First let me applaud Public Safety Commissioner “toothy” Christian Mathiesen for engaging me and this blog directly. With that said it’s about the only good thing I can say about Chris and his administration. I will publish each comment than address it.In my blog post “SSFD ambulance revenues come up short and Perma’s loss's mount while Brent Wilkes profits rise.” Chris writes
"The ambulance service in Saratoiga Springs is functioning very well. Response times are excellent. The firemen are getting to more fully utilize their EMT and paramedic training and the City will be receiving many thousands of dollars in reimbursement for EMS and transport services where previously there were none. C E Mathiesen
The typos are his, I didn’t change a thing. Chris the ambulance service has been running now for over 5 months. Where are the numbers? Those thousands you talk about? You have no insurance contracts in place do you? The truth is if I need an ambulance on Broadway and the SSFD show up, I’m on the hook for hundreds of dollars. Last year that wasn’t the case. My insurance had a contract with Empire and SEMS. You show uncollected revenue. You can bill all you want, you’ll never see it. Paper revenue Chris it’s not real. Maybe just maybe if you put the same energy and time into fixing this mess that you did in punishing small business’s we wouldn’t be in this mess, NEXT
In Marcia White and LIVE NATION:A marriage made in HELL
Chris writes
"John, I haven't received any free SPAC tickets. If I do, I promise to pass them along to you so that you can enjoy a show and, at the same time, restore your credibility. C E Mathiesen
So Chris you question my credibility? I’ve always said on the record, you in trying to close the bars early were just fulfilling a campaign pledge. If you have never received a ticket from SPAC or the PBA or the chamber for free I apologize. Now it’s your turn Chris.
I asked you directly during your campaign
“Chris if elected who do you plan on having as your deputy?”
You said “John isn’t it presumptuous to be talking about deputies when I haven’t won the election”
Bullshit Chris. I can’t prove it and you will probably lie and deny it but toxic Eileen Finneran was always going to be your deputy. You know it, I know it. You made a conscious choice to mislead the public because you had no chance of winning with her as your deputy.
Speaking of Finneran. Your deputy at the Council table repeatedly made obscene gestures at me during a council meeting. I have two witnesses besides myself who will swear under oath to that effect. I will also be happy to submit to lie detector test.
You Deputy is a toxic, fowl and scheming bully. I will remind you that no one has won reelection with her as their deputy. You will make it three for three. Credibility Chris? You have none. Want it back. Fire her today. NEXT
On my blog post “Toothy” Chris Mathiesen turns petty and vindictive and Michele Madigan proves she can’t be trusted.UPDATED Chris writes
"John, if you speak to some of the bar owners, they will tell you that we brought up the idea of having the very late night establishments help out with police overtime costs last January. There is nothing new here and it is something that we are continuing to explore.
The Public Safety Department requires that organizations having events in our City that involve additional manpower reimburse our department for these costs. It is hard to understand how it is fair that taxpayers who are sound asleep at 3:00AM must continue to fund late night police crowd control on Caroline Street.C E Mathiesen"
That’s great Chris now how about calling Marcia White, and saying “Hello Marcia The drunken patrons of your concerts are costing the city boatloads in overtime don’t you think you should chip in?”
Seriously how much police overtime is caused by SPAC. If you don’t know you should it’s your fucking job.
You want to write a rebuttal to this Fine. I just sent you an e-mail to confirm these were indeed you comments.
And Chris you’re an elected official, If you want to write on blogs, create a confirmed Google account so blog owners can verify who you are. Get with the program
Again to write a rebuttal sent to the e-mail address I send you and I will publish uncut and of course for free.
Again before you question anyone’s credibility look real hard in the mirror. You want to play? You want to dance? Bring it on…
34 comments:
What steps is Toothy taking to control the salaries of the "crowd control" he wants businesses to fund? You've shown us the type of cops were paying this OT to with your Paul Veitch expose. How about all those "officer assaults" from a few months ago? The guy who allegedly beat up a cop on Caroline, while being arrested for A VIOLATION. The 20 year old boy who skidmore who allegedly beat up 2 cops while being arrested for A VIOLATION? Heck, how about the "terrorist" ? Lots of stories of arrests, never any about convictions.... Maybe it's cause the scary arrest stories about the scary town are fishing tales. Give us answers toothy
Maybe the dear doctor's suffering from side effects of the dental trade?
