Love Shack owner applies for license, buys time

By DOUG NURSE
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Published on: 02/28/08

In a written order issued Thursday, a Fulton Superior Court judge told the owner of an adult video chain that he may not operate a sexually oriented business at its current Johns Creek location, and that he must have a regular business license or close his store.

But John Cornetta, the owner of the Love Shack, bought himself more time by applying for a regular business license on Tuesday. The application carries a grace period of up to 30 days in which a business, including Cornetta's, can operate without a license while the application is being processed.


If city code inspectors find the store exceeds one of the thresholds used by the city to define a sexually oriented business, the city would ask the judge, Ural Glanville, to enforce the order, which could include closing the store or fining Cornetta — or even jailing him for contempt.

"He is still subject to the judge's order on not operating a sexually oriented business," said City Attorney Bill Riley. "I believe the defendant will follow any orders issued by a judge."

Cornetta's attorney, Cary Wiggins, said in a document filed with the court this week that the judge's order fails to take into account First Amendment issues, which could signal another lengthy court battle, during which the store may remain open.

Thursday's order by Glanville represents a major victory for the city of Johns Creek, which has long argued that the Love Shack located at Jones and State Bridge roads is a sexually oriented store operating illegally in an area not zoned for adult businesses.

"It's an absolute, total victory," said Mayor Mike Bodker, "but it's one step in a long process. It's winning a battle, not the war. It's a big battle. He's at the end of a rope, holding on to the knot, and it's about to slip."

Rights commissions biggest clowns in anti-free-speech circus

Rob Breakenridge, For The Calgary Herald
Published: Thursday, February 28, 2008
The continuing debate over free speech and human rights commissions has illustrated for us a trifecta of absurdity fighting to uphold the status quo. We are witnessing the convergence of farcical politicians, farcical complainants and, yes, farcical commissions -- all unwittingly helping the cause of free speech. For that which is to be mocked is that which is found to be sapped of all political credibility.

It is most unfortunate to find Alberta's premier with a starring role in this sad affair. Whereas Ed Stelmach often has a folksy platitude to offer, a straightforward question on this issue produced a statement so utterly devoid of reason and coherence that I think the premier was more confused after uttering it than he was before it came spilling out of his mouth.

Stelmach managed a vague reference to the Charter, a flowery nod to Alberta's "mosaic" and, of all things, a reference to recently announced funding for the arts. All that was missing, sadly, was anything resembling an answer. To describe such a vacuous statement as one to be mocked would be a gross understatement.


While Stelmach exposed his ignorance on the subject in that case (though he has since told the Herald's editorial board that he will look at possibly modifying Alberta's human rights act to better protect free speech), few other politicians seem willing to fight for free speech. Alberta Liberal Leader Kevin Taft told the Herald's editorial board yesterday that he, too, would review the act should he become premier. Faint praise to them both.

Federally, Liberal MP Keith Martin's private members motion calls for subsection 13 (1) to be deleted from the Canadian Human Rights Act, thereby removing matters of speech from the Commissions' domain. His own party seems lukewarm, and the federal Conservatives are steering clear, too. The one notable exception being Calgary MP Jason Kenney, who spoke out against the case launched by the Canadian Islamic Congress against Mark Steyn and Maclean's magazine.

And in that we find our farcical complainants. We've seen local imam Syed Soharwardy's case crumble after he suddenly talked of withdrawing his complaint against the Western Standard magazine (it's not yet been withdrawn) offering a wide array of reasons for his decision. The absurdity was compounded when, in these very pages, Soharwardy's past words were detailed.

We find the same bitter irony with the Canadian Islamic Congress, a rather unlikely poster child for the quest to vanquish offensive speech.

While the Canadian Islamic Congress frets about a leading Canadian news magazine, they're free-speech absolutists when it comes to al-Jazeera. Despite the radical views often expounded on al-Jazeera, the CIC is a strong supporter of allowing al-Jazeera's unfettered signal into Canada.

