Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Social Media - "Personal" and "Private" Information

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by OhMy View Post
    Often times people do not realize that even though they may not use real names, facts that they post over time can be utilized and a time line established to prove it is indeed them.

    Airing ones own dirty laundry that does indeed identify that person by name is horrendous. Especially when there are disparaging comments and negative advocates who pile ontop.

    Mess and Tayken- you are both right about Nadia. I have taken the opportunity to read her past posts. Wow. She is a definite role model. Regardless of how the other party acted in her case she has always remained composed and respectful in her comments.

    I have learned a lot from reading her story. Nadia thank you. You give me a lot of hope.
    A prime example of what to do in the face of adversity. I have tremendous respect for Nadia and appreciation for her participation and sharing on this site.

    Comment


    • #17
      some might interpret this thread as trying to
      keep people quiet about whats going on in court

      ...

      cause we all know court is so fair .. no bias ..

      no Judges leaning 1 way ...

      ha ha

      no need to give out your personal info on
      the inet ...

      BUT

      dont be afraid to say what you think ,
      just be accountable for what you say

      quote 'unlikely anyone will care unless your threatening someone
      or suggesting you will hurt yourself'

      the internet might seem faceless but
      everything you type can be traced right
      back to your office, home ...

      the owner of this website (for example)
      can see your internet address, email address
      you signed up with and so on , if your at
      work and login they can see your company
      info too.

      why be afraid of that - who cares ...

      similar at home ..

      doesnt mean we cant say what we see , experienced or feel

      for example :
      Canada discrimates against fathers and the Statistic
      Canada numbers for 2006 show it, so Statistic's Canada
      may not publish the 2011 census numbers.

      Thats cause we live in a 'free' country, not like Russia
      1950 when they hide things from the general public.

      Remember - Say what you think - just be accountable

      If we dont speak up then social diseases like incest
      would still run amuck - think about it :


      if the black man of the 1800's chose to keep quite where would they be today ?

      if women in the early 1900's chose to keep quite where would they be today ?

      if fathers in the 21st century chose to keep quite how they get 15% or less custody in court where will they be tomorrow ?

      love u all,
      peace out
      PokeMan
      Last edited by pokeman; 12-06-2012, 12:40 AM. Reason: get n the point across with a rephrase

      Comment


      • #18
        There was a time when my ex submitted pictures of our daughter having fun with family events from Facebook to try and prove that our daughter saw them enough so that she did not really need to go on a trip to see her Grandma for her birthday... Judge sided with me luckily on that one but it was a close call lol....

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by pokeman View Post

          if the black man of the 1800's chose to keep quite where would they be today ?

          if women in the early 1900's chose to keep quite where would they be today ?

          if fathers in the 21st century chose to keep quite how they get 15% or less custody in court where will they be tomorrow ?

          love u all,
          peace out
          PokeMan
          Pokeman: You mean if the black men (and women) of the 1960s chose to keep quite where would they be today? And if women in the 1970s chose to keep quite where would they be today? And if fathers in the 1990s chose to keep quite how would they get 50% custody in court today?

          Can be easily mixed up. Some of my students think the Cuban Missile crisis took place in the 1800s.
          Last edited by Nadia; 12-07-2012, 11:38 AM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by pokeman View Post
            doesnt mean we cant say what we see , experienced or feel
            http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f...-mossip-13753/

            If this parent could remember the beginning more, and focussed on the end less and what has happened, this parent's children could not have suffered so much as a result of the end of their “story” as a couple.

            How this poster actually got to this place, a place where you compair "incest" to "divorce", only the poster will know; and only the poster knows through their unique and individual perspective.

            As Catherine Gildiner wrote in the preface to her book, After the Falls, (Toronto: Alfred A. Knopf Canada, 2009):
            Memory is a tricky business. No two people remember things the same way. Memory is not a recording device; it is the brain’s way of allowing us to select moments in order to interpret our pasts. All the images on file in our brains pass through elaborate screens of unconscious needs and emerge as memories.

            To that quote I would add that the filtering process this poster is going through helps the poster “save” themselves, so that the poster can present themselves in the best light possible. It is only through years of often painful therapy that this poster could possibly understand how much the poster may have filtered their own experiences is all to "save" their self image through possibly projections of blame against the system of family law.

            What I find sad for the members of this board is the amount of time, money, energy, and emotional angst, that this poster and others have engaged in to convince themselves, the other parent, the children, their friends, the professionals involved, the Court and the general public (by posting on this forum), that their truth is the “real truth”; that their version of events is what actually happened.

