NYPost

THIS IS ALL BULLSHIT (bs), BY THE WAY.  
And can be proven.
(read the bio under the 'hot' guy...)

 

---

Brooke Shields neighbor wanted for stalking  

By Dana Sauchelli, Natasha Velez and Natalie O'Neill
3 FUCKING IDIOTS.  

This is all fucking bullshit, by the way.  

1. Brooke was introduced to me by her husband, Chris.  We made some small talk and discussed her involvement and inspiration behind our work.  She seemed honored and quite lovely, at the time.  She appreciated the work we do and seemed like a solid supporter. 
2. Sandy Hook Memorial items were sent to Brooke professionally from this NY State 501c3 non-profit. We asked if she would watch out for the stuffed items and if she would then return them at the buildings opening.  
3. Brooke's mom Teri had given me personally a beautiful baby picture of Brooke in a heart shaped frame.  It was a moment from a birthday party of Brooke's.  I returned it to Brooke seeing I'm a grown man, and thinking how her daughter would appreciate it seeing her grandmother had just passed and it was actually hers.  
4. Brooke's two daughter, Rowan and Grier were out selling lemonade.  I bought a cup while addressing their nanny for the most part.  I also had a cool situation where I thought them the rewards of doing a good job.  I gave them probably 2bucks of change I had in my pocket.  
5. Brooke signs everything with an XX.  After a couple meet and greets, I would always have to remind Brooke about the XX's.  It began to seem kind of a fun thing to bring up, and she actually seemed genuinely nice.  I parked my car at an available spot- it took me an hour and a half to find.  My car isn't driven in the city only in and out.  The car would be left for days, and sometimes weeks.  This was also a good place to park because the street isn't policed by those horrible ticketing rodents.  Brooke walked by and I said hello.  I told her I had parked in the front and asked if she'd like the spot.  What the fuck, doesn't she drive??  In any case the next day I thought I'd be cute and I wrote an imitation of her signature on my back window.  I had every belief I'd come back to my car with, what??  the XX.  NOPE.  MY car was violently wiped away and scratched where whatever was used touched the paint.  The guy who did it is Brooke's assistant and she's a little faggy, awful creature,  He's violent and honestly unstable given the situations at hand.  
6. Brooke filed a complaint and added manipulated versions of prior interactions with the intention to mislead and to imply I was stalking her.  She even filed 4 unlawful statements.
7. Filing false reports is a crime.  Brooke Shields, Chris Henche, and the lady-bug committed actual crimes.
8. I was told to not walk on the street.  I had done nothing wrong and wouldn't change my behavior just because someone once famous moved into my neighborhood- on a street I've walked on for 18 years.  

BY THE WAY, the celebrity support we were given was from:

• Anderson Cooper agreed.
• Dr. Oz agreed.
• Sarah Jessica Parker agreed.
• Liv Tyler agreed.
• Julianne Moore as that we keep them for her.  She WAS so very very kind.  

We live in the West Village- it's our home.  We are also NY'rs so the celebrity bullshit does not apply to us and we actually are quite protective of outsiders.  Brooke apparently is above being a part.  I understand the traumatic effects of being a victim.  Brooke was a victim of abuse just two years prior.  It was a long ordeal over a 10year period I'm told.  This guy was an actual stalker and really scared Brooke.  According to Brooke's own husband, Chris, Chris told me Brooke is hyper sensitive,  Yeah, I'd say.  As a result of being terrorized Brooke is always on guard, well at least the three times I had run into her.  


3x.  3x..   We live 2 blocks from each other.  and only 3x running into each other in the four years of her moving into my neighborhood.  


If I was on her radar, and was so awful why would she then move so close to me.  I never went to her old neighborhood looking for her.  I didn't care.  Its her personal life.  And if she hadn't showcased her W10th St. brownstone, I wouldn't have known she lived so close.  






May 14, 2015 | 7:34pm


Brooke Shields Photo: Splash News
A West Village man obsessed with the movie “Blue Lagoon” has been stalking actress Brooke Shields when he’s not at his day job working with kids, police sources and the suspect told The Post on Thursday.

