Summersgate 1 Summers Hired BL Crony Convicted of Harrassment Involving Anti-Semitic and Bizarre Sexual Content Mailings

[Dan Alaimo]

The other conclusion a reasonable person might reach is that there is probably more to come as this sorry saga unfolds.
For instance, did this person do any city work as a building inspector, and if so, what buildings did he inspect, and did anybody on the enemies list get targeted. The vast majority of buildings in Lakewood are old, and it's probably easy to find code violations to write up.

[Lori Allen _]

Dan,
The majority of the apartment buildings in Lakewood have not been inspected in years. Some of them have certificates that show their last inspections as being in 1995! I must assume then that this person was not busy at work checking out the apartment buildings. You are correct, there is much more to come in regards to the city!

[Dan Alaimo]

Dan,
The majority of the apartment buildings in Lakewood have not been inspected in years. Some of them have certificates that show their last inspections as being in 1995! I must assume then that this person was not busy at work checking out the apartment buildings. You are correct, there is much more to come in regards to the city!

There has to be more. I doubt Build Lakewood had much interest in inspecting apartment buildings.

[Brian Essi]

There is much more. Dru Siley, Colin McEwen and Rick Uldricks were all at the first meeting of Build Lakewood that I attended in the cellar of Mahal's bar. According to Colin's employee, it was an "city hall function" ---they formed a PAC of lies with Jay Carson later surfacing as an officer. The came out of the gate with a lie--i.e. that the new CCF transfer station was a "hospital"--it is not. Right after the meeting Uldricks was scary--he got in my face with personal attacks on Jim O'Bryan trying suggesting that I was part of so conspiracy and I had to stop Jim. Huh? Siley had to calm him down.

Jay Carson later claimed that I and others were trying to shut down free speech and initimidate others on the very day when a Build Lakewood founding member and elected leader (Beebe) was the second of 9 BLers to file a police reports against me in an effort to intimidate me for exercising my right of free speech. Carson's law firm (Build Lakewood's lawyer in a court filing) continues that effort in a bogus lawsuit designed to initimidate more people. Their stooge continues those intimidation efforts recently threatening me and other Deck posters with criminal prosecution.

Welcome to the Republic of Lakewood!

The full story is developing slowly--it will take time to tell. Nobody should be fooled by the transparent and feeble efforts of Summers and those who are desperate to hide the truth with smoke screens of bogus accusations that have no basis in law or fact.

[m buckley]

There is much more. Dru Siley, Colin McEwen and Rick Uldricks were all at the first meeting of Build Lakewood that I attended in the cellar of Mahal's bar. According to Colin's employee, it was an "city hall function" ---they formed a PAC of lies with Jay Carson later surfacing as an officer. The came out of the gate with a lie--i.e. that the new CCF transfer station was a "hospital"--it is not. Right after the meeting Uldricks was scary--he got in my face with personal attacks on Jim O'Bryan trying suggesting that I was part of so conspiracy and I had to stop Jim. Huh? Siley had to calm him down.

Jay Carson later claimed that I and others were trying to shut down free speech and initimidate others on the very day when a Build Lakewood founding member and elected leader (Beebe) was the second of 9 BLers to file a police reports against me in an effort to intimidate me for exercising my right of free speech. Carson's law firm (Build Lakewood's lawyer in a court filing) continues that effort in a bogus lawsuit designed to initimidate more people. Their stooge continues those intimidation efforts recently threatening me and other Deck posters with criminal prosecution.

Welcome to the Republic of Lakewood!

The full story is developing slowly--it will take time to tell. Nobody should be fooled by the transparent and feeble efforts of Summers and those who are desperate to hide the truth with smoke screens of bogus accusations that have no basis in law or fact.

Mr. Essi," I've done got old" and I'm trying to keep my scorecard straight. Is that Linda Beebe from the Board of Education you're referencing who filed a police report on you?
If so, what a great teaching moment this is for all the aspiring politicians attending civics class at Lakewood High. Ms. Beebe from the Board of Ed. offering up a Master Class in the suppression of free speech. That's Realpolitik, kids. Lakewood Style.
Mr. Essi, I would find it helpful if you would list the other 8 of "The Lakewood 9".

[Brian Essi]

There is much more. Dru Siley, Colin McEwen and Rick Uldricks were all at the first meeting of Build Lakewood that I attended in the cellar of Mahal's bar. According to Colin's employee, it was an "city hall function" ---they formed a PAC of lies with Jay Carson later surfacing as an officer. The came out of the gate with a lie--i.e. that the new CCF transfer station was a "hospital"--it is not. Right after the meeting Uldricks was scary--he got in my face with personal attacks on Jim O'Bryan trying suggesting that I was part of so conspiracy and I had to stop Jim. Huh? Siley had to calm him down.

