Hot News!
• Tea Party leader gets grilled by NAACP membership
On today's date in The Beacon archives, we published:
•Smitherman still saying the issue is about a “streetcar” (2009)•More on Amy Goodman’s Arrest and the Struggle for a Free Media (2008)
•Journalist Amy Goodman Unlawfully Arrested At RNC (2008)
•Seizing Illegal Guns—Thinking About 2% (2007)
•Information or Advertisements? (2007)
•Nick Lachey: “I have never supported George W. Bush.” (2007)
Contact Us
v mail: (513) 685-0678
e mail: click here
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Cincinnati Black Blog—Unplugged by Google!
Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati
Blogger: “This blog is under review due to possible Blogger Terms of Service violations…”
Today, the Cincinnati Black Blog is still offline. I know Nate had posted addresses and social security numbers, but is it really a violation of Blogger’s Terms of Service to do that? Should it be? Regardless of one’s position on this issue, it seems the whole situation at the Cincinnati Black Blog has now raised questions about the limits of free speech.
Some time back, Joy Rolland was passing out my phone number, encouraging people to call me. And it worked. People who believed the lies she broadcast on TV and radio called my house. I looked into Ohio’s telecommunication harassment laws, and contacted Google—since she had phone numbers published there.
Google agreed that she should not have been encouraging people to pester me, and they removed those posts.
But they didn’t take down her whole blog.
I haven’t been to Nate’s site in a few days, so I don’t know if he was encouraging people to harass those whose addresses, phone numbers and social security numbers were online. And I certainly wouldn’t want my own information posted on a web site like Nate had done to his enemies in the matter of his custody battle.
But how did Nate obtain these details? Are they a matter of public record? And if they are, who do we blame here—Nate for posting them, or a system that would allow someone’s social security number to be entered into the public record in the first place?
• Share This Article! | Listen to this article |
|  |
Register
Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.
If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License.
21 May 2008 at 09:16 am | #
Actually the information in question may very well be part of the public record. Nate presumably being a party to those cases he may very well have gotten un-redacted copies of those records.
However, it is definitely against Google’s policies to post information like that.
I’m guessing posting a phone number, even an unlisted one, is “borderline” because I’m guessing it’s rather difficult to steal someone’s identity from just a phone number.
Yes - no matter how you slice and dice it, Nate definitely went over the line on this one.
Now, I’m presuming he has nothing of value to attach, so suing him probably wouldn’t be a very productive endeavor, but I’m wondering if the people who’s information he published could press charges criminally ...
21 May 2008 at 09:17 am | #
Wait a minute ...
How did JOY ROLLAND get YOUR phone number???
21 May 2008 at 12:03 pm | #
http://operationheightenedcontradiction.blogspot.com/
21 May 2008 at 01:04 pm | #
I remember when crazy Joy Rolland posted your telephone number and address on her internet site then got on public access tv and begged people to call and harass you and your family all because she hates white people and they replayed that murderous message for weeks! What if some crazy in the world would have knocked on your door and when you or a member of your family opened it you were met with a gunblast all because Joy Rolland encouraged itover and over again? That is the bigger question along with the internet free speech question. Thank God no harm came to you or yours although if Joy had her way seriously all of you (your whole family) could’ve ended up DEAD.
What Nate did was in no way on the same level as what that known pyschopath Joy Rolland did and her site was NEVER taken down!
Sad. Where the hell is the law in all of this?!? Didnt she run her child’s father down in the middle of street and plead guilty to it?
Who will be her next victim?
21 May 2008 at 03:54 pm | #
Nate Livingston, Jr. had this coming to him. He is constantly launching personal attacks against people and does not stick to the politics of an issue. It’s about time Google shut that guy’s blog down. Good riddance to bad rubbish with his crazy self!
21 May 2008 at 07:19 pm | #
“it seems the whole situation at the Cincinnati Black Blog has now raised questions about the limits of free speech.”
Not really since there’s no Constitutional right to post to Blogger.
22 May 2008 at 11:23 am | #
No, it hasn’t.
