Natalee Case Discussion #786 12/17/08 - 12/24/08

[johan555]

OEPS TM 

[texasmom]

OEPS TM 

 

[texasmom]

OEPS TM 

 

I tried the original through the Portugese translator too, and came up the same! Every other word nearly was "ass".

 

[Keepthefaith]

I don't know the specifics of the article but find it interesting the name Van Der Sloot never appears.

[texasmom]

I don't know the specifics of the article but find it interesting the name Van Der Sloot never appears.

It does once, I believe....or it should have I know Joran van der Sloot was in it.

[texasmom]

I don't know the specifics of the article but find it interesting the name Van Der Sloot never appears.

9th or 10th line of the translation...my eyes are running together now. 

[Keepthefaith]

I don't know the specifics of the article but find it interesting the name Van Der Sloot never appears.

9th or 10th line of the translation...my eyes are running together now. 

OK.got it.LOL.

[Tamikosmom]

NANCY GRACE TIME!!!

Janet
5:15 PM PT

[Tamikosmom]

OOPS!!!

Wrong forum

 

Janet

[johan555]

COLLECTOR'S ITEM

[Anna]

Well, I hate to sound like a broken record but how will we ever know if that was Natalee's remains in the fish trap or not?

[Poochy]

He took pictures that were not owned by him and posted them on the internet.  Did he own these pictures personally?  You can't copyright it if you don't own it.

Also My daughter is an artist, she has to go pay and get them copyright,and prove they are her work.

Another way is to use the post office, snail mail a copy of the pictures/artwork/video/whatever to yourself registered mail, and when you sign and receive the package to yourself, DO NOT OPEN IT UP. Put it in a safe place. Then if you are sued, you can take the package to court, and a judge will open it up. It will have a date stamp and your signature of receipt.  I had to do this with some artwork a few years back.

[WhiskeyGirl]

On the internet as long as attribution is given, I don't believe there is anything actually "copyrighted" as such.

I think you are right, Anna.

Besides, Kyle had just seen what happened when Robin
posted the first set of pictures to a "private site".

He knew what could happen.

If Kyle is planning on suing a certain person then he better be planning on suing the forum that he posted this information.

When do I need Cyber Liability Insurance?

Anyone with a Web site now has the legal liabilities of a publisher.

The Internet - that technological wonder of worldwide communication - has spun a whole new “web” of liability exposures.

Creating a Web site is simple. The exposures that come with it are not. Privately owned companies that venture onto the World Wide Web face liability exposures that are emerging, evolving, and complex.

Commercial companies that disseminate information to the public via Web sites face the same legal exposures as publishers, yet most have little or no concept of their resulting legal responsibilities. Moreover, new legislation continues to create potential liabilities, particularly in the areas of user privacy and domain name infringement.

Why do I need Cyber Liability Insurance?

Traditional liability products do not address Internet exposures and the risks involved in Internet business have blossomed with the Net itself. That is why you need Cyber Liability Insurance from InsureNewMedia.

By disseminating information to the public via a website, commercial businesses now have some of the same exposures as publishers. These include conventional publishing exposures such as copyright infringement, defamation and invasion of privacy, as well as emerging exposures related to operating on the Web.

The universe of potential plaintiffs is staggering, given the number of people and organizations that are currently surfing the Net. A potential legal action from just one of them could be costly. In a 1999 case, a company improperly used a sports celebrity’s name and photograph on its web site, and the celebrity sued for the “fair market value” of his name, plus additional damages of $750,000. Clearly, the potential liability associated with web site content is already great, still growing, and rapidly evolving.

For a company operating in today's high tech world, your computer network will more than likely provide internal and external email. You will probably have your own web site providing information about your company, its products and services with even the possibility of e-commerce.

Might this phrase from the Kermit/Kyle post be the problem - "You and the others agreed to a statement of confidentiality and nondisclosure at FB."?

Did Kermit breach this "confidentiality and nondisclosure" agreement?  Might that be a problem for the FB Kermit?  The SM Kermit?

As technology changes, I have come to believe that the line separating the internet/www and the "office" or "business" network becomes blurred.  How many software packages are accessed over the internet?  Does that mean that anyone in an office may start posting and reposting confidential information?  Was the information on FB considered confidential?

