Porn with house participation 2

Видео

Porn with house participation 2

Фото

Porn with house participation 2

Call on the White House to take action on the issue that matters to you.Gather SignaturesShare your petition with others, build a community for the change you want to make.100,000 Signatures in 30 DaysGet an official update from the White House within 60 days.

wildamateurAmateur porn features the first timers and fresh new sluts you crave in rookie performances that show off their willingness to trade away some innocence in favor of fame and fortune on PORN.com! From sexy eighteen year old coeds to late blooming cheating housewives in amateur MILF sex videos, these gorgeous ladies are the real heroes of adult entertainment. It takes a lot of courage for them to get naked for the first time on film and do it on the most popular free porn video tube site ever, but with your encouragement and affection these amateurs can all see its always worth it! Thats why your participation on PORN.com with Like buttons, Favorite sex video lists and comments are so crucial to the influx of sexy new amateur singles, swinger couples and girls experimenting with their only hardcore group orgy experience online. As a free video site, PORN.com amateurs arent about the money they want the fame and popularity of becoming hardcore sex symbols around the globe and you have the power to grant their wishes by coming back often to watch their newest exclusive amateur XXX action before upvoting them toward even great sexual stardom. Do you know that girl from a local party you attended? Was she the campus slut of a college you used to attend? So many coeds and amateurs look familiar because girls who are now fucking on film for PORN.com have probably been sucking off strangers in their personal lives for years already. Choose the amateur girl who fits your mood and see if she has what it takes to satisfy all your sexual urges. Then tag her in your favorites list, post comments to let the whole amateur porn community know how you feel and check PORN.com often for the new updates she stars in as her porn career takes off!Network

Captured in True HD qualityFastest Streaming OptionsFeaturing Top AV IdolsMobile Access AnywhereAll clips are collected from outside sources (Openload.co, Videomega.TV, Youtube.com, ...). No videos are hosted on this server. JAVabc.net is not liable for copyright by any country.If you have any legal issues please contact the appropriate media file owners or host sites. And you can also contact us.JAV Free, JAV 720p, JAV Donwload, JAV Streaming, Jav Uncensored, Jav Censored, Jav Online, JAV Sex Movies, JAV Porn HD. JAVabc.net, 2015

(How Much is) That Doggie in the Window Patti PageThe song Happy, Happy Birthday, Baby is used as a replacement for Sixteen Candles , which appeared in the original 1972 cut of the film for the 1997 reissue, Sixteen Candles could not be used in the film or the soundtrack due to copyright problems. The original release had also used a brief excerpt of Igor Stravinsky s The Rite of Spring , which was removed for the rerelease. clarification needed citation needed Release edit The film had its premiere in late 1972 at the third Annual Baltimore Film Festival, held on the campus of the University of Baltimore , where it sold out tickets for three successive screenings the film had aroused particular interest among fans of underground cinema following the success of Multiple Maniacs , which had begun to be screened in cities such as New York, Philadelphia, and San Francisco. 9The Joyce Theater in 2009 this building formerly housed the Elgin Theater, where Pink Flamingos was screened as a midnight movie in the early 1970s.Being picked up by the thensmall independent company New Line Cinema , Pink Flamingos was later distributed to Ben Barenholtz , the owner of the Elgin Theater in New York City. At the Elgin Theater, Barenholtz had been promoting the midnight movie scene, primarily by screening Alejandro Jodorowsky s acid western film El Topo (1970), which had become a very significant success in microindependent terms. Barenholtz felt that being of an avantgarde nature, Pink Flamingos would fit in well with this crowd, subsequently screening it at midnight on Friday and Saturday nights. 10The film soon gained a cult following of filmgoers who would repeatedly come to the Elgin Theatre to watch it, a group Barenholtz would characterize as initially composed primarily of downtown gay people, more of the hipper set, but, after a while Barenholtz noted that this group eventually broadened, with the film becoming popular with workingclass kids from New Jersey who would become a little rowdy, too. Many of these cult cinema fans learned all of the lines in the film, and would recite them at the screenings, a phenomenon which would later become associated with another popular midnight movie of the era, The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975). 11Ban edit The film was initially banned in Australia , as well as in some provinces in Canada and Norway. The film was eventually released on VHS in Australia in the late 1980s with a X rating, but distribution of the video has since been discontinued. The 1997 version was cut by the distributor to achieve an R18 after it was also refused classification. No submissions of the film have been made since, but it has been said that one of the reasons for which it was banned (as a film showing unsimulated sex cannot be rated X in Australia if it also features violence, so the highest a film such as Pink Flamingos could be rated is R18) would now not apply, given that the depiction of unsimulated sex was passed within the R18 rating for Romance in 1999, two years following Pink Flamingos rerelease. 12Home media edit Pink Flamingos was released on VHS and Betamax in 1981, and the rerelease in 1997 by New Line Home Video became the second bestselling VHS for its week of release. The film was released in the John Waters Collection DVD box set along with the original NC17 version of A Dirty Shame , Desperate Living , Female Trouble , Hairspray , Pecker , and Polyester . The film was also released in a 2004 special edition with audio commentaries and deleted scenes as introduced by Waters in the 25th anniversary rerelease ( see below ).Alternate versions edit The 25th anniversary rerelease version contains a rerecorded music soundtrack, remixed for stereo, plus 15 minutes of deleted scenes following the film, introduced by Waters. Certain excerpts of music used in the original, including Igor Stravinsky s The Rite of Spring had to be removed and replaced in the rerelease, since the music rights had never been cleared for the original release. citation needed Because of this films explicit nature, it has been edited for content on many occasions throughout the world. In 1973, the U.S. screened version edited out most of the fellatio scene, which was later restored on the 25th anniversary DVD. Canadian censors recently restored five of the seven scenes that were originally edited in that country. A town on Long Island, New York banned the film altogether. clarification needed The Japanese laserdisc version contains a blur superimposed over all displays of pubic hair. Prints also exist that were censored by the Maryland Censor Board.The first UK video release of Pink Flamingos in November 1981 (prior to BBFC video regulation requirements) was completely uncut. It was issued by Palace as part of a package of Waters films they had acquired from New Line Cinema. The package included Mondo Trasho (doublebilled with Sex Madness), Multiple Maniacs (doublebilled with Cocaine Fiends), Desperate Living , and Female Trouble . The 1990 video rerelease of Pink Flamingos (which required BBFC approval) was cut by three minutes and four seconds (3:04), the 1997 issue lost two minutes and fortytwo seconds (2:42), and the preedited 1999 print by two minutes and eight seconds (2:08).The 2009 Sydney Underground Film Festival screened the film in Odorama for the first time, using scratch n sniff cards similar to the ones used in Waters later work Polyester.Kiddie Flamingos: In 2014, John Waters recast the film with children reading a cleverly modified Grated script. The 74minute video shown on a continuous loop in the Black Box gallery features adorable kids wearing wigs and suggestions of the original costumes as they evoke the legendary performances of Divine, Mink Stole, Edith Massey, and others. Filmed in one day mostly with friends children, Waters has said the new version is in some ways more perverse than the original. The film is being shown at the Baltimore Museum of Art through January 2017. 13Reception edit The film received generally positive reviews, currently holding an 80 fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes based on 40 reviews. 14 Like the underground films from which Waters drew inspiration, which provided a source of community for pre Stonewall queer people, the film has been widely celebrated by the LGBT community 15 and has been described as early gay agitprop filmmaking. 