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?!?

WATCH THE VIDEO BANNED BY YOUTUBE AND VIMEO: My interview with a gay activist attorney in Chicago. Watch it on Facebook: https://t.co/73A052IrPN

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."

Starbucks Bullies Small Business: Coffee Versus Canines

Oct. 9, 2012 - Coffee giant Starbucks is doing its best to intimidate a small business in a Chicago suburb. Starbucks says that the business is violating its trademark rights. The name of the business is "Starbarks Dog Daycare & Boarding" (Starbarks Dog Inc.). Starbarks, unlike Starbucks, offers cage-free dog boarding in Algonquin, IL. Unlike Starbucks, they do not sell coffee.

Starbarks owner Andrea McCarthy-Grzybek told Chicago News Bench today that they are "still in talks" with Starbucks. She says she hopes to settle the dispute out of court in order to avoid a costly legal battle. The Chicago Sun-Times reports that a Starbucks spokesman said last Friday that they also would like to settle the matter out of court, saying "we have a legal obligation to protect our intellectual property . . . in order to retain our exclusive rights to it." 

Starbarks received the request to change its name back in April, reports the Northwest Herald, "in a letter from Anessa Owen Kramer of Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP, which represents Starbucks Corp. in intellectual matters. Kramer wrote that Starbucks Corp. requests Starbarks cease and desist use of the term Starbarks as a business name, amend the Starbarks Dog Inc. entity name with the state of Illinois, discontinue use of the domain name StarbarksDog.com, and cease and desist all use of the current Starbarks logo." 

Of course, if Starbucks is not satisfied with the ongoing negotiations, they have powerful lawyers and an endless supply of money with which to crush little non-competing Starbarks in court. McCarthy-Grzybek is well aware of that fact.

Another Federal Judge Finds Obamacare Unconstitutional

January 21, 2011 - Dystopia - It's all about the "individual mandate," the part of Obama's "health care reform" that requires people to purchase coverage or be fined. That's the point which, again, was the main reason why Obamacare has been called unconstitutional. The Atlantic Wire's Elspeth Reeve filed this late this afternoon: A second federal judge has ruled President Obama's health care overhaul to be unconstitutional, following a similar decision from a Virginia judge in December. And like that judge, Roger Vinson of Federal District Court in Pensacola, Florida, said the law could remain in effect while the cases make their way through the court system.... Full Article at Atlantic Wire To those of us who still honor and respect the Constitution, it is painfully obvious that the federal government cannot legally require us to purchase a product that we do not want. To many Democrats and most Liberals, of course, Judge Vinson's ruling has no meaning because they don't believe that the Constitution is valid. It is, after all, more than 100 years old. RELATED: Factbox: Lawsuits challenging U.S. healthcare reform Reuters Cuccinelli, McDonnell praise Florida ruling striking down health-care law Washington Post Obamacare and the Individual Mandate: Violating Personal Liberty and Federalism Heritage Foundation Obamacare is Great... Well Unless You Are a Union, Then You Don't Have to Suffer Under it Publius' Forum

Updated: Green Bay Packers Neck Tie Gets Car Salesman Fired (Then Hired)

January 25, 2001 - Chicago - The game is over. The Green Bay Packers beat the Chicago Bears on Sunday, but the bitterness seems to live on in Oak Lawn. This community of car dealerships and bridal shops is also home to some of Chicagoland's most enthusiastic Bears fans. Ironically, it's also home to many of the most avid Packers fans, living secret lives that some around here might think of as treasonous. One of those local Packers fans is (was) a car salesman. He "was fired for sporting a Green Bay Packers tie at work," wrote Michael Zak, auto correspondent for AOL News. The Oak Lawn, IL car dealership is Webb Chevrolet at 9440 S. Cicero Avenue. John Stone, it seems, is the victim of his own Packers enthusiasm. Zak noted that he "wore the tie out of respect for his 91-year-old grandmother, a devout Packers fan who had passed away just two days before the team's NFC Championship game against the Chicago Bears." One question being asked is, "Will the car salesman sue the dealership?" Maybe, but probably not. Stone was quickly offered a job by another car dealership. According to Oak Lawn Patch, Stone was quickly offered a job by Chevrolet of Homewood. Smart. As it turns out, the decision to hire Stone "has led to an unexpected boom in business. He already has a sale lined up." Patch quotes the dealership's general sales manager as saying that there is a “a gentleman in Milwaukee that wants to come down and buy a Tahoe from John.” An interesting expert opinion of this saga comes from attorney Elie Mystal gives this opinion at abovethelaw.com: "I just don’t see how this is a slam-dunk lawsuit waiting to happen," wrote Mystal. "Stone lives in enemy territory and wore Packer stuff to work anyway. His boss gave a direct order, five times, which he refused. Stone’s lucky he just got fired. I’m sure the Packers fan who wore team apparel in Philly after the Pack beat the Eagles hasn’t yet had a chance to tell his story to the newspapers because he’s still eating out of a straw." Good point. Other Packers fans living "in enemy territory" should take heed. One couple in Oak Lawn was recently outed as "secret" Packers fans. Now that they're out of the cheese closet, they might consider moving to Wisconsin for their own job security. Of course, the lower taxes and better business environment are good reasons to leave Illinois, too.