That's two things I'd like to see - the stuff at FB and the stuff in the ALE file.  If the Aruba government had internet access on computers, and an office/government network, does that mean all that stuff is available for people to copy from and post on places like SM?

Maybe someone could start copying and posting all those statements?  IIRC the Dutch/Arubans have some  sort of encryption on their files.  Maybe they could have an 'Open House" for the public?  There a lot of stuff I'd like answers to.

Does anyone know for sure that any remains were recovered from that cage/trap?  Does anyone know for sure the images were not enhanced in such a way that made them look like a skull?  What did the skull images look like from other ROV angles? 

I will continue to think the best of Kyle, the Persistence crew, and ALE.  This sounds more like another "blame the American's that Natalee isn't returned to her family campaign" and I don't know why anyone would settle for anything less than Natalee's return.

In my mind, the finger still points at Aruba.  They have the ability to return Natalee to her family.  They had that ability in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and will have that ability going forward.  Do they have the will to return her?  No matter what new conspiracy theories arise, I believe the opportunity remains for Aruba.  Maybe some would like people to think the body was disposed of yet again?  No need to keep up the fight?  Everyone can go home and forget Natalee?

The finger circles all over the place, but ends up pointing at PJ2K.  The finger circles to include a number of others. 

I wonder if PJ2K will be charged with a crime in Aruba before year end?  Maybe next year?  Will someone use as an excuse that they cannot find JVDS?  2K?  Will they at least put the paper out there?  Maybe others?

jmho

[WhiskeyGirl]

Tracy Pollan will star as Beth Twitty in Natalee Holloway movie



Tracy Pollan, Michael J. Fox's wife and his former co-star in "Family Ties," will star as Mountain Brook's Beth Twitty in the upcoming Lifetime Movie Network film about
News File
Beth Twitty
Twitty's daughter, Natalee Holloway, Lifetime announced today.
News File
Beth Twitty

Pollan also had recurring guest roles on "Spin City" and "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit," the latter of which earned her an Emmy Award nomination. Her feature film credits include "Bright Lights, Big City" and "Baby, It's You."

Casting for the role of Holloway, who disappeared in Aruba while on a senior class trip in 2005, has not been announced.

"The Natalee Holloway Story," based on Twitty's book, "Loving Natalee: A Mother's Testament of Hope and Faith," will begin production in January and air on Lifetime Movie Network in April.

I want to know who will be PVDS, JVDS, Anita, Renfro and others.  For PVDS, I nominate Alan Rickman.  I think he can do a range on characters, evil, nice, sensitive...

Anyone else?

[Keepthefaith]

On the internet as long as attribution is given, I don't believe there is anything actually "copyrighted" as such.

I think you are right, Anna.

Besides, Kyle had just seen what happened when Robin
posted the first set of pictures to a "private site".

He knew what could happen.

If Kyle is planning on suing a certain person then he better be planning on suing the forum that he posted this information.

When do I need Cyber Liability Insurance?

Anyone with a Web site now has the legal liabilities of a publisher.

The Internet - that technological wonder of worldwide communication - has spun a whole new “web” of liability exposures.

Creating a Web site is simple. The exposures that come with it are not. Privately owned companies that venture onto the World Wide Web face liability exposures that are emerging, evolving, and complex.

Commercial companies that disseminate information to the public via Web sites face the same legal exposures as publishers, yet most have little or no concept of their resulting legal responsibilities. Moreover, new legislation continues to create potential liabilities, particularly in the areas of user privacy and domain name infringement.

Why do I need Cyber Liability Insurance?

Traditional liability products do not address Internet exposures and the risks involved in Internet business have blossomed with the Net itself. That is why you need Cyber Liability Insurance from InsureNewMedia.

By disseminating information to the public via a website, commercial businesses now have some of the same exposures as publishers. These include conventional publishing exposures such as copyright infringement, defamation and invasion of privacy, as well as emerging exposures related to operating on the Web.