3 This, coupled with its unanimous popularity among queer theorists , has led to the film being considered the most important queer film of all time. 16 Pink Flamingos is also considered an important precursor of punk culture . 17 18Despite Waters having released similar films, such as Mondo Trasho and Multiple Maniacs , it was Pink Flamingos that drew international attention to itself. 3 Like other underground films, it fed into the rising popularity of midnight movie screenings, at which it generated a dedicated cult following that carried the film for a 95week run in New York City and ten consecutive years in Los Angeles. 3 19 For its 25th anniversary, the film was rereleased in 1997, featuring commentary by Waters and unused scenes, 3 adding fifteen minutes of material. 1 American New Queer Cinema director Gus Van Sant has described the film as an absolute classic piece of American cinema , right up there with The Birth of a Nation , Dr. Strangelove , and Boom! 3Divine edit The final scene in the film would prove particularly infamous, involving the character of Babs eating fresh dog feces as Divine would later tell a reporter, I followed that dog around for three hours just zooming in on its asshole waiting for it to empty its bowels so that they could film the scene. In an interview not in character, Harris Milstead revealed that he soon called an emergency room nurse, pretending that his child had eaten dog feces, to inquire about possible harmful effects. (There were none.) 20 The scene would become one of the most notable moments of Divines acting career, and he would later complain of people thinking that I run around doing it all the time. Ive received boxes of dog shit plastic dog shit. I have gone to parties where people just sit around and talk about dog shit because they think its what I want to talk about. In reality, he remarked, he was not a coprophile but only ate excrement that one time because it was in the script. 21Divine asked his mother, Frances Milstead, not to watch the film, a wish that she obliged. Several years before his death, Frances asked him if he had really eaten dog excrement in the film, to which he just looked at me with that twinkle in his blue eyes, laughed, and said Mom, you wouldnt believe what they can do nowadays with trick photography. 7The film has a reputation as a midnight movie classic cult with audience participation similar to The Rocky Horror Picture Show .The Funday PawPet Show holds what is called the Pink Flamingo Challenge, in which the ending to the film is played to the audience while they eat a (preferably chocolate) confection. Videos of the show are forbidden from showing the clip, only the reaction of the audience. citation needed Theater patrons often received free Pink Phlegmingo vomit bags. citation needed Death metal band Skinless sampled portions of the Filth Politics speech for the songs Merrie Melody and Pool of Stool, both on their second album Foreshadowing Our Demise . citation needed Joe Jeffreys, a drag historian mentioned seeing in a cameo in Pink Flamingos a poster of The Queen (1968) featuring Flawless Sabrina and it influenced his career path to document the history of drag with the Drag Show Video Verite . 22Proposed sequel edit Waters had plans for a sequel , titled Flamingos Forever. Troma Entertainment offered to finance the picture, but it was never made, as Divine refused to be involved, and in 1984, Edith Massey died. citation needed After reading the script, Divine had refused to be involved as he believed that it would not be a suitable career move, for he had begun to focus on more serious, male roles in films like Trouble in Mind . According to his manager, Bernard Jay, What was, in the early seventies, a mindblowing exercise in Poor Taste, was now, we both believed, sheer Bad Taste. Divine felt the public would never accept such an infantile effort in shock tactics some fifteen years later and by people fast approaching middle age. 23The script for Flamingos Forever would later be published in John Waters 1988 book Trash Trio, which also included the scripts for Pink Flamingos and Desperate Living .

Strategic lawsuit against public participationFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation , searchA strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor , intimidate , and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition. 1 Such lawsuits have been made illegal in many jurisdictions on the grounds that they impede freedom of speech .The typical SLAPP plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiffs goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs , or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. In some cases, repeated frivolous litigation against a defendant may raise the cost of directors and officers liability insurance for that party, interfering with an organizations ability to operate. 2 A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAPP is often preceded by a legal threat .There is a difficulty in that plaintiffs do not present themselves to the Court admitting that their intent is to censor, intimidate, or silence their critics. Hence, the difficulty in drafting SLAPP legislation, and in applying it, is to craft an approach which affords an early termination to invalid abusive suits, without denying a legitimate day in court to valid good faith claims. Thus, antiSLAPP laws target tactics used by SLAPP plaintiffs. Common antiSLAPP laws include measures such as penalties for plaintiffs who file lawsuits ruled frivolous and special procedures where a defendant may ask a judge to consider that a lawsuit is a SLAPP (and usually subsequently dismiss the suit).AntiSLAPP laws occasionally come under criticism from those who believe that there should not be barriers to the right to petition for those who sincerely believe they have been wronged, regardless of ulterior motives. Nonetheless, antiSLAPP laws are generally considered to have a favorable effect, and many lawyers have fought to enact stronger laws protecting against SLAPPs. 3ContentsCharacteristics edit SLAPPs take various forms. The most common used to be a civil suit for defamation , which in the English common law tradition was a tort . The common law of libel dates to the early 17th century and, unlike most English law, is reverse onus , meaning that once someone alleges a statement is libelous, the burden is on the defendant to prove that it is not. In England and Wales, the Defamation Act 2013 removed most of the uses of defamation as a SLAPP by requiring the proof of special damage. Various abusive uses of this law including political libel (criticism of the political actions or views of others) have ceased to exist in most places, but persist in some jurisdictions (notably British Columbia and Ontario ) where political views can be held as defamatory.A common feature of SLAPPs is forum shopping , wherein plaintiffs find courts that are more favourable towards the claims to be brought than the court in which the defendant (or sometimes plaintiffs) live. 4Other widely mentioned elements of a SLAPP are the actual effectiveness at silencing critics, the timing of the suit, inclusion of extra or spurious defendants (such as relatives or hosts of legitimate defendants), inclusion of plaintiffs with no real claim (such as corporations that are affiliated with legitimate plaintiffs), making claims that are very difficult to disprove or rely on no written record, ambiguous or deliberately mangled wording that lets plaintiffs make spurious allegations without fear of perjury , refusal to consider any settlement (or none other than cash), characterization of all offers to settle as insincere, extensive and unnecessary demands for discovery , attempts to identify anonymous or pseudonymous critics, appeals on minor points of law, demands for broad rulings when appeal is accepted on such minor points of law, and attempts to run up defendants costs even if this clearly costs more to the plaintiffs. citation needed Several jurisdictions have passed antiSLAPP laws, designed to quickly remove cases out of court. In many cases, the plaintiff is also required to pay a penalty for bringing the case, known as a SLAPPback.History edit The acronym was coined in the 1980s by University of Denver professors Penelope Canan and George W. Pring . 5 The term was originally defined as a lawsuit involving communications made to influence a governmental action or outcome, which resulted in a civil complaint or counterclaim filed against nongovernment individuals or organizations on a substantive issue of some public interest or social significance. The concepts originators later dropped the notion that government contact had to be about a public issue to be protected by the Right to Petition the Government, as provided in the First Amendment . It has since been defined less broadly by some states, and more broadly in one state (California) where it includes suits about speech on any public issue. 