And to the junglefolks, I am not May. It appears that this lady have decided to use my name in the same way that Holly and Jessica used my avatar for their facebook. This lady is probably not even aware that she is being stalked by Tim Rohr.
The following message was written by Father Edivaldo:
Dear Diana,
It was brought to my attention that a picture of my family and me was posted by the junglewatch blog again. The picture is of me with my nieces and my sister during a trip home. The junglewatch did not get my permission to use this personal photo. The junglewatch did not get permission from my sister and brother to use their children's picture. I am writing to give you permission to post the picture so that the truth may expel any misconception anyone may have because of the Junglewatch's intentional misstatements about me. I have also taken a screen shot of the post in junglewatch for the purpose of taking legal action.
Thank you,
Fr. Edivaldo
Belated happee birthday May.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 3:19 pm,
DeleteMy birthday is on November 20th. :-)
This photo can be seen all over the Internet. It wasn't just on junglewatch. I found it on several sites.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 3:34 pm,
DeleteThat photo belongs to Father Edivaldo and first appeared publicly in the jungle without the permission of Father Edivaldo and his family. That photo is being used inappropriately in that the jungle.
Rohr likes to steal. Whatever he finds on the Internet, he steals. Hey, do not steal, moron. It is not yours to take! Lol.
DeleteClearly the both of you don't know anything about the law. The Jungle Watch did not cause that photo to be published if it was taken off of other internet sites. Thanks for making my day. I love it when people pretend to know the law. Good day to you.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 5:15 pm,
DeleteIt becomes illegal when it is used inappropriately, which is what the jungle is doing. They took a photo of Father Edivaldo with his female relatives, blurred out their faces, and implied that Father Edivaldo was a womanizer. That is against the law.
Rohr cannot imagine how it feels to see your private photos stolen and published on his blog. What would you feel if it would happen to you? How would you feel if it would happen to someone in your family?
DeleteThe feeling you have is that Rohr must be a moron, simple as that!
5:15,
DeleteThey way you responded, I doubt you know that law.
I love it when anons pretend to know the law. Good day to you too.
Again it is not "illegal" as you say to use a photo that was already on the Internet. Now if he had stolen the photo from his desk at work and then caused it to be published we would be talking about something that has legal ramifications. But that isn't the case. Stop pretending to be a lawyer.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 5:17 am,
DeleteIt is illegal to use someone's photo in a way where it is misrepresented. In this case, Father Edivaldo's photo is being used to show people that he is a womanizer. The title and the comments show that. The truth is the photo is a family picture. He was posing with members of his family. According to the message that Father Edivaldo gave to me, he has taken a screenshot of how his photo is being used to tell lies about him. This is why he sent me the photo above to show people the truth. The young girls in the photo are his family.
I remember Tim publishing Fr. Edivaldo's letter, warning him to take legal action if his photo wasn't removed. People were making fun of that photo. They not only made Edivaldo look like a pimp, but the girls were portrayed as prostitutes going after him. If that was a pic of Tim surrounded by his daughters with their faces blurred out, he wouldn't like it.
DeleteDiana it is not illegal it is a photo that is on the Internet. Anyone can use it in most ways. Illegal implies a crime and it is not. So please stop tossing around legal terms as if you know the law.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 9:59 am,
DeleteHow you use someone's personal photo is what makes it legal or not. It does not matter if the photo was on the internet or not. Look it up if you do not believe me.
Darling I don't need to look it up. I know the law. I am a lawyer and previously worked for more than 10 years in the civil division of the Attorney General's Office. So again, don't try and debate me on the law. I bet you won't even print this comment.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 1:05 pm,
DeleteSweetheart, according to the legal encyclopedia:
Question:
What rights does a person have if their picture was taken and then posted to an Internet website without permission? Is the person entitled to any of the website's profit? Can the person sue if the picture was uncomplimentary?
Answer:
You can stop a website's use of your image for three reasons: invasion of privacy, violation of right of publicity, or defamation.
Invasion of privacy can occur if you are portrayed falsely and in a highly offensive manner. For example, your photo was posted at America's Most Wanted's website, and you are not wanted -- by the law. Your privacy may also be invaded if the photo was taken by someone who intruded on you in a situation in which you had a reasonable expectation of privacy -- for example, in your own home. It is not an invasion of privacy to photograph someone in a public place or at any event where the public is invited.
Another reason to stop the use is known as the right of publicity. This occurs if your image is used for commercial purposes such as to sell products or to imply that you endorse a product. If the photo is used in a commercial website -- that is, one sponsored by a business or that sells products or services -- the unauthorized use of your image would probably violate your right of publicity. The public must be able to identify you in the photograph.
You can also stop the website use if the photo defames you -- that is, it creates a false impression and injures your reputation. For example, it would be defamatory to doctor a photo to make it seem as if you were shoplifting. The fact that an unmodified photo is unflattering is not enough to claim defamation. The photo must falsely portray you and must cause people in the community to think less of you.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/question-unauthorized-use-of-photo-28285.html
None of these conditions applies to the photo of Fr ediwaldo, though?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 9:59 pm,
DeleteYes, it does.
