Lakewood's Mayor Summers Hosts Community Discussion

[Brian Essi]

First of all, a terminology reminder: Again, regarding whatever alleged City Hall "lies" that some people believe to have happened, none of that has thus far been proven in a criminal court of law, at least to my knowledge.

Mr. Rice:

There is such a thing as objective fact.

If you wish to be technical about the use of the word lie, so be it, but do make it clear that you object to all use of the word outside of hypothetical discussion. If one stands on the full definition of "an untrue statement made with intent to deceive" then, given the impossibility of ever knowing another person's intent with certainty, this requires dispensing with practical use of the word entirely. Not even a court of law can determine with certainty what any individual intended.

Besides this, however, there are such things as facts, and there are occasions when persons persistently make statements that contravene objective facts even after presented with evidence of this. Whether or not this deserves to be called lying, it is certainly wrong, and harmful. It would be very dangerous if the determination of when this takes place was deferred to courts. If we could not ever identify objective fact, and point out statements that are contrary to objective fact, without a court's judgment, we would find ourselves in dire straits. (Fact-checking projects like Politifact regularly identify statements as true, and false, without their judgments being "proven in a criminal court of law." Would you insist on a blanket application of scare quotes to all of their findings?)

Officials at Lakewood City Hall and associates thereof have promoted a number of objectively false statements, and misleading statements, as participants in this forum have been demonstrating for years. (As a regular visitor you should be perfectly well aware of examples.) To refer airily to "alleged City Hall 'lies' that some people believe to have happened," after people have volunteered so much time and expertise in the pursuit of accurate information, seems to stray far beyond semantic criticism. As a semi-professional journalist and historian, I am aghast at the implied dismissal of objective realities as mere differences of opinion.

Fairness recognizes facts and asserts them consistently. Reducing facts to "points of view" is not fairness, but obscurantism.

Mr. Kuhns,

As always, you have provided an objective explanation facts in play---people at City Hall are on record repeatedly saying things that fit the definition of "lies".

Mr. Rice,

It is true that there are no criminal cases pending at this time, so none of the lies have been proven in a criminal case.

I recently signed a sworn statement in Skindell v. Madigan (a civil matter) verifying facts and public records that point to the sworn testimony of Mr. O'Leary on December 21, 2015 as being, at best, misleading and potentially false. Here is what was filed in Court:

Affidavit of Brian Essi filed in Court.pdf

(1.56 MiB) Downloaded 109 times

Mr. O'Leary and his attorney, Mr. Butler, sought to strike my affidavit for various reasons, but Mr. O'Leary (and Mr. Butler) did not offer any testimony countering the facts I testified to despite ample opportunity to do so. The facts in my affidavit stand unchallenged, because, they are documented facts.

Among Mr. O’Leary's sworn statements under oath on December 21, 2015 was that “[t]he agreement that was announced on December 7th did not exist when it was announced and, therefore, it is correct to say the council had not deliberated on the definitive agreement that wasn’t in existence yet, absolutely.”

Compare that sworn statement to Mr. O'Leary's statement at the April 6, 2015 COW:O’Leary: “It seems to me that it could save a lot of time in this process if rather than going into extraordinary detail discussing a letter of intent which contemplates an agreement that’s in fact already in existence if we were to just sit down with the agreement that’s already in existence and start to analyze that as a starting point.”

So, it is an established fact that the agreement was in existence.

Keep in mind that public records attached to my affidavit that point to Mr. O'Leary's testimony as being potentially false were authored by Mr. Butler and written to Mr. O'Leary concerning the existence of the agreement. Add to that that Mr. Butler withheld these public records from me for nearly 10 months and only produced them months after the Skindell case was dismissed and only after I filed a lawsuit to get them.

The question I have for any of you is:

Was Mr. O'Leary's sworn statement a "lie"?

[Gary Rice]

Thanks Brian,

Normally, I don't view thread drift as being a desirable thing, but I think that this discussion has developed into a really interesting conversation.

What indeed is a "lie", and how legally important is a lie committed casually on the street as opposed to in a courtroom?

Wasn't it Pilate who asked Jesus, "What is Truth"?


Could it also be said that all of us are capable of being liars, but that some of us lie truthfully?

Have to chuckle a bit, even though this is serious stuff being discussed here.


Back to the banjo...

[m buckley]

First of all, a terminology reminder: Again, regarding whatever alleged City Hall "lies" that some people believe to have happened, none of that has thus far been proven in a criminal court of law, at least to my knowledge.

Mr. Rice:

There is such a thing as objective fact.

If you wish to be technical about the use of the word lie, so be it, but do make it clear that you object to all use of the word outside of hypothetical discussion. If one stands on the full definition of "an untrue statement made with intent to deceive" then, given the impossibility of ever knowing another person's intent with certainty, this requires dispensing with practical use of the word entirely. Not even a court of law can determine with certainty what any individual intended.

Besides this, however, there are such things as facts, and there are occasions when persons persistently make statements that contravene objective facts even after presented with evidence of this. Whether or not this deserves to be called lying, it is certainly wrong, and harmful. It would be very dangerous if the determination of when this takes place was deferred to courts. If we could not ever identify objective fact, and point out statements that are contrary to objective fact, without a court's judgment, we would find ourselves in dire straits. (Fact-checking projects like Politifact regularly identify statements as true, and false, without their judgments being "proven in a criminal court of law." Would you insist on a blanket application of scare quotes to all of their findings?)

Officials at Lakewood City Hall and associates thereof have promoted a number of objectively false statements, and misleading statements, as participants in this forum have been demonstrating for years. (As a regular visitor you should be perfectly well aware of examples.) To refer airily to "alleged City Hall 'lies' that some people believe to have happened," after people have volunteered so much time and expertise in the pursuit of accurate information, seems to stray far beyond semantic criticism. As a semi-professional journalist and historian, I am aghast at the implied dismissal of objective realities as mere differences of opinion.

Fairness recognizes facts and asserts them consistently. Reducing facts to "points of view" is not fairness, but obscurantism.

Mr. Kuhns,
Thank you for your thoughtful response.

[Lori Allen _]

Summers and Company are alleged criminals and thieves. Sometimes it becomes difficult to explain this in the simplest terms for the Mayor Deck watchers that have been been out in full force.

It is rumored that Summers and Company are panicking. When you constantly lie to cover up other lies, you forget what the original lie was! Mr. Summers, you have begun to get your lies mixed up!