Showing posts with label Time Warner. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Time Warner. Show all posts

Monday, July 25, 2016

Beyonce Steals Again This Time Ripping Off Short Film For HBO Lemonade Special Resulting In Copyright Infringement Lawsuit



Jay Z (left) Beyonce (center) one of his copyright stealing artists/adulterous mistress Rita Ora (right)
 
Unethical singer Beyonce has become known to audiences for making a career out of stealing copyrights from people in America and all over the world. The stolen copyrights are worth millions of dollars. Beyonce steals copyrights and then converts said intellectual property for her own illegal use, which constitutes massive financial crimes.

Copyright infringement is a criminal violation of federal law in America and United Nations law in the international community. It has been a terrible pattern of criminal behavior on Beyonce's part and that of her husband, rapper Jay Z, for every single project they have released during their respective careers. The couple have also corrupted court cases via bribery to get away with the illegal conduct, when lawsuits are filed against them for copyright infringement.

  
Beyonce's most recent album "Lemonade" has been hit with several copyright infringement claims from different, unrelated people (Beyonce Steals Again Illegally Using Copyrighted Footage For Her Deceitful New Video ‘Formation’ While Ripping Off A Model's Pictures And Is Slammed By The National Sheriffs' Association and Beyonce Slammed By Rapper For Stealing Images From His Album 'Lemonade'). One of the most flagrant is Beyonce's outright criminal theft of the 2014 short film "Palinoia" by news station creative director, Matthew Fulks, who was known to the singer's label Sony prior to the thefts. Greedy, immoral Sony tried to hire Fulks to direct a music video, but decided it would be cheaper to steal from him. Beyonce infringed Fulks' short film "Palinoia" via copyright infringement, two years after its release, for her 2016 "Lemonade" special that aired on the cable channel HBO. 

Fulks has understandably sued Beyonce, who then had the unmitigated gall to file legal paperwork in court via her lawyer, demanding a declaration that she did not steal his work. BUT SHE DID!  Anyone can see Beyonce stole his work in conduct she keeps engaging in at many people's expense. Beyonce legal filing is arrogant, criminal, fraudulent and a vile abuse of the American court system. 


To file such paperwork, knowing full well she stole Fulks' preexisting copyrighted works, constitutes perjury, as one attests documents filed in American courts of law are truthful, accurate and in compliance with the statutes government them. Why are you lying in court papers. It is so arrogant, devious and slimy. Who is Beyonce kidding with this. One look at Fulks' PREEXISTING work then Beyonce's copyright theft that ripped off his work TWO YEARS LATER and it immediately becomes apparent she stole his intellectual property.  

Beyonce's pathetic, dubious excuse is that her rip off HBO special is about a black woman, while Fulks' preexisting short film is about a white man. Is she crazy (rhetorical question). First of all, don't pull the race card invoking black women's struggles when you are going around acting like a crazy, mindless, greedy eyed criminal stealing from everyone. This is not a racial matter. You are a thief. As a black woman I state, don't involve us in your crap. Your thieving behavior feeds into negative stereotypes of black people. You are apart of the problem. 


Beyonce has stolen copyrights from a number of black, Hispanic and white artists, in her greedy quest for untold fame and riches she is not entitled to under the law, depriving others of their property and paychecks. By the way, judging by public feedback on social networking, newspaper website feedback sections and message boards, people firmly believe Beyonce stole Fulk's work. 

Beyonce is sick in the head to pretend in a court of law that she didn't steal his work and seek a court declaration to that effect. Either Beyonce has surrounded herself with yes people or something is misfiring in her thieving, struggling brain that she thinks this chronic criminal behavior constituting financial crimes is acceptable human conduct and that no one notices. Millions of people notice. Hence the 50% sales drop between Beyonce's current album and its predecessor.


If you can support or try to excuse Beyonce and or Jay Z's thieving criminal behavior that keeps depriving people of their intellectual property and money, something is wrong with your moral compass as well. You need to do some introspective searching in your mind and soul, in an attempt to ascertain why you are supporting and promoting thieving criminals. Because I'm certain, if someone showed up on every one of your paydays and kept stealing your checks and cashing them like dirty degenerates raised by other depraved dirty degenerates, you wouldn't find it amusing, decent or humane (and the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, as Beyonce's parents stole $32,000,000 from the kids of her deceased manager, resulting in a lawsuit against them and Beyonce). 