And speaking of radical views, lest we forget CIC president Mohammed Elmasry's now-infamous television appearance in which he defended terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians, following in the rhetorical footsteps of radical cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi, whose work is approvingly cited on the CIC's website. This is the same Sheik Qaradawi who has talked of the need to "punish" homosexuals, not a far cry from Elmasry's own belief that "homosexuality is forbidden and . . . (homosexuals) will be held accountable in the end."

Which makes you wonder why some anti-gay rhetoric gets a pass, while human rights commissions have pursued and punished anti-gay rhetoric in other cases, like Rev. Stephen Boissoin here in Alberta, and Bill Whatcott in Saskatchewan.

Here we begin to see where the commissions themselves are becoming a farce, if for no other reason that the cases against the Western Standard and Maclean's went ahead in the first place. But maybe it's as much about what they're not doing as what they are.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission says its "too busy" to look into claims of abuse in provincial nursing homes, and yet has the resources available to help a Sikh man fight a traffic ticket on the grounds that mandatory motorcycle helmets violate his religious freedom. Not too busy to hold a hearing against a plastic surgeon who refused genital enhancement surgery on two transsexuals because he had never performed such procedures on transsexuals. Same for the case against a restaurant owner who refused to allow medicinal marijuana to be smoked outside his entrance.



These are the forces of ludicrousness aligning against our most basic rights of freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of the press. The good news is that their mere existence is working against them.

Rob Breakenridge hosts The World Tonight, weeknights from 6:30 to 9 p.m. on AM770

Free Speech Advocates Mount Legal Battle to Unchain Wikileaks

By Erika Morphy
LinuxInsider
Part of the ECT News Network
02/28/08 9:05 AM PT

"It is difficult to imagine how freedom of press has meaning if a press source can be put out of business for publishing something someone does not like," said Wayne Matus, an intellectual property and privacy litigator at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman. "It will be interesting to see if the judge has legal authority to justify his actions or reverses his opinion in view of [Wednesday's] motions for reconsideration."


As much as $2 billion in potential sales could have been lost in 2006 due to online security concerns. VeriSign® has created a simple and cost-effective way to protect your employees, business partners and consumers. It’s called VeriSign Identity Protection. Read more now.

The American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation , Public Citizen and twelve media groups are asking a federal court to lift an injunction against the global whistleblower Web site Wikileaks.org.

Two weeks ago, in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California, Judge Jeffrey White issued a permanent injunction against the site in response to a suit filed by a Swiss bank.

In Bank Julius Baer & Co., Ltd v. Wikileaks, et al, the plaintiff claims that the posting of certain documents to the Wikileaks site violated Swiss and Cayman Island bank secrecy laws.

Judge Jeffrey White ordered domain registrar Dynadot to disable Wikileaks.org in response to Julius Baer & Co.'s complaint. The groups behind the request to lift the injunction claim that it violates the First Amendment.

Like many clashes between Web 2.0 technologies and current -- often outdated -- law, this case has the potential to change the way technology may be used in certain situations and possibly even alter our fundamental understanding of what actions can be considered Constitutional rights.

This case takes on an added urgency given the nature of Wikileaks.org, which was founded by activists to provide a forum for overseas whistleblowers who want to release sensitive government or corporate information of interest to the public, but are not protected by local laws.

"There are many countries that don't have laws to protect whistleblowers," Reuben Guttman, senior counsel with Grant & Eisenhofer, told LinuxInsider. "That is why sites like this are important. [Wikileaks] provides a forum for these people about issues that not only affect them but potentially us as well." (Although the Wikileaks.org Web site is inaccessible, it is mirrored at various locations on the Web.)

For instance, factory workers in China -- a country that has whistleblower protection but is notoriously lax in enforcing those laws -- might use Wikileaks to post information about lead paint used in toys or other products, Guttman said.

Real-life examples of Wikileaks posts include materials discussing human rights abuses in China and political corruption in Kenya. Perhaps most famously, in November 2007 a manual documenting U.S. Army operations at the Guantanamo Bay prison was posted on Wikileaks after the Bush Administration resisted releasing it to the ACLU in response to a Freedom of Information request.


An Anonymous Post
Wikileaks runs on modified MediaWiki software, according to Wikipedia , allowing anonymous whistleblowers to post documents in a way that cannot be traced. Launched in December 2006, it is hosted in Sweden; at last count, Wikileaks was the repository of more than 1.2 million documents.

