Donna et al
V
Banana101
January 16, 2012
Dear Banana101,
I am writing to request that you remove my copyrighted photographs from your blog at ceasefireofinsanity.blogspot.com immediately upon receipt of this email. These photographs were posted on a private Facebook profile and were obtained by you in an unauthorized manner and inconsistent with my reasonable expectation of privacy. I may, at any time, name you in any federal or civil action pertaining to copyright infringement.
I am making this initial request through e-mail to afford you the opportunity to avoid any future legal proceedings. Another party has used and abused these photos which were taken from your blog, committing a felony class I in his residing state. Should this other individual be charged with the felonies he has committed in his state, according to his state statues you can also be named as if a direct offender and be equally charged.
I am also requesting that you immediately cease and desist from all libel and defamation of me, Donna P.Any information you post on your blog about me that is not a proven fact is a violation of the libel and defamation statues of the state of Pennsylvania. Two specific examples, among many other libelous and defamatory statements made about me on your blog, are that I am “The Fly” and that I cracked the password of cayenne on benzowithdrawal.org. With regard other libelous statements it would be in your best interest at this time to correct or remove statements and comments that are not factual or truthful.
This will be the only request you receive from me through e-mail. If, by Friday January 19th, [sic-18th] 2013 these corrections are not made I will refer this issue to my attorney.
Sincerely,
Donna
Dear Donna,
You must have forgotten-- you gave me your oral (via telephone) and written consent multiple times to use the photos on www.ceasefireofinsanity.com. (See below.) Your written permission therefor waives any ownership that you claim is copyrighted. We signed no contract, so you cannot rescind your agreement and/or consent.
"Let me know if you want more", you said.
In addition, the photos were not obtained in an "unauthorized manner" as you claim. By joining Facebook, you waived your privacy rights in regards to the photos. Facebook's privacy statement at http://www.facebook.com/about/privacy/your-info "Information that is s always publicly available" includes "Profile Pictures and Cover Photos". Regardless of whether your Facebook profile is/was public or private at the time, this does not prevent others from sharing information about you, which they can then chose to make public. I cannot be held liable for the actions of 3rd parties.
You cannot have a rational and reasonable expectation of privacy as described in the the Fourth Amendment in regards to the photographs. "Your" reasonable expectation of privacy is no different or important than any other citizen's. A "reasonable expectation of privacy only exists when society as a whole would think that it was legitimate". Your expectation of privacy is subjective, which is not recognized by society as a whole by being "reasonable". See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). It was your decision to put the photos in public domain, where you knew that others could possibly share, copy and distribute them, with or without your knowledge or consent.
I appreciate your request; However, it is non-applicable due to the reasons as stated above.
cannot control what other people chose to put on their blogs, so I cannot be held responsible. Furthermore, you cannot confirm that any person or entity obtained the photographs from my blog unless the person or entity has explicitly declared such.
Copyright Infringement is rarely a felony of any category in any state. You are not a media mogul, and your alleged damage would not be substantial enough to give it a felony grade, even if your allegations were true.
Also, according to the (assumed) party's state laws, I cannot be "named as a direct offender and be equally charged":
939.05 Parties to crime.(1) Whoever is concerned in the commission of a crime is a principal and may be charged with and convicted of the commission of the crime although the person did not directly commit it and although the person who directly committed it has not been convicted or has been convicted of some other degree of the crime or of some other crime based on the same act.
(2) A person is concerned in the commission of the crime if the person:
(a) Directly commits the crime; or
(b) Intentionally aids and abets the commission of it; or
(c) Is a party to a conspiracy with another to commit it or advises, hires, counsels or otherwise procures another to commit it. Such a party is also concerned in the commission of any other crime which is committed in pursuance of the intended crime and which under the circumstances is a natural and probable consequence of the intended crime. This paragraph does not apply to a person who voluntarily changes his or her mind and no longer desires that the crime be committed and notifies the other parties concerned of his or her withdrawal within a reasonable time before the commission of the crime so as to allow the others also to withdraw.
I would not be declared "a person concerned in the commission of the crime", as I do not meet statues (2)a,b, or c. I did not directly commit the alleged crime (a); I did not intentionally aid and abet with the commission of the alleged crime (b); I was not/am not a party that conspired with another to commit an alleged crime, nor was I ever apart in advising, hiring, counseling or otherwise procuring another party to commit an alleged crime.