            Good Luck!
            Tayken

            Comment


            • #21
              is 'social media' really the problem here ?

              why are parents monitoring the other parents facebook or
              watching what their children post or do on facebook for the
              purpose of using it in court in some way ..

              engineering and similar diciplines have something called
              'root cause analysis' used to determine 'why' when something fails ...

              here's my root cause analysis of 'social media' :

              if parents had equal access to children then all this
              bullsh** goes away .

              facebook, twitter isnt the problem here ...

              the legal profession is full of perjudice individuals, and the fact court favors 1 sex over the other time and time is the 'root cause'

              Comment


              • #22
                The point of this thread was to warn people that use of social media does leave a footprint that can potentially be used against them in any ongoing litigation.

                Providing parents equal access to the children will not "make all this bullshit go away" as you put it. Parties engaged in conflict will simply find other ways to continue to keep that conflict alive.

                The ongoing conflict often has nothing to do with the children but more to do (1) with the inability of one or both party to accept that the marriage has indeed come to an end (2) difficulty with handling emotional hurt where one party or both feel they have been unfairly treated or wronged and must have this addressed by "punishing" the other party.

                Often in such cases, one or both parties will go to extraordinary lengths to make themselves heard and ensure that everyone knows they are (1) the "victim" in all this (2) how disgracefully the other party has acted in all this.
                Last edited by Nadia; 12-08-2012, 11:08 AM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Nadia View Post
                  The point of this thread was to warn people that use of social media does leave a footprint that can potentially be used against them in any ongoing litigation.
                  And that their emotional outbursts, emotional state, and other elements of their health and well being. The evidence is often used to counter highly agressive and unsubstantiated claims of "fear" for the other party.

                  An example, would be someone who claims that they were living in fear of the other party in the matter and then publicly posting their vendetta to create a distortion campaign against the other party. Recruiting their "friends", posting disturbing things about how their marriage and the subsequent birth of children was a "mistake" or "stupid". That the problems they are having in life is because the other parent is "all bad".

                  This time stamped trail of evidence is often posted to the internet and coordinates to phone calls to these "friends". In the past litigants would have to bring witnesses willing to testify to the fact that the other parent contacted them and attempted to "divorce-same" the other parent. Now, with social media, this evidence is often recorded and on the public internet for millions (billions?) of users to read.

                  To quote justice Quinn in Bruni v. Bruni ... "Parties are not shy about splattering their spleens throughout cyberspace."

                  Originally posted by Nadia View Post
                  Providing parents equal access to the children will not "make all this bullshit go away" as you put it. Parties engaged in conflict will simply find other ways to continue to keep that conflict alive.
                  Or to lament about the other parent, the past, and demonstrate that they are unable to move on and truly feel that having children with this person was "stupid" or a "mistake". Unfortunate that these highly conflicted people often find a soap box and a crowd of similarly highly-conflicted individuals who will "cheer lead" their allegations and bad conduct. Single serving friends...

                  Originally posted by Nadia View Post
                  The ongoing conflict often has nothing to do with the children but more to do (1) with the inability of one or both party to accept that the marriage has indeed come to an end (2) difficulty with handling emotional hurt where one party or both feel they have been unfairly treated or wronged and must have this addressed by "punishing" the other party.
                  (3) when one of the parties continues to try and find "closure" by projecting blame at the other parent, defaming their character, and trying to "justify" (find truth through the uneducated support and cheer leading of others) why things happened. They simply can't find closure in their life and move on. They continue to re-live their "beliefs" by posting them to the internet and having other possibly highly conflicted individuals "like" their negative projections of blame on the other parent.

                  It seems to fill an emotional void that the possibly highly conflicted parent has to get everyone to say bad things about the parent of their children. A parent who makes up half of their children. It also demonstrates that despite everything they may say to the court about how happy they are... in fact they are highly conflicted, upset and cannot move on.

                  Originally posted by Nadia View Post
                  Often in such cases, one or both parties will go to extraordinary lengths to make themselves heard and ensure that everyone knows they are (1) the "victim" in all this (2) how disgracefully the other party has acted in all this.
                  There are cases in which these people come to this very site seeking the same attention and often assistance on how to refine their distortion campaign and for validation of their "feelings" about the other parent. How awful, abusive, awful, etc... the other parent is and how hard their life is.

                  They want members of this community to support them blindly to the "facts" that they project as "truth" and rattle their sabers and join in on the "divorce-shaming" of the other parent.

                  They often don't want to hear "good advice" and are the litigants who often hire "shark" lawyers who conduct "sharp practice". Serve court documentation on the other parent at custody exchanges in the presence of minor children. Run into court with false and unsubstantiated allegations of domestic violence. Avoid disclosure because it often exposes their execution of "bad advice" from counsel.

                  Often, these highly conflicted litigants truly "believe" that they are the victim and cannot produce any evidence in support of their "belief".