Google is not a government, nor does it operates within the bounds of the United States Constitution. It is a public, for-profit company. I hate it when people sound the alarm on free speech with virtually no consideration for what the law actually says and what it can and can’t do. You cheapen real Constitutional protections when you cry wolf for Nate over Google’s terms. Every Blogger user has to agree to Google’s content terms before ever posting their first entry. Even if he didn’t read them or understand them, Nate agreed to those terms (and everyone here knows you can’t click “Next” until you’ve checked that you “read and agreed to” the user terms on just about any program or service offered online). Google absolutely has the right to pull down anything they wish on their servers. Nate remains free to register a domain, pay for hosting, put up his own independent website, post those Social Security numbers and take his chances when he’s sued for harassment. He doesn’t have the right to expose Google to that liability.
Play this all the way out to the end. If Google had known about Nate’s posts and did not have any policy forbidding posting someone’s SSN, think of the tremendous deep pockets Nate’s victims would have access to. If Nate posted my SSN on a Google-owned website (And make no mistake, Google owns the website. They may not own the content, but they own the forum.) and my identity was compromised, why in the world would I even waste my time suing Nate? He has no assets. Google, on the other hand, is one of the biggest companies in the country. Do you really think they’re that dumb to let that happen?
22 May 2008 at 03:14 pm | #
There is an overlap. Check out Google’s content terms of service:
http://www.blogger.com/content.g
They only ban pornography, hate, threats, and confidential information.
With the exception of hate speech, the terms pretty much are in line with free speech limits.
I agree that confidential information should not be broadcast. That’s because I don’t think it is public information, and as such should not be “free speech,” available via public documents, etc.
So why is it?
22 May 2008 at 05:45 pm | #
The debate over what constitutes public information and what Google can and can’t block on their own websites are two entirely different issues, Jason. Google’s content restrictions are their own business. You may choose not to do business with Google because of it, but Nate’s not going to be able to sue to put his site back up with his enemies’ SSNs up there. I don’t know why you’re pointing to “free speech limits” in comparison to Google’s terms, anyway. Who cares if they’re “in line with free speech limits”? And what “free speech limits” are you referring to, anyway? The Federal Government has far more than simply copyrights, confidential information, impersonation, unlawful use, and spam. State and local governments have placed limits on free speech. Some of them have even been upheld in court.
I’m not trying to be antagonizing. I honestly just want to know what your point is and what you mean by “some overlap.” Things can be similar and have no relation at all.
22 May 2008 at 06:18 pm | #
Fine.
22 May 2008 at 09:22 pm | #
“Nate remains free to register a domain, pay for hosting, put up his own
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
independent website, post those Social Security numbers and take his chances when he’s sued for harassment. He doesn’t have the right to expose Google to that liability.”
Now THAT"S funny right there. I don’t care who you are.
23 May 2008 at 04:47 am | #
I volunteer and work with people at the Drop Inn. Nate was living there in late Feb to early March. Somebody had to point him out to me, he had lost a lot of weight. You tend to see the dramatic weight loss mostly with cocaine addicts. He lost his job and lost his home. He has a substance abuse problem.
Nate has lost everything and his life has come unhinged. He is turning now on his friends and his family. There is nobody left to help him. Nate needs our prayers more than anything right now.
23 May 2008 at 08:26 am | #
“Nate needs our prayers more than anything right now.”
Perhaps ... but even a sick man doesn’t have the right to deliberately ruin the lives of others.
23 May 2008 at 09:34 am | #
Actually when I saw that Nate’s blog was down to a TOS violation, I wondered the same thing. I mean, I’ve known for a long time about them helping China censor their people, and I’ve always wondered how much they censor their US users. The sad fact is, Google really doesn’t give a damn about it’s users. And they play more than God with Blogger. You have no rights that they are bound to respect.
Google can make up whatever rules they want and change them whenever they want. They’re Google. Who the fuck are you?
You agree to abide by the Blogger Content Policy (http://www.blogger.com/content.g) and the rules and restrictions therein. Although we may attempt to notify you when major changes are made to the Blogger Content Policy, you should periodically review the most up-to-date version. Google may, in its sole discretion, modify or revise the Blogger Content Policy at any time, and you agree to be bound by such modifications or revisions.
Google will dime you out to the U.S. Government and foreign governments should you ever really piss them off.