6The original conceptualization proffered by Canan and Pring emphasized the right to petition as protected in the United States under the US Constitutions specific protection in the First Amendments fifth clause. It is still definitional: SLAPPs refer to civil lawsuits filed against those who have communicated to government officialdom (in its entire constitutional apparatus). The Right to Petition, granted by Edgar the Peaceful , King of England in the 10th century, antedates the Magna Carta in terms of its significance in the development of democratic institutions. As currently conceived, the right claims that democracy cannot properly function in the presence of barriers between the governed and the governing. 7 8New York Supreme Court Judge J. Nicholas Colabella, in reference to SLAPPs: Short of a gun to the head, a greater threat to First Amendment expression can scarcely be imagined. Gordon v. Morrone, 590 N.Y.S.2d 649, 656 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1992). A number of jurisdictions have made such suits illegal, provided that the appropriate standards of journalistic responsibility have been met by the critic. citation needed Australia edit In the Australian Capital Territory , the Protection of Public Participation Act 2008 protects conduct intended to influence public opinion or promote or further action in relation to an issue of public interest. A party starting or maintaining a proceeding against a defendant for an improper purpose may be ordered to pay a financial penalty to the Territory. 9Canada edit Some political libel and forum shopping incidents, both common in Canada, have been called SLAPPs, because such suits load defendants with costs of responding in unfamiliar jurisdictions or at times (typically elections) when they are extremely busy and short of funds. Both types of suits are almost unusual to Canada, so there is little academic concern nor examination of whether political subject matter or remote forums are a clear indicator of SLAPP.British Columbia edit One of the first cases in Canada to be explicitly ruled a SLAPP was Fraser v. Saanich (see 1999 B.C.J. No. 3100 (B.C. S.C.)) (QL), where the British Columbia Supreme Court struck out the claim of a hospital director against the District of Saanich, holding that it was a meritless action designed to silence or intimidate the residents who were opposed to the plaintiffs plan to redevelop the hospital facilities.Following the decision in Fraser v. Saanich, the Protection of Public Participation Act went into effect in British Columbia in April 2001. The legislation was repealed in August 2001. There was extensive debate on its merits and the necessity of having hard criteria for judges and whether this tended to reduce or increase process abuse. The debate was largely formed by the first case to discuss and apply the Protection of Public Participation Act (PPPA), Home Equity Development v. Crow. 10 The defendants application to dismiss the action against them was dismissed. The defendants failed to meet the burden of proof required by the PPPA, that the plaintiffs had no reasonable prospect of success. While it was not the subject of the case, some felt that the plaintiffs did not bring their action for an improper purpose, and the suit did not inhibit the defendants in their public criticism of the particular project, and that the Act was therefore ineffective in this case.Since the repeal, BC activists especially the BCCLA have argued repeatedly for a broad understanding of SLAPP and a broad interpretation of judicial powers especially in intervener applications in BC and other common law jurisdictions and when arguing for new legislation to prevent SLAPPs. The activist literature contains extensive research on particular cases and criteria. The West Coast Environmental Law organization agrees and generally considers BC to lag other jurisdictions. 11Nova Scotia edit A private members bill introduced in 2001 by Graham Steele (NDP, Halifax Fairview ) proposed a Protection of Public Participation Act to dismiss proceedings or claims brought or maintained for an improper purpose, awarding punitive or exemplary damages (effectively, a SLAPP back) and protection from liability for communication or conduct which constitutes public participation. The bill did not progress beyond first reading. 12Ontario edit In Ontario, the decision in Daishowa v. Friends of the Lubicon (see 1996 O.J. No. 3855 Ont. Ct. Gen. Div.) (QL) was also instructive on SLAPPs. A motion brought by the corporate plaintiff Daishowa to impose conditions on the defendant Friends of the Lubicon Indian Band that they would not represent Daishowas action as a SLAPP was dismissed.By 2010, the Ontario AttorneyGeneral issued a major report which identified SLAPP as a major problem 13 but initially little or nothing was done. 14In June 2013, the Attorney General introduced legislation to implement the recommendations of the report that bill was reintroduced after the 2014 election . As of 2014 update , Bill 83, the Protection of Public Participation Act (2014), has been referred to the Standing Committee on Social Policy and is not yet law. 15 The bill proposes a mechanism for an order to dismiss strategic lawsuits which attack free expression on matters of public interest, with full costs (but not punitive damages) and on a relatively short timeframe, if the underlying claims have no reasonable prospect of success. 16 In October 2015, Ontario passed the Protection of Public Participation Act, 2015. 17The bill is supported by a wide range of groups including municipalities, 18 the Canadian Environmental Law Association , EcoJustice, Environmental Defence , 19 Ontario Clean Air Alliance, Ontario Nature , Canadian Civil Liberties Association , 20 Canadian Journalists for Free Expression , 21 Citizens Environment Alliance of Southwestern Ontario, The Council of Canadians , CPAWS Wildlands League, Sierra Club Ontario, Registered Nurses Association of Ontario 22 and Greenpeace Canada. 23 The Ontario Civil Liberties Association has called upon the Attorney General to go further, as Bill 83 does not correct fundamental flaws with Ontarios defamation law which impose a onesided burden of proof to force defendants to disprove falsity, malice, and damage within a very limited framework where truth, privilege, fair comment, and responsible reporting are their only recognised defences. 24Quebec edit Qubecs then Justice Minister, Jacques Dupuis, proposed an antiSLAPP bill on June 13, 2008. 25 The bill was adopted by the National Assembly of Quebec on June 3, 2009. As of September 2013, Quebecs amended Code of Civil Procedure is the only antiSLAPP mechanism in force in Canada.This bill was invoked in Ontario (and then Supreme Court of Canada docket 33819) in the case of Les ditions cosocit Inc., Alain Deneault , Delphine Abadie and William Sacher vs. Banro Inc., in which the publisher cosocit pleaded (supported by the BCCLA 26 ) that it should not face Ontario liability for a publication in Quebec, as the suit was a SLAPP and the Quebec law explicitly provided to dismiss these. The court denied the request, ruling that the Ontario court did have jurisdiction. 27 A separate 2011 decision in Quebec Superior Court had ruled that Barrick Gold had to pay 143,000 to the books three authors and publisher, Les ditions cosocit Inc., to prepare their defence in a seemingly abusive strategic lawsuit against public participation. 28 Despite the Qubec ruling, a book Noir Canada documenting the relationship between Canadian mining corporations, armed conflict and political actors in Africa was never published as part of a settlement which, according to the authors, was only made for the sole purpose of resolving the threeandahalfyear legal battle.The Quebec law is substantially different in structure than that of California 29 or other jurisdictions, however as Quebecs Constitution generally subordinates itself to international law , the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights applies. That treaty only permits liability for arbitrary and unlawful speech. The ICCPR has also been cited, in the BC case Crookes v. Newton, as the standard for balancing free speech versus reputation rights. The Supreme Court of Canada in October 2011, ruling in that case, neither reiterated nor rescinded that standard.CaselawNo AntiSLAPP lawTwentyeight states, the District of Columbia, and Guam have enacted statutory protections against SLAPPs. 30 These states are Arizona , Arkansas , California , Delaware , Florida , Georgia , Hawaii , Illinois , Indiana , Louisiana , Maine , Maryland , Massachusetts , 31 Minnesota , 32 Missouri , Nebraska , Nevada , New Mexico , New York , Oklahoma , Oregon , Pennsylvania , Rhode Island , Tennessee , Texas , 33 34 Utah , Virginia , 35 and Vermont . In Colorado and West Virginia , the courts have adopted protections against SLAPPs. These laws vary dramatically in scope and level of protection, and the remaining states lack specific protections.There is no federal antiSLAPP law, but legislation for one has been previously introduced such as the SPEAK FREE Act of 2015 . The extent to which state laws apply in federal courts is unclear, and the circuits are split on the question. The First , 36 Fifth 37 and Ninth 38 circuits have allowed litigants from Maine, Louisiana and California, respectively, to use their states special motion in federal district courts in diversity actions. The D.C. Circuit has held the reverse for D.C. litigants. 