Reader Comments
These are our reader's opinions and thoughts.The opinions on this site are posted by our readers, and are not edited by Appen Inc.
Alert! Your submission has been received.
July 17, 2008 | 06:50 AM
diatribes leavening initializes howled Quezon recreation goblin:guardianship?Tantalus:
Time to spend city money on the real needs.
May 04, 2007 | 07:24 AM
Like traffic fixes and road fixes. Quit wasting money on the Love Shack issue.
Worst Kind Sorry
May 04, 2007 | 05:31 AM
That was worst kind not worst king sorry.
Taxpayers Should Fire Mayor And Council
May 04, 2007 | 05:30 AM
The taxpayers should fire the Mayor and Council for wasting their tax dollars trying to censor protected speech and expression in this overly restrictive zoning sham of a scheme. The Love Shack benefits Johns Creek immensely and pays taxes and employs good people who also pay taxes and shop here. Time to drop the lawsuit and stop listening to Scott who is a so-called recovering porn addict who now wants the Nanny State to censor what he used to enjoy. These recovering addicts are the worst king ie...they want to use force to deny others the right to enjoy what they once did.
Lawyer has a hidden agenda
May 03, 2007 | 09:57 PM
Scott has a way of convincing way of selling a mayor and city council on "his way" of developing an ordinance. I won't argue whether he has pure intentions but he sure has a way of making money on winning or losing.
Now that our city council and mayor have proven they can't lead, maybe its time for a recall. Running a city isn't the same as running a business. In fact, if they thought of the city as their own business we would probably be in better shape. I bet the "love shack" would not get turned away as a potential client of an accounting firm or software company.
Maybe it is time the citizens decide on whether to continue with this money pit. Put this on the ballot:
Do you wish to stop the lawsuit against the "Love Shack" and instead sue "Scott Bergthold" for overcharging?
Do you wish the mayor and council to back off the lawsuit or resign?
Throw In The Towel Scott
May 03, 2007 | 09:31 PM
Scott needs to throw in the towel! Fascism is not a Family Value. Johns Creek should pay Mr Cornetta damages for the hassle he has gone thru to protect our American Values of Freedom Of Speech,Capitalism,and Private Property Rights.
BREAKING NEWS oh I love this
May 03, 2007 | 05:44 PM
May 1, 2007
Sorry, but your invincible hero appears to have lost.
www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/05/02/news/top/ 2cab5dcf220eec41862572cf000b8d3d.txt
City reaches $220,000 settlement with Doctor John's
But the check was no lottery jackpot. Under a city of Sioux City logo was the figure $220,000, the amount the city paid to settle its long-running legal battle with Haltom, owner of Doctor John's Lingerie Boutique.
"The cost of this litigation has to stop. It's in the best interests of the taxpayers to settle," councilman Dave Ferris said. "Sometimes you've just got to bite the bullet. I do agree we have a very strong case, but it could drag on for years."
Mayor pro tem Jason Geary cast the dissenting vote, saying the settlement leaves the city unable to protect its citizens from secondary effects of adult stores.
"I think this casts a shadow over the enforceability of our ordinances," he said. "I feel there are some things worth fighting for and this is one of them. We're growing, and I fear there could be more of this."
One of the city's attorneys, Scott Bergthold, a Chattanooga, Tenn., lawyer who has helped cities draft ordinances regulating adult entertainment businesses, said the case has been twice as costly as similar ones he's litigated and would only continue to cost more.
"As a matter of economics, it would be a wise settlement," Bergthold told the council.
Yes and when will Scott tell Johns Creek this? After you, all of its tax payers have given him another few hundred thousand?
John Cornetta
Zibtluda lost? I think not
May 03, 2007 | 05:28 PM
"Zibtluda (Cornetta) lost to Gwinnett County at the 11th Circuit, when Cornetta tried to get Gwinnett's Adult Ordinance struck down."
