Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Judges Order That is Can't be Complied RE Youtube. What to do?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Judges Order That is Can't be Complied RE Youtube. What to do?

    I had filed a motion with regards to interim shared parenting. I got many of the things I asked for. The Applicant Mother had some one off thing in her reply that she didn't like two social media posts I had done about our daughter. The judge indicated at the case that she worries about these things because she has dealt with many sexual offenders.

    Here is the problem. The judge in her order put this part in and said everything else was stayed until I complied. It was the only area at the motion however that was not discussed in any depth. So in the judges order she put ALL social media post to be taken down regarding my daughter.

    She read the order which had already been written and I asked for clarification because it was so broad and she got kind of flustered because I think she realized that she had written something ill defined.. So she said the objectionable videos. And then I pushed further and she said the two in the motion. But then in the final order left it "all social media".

    Well my ex was there and heard so when i said id take down the two videos she said, no ALL videos. Thus going by what was written.

    There are a few logistical problems with this which weren't vetted at trail. For one I am an entertainment producer by trade. The videos that contain my daughter, which are all innocent are not solely in my control. I have both investment as well as entertainment company partners including the third largest distributor of video content in the world. Second I don't even know how to define objectionable because its all legal videos rated G. And its subjective. The way something like this should have been done is Applicant Mother file a motion and all parties who own the content have a right to representation.

    Also by labeling ALL SOCAIL MEDIA that would literally mean pictures with my grandmother on fb etc.. and the mother has several pictures up.

    The order was just kind of pasted on, overly broad and ill defined.

    I was naive and brought a motion to have this changed. I should have appealed it but ran past 7 day period. It was a different motions judge who said it was outside of their scope to overturn it and I got dinged for costs.

    The judge said I could file a B14 motion for clarification. Is this the way to go? Any other suggestions?

  • #2
    Technically any organization now has to have WRITTEN permission to use a minors face in a photo or video posted publicly. Which means if your ex has not provided permission, the organizations cannot legally use them. You will need to remove them immediately or your ex could go after the business owners and have charges filed.

    Just take the videos down. Most organizations that use photos and videos know this law and comply.

    Comment


    • #3
      I as parent signed written permission. Custody has not been determined.

      Comment


      • #4
        my ex was giving me some crap about youtube videos. Lawyer had me take them on down to show cooperation but said it was fully okay for me to post on facebook, as it is private. and so I do, and will continue to do so.

        If a judge ever ordered me to do that without a cross motion that I vigorously defended, I will post millions of posts on social media. No judge is going to dictate to me to do what mom wants me to do. Ever. They could try, but it won't happen and we would be meeting again very soon after.

        Option 1: Go ahead and enjoy making posts on youtube. Let them bring contempt motions against you all they want. I would however wait until you get the final order you are hoping for. Once you got the final order then screw around. Just keep quiet and comply for now.

        Option 2: bringing another motion to allow certain content to be posted.

        Option 3: hire a lawyer, and bring a motion to be granted leave for appeal, and appeal. You have more than 7 days to appeal. If you miss the 30 days, you should still be able to ask for permission.

        If you're not happy with the judges order and feel the judge is infringing on your rights as a parent and allowing the mother to control you, then speak up and act out.

        Why don't you post videos on Facebook ? Facebook is private and has privacy settings. Mom won't ever know you posted anything either.

        and don't pay that costs order. Judge wants to permit mom to dictate to dad, and ultimately a pissed off parent, then Judge get's pissed off parent.

        I personally don't see why you (or any other father) should not allowed to make posts on social media just because mom has anxities. Parents and children put videos online all the time. How do you think Justine Beiber became famous?
        Last edited by trinton; 10-31-2017, 08:09 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Very poor advice IMO.


          To succeed in court you want to show respect for the court. The best way to blow your case is to be disrespectful and intentionally disobey Orders which could certainly end up with you being found guilty of contempt.

          If you do not pay costs Order then another Order can be made against you that you are not allowed to file any applications until the costs Order is paid. This may be annoying to you, particularly if you have something substantive to file.
          Last edited by arabian; 10-31-2017, 08:19 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by arabian View Post
            Very poor advice IMO.
            Obviously didn't real option #1.

