The Sandra Catron Show

Letter from the Lawyers!!

This letter was received this letter 5:27pm today; November 2006 from the attorney’s of dms Broadcasting. Makes for interesting read.

 Here is the LETTER!

15 Comments

15 responses so far ↓

  • Sam // November 20, 2006 at 10:23 pm

    now thats a crock of bull—-

  • John H // November 21, 2006 at 9:16 am

    I am so dissapointed in the “termination of Contract”.

    I was an Avid listener of Sandras. What are the big boys afraid of? The Truth? This is not just a slap in Sandra face it is a slat to all Caymaninan and Residents that care about our Islands. Shame Shame Shame on DMS for letting this happen. I will no longer listen or advertise with this company.

  • Cleta // November 21, 2006 at 12:49 pm

    Such a shame.

  • H.O. // November 21, 2006 at 3:51 pm

    Unbeliveable!!!

    Why do we have such silliness happening to Caymanians?

    Anyways, I think yourself and Quincy Brown would make the ideal radio coupling.

    Keep up the good work! You are a true leader in our community! And you are an ideal role model for our youth!

  • gordon solomon // November 22, 2006 at 10:21 am

    sandra you did a good job when you were on air, it wasn’t allways that i listened, but when i did the show was hot. i was one of the furtunate to witnessed you functioning in the 104 studio and you maintained.

    keep ya head up.
    gordon/gideon

  • Deirdre // November 22, 2006 at 2:44 pm

    Sandra,

    Sorry your off of the show. I do however want express something that may not be seem as being on your side. I am not trying to take sides but I feel it should be said. Here goes…..

    The letter from the lawyers say that the contract was between you and them, therefore both parties signed it. Having said this I would assume that you were aware of all of the fine print so it should not come as a surprise that dms will retain ownership of “….the voice, the likeness of the employee, etc….”. So I’m not sure why people have responded so negatively towards dms when you knew what you were signing when you entered into the contract with dms. Simply put, dms could not take ownership that you didn’t give. Correct me if I’ve misunderstood.

  • Rose // November 22, 2006 at 2:59 pm

    Deirdre,

    How did they get ownership in the first place? That is not something that you can sign away no matter what. This certainly goes back to an important issue of employment contracts that have clauses in them that are totlaly ridiculous and would never hold up in a court of law – which I do believe is the case here. I mean come on, how would they ever own the voice etc. of the person? Also, they did not provide a producer for the show from what I can see. I was a guest once and saw Sandra doing everything herself and even operating her own board; so all ideas belonged to her including the name of the show and they expect to just take it like that without any form of compensation for the generation of ideas? I say they have not fully considered what they were signing and just because you sign something does not mean that it will be enforceable if it goes against the law or the rules of intellectual property!

  • Maureen Scott // November 22, 2006 at 3:17 pm

    Deirdre ,

    You seems to be a very young person

    I must remind you that Sandra is a well educated young woman, and I truly believe she read that contract from top to bottom, not leaving out any fine print, (if she had to take a magnifying glass to do so) not to miss anything, this I am sure she did without a doubt.
    The fact of the matter is, she was take off dms because certain individuals could not stand the heat. No my dear, Sandra is NO fool. She knows exactly what she was doing. How on God’s earth can someone sign away their VOICE??

  • TJ // November 22, 2006 at 3:31 pm

    You raise a very interesting question Rose, How did they get ownership in the first place? …. I’d like to hear from the LLB/s.

  • TJ // November 22, 2006 at 4:17 pm

    Maureen,

    I don’t think that Deirdre was saying or insinuating that Sandra is a fool. The question then becomes, why sign a contract with the “said wording”? This has nothing to do with age. The letter from the lawyers refer to the contract which was signed by both parties. dms and Sandra Catron/Sandra Catron Ltd.

