The Observation Deck

That is wonderful news!

Stephen Eisel wrote:

LOL... yes this horse has been glue for some time now.

J Hrlec wrote:

Stephen Eisel wrote:----dead horse video-----

LOL... yes this horse has been glue for some time now.

Kevin Butler wrote:Mr. Juris' initial information report was assigned for investigation once the report was made and is being actively investigated by the Lakewood Police.

Kevin Butler
Law Director

Yes, understood. But without this so called horse-beating, would we have had our Law Director feel the need to put his professional reputation on the line and make a statement on record to concerned citizens? And would it actually have been investigated with an intention toward the truth of the matter rather than some under rug sweeping?

I think it helps keep the process above board that so many citizens and voters here are watching this matter with such intense seriousness.

And let's not forget that the horse will not actually be dead until we have some indication that wrongs are righted, or at least that all serious effort has been made toward that end.

Calling it "dead" any time before then is just saying all this is just sound and fury signifying nothing, which it is not. Many people just want action pure and simple, and there was no real indication that there was any happening at all, before Mr. Butler came on this thread this morning at 10 AM.

- NOW - I think we can sit back for a bit and see what this "action" really amounts to. Will it be investigated with some seriousness without further if-only-it-were-dead horse beating required of us? Let's see.

"Flogging a dead horse (alternatively beating a dead horse in some parts of the Anglophone world) is an idiom that means a particular request or line of conversation is already foreclosed or otherwise resolved, and any attempt to continue it is futile; or that to continue in any endeavour (physical, mental, etc.) is a waste of time as the outcome is already decided."

I fail to see how this describes what is transpiring.

Would someone from the perspective of "this is no big deal" please explain their thinking here? I don't understand and haven't seen anything to help me other than a witty retort or cute video. Perhaps you could quote the email and tell me why that being said/written by any politician at any level from any party at any time and in any place could be thought of as no big deal and/or why the citizens demanding action can be accurately described as beating a dead horse before any official confirmation of action? Or if said politician were being attacked or framed or his systems compromised by the media or an enemy? It might be beating a dead horse for me to mention that I have no... um, horse in this race. I can see how the councilman's detractors would like to see this go against him, but I can also see how his supporters should theoretically be demanding an investigation as well to prove his innocence (which is of course assumed legally until shown otherwise) and find the perpetrator.

The reply from Law Director Butler indicates that this matter is definitely and officially in the proper channel.

Now, the report of the investigation will have to stand the test of logic and the concurrent application of the investigative results to the law. And, this will have to be totally understandable to all in order for this report to have integrity.

My experience in this year's Police Academy has reinforced my confidence in the abilities of the Lakewood Police Department.

I expect my confidences to be continued.

Stan Austin

There's an old song "I didn't know the gun was loaded, I'm so sorry my dear."

Egxacely.

Jeff Dreger wrote:Would someone from the perspective of "this is no big deal" please explain their thinking here? I don't understand and haven't seen anything to help me other than a witty retort or cute video.

Given the gestures themselves together with their content, their meaning is something to the effect that the transgression (whichever?) is being blown out of proportion, driven by an inflated (manipulated?) sense of panic and the age-old impulse to channel our violence toward a scapegoat.

The communication has a component of ridicule, possibly "good natured" ridicule (as in "c'mon!"), perhaps in order to stimulate genuine self-reflection, or more possibly only to demonstrate the communicator's superior perspective (and nothing more).

Translation (??): “This thread is stupid and spiteful, and I remain in this discussion only to point this out, in a cryptic fashion. I, by comparison, am demonstrably smart and just.”

But they are really cute videos, aren't they?

I only pop in now and then because I used to live in Lakewood as a kid. Observing this thread is very interesting…if perhaps disturbing. I had some time, so I decided to unpack some of this as not just a single event, but several.

Full disclosure: I've known O'Bryan over the course of 45 years on and off. He's an old friend, but I have not talked with him about this. I know he is passionate about Lakewood and has added a lot of value.