Think about how you would react to doing hard work then repeatedly being robbed on your job and stop pretending others should accept that from Jay Z and Beyonce, because that's what those two thieves keep doing for undue financial enrichment. Better yet, if you think Beyonce and Jay Z's thieving financial crimes are appropriate, I want you to donate every single one of your paychecks to charity indefinitely. Of course, you will say how will you pay your bills if you donate all your paychecks? Exactly. Then you will know how Beyonce and Jay Z's victims feel being repeatedly victimized by those two thieves, who have criminally diverted the financial revenues from others they've brazenly stolen from like dirty leeches. 


You have to be psychotic to be stealing from people like that, then publicly bragging about how much money you've made from what is criminal behavior. U.S. and international law make no allowances for theft of copyright or finances, neither does it permit defrauding others out of their money and or property, which both Jay Z and Beyonce have done to others. 

It's quite appalling what some in the black community are calling role models - two ignorant, illiterate, uneducated thieves robbing people left right and center, while bragging about alleged net worth gained via serious financial crimes. They're no better than Madoff. And just like Madoff's day came - so will theirs. Beyonce and Jay Z are an embarrassment and a disgrace.


Fulks deserves to win the case, as Beyonce has clearly and willfully infringed his copyrights. However, here's the problem. Sony and Warner Bros have a penchant for bribing judges and the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been my personal experience. Miami judge, Cecilia Altonaga, corrupted a case I had against Sony and Warner Bros in relation to depraved Madonna over copyright infringement, while concealing the fact Sony had given her child stock in their company and her husband's law firm is giving hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal work by the companies as well. She ended up having to admit the gross conflict of interest in court papers. When the case got to the Supreme Court level, Warner Bros bribed Chief Justice, John Roberts with several hundred thousand dollars in stock in their company to deny the claim and criminally award them my PREEXISTING copyrights they stole (The Associated Press Accuses U.S. Supreme Court Judges Of Taking Stocks As Bribes And They're Right). The U.S. justice system is completely corrupt. It is full of bribery, rigging and fraud. Just ask Hillary Clinton and the FBI and the Department of Justice.

I can also attest, my late godmother's husband, Clement "Coxsone" Dodd, the Jamaican music producer who started reggae music and discovered Bob Marley, creating a genre of music that went on to become a billion dollar industry, was terribly ripped off by Sony as well. Their crap excuse for stealing his music was "We didn't know who it belonged to" which was an outright lie. Copyright law has no provisions for stealing copyrights because you allegedly didn't know who it belonged to when you criminally took it without permission or payment to the owner. Sony are the biggest copyright and patent thieves in the world of music, film, television, electronics and computer software. You will find none worse. Warner Bros/Time Warner is a close second.

STORY SOURCE

Hold up! Beyonce files legal papers denying she stole ideas from indie filmmaker's short film Palinoia for her Lemonade visual album
 
Published: 21:07 EST, 22 July 2016 | Updated: 02:37 EST, 23 July 2016 - Beyonce has denied that her visual album Lemonade ripped off a 2014 short film. The pop star filed court documents refuting filmmaker Matthew Fulks's legal claim that Lemonade is 'substantially similar' to his film Palinoia and that she stole his ideas, TMZ reports. But Beyonce says the films have very different storylines, pointing out that her HBO special is about 'an African-American woman who progresses through stages of suspicion, denial, anger and, ultimately, reconciliation in her relationship,' according to court documents seen by the gossip site. 

 Sued! Beyonce has been accused of 'copying' the work of an independent filmmaker from Kentucky for her Lemonade trailer. In contrast, Matthew's film was about a 'white man who is distressed in the wake of a failed relationship,' her lawyers say. Matthew, an independent filmmaker from Louisville, Kenucky, sued Beyonce in June after seeing a trailer for Lemonade. He says her visual album 'stole' ideas from his short film. 

Beyonce's highly-publicized one minute promotional video for her HBO special aired in April, ahead of the release of her sixth studio album and film. Matthew alleges in his lawsuit that his 2014 short film, Palinoia, had been seen by members of the team working on the Lemonade video, and that Beyonce's video was created months later and was 'visually similar.' Fulks, who lives in Louisville, Kentucky, alleges that the pop singer, her management company, Parkwood Entertainment, Sony Music Entertainment and Columbia Recording Corporation, infringed on his copyright.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, points to nine instances - about 39 seconds of the 65-second trailer - that Fulks says are visually similar. It seeks unspecified monetary damages. The Lemonade trailer was 'substantially similar' to Fulks' film, including a similar mood, setting, pace and fonts, he says in the lawsuit. 