The universe of potential plaintiffs is staggering, given the number of people and organizations that are currently surfing the Net. A potential legal action from just one of them could be costly. In a 1999 case, a company improperly used a sports celebrity’s name and photograph on its web site, and the celebrity sued for the “fair market value” of his name, plus additional damages of $750,000. Clearly, the potential liability associated with web site content is already great, still growing, and rapidly evolving.

For a company operating in today's high tech world, your computer network will more than likely provide internal and external email. You will probably have your own web site providing information about your company, its products and services with even the possibility of e-commerce.

Might this phrase from the Kermit/Kyle post be the problem - "You and the others agreed to a statement of confidentiality and nondisclosure at FB."?

Did Kermit breach this "confidentiality and nondisclosure" agreement?  Might that be a problem for the FB Kermit?  The SM Kermit?

As technology changes, I have come to believe that the line separating the internet/www and the "office" or "business" network becomes blurred.  How many software packages are accessed over the internet?  Does that mean that anyone in an office may start posting and reposting confidential information?  Was the information on FB considered confidential?

That's two things I'd like to see - the stuff at FB and the stuff in the ALE file.  If the Aruba government had internet access on computers, and an office/government network, does that mean all that stuff is available for people to copy from and post on places like SM?

Maybe someone could start copying and posting all those statements?  IIRC the Dutch/Arubans have some  sort of encryption on their files.  Maybe they could have an 'Open House" for the public?  There a lot of stuff I'd like answers to.

Does anyone know for sure that any remains were recovered from that cage/trap?  Does anyone know for sure the images were not enhanced in such a way that made them look like a skull?  What did the skull images look like from other ROV angles? 

I will continue to think the best of Kyle, the Persistence crew, and ALE.  This sounds more like another "blame the American's that Natalee isn't returned to her family campaign" and I don't know why anyone would settle for anything less than Natalee's return.

In my mind, the finger still points at Aruba.  They have the ability to return Natalee to her family.  They had that ability in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and will have that ability going forward.  Do they have the will to return her?  No matter what new conspiracy theories arise, I believe the opportunity remains for Aruba.  Maybe some would like people to think the body was disposed of yet again?  No need to keep up the fight?  Everyone can go home and forget Natalee?

The finger circles all over the place, but ends up pointing at PJ2K.  The finger circles to include a number of others. 

I wonder if PJ2K will be charged with a crime in Aruba before year end?  Maybe next year?  Will someone use as an excuse that they cannot find JVDS?  2K?  Will they at least put the paper out there?  Maybe others?

jmho

ALE can never be trusted.Kyle(OE).We're all willing to hear the rebuttal but for some reason i think it'll never come.

[San]

On the internet as long as attribution is given, I don't believe there is anything actually "copyrighted" as such.

I think you are right, Anna.

Besides, Kyle had just seen what happened when Robin
posted the first set of pictures to a "private site".

He knew what could happen.

If Kyle is planning on suing a certain person then he better be planning on suing the forum that he posted this information.

When do I need Cyber Liability Insurance?

Anyone with a Web site now has the legal liabilities of a publisher.

The Internet - that technological wonder of worldwide communication - has spun a whole new “web” of liability exposures.

Creating a Web site is simple. The exposures that come with it are not. Privately owned companies that venture onto the World Wide Web face liability exposures that are emerging, evolving, and complex.

Commercial companies that disseminate information to the public via Web sites face the same legal exposures as publishers, yet most have little or no concept of their resulting legal responsibilities. Moreover, new legislation continues to create potential liabilities, particularly in the areas of user privacy and domain name infringement.

Why do I need Cyber Liability Insurance?

Traditional liability products do not address Internet exposures and the risks involved in Internet business have blossomed with the Net itself. That is why you need Cyber Liability Insurance from InsureNewMedia.

By disseminating information to the public via a website, commercial businesses now have some of the same exposures as publishers. These include conventional publishing exposures such as copyright infringement, defamation and invasion of privacy, as well as emerging exposures related to operating on the Web.

The universe of potential plaintiffs is staggering, given the number of people and organizations that are currently surfing the Net. A potential legal action from just one of them could be costly. In a 1999 case, a company improperly used a sports celebrity’s name and photograph on its web site, and the celebrity sued for the “fair market value” of his name, plus additional damages of $750,000. Clearly, the potential liability associated with web site content is already great, still growing, and rapidly evolving.