I don't know Shawn Juris from Adam.

Here's what I've observed...

Wed Jun 20, 2012 (5:41 am)
Jim O'Bryan starts a posting called: Question For Councilman Juris While He Is Around = http://tinyurl.com/cvmubj4
(I found this to be a very weird title especially once I read the contents, which are sarcastic, and kinda disrespectful. What does "While He's Around" mean? Is Juris supposed to be going away? If I was a fellow businessman and council-person in Lakewood, I think I would want to address the publisher of the Observer and ask him what this type of aggression is trying to prove? It would be a simple question as Jim O'Bryan is fond of saying. I would want to understand if the posting was treading a fine line between first amendment speech and slander/harassment? Yes, I understand that citizens want to know the price of things, but I did not know that berating a councilman in public was the most appropriate or effective method of operation. Yes, I've heard all the justification that the deck is rough and tumble and noble and transparent and good and righteous, etc. But the personal attacks don't seem to be about ideas or agreeing to disagree.

Wed., June 20th (between 4:16 - 9:19pm)
10 hours later that same day—Shawn Juris creates a posting called Next Board Meeting and asks to address the LO Board.
Various exchanges between Stephen Davis, Jim O'Bryan, Corey Rosen and Gary Rice (ombudsman banjo player). Jim O'Bryan asks for Shawn's email address (even though the LO has a private message function) and says he'll put together a meeting and will copy Shawn.

Thurs., June 21st (9:05am)
Next morning—Juris responds (to Gary's post) publicly and matches Jim's sarcastic tone, questioning the forum's reason for being, mission statement– and then publishes his business email for all to see in public. It is clear that he's leaving the idea of a meeting open ended, but it sounded like he basically stated what his concerns were—and they seemed to be related to the the Publisher's (Jim O'Bryan) aggressive approach. Juris ended that note with: "Just curious. Thanks. My email is shawn@thejurisagency.com if the board would like me to "stop by". I thought that the meetings were open but maybe I was thinking of the advisory committee or something else completely."

Thurs., June 21st (6:03pm)
9 hours later that same day—An email purportedly from Shawn Juris arrives in Stephen Davis email account. The note is to Stephen but the tone does not match the previous communication from Juris posted 9 hours earlier on the Deck. In fact it does not sound like Juris at all, let alone in a format (email) that is so readily saved and redistributed. Juris had already made his rant, why would he do it privately to Stephen?

Mon., June 25th (10:06am)
Stephen has waited 4 days— and then creates a post called "Unacceptable behavior," by councilman Shawn Juris—and publishes the screen shot of the email that landed in his in-box from a Shawn Juris email address.

Mon Jun 25, 2012 (1:00 pm)
3 hours later, Jim O'Bryan continues on the "Still Around" thread, taunting Juris about providing O'Bryan the cost to taxpayers of Detroit Ave, cleanup project, sarcastically ending with "you were busy doing other things"—evidently inferring the email screen published 3 hours earlier on the deck.

Mon Jun 25, 2012 (2:04 pm)
Juris vehemently denies sending the email and asks that the Observer correct the false allegation.

Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:51 am
5 days later—Stephen posts the only other comment from his initial allegation (for a total of 2 comments) "To update all interested parties, I want it known that I went to the Lakewood Police Department, on my own volition, to offer any and all evidence related to the Shawn Juris e-mail for their investigation. It is now in their hands.

Steve
-----------------
Back to the email:
There was/is obvious animosity between O'Bryan and Juris. But what I find very odd, is why Juris would write to Stephen to say something as scripted as "Jim O'Bryan has to go?" or the use of the word "shenanigans?" Wouldn't he have said harassment instead, like he did on the public post 9 hours earlier? Didn't he sufficiently get his issue off his chest, without an over-the-top statement like "I will use the full force and power of my position?" Does anybody else find that incredibly scripted? I don't know him, but it sounds like he would not be that stupid if he managed to become a councilman and run an insurance business (which for those not familiar with insurance, it is a VERY risk averse business).