The similarities cited in the complaint include 'graffiti and persons with heads down,' 'red persons with eyes obscured,' 'parking garage,' 'stairwell,' 'black and white eyes,' 'title card screens,' 'the grass scene,' 'feet on the street,' 'side-lit ominous figures.' Matthew Fulks has filed a legal claim, according to The Hollywood Reporter, saying Lemonade is 'substantially similar' to his 2014 short Palinoia. 

THR.com posted a copy of Fulks' complaint filed in New York against Beyonce's Parkwood Entertainment, Sony Music and Columbia Recording. Fulks, who works as a creative director at a Louisville news station, is seeking a share of the profits that proceeded from the 'exploitation of his work,' THR.com reported, including sales of the Lemonade album.

He says that an executive at Columbia had approached him in 2015 about an opportunity to direct a music video and that his information including a link to Palinoia were sent to others at the label. The Lemonade video started shooting in late 2015. The release of HBO's Lemonade and the album made headlines around the world for its lyrics about infidelity and Beyonce's relationship with her husband, 46-year-old rapper Jay Z.  The dark visual album showed her smashing in cars with a baseball bat, and addressed themes of adultery, revenge and ultimately forgiveness. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk

RELATED ARTICLES

Rachel Roy's Emails Hacked As People Try To Find Out If She Is Cheating With Beyonce's Husband Jay Z While Rita Ora's Cousin Makes Statement That Causes Adultery Claims About The Rapper To Worsen










Beyonce Slammed By Rapper For Stealing Images From His Album 'Lemonade'



 

Jay-Z And Mary J. Blige Sued For Stealing Song

Thursday, February 11, 2016

Tidal Ripped Off Consumers Fraudulently Charging The Credit Cards Of Former Customers Who Closed Their Music Streaming Accounts


Usher, Rihanna, Nicki Minaj, Madonna, Dead5Amu, Kanye West, Jay Z and J Cole (also known as Hollywood's self-professed "Illuminati")

People who joined Tidal, the failed music streaming service started by greedy rapper Jay Z and even more greedy pop singer, Madonna, were charged $19.99 after closing their accounts, in acts that constitute fraud. Complaints began to surface from angry former Tidal users, who left the site unhappy with the music service, claiming they closed their accounts, but Tidal greedily kept charged them anyway. A wave of public embarrassment via bad publicity forced Tidal to refund the former users' money, after charging them for services they did not receive nor want anymore. Tidal admitted the scam and now states they have refunded customers' money.


Jay-Z

It pays to note Madonna has worked for Warner Bros/Time Warner for most of her career and is still with the film branch of the company. Tidal engaged in a crooked tactic used by Time Warner (Warner Bros) in repeatedly charging AOL customers $19.99 per month, for months and sometimes years after they leave the service  In some instances, former customers were forced to get new bank cards to stop AOL from charging their accounts. However, AOL simply obtained the direct bank account number and began fraudulently charging the public again for services they were not receiving anymore. The company made millions of dollars engaging in this criminal fraud at the American people's expense that Congress should have addressed. 

STORY SOURCE

Tidal charged ex-subscribers and re-activated accounts (update)

01.18.16 - One of Jay Z's 99 problems seems to be billing errors. if you gave Tidal a shot and have since cancelled, you likely noticed you were charged for the service in the last day or so. You're not alone. The Verge's Chris Welch was charged $20 by the streaming service, the price of its Premium or hi-fi tier. As if the bogus charge wasn't enough, Tidal offered those affected by the error three months of Tidal Premium in addition to a refund. This means that accounts that were closed have now been re-activated... 

Even still, the company thought gifting a free subscription to a service people no longer wanted in the first place would make up for charging you when it shouldn't have. By doing so, it restarted closed accounts. Maybe just issue a refund and call it a day next time, eh? Update: Tidal provided the following statement: 

"Rest assured, we've already refunded any charges. Accounts haven't been renewed, but we have offered a 3 month complimentary trial of the premium service on top of the refund as an apology that will not be auto renewed upon completion."