You wrote the above, again it goes to show your arrogance and total lack of knowledge. I beat Gwinnett County every step of the way. I beat them at the 11th Circuit. I only went back up to the 11th Circuit on the damages portion of my claim, to get the money back I wasted beating them. That the circuit denied , so get your facts straight. Oh and by the way, the circuit judge in the ruling not to give me damages ( however I won every thing else ) was, you guessed it Judge Pryor the Alabama Attorney General who was snuck on to the bench by Bush. His opinion on why Zibtluda should not get damages was released one hour, I repeat one hour after final Senate confirmation avoiding a showdown with democrats and a Filibuster. That was Pryor's first decision. So go back to law school buddy.
John Cornetta
Love Shack
May 03, 2007 | 12:48 PM
Well it is now completely obvious that you are one of four possible choices. You are either Scott (doubtful, though zealous, your legal arguments are weak and his would be much stronger), the Mayor (actually I do not think you are he either, as you appear to be somewhat more informed and slightly more educated, a lawyer who works for Johns Creek and or a city official (very possible given the limited, yet layman like knowledge of the law, just enough for a city attorney or worker who attended just the right amount of meetings) and or an informed, webmaster who runs a certain site about adult entertainment who is (a zealot, yet educated, passionate, ill informed, miss guided and buys every word that spews out of the mouth of the mayor and Scott) My guess is the last as you meet most of the criteria yet base all of your "legal" findings on hogwash. It matters not as subpoenas are and have been prepared for the electronic information of this site and the one you host with Godaddy... :-)
Scott Bergthold has written an ordinance that was upheld in Georgia you wrote. Where? If you speak of Rome, that was a Federal Case which is on appeal. Again, the undisputable Fulton County Study must be overcame first, in order to show any reason why anyone should regulate these businesses and in the long haul, that will not be done. I can not believe I am wasting my valuable time doing this when there are so many women naked all over the city on poles, but I will press on. I never mention my hypocritical friend, that the case was about obscenity, I merely pointed out that 16-12-80 was overturned, my lawyeer did it and I do not think the Georgia Legislators have the stomach to write a new one. If they had, the one the wrote last session would have passed.
As far as sex toys are concerned, the State of Georgia may very well become distinguished by becoming the last state to ban them. I am completely at a loss as to why anyone would want to ban a device that would stimulate joy. Anyway, I however do not sell them at the Johns Creek store yet. And if you or anyone else thinks that they are sexual devices, then you need to go to every Target and Wal-Mart and pull them out of there too because selective prosecution is a mother, when dealing with a wealthy, intelligent, passionate citizen who will not be pawed at. Again, you can not deny a business license for having what you perceive to be a sex toy, you revoke for that, please go back and review your law book webmaster.
Yes you say this is a zoning case, I say not. If it was, why do you suppose that in not one of Judge Thrashes orders did he ever mention zoning, or licensing as an issue? Hmmmmm, could it be? I think yes. The fact is that business was operating legally before your little city became a city. Furthermore, when I really start to sink my very sharp teeth in to your hero's ordinance, you will find he has a huge Renton challenge to overcome. Especially since just 5 weeks ago 95% of all of the available M1 and M2 available land areas in Johns Creek became suddenly unavailable. You don't know why? Try and keep up.
Then you raise the fact that the 11th Circuit upheld Alabama's toy law. Well I'll be. Was that heard embank? On no I didn't think so. And the 11th Circuit, that the circuit we are in here in Georgia isn't that correct sir? And that would be the same circuit that has the only sitting judge never to be confirmed by the United States Congress, one Jude Pryor, now isn't that right? The same Judge who before being given a life long term to the bench during a congressional break by the President Bush (The first and only time in US history) the same Mr. Pryor who was attorney General for, hmmm let me think, yep Alabama. Makes you wonder doesn't it. So as it appears you know just enough about the law to make you dangerous or a public defender, why then would you remind me a case for the 5th district when any educated man would know that that is merely secondary persuasion? Lets take in to count Tukwila Washington where is was absolutely shown that there was no secondary effects. I mean that's the 9th District. Or even better, lets use the most current case law possible since we are just jumping around circuits here and use the 2nd Circuit. Why not since less then to weeks ago they issued this land mark decision which alone will make Mr. Bergthold and his cronies cringe. Story below. More importantly is I have 20 or 30 arguments to be made and will win on most if not all.
