FUCK this bitch

[Onions]

http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625 ... d-23909987

[R-Jack]

Let this be a lesson for Wags to pass onto his children.

[Tom In VA]

She'd probably have sued somebody - that worked at the mall - for trying to help her.

"Security touched my breast under the guise of "Helping".".

What a maroon.

[indyfrisco]

I don't think I've ever said this but rack George Stephanopoulos. Every time the camera cut to him you could tell he was trying his ass off to not laugh out loud. Looks like he had the giggles.

[jiminphilly]

http://www.polyaklawoffice.com/main.html
^
The scumbag lawyer who is trying to make money on her stupidity.


The longer she allows this video to stay in the limelight, the worse she's going to look.

[indyfrisco]

http://www.polyaklawoffice.com/main.html
^
The scumbag lawyer who is trying to make money on her stupidity.

http://www.polyaklawoffice.com/contacttheoffice.html

SEND AN EMAIL TO THE OFFICE USING THE FOLLOWING CONTACT FORM


First Name
Last Name
Tel. Number () -
Comments

Hmm....

[jiminphilly]

She's not suing beacuse she fell into the fountain.

She's going to sue (and probably win) beacuse mall security took that video, downloaded it and posted it on youtube where it went viral.

I'll expect the property management company will want to settle this pretty quick

Why b/c scumbag lawyer took time away from chasing an ambulance to try and shake out a settlement? It's not going anywhere.
Undisclosed settlement will equal a few coupons of free french fries at the food court.

[Onions]

did the mall reveal the woman's identity before she identified herself as the tard on the vid?

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Undisclosed settlement will equal a few coupons of free french fries at the food court.

"I fail to see the downside. Help me out here people..."

Sincerely, shutyomouth

[Goober McTuber]

Why this happened, how this happened

I believe this happened because your client is a blithering dumbfuck.

[smackaholic]

Why b/c scumbag lawyer took time away from chasing an ambulance to try and shake out a settlement? It's not going anywhere.
Undisclosed settlement will equal a few coupons of free french fries at the food court.

The reason the mall would settle is that her perceived right of privacy as an individual is violated by that video from mall security cameras being posted by mall employees on youtube. Since she was not violating any laws (other than the laws of stupid) she has a right to privacy on the property of the mall.

Same situation if your wife was drinling a soda in the food court and dumped it on herself - you probably wouldn't want her to become an "internet star" from some mall cop who happened to be watching her on a PTZ and decided to post it to youtube.

-----------------

In the "Here's some fucking irony" dept - after fountain gal was on Good Morning America she went to court on felony theft charges:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/fountain-falli ... d=12685189

scott, you wanna link me up with the part of the video where they identify her. oh, yeah, that's right, they didn't. they just put up a long distance grainy video of somebody being a dumbfukk.

noting the mall did in posting this video identifies her in any way. SHE did that by hiring this scumbag lawyer and looking for a payday because she's a dumbfukk.

i do agree that the mall may possibly roll over and throw her a bone as it is cheaper than going to court and winning. too bad we don't have britains laws reguarding loser pays legal fees. it would eliminate stupid shit like this. of course that will never happen as many lawyers beach homes can't be paid for doing honest work.

[smackaholic]

scott, you wanna link me up with the part of the video where they identify her. oh, yeah, that's right, they didn't. they just put up a long distance grainy video of somebody being a dumbfukk

Doesn't matter, your likeness is protected.

I'm not sure why this is difficult to undertand.

Why do you think anytime anyone is on TV, Movies etc. they have them sign waivers allowing them to use their likeness?

How exactly do you think the internet is different in that respect?

I would agree with you if there was any way the video could be used to identify her or even suggest who it is. But, it isn't.

This bitch did get identified, by herself with her shameless money grubbing.

She deserves squat.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

I've tried to explain this as simplisticly as possible.

Your opinion is wrong.

Here is the legal definition

Perhaps if you read it you may understand what I've written

Ummmm...you're arguing with smackaholic, dude...

:?

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Oh and Scott's right about this...(her being a bitch notwithstanding).

[Cueball]

This keeps getting better


http://abcnews.go.com/US/fountain-falli ... d=12685189

[Screw_Michigan]

I take special pride in watching that bitch fall into the water fountain. I dream for the day on the streets of DC when I bowl over some asshole who thinks he's too important to, you know, WATCH WHERE HE'S FUCKING WALKING, and instead makes YOU watch out for him, just because he can't spend 30 fucking seconds with his head out of his phone. I saw some fucking jerkoff WATCHING HIS IPAD while walking down the street. I wanted to slap that piece of shit out of his hands like a pile of fucking books in 3rd grade. Fuck you, douchbag.