39It has been argued that the lack of uniform protection against SLAPPs has encouraged forum shopping proponents of federal legislation have argued that the uncertainty about ones level of protection has likely magnified the chilling effect of SLAPPs. 40In December 2009, Rep. Steve Cohen ( D Tennessee) introduced the Citizen Participation Act in the U.S. House. 41 This marks the first time the Congress has considered federal antiSLAPP legislation, though the Congress enacted the SPEECH Act on the closely related issue of libel tourism . 42 Like many state antiSLAPP laws, H.R. 4364 would allow the defendant of a SLAPP to have the suit quickly dismissed and to recover fees and costs.California edit California has a unique variant of antiSLAPP legislation. In 1992 California enacted Code of Civil Procedure 425.16, a statute intended to frustrate SLAPPs by providing a quick and inexpensive defense. 6 It provides for a special motion that a defendant can file at the outset of a lawsuit to strike a complaint when it arises from conduct that falls within the rights of petition or free speech . The statute expressly applies to any writing or speech made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law, but there is no requirement that the writing or speech be promulgated directly to the official body. It also applies to speech in a public forum about an issue of public interest and to any other petition or speech conduct about an issue of public interest.To win on an antiSLAPP (special motion to strike) motion, the defendant in the alleged SLAPP action must first show that the lawsuit is based on claims related to constitutionally protected activities , typically First Amendment rights such as free speech , and typically seeks to show that the claim lacks any basis of genuine substance, legal underpinnings, evidence, or prospect of success. If this is demonstrated then the burden shifts to the plaintiff, to affirmatively present evidence demonstrating a reasonable probability of succeeding in their case by showing an actual wrong would exist as recognized by law, if the facts claimed were borne out.The filing of an antiSLAPP motion stays all discovery . This feature acts to greatly reduce the cost of litigation to the antiSLAPP defendant, and can make beating the motion extremely difficult for the plaintiff, because they effectively must prove their case has at least a basis of visible legal merit and is not merely vexatious , prior to discovery.If the special motion is denied, the order denying the motion is immediately appealable. Defendants prevailing on an antiSLAPP motion (including any subsequent appeal) are entitled to a mandatory award of reasonable attorneys fees. After an antiSLAPP motion has been filed, a plaintiff cannot escape this mandatory fee award by amending its complaint. More than 300 published court opinions have interpreted and applied Californias antiSLAPP law. 43Californias Code of Civil Procedure 425.17 corrects what the Legislature found to be abuse of the antiSLAPP statute. 44 Signed into law on September 6, 2003, this statute prohibits antiSLAPP motions in response to certain public interest lawsuits and class actions, and actions that arise from commercial statements or conduct. Section 425.18, signed into law on October 6, 2005, was enacted to facilitate SLAPP victims in recovering their damages through a SLAPPback ( malicious prosecution action) against the SLAPP filers and their attorneys after the underlying SLAPP has been dismissed. 45In May 2015, The Washington Supreme Court struck down the states 2010 antiSLAPP statute. 46Balancing the right of access to the courts edit The SLAPP penalty stands as a barrier to access to the courts by providing an early penalty to claimants who seek judicial redress. In recent years, the courts in some states have recognized that enforcement of SLAPP legislation must recognize and balance the constitutional rights of both litigants. It has been said:Since Magna Carta , the world has recognized the importance of justice in a free society. To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice. (Magna Carta, 1215.) This nations founding fathers knew people would never consent to be governed and surrender their right to decide disputes by force, unless government offered a just forum for resolving those disputes. 47The right to bring grievances to the courts, in good faith, is protected by state and federal constitutions in a variety of ways. In most states, the right to trial by jury in civil cases is recognized. The right to crossexamine witnesses is considered fundamental to the American judicial system. Moreover, the first amendment protects the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The right to petition extends to all departments of the Government. The right of access to the courts is indeed but one aspect of the right of petition. 48 Because the right to petition is among the most precious of the liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights , ... the right of access to the courts shares this preferred place in the United States hierarchy of constitutional freedoms and values. 49 This balancing question is resolved differently in different states, often with substantial difficulty. 50In Palazzo v. Alves, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island stated:By the nature of their subject matter, antiSLAPP statutes require meticulous drafting. On the one hand, it is desirable to seek to shield citizens from improper intimidation when exercising their constitutional right to be heard with respect to issues of public concern. On the other hand, it is important that such statutes be limited in scope lest the constitutional right of access to the courts (whether by private figures, public figures, or public officials) be improperly thwarted. There is a genuine doubleedged challenge to those who legislate in this area. 51The most challenging balancing problem arises in application to SLAPP claims which do not sound (give rise to a claim) in tort . The common law and constitutional law have developed in the United States to create a high substantive burden to tort and tortlike claims which seek redress for public speech , especially public speech which addresses matters of public concern. The common law in many states requires the pleader to state accurately the content of libelous words. Constitutional law has provided substantive protection which bars recovery against a first amendment defense except upon clear and convincing evidence that there has been deliberate or reckless falsehood. For this reason, ferreting out the bad faith SLAPP claim at an early stage of litigation should be accomplished with relative ease. Extension of the SLAPP penalties to factually complex cases, where the substantive standard of proof at common law is lower presents special challenges.A Minnesota Supreme Court case, MiddleSnakeTamarac Rivers Watershed Dist. v. Stengrim, 784 N.W.2d 834 (Minn. 2010) establishes a twostep process to determine whether SLAPP procedure should be applied. The decision arises in the context of an effort to enforce a settlement agreement between a local government and an opponent of a flood control project. The landowner had accepted a significant monetary settlement in settlement of his opposition to land acquisition. The landowner agreed as part of the settlement to address no further challenges to the project. When the local government sued the landowner for breach of settlement, the landowner contended that enforcement of the settlement was a strategic lawsuit against public participation. The Supreme Court rejected that claim and affirmed the District Courts denial of SLAPP relief, holding The District Court properly denied a motion to dismiss where the underlying claim involved an alleged breach of a settlement agreement that potentially limited the moving partys rights to public participation. The Supreme Court explained:Preexisting legal relationships, such as those based on a settlement agreement where a party waives certain rights, may legitimately limit a partys public participation. It would be illogical to read sections 554.01.05 as providing presumptive immunity to actions that a moving party may have contractually agreed to forgo or limit.Under the Minnesota approach, as a preliminary matter, the moving party must meet the burden of showing that the circumstances which bring the case within the purview of SLAPP protection exists. Until that has been accomplished, no clear and convincing burden has been shifted to the responding party.Australia edit Gunns 20 : In the 2005 Gunns Limited v Marr Ors case, 52 Gunns filed a writ in the Supreme Court of Victoria , against 20 individuals and organisations including Senator Bob Brown , for over A7.8million. 