Is it true that Father Edivaldo is the new personal secretary of Archbishop? Who preceded him?
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 6:23 pm,
DeleteYes, he is the new personal secretary of the Archbishop. If I am not mistaken, I believe that is a new position.
Since when? Why wasn't it published in the adviso? Are you sure you're not just making that up again?
DeleteDeacon Barcinas was before.
ReplyDeleteI hope he will not have to leave the parish. We need young priests. When will Preston be ordained. We could use some good news.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 7:18 pm,
DeleteI am sure that we will have some very good news soon. Keep praying. Prayers are very powerful. :-)
Dear Roy Quintanilla, I wonder if you ever thought of how the Archbishop would feel when you read all those slanderous statements from your paper? Can you imagine how humiliating is that when you hear someone accusing you without any basis? Can you imagine how much humbleness you need in your heart not to lash out against the perpetrator who is reading those vicious lies from his paper in front of the media? Can you imagine how much restraint you need to hold back your emotions when someone is going after the holiest thing you have? If you would know that, you would not keep lying, my friend.
ReplyDeleteNot to mention Tim Rohr orchestrating this garbage. The CCOG and LFM want the Archbishop out or dead. Slashing his tires and wish him ill and dead! The only thing left is them plotting his death. These how much they dispise the Archbishop. Because they can't accept Gofigan and Benavente's relocation. They fail to see they have to obey!
DeleteTHE NEOCATECHUMENAL WAY HELP ME LOVE MY CATHOLIC FAITH!
ReplyDeleteI ALMOST LEFT!
I am happy you found a deeper faith in the NCW.
DeleteFunny Gerry Taitano has so much hate and convince that the Archbishop is Guilty with out any proof but a guy claim he got his genitelia pinched! Wake up and smell the coffee.
ReplyDelete7.38pm. The suffering which Archbishop inflicted on others during his Thirty year reign of terror is nothing to how he felt when the statements were made public.
ReplyDeleteMuch of this could have been laid to rest but Archbishop continued to damage priests.
I tell you it is all Karma coming back to Archbishop. Sorry i have no sympathay for the monster.
Dear Anonymous at 10:28 am,
DeleteYou are exaggerating. Father Paul and Monsignor James were not damaged. They are still priests and can administer the sacraments.
DeleteI was told these priests cannot say Mass.
Dear Anonymous at 11:05 am,
DeleteYou were told incorrectly.
10:28 AM I"ll what damage was done. All of us! Msgnr James giving away burial plots for free (worth 7K). Free school @ St.Thomas Aquinas withh his croneys. You want more?
DeleteEveryone stop saying Karma. It's ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteKarma is not catholic teaching.
DeleteLaw of Karma is budhist.
ReplyDeletePraying fasting for our beloved Archbishop.
Praying those who persecuate him see the light peace joy of christ turning away from their sin.
ReplyDeleteMy friends fasting for the spiritual conversion of all in JW.
ReplyDeleteArchdiocese is so Divided over Archbishop. I support him but i fail to see how he can continue to lead with the questions hanging over him.
Should this go to court Archdiocese further divides.
Respected Retirement would perhaps be best way forward. Its about unity of the church. Not individuals.
Unfortunately Archbishop became a polarizing figure. This is not helping Archdiocese.
Dear Anonymous at 12:20 am,
DeletePersonally, I think it is best if it goes to court. I think that after the court trial, there would be unity again.
Situation so demoralizing on Guam we need outside help
ReplyDeleteSituation so demoralizing on Guam we need outside help
ReplyDeleteEven if Edi can stop Tim from using that photo, it is not a "crime" and there will be no consequence for Tim posting it.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 11:28 am,
DeleteTim can be charged for defamation of character because he used Father Edivaldo's photo to represent him in a false and negative light.
You don't get "charged" with defamation. Charges are for criminal cases and crimes. Defamation is not a crime. GIVE IT UP
DeleteDear Anonymous at 5:37 pm,
DeleteAccording to Dictionary.com, charge can be defined as "to accuse formally or explicitly." Furthermore, I never said that defamation is a crime.
Sorry if I'm being rude, but if you're going to make an argument, please don't quote dictionary.com or other dictionary, unless it is a technical word and your audience has little to no knowledge of the technical term(s). Just define it. The audience should know where to find the definition of the term. You sound less credible and immature when you quote the dictionary and an online one at that.
ReplyDeleteInstead, please use more credible resources to support your claims. Your argument(s) will be more convincing that way.
Just some of my two cents....
**You don't have to post this**
Dear Anonymous at 5:46 pm,
DeleteI only quoted the dictionary because you said that "charge" only applies to criminal acts and therefore, do not understand what "charge" means. A person can be charged (accused) with defamation.