RELATED ARTICLES











Tuesday, February 9, 2016

The Associated Press Accuses U.S. Supreme Court Judges Of Taking Stocks As Bribes And They're Right

 
John Roberts

The U.S. Supreme Court has come under fire in a recent expose on the Associated Press and Yahoo News websites. The article states U.S. Supreme Court justices have millions of dollars in stock in American corporations, who are filing civil cases for the Supreme Court to decide. It is a felony for a Supreme Court Justice to rule on cases where they have stock in any of the litigants companies.

The head of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, ruled over a case I filed with the Supreme Court, who has one of the rudest, most ill-mannered, ill-tempered clerks in existence. Roberts ruled in the original Aisha v. Madonna case I had filed in 2005 that reached the Supreme Court in 2008, with them affirming the corrupt lower court's decisions, rendered by bribe taking Florida federal judge, Cecilia Altonaga.

Here's were the corruption is apparent. Chief Justice Roberts should not have ruled in the case. The Associated Press and Yahoo News revealed this week Roberts has $500,000 of stock in Time Warner, who owns Warner Bros, the label and movie company Madonna has worked for since the beginning of her fraudulent career. Time Warner and Warner Bros were also sued in the first Aisha v. Madonna case Roberts unlawfully ruled in. That was illegal.

Roberts and the Supreme Court criminally allowed a corrupt series of legal rulings in Miami, Florida by Cecilia Altonaga and Marcia G. Cooke stand, in what nearly led to my death and that of my mother, when Madonna felt so empowered by the bribery and corruption, she sent a Miami Kabbalah Center lunatic to attack my mom at a Miami Chase Bank location (the staff rushed to her aid when they heard my mom screaming in horror, in what prevented the worst from happening).

In three separate incidents, members of the Kabbalah Center tried to run me over with vehicles, in a criminal tactic later revealed in criminal court by U.S. prosecutors in California as conduct Madonna's now incarcerated private investigator, Anthony Pellicano, often commissioned on behalf of celebrities in Hollywood, paying him to insanely target and harass innocent people.

Altonaga completely corrupted and deliberately destroyed the case with corrupt rulings, knowing she was committing a felony, as Madonna's co-defendants Sony gave her stock in their company (which she was forced to admit in a judicial recusal motion). Sony and Warner Bros share the same copyright lawyer in New York and share in publishing money and credits on various songs. Altonaga's husband was and is a partner in the law firm that represents Sony in many legal matters.

All this meant she should have recused herself, but she stayed on and destroyed the case via corruption. I had to file a motion to recuse Altonaga citing the blatant conflict of interest. That's when she admitted in response to the motion that Sony had slipped her daughter, a minor in her care and household, stock in their company. She refused to acknowledge the fact her husband is their lawyer, which was sitting right on his firm's website and in legal magazines (which is where I found the information). The Supreme Court affirmed the corruption in denying to hear the case, thus criminally aiding Hollywood in stealing billions of dollars in copyrights and abusing an innocent immigrant family they tried to kill. I have since sued Madonna again in 2015, as her criminal conduct has grown exponentially worse, posing a serious danger to our lives.

How are these Supreme Court judges affording millions of dollars worth of stock in these American corporations. They don't make enough money to afford theses stocks. As I have stated before, the U.S. legal and justice system does not work. It is full of corruption and bribery. It is the most corrupt in the world.

STORY SOURCE

Roberts sold more than $250,000 in Microsoft stock

February 4, 2016 4:14 AM - FILE - WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court's recent decision to step into a relatively unimportant case involving Microsoft's Xbox 360 gaming system revealed that Chief Justice John Roberts has sold between $250,000 and $500,000 in Microsoft stock in the past year.

Federal judges violate the law if they take part in a case involving a company they own shares in, although Roberts declined through a court spokeswoman to comment on his situation. His decision, though, raises this question: If the chief justice can unload one of his two largest stock holdings (Time-Warner is the other), why does any justice continue to own individual companies' stock, knowing that doing so sometimes will force him out of a case?

"We're not talking about grandpa's stock in the family business where a justice might have some sentimental reason for holding onto the shares. These are major corporations who regularly come before the court," said Arthur Hellman, who specializes in judicial ethics at the University of Pittsburgh.

Roberts himself backed a change in federal law to make decisions to sell more palatable financially. In 2006, Congress changed the law to prevent judges from getting socked with a big tax hit if they sell a stock to avoid a conflict of interest, then reinvest the money in government securities or certain kinds of mutual funds.