I will correct you. I am still provided with Freedom of Speech, which includes opinions, as long as they are not within the realms of hate-speech, among others, which I have not violated. If I want to call you a "con artist", I am legally allowed to do so. You are correct that I did name you as "The Fly". However, that action does not in itself meet the criteria for defamation. (3) three co-occurring elements must be proven to establish defamation:
1) a publication to one other than the person defamed;
2) a false statement of fact;
3) that is understood as
a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; AND
b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff
Your alleged defamation claim does not meet the criteria due to the following:
1)The Whirlpool of Crassness ("The Fly"'s blog) published written content using a pseudonym of which could not be linked to you nor anyone else without a court warrant;
2)False statements cannot be made about a pseudonym and then correctly traced back to a real person without factual evidence and accepted as the truth; An entity cannot libel or intentionally defame another entity they know nothing about; Therefor, no harm could have been caused; Opinions regarding an anonymous pseudonym would not have been actually believed by a reasonable person.
To wit, it may have concerned you, but it did not harm your reputation or have the ability to harm your reputation. You have been well known to create multiple user names and fake accounts, so your attention to this matter being brought up at the present time is moot; I.e., your reputation has already been damaged by your very own willful actions. This is not a matter of my opinion. Other blogs and forums and their members have noted this as well. You yourself stated, "Due to all that was going on and the gossip/drama surrounding my name and some of the things I participated in the past I thought it would be a good idea to keep my involvement private, thus fortune [sic]" (and "Tessa" and "Dale"). You declared that you participated in some dubious activities before. It is not my liability or responsibility to correct your past actions.
I never said as a "fact" that you cracked the password of "Cayenne"/Marie. I could not actually know this, and any reasonable person would realize this. Logically, it would make sense for you to re-set a password (this is my guess--not a fact) to leave Marie feeling like she "needed" more of your help. I offer the following previously unpublished statements sent to me, by 3 different people:
1)"All they [hackers/crackers] did was either guess or use some script kiddie app to hack Marie's password, and from there download the SQL database."
2)"Donna was cracking accounts at the old bw.com to help take it down,
She cracked maybe three."
3) "Also, BW wasn’t 'hacked'. Marie’s password was 'cracked', probably by a spooling program, and the database was downloaded in the ACP."
(That was your statement to me via email on 11/28/2012)
Nothing I stated about you, your multiple aliases (who are not entities/real people and have no rights) was done out of malice, nor to cause you any damages. I suggest you have your lawyer read section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
Furthermore, your request that I respond within 2 (two) days time is entirely unreasonable.
Thank you for your time and your expected justifiable response,
Banana
V
Banana101
January 16, 2012
Dear Banana101,
I am writing to request that you remove my copyrighted photographs from your blog at ceasefireofinsanity.blogspot.com immediately upon receipt of this email. These photographs were posted on a private Facebook profile and were obtained by you in an unauthorized manner and inconsistent with my reasonable expectation of privacy. I may, at any time, name you in any federal or civil action pertaining to copyright infringement.
I am making this initial request through e-mail to afford you the opportunity to avoid any future legal proceedings. Another party has used and abused these photos which were taken from your blog, committing a felony class I in his residing state. Should this other individual be charged with the felonies he has committed in his state, according to his state statues you can also be named as if a direct offender and be equally charged.
I am also requesting that you immediately cease and desist from all libel and defamation of me, Donna P.Any information you post on your blog about me that is not a proven fact is a violation of the libel and defamation statues of the state of Pennsylvania. Two specific examples, among many other libelous and defamatory statements made about me on your blog, are that I am “The Fly” and that I cracked the password of cayenne on benzowithdrawal.org. With regard other libelous statements it would be in your best interest at this time to correct or remove statements and comments that are not factual or truthful.
This will be the only request you receive from me through e-mail. If, by Friday January 19th, [sic-18th] 2013 these corrections are not made I will refer this issue to my attorney.
Sincerely,
Donna
Dear Donna,
You must have forgotten-- you gave me your oral (via telephone) and written consent multiple times to use the photos on www.ceasefireofinsanity.com. (See below.) Your written permission therefor waives any ownership that you claim is copyrighted. We signed no contract, so you cannot rescind your agreement and/or consent.
"No, I'm not asking for any edits", you said.
In addition, the photos were not obtained in an "unauthorized manner" as you claim. By joining Facebook, you waived your privacy rights in regards to the photos. Facebook's privacy statement at http://www.facebook.com/about/privacy/your-info "Information that is s always publicly available" includes "Profile Pictures and Cover Photos". Regardless of whether your Facebook profile is/was public or private at the time, this does not prevent others from sharing information about you, which they can then chose to make public. I cannot be held liable for the actions of 3rd parties.
You cannot have a rational and reasonable expectation of privacy as described in the the Fourth Amendment in regards to the photographs. "Your" reasonable expectation of privacy is no different or important than any other citizen's. A "reasonable expectation of privacy only exists when society as a whole would think that it was legitimate". Your expectation of privacy is subjective, which is not recognized by society as a whole by being "reasonable". See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). It was your decision to put the photos in public domain, where you knew that others could possibly share, copy and distribute them, with or without your knowledge or consent.