BTW—How did Juris get Stephen's email address? It's redacted on the screen shot. It is not listed as Member Information on the LO deck…so how did Juris decide to write to Stephen, if he'd never written him before and getting the address would have required quite a bit of research, or asking around for verification as to the validity of a real address? Again, he could have more easily written an LO private Message, if he felt he just HAD to send a message to Stephen.

As for the email being hacked/created, there are a number of things that could create it. Going to the police station to offer evidence is noble, however a real digital forensic examination will need to be done on site at Stephen's and or Shawn's machine and may involve the ISP log files—and going to the ISP would require probable cause. Forwarding the email to the authorities, may provide many of the long header info needed for examining IP and other tell-tales.

This has been very interesting to observe. I'm not defending anybody or accusing anybody. Enough of that already happened. I am surprised at the aggressive tone, but I know it's easy to get swept up in the emotions of the "mob." Have done it myself here on the deck. The fact that the Juris email address was made publicly available, did not help—and may well have inspired someone in the audience to create a phony scenario to make Juris look bad. He said he didn't do it. Until it's proven otherwise, folks may want to consider that the email was an anonymous fake.

AT&T/Yahoo has an interesting "feature" called disposable email addresses. —"With att.net Mail, you can create disposable addresses to use whenever you don't want to share your real att.net Mail address."
I have Yahoo mail, so I played around with it a little and it seemed like I could put in any address as a "from." As some early posts suggested, I think it's easier than many think to pose as an identity. I'll have to watch this thread to see what comes of the investigation.

.

you, sir, are colombo.

Dustin James wrote: Wed Jun 20, 2012 (5:41 am)
Jim O'Bryan starts a posting called: Question For Councilman Juris While He Is Around = http://tinyurl.com/cvmubj4
(I found this to be a very weird title especially once I read the contents, which are sarcastic, and kinda disrespectful. What does "While He's Around" mean? Is Juris supposed to be going away?

Mr. Juris hadn’t been on the deck for a few months, gone most of April, all of May and well into June, after being consistently very active in all the weeks and months before. I believe Jim was referring to this absence, as in “let’s get some answers while here’s around HERE”.

Dustin James wrote:If I was a fellow businessman and council-person in Lakewood, I think I would want to address the publisher of the Observer and ask him what this type of aggression is trying to prove? It would be a simple question as Jim O'Bryan is fond of saying. I would want to understand if the posting was treading a fine line between first amendment speech and slander/harassment?

Yes, Jim’s aggressive, but it wouldn’t amount to harassment by anyone’s measure that I know. Mr. Juris wasn’t in fact answering a simple question, and slander would only applicable if that were untrue.

Dustin James wrote: Wed., June 20th (between 4:16 - 9:19pm)
10 hours later that same day—Shawn Juris creates a posting called Next Board Meeting and asks to address the LO Board.
Various exchanges between Stephen Davis, Jim O'Bryan, Corey Rosen and Gary Rice (ombudsman banjo player). Jim O'Bryan asks for Shawn's email address (even though the LO has a private message function) and says he'll put together a meeting and will copy Shawn.

LO’s Private Message system is not set up to send to multiple recipients or to “cc”.

Dustin James wrote: Thurs., June 21st (9:05am)
Next morning—Juris responds (to Gary's post) publicly and matches Jim's sarcastic tone, questioning the forum's reason for being, mission statement– and then publishes his business email for all to see in public. It is clear that he's leaving the idea of a meeting open ended, but it sounded like he basically stated what his concerns were—and they seemed to be related to the the Publisher's (Jim O'Bryan) aggressive approach. Juris ended that note with: "Just curious. Thanks. My email is shawn@thejurisagency.com if the board would like me to "stop by". I thought that the meetings were open but maybe I was thinking of the advisory committee or something else completely."