Only three justices — Samuel Alito, Stephen Breyer and Roberts — even own individual stocks. Yet in the past few months, Alito has had to sit out a Supreme Court case and Breyer and Roberts acknowledged they overlooked stock ownership that should have precluded their participation in cases.

Alito's ownership of up to $15,000 worth of shares in Wisconsin-based Johnson Controls Inc. caused him to miss the court's consideration of federal policy on electricity pricing. Johnson Controls owns a subsidiary that was involved in the high-profile energy case. Breyer took part in that case despite his wife's ownership of the very same stock.

The routine check Breyer's office did to avoid conflicts failed to flag the Johnson Controls stock as a problem, Supreme Court clerk Scott Harris said in a letter to the parties after the argument. Breyer's wife, Joanna, quickly sold 750 shares worth about $33,000 after Breyer was alerted to the conflict.

Breyer voted with the majority to uphold the policy that was being challenged by industry groups.
In early October, Roberts took part in the denial of an appeal by Texas Instruments among 20 parties that appealed their share of the costs to clean up a hazardous waste site in Arizona. Roberts owns between $100,001 and $250,000 in Texas Instruments stock, and court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg acknowledged Roberts should not have been involved. Alito sat it out, without explanation.

Fix the Court, a judicial ethics watchdog, first spotted Roberts' Texas Instruments conflict. The chief justice's sale of his Microsoft stock was the largest single stock sale by anyone on the court in at least the 10-plus years he has been there.

In 2014, Alito got rid of shares in five companies worth at least $330,000, and perhaps as much as $900,000. The justices report their financial holdings in ranges, rather than exact values. Alito's investment portfolio has grown in recent years through inheritance and he has sought to reduce some individual stock investments. He still held stock in nearly three dozen companies as of the end of 2014, according to his most recent financial disclosure.

Breyer and Roberts also have reduced some holdings. Breyer's largest single investment, worth from $1 million to $5 million, is his wife's stock in the Pearson media empire that her family started and built.

Roberts holds roughly a dozen individual stocks, the largest of which is $250,000 to $500,000 in Time Warner Inc.


RELATED ARTICLES






 

Monday, November 18, 2013

HBO’s New Pornographic Gay Show ‘Looking’ Is Depraved, Debauched And Unoriginal


HBO's "Looking" didn't look for originality or adherence to the Copyright Act or Berne Convention 

HBO’s new gay show "Looking" is depraved, debauched and very unoriginal. So unoriginal it breaches three preexisting copyrights I own that they've changed from wholesome and heterosexual to gay porn (Christians take note, because that's Hollywood). Time Warner owns HBO as well as Warner Bros.

Warner Bros has been home to chronic copyright stealing pop tart Madonna for nearly thirty years, before she signed with Live Nation in an unsuccessful pairing. However, Time Warner still plays host to the singer and her ex-husband Guy Ritchie at Warner Bros Pictures, in a series of crooked business deals. HBO’s parent company, Warner Bros (Time Warner) is a company I sued in the past for criminal copyright infringement and sent the matter to the FBI, as required by the U.S. Congress under federal jurisdiction rules.
The FBI interviewed me twice about the matter, in addition to other commissioned criminal misconduct by Madonna, Warner Bros and their affiliates, regarding crimes which includes, but is not limited to hacking to copy and steal preexisting copyrights, phone hacking (News Corp scandal I broke first) and wiretapping that transpired in the case.

Madonna's private eye Anthony Pellicano was subsequently arrested 4-months after I was interviewed by the FBI twice. He was also  convicted and sentenced to 15-years in prison for his crimes. Madonna has since switched to new private investigators to continue her criminal behavior (see: Gavin DeBecker among others).


You're right it's not TV...it's gay porn!

Based on pre-release items of HBO's "Looking" that I’ve seen online, there is very provable, clear cut criminal copyright infringement of what was heterosexual, Christian copyrights I own and registered years ago, well before this show was even announced. However, Time Warner/Warner Bros has turned preexisting heterosexual Christian copyrights they stole into debauched gay porn for broadcast on HBO. Please boycott the show.

"Looking" follows the lives of gay males in San Francisco and is packed with inappropriate, explicit and graphic scenes of gay sex. Some of the actors in the film were heterosexual prior to filming, but due to paychecks and career promises in Hollywood, took questionable x-rated roles in the show to their detriment.