I appreciate your request; However, it is non-applicable due to the reasons as stated above.
cannot control what other people chose to put on their blogs, so I cannot be held responsible. Furthermore, you cannot confirm that any person or entity obtained the photographs from my blog unless the person or entity has explicitly declared such.
Copyright Infringement is rarely a felony of any category in any state. You are not a media mogul, and your alleged damage would not be substantial enough to give it a felony grade, even if your allegations were true.
Also, according to the (assumed) party's state laws, I cannot be "named as a direct offender and be equally charged":
939.05 Parties to crime.(1) Whoever is concerned in the commission of a crime is a principal and may be charged with and convicted of the commission of the crime although the person did not directly commit it and although the person who directly committed it has not been convicted or has been convicted of some other degree of the crime or of some other crime based on the same act.
(2) A person is concerned in the commission of the crime if the person:
(a) Directly commits the crime; or
(b) Intentionally aids and abets the commission of it; or
(c) Is a party to a conspiracy with another to commit it or advises, hires, counsels or otherwise procures another to commit it. Such a party is also concerned in the commission of any other crime which is committed in pursuance of the intended crime and which under the circumstances is a natural and probable consequence of the intended crime. This paragraph does not apply to a person who voluntarily changes his or her mind and no longer desires that the crime be committed and notifies the other parties concerned of his or her withdrawal within a reasonable time before the commission of the crime so as to allow the others also to withdraw.
I would not be declared "a person concerned in the commission of the crime", as I do not meet statues (2)a,b, or c. I did not directly commit the alleged crime (a); I did not intentionally aid and abet with the commission of the alleged crime (b); I was not/am not a party that conspired with another to commit an alleged crime, nor was I ever apart in advising, hiring, counseling or otherwise procuring another party to commit an alleged crime.
I will correct you. I am still provided with Freedom of Speech, which includes opinions, as long as they are not within the realms of hate-speech, among others, which I have not violated. If I want to call you a "con artist", I am legally allowed to do so. You are correct that I did name you as "The Fly". However, that action does not in itself meet the criteria for defamation. (3) three co-occurring elements must be proven to establish defamation:
1) a publication to one other than the person defamed;
2) a false statement of fact;
3) that is understood as
a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; AND
b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff
Your alleged defamation claim does not meet the criteria due to the following:
1)The Whirlpool of Crassness ("The Fly"'s blog) published written content using a pseudonym of which could not be linked to you nor anyone else without a court warrant;
2)False statements cannot be made about a pseudonym and then correctly traced back to a real person without factual evidence and accepted as the truth; An entity cannot libel or intentionally defame another entity they know nothing about; Therefor, no harm could have been caused; Opinions regarding an anonymous pseudonym would not have been actually believed by a reasonable person.
To wit, it may have concerned you, but it did not harm your reputation or have the ability to harm your reputation. You have been well known to create multiple user names and fake accounts, so your attention to this matter being brought up at the present time is moot; I.e., your reputation has already been damaged by your very own willful actions. This is not a matter of my opinion. Other blogs and forums and their members have noted this as well. You yourself stated, "Due to all that was going on and the gossip/drama surrounding my name and some of the things I participated in the past I thought it would be a good idea to keep my involvement private, thus fortune [sic]" (and "Tessa" and "Dale"). You declared that you participated in some dubious activities before. It is not my liability or responsibility to correct your past actions.
I never said as a "fact" that you cracked the password of "Cayenne"/Marie. I could not actually know this, and any reasonable person would realize this. Logically, it would make sense for you to re-set a password (this is my guess--not a fact) to leave Marie feeling like she "needed" more of your help. I offer the following previously unpublished statements sent to me, by 3 different people:
1)"All they [hackers/crackers] did was either guess or use some script kiddie app to hack Marie's password, and from there download the SQL database."
2)"Donna was cracking accounts at the old bw.com to help take it down,
She cracked maybe three."
3) "Also, BW wasn’t 'hacked'. Marie’s password was 'cracked', probably by a spooling program, and the database was downloaded in the ACP."
(That was your statement to me via email on 11/28/2012)
Nothing I stated about you, your multiple aliases (who are not entities/real people and have no rights) was done out of malice, nor to cause you any damages. I suggest you have your lawyer read section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
Furthermore, your request that I respond within 2 (two) days time is entirely unreasonable.
Thank you for your time and your expected justifiable response,
Banana
It looks like it is up to me to clear up what this is really about. Terms like “another party”, “residing state”, “direct offender”, etc. are merely being used for legal reasons.