[Dr_Phibes]

She should get the money because she's hot and evil.

[War Wagon]

...he can't spend 30 fucking seconds with his head out of his phone.

pretty much an epidemic in everyday life. At work, at play, you name it. People get so absorbed with their blackberry or whatever, they just block out the world.

It's their escape from reality, I guess, but it's pretty fucking annoying when you're trying to have a conversation with someone who is constantly looking at and fingering their handheld device like that is the center of their universe and everything and everyone else around them is just a peripheral distraction.

yeah, fuck that guy.

[Screw_Michigan]

A married couple I am friends with from my alumni group live down my street and have friends over to watch Hoarders. I prefer Intervention ,but anyway. So I stop over there last week during the national title game (halftime only) to hang out during the season finale. This married couple is both 25. There's about 15 people in this 1BR apartment, all the same age. All but FUCKING TWO have their heads buried in their phone twittering every breath they take. The only ones? Me and this wife, just shooting the shit in the kitchen. We both were appalled.

Whitey, people have been burying their heads in phones for years now. It's the shit like making other people watch out for where YOU walk because of them where I draw the line.

[War Wagon]

..people have been burying their heads in phones for years now.

Maybe, but I've really just noticed it getting worse in the last year or so, at least in the flyover. It's almost like it's become a status symbol... Hey, look at me! I'm really fucking important and can't be bothered by talking to this live person standing right in front of me...

If anybody reading this is one of those people, and you know who you are... GO FUCK YOURSELF.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

FUCK this bitch

I'll need some exhibits. Rules, motherfucker.

[Screw_Michigan]

Maybe, but I've really just noticed it getting worse in the last year or so, at least in the flyover. It's almost like it's become a status symbol... Hey, look at me! I'm really fucking important and can't be bothered by talking to this live person standing right in front of me...

If anybody reading this is one of those people, and you know who you are... GO FUCK YOURSELF.

Whitey, gotta admit since I got a Blackberry with free web, I have more than enjoyed being able to catch up on news while waiting for trains and waiting for shit in general. But I have, you know, common courtesy for others (fucking shocking, I know) on the street, so if I gotta bury my head in my phone for something on the street, I'll at least stop walking.

[War Wagon]

I have more than enjoyed being able to catch up on news while waiting for trains and waiting for shit in general.

Not the dickbags I'm referring to. I mean like the people at the party you mentioned, or at work during a fucking meeting. Meetings have always sucked, but now they suck worse because you have to talk about the same shit over and over for the guy who wasn't paying attention because he had some other urgent business at hand. I'm like, shove that phone up your ass and quit wasting my time.

[Tom In VA]

Think people. Think.

Did he died ?

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

pretty much an epidemic in everyday life. At work, at play, you name it. People get so absorbed with their blackberry or whatever, they just block out the world.

It's their escape from reality, I guess, but it's pretty fucking annoying when you're trying to have a conversation with someone who is constantly looking at and fingering their handheld device like that is the center of their universe and everything and everyone else around them is just a peripheral distraction.

yeah, fuck that guy.

It took a decade, but Whitey finally gave a take worth racking. People who engage in this behavior are often socially retarded and don't know what to do with themselves. What a perfect diversion. Next time this happens to you just break out one of these bad boys and act casual:

[Terry in Crapchester]

The lawyer looks a Little like jsc . . .

Wonder if he hunts or just cooks at the duck club.

I think you have JSC confused with mvscal.

[Goober McTuber]

A married couple I am friends with from my alumni group live down my street and have friends over to watch Hoarders. I prefer Intervention ,but anyway. So I stop over there last week during the national title game (halftime only) to hang out during the season finale. This married couple is both 25. There's about 15 people in this 1BR apartment, all the same age. All but FUCKING TWO have their heads buried in their phone twittering every breath they take. The only ones? Me and this wife, just shooting the shit in the kitchen.

You should have nailed her on the counter. No one would have noticed.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

But this video was shot in the public area of a mall.

AKA - private property

[DELSDAD]

Nobody would have known who she was in that video had she not come in for the money grab. When news stations do the obesity stories with all the headless gut and ass shots walking down the street, do they get the gut and asses permission? Could someone come forward and say that is my gut and sue? And her bs about not getting help is a joke. She was out of there like she had been shoplifiting. I agree the mall will probably throw her a bone to make her go away.

[mvscal]

She has no case. There is no expectation of privacy when you are in a public place:

The person/company who took the film of her fall can do anything it wants with it, including loading it on youtube.com.