53 The defendants have become collectively known as the Gunns 20. 54 Gunns claimed that the defendants sullied its reputation and caused it to lose jobs and profits. The defendants claimed that they are protecting the environment. Opponents and critics of the case have suggested that the writ was filed with the intent to discourage public criticism of the company. Gunns has maintained the position that they were merely trying to prevent parties enjoined to the writ from undertaking unlawful activities that disrupt their business. The statement of claim alleged incidents of assault against forestry workers and vandalism. 55 56 At a hearing before the Supreme Court of Victoria , an amended statement of claim lodged by the company and served on defendants on July 1, 2005 was dismissed. 52 However, the judge in the case granted the company leave to lodge a third version of their statement of claim with the court no later than August 15, 2005. 52 The application continued before the court, before being brought to a close on October 20, 2006. 53 In his ruling, the Honourable Justice Bongiorno made an award of costs in favour of the respondents only as far as it covered those costs incurred with striking out the third version of the statement of claim, and costs incurred associated with their application for costs. 53 In November 2006, Gunns dropped the case against Helen Gee, Peter Pullinger and Doctors for Forests. In December 2006, it abandoned the claim against Greens MPs Bob Brown and Peg Putt . 57 The other matters were all settled in favour of Gunns following the payment of more than 150,000 in damages or, in some cases, undertakings to the court not to protest at certain locations.Brazil edit ThyssenKrupp Atlantic Steel Company (TKCSA), one of the largest private enterprises in Latin America, sued Brazilian researchers from public universities as UERJ ( Rio de Janeiro State University ) and Fiocruz ( Oswaldo Cruz Foundation ) for moral damages. 58 59 First, TKCSA sued research pulmonologist Hermano Albuquerque de Castro from Sergio Arouca National School of Public Health (ENSP Fiocruz). Then TKCSA sued Alexandre Pessoa Dias, research professor of the Joaquim Venncio Polytechnic School of Health (EPSJV Fiocruz), and Monica Cristina Lima, a biologist from Pedro Ernesto University Hospital and board member of the Public University Workers Union of Rio de Janeiro State (Sintuperj). The last two lawsuits occurred after the disclosure of the technical report Evaluation of social, environmental and health impacts caused by the setup and operation of TKCSA in Santa Cruz.Canada edit Daishowa Inc. v. Friends of the Lubicon, from 1995 to 1998 a series of judgements OJ 1536 1995 OJ 1429 1998 (ONGD) established that defendants, who had accused a global company of engaging in genocide , were entitled to recover court costs 60 due to the public interest in the criticism, even if it was rhetorically unjustifiable. This was the first case to establish clearly the SLAPP criteria.Fraser v. Saanich (District) 1995, BCJ 3100 BCSC was held explicitly to be a SLAPP, the first known case to be so described. Justice Singh found plaintiffs conduct to be reprehensible and deserving of censure, ordering he pay special costs page 48, Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation: The British Columbia Experience, RECEIL 19(1) 2010 ISSN 09628797 to compensate.In 2011, in Robin Scory v. Glen Valley Watersheds Society, a BC court ruled that an order for special costs acts as a deterrent to litigants whose purpose is to interfere with the democratic process, and that Public participation and dissent is an important part of our democratic system. 61 62 However, such awards remained rare. 11Crookes v. Openpolitics.ca, filed May 2006 S063287, Supreme Court of BC, and a series of related suits leading to a unanimous October 2011 ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada in Crookes v. Newton upholding the rights of online debaters to link freely to third parties without fear of liability for contents at the other end of the link. 63 A number of related rulings had previously established that transient comments on the Internet could not be, in themselves, simply printed and used to prove that publication had occurred for purposes of libel and defamation law in Canada. Other elements of the ruling clarified how responsible journalism (and therefore the right to protect anonymous sources ), qualified privilege and innocent dissemination defenses applied to persons accused of online defamation.In May 2010, Youthdale Treatment Centres of Toronto, Ontario filed a defamation suit against various former patients, parents of former patients, and other persons, claiming C5,000,000.00 in damages. citation needed The lawsuit, filed on May 5, 2010 on behalf of Youthdale by Harvin Pitch and Jennifer Lake of Teplitsky, Colson LLP claimed that these persons were involved in a conspiracy to, among other things, have Youthdales licence to operate revoked. Youthdale also claimed their reputation was damaged as a result of various actions by the named defendants, which Youthdale alleged included the creation of websites and blogs containing complaints against Youthdale, including alleged accusations of unlawful administration of psychotropic medications. A notable leftturn for Youthdale occurred in July 2010, when Youthdale became the subject of a Toronto Star investigation, in which it was found that Youthdale had been admitting children to its Secure Treatment Unit that did not have mental disorders. 64 The case has since been dismissed.Businesspeople Garth Drabinsky and Conrad Black filed numerous suits against critics of their business activities. These received much publicity but were usually settled quickly. citation needed Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper filed a suit against the Liberal Party of Canada , the Official Opposition, after the latter paid for trucks to drive through the streets playing a journalists tape of Harper admitting he knew of financial considerations offered to dying MP Chuck Cadman before a critical Canadian House of Commons vote in 2005. This, the Liberals and most commentators and authorities agreed, would be a serious crime if proven. Harper alleged the tape had been altered but a court found no evidence of this. The suit was dropped by Michael Ignatieff after he replaced Stephane Dion as Leader of the Opposition, and so was not heard in court, but was transparently a (successful) effort to get the trucks off the streets. citation needed In September 2014, Brampton, Ontario mayor Susan Fennell used threats of legal action against fellow councillors, the Toronto Star , the citys integrity commissioner and auditor Deloitte to delay a city council meeting which was to discuss a major spending scandal. 65 66 As the parties involved needed an opportunity to seek legal advice, regardless of the merit (or spuriousness) of the claims, this tactic served to defer a key debate which otherwise would have, and should have, taken place before the citys October 27 municipal election. 67Morris vs Johnson et al. October 22, 2012 ONSC 5824 (CanLII): During the final weeks of the 2010 municipal election in Aurora, Ontario a group town councilors and the incumbent Mayor agreed to use town funds in order to launch what was later referenced as a private lawsuit fronted by the Mayor, seeking 6M, against both named and anonymous residents who were critical of the local government. After the mayor and a number of councilors lost the election the new town council cut public funding for the private lawsuit and they issued a formal apology to the defendants. Almost one year after the town cut funding and after Morris lost a Norwich motion, Morris discontinued her case. The discontinuance cost decision delivered by Master Hawkins reads, per para. 32 (Ontario Superior court of Justice court file no.10CV412021): Because I regard this action as SLAPP litigation designed to stifle debate about Mayor Morris fitness for office, commenced during her reelection campaign, I award Johnson and Hogg special enhanced costs as was done in Scory v. Krannitz 2011 BCSC 1344 per Bruce J. at para. 31 (B.C.S.C). Morris subsequently sued the town for 250,000 in the spring of 2013 in order to recover her legal costs for the period after the town cut funding of her case. Almost one and a half years after the final ruling in the Morris defamation case (i.e. the second Master Hawkins cost ruling delivered in January 2013) and approximately one year after suing the town, Morris amended her statement of claim to note that her legal costs were actually 27,821.46 and not the 250,000 as noted in the initial statement of claim. Morris then attempted to move the case to small claims court after the town had already spent over 150,000 in preparing its defense. As of the summer of 2015 the case is ongoing.In 2012, SinoForest sued Muddy Waters Research for 4billion for defamation in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice . Muddy Waters had accused SinoForest of fraudulently inflating its assets and earnings, and had claimed the companys shares were essentially worthless. 