ReplyDeleteThe fact is that Donna was somewhat okay with her pictures being online here on this blog and the reason that she wants them removed now is that she has been harassed on the cesspoolofmadness.com blog and those pictures have been used to carry out the harassment directed against her.
For better or worse, the pictures are out there. It is not within Banana’s power to remove them from the internet and I think any attempts of doing so are futile. For instance, they are also hosted on this blog: unitedagainstmike59.blogspot.com.
As to how the pictures were obtained, this does in reality not seem to make a difference anymore but I think Banana is in the right, for the reasons she gave above.
The one thing that she is wrong about is Facebook’s privacy statement (By the way: The link is broken: should be http://www.facebook.com/about/privacy/your-info instead of http://www.facebook.com/about/privacy/your-info%20states). “Information that is always publicly available” obviously does not comprise pictures that are shared with friends only. In particular, those are very specific, clearly defined pictures in terms of size and how, where they are shown: The “profile picture” is about the size of 200 pixels. Similarly, the “cover photo” is 851 x 315 pixels in size. (1)(2)
The terms “Profile Picture” and “Cover Photo” as stated in FB’s privacy statement are not blanket terms for each and every picture one uploads to Facebook.
@Donna: In case you are wondering why someone would think you are “The Fly on the Wall”. You have a long history of using multiple accounts and names to play games with and deceive people. Even when you said you were not into drama anymore, you went on to run multiple accounts on benzowithdrawal.org once again deceiving and misleading people. How can one not think that you may be “The Fly”?
My question to Banana and Donna would be: When you engaged with an obviously mentally disturbed person who runs a hate blog at cesspoolofmadness.com and who habitually lashes out at *everyone* around him, did you not see it coming? Did you not know that sooner or later you would be next in line for being harassed?
Sources:
(1) http://www.lunametrics.com/blog/2012/11/12/final-social-media-sizing-cheat-sheet/
(2) http://ustandout.com/facebook/size-facebook-profile-picture-thumbnail
Sorry about the broken link. I will fix it. I noticed I had the word "state" in the link, hence the problem.
ReplyDeleteSeth, to answer your question: "When you engaged with an obviously mentally disturbed person who runs a hate blog at cesspoolofmadness.com and who habitually lashes out at *everyone* around him, did you not see it coming? Did you not know that sooner or later you would be next in line for being harassed?"
When you Google M59 or any other such terms, you will see that someone went WAY out of line and accuses him of molestation on YouTube, among other sites. That's one of the worst things one can be accused of. Before I commented on the CoM, I Googled it and I saw these horrible accusations. If it were true, they would be on the state's criminal document sheet, as well as a page called "Megan's Law" in America-- which they are NOT on, so it never happened. Someone took retaliation way too far. I'm sure he did anger someone-- but such retaliation is clearly uncalled for.
I took everything into consideration before I became his "friend". Yes, he "turned on me" when I merely mentioned to Colin that BB should have a "Quack Mod". It was not apart of M59's goal. I have no goal-- I just think people should be able to tell others "that's not a benzo w/d symptom" AND think for themselves. Otherwise, the end result is hyper-focusing on mild symptoms and becoming obsessed with a benzo taper. This is NOT healthy for anyone.
He did turn on me, and I was harassed rather badly. In retrospect, I know two things: 1) It was not M59 who did the "digging" of info on me. I believe this, although I will never know it as fact. 2)M59 actually IS capable of being a friend. And he is rather funny. Yes, IMO, he crosses the line often, but I don't know the whole story. He and I agree on the science and medical aspects of benzo w/d, and we both see that in too many cases, BB is not healthy for many. Both he and I are no doubt "special" when it comes to the amount we were on. Whining and enabling is allowed on BB; You're treated as a child; They say that discussion from other viewpoints is welcomed, but if you even mildly insult someone (without INTENTION; to actually HELP the person) you will be threatened with a ban. These forced niceties cannot be good for anyone. It's fine to ban a mean person. But there's a difference in being "cruel" and "non-enabling".
Also, I have never seen a statement on BB which says sometimes it's OKAY for people to remain on benzos. It's in the Ashton Manual, so why those on BB haven't followed suit is beyond me. Medically, some people are in fact better/healthier ON benzos if they require them. The fact is that some people DO need them for years or decades if they want to live a normal life.
It does not warn "the other party" (other than me) because no one knows who is behind the United blog. Is that legally just? No.
http://www.ceasefireofinsanity.com/ does not load here.
ReplyDeleteLol... Buy it. :) You can have all of the fame and glory. Come on, you know you want it. The law suits? I mean, who wouldn't WANT to be called retarded by a guru who then blackmails you and threatens to sue you with some funds via a Countess? It's rather "Blissful".
Delete(*No-- I'm not talking about Donna, of course, hence the " " above.)