Rose speaks

In three July 23, 2008 Motions to Dismiss Indictment for Failure to state an Offense, Unconstitutional Delegation of Prosecutorial Power, and for Vagueness, Lori Drew Attorney state in part these reasons to dismiss the Indictment because the government cannot prove it was either intentional or unauthorized. Could this give a road map for our members whose personal information was intentionally and was unauthorized taken via a stolen user name and password?

Lori Drew addressed the “Intentionally” part as follows; “The indictment alleges no facts supporting the claim that Lori Drew and/or others intentionally violated the TOS of MySpace. That is, it was their conscious objective to have violated the TOS. This is a required element of §1030.

Where the indictment fails is the total lack of alleged facts on ,“intentionally”, that if proven beyond a reasonable doubt, would cause a conviction under §1030. For example:

Who among the conspirators read the TOS from MySpace?
Who was aware of the TOS terms?
When and where did this awareness occur?
Did the conspirators discuss the TOS? Did anyone discuss the TOS terms?
What facts support the allegation that Drew or the others intentionally accessed the computer with any clue at all what the TOS contained?

Drew’s lawyer goes on to state; “The indictment also fails to allege that Ms. Drew and/or her co-conspirators were aware or had specific knowledge of the TOS for the “unauthorized” element of the offense.

By the government’s theory, defendant and others must intentionally access in an unauthorized manner a protected computer. Unless some type of strict liability is utilized, one must be aware of the TOS in order to violate it and therefore be “unauthorized”.

Lori Drew’s lawyer goes on and states in part; “In testimony before Congress in 1992, the Vice President and General Counsel of the Computer and Communications Industry Association warned, “You do not want to be accidentally taking a large percentage of the American people, either small businesses or citizens, into the gray area of criminal law.”

In the final Motion to Dismiss the Indictment as stated for vagueness, Drew’s lawyers state the following:

“The government alleges that defendant violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 USC §1030(a)(2)(C) and (c)(2)(B)(ii) [hereinafter §1030]. According to the indictment, Ms. Drew conspired and did use a computer to gain information, such access having been unauthorized.

The government’s construction of §1030 states that part of the following in relevant part, has the following elements:

intentionally accessing a computer
without authorization or exceeds authorization
and obtains information
from a protected computer
involving interstate or foreign commerce

The failures are the lack of facts alleged that, if proven, would fulfill the government’s obligation to prove an intentional accessing, and unauthorized accessing. As the defense contends in a companion motion to this one, the indictment alleges no facts supporting the claim that Lori Drew and/or others intentionally violated the TOS of MySpace. That is, it was their conscious object to have violated the TOS.

The indictment also fails to allege that Ms. Drew and/or her co-conspirators were aware or had specific knowledge of the TOS for the “unauthorized” element of the offense. By the government’s theory, defendant and others must intentionally access in an unauthorized manner a protected computer. Unless some type of strict liability is utilized, one must be aware of the TOS in order to violate it and therefore be “unauthorized”.

For example, if one sends an e-mail to a server, wishing to log on to a password protected computer, and that computer sends back an access page, is that “access”? “This would not access the computer from a virtual perspective. As it would be something like
walking up to a locked door but not yet trying the key.”

I agree with many people who have read this and interpreted it, sadly as horrible and immoral of what Lori Drew did, there or no laws on the record right now for cyber bullying. Thus, it is my opinion, this will never go to trial

That being said, I have to ponder, if certain individuals whom have stated that they are aware of the nuke sentinel we use on this site; that their IP numbers are shown on this site; they acknowledge they are banned from this site for violation of our Terms of Use; and now they are bragging about using a user name and password to gain access to this site’s information. With all of that, do you feel they “intentionally and knowingly committed unauthorized” access to Rose Speaks.com and then bragged about it? Do you think that when they exploited the breach of the email server software and took the information, should that have consequences? Do you think that when they then turned and allegedly use that to cyber stalk and dig for personal information using the passwords gained in that email breach, did they violate any laws? I also noticed that on the privilege logs from the O’Quinn law firm those sites that require a user name and a password the log stated that “right to privacy” could be involved. So was it a “coup” as bragged about or a horrible blunder with consequences?