3. You agree that Google may access or disclose your personal information, including the content of your communications, if Google is required to do so in order to comply with any valid legal process or governmental request (such as a search warrant, subpoena, statute, or court order), or as otherwise provided in these Terms of Service and the general Google Privacy Policy. Personal information collected by Google may be stored and processed in the United States or any other country in which Google Inc. or its agents maintain facilities. By using the Service, you consent to any such transfer of information outside of your country.
They don’t have to give you a reason for terminating your account. Google can make up whatever rules they want and change them whenever they want. They’re Google. Who the fuck are you?
10. Termination; Suspension. Google may, in its sole discretion, at any time and for any reason, terminate the Service, terminate this Agreement, or suspend or terminate your account. In the event of termination, your account will be disabled and you may not be granted access to your account or any files or other content contained in your account although residual copies of information may remain in our system for some time for back-up purposes. Sections 2, 3, 5 - 8, and 10 - 15 of the Agreement, along with applicable provisions of the general Terms of Service (including the section regarding limitation of liability), shall survive expiration or termination
23 May 2008 at 07:50 pm | #
That’s sad. If what Louise says is true, then probably Livingston is another of Lawson’s victims.
Everyone pretty much agrees that his ramblings were over the top, didn’t make any sense, and I’ll add sound like they come out of some sort of substance abuse. Everybody that is but The Dean of Cincinnati. He thought the accusations had some validity and so chose to perpetuate the smears against Tyrone Yates.
23 May 2008 at 07:59 pm | #
I have not perpetuated any smears against Tyrone Yates.
I have met him, and he seems a good enough guy. Even written things for The Beacon before.
But I have also read here about the kinds of cases Legal Aid takes.
I don’t see anything about child custody cases.
23 May 2008 at 10:00 pm | #
You don’t? What’s this? Copied directly from your link. You think they’re talking about custody of the dog? Didn’t Livingston say that Mays claimed to be a victim of domestic violence?
Domestic Violence
Legal Aid helps clients who seek protection from domestic violence
• Securing protection orders
<b>• Resolving custody and visitation<b>
• Representing in divorce proceedings
• Coordinating community services Education
24 May 2008 at 01:36 am | #
Nate’s been shuffling around Northside again & he didn’t look too pathetic. Had that usual sneer on his face as he stepped off the bus.
Nate didn’t lose his homes. Nate was evicted for non-payment of rent. He hadn’t paid rent for the crack shack he’d been bunking in for many months & was tossed out of another place before he could set up homekeeping. It’s in the public record. 08CV03454,08CV06359.
Livingston might have been a victim of Lawson, but, he didn’t attempt to break the cycle of substance abuse. In fact, he attempted to perpetrate it. He filed a complaint against the City about the marijuana ordinance. (See A 0603466) He made a big deal in the filing he created & put Lawson’s signature on it, “...the City of Cincinnati has saw fit to criminalize the conduct of the Plaintiff [Nate] and others who, after a stressful day of work or community activism appreciate taking a toke off of a joint containing marijuana such as Columbian Gold or to seek the new seedless form which grows under water.” (Poor grammar, sentence construction & spelling errors are taken directly from the document filed by Lawson/Livingston in the Common Pleas Court)
Livingston also stated that he brought the action because he didn’t want to be labeled a criminal simply for smoking weed.
The case was dismissed so Nate could file in Federal Court. We saw how far that went. In the meantime, the taxpayers are left holding the sack again on Nate because he didn’t pay the necessary costs & fees, something that’s routine with him.
Thanks to Louise for verifying some points that many, many people knew for a very long time. It was plainly obvious Nate has substance abuse problems & many are acutely aware he has other problems that he cannot accept & therefore, he won’t get the counseling to set him right with himself & others. Lawson was rather slick in hiding his drink & dope problems. Lied like hell. One week it was cancer. The next week it was MS. The following week it was Lou Gehrig’s Disease. I had an individual so entrenched in their belief that Lawson was an opium head. When he did the Howdy the Hitman City Hall Killah bench trial, it was all over. It was so obvious he was potty-faced on drink & dope.
