• Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

Three police vehicles arrived at the scene of an accident where a burgundy Chevy Blazer and a black Volkswagen Cabrio collided near the intersection of Fanuel and Garnet Streets in Pacific Beach, at approximately 8 pm on Sunday, May 2.

A young mother with her 10-month-old child was riding in the burgundy Chevy along with the child’s grandmother; two 22-year-old, blonde females, Rachel and Amanda, were riding in the Volkswagen Cabrio.

The cars were traveling east on Garnet. The Chevy was stopped at the red light but the Volkswagen Cabrio failed to stop as it approached from behind. The impact was heard several blocks away.

I spoke with the drivers of both vehicles. The trembling 22-year-old driver of the Volkswagen said, “I’m scared. I had a beer,” her breath intoxicating from over a foot away.

“Just try to sound sober,” said her friend. When I asked the two what had happened, the passenger said, “I was wondering why she just kept going. The light was red and she was giving it gas.”

Other than aches, pains and red marks from where the airbags had hit the neck and chest of the practically topless Chevy driver, no one from either car was aware of any other injuries at the time.

A man named Jim Kinder, a witness to the accident who introduced himself as a retired civil defense, civil litigation attorney, was unpopular with the SDPD; Kinder was addressed by name, without them having to ask.

“They hate me,” said Kinder, “I tell people what their legal rights are. Their legal rights are that they don’t have to take the pencil test -- follow the pen or pencil with your eye -- they don’t have to answer any questions under the 5th Amendment, they don’t have to do the sidewalk sobriety test, and if you’re 21 or older you don’t have to take the portable breathalyzer. They [cops] try to get people to do all those things because that gets them convictions. And unfortunately, it’s their job to get convictions,” said Kinder.

Kinder spoke with all parties involved in the accident and informed them of their rights.

“Look, see, she’s doing exactly what I told her not to do,” said Kinder at watching the woman succumb to sobriety tests.

“She’s going to jail. She wouldn’t listen to me. Too drunk to listen to me,” said Kinder.

Outcome: The driver, after taking the tests Kinder advised against, was handcuffed and taken into custody for further testing; her Volkswagen Cabrio towed away by the SDPD.

“Will you please stop taking pictures, it’s a HIPAA violation,” said one of the firefighters, to me. (To hear Kinder’s response and watch excerpts from the scene of the accident watch video).

  • Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

More from SDReader

More from the web

Comments

Jay Allen Sanford May 3, 2010 @ 11:52 p.m.

With video of the incident as well! Another very good first-person on-the-scene report --

0

David Dodd May 4, 2010 @ 12:30 a.m.

I like it, too. Good job, Carolyn. I particularly had a chuckle with the HIPAA reference, that's a pretty broad interpretation of the standard.

0

danielawalker May 6, 2010 @ 9:10 a.m.

Carolyn Grace Matteo, it would seem someday (soon) you are going to be as unliked as your friend Mr. Jim Kinder, that is, if you aren't already. Are you a retired school marm by any chance? You seem about as appealing as one...

Instead of bugging the living pi$$ out of everybody why don't you take up knitting or babysitting your grandchildren?? Anything to keep your nosy a$$ out of other people's business!!

0

PB92109 May 6, 2010 @ 4:41 p.m.

re # 3-

The Reader has hired stringers to cover local stories. If you do not like the story choice your complaint is with the Editor who selected it for publication.

There is no reason to attack the author---- she submitted the story and the Reader considered it newsworthy enough for publication. Slandering and attacking the author is not the way to change story selection.

0

Grasca May 6, 2010 @ 5:46 p.m.

Stringers are not hired if I understand their job description. They work on speculation and sell stories to the Reader. The Reader edits the stories. I agree that the CVS parking lot beat is getting a little old. There were several lively recreation council meetings in La Jolla where the proponents of a skateboard park and the opponents clashed. I would rather stringers concentrate on community events (with accurate reporting of course) and not bore us with more drunken tales of wobblers and DUI stops. These twice told tales do, however, bolster Pacific Beach's earned reputation as the drunk-a-topia friendly section of America's Finest City. Things were much different in Panther Valley, PA.

0

realnews May 6, 2010 @ 6:27 p.m.

Attorney Search

James Michael Kinder - #66425 Current Status: Resigned with Charges Pending

This member is resigned and may not practice law in California.

See below for more details. Profile Information Bar Number 66425 Address 444 W "C" St #300 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone Number Not Available Fax Number Not Available e-mail Not Available District District 9 Undergraduate School Ball State Univ; Muncie IN County San Diego Law School Western State Univ; CA Sections None Status History Effective Date Status Change Present Resigned 3/25/1989 Resigned 8/15/1986 Not Eligible To Practice Law 12/16/1975 Admitted to The State Bar of California

Explanation of member status Actions Affecting Eligibility to Practice Law Effective Date Description Case Number Resulting Status Disciplinary and Related Actions 3/25/1989 Resignation with charges pending 89-Q-10071 Resigned 1/30/1989 Vol.inactive(tender of resign.w/charges) 89-Q-10071 Not Eligible To Practice Law 8/15/1986 Interim suspension after conviction 88-C-11166 Not Eligible To Practice Law

0

realnews May 6, 2010 @ 6:30 p.m.

Why is former attorneys who by law, cannot practice law generally described themselves as "retired" attorneys? And why weren't his credentials checked before this was published?

0

Grasca May 6, 2010 @ 6:56 p.m.

Interesting that in other blogs names were protected for some odd editorial reason but someone does a Cal Bar search and the Reader sees fit to publish the gory details. Nice that Refried and Duhbya's real names (available in the Reader archives) were kept private while the attorney's name and record of public discipline was published. Not an even playing field, Reader.

0

David Dodd May 6, 2010 @ 6:57 p.m.

To #8: I can't speak for the editor(s), but if Kinder introduced himself as a retired attorney, and the reporter wrote exactly that and nothing more concerning whether or not he was actually practicing law (or even eligible to do so), I fail to see how checking his credentials has anything to do with anything. If the reporter had stated that Kinder was an attorney, then I think your claim would be valid, but that didn't happen in this case. The words seem to be carefully, and correctly chosen.

0

Jay Allen Sanford May 6, 2010 @ 7:03 p.m.

Bravo RealNews! That background info on one of the story subjects may or may not be relevant to this stringer's story, but the report would have been even better if at least something about his current Bar standing were included, since he's so heavily quoted.

As noted by Grasca, "stringers" are NOT Reader reporters - see this site blog with 136 comments debating the matter: http://www.sandiegoreader.com/weblogs...

Rather, stringers are freelancers who submit material on speculation, in hopes the Reader will use and - ideally - pay for. As a staff reporter, I was leery at first of stringers identifying themselves in the field as reporters representing the Reader, when their skills and/or freelance sales to the Reader may not merit such characterization.

However, several "citizen journalist" submissions have been excellent, and contribs like Grace Matteo have been turning in increasingly strong reports. I welcome more -

As I understand the stringer submission process, entries are "line edited" for accuracy, style, and format (grammar, spelling, etc.). I doubt this fact checking would include an attorney background check, since nothing in this story directly refers to this.

Now that Miss Matteo KNOWS about how easy it is to search a lawyer's current credential standings, tho, I'm sure she'll avail herself of that resource when encountering members of that profession in the future ---

0

Grasca May 6, 2010 @ 7:25 p.m.