Julius Baer took exception to the site when it discovered documents posted by a former employee that purported to show the bank had been engaging in money-laundering activities for its clients.

Because the Wikileaks server is based in Sweden, legal jurisdiction initially was difficult to ascertain. The bank eventually filed a suit in California, according to Steve Mayer, a partner with Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin, who represents the ACLU, EFF and a Wikileaks user.

How and why the bank wound up in a California court is at this point almost immaterial, he told LinuxInsider.

The bank has promised to allow Wikileaks to go live again once the documents are returned, "but the injunction says nothing about that," Mayer noted. "The larger implications of this case are huge if this is allowed to stand -- a third party shutting down a site just because they claim there is information on it that was stolen or leaked. It is like shutting down an entire paper because of a leak."

Pentagon Papers Comparison
"One institution's stolen documents is another institution's Pentagon Papers," Mayer remarked.

He's not the only one to invoke the Pentagon Papers -- a now sacrosanct icon of freedom of speech.

"Wikileaks is as much a part of the press as any other news source," Wayne Matus, an intellectual property and privacy litigator at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, told LinuxInsider.

"Shutting down the Wikileaks site in the U.S. because it published documents which purportedly suggest Julius Baer & Co. helps customers launder money appears similar to what the Nixon administration wanted to do in stopping the publication of the Pentagon papers," he observed.

However, the remedy in this case is even more drastic than what Nixon sought, Matus continued, as he did not try to shut down The New York Times.

"It is difficult to imagine how freedom of press has meaning if a press source can be put out of business for publishing something someone does not like," he added. "It will be interesting to see if the judge has legal authority to justify his actions or reverses his opinion in view of [Wednesday's] motions for reconsideration."

Commercial Interests
Given the First Amendment issues raised, it may seem inappropriate to consider mundane commercial interests -- but they also must be considered, Jeff Tillotson, who handles commercial litigation at Lynn Tillotson & Pinker in Dallas, told LinuxInsider.

"The First Amendment trumps all, but a court can protect proprietary or privileged information," he pointed out. "However, in doing so, the court is generally required to fashion the least restrictive relief."

For example, Tillotson said, "if you post the Coke formula on your MySpace page, the court can't shut down the entire Web site. It can't even shut down your MySpace page unless there is no other way to protect the injured party. In these cases, judges have to balance the interests without going too far in either direction."

Guttman cautions, though, against leaping to the conclusion that this case is a direct assault on the First Amendment -- at least the part of the First Amendment that guarantees freedom of speech.

"The founding fathers never envisioned anything like the Internet -- and when you are dumping information out there like that, there could be a clash of First Amendment rights" such as freedom of association versus freedom of speech. In this scenario, he said, it could be debatable whether one could publish a list of church members on the Internet, for instance, because that might infringe on their right to associate.

As for the arguments in the Julius Baer case, "I didn't see any conflicts like that," Guttman acknowledged, "but it doesn't mean that wasn't what the judge was thinking."

Allowing the injunction to stand, however, could unintentionally place a weapon in some companies' hands. Tillotson points to a similar case involving a video by pop singer George Michael. "A portion of his music video was claimed to have been slanderous. The court could not bar the whole video because it was protected speech. Only the segment in question could be blocked."

The Web site hosting the video was caught in the middle, Tillotson added. "I do see how the court's ruling, if allowed, could intimidate other Web site owners: 'Remove content I don't like, or I will seek to shut down your whole site.'"

New ordinance awaits public inspection

Published February 27, 2008 10:38 pm - A new ordinance governing city parades, public assemblies and the use of Meadville’s Diamond Park moved two steps closer to becoming reality Wednesday night — and several new guidelines await public inspection.

New ordinance awaits public inspection


By Mary Spicer

02/28/08 —
A new ordinance governing city parades, public assemblies and the use of Meadville’s Diamond Park moved two steps closer to becoming reality Wednesday night — and several new guidelines await public inspection.


After first and second readings during Meadville City Council’s regularly-scheduled monthly meeting, the new ordinance, which officially amends Article 741 of the Meadville Municipal Code, will be available for public examination and comment. Council members are expected to give the ordinance final approval in March.

“Freedom of speech and association are among those precious rights guaranteed and protected by the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions,” the amendment reads. “The purpose of this ordinance is to set forth the circumstances under which the city will regulate First Amendment activity.”

New restrictions on the use of the Diamond Park Gazebo include:

n No person may use the gazebo to the exclusion of others without first obtaining a permit and paying the required rental fee.

n Only those persons with a valid gazebo permit may use the columns and rails of the gazebo itself to display bunting, signs, symbols, flags or things of that nature.

n The permit holder must remove all such items or pay any costs incurred by the city for removing of any items or repairing any defacement or damage.

n The permit application must include a detailed description of any items intended for display on the gazebo.

n No person shall be granted more than four permits in any 12-month period.

The proposed ordinance defines “Core First Amendment Activity” as including “all expressive associative activity intended to communicate an opinion or to state a grievance” but not including “such activities as pet shows, ethic food festivals, art shows, civic holiday celebrations and similar events.”

New restrictions on all parade, public assembly or Diamond Park Gazebo permits include the requirement that:

n Applicants seeking a permit not involving Core First Amendment activities shall file the proper application forms no less than 15 days and no more than 60 days before the proposed event “absent reasonable exigent circumstances.”

n Applicants seeking a permit that does involve Core First Amendment activities shall submit their application no less than four and no more than 60 days before the proposed event.

With the exception of the uses allowed under a gazebo permit, “no person shall make any use of the Diamond Park grounds or any monument or memorial within Diamond Park for the purpose of supporting or exhibiting any signs, symbols, flags or things of any nature or description whatsoever.” The city, however, can make any use of the park it wants “for public gatherings and observances sponsored and conducted by the city.”

The ordinance also includes a penalty clause calling for a fine of not more than $1,000 for violations. If the penalty is not paid, the violator “shall be imprisoned not more than five days.”

Love Shack May Be Forced To Close

JOHNS CREEK, Ga. -- The Love Shack, the controversial adult business in Johns Creek, may be forced to close.

A Fulton County Superior Court judge has decided that the store cannot operate at its current location, because it does not have a 2007 business license, which is required by law.

The store would not be forced to close until the judge signs a written order, which could come as soon as Monday.

In March, Johns Creek officials denied Love Shack owner John Cornetta a business permit. Cornetta kept the store open despite the rejection.

City officials then sued Cornetta.

Cornetta has said he is obeying the law, and will apply for a 2008 business license.

Cornetta said Friday he will appeal the judge’s decision.

Judge Rules Against The Love Shack

(WSB Radio) The latest round in the fight between Johns Creek and the Love Shack goes to the city.
A Fulton County Superior Court judge has ruled that the adult store does not have a 2007 business license, as required by law, and must close if it does not comply with city code.

The closure will not go into effect until Judge Ural Glanville signs a written order. That could come as soon as Monday.

In March, Johns Creek denied a regular business application which was being sought by John Cornetta, owner of the Love Shack chain. Despite the rejection, Cornetta kept his Johns Creek store in operation.

City officials went to court, looking to shut the adult-themed store down unless Cornetta came into compliance with city ordinances.

Cornetta says he is complying with city code, and will apply for a business license for 2008.

Without that license, Judge Glanville says, Cornetta cannot continue to operate the Love Shack at its current location.

To obtain a regular business license, the contents of the store cannot exceed certain standards. If the inventory does, then Cornetta would need to apply for a sexually oriented business license. However, the store's location isn't zoned for that.

Cornetta says he's not concerned. He claims the inventory at the Johns Creek location falls below what would be deemed as sexually oriented.

Cornetta says he also plans on appealing Judge Glanville's ruling to the Georgia Supreme Court.

Johns Creek Mayor Criticised After Radio Interview

Johns Creek Mayor Mike Bodker Discounts Efforts of Volunteer Firefighters and Says Johns Creek Residents Care About Other Topics More Than A Fire Department

In Radio Interview With The Regular Guys of Rock 100.5

In a radio interview with The Regular Guys of Atlanta’s Rock 100.5, Johns Creek Mayor Mike Bodker said a Fire Department is not a real one if it’s staffed with volunteers, ridiculed the Fulton County Government once again and said the Johns Creek residents don’t really care about having its own fire department.