With that, those who got all full of themselves smug & decided to go along with furthering the besmirching of Tyrone Yates ought to be thoroughly ashamed. That took a lot of cold nerve. The exact same individuals are quick to bomb a comment or instigate childish behavior when another passes a remark about their private lives, habits & creature comforts. However, I’ve found with increasing worry that this town is downright ugly, mean, & hostile to the GLBT community. Just bugger-a$$ed ugly to them.
I guess it’s because they get up & go to work everyday & are extremely productive, honest employees. They work hard to afford a tumbledown property & turn into something everyone in the neighborhood can admire. The GLBT residents are generally the first ones to volunteer on civic projects & other things in the area where they live.
But there were many gullible people who hopped on poor, pitiful Nate’s hatred wagon again. He got exactly what was coming to him & exactly what he richly deserved. And, he probably won’t survive this war he’s created against Amanda Mayes. He certainly won’t gain custody of any children.
24 May 2008 at 11:05 am | #
ThatDeborahGirl:
Stop blaming Google. Nate fucked up. Do you think for a second Amanda’s lawyers weren’t looking at Nate’s blog? The second he put their SSNs up, I’m sure they contacted Google and said take this down or we’re adding you to whatever harassment suit we’re filing against him. Nate’s rights were in no way compromised because he wasn’t legally entitled to put that information up.
24 May 2008 at 05:17 pm | #
I used to work with Amanda. I saw some of the sneaky things she used to do. I also know her phraseology and the phrase “...his life has come unhinged” sounds like something Amanda would say. I’d bet my last nickle that Amanda is actually “Louise”.
I went out with Nate before he got mixed up with Amanda. We still talk to each other. I can tell you that Nate never turned on me or his family. He has never lived at the Drop Inn. He hasn’t been evicted. He doesn’t have a substance abuse problem. Nate has a job and a home. The things said about Nate by “Louise” and “Jones” were just attempts to smear him.
I haven’t talked to Nate for a few days but the last time we talked he told me there was some sort of detailed custody investigation going on and Amanda was fighting it. If I had taken my 2 small children and lived in a homeless shelter in Michigan like a big dummy I’d fight it too. If I was an in-the-closet lesbian like Amanda, not that there is anything wrong with being a lesbian, I’d probably try to smear Nate too for outting me.
24 May 2008 at 10:03 pm | #
William, wake up. Jones isn’t smearing Nate here. Public records generally do tell some truth. I suggest you look at the above-mentioned Municipal Civil actions. Both cases are eviction matters against Livingston.
Then comment back here that I engaging in smearing Nate. Nate’s smeared himself. He didn’t need the public to do it. William, you ought to find a better class of person to go out with. Nate hasn’t turned on you yet, so, save yourself a lot of grief while you’re ahead, son.
24 May 2008 at 10:22 pm | #
William, are you a man? Did you say you dated Nate before he got mixed up with Mays? Are you and Livingston gay?
25 May 2008 at 02:44 am | #
William,
I am not Amanda. Nate was at the Drop in late February and early March. He found a place to stay and hasn’t been back for months. I know that because I was there and saw it with my own two eyes.
You say you talked to Nate for a few days but did you talk to him at the end of February? Did you go to his home? He didn’t have one then he was evicted because he didn’t have the money to pay. He also owes back support payments. It is hard to get a job in today’s job market, and it is even harder when your name is Nate Livingson.
It was clearly evident to me that he had a substance abuse problem. After only a few weeks of working you can see the effects a mile away. Maybe you talk to him on the phone when he is sober and can’t imagine the demons he has to live with.
You went out with him William. As a former lover you should know the signs. He is not going to reach out to you. You need to reach out to him. Nate needs help, and he needs people to reach out and pull him back up. He has been an asset to this community by raising important issues that nobody else wants to raise. In times of crisis we need to put aside our petty differences and reach out to others that need help. In his heart Nate Livingston is a good man. He may be dysfunctional but he is worth saving.
25 May 2008 at 08:14 am | #
” It is hard to get a job in today’s job market, and it is even harder when your name is Nate Livingson.”
No, it’s not because his name is ‘Nate Livingston,’ it’s because a decade of sociopathy targeting decent Cincinnatians has left him with exactly what’s he earned: discredit and irrelevance.