If there is no tape of the Kinder interview and his representation of self as a "retired attorney," then we have a he said, she said situation. Was the point of the article about the drunk driving or was it an expose of a minor actor in the DUI checkpoint drama ? Weegee the famed photographer should be alive and ride side saddle with the stringers so readers could at least get some good black and white photos. It is my understanding that real news stories pass at least three fact checks for accuracy. "Increasing strong reports" from CVS parking lots and DUI checkpoints will not win any big prizes in my book. However, if this is the SD Reader Gold Standard, then so be it. I still think it is tacky to publish facts ancillary to a story for shock value. You could have left this comment out as others have been edited for some favored contributors or so it seems to me. I thought a blogger researched Cal Bar site or is "realnews" also Ms. Matteo ? Didn't we go this route with Freedom possibly being two writers (Ms. M and another) in a previous blog ? Anyone who writes real news about attorneys would already know about Cal Bar site and not need a blogger guided road map. Oh right I said "real news."

0

David Dodd May 6, 2010 @ 7:37 p.m.

"A man named Jim Kinder, a witness to the accident who introduced himself as a retired civil defense, civil litigation attorney, was unpopular with the SDPD; Kinder was addressed by name, without them having to ask."

This isn't ancillary. It also isn't "he said, she said". I find it interesting that several Reader readers seem to go out of their way to discredit Mateo on every story she submits to the Reader. It also speaks volumes about her ability to find stories that ruffle people's feathers. Next thing they're going to demand is that the police officers and firemen show proof that they're REAL police officers and firemen.

0

Grasca May 6, 2010 @ 7:46 p.m.

Is there a tape to substantiate the stringer's story ? Since these articles are merely local color and not fact checked, I do not accept the stringer's representation of what occurred. I am glad that the particular stringer has supporters but it hardly "speaks volumes" about ability. I merely pointed out the facts about Attorney or Non Attorney Kinder did not need to be published in the blog commentary. Others have been protected and defended by the Reader but apparently attorneys are fair game ? I think the National Enquirer is hiring so maybe the problem will go away. There are many documented cases of fake police officers stopping citizens and doing harm to them so requesting an ID is not unreasonable. I wonder if there is a stringer ID card in case I am ever stopped and interviewed ? Oops I don't patronize CVS or drink. Guess that gets me off the hook. Go Panther Valley, PA and Wasilla, Alaska.

0

David Dodd May 6, 2010 @ 8:17 p.m.

If you like Panther Valley and Wasilla, why not live there? All you're doing here is taking pokes at Matteo, because she makes you angry. In a previous story, she called you out concerning your parks meeting, so now all you seem to live for is tracking down her stories and attempting (not very well, I might add) to ridicule them. I have come to realize that you wish to change San Diego into something that suits your purpose, and your purpose only, and I think that Carolyn brought that to light. And I think that this is the sole reason you are commenting on this particular story.

0

Jay Allen Sanford May 6, 2010 @ 8:51 p.m.

Grasca makes good points about stringer reports and the standards to which they are (or aren't) held, by editorial and by the public, compared to staff-written reports. I too worry about the blurring distinction between stringers, who write whatever they want with minimal editing, and reporters whose every word must go thru a FAR more rigid editorial process.

It's a cocktail recipe still being worked out - I would hope that most readers realize that a stringer report is far more loose and subjective than what appears in the paper's regular columns and features.

However, Grasca's complaint about this resulting comment thread is somewhat specious. To quote:

GRASCA: Interesting that in other blogs names were protected for some odd editorial reason but someone does a Cal Bar search and the Reader sees fit to publish the gory details. Nice that Refried and Duhbya's real names (available in the Reader archives) were kept private while the attorney's name and record of public discipline was published. Not an even playing field, Reader...Others have been protected and defended by the Reader but apparently attorneys are fair game ?

JAS REPLIES: Allowing a comment to stay posted is not the same as "publishing." In any event, the attorney website is a public resource that exists specifically for the purpose for which it was used by the public commentator who provided public background info on the story participant, in the context of a comment. They cited a public resource, which was created and intended for the public's use.

Background info about Reader site bloggers and commentators is NOT public information, nor should it be. Tens of thousands of people have good cause to look up an attorney's credentials and current Bar standing. Probably only a few people on the planet have ever desired to look up personal info about another Reader site visitor, and there's cause for concern over WHY anyone would desire such information ----

I maintain that the report WOULD have been better if it had referenced the lawyer's current standing. This isn't superfluous info - the lawyer is heavily quoted and is one of the story topics. Perhaps THE story topic, had I written it myself.

Yes, this stringer could have been more clear about the topic - to my mind, she buried the lead, which is this lawyer talking to people in the midst of a police encounter (much to the displeasure of police). However, she's a stringer, not a reporter (yet) - this is still a test drive, for her AND the Reader.

Now that she knows a bit more about the legal background resource, and since she has (hopefully) read and thought about the ensuing commentary, I suspect her submissions will continue to improve accordingly.

0

Grasca May 6, 2010 @ 9:18 p.m.

If a writer/contributor to the SD Reader publishes his/her name in print, are the names in the public domain ?

I respect good and accurate reporting by anyone. Sensationalized stories with little merit do not have much to recommend them in my opinion.

There are many community based stories that do not focus on drunks, homeless, worms, and seals which have much more merit. I guess one gets their stories where they can ?

No one was "called out" in a previous article about a community meeting but rather a biased and ill informed article was written. There was nothing to "call out" as all the appropriate laws (Brown Act) and rules (Robert's) were followed. The sore losers apparently appealed in some respect to the stringer who slanted the reporting in their favor.

"Poking" at people. This seems to be a talent that one, not myself, has demonstrated in the past.

The Wasilla School of Journalism is looking for applicants.

0

David Dodd May 6, 2010 @ 9:52 p.m.

I think it was great, Jay, I'm tired of the cookie-cutter journalism I read everywhere else. This story is just an honest-to-goodness tale of "and then THIS happened". Soon, she'll learn to drop the first person narrative, but not too soon I hope. I was taught a long time ago that if you can manage to tick-off half of your readers and endear yourself to the other half, then you can write anything and people will read it.

As for the privacy issue, I've made my name public here, and a google-search of my nick also brings up my real name, apparently I'm internet famous ;)

That part doesn't bother me in the least (one Reader staffer was concerned about my identity being revealed, and bless your heart for that, but I have no issue with it), except that I won't tolerate stalking and malicious attacks and searches into my family, that's a no-no. So far as Kinder's identity, he offered it. After that, anything is fair game. I was interviewed a few years ago by a television reporter for FOX news and I declined to give my name because once I give it, it's fair game for them to investigate me if they would like to (not that they would find MUCH, but, you know, youthful indiscretions and all; plus, they're all fair and balanced, whatever that means).

Back to Carolyn, I not only think she'll improve, I think she can become a superstar if that's what she wants.

0

David Dodd May 6, 2010 @ 10:02 p.m.

Grasca, that meeting certainly did violate the Brown Act, you are required to inform people attending that they do not need to share their identity, and that didn't happen. Instead, people were urged to fill out information and not informed that it wasn't necessary. I quoted the section of the act that was violated.

Now, you are commenting on every piece that Matteo writes. You don't even live in P.B. The vast number of your 76 comments have been in Matteo's contributions, except for one about Buffoms, one in another blog that supports your local political shenanigans, and one applauding another ban on alcohol and urging Carolyn Matteo to comment on it. For someone who seemingly wins all of her battles, you are acting as though you were/are the loser.

