Nude Pictures and Sexual Harassment at the college **
It has been brought up that one of the officers who works for the college took nude pictures in the classroom and gave the come on aggressively to other female students. The word is he also had a camcorder in the bathroom while a group of high school girls were changing clothes. Female employees have been sexually harassed and assaulted and no one did anything.
—–UPDATE 5/23/2006—–
Another source has notified me that most of this is not true. It was "nothing more than a scam to bash people." This source also asked me to take the post down which I will not.We are continuing to update this post as new information comes available.
—–UPDATE 5/28/2006—–
I did receive some more information via. e-mail. Included were three pictures, two of which show two different women showing their chest (it looks as 1 was taken in St. Augustine, FL). This same informant is mailing some information to me via snail mail. Once I receive it all, I will work on it and try to get it posted. Once I receive the information in the mail, I will try to get most of it posted. I will not be posting the photos at this time.
—–UPDATE 6/3/2006—–
I received the information via snail mail today. It appears to be internal documents for Burke County EMS and a letter. They are dated October 2004. I will not be posting theses nor will I be pursuing this post anymore. I will not be posting any more information regarding this due to moral issues. This is an incident that occurred in the past. I do not know who all of the internal documents are from. I do feel that this information is a private matter that should have been handled by BCEMS and should not be release to the public. So because of this, I will be shredding this information and I will be closing this post. If any more information turns up, I will reopen this post. Thank you for everyone who has contributed, but I do have to draw the line when the information is attacking individuals.
For the people who have alerted me that attorneys know who have this information and I could be sued for even having this post: I am do have constitutional rights and I am protected by them. I am protecting the rights of these individuals by not posting the information that I received. Any further information needs to be communicated by e-mail.
Thank you.
23 Comments »
Leave a comment
Uncategorized
Chapter 99.
Libel and Slander.
§ 99‑1. Libel against newspaper; defamation by or through radio or television station; notice before action.
(a) Before any action, either civil or criminal, is brought for the publication, in a newspaper or periodical, of a libel, the plaintiff or prosecutor shall at least five days before instituting such action serve notice in writing on the defendant, specifying the article and the statements therein which he alleges to be false and defamatory.
(b) Before any action, either civil or criminal, is brought for the publishing, speaking, uttering, or conveying by words, acts or in any other manner of a libel or slander by or through any radio or television station, the plaintiff or prosecutor shall at least five days before instituting such action serve notice in writing on the defendant, specifying the time of and the words or acts which he or they allege to be false and defamatory. (1901, c. 557; Rev., s. 2012; C.S., s. 2429; 1943, c. 238, s. 1.)
§ 99‑2. Effect of publication or broadcast in good faith and retraction.
(a) If it appears upon the trial that said article was published in good faith, that its falsity was due to an honest mistake of the facts, and that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the statements in said article were true, and that within 10 days after the service of said notice a full and fair correction, apology and retraction was published in the same editions or corresponding issues of the newspaper or periodical in which said article appeared, and in as conspicuous place and type as was said original article, then the plaintiff in such case, if a civil action, shall recover only actual damages, and if, in a criminal proceeding, a verdict of “guilty” is rendered on such a state of facts, the defendant shall be fined a penny and the costs, and no more.
(b) If it appears upon the trial that such words or acts were conveyed and broadcast in good faith, that their falsity was due to an honest mistake of the facts, or without prior knowledge or approval of such station, and if with prior knowledge or approval that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the words or acts were true, and that within 10 days after the service of said notice a full and fair correction, apology and retraction was conveyed or broadcast by or over such radio or television station at approximately the same time of day and by the same sending power so as to be as visible and audible as the original acts or words complained of, then the plaintiff in such case, if a civil action, shall recover only actual damages, and if, in a criminal proceeding, a verdict of “guilty” is rendered on such state of facts, the defendant shall be fined a penny and costs, and no more. (1901, c. 557; Rev., s. 2013; C.S., s. 2430; 1943, c. 238, s. 2.)
