No 1: (and I quote Mr Family exactly)- " Citadel Broadcasting Corporation, via WBSX-FM (97.9), pays their female college interns to pose in the nude."

Lie No 2 ( exactly) " It was recently admitted on one of our message boards that the nude woman on 97.9's billboard is a college intern serving at their station."

Lie No 3 ( exactly) "In addition to the billboard, WBSX-FM (97.9) is now posting barely censored, semi-nude, pictures of their interns on their website."

Truth is Citadel does not pay it interns to pose in the nude, there are no nude poses of
interns on their website, and the woman in the billboard is a professional model, not an intern.

Mr Family started a jihad (holy war) against the station over their billboard, First he posted Lamar’s Advertising email address etc, ( for complaints) next was Penndot, that failed, then came a letter from a woman, who said she would not advertise with Lamar. Mr Family seemed to be implying that his jihad lost business for Lamar. Next came an announcement that the billboard was down, only to be followed by an update that it was back up on the other side of the I-81. Last came the tirade above, which got him into boiling hot legal trouble. He was forced to remove ALL his tirades against Citadel /97.9. I’ll explain these legal terms in detail in my next blog, but Mr Family committed libel, deformation of character, and copyright infringement.

Juries and courts award big bucks for these violations of state and federal law.

My advice to the lady is to print this blog, call Citadel/97.9 and ask if they can recommend a lawyer who specializein the above mentioned areas of law, ie libel, deformation of character etc. Or you can call the Luzerne or Lackawanna Bar Association and ask for a referral lawyer. Then with your lawyer, I would go to the news media.

It is important to clear your name. Obviously, Mr Family is not going isn't going to retract the vicious lies. He is solely responsible for your grief. My opinions on Mr Family and this debacle will be on my next post.

CITADEL: FURTHER LEGAL ACTION AGAINST MR. FAMILY " QUITE POSSIBLE"

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..... "
There you have it. If I were Mr. Family and before this gets any worse, I would issue an apology and a retraction and send it to everyone possible. Mr Family owes that to the Citadel, and its employees/interns whose reputations he smeared with false accusations. Citadel isn’t fooling around. Legal costs could bankrupt him. I would hate to see his family suffer for his stupidity and vindictiveness.

Citadel Threatens Mr Family With Legal Action

LOCAL NEWS MEDIA EXPRESS INTEREST IN STORY

MR FAMILY REFUSES TO ANSWER QUESTIONS FROM NEWS MEDIA!

CITADEL MAY SEEK WRIITEN APOLOGY/OTHER LEGAL ACTION
TELLS MEDIA CHARGES ARE FALSE

MR FAMILY'S CREDIBILITY AT ALL TIME LOW WITH SUPPORTERS

SUPPORTERS WHO COMPLAINED TO CITADEL FEEL DUPED/LIED TO/ANGRY/DISAPPOINTED.

MR FAMILY: NOT MAN ENOUGH TO APOLOGIZE?

MESSAGE TO YOUTH: IT IS OK TO LIE TO GET WHAT YOU WANT

"BEARING FALSE WITNESS" CAN BE COSTLY

FRIENDS HOPE "STUPID GENE" NOT PASSED ONTO HIS CHILDREN

STAY TUNED FOR THESE DEVELOPING STORIES!!!!!

NEWS FLASH: MR FAMILY REMOVES CITADEL 97.9 BILLBOARD BLOGS

HUMILATED AND DISGRACED, MR FAMILY REMOVES BLOGS!!!