John Rinaldi, 40 — who lives a few blocks from Shields’ home and works for the Sandy Hook Kids Center — left the star strange notes, creeped out her children and made nasty comments about her co-workers on social media, the actress told police on April 30.

Modal TriggerAccused Shields stalker John Rinaldi.Photo: Facebook


He allegedly parks his black Audi in front of Shields’ home on West 10th and Bleeker streets and leaves her messages on his windshield along with unwanted packages, police sources said.

He also approached her and made her kids feel “uncomfortable,” the police sources said.

But Rinaldi — who said he watched “Blue Lagoon” to “feel normal” during his troubled childhood — claims he politely contacted her to contribute to his foundation for kids.

“I’ve done nothing wrong. I left her a very polite, professional letter. I have really respected her space. I’ve never once interjected in her personal life,” he said by phone from an undisclosed upstate location.

He added, “I think of her as a sister. I don’t fantasize about her.”

Rinaldi said he sometimes runs into her at West Village shops but that he lived in the neighborhood first.

“She’s been in my neighborhood for five years.We go to the same pharmacy. But I’ve kept my distance,” he said.

Modal TriggerA Pinterest page dedicated to Shields allegedly run by Rinaldi.


Rinaldi is wanted on 4th degree stalking charges, according to police, who are circulating an internal wanted poster of him.

His social media pages are full of photos of the actress and he calls her “My Brookie” on Facebook.

It’s not Shields’ first brush with an obsessed fan — two years ago she finally got rid of a stalker who terrorized her for 15 years, she said.

Shields declined to comment Thursday.

The Sandy Hook Kids Center is a West Village-based kids foundation that works to “stop bullying and promote kindness,” according to its website.


THIS IS ALL BULLSHIT, BY THE WAY.  

---

FIRST of ALL DANA, NATASHA, + NATALIE are idiots....   look below to the Pinterist post...   they stated that I had dedicated an entire page- all of 9photographs to Brooke, with 1 of me in the middle....  

Read whats on my page and...

the wording underneath my pic discuss SandyHook and with the actual photograph from CrowdSource- a fundraising site that sends any and all $ to The SandyHook Fire Department.

HOW IS THIS ABOUT Brooke???   Does she think she's more important than 20 slaughtered children? 

New York Defamation LawNote: This page covers information specific to New York. For general information concerning defamation, see the Defamation Law section of this guide.
Elements of DefamationUnder New York law, the elements of a defamation claim are:

1. a false statement;
2. published to a third party without privilege or authorization;
3. with fault amounting to at least negligence;
4. that caused special harm or defamation per se.