  • Sandra Catron // November 22, 2006 at 4:23 pm

    Dear All,

    Deirdre has asked a very good question and I will respond to it as my first interactive blog. I would like to always invite comments and people to think outside the box on these issues. In fact, Deirdre has highlighed that area that is sorely lacking attention in these islands and that is employment law. I would encourage all of you to know your rights and know the limitations of any contract that you sign. People cannot (based on common law) have you sign away all of your rights and bound you to a life of slavery. I should have something posted by lateron this evening for you all to consider.

    Many thanks for making this blog so interactive and for your continued support!

  • Maureen Scott // November 23, 2006 at 11:05 am

    T.J,

    I stand to be corrected, but I did not mean when I used the word fool that Deirdre
    was calling Sandra a fool per se, it is just a matter of speech. Yes, I must say
    Deirdre has some good points, but the fact of the matter is, Sandra would not have sign
    such a contract signing away her personnel rights. We are a people who stand up proud
    and I am sure no one on these islands would sign away their rights, just because you need
    to be employed. If that is the case, how on earth would Sandra be able to work in any form in
    broadcasting, if she so wish to?

  • Rosey // November 28, 2006 at 6:40 pm

    I just read the letter from the lawyers Apply and whoever else has joined the QUACK law firm and actually added their name to it. What a hootie! Maybe they should change their name again to Apples, Nuts, Bolts & Screw-Ups Attorneys-at-Law. Oh well we certainly don’t need another ‘ambulance chasing’ firm writing quack letters to people again. Oh, oh, oh, isn’t this the same firm who filed the wrong divorce papers for a client some 3 years ago and they got sent back to them by the courts because all the documents were INCORRECT and the client is still waiting to get divorced and they won’t continue until the client pays them for the wrong paperwork they filed and they are holding the client hostage, they won’t release the file so he can get a NON-Quack Attorney to file the CORRECT documents? Hmmmm mayb I got that wrong! Or did I! hmmmm!
    Sandra ignore the stupid letter because everything has a statue of limitations, it will run out and it possibly has already ran out on your voice, likeness, etc. Oh, I checked the copyrights on the name ‘Straight Talk” turns out it is not copyrighted, so gurl use the hell out of it. As a matte of fact you can copyright it, there is nothing filed anywhere in this country to state otherwise. So I guess we certainly know now that the QUACK attorneys may not be too quacking afterall, they just got paid a lot of money to write a ‘weightless’ letter in an idle, and defamatory way, gurl turn around and sue them now for ‘mental deprevation’ and ‘mental distress’ and ‘infringing on your likeness’ (which i might add only you and God owns); but then again Don Seymour thinks he is God, so that could be why you actually got that letter. I need to stop writing now before some pompus foreign lawyer decides he is going to sue me for making these statements. Hello, Mr. Lawyer the website for this blog says .COM so if you want to take on the .COM world, you better ask Don to give you some money of his as he is spending it too freely these days….hmnn now that’s something to think about…oh where oh where has all the money come from?
    Sandra, you will rise again, and this time you will be bigger and better than before. I would say better becasue now people will actually want to advertise and sponsor your show – at a new Station ID on the dial. Hurry up gurl, you are missed. I will go now and call an island wide march against the idiot lawyers in this country……..

  • Rosey // November 28, 2006 at 6:58 pm

    PS – For Diedre who may want to know this fact, the Contract Sandra Signed was expired, DMS stated that in their press release in the papers. So then there is ‘no contract’ there is ‘no contract to answer to’. IF you can’t comprehend what that means Diedre, try calling the firm who wrote the letter, but don’t hold your breath if you are waiting to get an answer!

  • Sharon // November 30, 2006 at 5:10 pm

    Boy Rosey, you must have the law degree over everbody else including Appleby. You have the ‘down low’ on contract, employment and other laws, maybe you should have been Sandra’s advisor and stopped her before she went and signed that contract that cause all of this mess. But you shouldn’t attack people cause they don’t agree with the way you see things. Opinions are like cellphones and everybody has one.

Leave a Comment