0

Jay Allen Sanford May 6, 2010 @ 10:27 p.m.

Haha, RefriedGringo is showing off some mad journalistic skills as well! Great research - is the Reader attracting some future Lou Grant-level talent, or what?

0

David Dodd May 6, 2010 @ 10:46 p.m.

I think so, Jay. I've really enjoyed seeing the stringers develop, especially Carolyn. She seems to have a knack for being in the right place at the right time (something I sorely lack in my old age). Everything else seems to improve with practice. Somewhere around here, I imagine I still have the very first article I ever wrote for a newspaper, and I'm in no hurry to find it! One thing that was easier on me than Carolyn, is that I was assigned to events, and it was sports which is fairly nebulous, journalistically speaking. It was easy for me to train on the fly, and tougher for Carolyn. But I did improve over time, and Carolyn is improving, and as I say, her knack for catching these spontaneous happenings is very impressive. As you pointed out, she found the perfect angle, and while she didn't lead with it, it was there!

I'm certain that I'm a better writer than I could ever be a journalist, and there is a big difference. Dorian Hargrove is an example of someone who is very good at both, it's tough to switch those gears and he does it well. Don Bauder would be the consumate journalist, whereas Barb is more of a writer. I'm still trying to figure out where to slot you, my friend ;)

0

Jay Allen Sanford May 6, 2010 @ 11:24 p.m.

Yeah, the Reader rarely "assigns" stories - most everyone on staff seeks and develops our own leads.

Simply FINDING stories suited for this offbeat paper every week can be the most difficult skill to develop, more so than learning to adhere to the loose house "rules" RE first-person reporting, style formatting, legal and liability concerns, etc. This stringer's initial strength is her tendency to be out and about as often as possible, with her eyes and ears open to possible reporting. Her other journalistic skills are still developing, with much promise ---

As I've said before, one of the Reader's strengths is that most contribs have such a distinct voice that frequent readers can tell WHICH writer wrote a story a few lines into it, even when the byline doesn't appear until the end ---

I'll also repeat a quote from publisher Jim Holman, which seems apropos to the Reader's Great Experiment in Citizen Journalism (as well as being the best summary I could offer to any would-be Reader contrib) ----

"Our job isn't necessarily to inform, nor even to entertain, but rather to ENGAGE."

0

Grasca May 6, 2010 @ 11:53 p.m.

No one was forced to sign in at the community meeting I attended. I was there and the complaining party was not.

The blogger opining about the Brown Act does not live in the United States if that matters ?

If any writer includes their family members by name and details their home lives, I suppose that information is in the public domain ? If privacy is an issue for a writer, then that writer needs to cease writing about his/her family. C'est vrai ?

Katherine Graham supported the reporters who broke the Watergate story. Next the owner of the Reader will spring to defend a stringer/damsel in distress. I love chivalry in this instance. It is so refreshing and old style.

The gentleman from TJ is hands down a more polished and better writer than the stringer in question.

By the way I know that some legitimate reporters have degrees in journalism and can truly be called journalists. Those learning on the job with a cell phone camera for backup need a lot of help and support because they obviously have no formal training. Maybe the Reader should offer scholarships to those would be journalists in order for them to get a college degree and some real training ?

0

David Dodd May 7, 2010 @ 12:05 a.m.

What I seriously hope for - and this would be great testament for the future history of Mr. Holman - is that the greatest days of the Reader are yet to come. Perhaps decades from now, people will speak kindly and thoughtfully of Jay Allen Sanford - cartoonist and music critic in the salad days of the Reader; the reviews of Duncan Shephard will become a legendary measuring stick for film buffs on the West Coast; and Carolyn Grace Matteo will be accepting a Pulitzer while writing for the Washington Post, dropping the name of the San Diego Reader as a starting point.

Perhaps not, but one can hope?

But engaging, it certainly is. Whatever happens from this point on, I will forever defend the fact that Holman has done this right. It's a great formula. His critics are nothing but jealous, and they should be. He's surrounded himself with some very smart people, and encouraged them to do what they do. And that certainly includes the people of San Diego who contribute here. They are every bit a part of this formula.

0

realnews May 7, 2010 @ 12:26 a.m.

refriedgringo: The point being just because someone introduces themselves as a "retired" anything is no reason to believe them. The first rule of journalism is: "If your mother says she loves you, check it out."

No one is trying to "discredit" the writer. (Notice I did not say "reporter."

In my opinion the "writer" completely missed the story. Why is Kinder doing on the scene? Is he funneling cases to DUI attorneys and collecting a fee? Does anyone believe Kinder strolls the streets nightly as some kind of do gooder? One must have a nose for news to report it. Seems to me she happened on the scene and didn't Recognize the story. Which wasn't the DUI. That's not discrediting her, it's just common sense.

0

David Dodd May 7, 2010 @ 12:29 a.m.

Grasca:

  1. "Forced" is your word, not mine. The Brown act explicitly states that people are informed that they don't have to sign. This did not happen at your meeting. When you present the clip board, you are supposed to inform people that they do not have to sign, and this didn't happen. It's right there in the Brown act.

  2. Where I live doesn't matter. I am a U.S. citizen, born and raised there. I could attend any meeting in the State of California, I do not have to live in the area. You know this, obviously.

  3. Writing about my family is my own choice. It does not give anyone the right to perform any malicious acts against them, even if their names are recorded from my writing. I do not have an issue with my identity because I have nothing to hide. I have to wonder why you continue to hide behind yours. It's sort of silly, it isn't all that difficult to figure out. Knowing which committees you've belonged to didn't make it difficult for me, I can't imagine anyone else couldn't figure it out. I am not vindictive, and I'm not going to out you, but I have no idea why you wouldn't identify yourself. But hey, your choice, it just makes you seem like you hide behind an agenda.

  4. One of the great things about the Reader is the cross between journalism and writing. Journalists have rules and the rules are quite static, but writers take great leaps, and can be more dynamic. If your true intentions are to complain about a lack of journalism, I would be more than willing to defend your point of view if you complained about other stringer stories. If you are truly all about community, then why would I take issue with your point of view? As I stated, a good writer often receives about half complaints and half kudos. To what writer in here have you given kudos?

You are totally free to go after Carolyn, but in my opinion it doesn't hold much water if you aren't critical or supportive of anything else in the Reader. In other words, it dulls any edge of your argument. In some of your previous comments elsewhere, you have accused people of not being active in their community. Grasca, you are not active here, except concerning Matteo. If you want me (and maybe some others) to take you seriously, then you need to get involved in other activities here, otherwise it reads like sour grapes.

0

realnews May 7, 2010 @ 12:43 a.m.

Refriedgringo: Why not do a little research before speaking and looking bad? If you had, before writing your negative comments - comments that were both incorrect, and completely out-of-line, you would have realized I've not Once commented on anything this writer has Ever written before. Nada. Bumpkiss. Zip.

However, my hunch she didn't Recognize the story proved correct. See below. Which I don't expect you to appreciate. All I ask is before commenting, before opening your mouth, you do your own work. Doing so would give you some much needed credibility.

Because in this case, although not paid, I uncovered the story. Perhaps the writer now having been given some direction, might double-back and ask Mr. Kinder a little more about his background.