Jay Carson later claimed that I and others were trying to shut down free speech and initimidate others on the very day when a Build Lakewood founding member and elected leader (Beebe) was the second of 9 BLers to file a police reports against me in an effort to intimidate me for exercising my right of free speech. Carson's law firm (Build Lakewood's lawyer in a court filing) continues that effort in a bogus lawsuit designed to initimidate more people. Their stooge continues those intimidation efforts recently threatening me and other Deck posters with criminal prosecution.

Welcome to the Republic of Lakewood!

The full story is developing slowly--it will take time to tell. Nobody should be fooled by the transparent and feeble efforts of Summers and those who are desperate to hide the truth with smoke screens of bogus accusations that have no basis in law or fact.

Mr. Essi," I've done got old" and I'm trying to keep my scorecard straight. Is that Linda Beebe from the Board of Education you're referencing who filed a police report on you?
If so, what a great teaching moment this is for all the aspiring politicians attending civics class at Lakewood High. Ms. Beebe from the Board of Ed. offering up a Master Class in the suppression of free speech. That's Realpolitik, kids. Lakewood Style.
Mr. Essi, I would find it helpful if you would list the other 8 of "The Lakewood 9".

Summers testified that he and Beebe discussed.

May E Osbourne--friend of Summers and based upon information, a former CCF nurse ombudsman
Kathy Haber--wife of Ken Haber-friend of Summers--LHA board member
David Stein--Plantation owner--Never denied he was a landscape designer.
William J. Gaydos
Jack F. Palomaki--Retired CCF doctor--who led meeting encouraging other BLers to file police complaint
Anne H. Palomaki
Yvonne Egerston
Joel Egerston--Did not know that Lakewood Hospital paid $2M in rent and taxes and $7M charity annually--Stood with "mature" BL women who got in may chanting "Essi's a liar, Essi's a liar" who also later claimed to be "intimidated" by me.

There were also two others from Ward 2 that were not identified by name and not added to the report.

Then Council President Madigan admitted contacting the police and did not credibly deny that she was at the meeting the Dr. Palomaki "led".

The desire to "intimidate" was apparently so widespread that Jim Kenny's neighbor (not a BL member) encouraged him to file a report as well.

The "intimidation" efforts of 11 people were aligned with Summers and his employee convicted of "hateful" mailings who was a member of their clan.

Again, the city hall Human Resource Director, Yousefi, wrote the the city employee made mailings to Lakewood residents meant to "intimidate."

[Brian Essi]

Lakewood Voters for Progress Chairman Jay Carson admitted in a police interview that the Police Investigation of his client's mailing postcard "meant to intimidate" was related to a lawsuit Carson and his client were planning at the time of the interview. So at the time of the taped confession by his client, Carson's client was a Summers employee and they were preparing a lawsuit based upon "conspiracy theories" that was related to Summers' employee's mailings to Summers' critics during a political campaign last year that Carson also played a leadership role in.

So conflicted and embattled Carson now heads a rebranded political campaign with Summers (LVFP), while he is behind the lawsuit against Summers' lead, JOB,--a lawsuit Carson says is related to conduct against citizens that the Police Detective said was similar to the Richmond Heights conduct (mentioned above) for which the client was previously convicted.

And Carson's client is promoting Carson's and Summers' political campaign (see below).

"Kick Off" for the rebranded PAC of lies is tonight! Stay tuned...

IMG_1003.JPG (1.6 MiB) Viewed 4312 times

[Bridget Conant]

If it is true that Jay Carson told the police he was working on a lawsuit against Jim and the Observer, why isn't he one of the plaintiff's attorney of record?

[Bridget Conant]

Also, did he ever hear of the "Streisand Effect?"

[Brian Essi]

Also, did he ever hear of the "Streisand Effect?"

Carson+Uldricks=Streisand


WIKI: "The Streisand effect is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet."

From the Economist:

"Named after the American singer and actress Barbra Streisand, the Streisand Effect describes how efforts to suppress a juicy piece of online information can backfire and end up making things worse for the would-be censor. Ms Streisand inadvertently gave her name to the phenomenon in 2003, when she sued the California Coastal Records Project, which maintains an online photographic archive of almost the entire California coastline, on the grounds that its pictures included shots of her cliffside Malibu mansion, and thus invaded her privacy.

That raised hackles online. The internet's history is steeped in West Coast cyber-libertariansim, and Ms Streisand (herself generally sympathetic to the liberal left) was scorned for what was seen as a frivolous suit that was harmful to freedom of speech. As the links proliferated, thousands of people saw the pictures of Ms Streisand's house—far more than would otherwise ever have bothered to browse through the CCRP's archives. By the time a judge eventually threw the suit out, Ms Streisand's privacy had been far more thoroughly compromised than it would have been had she and her lawyers left the CCRP alone." http://www.economist.com/blogs/economis ... and-effect

[Bridget Conant]

But the lawyer can dramatically magnify the client’s reputation problem by using those tools carelessly. The internet has a distinct culture, and part of that culture is an ingrained hostility to anything perceived as censorship. The result is called the “Streisand Effect” — the tendency of legal threats against online content to draw many more eyes to that content. It’s named after Barbra Streisand, whose legal threats designed to suppress online pictures of her home led to hundreds of thousands of people seeing those pictures. Bumptious legal threats are a popular topic of discussion online, and many blogs cover them gleefully. An ill-considered legal threat can expose a client to widespread humiliation and lead to many more people viewing the content the client is mad about.