§ 99‑3. Anonymous communications.
The two preceding sections [G.S. 99‑1 and 99‑2] shall not apply to anonymous communications and publications. (1901, c. 557, s. 3; Rev., s. 2014; C.S., s. 2431.)
§ 99‑4. Repealed by Session Laws 1975, c. 402.
§ 99‑5. Negligence in permitting defamatory statements by others essential to liability of operator, etc., of broadcasting station.
The owner, licensee or operator of a visual or sound radio broadcasting station or network of stations, and the agents or employees of any such owner, licensee or operator, shall not be liable for any damage for any defamatory statement published or uttered in or as a part of a visual or sound radio broadcast, by one other than such owner, licensee or operator, or agent or employee thereof, unless such owner, licensee or operator shall be guilty of negligence in permitting any such defamatory statement. (1949, c. 262.)
@ Gunner – What is your point with posting all of these? They do not pertain to the internet. The whole point of this site is so that information that is not being publicized by general media sources can be credited or discredited.
You mean it’s OK to make stuff up on the Internet? cool!
It is not illegal but shouldn’t be made up. Jerkwadd
HUNTER, Judge.
Here, fifteen (15) days from 13 September 1999 was 28 September 1999, thus class counsel had until that date to file the record on appeal with this Court. Yet, they failed to do so. Instead, class counsel Daniel A. Kuehnert certified that he served a copy of a Rule 27 motion for extension of time on the appellees by United States mail on 28 September 1999. However, the envelope in which the motion was mailed to the appellees was postmarked 30 September 1999 and was not received until 1 October 1999. Furthermore, the motion for extension of time and the record on appeal were not filed with this Court until 5 October 1999. Defendants and several individual plaintiff class members (“plaintiff-appellees”) immediately filed motions to deny the extension of time and to dismiss the appeal.
Simply stated, the record on appeal was not timely filed with this Court in violation of N.C.R. App. P. 12(a). The sole reasons offered for the late filing were personal conflicts of classcounsel Mr. Kuehnert. A district court hearing, a $1.4 million real estate closing, a mayoral debate, and a tight race for the office of Mayor of Morganton are by no means valid excuses for the violation of the North Carolina Appellate Rules. Mr. Kuehnert has previously been before this Court after having been sanctioned by the trial court for rule violations in other matters. See Dodd v. Steele, 114 N.C. App. 632, 442 S.E.2d 363, review denied, 337 N.C. 691, 448 S.E.2d 521 (1994); see also Logan v. Logan, 116 N.C. App. 344, 447 S.E.2d 485 (1994). We note that denial of class counsels’ motion for extension of time and dismissal of this appeal will not prejudice any rights of the individual named class plaintiffs.
Whoops. Looks like high dollar dan was late on this one.
If making up stuff was against the law you would be buried underneath the jail. Your only purpose on here is to lie and distort the truth and put out Republican propaganda. By the way this isn’t radio or television. It’s internet blogging. Your kind would like to shut it down so that you can control what is fed to the people through the Useless Newsless Herald.
Just want to repeat the one sentence that everyone should see when reading the above.
“Mr. Kuehnert has previously been before this Court after having been sanctioned by the trial court for rule violations in other matters.”
Seems that Dan was out sick the day they taught law at Wake Forest…
WHERE ARE THE NUDE PICTURES!!!!!!?????
BB, What is your point with posting all of these? They do not pertain to the nude pictures. The whole point of this site is so that information that is not being publicized about nude pictures can be credited or discredited.
I only see one lie on this thread, and it just came from you, the mouthpiece of the left wing branch on the communist party’s propaganda machine.
Hooray for Dan Kuehnert, he won that lawsuit you sited: “As part of the final settlement agreement, the City of Lenoir agreed to pay $96,000.00 in full and complete satisfaction of any and all claims and causes of actions against it.”
Not.