Like, psychological disturbances (erethysm)?
IE:
Irritability, Nervousness, Fits of Anger, Memory Loss, Lack of Attention, Depression, Low Self Confidence, Anxiety, Drowsiness, Shyness/timidity, Decline of Intellect, Insomnia, Low Self Control.
http://curezone.com/dental/mercury_symptoms.asp
That would explain it.
صبرك لو طال ماباقي كتير يابلادي.....
السلام عليكم شكرا لك., شكرا
My friend wrote you have much patience.
I responded
Thank you
"Peace be upon you," but is considered the equivalent to "hello" or "good day" in English.
Rodney King, key L.A. riots figure, dead at 47
This could have been avoided if the toxic bars on Caroline st closed at 3am
Commissioner Lunacy
What is defamation?
Defamation is the communication of a false claim or statement of fact about another person that harms his or her reputation. This statement does not need to be made to a large group of people; you can be liable even if you make the statement to just one other person (other than the person the statement is about).
There are two types of defamation. The first is libel or written defamation, including things written on Internet websites, blogs and message boards.
The second is slander or spoken defamation.
What is a “false statement of fact”?
A false statement of fact is a false statement that can be proven true or false – such as “John stole my computer from my house,” or “Mary had an affair with the boss to get her promotion” – and which a reasonable person, in the context provided, would understand as being asserted as a true and verifiable statement. Obviously, if a statement is true, it cannot be defamatory.
Opinions, even if they reflect negatively on someone, are protected by the First Amendment and are not defamatory.
However, just calling a false statement of fact an opinion is not enough to gain First Amendment protection.
For instance, if you say, “Based on the evidence, in my opinion, it’s clear that John stole my computer from my house,” then a court mind determine that, because you were backing up your statement with evidence, that you were actually making a statement of fact. If that statement is false and hurts John’s reputation, then you could still be liable for defamation.
When does a statement harm someone’s reputation?
A statement harms someone’s reputation if it lowers the value of the person to potential employers or to other members of the public.
Often, a defamatory statement places the person in a negative light in regards to their integrity and morality.
In some cases, a court will determine that based on the content of a statement, harm to the person’s reputation is presumed. This is called defamation per se and typically applies to false statements about a person committing a serious crime, having a sexually transmitted disease, lacking ability or integrity in their work or business, committing adultery or being promiscuous. If a statement doesn’t fall under one of these categories, it is called defamation per quod.
I posted a defamatory statement anonymously on the Internet, can I be tracked down?
Yes, in most situations, you can be tracked down. Even if he or she doesn’t know anything about you, the target of a defamatory statement can file a lawsuit and use the discovery process to track you down and find your actual identity. In most cases, the plaintiff can use your IP address to force your Internet Service Provider to turn over your account information, including your name and address.
Check out Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, were posted by someone else.
What should I do if I am sued for defamation for a statement I made online?
First, you should contact an attorney with experience dealing with online defamation. The basics of defamation law are the same for online defamation as they are for normal written or spoken defamation, but there are also technical and legal issues specific to online defamation. For instance, a plaintiff will often try to sue in his or her home state, even if the courts there should not allow them to do so. These are called personal jurisdiction issues. Additionally, it is helpful to have an attorney who understands the technical issues surrounding the use of an IP address to track down someone who made the defamatory statement anonymously online.
I heard that ambulances were going back and forth nonstop to the RAP concert at SPAC last week.
That should be easly to look up????
How can one be defamed if that one is already defamed?...just say'in,it appears when welfare is lost there's always the life of trying to live off of frivilous lawsuits and wasteing taxpayers money.The cult is trying to silence you JT by using fear,it won't work!
They have learned to Google big words. Any won is free to sue me. I regularly talk to the ACLU and I will conter sue for my own damages it will be fun.I love court
Well, well, well seems things are really happening over here at SiD. Keep it up John!
The only one who should be sued is Toothy for defamation of the bar owners on Caroline
A. Truth
Truth is a complete defense to a defamation claim. This is simply the flip side of the requirement that plaintiff prove the falsity of the alleged defamatory statement.