SAN DIEGO -- A fax machine, pager and a telephone are what brought 24 lawyers to a local courtroom. It's not one case; it's 165 and counting. But there is just one plaintiff -- James Kinder, owner of Rainbow Rent-A-Car on India Street. Kinder is a former lawyer once convicted of fraud. He is in a legal battle now on another matter. Including one with Jack DeAngelis. "They're asking for money, asking for money and kind of shaking me down," said De Angelis. It all happened after De Angelis sent Kinder a fax soliciting guests for a radio show. Kinder called him. "He said,'Today is the worst day of your life. I'm in the fax mafia and I'm in the fax suing business,'" said De Angelis. Kinder sent De Angelis a demand for $10,000 for the one fax, claiming it violated several federal and state business and telemarketing laws. "I said,'Go wherever you need to go, my friend. You're not getting a dime out of me,'" said De Angelis. Kinder went to court and sued De Angelis for $25,000, plus penalties and fees, adding to the pile of Kinder cases. "Keep in mind, this is not my only 165 cases, I have lots and lots of other cases," said Judge Ronald Styn. So, has Kinder over the years. He has been involved in more than 600 cases. The Superior Court lists him as a vexatious litigant, someone who abuses the court system with frivolous claims. Kinder was a personal injury attorney until 1989. He gave up his license right before the State Bar Court was set to disbar him from crimes involving moral turpitude.

0

David Dodd May 7, 2010 @ 12:45 a.m.

realnews: I didn't argue many of your points because I thought them to be somewhat valid; it was simply that Matteo did, in fact, only quote what she was told. Your quote ("If your mother says she loves you, check it out."), by the way, is very near and dear to my heart, from the now-deceased City News Bureau of Chicago. My favorite novelist once worked there, along with some other great journalists.

Anyway, I simply defend her because, after all, she did find the story and ultimately the angle. I realize that she didn't present it as professionally as many journalists would. But, there are some things that can't be taught, and one of those things is being there in the first place. And there are other things that can be learned with practice, one of which is to recognize that the real story was Kinder and that the crash was ancillary.

Yours and comment number three were perfectly valid complaints in my opinion, from-the-gut reactions. I never thought you were discrediting Matteo.

0

David Dodd May 7, 2010 @ 12:46 a.m.

Realnews, I think you are confusing my comments concerning Grasca and my comments concerning yourself.

0

David Dodd May 7, 2010 @ 12:52 a.m.

Or else, you are simply using this as pretext to go after Kinder. I hadn't hear of him before this story and knew nothing about him until you commented. I do recommend that rather than copy and paste an article about him, provide the link instead. Otherwise, it could be libelous. The Reader will probably remove it, otherwise.

0

Duhbya May 7, 2010 @ 4:59 a.m.

RE #9: Thank you, Grasca, for "outing" me (again) in the same sentence with Refried. I'm honored. Malicious much? Your turn now, hon. Go ahead, share with us your true identity. BTW, I understand that Panther Valley's nickname is Cougar Valley. -John Sweeney - Law St. 92109

0

Grasca May 7, 2010 @ 6:32 a.m.

  1. Sign in sheet at public meetings - voluntary.
  2. Speaker slip form ( http://www.sandiego.gov/city-clerk/officialdocs/docketcomment.shtml) Name, Street Address, City, State, Zip Code, Agenda Item # Must be filled out to speak at City Council and other public meetings of recognized community groups.
  3. You are confusing the two items.
  4. If you feel that the San Diego City Council is violating the Brown Act then you should contact the City Attorney, your councilperson, or go to a Council meeting, fill out a Speaker Slip if you want to speak at non agenda public comment section of meeting, and complain.
  5. I believe that some of the bloggers simply do not understand the procedures that are enacted to run efficient meetings in compliance with the Brown Act and following Robert's Rules of Order.
  6. For a free form meeting go to the Tea Party gatherings and shout about taxes, immigration, and other issues which is your right under the Constitution.
  7. But do wear non immigrant clothing as Brian Bilbray believes illegal immigrants can be identified by their clothing choices.
0

Grasca May 7, 2010 @ 6:38 a.m.

The Reader has not removed the information about Attorney or Non Attorney Kinder.

I think that Senor Refried's suggestion of providing a link to the information is the appropriate action to follow.

Since a preferred contributor is making this suggestion, perhaps the Reader will follow suit.

Again - if you have put your legal name into the public domain as a SD Reader contributor and taunt others to find you, then don't cry wolf and expect to remain anonymous.

Former beauty contest winners can become Vice Presidential candidates in the United States providing they are here legally.

0

realnews May 7, 2010 @ 6:51 a.m.

Redfried:

The tip off should have been the "Retired" attorney was volumes too interested. That smells "$" to me.

True, retired attorneys aren't too interested in nightly DUIs. Any reporter would have smelled that from a mile away. That said, I don't know Kinder, but am guessing he wishes I hadn't dropped by the Reader last night.

Good-day.

0

CuddleFish May 7, 2010 @ 6:54 a.m.

Former beauty contestants can even become writers for the Reader -- but I wouldn't want to insult Sarah Palin. ;)

0

Grasca May 7, 2010 @ 6:56 a.m.

No one stood over the clip board and required/forced/compelled citizens to sign in. Many who were in attendance were veterans of public meetings and knew the drill. Their whines are merely faux outrage.

Those who chose to speak did fill out speaker slips which allows a chairperson to measure times for proponents and opponents to have their fair say.

Proponents and opponents could also write their elected representatives if they chose not to speak.

I find nothing illegal or objectionable about either option.

If you want to scream and shout in a less orderly setting, then you need to attend protest rallies and carry placards. But do wear "American" clothing so you will not be questioned if you happen to be protesting in Arizona.

Providing feedback to a rookie stringer is not mean spirited. If a writer wants to improve, then the red pencil or some form of review is helpful. Anyone who has a writing background knows this to be a truth.

It warms my heart that the blogger boys are defending a girl. There are much better stringers and staff on the Reader site in my opinion. And I do have a right to voice my opinion whether you agree or not.

Movie time : 2 Grumpy Old Men. Comprende ?

0

Grasca May 7, 2010 @ 7:38 a.m.

Don Bauder wrote an article about Mr. Kinder entitled "Phone Wars" which appeared in the SD Reader on January 16, 2008. Ms. Stringer should have researched this article and provided a link in her story so the ancillary character was fleshed out. Anyone who has written college English papers would understand the value of research and apply it to their journalistic endeavors.

0

Grasca May 7, 2010 @ 10:45 a.m.

I give kudos to Dorian Hargrove, SD Daniels, Cuddlefish, and Refried Gringo. I enjoy their writing. My point is only to encourage accurate and effective reporting which may be slightly different from fiction/non fiction writing. I do not comment or "call out" Ms. Matteo on every one of her stringer contributions but found the commentary about the Atty/Non Atty to be unnecessary in the way which the Reader chose to print the disciplinary record of this person when a link would have been enough. The stringer also should be on the ball and have linked her article to the one by Don Bauder. That makes perfect sense to me. However, maybe there are stringer time constraints. Get it in fast and get paid ? Perhaps Mr. Jay can explain the process.

0

SurfPuppy619 May 7, 2010 @ 2:51 p.m.

"He said,'Today is the worst day of your life. I'm in the fax mafia and I'm in the fax suing business,'"

OMG is that hilariuous!

The "fax mafia"!!!!