More and more adult businesses are now commissioning studies, performed by experts such as Bruce McLaughlin, to show that adult businesses do not cause a greater incidence of crime than non-adult businesses. I am one of those owners. Sleep well and know that I will be right around the corner, selling anything protected by the greatest document of all time.
Read the ruling and weep. Good night sir, go have a cookie and milk as it appears you get no nookie. lol
John Cornetta
--------------------------------------------
Ruling confirms secondary effects can't be afterthought
By David L. Hudson Jr.
First Amendment scholar
04.10.07
For many years, city officials across the United States have cited the mantra of "secondary effects" to justify myriad restrictions on adult entertainment. The secondary-effects doctrine enables government officials to impose regulations and restrictions on the expressive content associated with adult businesses - such as nude performance dancing - by claiming they are concerned about harmful secondary effects associated with the businesses. Such harmful effects include decreased property values and increased crime. This doctrine enables reviewing courts to view laws that seemingly single out the unsavory expression at adult businesses as content-neutral laws rather than what they often are - laws that restrict expression officials find distasteful and offensive.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' recent decision in White River Amusement Pub, Inc. v. Town of Hartford shows that there are some limits to the use of the powerful secondary-effects doctrine. In September 2001, White River Amusement opened up an adult-entertainment business featuring nude and semi-nude dancing in Hartford, Vt. The five-member Town Selectboard then quickly passed a public indecency ordinance in the spring of 2002 to prohibit nude dancing. The town's attorney advised the selectmen to adopt a resolution about secondary effects when adopting the proposed ordinance. The leaders did not adopt a resolution of secondary effects and did not conduct any independent analysis of actual or potential secondary effects of public nudity. The selectmen apparently did not review or discuss secondary-effects studies performed in other cities. Only later - after the passage of the ordinance - did the town's planning department analyze secondary-effect studies from other locales.
The adult business sued the town in federal court, alleging that the ordinance violated the First Amendment. It prevailed before a federal district court which noted that the town failed to show that "it relied upon at least some evidence reasonably believed to be relevant to its interest in preventing negative secondary effects."
The 2nd Circuit affirmed the lower court, took the town leaders to task for failing to consider evidence of secondary effects before passing their ordinance. Town leaders argued that they could rely on any evidence of consideration of secondary effects - either before or after the passage of their ordinance. The 2nd Circuit found this insufficient, finding that Renton requires pre-enactment evidence." The appeals court noted: "While a municipality may rely on the studies conduced by other towns, it may not simply rely on its knowledge that such studies exist."
John Cornetta
May 03, 2007 | 12:16 PM
If the citizens of John's Creek are so terribly concerned about morality and protecting the children, every single person that opposes the Love Shack should throw out their home computers. The Love Shack looks like Chuck-E-Cheeses when you consder what your husbands and children can find on the internet.
Give Me A Break
May 03, 2007 | 12:12 PM
Time,Place,and Manner Restrictions on Adult Businesses should never be upheld and in fact many have been stricken as will this one. Industrial areas are not profitable areas for Adult Businesses to be located,they should be allowed in commercial districts like this one also. The John Creek ordinance doesn't allow for reasonable alternative avenues for adult communication and is therefore invalid on it's face ie...prima facie. Once again this zoning is too restrictive and will be stricken.
Zoning vs. Content
May 03, 2007 | 11:42 AM
If this is truly a zoning issue and not a content issue, then consider yourselves - the Plaintiffs - challenged to make no arguments that use the words "society," "crime," "harm," "effects," "studies," "values," etc.
Even if it were moved to your "Industrial Zone" it's still in Johns Creek, is it not? It moved from that corner to THAT corner. My, I feel so much better now. Just let it be.
I'm a patron of the Johns Creek Love Shack. I see nothing in the way of harm or decreased property values. I support it 100%.
Mrs. Olivia C.
Its all about the Zoning
May 03, 2007 | 08:36 AM
The City of Johns Creek allows adult businesses, so there is not censorship. A blockbuster or ballet would okay because they meet the zoning requirements of a commercial area. A cement factory would not, becuase it too belongs in an industrial zone.
