hey Desmond

Submitted by Rebecca Kempton on Wed, 09/09/2009 - 20:59.



Hello Desmond....

DID you think I only had one Picture???

The office should not have been used for campaigning ....end of story.





( categories: )

Pic looks like the

Pic looks like the campaigning was for both Mayor Jackson's reelection and for Santiago. 

I was unaware that campaigning out of a public office was not allowed.  I learn something new about politics every day here on Real NEO. 

Oh, and by the way Vote for Rick Nagin.  (I hope that was allowed) <smile> 


Like i sais we were not campaigning out of that office at all overe the weekend.If you get some new glasses you could see that the door was in fact closed and you can clearly see the address on the door.And no this is not the end of the story because when you get a letter in the mail saying you are being sued your smiles will be gone.You had no right taking pictures of anyone kids with out there permission.The people in the picture will back those parent that you took there kids pictures.As for the shirts they are JACKSON shirts not JOES shirts.You should have let this go and never posted them now your in big trouble..................And As for me I will go to court and back those parents..END OF YOUR STORY REBECCA

The Ten Legal Commandments of Photography

Rebecca Kempton

I though long and hard about posting this list...(a lot longer than I though about posting the picturs).

But since desmond (why can't you use your real name...) is unclear about my rights I though possibily others my be too.

                        The Ten Legal Commandments of Photography

Attorney Bert P. Krages

I. Anyone in a public place can take pictures of anything they want. Public places include parks, sidewalks, malls, etc. Malls? Yeah. Even though it’s technically private property, being open to the public makes it public space.

II. If you are on public property, you can take pictures of private property. If a building, for example, is visible from the sidewalk, it’s fair game.

III. If you are on private property and are asked not to take pictures, you are obligated to honor that request. This includes posted signs.

IV. Sensitive government buildings (military bases, nuclear facilities) can prohibit photography if it is deemed a threat to national security.

V. People can be photographed if they are in public (without their consent) unless they have secluded themselves and can expect a reasonable degree of privacy. Kids swimming in a fountain? Okay. Somebody entering their PIN at the ATM? Not okay.

VI. The following can almost always be photographed from public places, despite popular opinion:

  • accident & fire scenes, criminal activities
  • bridges & other infrastructure, transportation facilities (i.e. airports)
  • industrial facilities, Superfund sites
  • public utilities, residential & commercial buildings
  • children, celebrities, law enforcement officers
  • UFOs, the Loch Ness Monster...

VII. Although “security” is often given as the reason somebody doesn’t want you to take photos, it’s rarely valid. Taking a photo of a publicly visible subject does not constitute terrorism, nor does it infringe on a company’s trade secrets.

VIII. If you are challenged, you do not have to explain why you are taking pictures, nor to you have to disclose your identity (except in some cases when questioned by a law enforcement officer.)

IX. Private parties have very limited rights to detain you against your will, and can be subject to legal action if they harass you.

X. If someone tries to confiscate your camera and/or film, you don’t have to give it to them. If they take it by force or threaten you, they can be liable for things like theft and coercion. Even law enforcement officers need a court order.

Desmond I'll let you know when I get that letter in the mail...

Oh and trust me I'm still smilling...because we met our goal we split the vote enough that Santaigo and his crew will be gone from ward 14 for good!!

Rebecca Kempton


Very well stated.


Well if you would have not done this it wouldn't be such a big issus.These were not your kids to post them and it was wrong.If someone were to put your kids on here you would be mad also.As for my name you will never know.I was there watching  you the whole time from behind you. Please do but I will knoe before you do because I am a eye wittness.We will never be gone don't forget about Jackson we were out on the streets helping him to so we will NEVER BE GONE.We will be here for a long time to come and joe to.I won't be getting a letter only you.I am only a eye witness.........

Desmond, I didn't write the


I didn't write the >smile< about your issue.  I really don't know the 'rules' about campaigning and I was making the statement that I was unaware that IF the office was used as a place to campaign, that it would be illegal.  That was all I meant.  The <smile> was because I put in a plug for the councilman I prefer, and I was asking if that was 'allowed'. 

I guess I shouldn't have entered into this hotly emotional discussion at all.  I am sorry if my comments offended you...it was not my intent. 


No I wasn't offened by the smile but thank you anyway.I have to say yes this is a very hotly discussion because rebecca should not have put pictures on here with out asking first and she didn't.No your comments were ok and did not offend me. But if these were your kids or grandkids that were posted on here i am sure you wouldn't like it either.Any body can get ahold of these pictures and do what they like with them.

the kids per desmond

What could someone possibly do with these pictures of the kids? I think that you need to tell us what evil lurks out there. 


Well for one anyone could take these pictures and do what ever they want with them.They could use them on here or anyother place on ther internet to do what they want.They could send them to someone that does ponograpy with kids so any pervert coul track them down and do what they want or even stalk them.If these were your kids I am sure you would not want there pictures on here with out your permission(RIGHT).It was wrong of rebecca to do that even if the 2 councilmen were fight for first or second place.There are not pictures of them on here just other peoples familys.

What kids?

Am I missing something? I don't see any "kids" in the above photo.  


If you look at all the pictures you will see kids in them all you have to do is look

Photo Santiago Jackson funded operation

  Desmond--the photo has been changed.  Take a second look.  To address your "concern" about unfairly photographing children, the photo has been cropped. The REAL point of the photo in the first place was to show Joe Santiago in violation of election laws in Ohio by using his ward office as a campaign office. 

The line in Ward 14 on political use of public funds has admittedly been completely blurred.

After all, no one, besides Roldo,  will call Jackson on this unethical behavior.  When his administration "asked" Santiago to donate $30,000 to fund fireworks.  Santiago went along.  This is the loyalty, Jackson asks of his "team" and it should call into question any one who compromises with the Jackson agenda. Now, a cash-strapped city is suddenly asked to loan $2 million to a filthy rich developer to build an aquarium in the flats.  Council needs to approve this request.  Where does the money come from to loan to this developer in the first place? 

Is it taken from the poor in Ward 14 and other impoverished neighborhoods to give to the rich?


There are more pictures of young kids that should have never been taken.We were not campaigning out of that office  as you can clearly see we were just sitting outside of the office.As for Jackson he is a very very good friend of ours a we will back him anyway we can.The city i am not talking about it is the kids and there safety nothing other and what we are accsued of in the matter of campaigning in front of the office.


I see the photo has been taken off but one of them still has a child in it and should also be removed.This is all over now there shouldn't be any pictures of kids on here.

the aquarium

you're right lmcshane... it's so obvious why jackson brought this whole idea up now... just to win an election he was already going to win anyway... sadly, i fear he'll get it easily enough without any questions asked...