Town Square

Post a New Topic

It is Time for the Dept. of Justice to Clean up Contra Costa

Original post made by Afraid of Mary, another community, on Mar 8, 2012

The constant bullying of citizens by certain politicians needs to stop. People (including myself) have been intimidated by officials. We should not have to fear reprisal from our government. Government officials should not intimidate and insinuate repercussions for merely trying to exercise every citizens rights. Some parts of county government appear to think they are above the law. In fact the law has been extremely patient with them. The time has come where the DOJ needs to step in and make some changes so the everyday citizen can start to feel like an American again.

Comments (8)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by [removed]
a resident of another community
on Mar 9, 2012 at 8:23 am

Dear Editor,

Various governments around the world are jointly pursuing sponsored libel by various blogs and forums with this document as reference:

Web Link

In North America, US Department of Justice has several programs in progress to define laws to apply to bullying on-line and its criminal results. Major on-line corporations and US Department of Justice have programs to define libel laws to apply to authors of defamation and to on-line media that sponsors such defamation. The Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law specifically guides publishers, editors and reporters in their responsibility under libel laws:

REF: Web Link

As your readers further examine attack brutality by town square forum commentators, under pseudonyms, it should be realized that libel created by such defamation, disrespect and misinformation aggregates with Embarcadero Media Corporation, publishers of the Danville Express Town Square Forum. Your readers can get further information by reviewing Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Say What?
a resident of another community
on Mar 9, 2012 at 7:44 pm

Hal, local and state law enforcement has primary oversight on cyber stalking. It's not the Feds as you suggested with your link. If you think the underfunded and overworked US Attorney's office is going to chase down someone because you feel they said mean things about you and your inquiry about a services district seat, then I think you're seriously mistaken.

If you're going to pontificate about the law, you should first familiarize yourself with it. Second you should stop reading all the tripe your "investor friends" are feeding you. They've been pitching that FBI story for 5 years that I know of. You are late to the party.

My guess is they got another "Dr. John" letter from Mr. Johnson at the state DOJ who by this time probably has them pegged as kooks.

For the OP, this door swings both ways. You should not harass and attempt to intimidate public officials, especially if it's done with malice. That happens quite frequently in this forum with people posting innuendo and outright known-to-be falsehoods with intent to harm or defame.

The First Amendment does not grant you free speech to that level.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by AOM
a resident of Blackhawk
on Mar 11, 2012 at 8:54 pm

Comments from corrupt political teams such as Say What's are exactly why the Department of Justice needs to act. Say What's comments are another sample at how that team is laughing at the Dept of Justice. They believe they are untouchable. I'm beggining to also believe it. If they follow that IP address they can easily see the politician these people are connected to further substantiating the crimes they think they are above the law to practice.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Say what?
a resident of another community
on Mar 13, 2012 at 8:46 am

Beg your pardon? Which "political team" are you suggesting I play for, Hal? I hate being the last to know.

All I did was point out that you are talking to or expecting of the wrong people in law enforcement for the concerns you seem to have. Whether your bogus claims have merit is another discussion entirely.

As a FBI field agent told me a few years back, anyone can get on the internet and post false accusations. Some they are obligated to check out. Doesn't mean they take them all seriously.

BTW, Hal, that contact with an agent was because I reached out to understand the first time I heard this FBI/DOJ lie floated. It's no more true now than it was then. Maybe your "investor friend" who seems to like to hit the steroids a lot should cut back on the consumption. Paranoia is a symptom of abuse, if you didn't know.

But you can continue to believe what you like, Sir. Just exercise a little more respect for people who don't blindly buy into your conspiracy theories.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Informed Resident
a resident of another community
on Mar 13, 2012 at 11:24 am

@ Say What,

I was thinking the same thing and agree with you. From reading all of this, all I can see are more accusations about nothing. Apparently there is a little East Co. group who has left quite a trail of deceit and false allegations. It has become a pattern. Not hard to find once you start looking. They have gone from one agency, editor, blog, to another trying to gain support but always fall short. I think common sense tells most people that they aren't getting anywhere for obvious reasons.
You are also correct that the door swings both ways. I don't think any agency or office likes to have their time wasted with false reports or personal vendettas.

I believe this is one more example of their lack of understanding of process and government as a whole.
Too bad that they don't spend more time educating themselves, rather than frustrating themselves.

p.s. @ AOM, I am not a lawyer but falsely accusing someone of a crime, may have it's own consequences.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by [removed]
a resident of another community
on Mar 14, 2012 at 2:52 pm

Dear Editor,

Various investigators and researchers related to review of on-line bullying and defamation have been circulating various published information on the subject:

REF: Web Link

This review provides your readers definition of the scope of the issues involved in determining the application of libel laws. It is particularly informative in application to political campaigns as is cause of much abuse from all sides on the town square forum. Let us ask your readers, and town square forum commentators, to review this reference and determine what is appropriate to appear under your goals for the town square forum as "a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Informed Resident
a resident of another community
on Mar 14, 2012 at 3:13 pm

Hal,

Thanks for the link-however I am not sure it applies. Your definitions of bullying and defamation appear to be limited to your own personal dictionary that I find listed under hypocrisy. While we are all entitled to our opinions we are not entitled to our own facts. This is what forums are all about.

In the meantime, believe the majority of us can tell the difference between an apple and an orange.

Keyword; majority.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Say what?
a resident of another community
on Mar 14, 2012 at 4:09 pm

Thanks for the link, Hal. Always love it when you provide the tools with which I can show both your folly and your hypocrisy. You save me the search time.

For example, the paragraph below from your link could be applied to any number of yours or ECW's posts and you wouldn't have a leg to stand on in a court case.

So tell your friends to be a little careful with those wild DOJ stories. Because an investigation would probably leave the agent scratching their heads for just who is the perpetrator of civil rights violations or libel.

"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 might 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."

Read again Informed's earlier links to Dunning-Kruger Effect. There's a message there for you which you are obviously not comprehending.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Prop 46: Two Bridges Too Far
By Tom Cushing | 22 comments | 2,078 views

The valley loses a distinguished and humble leader
By Tim Hunt | 3 comments | 1,380 views

My secret identity is revealed!
By Roz Rogoff | 2 comments | 1,138 views