Move the Love Shack to industrially zoned land and most of legal argument of the anti-Love Shack people would go away. Mr. Cornetta has brought the legal proceedings upon himself by trying to locate an adult business in an area that is not zoned for adult businesses.
It is Mr. Cornetta that is costing the tax payers of Johns Creek all the money for legal fees. The City has stated that they are ready to issue Mr. Cornetta an adult business license, the moment he meets the legal criteria. One of the criteria is that the business be located in an industrial zone.
Another option that Mr. Cornetta has is to have the property rezoned to industrial use. Mr. Cornetta refuses to do what other business people (and developers) do when the property they want to locate on does not have the zoning to support the land use.
Instead, Mr. Cornetta claims censorship and tries to make himself look like the defender of free speech. This is a land use issue, not a free speech issue.
Time, place and manner restrictions on adult businesses have been upheld by the Supreme Court. It is not censorship to regulate adult businesses.
This Is A Free-Speech Issue
May 03, 2007 | 08:17 AM
To say this isn't about free-speech is silly. Would Berghold and the Christian Taliban Censors have a problem with a blockbusters or ballet theater in that location? The City Of Johns Creek is discriminating against the Love Shack solely on the basis of the content of speech being offered. Therefore the ordinance is an unconstitutional content based restriction. Also does Johns Creek not have any respect for private property rights? If the owner of the building wants to lease to the Love Shack that is his business,not John Creeks. BTW Love Shacks remain open in Gwinnet. Censorship is anti-liberty and anti-american. It also violates free-market capitalistic principles. Long live the Love Shack and Capitalism as they continue to expand and remain open to serve the adult needs of John Creeks Residents and Tourists.
Store is Open, but only for a while
May 03, 2007 | 08:00 AM
Just like a convicted murderer is allowed to go through the appeal process, so the Love Shack stays open until the legal process is completed. You have lost at legal turn. Face it, the Love Shack is an adult business and will be shut down once the appeals process has run its course.
Zibtluda (Cornetta) lost to Gwinnett County at the 11th Circuit, when Cornetta tried to get Gwinnett's Adult Ordinance struck down.
Wiggins Rocks
May 03, 2007 | 07:46 AM
Cary Wiggins knocked out Georgia's Obscenity Law and Fulton's Ban On Nude Bars in Flanigans Ent V Fulton County along with Steve Youngelson. Atlanta and other cities and counties like Myrtle Beach and Fulton County and Charlotte NC all have studies showing less crime and higher property values and improved economic growth and tourism associated with Adult Entertainment. Face it folks Adult Entertainment is great for communities and should be supported. Berghold and his ilk know this but won't admit it. BTW Love Shack remains open and will continue to remain open to serve the needs of consumers so John and Cary have won as well they should.
David Corr
Cary Wiggin's Law School
May 03, 2007 | 06:47 AM
is ranked in the bottom 1/2 of all law schools, so what is your point about Scott Bergthold.
Is this the best you can come up with to attack Scott Bergthold.
Censorship and Name Calling
May 03, 2007 | 06:26 AM
I guess when you can't win the argument on the facts, you must resort to name calling (fascist)and claims of censorship.
The problem with the censorship claim is that the US Supreme Court has help that regulation of adult businesses is not censorship.
The City of Johns Creek, the hearing officer and a Federal Judge have all found the Love Shack to be an adult business. So just because Cornetta claims he is not an adult business, does not make it so. The controlling legal entities have viewed the facts and ruled that the Love Shack is an adult business.
Lets see 24,000 adult items, but you are not an adult store. Sounds believable to me.
This is not a free speech case, but a land use case. Adult businesses have the right to open in Johns Creek, but in industrial zoned areas.
The claim that porn has positive secondary impacts is so easily refuted by real world examples like Time Square. When New York City (via Rudy Giuliani) finally cleaned up Time Square from all the porn, the area boomed. Tourism when through the roof, property values exploded and people moved back into the area.
