Showing posts with label attorneys. Show all posts
Showing posts with label attorneys. Show all posts

EXCLUSIVE: Michael Avenatti Arrest Mugshot (LOL)

Unless you've been living under a rock, you know that anti-Trump attorney Michael Avenatti was arrested on Wednesday, Nov. 14 on suspicion of physical violence against a woman.

Creepy Porn Lawyer mug shot
Photo manipulation by T. Mannis for CNB
Michael Avenatti, who became famous for representing Stormy Daniels in her battle with President Trump, has been arrested for felony domestic violence ... law enforcement sources tell TMZ.

Our law enforcement sources say Avenatti was arrested Wednesday after a woman filed a felony DV report. We're told her face was "swollen and bruised" with "red marks" on both cheeks.

TMZ first reported that Avenatti allegedly struck his estranged wife, but later said it was another woman. Avenatti is out on $50,000 bail and his first court appearance is scheduled for Dec. 5 in Los Angeles Superior Court, CNBC reports.

Since no official Avenatti mugshot has been released by LAPD, we made our own.

WANTED: Conservative Attorney With Courage To Help Me Sue YouTube and Vimeo

Update, 13 June 2013: Now Vimeo has removed the video. Vimeo's email to me: "Your video 'Gay Attorney Supports Official Abuse of Power Against Chick-fil-A' has been removed for violating our Guidelines. Reason: Violates Privacy." Incredible! The attorney was openly demonstrating with other protesters on a public sidewalk in broad daylight and consented to being interviewed. That's a violation of privacy? Really?!?
Staring into the camera while being interviewed
UPDATE, June 13, 2013 - I am dead serious about this. If you're an attorney who feels strongly about free speech, and is opposed to the heavy-handed policies of YouTube and now Vimeo that suppress conservatives, please contact me at via @ChiNewsBench on Twitter or via comment on this post.

YouTube removed the video in August, 2012, when I originally published this post. Vimeo removed it in July, 2013. Both said the reason was violation of privacy.  

But no privacy was violated. I interviewed an openly gay attorney (David Amen) who attended the anti-Chick-fil-A "kiss-in" in Chicago. He consented to an interview on camera, which is obvious in the video. Somebody ("an individual," says YouTube) filed a violation of privacy complaint. But who? Everybody in the video was on a public sidewalk. The only people identified by name consented to be identified.

I contend that no privacy was violated and that YouTube violated their own TOS by not taking into account that this video is a newsworthy account of a news event. The attorney was actually seeking publicity "to make a statement" against Chick-fil-A, which was why he was at the event. YouTube disabled my video interview.

I also believe that YouTube and Vimeo are in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

See a fuller explanation at this post: 
"Chick-fil-A Fallout - I Am Being Harassed For My Interview of Gay Attorney."

UPDATED: Is Gay Activist Attorney Trying to Censor My Video Interview of Him at Chick-fil-A?

Update, 13 June 2013: Now Vimeo has removed the video. Vimeo's email to me: "Your video 'Gay Attorney Supports Official Abuse of Power Against Chick-fil-A' has been removed for violating our Guidelines. Reason: Violates Privacy." Incredible! The attorney was openly demonstrating with other protesters on a public sidewalk in broad daylight and consented to being interviewed. That's a violation of privacy? Really?!? 

Update, 21 August 2012: YouTube did it: They disabled my video interview of a gay Chicago attorney. You can still see it here, however, because I also posted it to Vimeo. Read the original post below for full info. Here is the email that YouTube sent to me on August 21:

Regarding your account: 

The YouTube Community has flagged one or more of your videos as inappropriate. Once a video is flagged, it is reviewed by the YouTube Team against our Community Guidelines. Upon review, we have determined that the following video(s) contain content in violation of these guidelines, and have been disabled.

One of the things most hated about YouTube is this: When somebody complains about a video, YouTube does not tell you who that person is and the reasons given are so vague that you often cannot know exactly why the complaint was lodged against you. Such is the case for me with this complaint that "an individual" filed. Worse, even after I explained to YouTube that the video was not in violation of anybody's privacy, they disable the video anyway.

That is why I am asking for legal help to sue YouTube and Vimeo.

ORIGINAL POST:
August 20, 2012 - As the result of my video interview with a gay attorney on August 3, I am being harassed by unknown persons.

When I interviewed an openly gay attorney at the "Kiss-In" protest at the Chick-fil-A Water Tower store, I did not think that I was violating anybody's privacy.

How "private" is this? David Amen and a buddy posed
for photos and a very public kiss at Chick-fil-A Chicago
I still don't think I did so, but "an individual" filed a complaint with YouTube about it. It is, in my opinion, pure harassment. I posted the video and my report on Chicago News Bench on August 3. YouTube informed me of this via email on Saturday, August 18 (see below). To be pro-active, I have also posted the video to Vimeo (above).