Know your free speech law. Meritless legal claims are much more likely to trigger the Streisand Effect and expose your client to ridicule.

Don’t threaten a site based on criticism of your client unless you have a firm grasp of the distinction between false statements of fact (which may be defamatory) and mere insults, hyperbole, and opinion based on disclosed facts (which are protected by the First Amendment).... The more wrong about the law you are, the more likely your threat is to go viral.
A competent lawyer should look into the target site and weigh risks and rewards accordingly. Moreover, whether a statement is defamatory may turn on the nature of the site. Whether a statement is taken as one of fact (and therefore potentially defamatory) or parody and satire (and therefore protected) turns on how an audience familiar with the speaker would interpret it.

A lawyer unfamiliar with the culture can be as dangerous as a lawyer unfamiliar with the facts or the law. Make sure you know what you’re doing before you make a takedown demand on behalf of a client.

Words of wisdom from Ken White, known as Popehat, free speech expert extraordinaire, graduate of Stanford and Harvard Law.

http://brownwhitelaw.com/dont-make-it-w ... nd-effect/

[cmager]

The "Streisand Effect?"

I didn't know that the Streisand Effect was a thing. The Deck and its denizens are a marvelous fount of knowledge.

[Bridget Conant]

Yes. A good and competent lawyer will typically dissuade a client from filing a defamation suit, IF the purpose is to minimize their reputational harm, because the result is most often MORE publicity and MORE people who learn about the issue, the opposite of the intended effect!

However, not all defamation suits are what they seem. As I have posted before, a lot of them are not really about defamation, they are merely attempts to silence critics and burden them with consuming litigation.

[Brian Essi]

But the lawyer can dramatically magnify the client’s reputation problem by using those tools carelessly. The internet has a distinct culture, and part of that culture is an ingrained hostility to anything perceived as censorship. The result is called the “Streisand Effect” — the tendency of legal threats against online content to draw many more eyes to that content. It’s named after Barbra Streisand, whose legal threats designed to suppress online pictures of her home led to hundreds of thousands of people seeing those pictures. Bumptious legal threats are a popular topic of discussion online, and many blogs cover them gleefully. An ill-considered legal threat can expose a client to widespread humiliation and lead to many more people viewing the content the client is mad about.

Know your free speech law. Meritless legal claims are much more likely to trigger the Streisand Effect and expose your client to ridicule.

Don’t threaten a site based on criticism of your client unless you have a firm grasp of the distinction between false statements of fact (which may be defamatory) and mere insults, hyperbole, and opinion based on disclosed facts (which are protected by the First Amendment).... The more wrong about the law you are, the more likely your threat is to go viral.
A competent lawyer should look into the target site and weigh risks and rewards accordingly. Moreover, whether a statement is defamatory may turn on the nature of the site. Whether a statement is taken as one of fact (and therefore potentially defamatory) or parody and satire (and therefore protected) turns on how an audience familiar with the speaker would interpret it.

A lawyer unfamiliar with the culture can be as dangerous as a lawyer unfamiliar with the facts or the law. Make sure you know what you’re doing before you make a takedown demand on behalf of a client.

Words of wisdom from Ken White, known as Popehat, free speech expert extraordinaire, graduate of Stanford and Harvard Law.

http://brownwhitelaw.com/dont-make-it-w ... nd-effect/

It appears Carson and his Wegman, Hessler & Vanderburg law firm colleague Angela M. Lavin, Esq. are fools for representing someone who promoted and continues to promote Carson's personal dishonest political agenda.

Public records show that before they filed their Streisand effect law suit, Lavin obtained the police report (that mentioned Carson) and employment file of the political operative client.

So they started a lawsuit on behalf of a client that Carson represented in a police investigation concerning postcards "meant to intimidate" political opponents of Carson and Summers.

During that Police investigation, the Police detective told Carson that the conduct of the client under investigation was similar to the client's previous conviction for bad behavior.

Carson and the client under investigation (who was a Summers city hall employee and campaign operative at the time) told the police detective that they had been planning their politically motivated and bogus lawsuit since 2015 and they conceded the lawsuit was related to the police investigation. Carson and the client repeatedly conceded that the conduct that was the subject of the lawsuit was "silly."

So now, Carson, Lavin and the Wegman, Hessler & Vanderburg law firm are pursuing a "silly" Streisand Effect lawsuit.

Funny Girl stuff:

https://youtu.be/CgPz9PswkoU?t=17s

[Bridget Conant]

Ohio courts are not timid when it comes to sanctioning attornies for not only frivolous lawsuits, but for trying to delay proceedings, move cases to other court jurisdictions, or otherwise trying to impede the fair application of law.

Parties to the suit may be forced to pay the other party's attorney fees, as well.

Happens a lot.