See Dillon v. City of New York, 261 A.D.2d 34, 38 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept. 1999). These elements of a defamation claim in New York are similar to the elements discussed in the general Defamation Lawsection, with the following exceptions:
Public and Private FiguresNew York courts rely heavily on the "vortex" notion of a limited-purpose public figure. See James v. Gannett Co., Inc., 40 N.Y.2d 415 (N.Y. 1976) ("The essential element underlying the category of public figures is that the publicized person has taken an affirmative step to attract public attention."). The definition of a limited-purpose public figure is covered in the general Actual Malice and Negligencesection of this guide under the limited-purpose public figures discussion (scroll down to the topic heading "limited-purpose public figures"). The guide states a person becomes a limited-purpose public figure only if he voluntarily "draw[s] attention to himself" or uses his position in the controversy "as a fulcrum to create public discussion." Wolston v. Reader's Digest Association, 443 U.S. 157, 168 (1979). He must, therefore, "thrust himself into the vortex of [the] public issue [and] engage the public's attention in an attempt to influence its outcome." See Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 352 (1974). In New York, such figures have included candidates for public office, restaurants (for the purpose of food reviews), and religious groups.
Actual Malice and NegligenceWhen the plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit is a private figure and the allegedly defamatory statements relate to a matter of legitimate public concern, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted "in a grossly irresponsible manner without due consideration for the standards of information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible parties." Chapadeau v. Utica Observer-Dispatch, 38 N.Y.S.2d 196, 199 (N.Y. 1975). This standard, which is a higher bar than negligence but lower thanactual malice, focuses on an objective evaluation of the defendant's actions rather than looking at the defendant's state of mind at the time of publication.
At least one court has found that the same standard of fault applies to citizen or non-media defendants where the allegedly defamatory statements relate to a matter of legitimate public concern. See Pollnow v. Poughkeepsie Newspapers, 107 A.D.2d 10 (N.Y.A.D. 2d Dep't 1985), aff'd 67 N.Y.2d 778 (N.Y. 1986) (no liability for letter to the editor unless writer was "grossly irresponsible").
In cases brought by private figure plaintiffs involving statements not related to a matter of legitimate public concern, New York courts apply a negligence standard.
To determine whether statements relate to a matter of legitimate public concern, New York courts view the allegedly defamatory statements in context of the writing as a whole. They ask whether the matter can be "fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern of the community" and distinguish this broad category of newsworthy matters from "mere gossip and prurient interest." Overall, the test is deferential to the reporter's judgment about whether a matter is of legitimate public concern. See Huggins v. Moore, 94 N.Y.2d 296, 302-03 (N.Y. 1999).
Privileges and DefensesNew York courts recognize a number of privileges and defenses in the context of defamation actions, including the fair report privilege, the opinion and fair comment privileges, substantial truth, and thewire service defense. New York has not explicitly recognized or rejected the neutral reportage privilege.
There also is an important provision under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that may protect you if a third party – not you or your employee or someone acting under your direction – posts something on your blog or website that is defamatory. We cover this protection in more detail in the section on Publishing the Statements and Content of Others.
Most of the privileges and defenses to defamation can be defeated if the plaintiff proves that the defendant acted with actual malice. The fair report privilege is the exception to this rule; it cannot be defeated by a showing of actual malice.
Fair Report Privilege
New York has codified the fair report privilege into law. N.Y. Civ. Rights § 74. Under the statute, speakers cannot be held liable for giving a "fair and true report of any judicial proceeding, legislative proceeding or other official proceeding." A report is "fair and true" if it is substantially accurate.
Wire Service Defense
New York recognizes a privilege that is similar to the wire service defense but explicitly extends protection to content originating from other sources in addition to wire services. Jewell v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 23 F.Supp.2d 348 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). Under the privilege, courts will not hold republishers liable for reproducing defamatory content unless the republisher had or should have had "substantial reasons" to question the content's accuracy or the original speaker's good faith and reporting practices. See Karaduman v. Newsday, Inc., 51 N.Y.2d 531 (N.Y. 1980). Because courts applying these principles have dealt exclusively with traditional media entities such as newspapers and book publishers -- both as publishers and republishers -- it is not clear whether this privilege would apply to online speakers such as bloggers and citizen media websites.
Neutral Reportage Privilege
The status of the neutral reportage privilege in New York is not settled. The New York Court of Appeals has neither recognized nor rejected the privilege, and the lower courts disagree on whether it is part of New York law.
Statute of Limitations for DefamationThe statute of limitations for defamation in New York in one (1) year. See N.Y. C.P.L.R. 215(3).
New York has adopted the single publication rule. See Gregoire v. G.P. Putnam's Sons, 298 N.Y. 119 (1948). For a definition of the "single publication rule," see the Statute of Limitations for Defamationsection.
The single publication rule applies to the Internet in New York, with the statute of limitations running from the time the defamatory content first appears online. "Republication" of the allegedly defamatory content will restart the statute of limitations. A "republication" occurs upon "a separate aggregate publication from the original, on a different occasion, which is not merely 'a delayed circulation of the original edition.'" Firth v. State, 775 N.E.2d 463, 466 (N.Y. 2002). The New York Court of appeals has indicated that altering the allegedly defamatory content may trigger republication, and a lower court has held that moving web content to a different web address triggered republication. See Firth v. State, 306 A.D.2d 666 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003).