“In his heart” Nate is runt. Far less successful than his brothers. An ingrate to everyone who offered him employment or opportunity (WLW, WAIF, WDBZ, The Cincinnati Herald, ad nauseum). A possibly co-dependent enabler. A bum who doesn’t think he has to pay rent (remember he was evicted from his Avondale apartment years ago as well). An absentee father and baby daddy who puts his self-serving agitprop agenda before the welfare of his children (previously sued by his ex-wife for non-support).
I suggest Louise look up his last known address, go to whereever Nate’s renting, and take him home with her to nurture and care for him in the manner to which she thinks he should become accustomed. See how long it lasts.
DeborahGirl: suggestion- why don’t YOU start a blog hosting website with absolutely no rules whatsoever. Then in true Communist fashion you will own the means of production.
But until then and as long as your own blog is hosted by Google- stop fucking complaining. Google doesn’t owe you shit. Google wasn’t created for your benefit. You have no Constitutional right to post to blogger. Grow up.
25 May 2008 at 09:14 am | #
William = Nate…
25 May 2008 at 02:58 pm | #
# No Free Speech Issues, Whatsoever. says:
24 May 2008 at 09:05 am | #
ThatDeborahGirl:
Stop blaming Google. Nate fucked up. Do you think for a second Amanda’s lawyers weren’t looking at Nate’s blog? The second he put their SSNs up, I’m sure they contacted Google and said take this down or we’re adding you to whatever harassment suit we’re filing against him. Nate’s rights were in no way compromised because he wasn’t legally entitled to put that information up.
I wasn’t blaming google. I was answering Dean’s original question about what exactly in the Blogger TOS did Nate violate.
And it’s also a nice little lesson for those of us who have blogs on blogger. The rules are whatever Google says they are. And if you don’t like it, it’s best to take your blog elsewhere.
It’s only through sheer lack of time and effort that I haven’t moved my own blog from google but I will be sure to sometime this summer.
25 May 2008 at 04:25 pm | #
Urbanists II Is Dead says:
25 May 2008 at 06:14 am | #
DeborahGirl: suggestion- why don’t YOU start a blog hosting website with absolutely no rules whatsoever. Then in true Communist fashion you will own the means of production.
But until then and as long as your own blog is hosted by Google- stop fucking complaining. Google doesn’t owe you shit. Google wasn’t created for your benefit. You have no Constitutional right to post to blogger. Grow up.
Like I mentioned earlier, I was only answering Dean’s original post. You took this to be a complaint by me when in reality I just copied & pasted portions of Google’s TOS here, highlighted with a few tongue-in-cheek comments by me.
I guess my question is, why the venom in your reply? Especially since, I’m pretty sure the overall point of my point coincides with yours - If you have a blog hosted by Google “who the fuck are you” (meaning me or anyone) to complain about their rules? I do think their rules are a tad heavy handed but anyone has the option of posting elsewhere or establish their own site and pay for their own hosting so there’s really not much harm done other than what must be the slightly dirty feeling of knowing they can always pick and choose who and what to take down without really explaining why.
In the past year of reading and debating on Slashdot how Google helps China (openly) and possibly the US (covertly) censor items that the respective governments do not want their citizens to see, I’ve come to question their neutrality towards their users and I think they long ago left behind the benign quest that Brin & Page started out on. And this, more than anything, had me researching other options for my own blog. Seeing Nate’s blog summarily taken down and actually researching the answers to Dean’s question led me to further believe that it’s long past time that I established my own site and stopped depending on Google who obviously can’t be depended on to be neutral or even consistent.
At any rate, I think you unfairly ripped me a new one. You widely misjudged me and my post and I hope you’ll be up to admitting it.
26 May 2008 at 08:24 am | #
Not venom: vehemence.
“Actually when I saw that Nate’s blog was down to a TOS violation, I wondered the same thing. I mean, I’ve known for a long time about them helping China censor their people, and I’ve always wondered how much they censor their US users. The sad fact is, Google really doesn’t give a damn about it’s users. And they play more than God with Blogger. You have no rights that they are bound to respect.”
“Censor” is liberal code for “boo hoo, something I get for free still isn’t good enough.”