You can pick up all ten new documents in our download section open to ALL, not just site members.

©Rose Turner
July 23, 2008
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

This article is the sole property of Rose Speaks unless otherwise stated. This article as with other articles is based on the opinion of Rose Turner, or our guest authors if so indicated. Please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this article are the opinions and sole property of the site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.

Please also read our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.

TMZ.com has the story of Larry Birkhead being deposed for a full ten hours yesterday in the Howard K. Stern vs. Rita Cosby and Hachette Books. TMZ.com story highlights “How many times can a guy say he didn’t have sex with another guy?”

That most have been a crowed deposition, thus there I bet were Liz McNamara for Rita Cosby, both of Hachette Books lawyers including Douglas Maynard. There is no telling how many lawyers were there for Howard K. Stern, I would bet at least two for Stern, and of course Larry Birkhead and at least one of his lawyers, probably Michael Trope. Stern and/or Cosby also had the right to be there as parties of the suit.

Larry Birkhead has began to turn over subpoena documents on July 14 per the Letter changed to Court Order filed in the New York Federal Southern District and signed into an Order by Judge Chin on July 15. That letter turned Order did state that Birkhead had until August 6, to turn over those documents and a better privilege log for those documents he is not turning over.

Didn’t someone say he was not cooperating? Seems to me he must be if he volunteer for a 10 hour deposition when the federal rules for a fact witness is only 7 – 8 hours, so that blows that he is hiding anything. If I were Mr. Birkhead I would be a tad miffed that there were no phone calls from Rita Cosby to ask about “vetting” her book before it was published but he is now having to spend 10 hours with her lawyers as she attempts to squirm our of any “defamation wit malicious intent”. I have to wonder if she is losing that battle slowing in this.

The password blog for this article can be found by clicking here.

©Rose Turner
July 23, 2008
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

This article is the sole property of Rose Speaks unless otherwise stated. This article as with other articles is based on the opinion of Rose Turner, or our guest authors if so indicated. Please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this article are the opinions and sole property of the site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.

Please also read our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.

Here are some excerpts of the three Responses that John O’Quinn and the O’Quinn Associates filed today in the Southern District Court in Florida. Howard K. Stern must reply by July 31 and the Court has set a hearing date for August 13 to hear all of the Motions pending before the Court as well as the Request for Protective Order to keep Wilma Vicedomine from being deposed.

Why is Wilma Vicedomine so important in all three of four cases involving John O’Quinn, Rita Cosby, Virgie Arthur, Howard K. Stern and the rest of those being sued and suing?

One of the Responses filed today reads very similar to a previous filing by John O’Quinn and the O’Quinn Associates. I believe that one was filed in June, but will have to go back and download the previous filings by O’Quinn’s lawyers in Florida. If any of you remember which filing, it was please share it with us.

Here are the excerpts from today’s filings:

“Here, the Clark/Vicedomine investigation has not been placed in issue, even though O’Quinn’s state of mind may be. Therefore, only the specific information upon which O’Quinn relied would be subject to discovery.

Stern implies that he is entitled to O’Quinn’s work-product because the “facts” discovered by the Clark/Vicedomine investigation are not privileged from discovery. Stern construes the case law as suggesting that the entirety of the Clark/Vicedomine investigation is discoverable because it led to knowledge and documents containing facts. This argument is not supported by the cases that Stern cites as authority for this proposition.

Stern construes the Dunkin’ Donuts holding as support for his efforts to seek discovery of Defendants’ work-product, simply because Clark and Vicedomine may have uncovered facts during their investigation that are related to O’Quinn’s defenses in this matter. At best, Defendants would suggest that Stern may seek discovery of those facts which served as a basis for Mr. O’Quinn’s statements, or those facts that O’Quinn intends to rely upon as support for his defenses in this cause.

It is therefore thoroughly disingenuous for Stern to now suggest that he is simply seeking discoverable facts underlying Vicedomine’s investigation.