"This is to notify you that we have received a privacy complaint from an individual regarding your content," YouTube wrote.

The video was an interview of attorney David Amen, an adult, openly gay attorney in Chicago. He was at the public event, on a public sidewalk, knowingly being interviewed by me.

The only information about Mr. Amen contained in the video was whatever he said about himself, plus the publicly available fact that he is a board member of the Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago and a State's Attorney with the Cook County State's Attorney's Office, both of which are noted on his public profile at the website of the Lesbian And Gay Bar Association of Chicago (LAGBAC).  Do a Google search for "David Amen Cook County State's Attorney's Office" and you'll find all kinds of public information.

A privacy complaint? Really? About what? The public kiss that Mr. Amen gave to another man as he posed for photographers in front of Chick-fil-A? For what he said to me in the interview to which he consented? He identified himself on camera. He identified himself as being gay.  

As you can see in the video, Mr. Amen was cordial and seemed happy to say what he said on camera.

I asked Mr. Amen whether he was protesting or representing by being in front of Chick-fil-A. His response was, "I'd say making a statement about what we believe." A public statement, of course. His response was slick, spoken like a slick attorney, but clear:

Mr. Amen was there to get public attention in order to make his anti-Chick-fil-A statement. He was not doing anything in private. No privacy was violated by this video. Anybody else in that video, in the background, was walking on a public sidewalk and was not identified.

Please note that I am NOT saying that the "individual" who filed the privacy complaint with YouTube is Mr. Amen. I do not know who that person (or persons) may be, and YouTube did not identify the "individual."  I do say, however, that somebody is clearly trying to intimidate me, and their intent is obviously to have the video removed from YouTube.  

YouTube's Email to Me (with my emphasis added):

Who complained to YouTube and Vimeo?
This is to notify you that we have received a privacy complaint from an individual regarding your content: We would like to give you an opportunity to review the content in question and remove any personal information that may be used to uniquely identify or contact the complainant. 

You have 48 hours to take action on the complaint. If you remove the alleged violation from the site within the 48 hours, the complaint filed will then be closed. If the potential privacy violation remains on the site after 48 hours, the complaint will be reviewed by the YouTube Team and may be removed pursuant to our Privacy Guidelines (http://www.youtube.com/t/privacy_guidelines). 

For content to be considered for removal, an individual must be uniquely identifiable by image, voice, full name, Social Security number, bank account number or contact information (e.g., home address, email address). Examples that would not violate our privacy guidelines include gamer tags, avatar names, and address information in which the individual is not named. 

We also take public interest, newsworthiness, and consent into account when determining if content should be removed for a privacy violation. If the alleged violation is located within the video itself, you may have to remove the video completely. If someone's full name or other personal information is listed within the title, description, or tags of your video, you can edit this by going to My Videos and clicking the Edit button on the reported video. 

Making a video private is not an appropriate method of editing, as the status can be changed from private to public at any time. Because they can be turned off at any time, annotations are also not considered an acceptable solution. We're committed to protecting our users and hope you understand the importance of respecting others' privacy. 

When uploading videos in the future, please remember not to post someone else's image or personal information without their consent. For more information, please review our Privacy Guidelines http://www.youtube.com/t/privacy_guidelines

MY RESPONSE TO YOUTUBE:

I CONSIDER THIS COMPLAINT TO BE HARASSMENT BY THE COMPLAINANT.

Your notification...is terribly vague and non-specific. The man that I interviewed in the video, Mr. David Amen, is (a) an adult and (b) put himself out in the public eye by appearing at a public protest and consenting to the interview, as it obvious. I listed his name and two of his job titles, both of which are public information and publicly posted on his and related publicly available websites. You claim that you are "committed to protecting our users," but I wonder if you are also committed to the fairness of those who are unfairly targeted for unwarranted complaints. The man that Mr. Amen kissed at the beginning of the video is also an adult and similarly consented to be on camera, was knowingly at a public event on a public sidewalk in full view of news media and cameras.

Also See: 
WANTED: Conservative Attorney With Courage To Help Me Sue YouTube and Vimeo

Updated: Gay Attorney Supports Official Abuse of Power Against Chick-fil-A

Attorney David Amen: Abuse of power is okay
August 3, 2012 - Chicago - I visited the Chick-fil-A Loyola Water Tower store for the "kiss-in" to protest the restaurant chain's alleged discriminatory policies.  

David Amen, a gay activist attorney, spoke to me on camera (video below). What he said is disturbing to anyone who understands the First Amendment and fears the abuse of power by elected officials.