B. The First Amendment
1. Public Officials/Public Figures: Actual Malice must be proven.
The First Amendment requires that a defamation plaintiff prove actual malice or reckless disregard of the truth when the plaintiff is a public official or public figure. New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). This is a much higher burden of proof for a public figure plaintiff. Instead of showing objectively that a "reasonable person" knew or should have known the defamatory statement was false, a public figure plaintiff must prove the intent of the defendant was malicious, or that they acted with reckless disregard for the truth. This allows the defendant to prove its good faith intent and efforts as a defense.
2. Matter of Public Concern: Actual Malice must be proven.
In cases where the media defendant is treating an issue of public concern, the First Amendment also requires proof of actual malice or reckless disregard of the truth, even if the plaintiff is not a public figure. Gertz v. Robert Welch, 418 U.S. 323, 349-50 (1974). See also Hepps, 475 U.S. at 775 (In non-public concern, non-public plaintiff defamation case, First Amendment does not bar application of mere negligence standard for defamation); Dun & Bradstreet v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749, 761 (1985) (Powell, J., concurring).
3. Matter of Public Concern: Plaintiff Must Prove Statement is False.
Proof of falsity required when media defendant addresses topic of public concern; regardless of public/private status of plaintiff. Hepps, 475 U.S. at 775-76.
4. Actual Malice must be Shown by "Convincing Clarity."
Where the plaintiff is a public official, he must prove actual malice or reckless disregard of the truth with "clear and convincing proof". New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 286 (1964); Gertz, 418 U.S. at 342; Hepps, 475 U.S. at 773.
5. Falsity May Have to Shown by "Convincing Clarity."
Public figure plaintiffs may have to prove falsity by "clear and convincing evidence" as protected under New York Times v. Sullivan. Sharon v. Time, Inc., 599 F. Supp. 538, 558 (S.D.N.Y. 1984); Firestone v. Time Inc., 460 F.2d 712, 722 (5th Cir. 1972), cert. den., 409 U.S. 875 (Bell, J., specially concurring).
6. Who is a Public Official or Public Figure?
Public Official. Governmental policy-makers are public officials, while public employees generally are not public officials. The Minnesota Supreme Court has laid out a test to determine who is, and is not, a public official:
(1) whether plaintiff performs governmental duties directly related to the public interest;
(2) whether plaintiff holds a position to influence significantly the resolution of public issues; and
(3) whether the plaintiff has, or appears to the public to have, substantial responsibility for or control over the conduct of government affairs.
Britton v. Koep, 470 N.W.2d 518, 522 (Minn. 1991). In Britton, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that a public roads department supervisor was not a public official, and did not have to prove actual malice.
Public Figure. A "public figure" is a person who is publicly prominent, so much so that discussion or commentary about that person amounts to a "public concern." However, such persons are not necessarily public figures for any purpose: status as a public figure may only extend to the particular area in which they are publicly prominent. Examples: Michael Jordan or Donald Trump. The extent of a person's status as a public figure will be subject to extensive litigation in each case.
The U.S. Supreme has established some guidelines on who constitutes a public figure:
(1) Involuntary Public Figure: become public figure through no purposeful action of their own, including those who have become especially prominent in the affairs of society;
(2) Always Public Figures: those who occupy position of such persuasive power and influence that they are deemed public figures for all purposes;
(3) Public Figures on Specific Issues: "those who have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved."
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 345 (1974).
7. Right to Petition for Grievance Creates Privilege against Defamation
Statements made to the government and its representatives, in the course of petitioning the government for redress of grievances, are absolutely protected from defamation claims under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. See Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127 (1961) and United Mine Workers of America v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657 (1965). "[T]his deference to the right to petition [applies] not only in antitrust cases but in other cases involving civil liability." Gorman Towers, Inc., v. Bogoslavsky, 626 F.2d 607, 614-15 (8th Cir. 1980).
C. Qualified Privileges.
A defamatory statement is protected by a qualified privilege if "made upon a proper occasion, from a proper motive, and . . . based upon reasonable or probable cause." Brooks v. Doherty, Rumble & Butler, 481 N.W.2d 120, 124-25 (Minn. App. 1992) (citing Stuempges v. Park, Davis & Co., 297 N.W.2d 252, 257 (Minn. 1980). Examples: an employer's response to unemployment claims, workers' compensation claims, or a response to a request for verification of employment.
The question of whether qualified privilege applies is a question of law decided by the court. Keenan v. Computer Assoc. Int'l, Inc., 13 F.3d 1266, 1270 (8th Cir. 1994); the factual basis for any "reasonable and proper grounds" for the statement is a jury question. Id.