Thurs., June 21st (6:03pm)
9 hours later that same day—An email purportedly from Shawn Juris arrives in Stephen Davis email account. The note is to Stephen but the tone does not match the previous communication from Juris posted 9 hours earlier on the Deck. In fact it does not sound like Juris at all, let alone in a format (email) that is so readily saved and redistributed. Juris had already made his rant, why would he do it privately to Stephen?

You’re making it sound like there was nothing of note going on between 9:05 am the 21st and 6:03 pm. This is NOT THE CASE at all: Jim called out Mr. Juris 28 minutes after Shawn’s post about coming to the meeting and leaving his email address (Jim: “No matter I went ahead and contacted members of the Board with a suggestion that we would allow you to speak first, and for as long as you wish, and ask any follow up question you would like. Which is far more than you and council are willing to do for the tax payers and residents of Lakewood that show up at council meetings.”

Then later Steve Davis wrote a post addressing Mr. Juris implying he wasn’t using the Deck to his own advantage, by not being forthcoming and helpful, compared to say, Kevin Butler.

Then, later same day, addressing Gary Rice, Jim takes a shot at Mr. Juris implying he’s not a master of the Deck forum form in the way of “Ed FitzGerald, Kevin Butler, or one of the true masters of this format, Matt Markling”. Jim shenanigans? I think so.

This was ALL before the infamous email.

Dustin James wrote: Mon., June 25th (10:06am)
Stephen has waited 4 days— and then creates a post called "Unacceptable behavior," by councilman Shawn Juris—and publishes the screen shot of the email that landed in his in-box from a Shawn Juris email address.

The implication here is that it should have been an easy, quick decision, to make big waves in this small pond of Lakewood. It don’t think it was easy for him at all. This is the kind of place where people of a certain echelon close ranks against you if you cause problems for certain groups.

Dustin James wrote: Mon Jun 25, 2012 (1:00 pm)
3 hours later, Jim O'Bryan continues on the "Still Around" thread, taunting Juris about providing O'Bryan the cost to taxpayers of Detroit Ave, cleanup project, sarcastically ending with "you were busy doing other things"—evidently inferring the email screen published 3 hours earlier on the deck.

Yes, yes, we all know how Jim can be, he goads.

Dustin James wrote: Mon Jun 25, 2012 (2:04 pm)
Juris vehemently denies sending the email and asks that the Observer correct the false allegation.

Not exactly. Mr. Juris claimed someone had tampered with this “business [email] account”, and wanted the Observer to retract/correct in light of this claim.

Dustin James wrote: Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:51 am
5 days later—Stephen posts the only other comment from his initial allegation (for a total of 2 comments) "To update all interested parties, I want it known that I went to the Lakewood Police Department, on my own volition, to offer any and all evidence related to the Shawn Juris e-mail for their investigation. It is now in their hands.

Again, I don’t think this was easy, as escalation is more for certain personality types. I think he was responding finally (both in posting and in going to the police) to the many passionate calls for action on the part of the thread’s participants, and I think by this point he wished he’d kept the whole thing to himself.

Dustin James wrote: Back to the email:
But what I find very odd, is why Juris would write to Stephen to say something as scripted as "Jim O'Bryan has to go?" or the use of the word "shenanigans?" Wouldn't he have said harassment instead, like he did on the public post 9 hours earlier? Didn't he sufficiently get his issue off his chest, without an over-the-top statement like "I will use the full force and power of my position?" Does anybody else find that incredibly scripted? I don't know him, but it sounds like he would not be that stupid if he managed to become a councilman and run an insurance business (which for those not familiar with insurance, it is a VERY risk averse business).

