Update from today
To Whom It May Concern,
I just received this lawyer letter requesting that I remove a posting of a newspaper article from 2014
Monsey mother loses custody battle after leaving Hasidic community which was published in the Rockland County Times.
I have no problem deleting a post with false information but this is expressed as
Our client simply wishes to put this incident behind them and move on with their lives. While it is important that information be archived, surely one must not be punished in perpetuity? It is no secret that the Internet and technology have made it increasingly difficult for anyone to put even the smallest of mistakes firmly behind them and move on. Therefore, we would like to request that the article in question be removed from your website. Altematively, we are open to compromise aחangement such as de-indexing the article or, perhaps, removing our client's name from the article.
I would like to hear my reader's comment as to what is the best way to respond to this.
They've asked for privacy based on more information then was available but they don't want you to publicize it
ReplyDeletehttps://dailyvoice.com/new-york/ramapo/police-fire/ramapo-doctor-sentenced-for-plot-to-kill-wife/710929/
ReplyDeleteA Foot Doctor and Mistress Conspire to Kill Doctors Estranged Wife (with videos)
ReplyDeletehttps://thefreemanreports.com/2020/08/28/a-foot-doctor-and-mistress-conspire-to-kill-doctors-estranged-wife/
To Whom It May Concern,
ReplyDeleteI’m happy to hear that your client wishes to put unsavory incidents in their life behind them, and move on with their lives. I also agree that people shouldn’t be punished in perpetuity.
However there is also the matter of the public needing to be aware who the bad players in their midst are. As long as your client has not made full amends to her intended victim, and drastically changed her lifestyle, in a positive manner, there is always a concern that she will repeat her actions or do similar things with other people that she may come into contact with.
The public has a compelling interest and need to know these things about your client, in order to protect itself from potentially being duped, by a person who has demonstrated activity that would be of major concern to those unknowing of her past.
Therefore, I feel that the public’s need, overrides your client’s desire to clean up her internet record, and will therefore continue to leave the post in question for all to see.
If there should be any legal barrier for me to leave the post in question, or if your client has made serious life changes, that justify removing the relevant post, I will reconsider my decision accordingly, at that time.
Can you just remove any names? The point is the story, not the identity of the individual, isn't it?
ReplyDeleteThe public needs to be aware who are the bad players in our midst.
ReplyDeletewow, such nice people!
ReplyDeletethe news items are in the public domain, so re-posting them on a small blog has no real consequence.
ReplyDeleteOK- these little details are not often part of divorce cases we hear about here...
ReplyDeleteHiring a "hitman" is a very stupid ting to do - for at least 2 reasons -
a) it is a serious crime and thus planning a "hit" will land the person in jail.
b) there is no such thing as a real "hitman" who is easily open to the public. They exist in the dark world of organised crime, but for a novice to just approach a regular guy and ask if they can do the job, as if it was to fix a garden fence - is crazy - most people who are approached will go to the police, or are in fact undercover police themselves.
it si in the public domain already - if an article of news is already public and searchabe, then there is no new information when discussing these public news stories.
ReplyDeleteexcellent!
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, the guy who ended up cooperating with the police, was the FOURTH guy that she approached.
ReplyDeleteThe others ,either didn't bother to contact the police, or were waiting to find the right hit-man to do the job.
Why is this lawyer and his client so concerned about a posting on this relatively small blog?
ReplyDeleteThank you.
ReplyDeleteI assume they just did a Google search and sent out emails to all that mentioned her
ReplyDeleteexcellent point! Which is probably why they didn't threaten to sue
ReplyDeleteDo they realistically expect YouTube, NBC News, etc. to take it all down?
ReplyDeleteIt would seem so.
ReplyDeleteIn other words they are trying to clean her past from the Internet so she can have a future without unpleasant reminders
When is she expected to be released from jail, or has she already been released?
ReplyDeleteHow to Clean Up Your Online Reputation
ReplyDeletehttp://therecoverybook.com/how-to-clean-up-your-online-reputation/
Delete yourself from the Internet's people finder sites: Is it worth it?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/2018/05/04/delete-yourself-internet-people-finder-sites-worth/553371002/
This appears a respectful request rather than a demand. They have a good point and perhaps you'll consider honoring the request.
ReplyDeleteyes it is a respectful request but is it reasonable?
