Brooke Shields neighbor wanted for stalking
(***when women LIE, #MENToo)
By Dana Sauchelli, Natasha Velez and Natalie O'Neill
This is all bullshit, by the way.
BY THE WAY, the celebrity support we were given was from:
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:
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).