According to IMDB, for the first few months of 2013, "Looking" was being made by another network in Britain, under a different name. Something went bad with the deal and the British network backed out of the infringing project, which as stated above, was once was a preexisting copyrights about straight people, whose stolen storyline has now been turned gay, much like some of the previously straight actors in the show.


Time Warner owns Warner Bros (home to Madonna and ex-husband Guy Ritchie) as well as HBO

Some of the actors in "Looking" were not known to be gay prior to this show. However, hefty paychecks and promises of fame changed that (see: Hollywood illuminati). What I don’t understand is why none of the actors in the film took their parents into consideration when filming what is basically gay porn.

Once their parents catch an eyeful of their children engaging in gay porn on screen, they are going to be shocked, shaken, heartbroken and devastated. They are going to literally cry tears. That’s a horrible thing for a parent to go through in watching something like that. I’m already being informed that some of the parents of actors connected to the show are very upset at pre-release materials.

No parent wants that for their child. Furthermore, the shock of seeing one’s son performing gay porn on TV is not good for any parent’s heart (physically or emotionally). The actors in the show owe their parents and fans (many former fans after they grasp what’s in that show) an apology for springing that debauched mess on them. It was not cute, cutting edge or funny. It was disrespectful and thoughtless. Neither will be it be funny when said actors see the effect the show will have on their careers, especially in America.


Time Warner's Illuminati eye logo

It is also going to create feelings of embarrassment and humiliation for parents of actors connected to the show once people find out or even see what their kids are doing on camera. And for what? Phony, trumped up promises of fame and fortune in Hollywood that will not materialize once audiences grasp the graphic nature of the show.

Additionally, when the general public finds out the full truth behind what went into "Looking" people are going to be appalled and never see Hollywood the same way again. The back story on "Looking" and the hateful, vengeful, malicious motivation behind it is the height of depravity. More on that in a later column (it is also going to be added to the film "Justice And Truth").


Madonna

Previously, the industry pushed the sexually charged HBO show "Queer As Folks" which was overwhelmingly unpopular with audiences in America, but due to the gay factor in Hollywood, the show was given far more chances than other programs, but produced very little results.

It doesn’t matter who one sleeps with in Hollywood or what promises are issued if one compromises one’s self in going against moral codes, if audiences don’t like what they are being sold, they’re not going to buy it. You could have all the promotion, marketing and money in the world behind it, if audiences don’t like it or the image that has been created, having that big machine behind you won’t matter.


RELATED ARTICLES








Wednesday, August 29, 2012

There Is Talk Of A Prince Harry Sex Tape Stemming From The Las Vegas Nude Photo Scandal


Prince Harry in Las Vegas this month

Prince Harry's visit to Las Vegas, Nevada this month, which resulted in photos being splashed all over the press featuring the royal nude, is said to be only the beginning. Reports indicate there exists video of Prince Harry nude, partying with 15 naked women in his hotel room, after he convinced them to strip with 10 men present. What took place is the equivalent of an orgy.  

Two years ago, the Judiciary Report stated the cult Kabbalah, affiliated with phone hacking Rupert Murdoch at News Corp and Harvey Levin at TMZ, the latter having posted the nude photos, have Princes Harry and William under surveillance. 

The fact of the matter is Prince Harry was being watched by them the entire time he was in Las Vegas. They saw an opening,  due to his merry mood and partying and went for it, in what was a set up that has led to an unprecedented security breach. No member of the royal family has been caught in such a scandal with photographic and video evidence as proof. 

RELATED ARTICLES











Friday, August 24, 2012

Prince Harry Nude Photos Show The Lows Hollywood Will Stoop To At Others Expense

 

Prince Harry in Las Vegas shortly before the nude photo scandal erupted. The royal family and Metropolitan Police are said to be incensed such an unprecedented security breach occurred, regarding the third in line to the throne in Britain (Photo Credit: Splash).

The Prince Harry nude photo scandal, regarding Hollywood website TMZ, owned by Warner Bros., sending a group of women to set him up in Las Vegas, in order to obtain inappropriate pics for their distasteful internet site, is more proof of the gross lack of privacy and terrible indecency in the entertainment industry. The industry is absolutely depraved.

Prince Harry's human rights were unquestionably violated and in a criminal manner. This isn’t totally about Prince Harry, but Hollywood constantly pushing the envelope, eroding people's privacy, from the Anthony Pellicano case to the News Corp phone hacking scandal, always engaging in some depravity that spits on the law.