68 However, on January 10, 2012, SinoForest announced that its historic financial statements and related audit reports should not be relied upon. 69 Sinoforest also filed for bankruptcy protection. In response to the lawsuit, Muddy Waters stated that Sinos bankruptcy protection filing vindicated its accusations since the company would not require bankruptcy protection if it was really generating close to 2billion in cash flow. 70 SinoForest was represented by Bennett Jones LLP . 71Estonia edit In 2016, the realestate investment company Pro Kapital Ltd sued urbanist Teele Pehk who expressed her opinion about the companys development plans in Kalasadam area in Tallinn , Estonia. The accusations were based on an interview given for the article The battle for the Estonian coastline, published by the monthly newspaper The Baltic Times . Initially, instead of clarifying the questionable quotes in the article with the Baltic Times editors, Pro Kapital sent a legal demand to Pehk demanding that she publish a prewritten explanation and pay 500 to cover their legal advice expenses. Pehk provided proof to the lawyer that she had not lied to the journalist of The Baltic Times, and the newspaper published a clarification online that Pehks words were misinterpreted. Few months later Pro Kapital sued Pehk for damaging their reputation by spreading lies about the detailed plan of the Kalasadam area. Teele Pehk had been involved with the detailed plan of Kalasadam since 2011, as a member of the neighbourhood association Telliskivi selts and caretaker of the Kalarand beach, situated on the edge of Kalasadam area.Half a year into the court case, Pro Kapital began negotiations and settled with a compromise before the court hearing. Pro Kapital paid for Pehks legal costs and both parties agreed not to disparage each other in the future. Teele Pehk is still active in Tallinn urban development and continues to spread the word about SLAPP.This first SLAPP case in Estonia took place at the end of the 12year process of planning the Kalasadam area, which over the years had witnessed exceptionally high public interest regarding the planned residential development and most importantly, the public use of the seaside and the beach. The planning system in Estonia allows anyone to express their opinion, present suggestions or objections to any detailed plan. Many Estonian civic organisations were raising concerned voices about the case and the Chancellor for Justice of Estonia condemned that practice many times in public appearances.France edit In 2010 and 2011, a French blogger was summoned twice by the communication company Cometik over exposing their quickselling method (a.k.a. one shot method) and suggesting a financial compensation for his first trial. 72 The companys case was dismissed twice, but appealed both times. On March 31, 2011, the company won:the censorship of any reference (of its name) on Mathias PoujolRosts weblog,2,000 as damages,the obligation to publish the judicial decision for 3 months,2,000 as procedural allowance,Israel edit During 2016, Amir Bramly , who at the time was being investigated and subsequently indicted for an alleged ponzi scheme 74 sued for libel Tomer Ganon , a Calcalist reporter, privately for 1 million NIS in damages, due to a news item linking him to Bar Refaeli . 75 76 In addition Bramly sued Channel2 News and its reporters and managers for 5 million NIS in damages due to an alleged libel in an indepth TV news item and interview with the court appointed liquidator of his companies, 77 and has threatened to sue additional bodies. 78 The sued individuals and bodies have claimed that these are SLAPP actions. 79 80Japan edit In 2006, Oricon Inc., Japans music chart provider, sued freelance journalist Hiro Ugaya due to his suggesting in an article for business and culture magazine Cyzo that the company was fiddling its statistics to benefit certain management companies and labels, specifically Johnny and Associates . The company sought 50 million yen and apology from him. 81 He found allies in the magazines editorinchief Tadashi Ibi, 81 lawyer Kentaro Shirosaki, 81 and Reporters Sans Frontires (RSF) . 82He was found guilty in 2008 by the Tokyo District Court and ordered to pay one million yen , but he appealed and won. Oricon did not appeal later. His 33month struggle against Oricon and his research on SLAPPs through his selfexpense trip in the United States was featured on the TBS program JNN Reportage, titled as Legal Intimidation Against Free Speech: What is SLAPP? 83RSF expressed its support to the journalist and was relieved on the abandonment of the suit. 82United States edit In December 2015, James McGibney was ordered to pay a 1million Anti SLAPP court sanction and 300,000 in attorneys fees to Neal Rauhauser for filing a series of baseless lawsuits against him. 84 The ruling was temporarily reversed when the presiding judge granted McGibneys request for a new trial in February 2016, but reinstated in favor of Rauhasuer on 14 April 2016 with the SLAPP sanction against McGibney reduced from 1 million to 150,000. 85 86 The judge ruled that McGibney had filed the suits to willfully and maliciously injure Rauhauser and to deter him from exercising his constitutional right to criticize McGibney. 84In December 2010, prominent foreclosure defense attorney Matthew Weidner was sued by Nationwide Title, a foreclosure processing firm. 87Barbra Streisand , as plaintiff, lost a 2003 SLAPP motion after she sued an aerial photographer involved in the California Coastal Records Project . Streisand v. Adelman , (California Superior Court Case SC077257) 88 89 See Streisand effect .In 2004, RadioShack Corporation sued Bradley D. Jones, the webmaster of RadioShackSucks.com and a former RadioShack dealer for 17 years, in an attempt to suppress online discussion of a class action lawsuit in which more than 3,300 current or former RadioShack managers were alleging the company required them to work long hours without overtime pay. 90Nationally syndicated talk radio host Tom Martino prevailed in an antiSLAPP motion in 2009 after he was sued for libel by a watercraft retailer. The case received national attention for its suggestion that no one reasonably expects objective facts from a typical talk show host, who is often a comedian telling jokes. 91 92 93Kim Shewalter and other neighborhood activists, as defendants, won a 1998 antiSLAPP motion against apartment building owners. The owners had filed a SLAPP because of the defendants protest activities. 94Barry King and another Internet poster, as defendants, won an antiSLAPP motion against corporate plaintiffs based on critical posts on an Internet financial message board. 95Kathi Mills won an antiSLAPP motion against the Atlanta Humane Society, Atlanta Humane Society v. Mills, in Gwinnett County (Georgia) Superior Court case 01A132691 96 97 98 She had been sued based on comments she made to an internet forum after a news program had aired critical of the AHS. In part, the judge ruled that private citizens do not need to investigate news coverage before they make their own comments on it. Also that governmental entities may not sue for defamation. 96Karen Winner, the author of Divorced From Justice, is recognized as the catalyst for the changes that we adopted, said Leo Milonas , a retired justice with the Appellate Division of the New York state courts who chaired a special commission that recommended the changes adopted by Chief Judge Judith Kaye . 99 100 But in 1999, Winner, along with a psychologistwhistleblower, and several citizens were SLAPPed for criticizing the guardian ad litem system and a former judge in South Carolina. Winners report, Findings on Judicial Practices Courtappointed Personnel in the Family Courts in Dorchester, Charleston Berkeley Counties, South Carolina and citizen demonstrations led to the first laws in South Carolina to establish minimum standards and licensing requirements for guardians ad litem who represent the interests of children in court cases. 101 The retaliatory SLAPPs have been dragging on for nearly 10 years, with judgments totaling more than 11million against the codefendants collectively. Reflecting the retaliatory nature of these suits, at least one of the codefendants is still waiting to find out from the judges which particular statements, if any, he made were false. 