Scott Bergthold
May 03, 2007 | 05:50 AM
Is this the Scott Bergthold out of Chattanooga?
Did he graduate from Regent University?
Isn't that the university in the press recently?
You know, ranked a "tier four" school by US News & World Report, the lowest score and essentially a tie for 136th place.
It is nice to see Johns Creek putting a lot of research into this attorney.
Love Shack Rocks!
May 02, 2007 | 09:34 PM
The U.S. Supreme Court has cited the 9th and 14th Amendments as Justification for striking down Sodomy Laws in Lawrence V Texas and Abortion Laws in Roe V Wade. They should stricken all laws against adult entertainment based on the same Amendments. BTW the Love Shack isn't an Adult Entertainment Business under the code. Scott Berghold is a Fascist plain and simple. He would feel at home with the Taliban and their Censors.
Censorship Bites
May 02, 2007 | 07:54 PM
The Love Shack and other adult businesses create positive secondary effects for communities such as economic growth,lower crime rates,increased employment and tourism,and higher property values. As the 1997 Fulton Study showed there are no negative secondary effects associated with adult businesses. Censorship is anti-liberty and anti-constitution. Long live the Love Shack. Let freedom and capitalism reign!
David Corr
For Novelty Use
May 02, 2007 | 07:28 PM
I guess the real question is does the Love Shack put "for novelty use" on the same type of items in the other stores or on their website. Although I have not been to the other stores to check, I have a feeling that the Love Shack sells the same items in the others stores as "sexual devices", not novelties.
As for spending tax dollars spent on lawyers. If you really have an issue with this please complain to your elected city council and Mayor. Or better yet run for city council this fall on a pro Love Shack platform.
For Novelty use only
May 02, 2007 | 06:37 PM
I wonder when it becomes Mr. Cornetta's problem that the hearing officer deems the items to be for sexual use, when clearly it is stated that they are novelty products. Is Mr. Cornetta responsible for how this officer "thinks" something should be used, because if that is the case, than any item that looks phallic in nature would need to be removed from stores. Should Publix start removing items from their produce section? This is ridiculous people, why waste good money on lawyer fees that could be put towards parks or schooling or all that lovely construction being done.
Isabella Wayman
Nothing has been deleted
May 02, 2007 | 05:27 PM
Unless the post has violated our Terms of Service I can assure you nothing has been deleted.
R. Spence - NorthFulton.com webmaster
Posts Have Been Deleted
May 02, 2007 | 05:08 PM
Mr. Cornetta has attempted to post on this forum in the past 24 hours. The moderator has not allowed his posts to be printed.
David Oblas
May 02, 2007 | 10:50 AM
Close minded jerks. You people are all the same.
Love Shack found to be an Adult Business
May 01, 2007 | 10:54 PM
In response to Mr. Cornetta:
The Love Shack issue is not an obscenity case at this time so the fact that the Georgia obscenity ordinance was struck down on a legal technicality is not as issue. The case is a land use case and Scott Bergthold has put ordnance together that uses definitions of an adult business that has been held up in court cases in Georgia.
As for Georgia's obscenity ordnance, the 11th Circuit gave the State of Georgia enough direction, as to what they would accept in obscenity ordnance. The only reason that the GA House and Senate did not vote on a new measure has to do with calendar scheduling. In the next session, Georgia will have a revised obscenity ordinance that will be acceptable to the 11th Circuit Court.
The 11th Circuit has already upheld Alabama's ban on sex toys. The US Constitution does not guarantee the sale of them, so Johns Creek is free to strictly regulate them, even if you put novelty stickers on them.
As for secondary impacts at "off premises" porn shops, the 5th Circuit has found that the City of Kennedale, TX has sufficiently demonstrated secondary effects for "off premises" porn shops. The 5th Circuit noted that there are at least two separate studies (both of which have been cited in the Johns Creek ordnance) that document the secondary impacts of "off premises" porn stores. Since secondary impacts can be documented, government can regulate "off premises" porn stores in a similar manner that they can regulate traditional adult businesses. Since the 5th Circuit has ruled on this issue there is no reason for Scott Bergthold or Mayor Bodker to debate you on this issue.