“Google really doesn’t give a damn about its users.” Pay for the service, then complain.
“They play more than God with Blogger.” Pray, what could be “more than” God?
“You have no rights that they are bound to respect.” What rights would those be?
Like your post accusing me of racism, you have nothing substantive to backup your claims.
26 May 2008 at 10:14 pm | #
“Pray for Nate”?
How about praying for the people rotting in jail because of the con Nate’s boss Ken Lawson pulled on them?
Lawson was an alcoholic and crackhead for eight years. He took retainers from clients and failed to appear in court for them. Nate Livingston witnessed this for years and did nothing to stop it.
You know the rest of his sins so I’ll not go into them here.
Pray for Nate?
Sure, and while you’re at it, pray for OJ Simpson too.
Nate is dead in this town. He has as much chance of reviving his career as General Kabaka has of reviving his.
His best move now would be to go to Michigan, get a job hanging sheet rock, and catch up on his child support before the feds hunt him down.
By the way, we need an interview with Amanda Mayes as a postscript to this loser’s life. I’ll host it on my blog if someone can get her in touch with me.
http://www.cincireport.com
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
ricland
27 May 2008 at 01:47 am | #
Louise,
How do you know Nate owes back support payments?
27 May 2008 at 01:50 am | #
Jones,
If Nate was evicted for non-payment of rent why do both of the public records you listed say dismissed?
27 May 2008 at 10:50 am | #
From what I’ve learned, posting Social Security numbers is a violation of Blogger’s TOS. Posting addresses is not.
Considering that the SSNs were all gathered from public documents, and I never encouraged people to harass anyone (I’m not sure where you get off saying that these people are my “enemies”), I don’t think posting SSNs found in public documents or obtained from public sources should be a violation. But I don’t get to make the rules.
I’ve been in contact with the people at Blogger and am confident that the Cincinnati Black Blog will be put back online shortly. In the meantime, I am moving forward with “Operation Heightened Contradiction.” For now, I won’t post SSNs. But as soon as I can find an outlet that has no problem with me posting SSNs, I will publish the SSNs on the internet.
Some of you may not understand that I’m doing this because Amanda Mayes and a gang of white lawyers from the Legal Aid Society, using falsified documents and with no legal authority to do so, stole my daughter’s confidential juvenile court case file, made copies of it, distributed it, and submitted it to a court in Michigan which made it a public record. My daughter’s records contain all sorts of sensitive information on my daughter, her mother, me, and others, including our SSNs, and work and pay histories. What they did was illegal; what I’m doing is not.
Contrary to what some have said in this thread, this situation with Blogger has, indeed, raised questions about the limits of free speech. Not only is there an equal enforcement argument between the way this situation was handled versus the way the situation with Joy Rolland was handled, there is also a question of whether a government official used their office and influence to compel a private company to censor my speech. It is one thing for the Cincinnati Enquirer to refuse to publish a letter to the editor, it is something entirely different for the Enquirer to not publish a letter to the editor based on a communication from the President. There is also a legitimate question of whether Google receives tax money from the State of Ohio. If it does, and the decision to take the Cincinnati Black Blog offline was based even partially on the fact that the speech contained on the Cincinnati Black Blog was critical of a powerful Ohio politician, then there is an issue.
27 May 2008 at 11:25 am | #
In comment #12 Amanda Mayes said:
In comment #20 Amanda Mayes said:
In comment #23 Amanda Mayes said:
Let’s think about this. Someone named Louise volunteers and works with people at the Drop Inn Center. She saw me there in late Feb to early March. Someone had to point me out to her because I’d lost so much weight. And now, this Drop Inn Center volunteer, somehow knows all this about me: I have a substance abuse problem; I’ve lost everything, including my job; I was evicted from my home because I didn’t have the money to pay rent; I owe back child support payments; my life has come unhinged; I’ve turned on my friends and family; and I’ve been involved in a homosexual relationship with someone named William.
Of course, none of this is true. But since when has the truth stopped a desperate person from saying things if they think it can gain them an advantage.