102From 1981 to 1986, Pacific Legal Foundation and San Luis Obispo County, California , filed a suit attempting to obtain the mailing list of the Abalone Alliance to get the group to pay for the police costs of the largest antinuclear civildisobedience act in U.S. history at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant . Pacific Legal Foundation lost at every court level and withdrew the suit the day before it was due to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court . citation needed In March 2009, MagicJack (a company that promotes a USB VOIP device) filed a defamation suit against Boing Boing for exposing their unfair and deceptive business tactics regarding their EULA , visitor counter, and 30day trial period. This was dismissed as a SLAPP by a California judge in late 2009. In the resulting ruling, MagicJack was made responsible for most of Boing Boings legal cost. 103In the 2009 case Comins vs. VanVoorhis, a Florida man named Christopher Comins filed a defamation suit against a University of Florida graduate student after the student blogged about a video of Comins repeatedly shooting someones pet dogs. This was cited as an example of a SLAPP by the radio show On the Media . 1In November 2010, filmmaker Fredrik Gertten, as defendant, won an antiSLAPP motion after he was sued for defamation by Dole Fruit Company. The case concerned Gerttens documentary film about farm workers. The lengthy lawsuit was documented in Gerttens film Big Boys Gone Bananas! . 104In January 2011 Sony Computer Entertainment America sued George Hotz and other individuals for jailbreaking the PlayStation 3 and publishing encryption and signing keys for various layers of the systems architecture. The defendants and the Electronic Frontier Foundation consider the case an egregious abuse of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act . Hotz settled with Sony before trial. citation needed Main article: Congress Elementary School District v. Warren, et. al.In effort to prevent four women from filing any Public Records Requests without first getting permission from a judge, or from filing future lawsuits, the Congress Elementary School District filed a SLAPP on January 28, 2010. The Goldwater Institute , a think tank based in Phoenix, Arizona , represented the four defendants. The school district said that it has been harassed so often by Warren that it was not able to functionally educate its students. Toni Wayas, the school districts superintendent, claimed that it had, time and time again, complied with the requests The Goldwater Institute argued that the school district had been in violation of state laws mandating government transparency in the past. Investigations in 2002 and 2007 by the state Ombudsman and Attorney General uncovered violations of the states open meeting law by the Attorney Generals Office. According to Carrie Ann Sitren of the Goldwater Institute, this was a clear attempt to silence people in the community who have been critical of the boards actions, and have made goodfaith attempts to ensure the district is spending taxpayer money wisely. None of the records requested were private or confidential, and thus, should have been readily available to be released to the public, according to the assistant state Ombudsman. 105Scientology versus the Internet refers to a number of disputes relating to the Church of Scientologys efforts to suppress material critical of Scientology on the Internet through the use of lawsuits and legal threats.The Agora Six The Cynwyd Group, LLC v. Stefany (2009) citation needed Saltsman v. GoddardMain article: Steubenville High School rape caseIn an effort to stop blogger Alexandria Goddard s website from allowing allegedly defamatory posts about their son, two parents of a teenaged boy from Steubenville, Ohio sued Goddard and a dozen anonymous posters in October 2012. 106 The lawsuit asked for an injunction against the blogger, a public apology and acknowledgement that he was not involved in the rape, and 25,000 in damages. 107In August 2015, the State Fair of Texas was sanctioned more than 75,000 for filing a SLAPP suit against a lawyer who had requested financial documents from the State Fair. 108

FBI Safe Online Surfing Internet ChallengeCyber Safety for Young AmericansIn April 2015, the Pew Research Center published a study saying that 92 percent of teens report going online dailyincluding 24 percent who say they go online almost constantly. According to the study, nearly threefourths of teens have or use a smartphone.Considering the many dangers that lurk on the Internetfrom child predators to cyber bullies, from malicious software to a multitude of scamsits imperative that our young people learn the ins and outs of online safety from an early age.That is precisely why the Bureau launched the FBI Safe Online Surfing (SOS) Internet Challenge in October 2012 with a dedicated new website. FBISOS is a free, fun, and informative program that promotes cyber citizenship by educating students in third to eighth grades on the essentials of online security. For teachers, the site provides a readymade curriculum that meets state and federal Internet safety mandates, complete with online testing and a national competition to encourage learning and participation. A secure online system enables teachers to register their schools, manage their classes, automatically grade their students exams, and request the test scores.The FBISOS website features six islandsone for each grade levelwith age appropriate games, videos, and other interactive materials in various portals. The site covers such topics as cell phone safety, the protection of personal information, password strength, instant messaging, social networking, and online gaming safety. The videos include reallife stories of kids who have faced cyber bullies and online predators.The popularity of our SOS online cyber program has grown over the past several school years. The number of students who have completed the training went from 24,475 in 20122013, to 75,377 in 20132014, to 275,656 in 20142015, to 497,248 in 20152016. Thats a grand total of 872,756 students.Countering Violent ExtremismFBI Awareness Program for TeensDont Be a Puppet: Pull Back the Curtain on Violent ExtremismMore and more, violent extremists are trying to radicalize and recruit our nations youth, especially through the Internet and social media.Its the FBIs primary responsibilityworking with its many partnersto protect the nation from attacks by violent extremists. One important way to do that is to keep young peoplethe future of our countryfrom embracing violent extremist ideologies in the first place.This website is designed to help do just that. Built by the FBI in consultation with community leaders and other partners, it uses a series of interactive materials to educate teens on the destructive nature of violent extremism and to encourage them to think critically about its messages and goals.The site emphasizes that by blindly accepting radical ideologies, teens are essentially becoming the puppets of violent extremists who simply want them to carry out their destructive missionwhich often includes targeting or killing innocent people.The FBI encourages community groups, families, and high schools across the United States to use this site as part of their educational efforts. All Americans are asked to join the FBI in exposing the seductive nature of violent extremist propaganda and offering positive alternatives to violence.

Load MoreLatest NewsCopyright 2018 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Special Olympics to help train United Airlines employeesMar 08 12:52 PMUnited Airlines says it will train employees in handling customers with intellectual disabilities as part of its support for the Special Olympics International charity.Read More Associated PressCopyright 2018 Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.Clovis woman sentenced to five years for hitting pedestrianMar 08 12:10 PMA Clovis woman will spend more than five years behind bars for hitting a pedestrian while driving drunk.Read More KRQE MediaCopyright 2018 Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.Former employee accuses union leader of sexual harassmentMar 08 12:08 PMA prominent figure in New Mexicos film industry is accused of sexually harassing a former union employee, touching her inappropriately and attempting to block her from finding other work in the industry after the union fired her.Read More Associated PressCopyright 2018 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.US mortgage rates climb to 4year highMar 08 11:59 AMLongterm U.S. mortgage rates climbed this week to their highest average in more than four years, ratcheting up affordability pressures at the start of the traditional spring home buying season.Read More JOSH BOAK , AP Economics WriterCopyright 2018 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Peyton Manning has sold Denverarea Papa Johns storesMar 08 11:37 AMPeyton Manning sold 31 Denverarea Papa Johns stores last week, two days before the NFL dropped the chain as its official pizza sponsor.Read More Associated PressCopyright 2018 Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.Updated Governor Martinez vetoes solar energy tax credit billMar 08 1:27 PMGovernor Susana Martinez pocket vetoed a measure that would have restored a tax credit aimed at offsetting the costs of solar energy systems for homes, small businesses and farms.