I wish I could come up with some sort of classic throw down, one liners like that! Something like;

"Today is the worst day of your life. I'm in the puppy mafia, and we enforce "pick up after your pet" laws!"

I love it.

0

Grasca May 7, 2010 @ 3:29 p.m.

Here's the link to the Don Bauder article on Attorney/Non Attorney Kinder -http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/20...

0

Jay Allen Sanford May 7, 2010 @ 3:43 p.m.

Perhaps Mr. Jay can explain the process.

Sorry, I have no idea how stringer submissions work - I just write 'n' draw 'n' work the local music database.

I do second Grasca's shout-out to the several other Reader stringers aside from Miss Matteo who are turning in strong writeups. Given Grasca's tendency to only comment after Matteo-written posts, I'm pleased to hear that the other contribs' are being read as well!

Now that RealNews has reinforced that the lawyer should have been the stringer's focus, it's easy - to backseat quarterback about how she should have 1) searched his cred AND 2) run his name thru the Reader website search bar.

(Which, BTW, I do with almost every proper name planned to appear in my articles - now that the data entry dates back several years, using the search bar of this very website accesses one of the city's most massive local news databases) ---

The upshot is that both of those advisory leads have now been (perhaps over)stated, for anyone to utilize, whether a stringer or someone simply wanting to research local news in general or a (former) card carrying litigator and ambulance-chasing fax mafiosa (La Costra Nosey?)

0

David Dodd May 7, 2010 @ 3:57 p.m.

I can tell you how the stringer submissions work from the submission side, I've written a few here and quite a bit for other publications. First, you write the story. Then, you submit it. Don't bother giving it a title, the editor will title it, that's his or her job. At the Reader, the piece will almost always be edited, but usually not extensively so. For a newspaper, in comparison, your work will be edited as though you are a staffer, and often times you will find huge chunks removed in order to make the piece fit into their page. You will almost never be contacted by the publication - they don't have time to negotiate the material, nor the inclination. A week or two later, they cut you a small check. Otherwise, stringers need to develop some thick skin.

And to Jay's point, I google everything, not just names but events and quotes as well. I also expect what I write to be googled. Anyone who writes and expects to be published should expect their work to also be googled. This becomes a really big deal if you write fiction, either short stories or novels, because the editors of publishing houses will ensure that your work has not been previously published, not even on the internet.

0

Grasca May 7, 2010 @ 4:02 p.m.

Perhaps stringers will follow Mr. Jay's lead in terms of researching any names which will appear in their articles. I am sure this type of mentor advice may help those in need.

An interview with Mr. Kinder begs to written so the eager readers can learn more from HIS perspective and inquiring minds can hear HIS side of the story. There are, after all, 2 sides to every story.

Sorry - I like who I like and will not bend on that fact unless the reporter/staff/stringer improves in accuracy and writing skills. Everyone should fact check their work. Being a newbie is no excuse so let's stop pampering this person.

It would be difficult if not impossible for me to comment BEFORE an article appears so how could I damn with faint praise any time but "after Matteo-written posts ? "

I have no crystal ball or star chart to guide me BEFORE the posts appear.

Do others comment pre post in some fashion of which I am not aware at this time ? Please tell me how to do so.

0

David Dodd May 7, 2010 @ 4:34 p.m.

Grasca, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I firmly side with Jay on this, the writer did nothing wrong here. She presented Kinder as someone who introduced himself, someone who interceded, unsolicited, on behalf of the parties involved, and any investigation of the man by third parties is certainly fair game. I have no doubt that the Reader is keeping a close eye on this thread, and find nothing wrong with the content, nor anything damaging to Mr. Kinder that isn't already public information. I'm certain that they did what I did, and googled realnews' account in comment number 27 and found that it was a story from 10news back in 2008:

http://www.10news.com/news/15658996/detail.html

Note that 10news attempted to contact Mr. Kinder for a response to that story, and he refused.

So far as responding to Matteo's articles, there are others in here that are right up your alley. For example, a proposition that would make the strong-mayor government permanent and install a 9th district:

You have requested that the Reader do more in the local politics arena, yet you are here and not there. My point is that if you are only here for Matteo's stories, then your criticisms of the Reader seem to mask a more narrow agenda.

0

BarfinPB May 7, 2010 @ 5:16 p.m.

I invite all of you to attend Kate Sessions Park tomorrow at 5:30 PM for a get together, maybe even a walk in the neighborhood. Carolyn, this is a perfect opportunity for your next story. Bring Perry Mason with you and film him in the middle of the sloshball field extolling his beliefs on how to avoid a DUI even though everyone has consumed a keg apiece. Make sure to point out that he has distributed business cards as referrals on every road used as exits. Come with me and join in on the betting pool that exists, the first person urinating in public sighting, the first vomit before driving away, maybe you could add to the betting pool with a fresh Idea. Vern, I will pay for the trolley fare and will have a nice mattress waiting for your nap. After viewing humanity on this date you may even write an article entitled “Shut up and Sit Down”.

0

David Dodd May 7, 2010 @ 5:31 p.m.

Barfin, please pass the computer back to your wife, she is much more intelligent than you are. Although not quite the photographer you have gained some measure of local fame for being, at the very least she attempts to make a point without being intentionally insulting. Can't say the same for yourself. Funny thing is that you and the "Perry Mason" you refer to used to be in the same game, no? By all means, enlighten us.

0

Grasca May 7, 2010 @ 6:13 p.m.

I did not know that we were allowed to make comments about "family" - ie Barfin's spouse if he has one ? There was quite an outcry about this at one time.

Has someone done underhanded research on Barfin and unearthed personal information which is now being used in a forbidden fashion ?

By the way who cares if Barfin has a spouse ? Or partner ? Or pet iguana ?

No one said Ms. Stringer did anything wrong - your words. Inept perhaps but not wrong.

I simply pointed out that some favorite bloggers' legal names were removed eons ago in another controversy and that Mr. Kinder was not afforded the same courtesy. The bloggers and Mr. Kinder were all in the public domain. They should be treated evenly in my opinion.

I cover the waterfront in terms of Reader reading but do not need to comment on every story. That would put me in a class of over active bloggers which might require medical intervention and June Allyson disposable undergarments.

By the way just because someone comments on a story does not indicate some evil intent.

Again I enjoy reading the quality SD Reader writers and don't think that Matteo is one on of them. Maybe Ms. Stringer will prove me wrong in the future.

Beyond subject matter there is also the matter of style which any reader appreciates through his own filter. That preference simply cannot be dictated or demanded. It is a highly personal matter.

0

David Dodd May 7, 2010 @ 6:37 p.m.

Grasca, what could I possibly say about Barfin that is considered to be "forbidden"? He's gone to great lengths to research my family, all I've done is guess at his hobby and his previous profession. That's hardly forbidden. Of course, y'all are free to correct me if I'm incorrect. But if you do, you're only going to provoke me into releasing a little more detail. I'd rather not do that, I'm not the vindictive type, I'm just protecting my self-interests. It would be best to leave it where it's at and best for Barfin to cool his heels.

So far as Carolyn, as I say, feel free to dislike her. But I have a funny feeling that she's going to dazzle, and she's going to do it soon. And Grasca, were I in your shoes, at the very next meeting I would make sure that the carriers of the clipboards make sure that they inform potential signers that they need not fill out any information. That's a start at compliance with the Brown Act. It isn't up to me to take a trolley up to KS Park and demand that, it's up to the people of Pacific Beach to ensure that it happens. But if you wish to be a public servant, then it's your obligation to make sure that it happens. And for the love of privacy, make sure that Johnnie Cochran isn't somewhere in the parking lot photographing license plates. It would be embarrassing should that become public.