The interview took place on Thursday, Feb. 14, 2008 as a radio debate between Mayor Bodker and The Regular Guys.

To listen to Mayor Bodker’s full interview with The Regular Guys visit www.LoveShackOnline.com/pressportal.html or www.RegularGuys.com.

Mayor Bodker insulted the nearly 800,000 volunteer firefighters in the United States when he said, “For many years you didn’t have a real fire department yourself.”

Mayor Bodker was referring to the city of Roswell because they used volunteers in the past. Volunteer firefighters account for nearly 73% of firefighters in the United States. Of the total estimated 1,064,150 firefighters across the country, 777,350 are volunteers.

In fact, the majority of fire departments in the United States are volunteers. Of the total 26,354 fire departments in the country, more than 23,000 of them are either mostly volunteer or all volunteer.

“Perhaps Mayor Bodker needs a history lesson as much as he needs assistance in governing Johns Creek,” said Love Shack owner John Cornetta. “I know his name is a relatively unknown one in the history of the United States, but some guy that helped draft the Declaration of Independence and invented bifocals also established the first volunteer fire department in 1736. His name is Benjamin Franklin.”

Later in the interview, when The Regular Guys said, “I don’t think you can call it (Johns Creek) a city if you don’t have your own fire department “, Mayor Bodker replied with “Why don’t we measure a couple of other things that people might actually care about.”

The questions must be asked of the citizens of Johns Creek, “Does your mayor really care about public safety? And do you care about having your own fire and police department?”

In an article written by Doug Nurse in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution on May 14, 2007, Nurse said the average response time for firefighters citywide is about 6 minutes, but it can take 11 minutes for county emergency workers to reach some parts of Johns Creek.

That’s nearly three times what the National Fire Protection Association recommends.

“Mayor Bodker has wasted more than $150,000 of the Johns Creek residents’ tax dollars to try to shut down the Love Shack in Johns Creek,” said Love Shack owner John Cornetta. “Despite the city of Johns Creek being in operation for more than a year now, the city still does not have its own fire or police department. Now Mayor Bodker has the audacity to appear on Atlanta radio and tell thousands of Atlanta’s volunteer firefighters that they don’t count as real firefighters!

“This man continues to prove that he is unfit and incompetent to complete his duties as Mayor of Johns Creek. He is a Mayor with no prior government experience and he ran unopposed in his quest to become Mayor of Johns Creek. Unfortunately for the thousands of Johns Creek residents, which includes myself, he has three more years in office.”

Mayor Bodker also continued his personal vendetta against Fulton County Government when he said on air, “I could say positive things about the (Fulton County) School System, I’m not going to say such positive things about Fulton County Government.”

But in the same interview he said, “We have hired Fulton County (firefighters). We utilize the fine young men and women of Fulton County to deliver those services today.”

This is the same Fulton County whom Mayor Bodker continually puts down and recently said in a press release posted on the Johns Creek website “Once again, a majority of Fulton County commissioners chose to throw their citizens to the wolves and abdicate their responsibility to preserve the community’s quality of life by failing to deal with their past mistakes,” Mayor Bodker said. “We keep paying and paying tax dollars to Fulton County leaders with the expectation that they will protect our citizens and our quality of life.”

This press release can be found in its entirety at http://johnscreekga.gov/news/2007-12-05_billboards.html .

Which is it Mayor Bodker? Is Fulton County Government good enough for you to rely on to supply emergency fire and police efforts to the citizens of Johns Creek or is the Fulton County Government failing to protect the Johns Creek citizens and preserve its quality of life?

Meanwhile, the Cornetta Charitable Foundation, the non-profit charity started by Cornetta, still has more than $4,000 money earmarked for the city of Johns Creek to build a fire department. This money has still not been accepted by the city of Johns Creek.

The Cornetta Charitable Foundation has already donated almost $4,000 to two families that saw a loved one perish in a Johns Creek fire on May 28, 2007.