For a company operating in today's high tech world, your computer network will more than likely provide internal and external email. You will probably have your own web site providing information about your company, its products and services with even the possibility of e-commerce.

Might this phrase from the Kermit/Kyle post be the problem - "You and the others agreed to a statement of confidentiality and nondisclosure at FB."?

Did Kermit breach this "confidentiality and nondisclosure" agreement?  Might that be a problem for the FB Kermit?  The SM Kermit?

As technology changes, I have come to believe that the line separating the internet/www and the "office" or "business" network becomes blurred.  How many software packages are accessed over the internet?  Does that mean that anyone in an office may start posting and reposting confidential information?  Was the information on FB considered confidential?

That's two things I'd like to see - the stuff at FB and the stuff in the ALE file.  If the Aruba government had internet access on computers, and an office/government network, does that mean all that stuff is available for people to copy from and post on places like SM?

Maybe someone could start copying and posting all those statements?  IIRC the Dutch/Arubans have some  sort of encryption on their files.  Maybe they could have an 'Open House" for the public?  There a lot of stuff I'd like answers to.

Does anyone know for sure that any remains were recovered from that cage/trap?  Does anyone know for sure the images were not enhanced in such a way that made them look like a skull?  What did the skull images look like from other ROV angles? 

I will continue to think the best of Kyle, the Persistence crew, and ALE.  This sounds more like another "blame the American's that Natalee isn't returned to her family campaign" and I don't know why anyone would settle for anything less than Natalee's return.

In my mind, the finger still points at Aruba.  They have the ability to return Natalee to her family.  They had that ability in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and will have that ability going forward.  Do they have the will to return her?  No matter what new conspiracy theories arise, I believe the opportunity remains for Aruba.  Maybe some would like people to think the body was disposed of yet again?  No need to keep up the fight?  Everyone can go home and forget Natalee?

The finger circles all over the place, but ends up pointing at PJ2K.  The finger circles to include a number of others. 

I wonder if PJ2K will be charged with a crime in Aruba before year end?  Maybe next year?  Will someone use as an excuse that they cannot find JVDS?  2K?  Will they at least put the paper out there?  Maybe others?

jmho

The question to me is did Kyle break someones trust.  Whose pictures did he post.  Did Kermit sign an agreement or did she just say ribbit.

[WhiskeyGirl]

Mafia 'man of honour' denied full parole
By Paul CherryDecember 19, 2008

Despite his stunning admission that he was a “man of honour” in the Sicilian Mafia while he conspired to smuggle large quantities of cocaine into Canada, Gerlando Caruana of Montreal has been turned down for full parole.

...Caruana even admitted to being a so-called “man of honour,” or leader in the organization, while he, his brothers and other relatives, known as the Caruana-Cuntrera clan, shipped large quantities of cocaine around the world.

Caruana claims to lead a frugal life, living partly off his pension with his spouse in a small house in Laval. For years, police have speculated that Caruana still has a fortune in drug profits stashed away somewhere. Before the arrests in 1998, members of the Caruana-Cuntrera organization were believed to have hidden millions in drug money through real estate purchases in countries like Aruba and Venezuela.

Caruana claimed that all his assets were lost when his partner in crime, Oreste Pagano, became an informant for the police.

Can someone check those pesky property records in Aruba?  I remember years ago when some suggested sinister things with regard to condos/timeshare in Aruba and various MB folks. 

What kind of properties are owned by people of these names?  Caretakers?  Lawyers?  If Aruba requires a partner for foreign ownership, who is that Aruban partner?  Their representative?  How could the assets just be lost?   

http://www.montrealgazette.com/Mafia+honour+denied+full+parole/1096717/story.html

[San]

Kyle wanted to post stuff on this forum with the same members who post on a private forum.  It can't work both ways.  Were lies uncovered.

[San]

OK everyone post.  I promise not to be in a bad mood anymore 

[texasmom]

OK everyone post.  I promise not to be in a bad mood anymore