            I would however wait until you get the final order you are hoping for. Once you got the final order then screw around. Just keep quiet and comply for now.
            Originally posted by arabian View Post
            To succeed in court you want to show respect for the court. The best way to blow your case is to be disrespectful and intentionally disobey Orders which could certainly end up with you being found guilty of contempt.
            Real petty thing to find a father in contempt of, you posted videos of your kid on you tube! You took a selfie with your kid! You walked in dark orange jeans today when you picked up your kid from school! You tried to breathe without the mother's prior consent !

            Originally posted by arabian View Post
            If you do not pay costs Order then another Order can be made against you that you are not allowed to file any applications until the costs Order is paid. This may be annoying to you, particularly if you have something substantive to file.
            You can still bring motions with costs outsanding. There is case law on this. The courts can't withold a child's best interests because of some petty biased youtube and costs order from the family courts. The judge saying "All social media" is biased and unreasonable. Facebook is private and has privacy settings. You're free to share pictures of your kids with family. What now your family members are sex offenders ? Judges are sex offenders too if you research that too. Just as are teachers at school. Should we make orders that kids don't go to school because there are cases where teachers have had sex with their students ?

            I personally, as I am doing with my base, is just take them off and keep them all on Facebook until your case is over. Be nice and get what you want, then build a status quo in your favour and make posts on youtube. To me it just doesn't sound like you had a chance to defend against the order the judge was making. Did mom file a cross motion and did you get a chance to respond ? Did you file a reply affidavit to her response ? How did the judge even make this order without cross motion ?
            Last edited by trinton; 10-31-2017, 08:43 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Follow Orders and fight battles in courtroom legally is all.

              Yes someone can indeed make an application for an Order to disallow further application until costs are paid. This is fairly standard, particularly for those deemed to be vexatious litigants.

              Comment


              • #8
                I don't see the father here being a vexatious litigant at all.

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L64c5vT3NBw

                ^^Pretty cute ? No ?

                Don't let your kids out trick or treating .. the sex offenders are all waiting.

                Comment


                • #9
                  You know OP. My lawyer once said the judges can't appear completely on your side. This may have even been one of those things where the judge just wants to appear impartial when he/she is really on your side.

                  Just a thought.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    yeah right. Well you just keep telling yourself this.... denial. I guess it's the same kind of thing when a girl says "no" yet you think she really means "yes." Twisted reasoning for sure.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      For sure there was no motion or cross motion. In fact not only did I file the motion with regards to custody, the party about youtube was just one of many things in my exes reply that had more to do with mud slinging and trying to make me look bad. The judge only mentioned the youtube stuff as saying about how there are sexual predators. Reality is that a child is more likely to be molested by a coach or teacher or priest or family member than some random person online. Thats kind of a boogie man hysteria . So it was a bias to one of a bunch of slander launched at me by my ex. I didnt have a chance to rebut it, and for sure it was over reaching saying ALL social media. Also as a practical matter I have a viable youtube channel that generates money as my primary job is a producer. I have financial partners in my channel and it gets both ad revenue as well as sponsor revenue. Also I should add that none of the content is illegal or child porn. And then there is a slippery slope of what is inappropriate.. who decides that? These get into a whole freedom of expression debate because what might be offensive to one person is not to another.. and if its not illegal.. having bugs bunny hit someone with an anvil is violence while a muslim might think a woman with face not covered is offensive.. There are a bunch of arguments I would have made had this properly been litigated.

                      I am hoping you are right about appeal as i think it would be the best option if it was something I could do viably.

                      Oh and thanks for everyone's feedback.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Wow, this OP must be rich and like to waste legal fees fighting over social media postings. Take the stuff down and save yourself a 30,000 - 50,000 appeal on nonsense.

                        Prior to the wide-scale use of the internet... Parents didn't need to post their children in public places. If you want to share photos and videos of your family with other trusted people then use a service specific to that.

                        You are going to have a long, hard-fought and very expensive family law matter if this is what you are focused on. Do your child a favor and eliminate the conflict by taking down everything.