Stern claims that Defendants waived the work-product protection concerning the Clark/Vicedomine investigation by revealing details of the investigation in conversations over the internet and in conversations with Rita Cosby. While O’Quinn agrees that this type of disclosure may occasion a waiver, any waiver on these grounds would be “limited to the information actually disclosed, not subject matter waiver.”

Thus, the only information for which the work-product privilege may have been waived are the actual facts that Vicedomine revealed in statements made to Rita Cosby which were published in Blonde Ambition, or statements actually – not allegedly – posted by Vicedomine on the internet. Since that information is already available to Stern (or anybody else who seeks it out) online or in Blond Ambition, Stern should not be allowed to depose Vicedomine in order to discover the full gamut of her work-product.

This same information is also available from the original sources who may have provided Don Clark and/or Ms. Vicedomine with information that was ultimately imparted to Ms. Cosby. Thus, and to the extent that Ms. Cosby has specifically identified individuals who purportedly provided information to Ms. Vicedomine during her deposition, or made note of those individuals in the book Blond Ambition itself, Mr. Stern is certainly at liberty to depose those individuals to confirm the statements or information which was reportedly attributed to them
by Ms. Vicedomine. See Deposition Transcript of Rita Karen Cosby, dated November 15, 2007 (“Cosby Depo”) at 107, 164, 165-166. While Stern may argue that it will impose an undue hardship for him to obtain that information from these other sources, “in the ordinary case, the cost of one or a few depositions is not enough to justify discovery of work-product.”

Furthermore, any waiver of work-product protection allegedly occasioned by Clark or Vicedomine with regard to any investigation that they performed on behalf of the O’Quinn Firm would not affect a waiver on the part of Virgie Arthur, O’Quinn’s client in the related litigation.

Thus, since Virgie Arthur has not waived this protection, it would still apply to prevent Stern from discovering O’Quinn’s work-product, regardless of whether or not there has been some kind of limited waiver occasioned by Ms. Vicedomine’s disclosures. Accordingly, Stern’s motion to compel should be denied.

Stern’s contention that each interrogatory and document request “limits itself to the time period of the Interrogatory,” is inaccurate. While Anna Nicole Smith died on February 8, 2007, the investigation concerning the cause of her death could extend much further into the past in order to understand the events that ultimately led to her death. Similarly, a request for “[a]ll documents supporting, contradicting or otherwise concerning the statements attributed to O’Quinn,” could include documents created years before the alleged defamatory statements were made. Therefore, the time period encompassed by Stern’s requests are not unambiguous, as Stern claims.

Furthermore, Defendants have not asserted, as Stern suggests they have, that all documents created after this lawsuit was filed are irrelevant. Defendants’ position is simply that regardless of whether “Defendants’ post-lawsuit conduct is relevant to Stern’s allegation that O’Quinn acted with actual malice,” O’Quinn is not required to include specific entries on their privilege logs for work-product created after the commencement of this lawsuit (April 13, 2007).

Presenting the combination of graphics and segment titles on the television shows, along with complete questions by the interviewers and/or people calling into the show, and the complete, unedited version of O’Quinn’s statements, is the only way to accurately portray the context and content of those statements. Therefore, it is O’Quinn’s position that Stern must present a complete video of the television interview segments in which O’Quinn appeared in order for Stern to attempt to prove his claims.

The items removed include email correspondence from reporter Dawna Kaufman, as well as correspondence from Carolyn Herring, Howard Lynn, and a person only listed as “C.” These emails are now being produced (please see Exhibit “B” which will be provided to Plaintiff’s counsel only, under separate cover).”

John O’Quinn and O’Quinn Associates have further agreed to send Howard K. Stern’s lawyers ALL email and written correspondence received “unsolicited” by the O’Quinn Law Firm from any other person or persons.

You can download the documents filed today in our download section, opened to ALL not just members of Rose Speaks.com and they consist of the following:

There is the John O’Quinn and the O’Quinn Associates Response to Howard K. Stern’s Motion to Compel Admissions. One of the most interesting part’s of this filing is that John O’Quinn admits after over a year of searching, there are no insurance policies as he stated on interviews in February and March 2007.