0

Grasca May 7, 2010 @ 7 p.m.

For the last time I do not dislike Ms. M (your words). I dislike her writing and sloppy journalism. There is a big difference.

City staff, not volunteers, manage the sign in sheet and speaker slips. If you want to come north and act as an ad hoc Cerberus in these matters, please do.

Agreed - the people of San Diego (and not just PB) need to make their opinions known about the proposed 24 hour alcohol ban at Kate Sessions Neighborhood Park. That being said, any one can weigh as this is a First Amendment right. El norte beckons.

Johnnie C died years ago from brain cancer. I doubt if he ever photographed license plates in parking lots. That lowly task will be left to stringers with cell phone cameras who are on the prowl for one great story.

0

David Dodd May 8, 2010 @ 12:36 a.m.

Grasca, I realize that you weren't referencing Ms. Matteo personally, my inference was to her stories and nothing more.

0

Grasca May 8, 2010 @ 8:26 a.m.

Would non staff stringers be covered by the SD Reader insurance policies ?

0

David Dodd May 8, 2010 @ 4:18 p.m.

Grasca, you might want to re-think making comments like #51 and #52. It can be taken as a threat that you will file a lawsuit against the author of this story should she write about the next meeting at Kate Sessions Park.

0

SurfPuppy619 May 8, 2010 @ 6:23 p.m.

I would advise the Reader staff to check their insurance coverage as something of a legal nature might come their way IF anything is not true in the DUI checkpoint account as it relates to the attorney. Lawsuits, whether you prevail or not, must be defended.

The attorney in this is a public figure due to the publicity he has from hsi own lawsuits. Even if that were not true, he is a semi public figure in this story because he was in a public place making public statements. The attorney would have to make the nearly impossible task of proving intentional malice to prevail in a lawsuit.

As for defending a lawsuit-please review California's Code of Civil Procedure § 425.17 and see what happens when someone files a bogus lawsuit claiming damages out of public statements.

0

Grasca May 8, 2010 @ 8:56 p.m.

I was quite clearly referring to the attorney mentioned in the story who has filed multiple lawsuits and not myself. Please don't put words in my mouth. A person who has filed over 600 lawsuits might find something legally offensive in the article which on its surface does not seem well researched. A writer who had done a minimal amount of research might reasonably decide not to poke at hornet's nest. I would guess that a stringer is an independent contractor and not covered by any SD Reader insurance which is another reason to triple check one's stories for accuracy especially when one is quoting and identifying individuals. Whether a lawsuit has merit or not, it still can be filed and cause difficulties for a defendant despite what someone states in this blog.

0

MsGrant May 8, 2010 @ 8:59 p.m.

"Nobody wins a fight."

Dalton - Roadhouse.

0

SurfPuppy619 May 8, 2010 @ 9:51 p.m.

Roadhouse is on TV right now-Im watching it.......I like Dalton's pad above the barn........

0

SurfPuppy619 May 8, 2010 @ 10:01 p.m.

Whether a lawsuit has merit or not, it still can be filed and cause difficulties for a defendant despite what someone states in this blog.

Very true, you can file lawsuits all day long, and may temporarily cause difficulties, BUT when a judge tosses out a bogus lawsuit under the anti-SLAPP provisions of state law, and then makes the one who filed the bogus lawsuit pay for all the costs to defend against it- then that person will learn a very good lesson (and have much BIGGER difficulties).

BTW, an anti-SLAPP motion is the very first response filed in a lawsuit that involves issues like we have here (public-limited public figures/public statements/defamation/false light), it stops everything dead in it's tracks, including all discovery. So if that motion is successful, and there are literally hundreds of published cases on them in CA, then the case is over and very little time, money or energy is spent by the defendant-all reimbursed by the Plaintiff.

I don't think anyone was implying you were the attorney who was mentioned.......

0

David Dodd May 8, 2010 @ 10:03 p.m.

Grasca, I'm not putting words in your mouth, simply making an observation. Please, by all means, continue to mention "Matteo" and "lawsuit" together as often as you like, I'm sure you aren't attempting to intimidate her or anything.

0

Grasca May 9, 2010 @ 6:31 a.m.

To all women who are mothers to other people, thoughts and causes. To women who are mothers to their children and to women who are mothers in all different ways ... Happy Mother's Day.

0

Grasca May 9, 2010 @ 6:49 a.m.

The implication by one was that I intended or threatened a writer because I wanted to curtail their writings via a lawsuit. Nothing could be further from the truth. As a matter of fact in all of this back and forth the truth should be its own defense. Besides if writers stopped writing, what would the arm chair commentators do ? The SLAP defense has much merit in my humble opinion. Maybe the SD Reader needs to school its writers in the finer points of SLAP ? And have the writers triple check their facts before hitting the submission button ? Today is Mother's Day in the United States. In Mexico Mother's Day is always May 10 which makes much more sense to me because the day like many a mother is unwavering and immutable in the best possible ways. Just to be fair and also avoid undue criticism Happy Mother's Day to the single dads and to anyone in our lives who has advised us in the wise ways which only a good mother can. For those who mothers have passed the day brings a measure of sadness but many wonderful memories and gratitude to have been a daughter or son in those moments now past.

0

Grasca May 10, 2010 @ 7:01 a.m.

Defending a lawsuit, even a frivolous one, is costly in terms of time, energy, and finances. There is no absolute guarantee that a defendant will recover costs.

0

David Dodd May 10, 2010 @ 8:52 a.m.

Defendants can counter-sue. Harassment suits can be quite lucrative if successful. It could cost retirees who are active in local politics quite a lot. Such civil suits can drag on for years, but when successful, they usually suck the life out of people who harass and have a history of doing so. Judges are sometimes very wary of people who abuse the system.

0

SurfPuppy619 May 10, 2010 @ 12:17 p.m.

Defending a lawsuit, even a frivolous one, is costly in terms of time, energy, and finances. There is no absolute guarantee that a defendant will recover costs.

While true in many cases-it is completely false in SLAPP cases.

The statute itself REQUIRES the vexatious litigant to cover all costs of the defendant. And let me tell you-if the plaintiff's have enough money to file a lawsuit they have enough to cover sanctions of an anti-SLAPP motion.

In addition the court could also slap (no pun intended) a vexatious litigant order against the plaintiff for filing the lawsuit-which would prevent the vexatious litigant from filing ANY future lawsuits without prior approval from the judge.

The courts are not a place to play games, and if a judge thinks for even a second a lawsuit is without merit and only intended for harrassment pruposes-bring your toothbrush to court, b/c you're going to need it.

Just some helpful info.

0

Grasca May 10, 2010 @ 4:11 p.m.

I know a defendant in a SLAPP lawsuit who prevailed but got no settlement and spent months tied up legally as a defendant. No damages were awarded but I think the defendant got a pro bono attorney. Maybe this case was an exception but no judge will rule immediately unless things at the courthouse have changed. These matters always take time. If you have a specific example of a SLAPP suit working differently, I would like some details. Being bound up in any legal matter (whether you prevail or not) is difficult for most individuals. Again there are individuals who relish the legal battles but I wager most do not.

0

Grasca May 10, 2010 @ 4:15 p.m.