It actually doesn’t sound particularly scripted to me, the word “shenanigans” is exactly what many would apply to Jim and his modus, and I don’t think Shawn did get it off his chest at all. As I indicated, there were more postings involving Jim, Shawn and Steve between the ones you quote. Richard Nixon (I know! I’ll tape everything, nothing can touch me) Bill Clinton (I’ll play word games with a grand jury, that'll work), Jimmy Dimora (I only do what any pubic servant would do, nothing wrong with it) and countless others far more credentialed and seasoned in business and politics have made far more extreme mistakes. I don’t believe Shawn felt he was risking anything, more like it was felt to be within his right (though this is actually not).

Dustin James wrote: BTW—How did Juris get Stephen's email address? It's redacted on the screen shot. It is not listed as Member Information on the LO deck…so how did Juris decide to write to Stephen, if he'd never written him before and getting the address would have required quite a bit of research, or asking around for verification as to the validity of a real address? Again, he could have more easily written an LO private Message, if he felt he just HAD to send a message to Stephen.

Who knows? I’m sure Steve’s email is published in many places, and why assume it was difficult to get? Why assume he didn’t already have it? Some people don't even know what a private message is.

Dustin James wrote: As for the email being hacked/created, there are a number of things that could create it. Going to the police station to offer evidence is noble, however a real digital forensic examination will need to be done on site at Stephen's and or Shawn's machine and may involve the ISP log files—and going to the ISP would require probable cause. Forwarding the email to the authorities, may provide many of the long header info needed for examining IP and other tell-tales.

I agree, and it should be fully investigated.

Dustin James wrote: The fact that the Juris email address was made publicly available, did not help—and may well have inspired someone in the audience to create a phony scenario to make Juris look bad. He said he didn't do it. Until it's proven otherwise, folks may want to consider that the email was an anonymous fake.

Yes, this is true, it is within the realm of possibility. But it was not “anonymous”.

Dustin James wrote: AT&T/Yahoo has an interesting "feature" called disposable email addresses. —"With att.net Mail, you can create disposable addresses to use whenever you don't want to share your real att.net Mail address."

Yahoo disposable email addresses are real email addresses that forward to the one you want to protect, and they CAN’T be used to make an email address that already exists (such as somebody else’s email address), and it also has to have a Yahoo domain name.

Dustin James wrote: I have Yahoo mail, so I played around with it a little and it seemed like I could put in any address as a "from."

Please share how this can be done with Yahoo mail, as I don’t think I can change my From Address to mikezannoni@jurisagency.com. I actually don’t believe it’s quite this easy. If you yourself can do this, please demonstrate.

We can't know at this point, OF COURSE, but I see nothing odd in Steve's behavior, and circumstantially, it seems far more likely things are exactly what they seem. A foolishly sent email that shouldn't have been sent.

Mike Zannoni wrote:

Dustin James wrote: AT&T/Yahoo has an interesting "feature" called disposable email addresses. —"With att.net Mail, you can create disposable addresses to use whenever you don't want to share your real att.net Mail address."

Yahoo disposable email addresses are real email addresses that forward to the one you want to protect, and they CAN’T be used to make an email address that already exists (such as somebody else’s email address), and it also has to have a Yahoo domain name.

Dustin James wrote: I have Yahoo mail, so I played around with it a little and it seemed like I could put in any address as a "from."

Please share how this can be done with Yahoo mail, as I don’t think I can change my From Address to mikezannoni@jurisagency.com. I actually don’t believe it’s quite this easy. If you yourself can do this, please demonstrate.

.

I've already demonstrated this earlier in the thread. Email addresses are easy to spoof.

Bob Mehosky wrote:I've already demonstrated this earlier in the thread. Email addresses are easy to spoof.

I will look back at your post. Whether it is technologically possible is not my main point. It is that there is nothing about Steve's behavior indicating that it was.

It IS technologically possible, yes, but it seems unlikely. It's too lame, to spoof someone's email and have it say only what it says, nothing more egregious or culpable.

It's like breaking into someone's house with expensive burglary tools and stealing a ball point pen.