John O’Quinn Response to the multiple Motions to Compel filed by Howard K. Stern.

John O’Quinn Response to the multiple Motions to Compel under Local Rule 26 filed by Howard K. Stern.

Since the above filings refer to “privilege logs”, Exhibit F and Exhibit G links are provided for your quick reference as you read these filings.

Click here for the password locked blog for these group of articles on Anna Nicole Smith.

©Rose Turner
July 22, 2008
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

This article is the sole property of Rose Speaks unless otherwise stated. This article as with other articles is based on the opinion of Rose Turner, or our guest authors if so indicated. Please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this article are the opinions and sole property of the site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.

Please also read our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.

Reading the joint letter to the Court dated July 15 we have some interesting tidbits we are being allowed to see here in a very hush, hush case.

The letter was written by Douglas Maynard, lead attorney for Hachette Books, but was by agreement of the Plaintiff and both Defendants.

What does this letter turned Court Order tell us? First, we learned that Larry Birkhead has until August 6 to produce documents requested and an up to date privilege log if any documents they [Rita Cosby and Hachette] want. Further after receiving the documents the defendants can demand a deposition of Mr. Birkhead following getting the documents, up to date privilege log and after they go over that to see what if anything they want to challenge and then looks like it will be at least some time in August before any deposition can be arranged. Mr. Maynard goes on to say that Mr. Birkhead and his attorney began to comply with the request early sending the first set of documents requested on July 14. They still want a “vast majority” of documents from Mr. Birkhead, I would bet that is going to take hundreds of hours to go through, weed out what the defendants are not entitled to and updating the privilege log. Could we see another Motion to Compel before that is over?

The defendants go on to let us know that Wilma Vicedomine is a source “for certain alleged statements challenged” by Howard K. Stern. YOU THINK?? Like the whole sex tape, money laundering and what else might Wilma know. I found this to be a tad surprising in that the letters state the Motion to Quash Wilma Vice’s subpoena is in Florida, it appears for the Florida case and the New York case. One would think Judge Chin would have heard the Motion to Quash [really it is a Motion for Protective Order], in the New York Federal Court before Judge Chin and not bundled with the Florida suit. That hearing is now schedule for August 13, more delays into what does Wilma know about any sex tape and other sordid details that made Cosby’s book a best seller for a few weeks.

Then surprise, surprise Jackie Hatten has gone MIA, now with the allegations that Howard K. Stern is in bed so to say with Harvey Levin and TMZ, you would think they might help Mr. Stern find Jackie, didn’t she choose TMZ.com to release her statement about the book after it was published? The statement that was no statement and did not confirm any of the sordid allegations that Mr. Stern is now suing based on those bed time pillow statements. My question if Rita Cosby does not or will not tell Howard K. Stern where Jackie can be located will that prevent Cosby from calling Jackie at trial?

Then Cosby and Hachette seem to be saying they are dancing with Bruce Ross and other Estate lawyers to get access to the Estate documents to prove after the fact that Cosby made no whoppers up. AAAAAAAAHHHHHHH again, wouldn’t it had been better if she had done that before the book was written in haste instead of now demanding the Estate help her slap around the Executor and Guardian of Anna Nicole Smith’s Estate. Cosby and Hachette’s lawyers are saying expect them back in California Federal Court fighting with the Estate lawyer for another go round. If Cosby had more than one source in her vetting her book that 120% no 200% with people very close to Stern and Birkhead you would think she would not now be needing to club them over the head so to say to save her azz.

All of the lawyers requested to have discovery left open until September 30, however in a gentle appearing reprimand Judge Chin is saying, “I would like to see all of you and be ready for trial at 10:30 AM on September 26. Judge Chin even emphasized the letter turned Order by writing FINAL in all caps. I see some long nights and weekend coming up for the lawyers. What do you all think?

The link for the password protective blog is: http://www.rosespeaks.com/rose-blog/?p=350.

©Rose Turner
July 20, 2008
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

This article is the sole property of Rose Speaks unless otherwise stated. This article as with other articles is based on the opinion of Rose Turner, or our guest authors if so indicated. Please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this article are the opinions and sole property of the site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.