                  Good Luck!
                  Tayken

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                    To quote justice Quinn in Bruni v. Bruni ... "Parties are not shy about splattering their spleens throughout cyberspace."
                    And again to quote Justice Quinn:

                    "Presiding over a family trial, with many issues, where the parties are selfrepresented (Mr. Leduc did not participate in the areas of property and support) is a solitary and unfulfilling experience. What evidence was not brought forward because the parties failed to appreciate its relevance? What evidence that was introduced would have been recast under a skilful cross-examination?"

                    That could be said by any common-sense driven participant of the Family Court system! The Judge is outstanding in his feedback.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by baldclub View Post
                      And again to quote Justice Quinn:

                      "Presiding over a family trial, with many issues, where the parties are selfrepresented (Mr. Leduc did not participate in the areas of property and support) is a solitary and unfulfilling experience. What evidence was not brought forward because the parties failed to appreciate its relevance? What evidence that was introduced would have been recast under a skilful cross-examination?"

                      That could be said by any common-sense driven participant of the Family Court system! The Judge is outstanding in his feedback.
                      They should hand out copies of Bruni v. Bruni and other substantial cases at the mandatory information sessions that identify the total irrationality of litigants and require everyone write essays about why the judge did what they did and ordered what they ordered.

                      Even a declaration that both parties will not bring irrelevant matters before the court and understand that should they they will have to pay substantial costs if found to be irrelevant to the matters being argued.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Even a declaration that both parties will not bring irrelevant matters before the court and understand that should they they will have to pay substantial costs if found to be irrelevant to the matters being argued.[/QUOTE]

                        I like this one^ - I'd be wealthy right now for the past 3 yrs I've been dragged to court for useless, irrelevant crap.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                          They should hand out copies of Bruni v. Bruni and other substantial cases at the mandatory information sessions that identify the total irrationality of litigants and require everyone write essays about why the judge did what they did and ordered what they ordered.
                          Amen!

                          The mandatory information sessions do no do a good enough job in explaining the litigation process, the costs (of all kinds), the suffering of the children --- at least in my humble opinion.

                          I can personally attest to having made mistakes in the litigation process and I recently found myself writing why I thought the judge was correct in her reasons for decision in 2010! The judge decided based on the law as it is and based on the relevant evidence given to her, no more no less.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Have to quote this one to by Justice Quinn, lol!

                            [70] On fourteen occasions, within eighteen months, the parties drew the police into their petty disagreements – a sad commentary on their inability to get along and a shocking abuse of the Niagara Regional Police Service. Although this statistic probably sums up all that one needs to know about the parties, I will elaborate for the doubters.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Cyber-libel

                              Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                              I also remind everyone who has matters before the public court system that it is a public system. When two parents fail to settle their matters in a private setting between themselves, mediation or through arbitration, your public Tweets, Facebook comments, SMS messages, emails and other social media use may become evidence in court.
                              Another thing to consider when using social media, etc.:

                              Definition of Defamation in Ontario Law - Toronto Defamation Lawyers

                              "Cyber-libel is when someone has posted or emailed something that is untrue and damaging about you on the internet. The internet has created the easy ability for almost anybody to communicate with almost anyone. This ability has a dark side – the average person’s reputation or a small business’s hard-earned goodwill can be harmed in a serious way.
                              Unfortunately, cyber-libel is becoming more common. In the past, only famous people had libel and slander issues. Today, it is the common person who must deal with this issue. For example, a disgruntled consumer, an angry ex-spouse, a competitor, or a peddler of gossip can now “vent” their frustrations about their victim cheaply, easily, and seemingly anonymously. A Google search of the victim’s name usually reveals the poisonous words for anyone that is interested.
                              The harm to reputation and character is real. A malicious customer review by a competitor could destroy a small business. A false accusation of adultery on a social networking site could destroy a marriage. An allegation that someone is a “crook” could be read by a potential employer or business partner."

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                First, excellent find on that site baldclub! Haven't seen the materials posted there before.

                                I found this article really interesting...

                                Law Society Complaint Sparks Defamation Lawsuit - Defamation Lawyers

                                The background to, and details of, the complaint are unimportant. I don’t know if the law society complaint was justified, or filed in bad faith. I don’t know if Mikitchook is guilty of professional misconduct. Those issues will get sorted out in due course. Right now all we’ve got are allegations.

                                But just imagine if the defamation lawsuit proceeds or is successful. It would create a mockery of the self-regulation of lawyers by making it dangerous for complaints to be filed with a law society. If people become afraid of filing complaints, or might be in legal jeopardy for filing complaints against lawyers, how can any law society effectively govern its lawyers? Outside regulation would be necessary.
                                ...

                                Malice is commonly understood, in the popular sense, as spite or ill‑will. However, it also includes any indirect motive or ulterior purpose that conflicts with the sense of duty or the mutual interest which the occasion created. Malice may also be established by showing that the defendant spoke dishonestly, or in knowing or reckless disregard for the truth.
                                Law Society Complaint Sparks Defamation Lawsuit - Defamation Lawyers

                                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