SLAPPing Back If you are successful in defending a SLAPP, and you can show that the SLAPP was brought for a purpose other than to resolve the issue by legal means -- e.g., the case was filed for the purposes of harassment, needlessly piling up defense costs, silencing opposition, etc. -- seek legal advise about SLAPPing back. A SLAPPback is a way to seek monetary damages, including pain and suffering, from the SLAPP filer on the theory that the original SLAPP constituted an abuse of the legal process.

In the past, juries in some SLAPPback suits have ordered SLAPP filers to pay large sums of monetary and punitive damages to the original SLAPP target. However, the decision to initiate SLAPPback litigation should not be entered into lightly. A SLAPPback, like the original lawsuit, can take years to reach a final resolution.

Moreover, a SLAPPback is itself likely to be subject to the special motion to strike procedure set forth in Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16. This does not mean that SLAPPbacks can never be won. It does mean that you should have enough evidence to prove a probability of winning the suit, before filing the SLAPPback.

0

Grasca May 10, 2010 @ 4:24 p.m.

"A SLAPPback, like the original lawsuit, can take YEARS to reach a final resolution." Again neither the SLAPP or the SLAPPback happens overnight. If no one has filed a lawsuit, can we end the discussion on SLAPP and move on ?

0

David Dodd May 10, 2010 @ 5:21 p.m.

"If no one has filed a lawsuit, can we end the discussion on SLAPP and move on ?"

Sure, Grasca. Would you like to discuss Panther Valley, PA?

0

Grasca May 10, 2010 @ 6:12 p.m.

Wasilla High School Warriors.

1984 beauty queen.

Local pretty girl makes good.

0

David Dodd May 10, 2010 @ 6:38 p.m.

Yes, but Grasca, why would that be important to you? In other words, how is it relevant to the story? I understand that it's relevant to the author of the story, but you keep insisting that your comments are all about the story itself, so I can't help but to wonder how the local pretty girl making good has anything at all to do with Kinder and the automobile accident in Pacific Beach.

0

SurfPuppy619 May 10, 2010 @ 9:13 p.m.

Maybe this case was an exception but no judge will rule immediately unless things at the courthouse have changed.

By Grasca

Gasca, I have tried to tell you numerous times trhat what you are claiming here is not true.

You cannot use a lawsuit for harrassment purposes and tie someone up in court on defamation type suits under the anti-SLAPP provisions of state law, CCP 425.16-18.

As I have stated from my first post, YES, the judge WILL RULE IMMEDIATELY on an anti-SLAPP motion. Where did you get this nonsense that the judge will not rule imeedialtely??? B/c it is from another planet, not ours.

You either are not familiar with the law, or you're flat out lying-it is one of the two. How many times do I have to tell you this, you file a bogus defamation lawsuit and it will be over in less than 30 days, with just ONE single motion. End of the game.

So, anyway, I'm through trying to explain the law to you. You can go ahead and keep making up your wild claims-but my advice is not to try to file a bogus lawsuit.

0

SurfPuppy619 May 10, 2010 @ 9:21 p.m.

Moreover, a SLAPPback is itself likely to be subject to the special motion to strike procedure set forth in Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16. This does not mean that SLAPPbacks can never be won. It does mean that you should have enough evidence to prove a probability of winning the suit, before filing the SLAPPback.

By Grasca

Im am glad you are educating yourself on SLAPP actions, and see you know how to "cut and paste".

http://www.casp.net/slapps/procede.html

It's a start!

0

Grasca May 10, 2010 @ 10:02 p.m.

I am only repeating what a licensed attorney told me in terms of SLAPP. If the resident expert is a licensed attorney, perhaps there is a legal difference of opinion. Also, a person I know filed a SLAPP. It was not resolved within 30 days. I am not trying to make wild claims as I have no reason to do this. If I am wrong, then maybe what I have been told and read is also incorrect. Does the resident SLAPP expert know the facts from actually filing SLAPP lawsuits or being either a plantiff or a defendant ? In other words what type of legal expertise do you have ? I am more than willing to stand corrected without being yelled at or insulted.

0

Jay Allen Sanford May 10, 2010 @ 10:07 p.m.

Ha, room fulla sleuths 'round hee-yah! Can't even get away with a copy/pasted "reply" with these eagle eyed commentators ---

0

David Dodd May 10, 2010 @ 10:35 p.m.

God, I feel so guilty, I'm practically watching a train derail in here. It's like when I was a kid, and Gilligan kept screwing up any hope of getting off of the island. I close this browser and then I can't help myself, I have to come back for more.

0

Grasca May 11, 2010 @ 6:42 a.m.

This is definitely a situation worthy of Tina Fey and Alec Baldwin. Runner ups rule !

0

Grasca May 11, 2010 @ noon

I would think someone who has a SLAPP filed against them might need an attorney to prepare the legal response which is required. Unless you can find pro bono legal assistance, there will be an expense and stress involved. Here is a link to everything a person might want to know about SLAPPS and SLAPP backs. I cannot find anything in this explanation which guarantees a SLAPP will be resolved within 30 days or that a defendant automatically recovers costs and damages.

http://www.casp.net/slapps/procede.html

0

David Dodd May 11, 2010 @ 8:36 p.m.

I've found the courts extremely helpful to citizens that wish to file legal responses and declarations. I've also found that many judges look favorably on citizens that are sued frivilously by ambulance chasers. The resources at many court buildings in California are extremely helpful, one can even investigate the past cases of the opposing council. I once successfully defended myself in pro per, it was epic. The judge told the opposing councelor to "shut up" several times during the proceedings.

0

Grasca May 11, 2010 @ 11:06 p.m.

Remembrance of Things Past ( a literary allusion or Cut and Paste Fun ):

"Russl, Read SurfPuppy's comments on SignOn San Diego.

Billy Bob Henry was banned, so he switched to Johnny Vegas and got banned again. Now he uses SurfPuppy619.

Go read his other posts on this site. Pay attention to the style.

In the long run, it doesn't matter... the Reader doesn't have a policy against using multiple names. I just think it's sad and points to the true root here... troll.

On No More Bragging Rights

Join in, Surf Pup. All it takes is an opinion and a computer.

He has both. SurfPuppy is simply Johnny Vegas, aka Billy Bob Henry, by yet another name.

As Just Wondering said, he's a troll.

Unlike most other online forums, the Reader doesn't have a policy against using more than one name... whatever."

0

SurfPuppy619 May 12, 2010 @ 12:03 a.m.

Unlike most other online forums, the Reader doesn't have a policy against using more than one name... whatever."

Hahaha....I forgot, you know how to cut and paste!

And the only troll here is you "grasca" who is trying to obviously scare someone into believing your 2nd grade nonsense, that you can "sue" someone and cause them headaches. Yeah, right.

You're a moron, plain and simple. I have "slapped" you around on this thread like a little school girl, and have owned you so bad you look like a school girl.

Put that in your threat bong and smoke it.

0

SurfPuppy619 May 12, 2010 @ 12:09 a.m.

I cannot find anything in this explanation which guarantees a SLAPP will be resolved within 30 days or that a defendant automatically recovers costs and damages.

http://www.casp.net/slapps/procede.html

By Grasca

More "cut and paste" I see.

So I guess because you "cannot find anything" then it must not be true!!!!

Of course you would not be able to find home plate in Yankee stadium either I bet, so there must not be a home plate in Yankee stadium, using your logic and super sleuthing skills!.