Please also read our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.

It was done through a common vulnerability in all server software, Port 80, (the default port for all servers that the server sends and receives info. from). It’s the port servers use to listen to traffic coming/going to and from them. Somehow, it appears it was opened up to where Google Bot could crawl it and was able to pull about 3 to 4 emails from it. What other’s did was exploit the breech. We do not know for sure if they caused it or had anything to do with it or just got lucky in their fanatically zealous desire to take Rose Speaks.com down. We discovered the breach was much worse than what we thought at about 10 PM on July 15.

What did the looters get away with most of you are asking. They were able to get all of the emails from Rose Speaks.com, including the folders of the sent file, inbox, members, personal etc. as well as about 60 other web sites hosted on the same mail server. What we first did was work from our side of the mail server to secure all the emails, they were backed up to a folder off the mail server then deleted from the mail server and it took until about 4 AM to get that done. The server took care of his side by 5 AM, and now if you try to walk through that back door, it completely reroutes you to the front of the FBI site. This was done as a reminder from the owner of the host server. That broke the direct link access and what is left is getting Google to take off the “cached” pages where you can still access a few of the emails. It takes google about 2 - 5 days to remove the cache if the bot does not, we notified them July 16, and we will continue to follow up with google until all of the cached copies are removed from google.

For all the non-techy people, think of it this way:

Someone is walking down the public street and comes to a wide open door leading into the bank vault, with all the valuables just there for the taking. Most people with any iota of common sense knows going in would probably be wrong, but at the time this person passes the open door, a riot breaks out (Starbucks ran out of half-caf), so others start running in and out of the vault taking bags. Other people join in, even though they “know” it’s wrong. They “justify” it by saying that “everyone else is doing it” and that “the door is open to the public street, so it’s okay to go in”. Just in this case, replace open door with link and public street with google.

If you were walking down the street and Neiman Marcus had accidentally left a door unlock, do you have the right to go through that door and rob them if no one is looking, walk away and laugh about what you did?

If you see other looters looting, do you have the right to follow the “herd mentality” and go in loot, grabbing everything you could before it was fixed and running with it just because you could? Most of us would never do that and then say “well it was open so we were entitled”.

As one of our members so simply and elegantly stated what most of you are feeling, “It was just the feeling of being violated that took time to get over. I know others have created a rational about this for themselves. Even if, and I do say IF, they had nothing to do with the breach so what? I compare this to finding someone’s purse and finding personal info in it. Instead of returning it, they copied the personal information found in it, posted it on the internet and told others where the purse is so others can do the same. Then they turn around and blame the victim because it’s the victim’s fault she lost her purse. Then you multiply that by doing the same thing to scores of people.”

Remember when HOH was hacked and a lot of you got nasty emails… kinda the same thing. Except this time, they are using the information harvested including the main site and blog member list and bragging about sending it to Arthur’s legal team.

From one of the emails Lucky wrote to the webmaster email address back on Jan. 4, 2008 about having trouble with her login she shared her password in that email exchange with the webmaster email account. Sadly, Lucky did something many people do; she used the same user name and password at multiple sites including both Rose Speaks.com and Art Harris’ site. From the user name and password shared in that email they came on Rose Speaks.com and went through all of Lucky’s pm’s here and at Art Harris’ site. They were careful because we watch the site and we didn’t notice anything strange. I mean Lucky is a trusted member so we would not have thought anything about seeing her online. Is it illegal for someone to come into Rose Speaks.com or any other site as Lucky, using Lucky’s private information to gain access to the sites? Probably but we encourage you to contact your local law enforcement agency or the FBI. We have saved everything they had access to and will be going through that as quickly as possible to see whose personal info. (Mainly the user name and password) was taken and then take the steps to work with each one of you individually that might have been affected. As with MySpace, TMZ, Topix etc. if any of you make a report to a law enforcement agency or FBI we will cooperate totally with the information we have, including the time this was done and any other stats we have of them accessing information. For some strange reason we have some of the people bragging about getting the full names, addresses etc. for any of you who make a report, we will help anyway we can if they contact us directly.