American gold medal winning swimmer Ryan Lochte was seen partying with Prince Harry before the scandal struck

As stated previously, Hollywood is constantly removing boundaries in society set in place for a reason - to protect people's human rights and privacy - and it must be stopped. Just two days before this scandal concerning Prince Harry, the Judiciary Report commented on the Obama Administration's appalling human rights record and once again, this is more proof (President Barack Obama And Congress Graded On Transparency In Government). Obama allows Hollywood to break the law all too often, as they are his campaign donors and it has done him no favors in America or the world.  

Why is Hollywood so perverted and sick. Why do they always have to take things so far. There is a perversion that exists in the entertainment industry thanks to Hollywood cults, such as Kabbalah, which TMZ is involved in, harboring this despicable desire to voyeuristically and secretly see people nude in their homes, hotels, toilets and dressing rooms, without their consent and capturing it on film or via photos, because they are a bunch of blasted perverts.


Prince Harry nude with an unidentified woman (Photo redacted by the Judiciary Report) 

Ask any qualified psychologist in the world what it means when people try to secretly take photos or videos of others naked or semi-nude, without their knowledge or permission, especially to share with others and they will tell you it is flat out mental illness.

Good people don’t do things like that - only the sexual predators and sociopaths of society. Most people have boundaries, but the folks in Hollywood have none. Why such people are running the entertainment industry, into the ground might I add, is a mystery.


Self-promoting lawyer, Harvey Levin, is the founder of the lawbreaking website TMZ

Harvey Levin, you are a disgusting human being and a disgrace to your family. The lows you and those in your crazy circle have dragged Hollywood and America to is appalling. At the end of the day, you wouldn’t like it if anyone hacked your emails, phones and computers and posted the contents, as you and TMZ have done to others. You wouldn’t like it if anyone secretly snapped pics of you naked and put it online and considering your obsession with young, pretty, barely legal men, it could happen.

You wouldn’t like it if anyone recorded your illegal transactions, such as criminally bribing police officers and federal agents for protected government information that violates other people’s privacy, to post on your website. You should be disbarred and locked up for being a nasty little criminal.

RELATED ARTICLES

 
 

Thursday, August 23, 2012

TMZ And The People That Sold The Prince Harry Nude Photos Should Be Prosecuted

 

Prince Harry nude with an unidentified woman (Photo redacted by the Judiciary Report)

The website TMZ posted nude photos of Britain's Prince Harry yesterday, that were taken in a hotel room before an orgy in Las Vegas, without his permission or consent. This was a reprehensible and contemptible invasion of privacy that deserves criminal prosecution.

It is illegal to film or photograph people in states of undress in places privacy is to be expected, such as hotel rooms, toilets and dressing rooms. Yet some continue to engage in said crimes against others, due to the lax enforcement of the law by the FBI, under the poor oversight of Congress. As a result, many people continue to be violated in America, held prey to the perverted whims of others.

Personally knowing the invasive conduct of TMZ and its parent company Warner Bros as I do, two entities deeply involved in Kabbalah as I have previously and formally stated in court, I am led to believe they were trying to send the royal family a message, in humiliating Prince Harry in this disgraceful manner.

It's obvious Prince Harry was set up. Furthermore, who could breach his security like this and well enough to secretly take pictures, unless they were well-connected and placed there to do so. The aforementioned people and their affiliates have also done this to others before. The royal family needs to be more careful regarding who they allow in their circle, as some are deranged, perverted, money grubbing, publicity seeking, social climbing frauds and thieves that don't follow the law in any fashion.  

Just two weeks ago, in the August 8, 2012 article Gold Medalist Swimmers Ryan Lochte And Michael Phelps Say They Pee In The Pool, the Judiciary Report spoke of the ills of taking strangers back to one's hotel room (or home for that matter), as a massive risk. The article was in reference to gold medalist Ryan Lochte leaving night clubs drunk and taking women he'd just met back to his hotel room, often two or three at a time (let's face it, we all know they weren't playing Scrabble).

Ironically, it has been widely reported this week, Prince Harry was seen partying and swimming with Lochte and a group of women one day before the nude photo scandal erupted in Las Vegas. Clearly, what happens in Vegas doesn't stay in Vegas, contrary to the slogan in the commercials. It proves the Judiciary Report's point about engaging in one night stands with strangers, especially when one has been drinking. It is demonstrably very risky and not worth it.

RELATED ARTICLES