BTW-I wouldn't put too much faith in Just Wondering or russl, they are both GED educated gov workfare employees.

0

SurfPuppy619 May 12, 2010 @ 12:20 a.m.

I am only repeating what a licensed attorney told me in terms of SLAPP.

By Grasca

Oh, that must explain the cut and paste job you did from this website, and then tried to pass it off as your own comment (until I busted you on it);

http://www.casp.net/slapps/procede.html

Because you talked to a "licensed attorney"....Hmmmm....is a website a licensed attorney in your world??????

And I know when you "talked" to an attorney that this obviously makes you the know everything about the law- and why you're posting total and complete nonsense about suing a reporter!

I also hate to tell you this, but unless an attorney who has filed or defended these lawsuits they won't know the law about SLAPP/defamation lawsuits, but far from a moron like me to tell you (the resident expert on all things about the law) about matters!

0

Russ Lewis May 12, 2010 @ 12:28 a.m.

SP, you are more full of s*** than a Porta-Potti.

0

SurfPuppy619 May 12, 2010 @ 12:32 a.m.

On Wake Up, Speak Up Posted on April 14 at 4:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The truth is an absolute defense. By Grasca

On Wake Up, Speak Up Posted on April 14 at 4:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Change to "libelous and abusive statements."

Are you an attorney licensed to practice in the State of California ?

Step 1 Understand the definition of defamation of character. Defamation of character is the communication of false information stated as a fact which brings harm to an individual or an entity, such as a business, group or government. For it to be defamation, the statement must be delivered in speech or in writing to at least one person other than the victim. Step 2 Learn when to use the term slander. Slander is used when the defamation of character is spoken. This can be person to person or a person speaking to many people. Step 3 Say the term libel when referring to the written defamation of someone's character. Libel is the defamation of an individual's or an entity's character which is published in a written medium, such as a newspaper. However, any written communication can be libelous as long as it's transmitted to a third party. Step 4 Use the libel term when the defamation of character comes from audible media. Now, most courts consider defamation of character made during a radio or television broadcast to also be libel, even though the defamation was spoken. Step 5 Know the absolute defense against libel and slander. There are a number of possible defenses against libel and slander, but the only one which is an absolute defense is truth. If the statement is true, it cannot be considered libel or slander.

By Grasca

I never knew you were an expert on defamation too Grasca!

Thanks for the cut and paste job! I am going to print this out and save it!

0

Grasca May 12, 2010 @ 7:09 a.m.

If anyone on this thread has filed a SLAPP lawsuit or been served with one, would they be kind enough to share their experience ? No one is trying to threaten contributors but rather to understand SLAPP in a constructive way. Triple checking facts in stringer Reader stories (according to Mr. Jay) is not required. In my opinion this leaves the door open for those misunderstandings which some might escalate into the land of lawsuits, courtrooms, and judges. Besides it seems that a decent and responsible writer would want to have as much accuracy as possible unless their writing is non fiction. Maybe there are legal exceptions to first person accounts written from DUI checkpoints and CVS parking lots ? If there is a dog in the water who has a California state bar number, please share so his/her history can be printed as the other attorney's was on this thread.

0

Grasca May 12, 2010 @ 7:10 a.m.

Oop should I have written fiction and not non fiction. My error.

0

Grasca May 12, 2010 @ 7:15 a.m.

To quote a famous source about personal attacks and blog manners :

"Yes, potentially, posting comments on the internet can lead to misunderstandings concerning the intent of the comment. And no matter what, I've come to understand that I'm going to piss SOMEONE off, regardless of my intentions otherwise. It can be frustrating. I have absolutely no problem with opinions different from my own, it's enlightening and entertaining.

================== Hey, welcome to the club!

But I will say this, some of the people who get "pissed off" will try to silence you and your opinion/s just b/c they don't agree with it- and they do that by making personal attacks.

That has happened to me more than once here and when they start trying to silence your opinion b/c they don'/t agree with it by making baselss personal attacks, then that causes problems.

So different opinions is one thing, making personal attacks b/c of your opinion/s is another animal all together."

0

SurfPuppy619 May 12, 2010 @ 7:54 a.m.

"Yes, potentially, posting comments on the internet can lead to misunderstandings concerning the intent of the comment. And no matter what, I've come to understand that I'm going to piss SOMEONE off, regardless of my intentions otherwise."

Yes, going around posting comments calling names like troll and so forth might tend to have people respond back in a like manner.

Same with going around makeing subtle threats of lawsuits to reporters, even while admitting such lawsuits would have no legal basis and would just be done for harrassment purposes.

0

SurfPuppy619 May 12, 2010 @ 8 a.m.

I don't have any beef with you Grasca, I was just trying to point out some issues regarding the law and public figures-when for some reason the term troll was tossed around. My buddy "Just Wondering" (whom you quoted from) loves to call me that because he sees me as a threat to his pension scam-but that is just one person who is riding the scam of his life, out of the many here............

0

Grasca May 12, 2010 @ 8:10 a.m.

Please define "subtle" threat ? I cannot find this term in Black's Law Dictionary. Do you have your copy handy ? I certainly did not use the derogative word "troll" in any of my postings. If one has used many identities on various blogs and has been removed for cause, I think a reasonable person can safely assume that being subtle is not that person's strong suit. The issue remains whether or not a triple check article (be it from a stringer or staff) has more journalistic merit or gravitas. If a writer cannot take the time to do research and/or write with integrity, then why write at all ? Still waiting for that dog in the water's Cal Bar number so I can do my research. Who admitted that a SLAPP suit has no legal basis ? If this were the case, SLAPP suits would not exist or be filed. All SLAPP lawsuits are not dismissed. Perhaps a favored female jurist needs to weigh in on this topic.

0

David Dodd May 12, 2010 @ 8:28 a.m.

To quote a famous source about personal attacks and blog manners :

"Yes, potentially, posting comments on the internet can lead to misunderstandings concerning the intent of the comment. And no matter what, I've come to understand that I'm going to piss SOMEONE off, regardless of my intentions otherwise. It can be frustrating. I have absolutely no problem with opinions different from my own, it's enlightening and entertaining.["]

Hey, I'm far from famous. But I defy you to find anything I've written (here or elsewhere) that references possibly bringing a lawsuit against anyone.

0

Grasca May 12, 2010 @ 8:39 a.m.

Indicating that one would bring a lawsuit personally is a far cry from saying some one else might do so.

I thought the quoted remarks about internet postings from a famous or not so famous person made perfect sense and might calm down the rhetoric.

Obviously the vitriol is flowing faster than the oil in the Gulf from certain predictable sources.

0

Grasca May 12, 2010 @ 9:11 a.m.

Drink 3 tall glasses of wheatgrass and post tomorrow.

0

CuddleFish May 12, 2010 @ 10:56 a.m.

LOL!! Good advice, Grasca!!

So many intelligent people here wasting so much good sunshine. I suppose it would be too much to ask that we all agree to disagree and that opinions differ on all subjects raised on this thread, and let it die a merciful death.

What am I saying? ;)

0

Grasca May 12, 2010 @ 3:13 p.m.

Thanks, Cuddles, for being the voice of reason.

Requiescat in pace and adios.

0

Duhbya May 12, 2010 @ 3:39 p.m.

Great. Thanks, you two. I was SO close to being over the projectile vomiting.

0

Sign in to comment