The Observation Deck

Jay P. Foran "When LO teamed up with the SLH group to distribute their Against 64 literature the obvious became "oh boy" obvious."
Like · November 27 at 10:17pm

There was no agreement or help in any way from the Lakewood Observer to help Save Lakewood Hospital distribute any literature for or against anyone,
with the single exception of 1 ad they took out and paid full price for.

Never happened, never will. More LIES.

Ask Save Lakewood Hospital, they got nothing from us. They dropped off copy that needed to be rewritten, we said "No, do it yourself." I was never a member. Go back and read some of my earliest posts on the subject. "I am personally not sure if we need a hospital after 2020, and 2026. But it would be nice if they had been honest..."

More Jay Foran BS. YAWN

.

Jamminman!

I believe a false statement of fact is the definition of libel.

Bridget Conant wrote:Jamminman!

It is amusing they scream slander, false information, lies, defamation, and then the Head of the Active Living Task Force, and junior reporter writes utter BS.

Save Lakewood Hospital asked for a lot, they got ZERO they didn't do on their own. Every time someone tried to sign me up, I broke their heart, and said. "I do not believe..."

Where is the fact checking they scream for on that group, it is laughable,

Be nasty, negative and mean, but do it nicely is all I see.

Haters got to hate.

Someday everyone will get it. It is about the Observations.

.

HOLD ON

I just got a text from Pam Wetula that I gave SLH permission to use the papers for something.

It is not true. They asked if I would insert flyers for them. I said "At the same price as everyone else." They declined.

They asked if they delivered papers, would that offset costs of insertion. I answered, "No I am not interested in any deal like that."

My exact answer was, as it would be to anyone, "If you want to help get the word out, then help deliver papers, once they leave here it is no longer up to me, as long as they get delivered."

They asked for additional papers, I asked if they were paying, they said no. "No extras were ordered."

Jay, if you based your comments on Pam's comments, please accept my apology.

The only dog we had in the entire Hospital Debacle was transparency, accountability and honesty,

.

Don't apologize. Haters gonna hate.

The gist of it is that you did NOT favor SLH in any way, shape, or form and you've been accused of siding with them and offering them help.

The accusation is STILL total BS.

Both 64 campaigns had equal opportunity to present their cases via The Lakewood Observer BUT it was the AGAINST 64 campaign (on their own initiative) that literally carried BOTH messages to the doorsteps of thousands of residents. Personally, I think FOR 64 owes them a round of drinks and a little gratitude.

If I were Mr. Foran, I would be more concerned with "his side's" alleged vote tampering from the last two elections!

Lori Allen _ wrote:If I were Mr. Foran, I would be more concerned with "his side's" alleged vote tampering from the last two elections!

Lori

While I disagree with Jay Foran, on many issues. I am not familiar with him or "his side" connected to any "vote tampering" in the last two elections.

.

If I were Mr. Foran, I would be more concerned with "his side's" alleged vote tampering from the last two elections!

Were there "millions" of people voting fraudulently Lori? (Sorry, I know you are a republican so I couldn't resist)

If he is not connected directly to it, he probably knows about it. More, pending investigation.

Jim, If I told you what I know about the happenings in Lakewood, you would fudge your pants. Eventually, it will all probably be out there.

I had to leave that facebook group. When I come to the observation deck, I know that people are posting with agendas. In a facebook group for a city, there should not be a hidden war going on (especially one the active combatants won't admit to).

Corey Rossen, I've always been straight with you. You know I've called out Brian Essi for his highly crafted "headlines" on this forum and I know you were quick to pounce as well. It super disappointing to see you using that facebook group that way, pretending to be just "a guy" who stumbled on a competing "newspaper" only a few days after the nasty post asking for people to enumerate the ways the Observer is a liability to the community.

Leo Wadden, if you are reading this, I'm disappointed that you've chosen to use something that should be a completely controversy free facebook group for the purposes you have and that as an admin you aren't arguing to keep it free from that kind of garbage.

Last I checked, they have less than 2k members in a city of over 50,000. So that's 1 in 25 people. The Observer should increase it's facebook presence (not for deck stuff, for observer stuff) so that there can be a facebook community that I trust not to be manipulating me.

Talk about total thread drift! Let's get this thread back on track.

As I said before, if Jay Foran was not involved in any alleged vote tampering, he had to have known about it. More on this pending investigation.

We are being fed bull from Summers and Council all the time. If I disclosed what I know at this point, people would be fudging their pants! Eventually it will be out there for all to see.

The worst part of it all is that we pay these alleged crooks a salary to do nothing more but foolishly spend our money and lie, lie, lie to us!

This thread originated with a copy paste of the facebook group Lori. So, my post is not thread drift. Suggesting Jay Foran and others fixed the election, without providing any evidence whatsoever, is not just thread drift, it possibly libel.

See https://www.ohiobar.org/forpublic/resou ... e-171.aspx

If you defame a private individual, that person would have to be able to prove:
1) that you made a statement, reported as fact, to another person;
2) that the statement was false;
3) that the statement caused damage to that person; and
4) that you were negligent in making that statement.

If you defame a public figure (such as a celebrity or member of government, for example), that person will have to prove:
1) that you made a statement to another person, reported as fact;
2) that the statement was false and caused damage; and
3) that you made the statement with actual malice-that is, with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether the statement was false or not.

Remember, however, that you cannot be held liable for voicing your opinion, only for making untrue factual assertions.