Appeals Court Says Email Privacy Protected by Fourth Amendment

Good news, more or less, from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF): "In a landmark decision issued today [Dec. 14, 2010] in the criminal appeal of U.S. v. Warshak, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the government must have a search warrant before it can secretly seize and search emails stored by email service providers. Closely tracking arguments made by EFF in its amicus brief, the court found that email users have the same reasonable expectation of privacy in their stored email as they do in their phone calls and postal mail." Full article at EFF's website... The court's decision, says EFF, "is the only federal appellate decision currently on the books that squarely rules on this critically important privacy issue, an issue made all the more important by the fact that current federal law--in particular, the Stored Communications Act--allows the government to secretly obtain emails without a warrant in many situations." Yes, this is good news, I suppose, but before you pop a bottle of champagne in celebration, keep in mind that the government breaks its own laws frequently and all to often doesn't give a damn about what the Constitution says. Take a look at the quasi-fascist Obamacare, for example, which will require each of us - through the "individual mandate" - to purchase health insurance or pay a fine or, if you don't pay the fine, be imprisoned. Also See: Court Ruling Grants Email the Cloak of Privacy Technewsworld.com

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:

Leaked Emails Show WLS Host Bullying Illinois Tea Party Leaders (Part 1) April 4, 2012 https://illinoiscitizensforethicsreform.wordpress.com/2012/04/04/leaked-emails-show-wls-host-bullying-illinois-tea-party-leaders-part-1/

It Ain't Over Yet For Rahm Emanuel: Subpoena Likely

Uh oh, trouble ahead for Team Obama. Associated Press is reporting that Obama's chief of staff-to-be, Rahm Emanuel, is likely to be subpoenaed by Gov. Blagojevich's attorney. This comes, as you probably know, on the heels of Team Obama declaring that it's own internal investigation turned up no wrongdoing in Emanael's dealings with Blago. We have yet to see an independent investigation of Obama's team members, by the way. (Had to take a break from my vacation to bring this to your attention, in case your spiked egg nog haze has kept you from paying attention to the news.) Among the others likely targeted for subpoenaes from Blago's legal team: Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL). Obama chief of staff may be subpoenaed 26th December 2008 (Australia Time), 7:46 WST A lawyer for embattled Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich has asked a panel considering his impeachment for allegedly trying to sell president-elect Barack Obama's Senate seat to subpoena more than a dozen witnesses, including Obama's incoming chief of staff. (Story from AP at The West Australian newspaper site...) MORE ON THIS: Blagojevich's Lawyers Seek Subpoenaes for Emanuel, Jackson Jr. - FOXNews Rahm Emanuel Discussed Obama Shortlist With Blagojevich Staff - ABC News Rahm Emanuel: First post-election disappointment - EnerPub Obama, team lawyered up for inquiries - MLive.com

Did Obama Violate the Logan Act?

Obama and the Logan Act: The Invisible Scandal By Paul Zannucci at theamericansentinel.com Text of the Logan Act § 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments. Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects. 1 Stat. 613, January 30, 1799, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004). Ah, nothing like a major scandal about a presidential candidate to get the media swarming like killer bees, right? Apparently not if that Candidate is Barack Obama, who is clearly in violation of the above referenced law and subject to prosecution. He has tried on two separate occasions to delay the negotiations of troop withdrawals from Iraq in order to gain politically in the upcoming elections. And in case you were wondering, the Logan Act does apply to members of Congress: In United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.(1936) , a case that often has been cited in Logan Act prosecutions, Justice Sutherland wrote in the majority opinion: “The President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it.” Here is a rundown of the major pieces of the puzzle: Amir Taheri reports in the New York Post that Obama met with Iraqi officials and tried to stall an agreement to withdraw U.S. troops until after the election. The McCain camp immediately responded here, asking reasonable questions. Shortly thereafter the Obama camped nuanced the event. They claimed that Obama was merely interfering with negotiations regarding the Strategic Framework Agreement, which by my reading is still a violation of the Logan Act. Still, that places him as less of a hypocrite since the Strategic Framework Agreement does not concern bringing the troops home, but focuses on the long-term presence of military bases in Iraq. One problem is that it isn’t true. In fact, Obama is on the record prior to his trip to Iraq as contacting Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari and arguing that he thought that “Congress should be involved in any negotiations regarding a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq. He suggested it may be better to wait until the next administration to negotiate such an agreement.” This was reported by NBC and can be tracked here. This earlier event not only contradicts the current Obama camp nuance of the scandal but is, in itself, a violation of the Logan Act. So where is the swarm of scandal-loving reporters? Alaska, maybe? Fact checking a McCain ad? Annointing Obama’s feet with oil? It’s safe to say those activities are taking a lot of their time, so I can understand that they haven’t gotten around to this yet. Searches on the websites of ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN turn up no stories on the issue at all, and The New York Times buries the story in a blog post critical of McCain and the economy. It is up to you. It’s not good enough that this is being discussed on blogs and conservative talk radio. This has to get out there, and the media will not push it, will not even mention it. We need a person to person, grassroots campaign. Send emails to your mailing list buddies and ask them to pass it on. You can copy and paste our article, with or without credit, and use it if you like, or search Hot Air or Stop the ACLU for different material. The National Review Online and many conservative blogs also are covering the story. It doesn’t matter how you do it. Just join the fight to get this information out there. About the Author: Born in Boston, Paul Zannucci lived and worked in the D.C. area for a time, but has spent most of his life in Tennessee, where he graduated from the University of Tennessee. Paul's political philosophy could best be described as eclectic, though mostly right of center. Read more from this author RELATED: Bring criminal charges against Obama–now! Rice in Baghdad: Security Agreement Drafted Shocking Revelations About Obama’s Iraq Trip : True To Form Obama Sunk by MSNBC? Should Democrats Drop Obama From Ticket?