ReplyDeleteThis is a women who was imprisoned for trying to hire a man to kill the wife of a man she was having an adulterous relation who unsuccessfully tried to convince child protective services that her husband was sexually abusing their children. Who lost custody of her children when she got divorced because the secular judge considered her husband as the better parent after she left Yiddishkeit. Would you feel comfortable knowing these facts and concealing them from others? Would you be silent if a friend or relative was considering marrying her? Or a school wanted to hire her?
Obviously she would like to erase her past history- so is whether the request is not a demand sufficient?
She was sentenced to four years imprisonment on 2017. So I assume she just got out and wants to erase the record of the past
ReplyDeleteI opine that this request is unreasonable.
ReplyDeleteThe public should be aware of who and what she is.
If your original information is accurate, then you did a tremendous community service.
Ergo, you should most definitely NOT delete that page from your blog.
We should be aware of evil in our midst.
Respectfully,
PCM
EXACTLY.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely 👍💯percent!!
ReplyDeleteOUTSTANDING RESPONSE!! 🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆
ReplyDeleteIt truly is!
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't delete a word of what you posted.
ReplyDeletethey had a good point going solely on the divorce case - but some rather unpleasant aveiros have taken place since...which are in the public eye if one does a google search.
ReplyDeletesome things cannot be erased, when there is a public record of serious crime.
ReplyDeleteOr is the divorce more of an impediment for her than the murder case?
I understand that but just because it's out there doesn't mean you have to also publicize it.
ReplyDeleteSo here's the problem from a Torah perspective
ReplyDeleteA person sins and they are sentenced to lashes. They receive a specific amount and immediately after regain the status of "your brother". He sinned, he was punished, move on. How is that consistent with the permanent punishment that is being published on the internet?
Just because the building is on fire you don't need to publicize it?! - that goes against the Torah
ReplyDeleteThe person who sinned, in a ONE time lapse, and was therefore sentenced to lashes by Beis Din, is presumed to have repented from this one sin, and thereby regains the status of "your brother".
ReplyDeleteNo such presumption of repentance exists for this woman. To the contrary, based on her history, she is presumed to be UNREPENTANT, until she demonstrates otherwise.
Department of Corrections and Community Supervision
ReplyDeleteInmate Lookup
http://nysdoccslookup.doccs.ny.gov/
Gribeluk, Kelly
DIN: 17G0436
03/18/21 MERIT RELEASE TO PAROLE
Positively sickening...
ReplyDeleteI've seen many news stories of idiots looking for a shaliach aveira , and then the shaliach either informs the cops, or us an undercover cop himself. The aveira in question being murder.
ReplyDeleteIn this case, the forst three potential "shlichim" did not inform the police.
ReplyDeletePerhaps because the "shlichim" knew they wouldn't be protected during their shlichut.
ReplyDeleteTo Whom It May Concern,
ReplyDeletere: your emailed letter dated 5/4- the article in question, posted on this blog, are only syndicates of news which is splashed all over the public domain. You might as well ask not to report that it is sunny today but rained yesterday.
Such information is out in the open, and cannot be hidden - a small blog like this carries various news stories from a wide array of new sources, which are all available to the general public.
well said!
ReplyDeleteI would also add that the Blogger platform, which this blog is based on, allows the syndication of many news sites and other websites in general - hence any blogger in Webspace is able to post a varierty of other sites, including news, science, cookery, or virtually any topic they wish. Most news sites have a shre function , which allows their stories to be shared on major social media such as Facebook, Linkedin, blogger , twitter, instagram etc.
ReplyDeleteThe genie has long been out of the bottle and it is too late to let it back in!
What's new in today's email that wasn't already said in the initial communication to you?
ReplyDeletenothing. The point being they haven't dropped the matter
ReplyDeleteThere is no matter to drop. They've said explicitly that they do not intend to litigate, (since they have no legal grounds to do so).
ReplyDeleteIf they have given a private proposal, that may change the perspective.
Perhaps saying and doing nothing is the best response. It is an attempt at a coverup, and you are under no obligation to go along with it. If you politely decline their offer, they may try to twist the words in your response and use it for some kind of frivolous litigation against you.
ReplyDeleteDid you respond to their previous email?
ReplyDeletegood point!
ReplyDelete