The plaintiff may typically only overcome a qualified privilege by showing actual malice. It is the plaintiff's burden to show that the defendant did not have "reasonable and proper grounds" for the allegedly defamatory statement.
D. Opinion Defense.
The First Amendment protects statements of opinion, as distinct from statements of fact, against claims of defamation. However, the test is not the author's mere characterization of the statement as "opinion." Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990). A statement is an opinion when:
(1) the statement addresses matters of public concern;
(2) the statement expressed in a manner that is not provably true or false; and
(3) the statement cannot be reasonably interpreted as intended to convey actual facts about a person.
Id. at 17.
In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court articulated some standards to assist in determining whether a statement is intended to convey an actual fact about a person, or not:
(1) is the language loose, figurative, or hyperbolic, which would negate the impression that the speaker was seriously maintaining the truth of the underlying facts?
(2) Does the general tenor of the article negate the impression that the speaker was seriously maintaining the truth of the underlying fact? and
(3) is the connotation sufficiently factual to be susceptible of being proved true or false.
Id. at 21.
Milkovich cut back on First Amendment protection for opinions as a matter of federal law. But federal law only sets a constitutional floor below which state law cannot go. Nothing prevents states from providing more protection to opinions than the First Amendment requires.
Minnesota courts apply the four-factor test used by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Janklow v. Newsweek, Inc., 759 F.2d 644, 648 (8th Cir. 1985), cert. den., 479 U.S. 883 (1987) to determine whether statements are opinion or not (Janklow was decided prior to Milkovich). Hunt v. Univ. of Minnesota, 465 N.W.2d 88, 94 (Minn. App. 1991). Janklow involved a suit by the sitting Governor of South Dakota against Newsweek magazine, for repeating allegations regarding his possible sexual relations with a 14-year old Indian girl while he was a lawyer on a reservation. Newsweek successfully defended the claim on the grounds that the alleged defamatory statement had been expressed as the opinion of the author. The Janklow test to determine if a statement is an opinion is as follows:
(1) How precise and specific is the statement?
(2) Is the statement verifiable?
(3) What is the literary and social context of the statement
(4) What is the public context of the statement?
If a statement is determined to be an opinion, then it cannot be the subject of a defamation suit. The reason is that opinions are not capable of being proven true or false, and the plaintiff cannot therefore prove one of the elements of a defamation claim. "[S]tatements regarding matters of public concern which are not sufficiently factual to be capable of being proven true or false, and statements which cannot be reasonably interpreted as stating actual facts are absolutely protected." Hunt, supra, 465 N.W.2d at 94.
E. Consent as a Defense.
"[T]he consent of another to the publication of defamatory matter concerning him is a complete defense to his actions for defamation." RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS �� 583. See also LaBaron v. Board of Public Defense, 499 N.W.2d 39, 42 (Minn. App. 1993).
While consent is an absolute defense to defamation, it arises rarely in practice.
F. Legal Obligation to Publish is an Absolute Defense to Defamation.
If a defendant was legally required to publish the allegedly defamatory statement, they cannot be held liable for defamation. See LaBaron, 499 N.W.2d at 42. Responses to court subpoenas, formal requests for information from government agencies, and the like fall into this category.
E. Consent as a Defense.
"[T]he consent of another to the publication of defamatory matter concerning him is a complete defense to his actions for defamation." RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS �� 583. See also LaBaron v. Board of Public Defense, 499 N.W.2d 39, 42 (Minn. App. 1993).
While consent is an absolute defense to defamation, it arises rarely in practice.
F. Legal Obligation to Publish is an Absolute Defense to Defamation.
If a defendant was legally required to publish the allegedly defamatory statement, they cannot be held liable for defamation. See LaBaron, 499 N.W.2d at 42. Responses to court subpoenas, formal requests for information from government agencies, and the like fall into this category.
G. Privileges Created by Statute may bar Defamation Claims.
Statements made pursuant to privileges created by state or federal statute are protected by a qualified privilege. For examples, Minnesota statute �� 181.933 requires an employer to provide the reasons for discharge to an employee who has been fired, within five working days after a written request. See also the Minnesota Anti-SLAPP statute, Minn. Stat. �� 554.01 et seq., which creates a privilege in statements made in the course of public participation in governmental affairs.