See all my reviewsThis innameonly sequel to the classic ROADHOUSE has a DEA agent (John Schaech) coming to the rescue of his uncle (Will Patton) when the uncle is badly beaten up by a local drug gang, headed by that Wooden Indian of an actor Jake Busey. The gang wants to take over the poor guys bar for nefarious reasons. Patrick Swayze is sorely missed here. Schaech is an indifferent actor and not convincing as an asskicking lawman. The fights here are intermittent and not nearly as powerful or vicious as the fights in ROADHOUSE. The finale is equally weak. Some goodlooking women keep things afloat for a bit. There is a terrific fight between a Daisy Duketype who turns out to be handy with both fists and weapons, and a nastylooking babe of Buseys who is handy with sharp implements. Theres also a scantily dressed gal at the beginning who is a fellow agent of Schaechs, but unfortunately she never reappears in the film. Too bad. She does a brief lap dance for Schaech that had my full attention. If nothing else, ROADHOUSE 2 kicks off with a strip club scene that comes darned close to what a real strip club looks like, a rare circumstance in any movie. The rest is snooze time.3 of 8 people found this review helpful. Was this review helpful to you?Yes

Home Recent news Alleged revengeporn violation against former House staffer depends on time crime was committedAlleged revengeporn violation against former House staffer depends on time crime was committedBy: Ben Giles February 2, 2018 , 1:49 pmRep. Michelle UgentiRita, RScottsdale, stands at her desk on the floor of the Arizona House of Representatives, before a vote to expel Rep. Don Shooter, RYuma. UgentiRitas allegations of sexual harassment by Shooter led a host of women and one man to air similar allegations against him. (Photo by Katie CampbellArizona Capitol Times)Rep. Anthony Kern wants prosecutors to determine if a former legislative staffer violated Arizona law by sharing sexually explicit messages about Rep. Michelle UgentiRita.But whether the law was potentially violated depends on when the messages were sent.Brian Townsend, a former House staffer who last worked as policy director in 2015, told attorneys investigating sexual harassment in the chamber that he shared unsolicited, sexually explicit communications in a manner Townsend said was intended to hurt and humiliate UgentiRita, to whom he is now engaged.Rep. Anthony Kern (RGlendale)Kern, RGlendale, drew attention to Townsends testimony while voting to expel Rep. Don Shooter, a Yuma Republican whos pattern of sexually harassing behavior was the focus of the investigation.The report concluded that credible evidence supports the finding that Mr. Townsend acted alone and without a member of this bodys knowledge.I will be drafting a letter to the Attorney General and the Maricopa County Attorney in response to an alleged unwelcome, harassing and offensive communication by a Mr. Brian Townsend, Kern said.He later added that Townsends actions were potentially unlawful acts, and I want those thoroughly investigated.A House spokesman said Kern is drafting the letters and expects theyll be sent on Monday.Its a crime to share nude photos of another person without their consent if the intent is to harm, harass or intimidate that person.But the law declaring that crime a felony was not adopted until 2016. That year, the Legislature passed HB 2001, sponsored by House Speaker J.D. Mesnard, RChandler, with an emergency clause, meaning the law went into effect the moment Gov. Doug Ducey signed the bill on March 11, 2016.Ryan Anderson, a spokesman for Attorney General Mark Brnovich, said the date the messages were sent and the date the law took effect would be relevant to any law enforcement agency who may follow up on Kerns request.We are aware of the allegations in the investigative report concerning the electronic transmission of sexually explicit communications reportedly intended to hurt and humiliate a state lawmaker, Anderson wrote in an email. Arizona law is clearly designed to protect victims who have a right to expect privacy. We cant comment further.Also at question is whether a prosecutor would pursue charges against Townsend without the consent of UgentiRita.Its too early to determine if prosecutors have something to act on, said Amanda Jacinto, a spokeswoman for Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery. A law enforcement agency with jurisdiction perhaps the Department of Public Safety would first have to investigate the allegations.As for investigators, a victims participation is helpful, but not necessary.As long a youre able to establish a crime did happen, you dont need a victim to bring the crime forward to authorities, Jacinto said.Attorneys hired for the House investigation were told by multiple third parties, and Shooter, about the explicit messages, and that UgentiRita may have known about them or perhaps participated in sharing the messages. There was no doubt that the unsolicited, unwelcome, and harassing contact occurred, according to the report, so it was up to investigators to determine whether UgentiRita was involved.UgentiRita unequivocally denied knowledge of the messages, and based in part on her genuine surprise and shock, investigators found her denial credible.The investigators had previously criticized Townsend as an uncredible witness in their investigation, but found his response when confronted with the allegations consistent and credible. Townsend took complete ownership for the alleged conduct, and broke down trembling and crying in front of investigators several times.Mr. Townsend immediately became emotional, expressing that he knew the discovery of his actions would be the death knell in his career and relationship with Ms. UgentiRita, investigators wrote.The independent, credible evidence supports only a finding that Mr. Townsend acted alone and without Ms. UgentiRitas knowledge or participation when committing the egregious and potentially unlawful acts at issue, investigators later added.Share this:

2 accused of child porn prostitution, 1 man is 911 dispatcherBy: Robert CoxPosted: Sep 15, 2017 04:15 PM EDTUpdated: Sep 15, 2017 04:15 PM EDTWSPA Staff CHEROKEE CO., SC (WSPA) Two people, including a 911 dispatcher and unpaid reserve deputy in Cherokee County, have been arrested and charged with numerous child sex crimes after an investigation by the State Law Enforcement Division.According to warrants, Brandon Dean Mullinax distributed multiple child pornography photos on Facebook. The warrants also say he sent sexually explicit photos of his genitals to a minor.Mullinax and Alex Michael McAbee are also accused of trying to encourage a minor to participate in prostitution, even negotiating a price over Facebook messages, before agreeing to pay for sex, according to warrants.25yearold Mullinax is charged with three counts of seconddegree Sexual Exploitation of a Minor, two counts of firstdegree Sexual Exploitation of a Minor, second degree Criminal Sexual Conduct, Promoting the Prostitution of a Minor, Participation in the Prostitution of a Minor, thirddegree Sexual Exploitation of a Minor, and Disseminating Obscene Material to a Minor.22yearold McAbee is charged with two counts of seconddegree Sexual Exploitation of a Minor, Promoting the Prostitution of a Minor, and Participation in the Prostitution of a Minor.According to Sheriff Steve Mueller, Mullinax was a 911 dispatcher and was part of the unpaid reserve program in Cherokee County. The Sheriff says Mullinax was suspended in the first week of February after allegations about his conduct surfaced. SLED was then requested to investigate.Mullinax and McAbee are being held in the Cherokee County Detention Center. Mullinax was denied bond.Copyright by WSPA All rights reservedTop StoriesCopyright 2018 Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Leave a comment