Lets say the story was true. Does anyone think the Drop Inn Center would be so irresponsible as to have one of their volunteers, “Louise,” posting my confidential information on the Cincinnati Beacon? And does anyone think that volunteers (or staff for that matter) of a homeless shelter would possibly know all those details about a person staying in their facility? (Just in case any of you are in doubt, I know the people who run the Drop Inn. I’ve worked with them in the past. Homeless people who need a place to stay should feel confident in knowing that there is nobody named “Louise” who works there or who volunteers there and nobody—staff or volunteer—would ever betray their confidentiality or put their business in the street.)
To Amanda and all those multiple personalities in your head: I don’t care what you write about me on this site or elsewhere. I’m not going to play your silly little games. I’m going to do my talking in court, where it matters.
27 May 2008 at 08:28 pm | #
How in the WORLD would Google RECEIVE tax money from the State of Ohio??
I think your beef ultimately lies with the State of Michigan.
It was once VERY easy to view EVERYONE’S business on Hamilton County’s web site, then identities started getting stolen and they put the kibosh on that.
How it does your or your daughter any good to take actions that could cause so much chaos I have no idea.
Absolutely you should publish the story - particularly that the State of Michigan is publishing such sensitive information - you should blast that all over the place.
And that you suspect power is being abused - no problem there - let ‘em have it.
But posting names, address, SSN’s and DOB’s can serve NO purpose that I can think of. In fact, it calls into question your integrity even more than it is usually in question.
28 May 2008 at 07:15 am | #
“Lets say the story was true. Does anyone think the Drop Inn Center would be so irresponsible as to have one of their volunteers, “Louise,” posting my confidential information on the Cincinnati Beacon?”
Of course not! As your examplar demonstrates, that information would be posted on YOUR BLOG.
Silly goose!
28 May 2008 at 07:18 am | #
“Some of you may not understand that I’m doing this because Amanda Mayes and a gang of white lawyers from the Legal Aid Society”
Careful: DeborahGirl will accuse you of being ignorant, racist and bigoted.
Or not. She’s not very good at consistency in these matters.
28 May 2008 at 04:28 pm | #
Urbanists II Is Dead:
When it comes to constructing a logical message that doesn’t include “all liberals are evil” or “racism, what racism, that doesn’t exist”, I will at least say you are consistent at that.
28 May 2008 at 06:33 pm | #
Anyone else find it sickening that while his two daughters are in a homeless shelter, Nate thinks it more important to convince everyone he’s never been in a homeless shelter?
ricland
28 May 2008 at 06:39 pm | #
No.
28 May 2008 at 11:24 pm | #
I don’t think Nate said his daughters were still living in a homeless shelter.
29 May 2008 at 09:10 pm | #
No Dog, he was served notice to vacate the premises. On the one rental, a considerable sum of money was due & owing. On the other, approximately one month’s rent was due. He was duly advised to pay up or get out.
Nate was successfully served the summons to appear in Court on both actions. It got to be showtime & Nate was a no-show. He was off the premises, the property owners knew it was a wash & the Magistrate dismissed the actions. Evictions sometimes go that way. No Dog, I apologize for not explaining those procedural points in the beginning.
...
Oh cridy, Nate, cut the baloney with the melodrama already. Everyone knows about the moments between you & Dan Phenicie right outside City Hall. There were employees at the big windows watching the afternoon story. Face the real facts. You were served notices to get out of rental properties for non-payment of rent. You picked up stakes & moved on because you would have been evicted anyway. At the end of the day, it’s still basically the same thing.
30 May 2008 at 06:23 pm | #
I don’t know what to believe. I live in Mt Airy and love the little ice cream place in Northside. I’m down there 3 or 4 times a week. I’ve seen Nate getting off the bus. The last time I saw him go inside, drop the bag he was carrying, and come sit on the porch. He had a cellphone up to his ear the whole time & didn’t look like he had a care in the world.
30 May 2008 at 09:47 pm | #
Ice cream place in Northside??
31 May 2008 at 03:01 am | #
Oh where, OH WHERE CAN UNDER/LAWDOG BE when you NEED him?
Forgot—-he’s now an UNLICENSED STRAY DOG reportedly wandering the streets of A-T-L.
No help to NATE DOGG who provided YEARS of LOYAL SERVICE to LAW/STRAY DOG. It’s looking like NATE/STRAY DOG has been left to wander the blogosphere, aimlessly….