If you never had direct contact with any of the rosespeaks.com email addresses, the main 2 being webmaster @ rosespeaks.com and rose @ rosespeaks.com then you are ok, for the most part there were NO passwords in the emails, only for those who had problems and wrote us back. In most of the situations, it was confirmation emails that a member had joined or changed their password with just an auto notice to us. Of course, just that provided real email addresses, numeric IP codes, user names and in a few situations the passwords that go with those user names.

IF ANY OF YOU BEGIN TO GET SPAM EMAILS BECAUSE OF THIS BREACH AND YOUR EMAIL ADDRESSES ARE OUT THERE PLEASE LET YOUR INTERNET SERVER PROVIDER AND US KNOW.

This site is now secure again; we have gone to a more secure mail program so hopefully this will never happen again. That said even once is too many.

For general safety sake, please change your password, and we will be deleting private messages on the main site as well for as additional safety precaution.

To answer some of your questions here: To read your private messages on the MAIN part of the site, they would have to have your user name (simple to get after they used Lucky’s or anyone else’s account to gain access to the member list) but they would also have to have your password, for the main site.

We are receiving emails that these same people who did the looting are trying to say it was our site’s fault or one of our own members from the top, as in an administrator of the site. No, someone breached, looted and then invited everyone they could reach by emails or posts on other sites into the mail server.

WE ARE ALL EXTREMELY SICKENED BY THIS.

©Rose Turner
July 20, 2008
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

This article is the sole property of Rose Speaks unless otherwise stated. This article as with other articles is based on the opinion of Rose Turner, or our guest authors if so indicated. Please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this article are the opinions and sole property of the site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.

Please also read our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.

This article was supposed to go up at the beginning of the week, but alas, as many of you know Rose Speaks.com took a slight different turn temporarily on July 15.

So here now is the news about Rose Speaks.com; what is new; where Rose Speaks.com is heading for our readers, and ending with answers you have about the emails looted earlier this week.

What’s New:

We will be having two guest authors we know about coming for your reading pleasure on some big trials in California. One is an old friend of Rose Speaks.com and we know you always love to hear from John Nazarian. The other is a new guest author and we will be so excited to bring her take on some of the most high profile trials happening. There will be a biography up for her soon. Daniel DiCriscio will be returning with some great innovative articles for you, with new ideas guarantee to capture and hold your attention. We will also be bringing you more interviews that are exclusive and one of those exclusive interviews will be up by tomorrow.

Where are we Heading:

Some site announcements. We are committed to making this site more interactive, as secure as possible and hopefully enjoyable for all of you. With that, we have a few announcements.

As Rose Speaks.com continues to grow, we have added two additional administrators, Roxanne and Heath. We have global moderators in the new forums of Daisy and Peppermint. The new forum software allows you to volunteer to moderate a topic and we welcome and encourage you to volunteer. This means the site administrators will be Roxanne, Heath, Lyndal, Ken and Rose. We hope that helps you reach someone while we continue to go through our growing pains and get any problem you encounter with the site resolved in a much shorter time period. Remember all administrators and moderators are volunteers so be gentle with them. There is a new administrator in the chat as well, Febbie. We want to thank all of these wonderful people who have donated their time to make Rose Speaks.com one of the best sites and which with their dedication the different areas of the site will continue to grow and provide hours of enjoyment for all of you. The volunteer staff and what areas they can help you with will be posted on the front page of the main part of Rose Speaks.com.

We will be making some big announcements about Rose Speaks.com the first part of August. So stay tuned and check back frequently.