                        Seriously... This should be on the bottom of your priority list.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I self represent. Its also my business and where the future is going exponentially. Kids are in all kinds of entertainment properties. Half the movies shot here would have to be shut down if this was the law.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Doctor Martins View Post
                            I self represent.
                            Consider this recent comment from the Honourable Mr. Justice Pazaratz:

                            1. How did parents ever raise children before Family Court was invented?

                            2. Where did they scribble their endless complaints about one another, before we gave them fill-in-the-blank forms called affidavits?

                            3. In Hamilton, where did angry, vengeful parents hang out on Fridays at 10:00 a.m., before the advent of “motions court”?

                            4. As a judicial system, we like to think we’re helping people. Sometimes we even succeed.

                            5. But when many of our regular customers regard repeated trips to Family Court as “no big deal”, perhaps all we’re really doing is creating lazy parents. It’s easier to dump a mess on a judge, than to grow up and raise your own children.

                            6. Most families come to us once, at a time of crisis. They solve their problems. And they never come back.

                            7. But our system is plagued by a small group of frequent flyers who keep adding new chapters to their horror story. They keep coming back because we’ve made it easy for them. And perversely, they almost seem to enjoy it.

                            8. There are all sorts of reasons that this has to stop.

                            9. As a community, we can’t afford to fund courtrooms as a playground for petulance.

                            10. But most importantly, these endless court cases are usually about children. And no matter how much parents pretend that each salvo is “for the sake of the child”, the reality is that endless conflict and litigation inevitably breeds family misery. And children end up being robbed of their joy and innocence.
                            Peters-Webb v. Cloutier, 2017 ONSC 6139 (CanLII)
                            Date: 2017-10-16
                            Docket: 3612/14
                            Citation: Peters-Webb v. Cloutier, 2017 ONSC 6139 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/h6mhg

                            In addition, being "self-represented" is not a good thing. I would recommend you identify yourself to the court and others as "unrepresented". Why? Well, if we use WorkingDad as an example, he never uses or pretends to be self-represented. His reasons are sound.

                            1. Self-representation gives the impression you don't want representation by a properly trained professional.

                            2. "A man (or woman) who is his (her) own lawyer has a fool for his client. A lawyer who represents himself (herself) has a client who is an even bigger fool." -- There is significant truth to this proverb.

                            Why use "unrepresented" over "self-represented"?

                            You are telling the justice and everyone else that if you had the option to... You would hire a proper professional to represent you. You are at the very last option but, would like to have a lawyer.

                            Finally, don't think that you are not incurring costs. Judges often order massive costs awards against "self-represented" folks in court. It is very common now thanks to the efforts of WorkingDad and his resulting case law.

                            Good Luck!
                            Tayken

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                              Consider this recent comment from the Honourable Mr. Justice Pazaratz:



                              Peters-Webb v. Cloutier, 2017 ONSC 6139 (CanLII)
                              Date: 2017-10-16
                              Docket: 3612/14
                              Citation: Peters-Webb v. Cloutier, 2017 ONSC 6139 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/h6mhg

                              In addition, being "self-represented" is not a good thing. I would recommend you identify yourself to the court and others as "unrepresented". Why? Well, if we use WorkingDad as an example, he never uses or pretends to be self-represented. His reasons are sound.

                              1. Self-representation gives the impression you don't want representation by a properly trained professional.

                              2. "A man (or woman) who is his (her) own lawyer has a fool for his client. A lawyer who represents himself (herself) has a client who is an even bigger fool." -- There is significant truth to this proverb.

                              Why use "unrepresented" over "self-represented"?

                              You are telling the justice and everyone else that if you had the option to... You would hire a proper professional to represent you. You are at the very last option but, would like to have a lawyer.

                              Finally, don't think that you are not incurring costs. Judges often order massive costs awards against "self-represented" folks in court. It is very common now thanks to the efforts of WorkingDad and his resulting case law.

                              Good Luck!
                              Tayken

                              Thanks Ill remember unrepresented.

                              Comment

                              Our Divorce Forums
                              Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                              Working...
                              X