I can always count on you my friends
Here's some interesting reading from google on the direction this topic seems to be headed.
http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/government/
Thou hast dared to question the wisdom of Ma-teeth-son.
Say a few Hail Marys and Our Fathers. Now go my son, and ye repent.
I feel pretty safe
United States
We received a request from a local law enforcement agency to remove a blog because of a post that allegedly defamed a law enforcement official in a personal capacity. We did not comply with this request, which we have categorized in this Report as a defamation request.
We received a request from a local law enforcement agency to remove 1,400 YouTube videos for alleged harassment. We did not comply with this request. Separately, we received a request from a different local law enforcement agency to remove five user accounts that allegedly contained threatening and/or harassing content. We terminated four of the accounts, which resulted in the removal of approximately 300 videos, but did not remove the remaining account with 54 videos.
We received a court order to remove 218 search results that linked to allegedly defamatory websites. We removed 25% of the results cited in the request.
The number of content removal requests we received increased by 103% compared to the previous reporting period.
Ben
I think your posting of 12:00 is going to scare some posters away.
Can we get in trouble by posting here?
THIS CRAZY KENYAN WOMAN IS TRYING TO GET THE CITY TO TEAR DOWN THE NEW PARKING GARAGE AND REDESIGN IT AND START OVER,WHERE IN GODS'NAME WERE THERE THESE HALF-WITS WHEN THE DAUGHTER OF CHAOS BONDED THE REC CENTER AND HAD NO PLACE TO PUT IT?THESE PEOPLE SHOULDN'T EVEN BE PAID ATTENTION TOO.
No the point is it is very safe. Toothy and and others want you to believe it isn't it is John tighe
Let her rant she is a look.I've known it now everyone will know it.
i meant To say loon I am texting this in
I think we are ready for some reporting on the Mayor's Dirty Little Building Permit and the Fiasco at the new garage site...
Best parking garage in the city
The mayor got it done period.You will be against anything he does no matter how good it is for the city and downtown.the bride of Kenya is a puppet and a tool.
So, using the "sleeping citizen" justification to offset the cost of police until 4am, if I am away at work all day and not at my home in Saratoga, why should I have to pay for the police patrolling when I am not home...
You had a great performance today at the council agenda meeting.
Mr Franck really exposed you!!
Take your meds the voices won't be so loud Eileen
Scooped again, just sayin’
Eileen what did the Doctors say about washing your Thorazine down with a six pack? just sayin.
And would someone help the Bride of Kenya fix the flat on her bicycle. I hear she needs it to cover big news stories
No one including Mr Franck's and beans,,, want's to see Eileen or the bride of Kenya EXPOSED Anywhere Anytime,just the thought is discusting......
Thorazine side effects:
Changes in menstrual period; decreased sexual ability; swelling or pain in breasts; unusual secretion of milk; weight gain. (Google, word for word)
Uncontrolled movement of mouth, etc etc
I assume since I don't agree with the author of said blog my comment won't be published but I'll post anyway. First, you(article author) pointed out grammatical errors in Christian Mathiesen's comment to which I saw merely one typo yet there are many grammatical errors throughout your writings. I think it is commendable for an elected public official to check in and listen to what the people have to say and then to actually go further and respond to the illogical rantings of a random blog post. Here in my town we too charge a fee to any establishment that is open after hours that garners a large crowd as a police presence is a must. The county Commissioner realizes that it isn't fair to charge the folks that wouldn't and don't patronize such establishments for the required police presence. The bars can do what ours do and charge an entrance fee of $5. It's not a lot and is more than enough to fund the fee for law enforcement. Should Law Enforcement not be there then crime will happen as it still does to some extent even with the police being there just not as often nor as heinous as it would be. Lastly, I've read through many of your blogs and have noticed that all you do is whine and complain. To me you sound like a sniveling, whining child that needs to grow up. If you are that dissatisfied with the elected public officials in your area then run for office or do something constructive to change the course of things. Christian Mathiesen is a respectable guy who has done a great service to the area. You should appreciate the fact he even took the time to respond to you being it's no secret you have nothing nice to say about him nor anyone else besides maybe yourself. I ask the question, Are you really this dissatisfied or are you looking for your 15 minutes of fame?
Post a Comment