TIF ABUSE? SUE THE BASTARDS!

Ben Joravsky follows TIFs. He follows them hard, with no grease, and understands them as few Chicagoans do. "Three Million Lawsuits Oughta Do It" by Ben Joravsky is a killer. He says there may be a new way to combat the TIF monster: Well, there may be a new obstacle in the monster’s path, thanks to a recent court ruling in a case involving a TIF-financed shopping center in downstate Belleville, just this side of the Mississippi River from Saint Louis. On July 16 an Illinois appellate court ruled that individual taxpayers have legal standing to sue municipalities they think are breaking or bending the laws governing TIFs. Previously the lower courts had held that they don’t have standing. FULL ARTICLE at the READER... Who would like to be the first to start a class action suit against their alderman? Anybody? Anybody?

Murtha's Gang Still After U.S. Marine

Several U.S. Marines were recently cleared of outrageous charges, but the Fifth Column marches on: The legal nightmare continues for Haditha Marine Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani. David Harsanyi reports on the prosecution’s appeal of the dismissal of charges against Lt. Col. Chessani. FULL UPDATE from Michelle Malkin... RELATED: The Marines Vs. Haditha Smear Merchants

Band Tries to Intimidate Blogger

UPDATED! Read the following, then read the followup.

Roundeye just doesn't get it. Roundeye is a rock band in Rogers Park, and they seem bound and determined to remain an obscure, amateurish band of immature punks. If they were pros, they would not have had their "booking agent" Mark send me a request to stop using their band logo on The Bench. "Mark," who doesn't give his last name, sent an email to The Bench asking me to "remove any and all Roundeye logo images" from The Bench. (Sorry, Mark, I don't want to.)

Mark's poorly crafted letter "notified" me to remove "all Roundeye logo images" from The Bench. Huh? So, other, non-logo images are okay? Perhaps Mark could advise his "client" to stop trashing the neighborhood with Roundeye stickers, applied to stop signs, phone poles, light poles, mail boxes and so forth, all of which is illegal.

Mark reminded me that I did not obtain permission to use Roundeye's badly drawn logo, and said that I must remove it because I do not own it. Apparently Mark and Roundeye don't read many magazines or newspapers, which frequently use logos to illustrate a point or to satirize or parody something or somebody. But I would expect this from poorly educated, semi-literate amateurs.

Parody and satire are protected by law, according to the "Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code":

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. [more at http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107]

Mark optimistically thanked me for my "anticipated" cooperation. Let me thank Mark in advance for his anticipated autofornication.

Dear Mark,

Have a lawyer send a request to cease and desist and I might consider it. In the meantime, Roundeye, as a rock band that seeks publicity, is a public figure and therefore subject to public criticism. The use of its logo as satire or parody is, by my understanding, permissable. I have not used their logo for financial gain. If your puny client cannot stand the heat of public criticism, Mark, then perhaps they should stop seeking the public spotlight.

Here's a question for you, Mark. Does Roundeye have written permission to use logos from the following entities on their MySpace site?:

Chicago Peace Fest; Hemp and Peace Fest; Sexfist; the Cobra Lounge; Pabst Blue Ribbon; Illinois Entertainer; WLUW; Hustler Magazine; He-Man; Warner Brothers (for use of the Tasmanian Devil image); others.

Oh, and by the way, Mark, I have half an urge to forward the obscene, unsolicited email that the idiot Brettly sent out to publicize Roundeye. I believe there may be a couple of federal and state laws that were violated by that email.

Oh, and Mark, what the hell is your last name? What kind of amateur are you that you don't use your last name, give the name of your agency, or any contact info other than your email?

UPDATED! NOW READ THE FOLLOWUP

RELATED:
Red Line Tap Bartender's Obscene Email Blast
Fair Use Network: 'Cease and Desist!' - Assessing & Responding to ...
NCAC - National Coalition Against Censorship - Parody is protected by the First Amendment, ruled the California Supreme Court, overturning a lower court...

Bloggers, Developer Settle Out of Court

A case of Blogger v. Developer ended quite differently than David and Goliath. Goliath won this round, but only after a few interesting twists and turns behind the scenes. FULL STORY at Chicago Journal/Booster...