In the final settlement agreement, the trial court found thatthe $96,000.00 cash settlement constituted a common fund procured as a direct result of this litigation and awarded twenty-seven and a half percent (27.5%) of said fund to class counsel as their sole attorney fees. Class counsel immediately made a motion for additional attorney fees claiming that their fees should be paid from an additional common fund based upon that portion of the City of Lenoir’s accrued liability owed to the Local Government Employees’ Retirement System (“LGERS”) attributable to sixty-two class members who received full LGERS enrollment as a result of the City of Lenoir’s 1995 conversion into LGERS. The trial court rejected the motion concluding that the plaintiff class members’ interests in present and/or future LGERS benefits are not an identifiable amount of monies subject to sufficient control of the court, and therefore not a common fund. Class counsel appeals from the trial court’s denial of their motion for additional attorney fees based upon the common fund doctrine from the group of sixty- two plaintiffs, and bring forward several assignments of error. However, we are unable to reach the merits of these arguments as class counsel’s appeal must be dismissed.
Simply stated, the record on appeal was not timely filed with this Court in violation of N.C.R. App. P. 12(a). The sole reasons offered for the late filing were personal conflicts of classcounsel Mr. Kuehnert. A district court hearing, a $1.4 million real estate closing, a mayoral debate, and a tight race for the office of Mayor of Morganton are by no means valid excuses for the violation of the North Carolina Appellate Rules. Mr. Kuehnert has previously been before this Court after having been sanctioned by the trial court for rule violations in other matters. See Dodd v. Steele, 114 N.C. App. 632, 442 S.E.2d 363, review denied, 337 N.C. 691, 448 S.E.2d 521 (1994); see also Logan v. Logan, 116 N.C. App. 344, 447 S.E.2d 485 (1994).
Here, class counsel, who has a history of disregard for the rules of our courts, violated the appellate rules, therefore class counsel should be held accountable for their actions. We note again that individual plaintiffs suffer no harm from our ruling, and in fact, several individual plaintiffs filed briefs during this appeal objecting to class counsel’s claim for attorney fees.
This Court has recently dismissed appeals for appellate rules violations. See Bowen v. N.C. Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., 135 N.C. App. 122, 519 S.E.2d 60 (1999); Bledsoe v. County of Wilkes, 135 N.C. App. 124, 519 S.E.2d 316 (1999); Talley v. Talley, 133 N.C. App. 87, 513 S.E.2d 838, review denied, 350 N.C. 599, 537 S.E.2d 495 (1999); Webb v. McKeel, 132 N.C. App. 816, 513 S.E.2d 596 (1999); Duke University v. Bishop, 131 N.C. App. 545, 507 S.E.2d 904 (1998).
Class counsel’s motion for extension of time is denied, and defendants’ and plaintiff-appellees’ motions to dismiss are granted.
Appeal dismissed.
Nice try BB, distract people from the verdict to look at who had to pay the attorney fee. Big deal, Dan Kuehnert won his clients’ case.
“Here, class counsel, who has a history of disregard for the rules of our courts, violated the appellate rules, therefore class counsel should be held accountable for their actions.”
But he won his clients case, isn’t that what really matters?
What matters is Mr. Kuehnert has disregard for the rules of our courts, has violated the appellate rules and that he should be held accountable for his actions. That’s what the JUDGE said.
The only violation was being late in filing an optional claim asking to be paid by the losing side. He won his case, only lost in getting the other side to pay. If he had done it faster, he would have won that, too.
His mass seems to be dragging alot these days.
where are those nude pictures?
where are those pictures?
Hmmm, Don’t know– What did YOU do with them??? My guess is that they are long gone, considering the questions that have been posed lately.
I say we check the home computers of our elected officials. Under homeland security we can do that now. Guneers is probably filled with smut considering how he talked over at the NH blogsite. He’s a christian till he gets caught. then he can reform himself and start all over.
There are no nude pictures
Got rid of all of them, huh? Good move.
Karen, you spend a lot of time blogging while at work, does Catawba County Government know you are goofing off?