MR. FAMILY HAS JUST REMOVED ALL THE BLOGS PRETAINING TO CITADEL COMMUNICATIONS/97.9 RADIO. THE LATEST BLOG CONTAINED AN OUTLANDISH ACCUSATION THAT INTERNS OF RADIO STATION 97.9 WERE POSING NUDE FOR THE RADIO STATION. EARLIER BLOGS WERE COMPLAINTS ABOUT A BILLBOARD FEATURING A MODEL WHICH MR FAMILY CLAIMED WAS AN INTERN. CITADEL HAS DENIED THE ALLEGATIONS. THE MODEL HAS ALSO DENIED THE ALLEGATIONS. MR FAMILY CLAIMED THE MODEL WAS PARTIALLY NUDE, BUT ALL THAT WAS VISIBLE WAS HER BACK.
WE DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE WHAT HAPPENED BUT INFORMED SOURCES TELL ME MR FAMILY HAS BEEN THREATENED WITH LEGAL ACTION. IN AN DESPERATE EFFORT TO COVERUP THE FIASCO, MR FAMILY QUICKLY POSTED AN ALLEGED LETTER FROM AN ANONYMOUS STRIPPER. ( i WONDER HOW A STRIPPER FROM SOUTHEASTERN PA FOUND MR FAMILY'S WEBSITE) MR FAMILY PROBABLY THINKS THAT NO ONE WILL NOTICE THESE BLOGS ARE MISSING. EVEN HIS MOST LOYAL FOLLOWERS ARE NOT THAT STUPID! THEY AND OTHERS WILL NOTICE AND ASK QUESTIONS. QUESTIONS, WHICH MR FAMILY WILL PROBABLY REFUSE TO ANSWER. AND WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO COMPLAINED BASED ON THE LIE MR. FAMILY TOLD. THEY WERE DUPED, PURE AND SIMPLE. DOES MR FAMILY HAVE A CONSCIENCE?
WHAT A HUMITILATION FOR A MAN WHO CLAIMS TO SPEAK TRUTH AND HONESTY IN THE NAME OF THE LORD.
BTW, MR. FAMILY ,IF THE LAWYER YOU CLAIM TO HAVE TOLD YOU IT WAS OK TO POST THIS LIBELOUS CRAP, I WOULD SUE.
AND DON'T YOU OWE AN APOLGY TO CITADEL? CONFESSION IS GOOD FOR THE SOUL!

MR. FAMILY: STRIP CLUBS CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING!!!

A MR. FAMILY PARODY
FROM MR FAMILY"S BLOGSITE:

When I started this blog back in April of 2006, and called myself Mr. Family, I received so much press coverage, it went to my already swelled head. I thought that by starting this blog and getting a few stooges to take pics for me, I could close down the g-club. I even made bets, that I ,Mr. Family, would have the club shut down by the end of the year! Boy was I wrong! Realizing the pics were not working, I began to spread rumors the club wasn’t doing well, not paying its bills, and the parking lot was empty. When that didn’t work, I claimed I saw a baby being carried into the club. But the police didn’t believe me and the club had a tape of a woman carrying bags, into the club, not a baby.
I tried to exact revenge by saying the club was taping everybody, but that fizzled fast. Next, my pic takers got caught trespassing etc, and I may be in legal hot water, so the car pictures, which I bragged so much about ad nauseum, have gone down the toilet too. Growing desperate, I began to run stories that strip clubs are responsible for everything from theft of cars to slavery. I even tried to change the subject to a bare back billboard, only to fall flat on my ass when less than a dozen people complained, and the billboard was put up on the other side of the interstate. Those bastards!
To get even, I started spreading lies that that the heathen radio station was making their interns pose nude! I hide behind this blog so I do not get my self righteous, pompous ass sued!
Some day, I want to come out of the closet, and run for public office, I need the right wing Christian vote, so I AM DESPERATE
& WILL SAY AND DO ANYTHING!!! After searching for days, I found this article written by a scientist, Dr. Richard Head. Dr. Dick, says global warming is caused by strip clubs.
Here’s a brief excerpt from his thesis, which won him expulsion from State University of Pennsylvania.
" when mentally deficient perverts gather and watch those poor women being degraded while making hundreds of dollars, an energy is released which burns a hole through the ozone layer. This would not happen if these men were in church instead"

I pray that this activity will not melt our polar caps and the polar bears and penguins will be ok. Well, I do not really care about the penguins, because Dr Dick says most of them are gay. Please pray with me and send this story to all the gullible people you know.
Now, it’s back to listening to the game. This quarter is sponsored by Adult World.
Love, Mr. Family