As for Fulton County's studies, they have been refuted by expert testimony in Sandy Springs. Also since Fulton County's did not study "off premises" porn stores, they can't be used based on your logic. If you want to be judged on the basis of being an "off-premises" porn store, the Fulton County study is not relevant, since they did not study the type of store you say you have in Johns Creek.
In a few years when people wake up and realize the destruction that porn has caused to people and that it is addictive, there will be class action law suits against the porn industry similar to those against the tobacco companies. Do your research on porn and brain chemistry changes.
Also please explain the hypocrisy in not using my name. This blog allows anonymous posts, so where is the hypocrisy?
Love Shack Always Open
May 01, 2007 | 08:15 PM
I have met my match in Scott Bergthold? Oh thank you, thank you so very much for providing me with an entire week of comedy. First of all I will not get in to a back an forth on a board that does not Identify it's users, so please do not consider this an open invitation to debate. But me and Scott Bergthold? I'm sorry did I miss something? It's not me against Mr. Bergthold, it's Mr. Bergthold, and Johns Creek government verses Cary Wiggins, H. Louis Sirkin and a little thing called The United States Constitution. Talk about being outmatched. While I will end this missive here, let me just say that thus far Scott Bergthold doesn't impress me one bit. He can say he has won this and that, but this is still Fulton County Georgia, city or no city, and Fulton County Georgia has no studies showing adverse secondary effects and land mark case as well as the case destroying Georgia's obscenity statute 16-12-80, were both won by Mr. Cary Wiggins. Let me go further, I challenge Scott Bergthold or the Mayor to debate me openly on this subject. I also challenge either one to bring forth one piece of proof that shows any adverse secondary effects for an adult business with 100% take home products. I dare them. And those aren't even the facts in this case....yet.
Now if it were just Mr. Bergthold against me, it wouldn't be fair. He wouldn't even stand a chance. Have a nice day, come on in and shop, get yourself something to loosen up that uptight attitude of yours. Really 100 years from now who will care? In fact most intelligent people know that future generations will look back on these events and say... " What were those people so uptight about".... Love Shack.... Love what you buy! Oh and it is so nice to see that you believe in your convictions so much, you will not even use your name... ah, it appears your hypocrisy knows no bounds.
John Cornetta
Legal Battle
May 01, 2007 | 03:53 PM
Mr. Cornetta you have lost at every turn in the legal system. To say that you "have not been closed", only tells half the story. The reason you haven't been closed is becuase the legal process has not taken it full course.
Remember the 11th circuit upheld Alabama's ban on sex toys, so why would they now rule in your favor?
Why don't you stop this and cut your loses now. You have met your match in Scott Bergthold.
Love Shack
May 01, 2007 | 03:35 PM
Like I said before, never. Get used to it. Live it, Learn it, Love it. Trust me Cary's comments were taken out of context. I will never stop fighting. I also wish there was a way to verify who is who on this website as several posts purported to be by me are not from me. This one is and I wish there was way to authenticate it.
Yesterdays order came from a judge, well not really a judge, hand picked by Johns Creek. I mean, this ruling is as important in the overall scheme of things as Fred Flintstone saying Yabba Dabba Doo. The only thing it does is show how biased the entire city government is, the total lack of respect the officials have for the law, and the fact that they have forgotten that they are " public servants". The reason we needed to go through this " Kangaroo Court" is so that when make in front of an actual court it can not be said that we did not exhaust our administrative remedies. I look forward with great anticipation, the next rounds.
While this paper did not even contact me for a quote, will not accept my advertising, the spin that it, and a few extremely funny Johns Creek websites have put on this story are amazing. They all read about the same.. We won again. Johns Creek lawyers 1 Cornetta's lawyer 0. That is funny in that since the day we opened we have not been closed. Also thank you to all of the supporters who continue to flood us with emails and letters of support. We have only yet begun to fight.
John Cornetta
John Cornetta
Love Shack Appeal Denied
May 01, 2007 | 01:27 PM
I wonder when Cornetta will be shut down?