The employees who loaded the security video on youtube.com likely violated their own company's policies and may be subject to discipline.

Sorry Counselor - I'll have to disagree.

I've had multiple clients in the last 5 years that had this exact incident occur (security video posted on youtube) - each time this came up they were told by legal there was an absolute case should the "anonymous" customer come forward and file suit

What would her claim be? They didn't use her likeness or name to promote their business. It is not unlawful to post a video of someone humiliating themself in public

According to law

In most states, you can be sued for using someone else's name, likeness, or other personal attributes without permission for an exploitative purpose. Usually, people run into trouble in this area when they use someone's name or photograph in a commercial setting, such as in advertising or other promotional activities. But, some states also prohibit use of another person's identity for the user's own personal benefit, whether or not the purpose is strictly commercial. There are two distinct legal claims that potentially apply to these kinds of unauthorized uses: (1) invasion of privacy through misappropriation of name or likeness ("misappropriation"); and (2) violation of the right of publicity. (The "right of publicity" is the right of a person to control and make money from the commercial use of his or her identity.)

I'm not saying I agree - only that this is the standard the Mall ownership will be held against

You really don't have a clue.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

I'm going to pass on that one.

:o

[mvscal]

But this video was shot in the public area of a mall.

AKA - private property

So? What part of no expectation of privacy in a public place are you struggling to comprehend?

In any event, she is no longer planning on suing and the employee who posted the footage has been fired...exactly as 88 said. She never had a case and when her previous criminal past came to light (identity theft, 4 counts of retail theft) she dove under the first rock she could find.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

So? What part of no expectation of privacy in a public place are you struggling to comprehend?

That part about a private corporation making and distributing an electronic recording of a private citizen on private property, without their consent.


Look, I don't like her either, but that's not the point.

[mvscal]

Except that a private corporation did not make or distribute that film and the location was not private in any sense of the term that you believe it to be.

In any event, it's over. There will be no lawsuit. You and KC Scrote were wrong. Period. EOS.

[Python]

aforementioned

Did you type that with your pinky finger extended?

[mvscal]

Except that a private corporation did not make or distribute that film and the location was not private in any sense of the term that you believe it to be.

You are totally and unequivocally wrong.
A private entity did make the video recording.
An employee of that entity did allow that video to be released for mass consumption.
The private entity is responsible for the actions of its employee.

There will be no lawsuit.

Link?

If she chooses not to press forward beacuse of her own lucid past, that has nothing to do with the aforementioned facts of this incident.

You are making yourself look more and more stupid every time you hit the submit button. Lucid past?!?



Try mastering basic literacy before you attempt to interpret laws you very clearly do not understand.

[Dinsdale]

Scott, through repeated, continuous effort, has earned himself a giant :FACEPALM:

[mvscal]

Common law protects these distinct privacy interests by imposing civil liability upon anyone who publicizes private facts; besmirches some-one's reputation; profits from another's name, likeness, or ideas; or otherwise intrudes upon an individual's private affairs. Common-law protection of privacy interests is broader than Title III because it is not limited to wiretapping and bugging but extends to photographic and video surveillance as well. Thus, video surveillance of restrooms, locker rooms, and dressing rooms may give rise to a claim for invasion of privacy under common law but not under Title III.

At the same time, common law is narrower than Title III because liability is only established by proof that the published information was sufficiently private to cause outrage, mental suffering, shame, or humiliation in a person of ordinary sensibilities. Title III creates liability for any nonconsensual, intentional disclosure of electronically intercepted information, thus establishing a much lower threshold. For example, a newspaper would not be liable under the common-law invasion-of-privacy doctrine for accurately reporting that someone had engaged in criminal conduct. However, the nonconsensual, electronic interception of such information would give rise to liability under Title III.

---------------------------

You're done. No case....no suit.

[Dinsdale]

Dins - I'm sure with your vast experience in all matters of all matters you'll enlighten us with your legal interpretation of this?

Ohhhhhkayyyyyyy, Cowboy.

I'll give you a hint -- you posted laws pertaining to areas where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Does the term "nonsequitur" mean anything to you?


But really, you dazzled us all with your "legal interpretation" -- maybe you could represent her, and dazzle the judge with some land use laws, or jaywalking statutes or something.


But by all means, link us up to where anyone gained profit from the video? You know -- since that's kind of one of the requirements in... the fucking laws you cited.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

But by all means, link us up to where anyone gained profit from the video?

The law doesn't state that profit is the only requirement needing to be met.

Why do you do this?