On the main part of the site, http://www.rosespeaks.com the following changes are going to occur this weekend or at the latest by the first of the week. We are going to make the main part of the site accessible to more people. The calendar is open to all, the main site news, web links, announcements of documents are open to all, and the documents relating to any of the trials we are covering will be open to ALL, not just members of Rose Speaks.com. The forums on the main site are going to be closing except for those of the old articles that had to be put back up after the server was hacked, and this site including this blog section were down for part of November and December 2007. The only documents that will not be open to all for now is the debunking of the blond ambitious Rita Karen Cosby’s book; however when the trial starts in September that will be open to all to read as the trial proceeds. The ONLY two advantages of being a member of the main site are to download the debunking of Ms. Cosby’s book and to send messages to other members. Since our new forum software allows sending private messages to other members with more ease and safety for all of you. We suggest you join the new forums at http://www.rosespeaks.com/rose-forums.

Here in the blog section the following is going to happen. There will be seven articles on the first page of the blog, and one of them will be password lock for those of you who felt strongly that your ability to express yourself without fear of any chilling effects occurred a couple of months ago when a whole blog article with 459 comments was copied and put in court documents. We suggest your read our article on the Chilling Effect to get a better understanding of what happened. We cannot prevent the open parts of the site being “mined” for articles and information on articles with open blogging and used in discovery process including depositions or court filings in any of the cases we are following. Be aware that even the password locked blog will never be totally safe as we all learned this past week when a disgruntle member went into a password locked blog, copied your posts and then reproduced them on Topix and private invite only sites. That is going to happen at times and is just part of life, and part of blogging. With each new article put up there will be a link with it to the most current password locked blog. Like wise when articles are put up the link to them will be put in the password locked blog. By doing this in the future if we learn that, someone has violated our Terms of Use or our Privacy Policy it will take far less time for us to change the password and get it out to you.

The chat feature will be open more with more admins available for you there, also we will be having two schedule chats a week to drop in and talk to us, and tell us what you want, give us suggestions, or talk about the latest cases we are covering. At times, we will have guest speakers for you and we are excited about those coming events. We encourage you to continue to drop in and get to know each other. We can assure you that none of the logs are kept or sent to those of us or any administrator or moderator here at Rose Speaks.com. We want you to feel safe to just cut up and enjoy that feature. If anyone is caught copying a chat that is considered a violation of our Terms of Use and Privacy policies and you will be banned from the chat feature. You can find the link to the chat on the front page of the site, or in the side link section of the main page of the blog.

The new forums, we encourage all of you to join those at http://www.rosespeaks.com/rose-forums. There are the safest and the least likely to be mined for information. There is the ability to send private messages to each other in a much safer environment with software that will guarantee your right to privacy from every other member of the forum including admins and moderators. The software we have implemented states in part; “From the FAQ off the homepage of the company who makes the forum software we are running here. “Are administrators able to view their members’ PMs?” The software we use and was developed, “strongly emphasizes individual privacy”. For this reason, “this software does not provide an interface to allow anyone (including Administrators) to view other members’ Personal Messages.” If we find out anyone has attempted to get around this safety feature that person or persons will be immediately banned per our Terms of Use and Privacy statements. We have put in some fun avatars and animated emotions to enjoy posting and we hope you have fun while posting. Again, we invite you to join today. Some of the topics can be intense with many feelings involved including the political part. Remember to disagree with the subject and not the person when you are posting a response. Rose Speaks.com encourages differences of opinions but if you want a wild west knock down rude, crude forum there are other places out there that are probably better suited for those needs if you feel they are necessary in your life. Again, Rose Speaks.com will not tolerate hate, racism or bashing others on this site. Your input here is always welcome; however; there are many web sites out there that offer a large variety of mediums, forms, forums, and blogs. We hope you find several you feel comfortable with for your opinions. You do not have to belong ONLY to this site/blog/chat; in fact, we welcome those from other blogs as contributors. We get some of our best discussions by someone sharing something here they find a link, thought provoking reading or interacting with others elsewhere.

Tomorrow we will have three articles up one to explain what happened this week involving the Rose Speaks.com email server and how we are addressing that. There will be another regular article up about the blond ambitious Rita Cosby as well as an exclusive interview.

©Rose Turner
July 19, 2008
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

This article is the sole property of Rose Speaks unless otherwise stated. This article as with other articles is based on the opinion of Rose Turner, or our guest authors if so indicated. Please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this article are the opinions and sole property of the site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.

Please also read our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.