The event was small:  I counted only nine gay activists present, all of whom were standing around quietly outside of Chick-fil-A. The gay activists were gathering pro-gay marriage petition signatures Equality Illinois. Amen's statements demonstrate a frightening disregard for both the U.S. Constitution and the Illinois State Constitution.


Amen is a board member of the Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago and is also a State's Attorney with the Cook County State's Attorney's Office.

Amen said he has no problem with Chicago's 1st Ward Alderman Proco Joe Moreno's unconstitutional blocking of a new Chick-fil-A restaurant based solely on the pro-traditional marriage statements of the restaurant chain's CEO.

UPDATE, JUNE 13, 2013: Somebody has gone to great lengths to censor me by having my video interview of David Amen removed from both YouTube (on Aug. 21. 2012) and from Vimeo (on June 13, 2012). Vimeo and YouTube say they removed the video because of a complaint that it violated somebody's privacy. But everyone in the video was in a public place. Many, including Amen and the man he kissed, were publicly demonstrating and seeking media attention. Amen obviously knew that he was on camera. More about that here: Gay Attorney Tries to Censor My Video Interview of Him At Chick-fil-A. 

Bully Dan Proft Sics His Lawyer On Me...

My May 8, 2010 post about Dan Proft has been removed involuntarily and under threat of legal action. Dan Proft did not like what I posted about him, and he had a lawyer send a letter to me demanding that I remove it (see it below).

I'll play Proft's silly little game - for now. All of the original text of that post has been removed, and the headline altered. I believe that to be in compliance with the spirit of the letter from Proft's attorney. All that remains there is a note that the post was deleted, with a link to this post. The html code for that May 8 post has been saved. So now, we watch and wait. The code is ready to be reinstalled at a moment's notice.

Ironically, the story that this deleted post is based on continues to develop, and I didn't start it. We only reported the startling claims of another person against an important Illinois political figure. Late this evening (May 10, 2010), that person (our source) said that Proft has not demanded that she remove her post from her Facebook page, which was posted before my May 8 blog post. Although the attorney's letter demanded that I remove the post right away (although you'll notice she did not give any deadline), she agreed by phone this afternoon to give me until midnight tonight. (It is now 11:58 p.m. by my clock.)

Her letter, below, is filled with bizarre assumptions and wild misinterpretations of the post. (Out of concern for my legal situation, comments will not be accepted on this post at this time.)

RELATED:

Mechanics Liens Done Dirt Cheap

Say, if you'd like some cheap mechanics liens work done, call Tom Westgard. Happy to throw some business his way, poor fellow.

If you need any ditches dug, he's pretty handy at that, too.

Give him a call today! Affordable rates!

Thomas J. Westgard, Attorney at Law
6970 North Sheridan Road #C
Chicago, Illinois 60626
tom @ lienmechanics.com

Atty. Jay R. Grodner Arrested Today

Nice reporting from BlackFive, with huge hat tip to The Broken Heart. * Jay Grodner Taken Into Custody - Pleads Guilty The case was called at 13:33, and the Defendant did not show up. There were two (2) heavy hitter State's Attorneys here to handle it. The Judge increased his bond to $20,000.00 or 10 percent cash, and put out a warrant for his arrest. The Defendant called at 13:40 to say that he will be a half an hout late and was waiting for the media to leave. The Judge said in open court that if he does shows up he will be taken into custody, and if he doesn't he is fair game for any law enforcement agency that wants to pick him up. Will report further developments as warranted. MORE AT BROKEN HEART....

Twisted Quote of the Day

"Oh, and I'm not going to blog anymore. I'm going to spend all my time in a skatepark with a bunch of nubile teenage boys. Because I'm really into "skateboarding." Gee, it sucks to get old. People expect you to be all responsible and shit." ~ Rogers Park Attorney Thomas J. Westgard WTF???

Mr. Westgard, Your Permit, Please

Tom Westgard doesn't want you to see these photographs. They prove that he has violated building code.

These photos were taken in the Ginderske 2007 campaign office, which is now the office of Thomas J. Westgard, Atty. He was Ginderske's campaign chair, and is now a supporter of embattled Alderman Joe Moore.

Since late February, Westgard has ripped apart walls, applied new drywall, and constructed a reception desk in the middle of the office. (See "Westgard Coy About Code Violations")

According to the City of Chicago's Department of Buildings, "permits are required for interior remodeling for the removal of plaster, lath and drywall." Hmmm. Can we see your permit, Mr. Westgard? Or perhaps you would like to provide photos of your office in its current state?

In a comment on his own blog, Westgard once implied that he has only painted walls and built furniture. Nope.

We ask again: Is Alderman Joe Moore covering up or overlooking this clear code violation for his new supporter?