This is what happens when your life’s mission is to seek and destroy all of those you perceive to be “in your way” to being TOP DOG. Alas….the old saying goes….EVERY DOG HAS ITS DAY......
31 May 2008 at 09:26 am | #
“Oh where, OH WHERE CAN UNDER/LAWDOG BE when you NEED him?”
—anon
You know, Anon, trying to be excruciatingly clever is cool when you’re clever.
When you’re not it’s excruciatingly tiresome.
ricland
31 May 2008 at 02:36 pm | #
ricland says:
31 May 2008 at 07:26 am | #
“Oh where, OH WHERE CAN UNDER/LAWDOG BE when you NEED him?”
—anon
You know, Anon, trying to be excruciatingly clever is cool when you’re clever.
When you’re not it’s excruciatingly tiresome.
ricland
Actually, my clever wit is executed rather effortlessly…..and your needless attempt to insult that is well…tiresome.
Lighten up. It’s summertime! (LOL!!)
31 May 2008 at 04:35 pm | #
I know everything about Lawson and Nate and had to read your “wit” three times to discern who you were talking about.
Readers not aware of Lawson’s troubles—or even Lawson!—haven’t the slightest idea what you’re talking about.
You put “wit” before clarity and that’s a fatal error in writing.
ricland
31 May 2008 at 11:42 pm | #
YAAAAAAAAAWN…....Thank you for the English lesson, Ricland…YAAAAAAAAAWWWWN…....
again…TIRESOME.
03 Jun 2008 at 03:03 pm | #
R.I.P. Cincinnati Black Blog: The cause and questions were real, the attempt to educate and create meaningful dialogue that could effect causal change were real. But, the epitaph for this blog is void of a meaningful resume…What can be learned as we peep through the cracks of this boarded up house? Anything?
04 Jun 2008 at 09:08 am | #
I should add that we’re all remiss in letting Nate get away with his character assassination of the mother of this two daughters. We’re remiss because we’re not asking the tough questions.
For example, his “Operation Heightened Contraction” is a campaign of terror against the “gang of white lawyers” who helped Amanda get her daughter’s juvenile court records. He says they “stole” them. That’s the word he uses.
But who, if not the mother of a juvenile, should have access to her daughter’s juvenile records, most especially when the father is an absentee deadbeat dad?
And exactly what’s in the girl’s records Nate doesn’t want anyone to see? Why is he moving heaven and earth to prevent the folks in a Michigan domestic court from seeing what’s in this file?
What’s Nate hiding…?
As I wrote earlier, anyone who’s ever witnessed what goes on in domestic court knows deadbeat dads think up the most elaborate excuses for not doing their job. They accuse the mother of the most incredulous things. They play the victim game. They wail, screech, pull their hair out and do everything except the one thing that would have stopped the custody battle from ever starting—support their kids.
ricland
04 Jun 2008 at 09:11 am | #
ricland,
Amanda is not the mother of the young lady whose records were taken. Please try to keep up, if you are going to leave these pointless comments.
05 Jun 2008 at 10:17 pm | #
Dean, why do you address me directly then censor my response?
This is the same crap you were pulling a year ago.
ricland
07 Jun 2008 at 01:55 am | #
ricland says:
05 Jun 2008 at 08:17 pm | #
Dean, why do you address me directly then censor my response?
This is the same crap you were pulling a year ago.
ricland
YAAAAAAAAAAAWN…....can the one who KNOWS EVERYTHING about NATE and the LAWDOG (sounds like a cheap 70’s-80’s “fill-in-for midseason” sitcom, BTW.
Nate’s days were numbered a long time ago. The chickens are finally coming home to roost and **NEWS FLASH** more chickens, ROOSTERS and BOOSTERS of the NATE and the LAWDOG show will follow.
Just wait—Nate’s current “babies’ mamas woes” are only the TIP of the ever-unfolding “Pine Valley, Ohio (Cincinnati) Ghetto Saga/ICEBURG.” The melting of such will be a phenomenal PLOT! Even I, in all of my “witty cleverness” couldn’t make it up! 
(LOL!!)