Thursday, December 08, 2005

miss ann versus jack rinehart

jack rinehart is a journalist at WRTV-6 (the local abc affiliate) who first "broke" the story about miss ann's dungeon with a sensationalistic sweeps-time story back in 2003. he was also apparently the lead reporter for WRTV's first follow-up report... which mysteriously appeared the day before mayor peterson's press conference (the second follow-up was apparently by norman cox). the other media outlets didn't pick up the story until the next day, after the press conference.

miss ann doesn't much care for rinehart's reporting style and has some not-nice things to say about him on imn's off-topic forum. because a paid "VIP" membership is required to view or post in off-topic, i will not bother linking to the thread and will instead repost her comments here. i suspect she won't mind, as she's been very appreciative of my blogging on this subject so far.

[miss ann's original post misspelled rinehart's name as "rhinehart". i have tried to correct this, but other than that, the following block quote is unedited and verbatim.]


I thought it was time to talk about what I know about Jack Rinehart. On November 30 at 1pm or so I was sitting in my sunroom office working on the computer at the time Jack Rinehart from Channel 6 was heading up my sidewalk with a camera man. This may come as a shock, but the camera man from channel 6 actually pushed his camera right up to my sunroom windows and was filming inside my home! This is nothing short of being a 'peeping' Tom. I did not know journalists were allowed to film INSIDE someone's home without permission, but he did it anyway. (How does he live with himself?)

Jack Rinehart then produced my summons to appear for the zoning violation and I read it. He would not let me touch the copy for some reason. While I read the summons through my window, he told me with glee in his eyes, that the Mayor was holding a press conference the next day in regard to my "illegal" businesses. I asked where and he would not tell.

After Jack left I got on the internet and started poking around for information and asked some friends I know in the city what they knew. None of my contacts knew anything. One of my friends got back to me and said that there was no official announcement from the Mayor's office. He told me, he would keep an eye out for me though. At 5pm, I was telephoned and told that at 4:30pm the press conference announcement was finally sent.

How is it that Jack Rinehart knows when the mayor's press conferences are before anyone else in the media or in the city? Why is it that Jack Rinehart and channel 6 always have lead stories on these so-called "crackdowns" of illegal "sex businesses"? I wonder who Jack is in bed with at city hall.

Could it be that city hall knows Jack will stoop to tabloid journalism and gives Jack tips before the rest of the media who have more scruples than to point a camera to film inside someone's private residence? Could it be that the city knows Jack is not above harassing their intended targets (me)?

It is also interesting to note that Jack was right there on the scene to film (for dramatic effect) the sherrif serving me the summons; the same summons Jack Rinehart got to see and read before even I did.

It is shameful how our city treats its citizens. And it is shameful how Jack Rinehart stoops to the invasion of privacy of Indy's tax payer citizens and harasses them.

The role of journalists is supposed to be watchdogs and to report truth in events.

Jack Rinehart, from my experience, has done nothing but work as a media operative to advance the city's campaign to frame me as an illegal "sex" business, when indeed I am not an illegal "sex business" according to the definition of their written laws.

A scan is being created today of my summons to appear in court and will be added to my website. I was advised last night that the summons is missing the official seal and is not technically a legal summons without it. Should I force them to resubmit the paperwork? Afterall, it seems like the city has plenty of money to spend on attorneys and clerks to do this sort of thing to 'protect the children'.

I'm not so sure, however, why there has not been money to give city employees a raise for over two years, why the foster mom's checks were sent two weeks late, why we cannot afford to maintain and fuel the firetruck in Broadripple, and why my property taxes are going up again next year. I seem to remember my Mayor promised us in 2003 that there would be no more assessments.

I am sure that everyone agrees it is good that the Mayor found extra money to go after a business that was not even legally classified as "adult", that was in operation for years without a single incident complaint from neighbors or clients.


p.s. I linked all the press I've received over the last 2.5 years on the front page of my website. My business was/is legal and on full radar. Why else would I write so many press releases to get in the papers? Why did the mayor pick now when the city is at its poorest to spend money we don't have to go after me?

No comments: