ojai news at The Ojai Post :: blog, newspaper, events in Ojai, California

mmmmm warm with a storm brewing. at least that's how it looks.

I breathe a sigh of happiness when I see beauty like this...you are really a wonderfully uplifting inspiring photographer!

ha, except for my head in the bottom right corner! thanks suza and DK. this was taken a couple weeks ago on Thacher Rd.

Actually i liked the head shadow...like you are watching it all...a witness.

ha! ha! i did not notice that...

i've been watching the thread on Jeffery San Marchi's death and i did not know Jeff.

I just want to take a moment to praise the living "media masters"- Tyler, evan, and all the others who make the ojaipost happen

not too crazy, not too flabby...
just about right!!

not too crazy, not too flabby...

On a good day, El A, thanks.

tyler what is technorati?

Hi DK - Technorati (http://www.technorati.com/) is a blog and media aggregator. In other words, they are a central location for finding content, viewing trends and just keeping an eye on what people are blogging, vlogging and talking about.

If you have a Technorati account set up, you can click the "Bookmark" image at the bottom of any post to bookmark that particular entry in your Technorati account. The more people do that for an entry, the more visibility it has.

I've written a bit more about this at my personal blog, which you can reach by clicking on my name above.

Thanks Tyler, just read your post and it's quite helpful for bloggers. :)
I will do some registering...
Meanwhile, do you know your date/time stamp says 12/30/2007 2:31 am? are you typing from the future? isn't this year already going fast enough ? :)

Hi DK -
ha! i'm trying to post once a day, and was actually getting ahead of myself.
best,
tyler

Tyler,
one a day is a really good discipline, I need to get back to that myself. I was 'just' going to comment on the dating spam when you snagged it. Can't believe that's starting?

Mitt Romney 08

hey Tyler,

this is just a thought, o.k.. ??

next time you feel it is necessary to shut down a thread -- which is totally your perogative -- maybe you could give a little advance notice...........

i for one would like to have replied to a couple of comments...... but didn't get the chance because it was all over..... in fact, would still like to reply.... can you give us all anothr 24 hours on this thread? understood that you have had your say.......

Hi n.o.t.a. -

I'm going to keep that thread shut down. I wrote comment #49 at 8:51pm with the stated intention to keep the thread open, and within 1/2 hour was called a hypocrite and threatened with lawsuits. Good times!

You are more than welcome to speak your mind here on this thread though...

Cheers,
Tyler

o.k., thanks.....

anyway, seems like everything here got suddenly law litigious here, wouldn't you say??..... are we really free to blog here, or do we all have to be looking over our shoulder to see if somebody is coming after us here????

Hi n.o.t.a. -

Some people seem to think that threatening, taunting or inviting lawsuits is acceptable social behavior and a perfectly reasonable first step in a conversation, with the intention of having a zero-sum desired outcome.

I'm not one of those who subscribe to such a 'scorched earth' policy, and always look for a win-win situation for all parties involved.

I try to conduct The Ojai Post with integrity and benefit to the community, and lawsuits are antithetical to what I try to accomplish on a daily basis.

Thanks for participating. I'm sure you are safe speaking your mind, if done with civility and respect, as I encourage from all of our participants.

Cheers,
Tyler

Dear None of the Above,

Please be advised that I am monitoring this site on behalf of the Ojai and Ventura Voice; the Estate of Jeffery San Marchi; and any individuals who may be slandered by posted remarks herein.

And Tyler, your hypocrisy is showing again. Did you not support Jeff F.'s lawsuit?

-Cathy Elliott Jones

Tyler-

You have my full and utter support.
In the "lingua franca"- you are a "mensch"

I have rarely seen an individual with the intelligence, communication abilities and fair-mindedness that you have.

The legals, para-legals and faux-legals that have found their way here are an unfortunate disturbance.

I suspect they are crazy but would not want to go on record for fear of legal rumor and gossip and innuendo that they will probably spread about me.

I'm so glad I remain "El Anonimo" with an encrypted IP address.

But looks like we go out this year with a BANG!!!

Cathy Elliott Jones- you are a WITCH!!
(a smart one, but oh so wicked)

Thank you, El Anonimo. At least you used a "w" instead of a "b" and at least you didn't call me a Nazi.

Adios, and Happy New Year!

-Cathy Elliott Jones

"I'm ready to offer scholarships to Marshall Rosenbergs (spl)compassionate communication workshops."

Comment #31 Posted by: My Two Sense | December 30, 2007 06:34 PM

So what is nonviolent communication?

As the name implies, this approach to communication emphasizes compassion as the motivation for action rather than fear, guilt, shame, blame, coercion, threat or justification for punishment. In other words, it is about getting what you want for reasons you will not regret later.

Non violent communication techniques allow you to make conscious choices about how you will respond whether you get what you want, or not.

It is definitely NOT about guilt and tricking people into giving you what you want.

The skills are built on Dr. Marshall B. Rosenberg's application of Nonviolent Communication.

The process of Non Violent Communication encourages us to focus on what we and others are observing, how and why we are each feeling as we do, what our underlying needs are, and what each of us would like to have happen.

These skills emphasize personal responsibility for our actions and the choices we make when we respond to others.

Nonviolent Communication skills will assist you in dealing with major blocks to communication such as demands, diagnoses and blaming. In Non Violent Communication trainings you will learn to express your feelings without attacking. This will help minimize the likelihood of facing defensive reactions in others. The skills will help you make clear requests. They will help you receive critical and hostile messages without taking them personally, giving in, or losing self-esteem. These skills will be useful with your family, friends, students, subordinates, supervisors, co-workers and clients. These skills will be useful with your own internal dialogues.

Non Violent Communication is a clear and effective model for communicating in a way that is cooperative, conscious, and compassionate.

http://www.cnvc.org/nvc.htm

oh, be quite richard...

just watch this and calm the f down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZInc-E1pSo4

I did a NVC workshop a while ago and met Muhammed Ali there.
I asked him, "Muhammed, what the bleep are you doing here..."?

He answered: "I float like a butterfly, I sting like a bee, but I want to learn to say that non-violently..."

Could this be the problem?

Psychological Projection:

In psychology, psychological projection is a defense mechanism in which one attributes to others one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions.

In other words, one "projects" one's own motivations, desires, and feelings onto someone else.

Projection is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits.

It is entirely possible to go through life attributing one's own undesirable traits to other people or agencies.

The individual perceives in others the motive he denies having himself.

For example, someone who lies and cheats is sure that everyone else is dishonest.

An individual who possesses malicious characteristics, but who is unwilling to perceive himself as an antagonist, convinces himself that his opponent feels and would act the same way.

Dear Cathy -

It's great to hear you are monitoring the site. Our readership continues to grow thanks to loyal readers like yourself! It feels good to know we are the premier alternative media source in Ojai where people come to discuss the issues important to them. I am honored by your pledge.

I'm also looking forward to more hard-hitting, serious journalistic endeavors from the little paper that could under your wise and considered leadership.

Love,
Tyler

PS - better grab these domains before someone else hijacks registers them!
cathyelliottjones.com is available
cathyelliottjones.net is available
cathyelliottjones.org is available

Dear Tyler,

As the attorney for the Ojai and Ventura Voice and the Estate of Jeffrey W. San Marchi, I am afraid you have misconstrued my decision to monitor your site, but of course, you are entitled to convince yourself that my presence elevates you to the premier Ojai Alternative Media site. Your eagerness is rather sweet.

You are also welcome to become Cathy Elliott Jones by poaching the domain names you researched. But please be aware that if you come anywhere near my very expensive shoes and cocktail dresses and evening gowns, a lawsuit would be the best thing I will do to you.

Perhaps you should read the post that precedes yours. Since the majority of your posters on your "premier" site seem to lack the courage to sign their names, I am uncertain of his or her credentials, and would not want to steer you down the wrong path. But it never hurts to look deep within oneself, and perhaps ascertain your rather unsettling motivation for wanting to be me.

Very truly yours,

Cathy Elliott Jones

"But it never hurts to look deep within oneself, and perhaps ascertain your rather unsettling motivation for wanting to be me."

Amazing! In all the years I've been a psychologist I've never come across a case like this!

Delusions of Grandeur

Megalomania (from the Greek word μεγαλομανία) is a psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, genius, or omnipotence - often generally termed as delusions of grandeur. The word is a collaboration of the word "mania" meaning madness and the Greek "megalo" meaning an obsession with grandiosity and extravagance, a common symptom of megalomania. It is often symptomatic of manic or paranoid disorders.

Tyler,

You are now the "King" and Suza is the "Queen" of unsubstantiated accusations. Perhaps you should run for city council ?

Sincerely,
Joel A. Anderson

i would consider going to the contradance tonight but it just seems so wrong...

John Nasse is having a New Year's eve party: 308 W. Aliso. Look for the house that twinkles!

isn't that the 1/2way house in ojai?

Yes! But who among us is all there?

i rezemble that remarque...

where the hell is evan' when you need him????

PS I'm sure there are lots of other parties. As for me, I'm too tired to go out. I leave that up to the people with very expensive shoes and cocktail dresses and evening gowns.

El Anonimo, that previous remarque was not aimed at you! It was a tongue in cheek philosophical question aimed at the whole human race.

As one of my students Malchia Olshan used to say upon walking into class:

"I'm here, because I'm not all there!"

I so enjoy your wit and have laughed many a time till the tears ran down my cheeks...

Dear two anonomysees and Suza:

Am I supposed to be feeding the troll here? Is your traffic slowed down because I'm busy cooking for my family and friends?

You can let it go for one night. Have some fun. Don't fall asleep alone by nodding off by the pale lights of the computer.

Try to have a Happy New Year, please.

But Suza, like I told Tyler, don't even think about my shoes and/or dresses. They would not suit you, anyway.

And you won't miss anything by letting this go tonight. This thing ain't going away.

-Cathy Elliott Jones

I'm worried I gave the wrong impression about the party at John Nasse's house. I just went by and it really is a real New Year's Eve party. There is a red heart pulsing in the window and the house is all aglow...

What suza you weren't welcome there either?

I wholeheartedly agree with El Anononimo on this one with respect to Tyler:

"I have rarely seen an individual with the intelligence, communication abilities and fair-mindedness that you have". Thanks Tyler!

Here's to another great year of marvelous sharing, learning and being inspired by the community of writers and commenters found here. I know the bickering and (at times) outright toxic exchanges will probably continue (and, I admit - sometimes a good "spicefest" is oh so fun) but I would hope that at least they be conducted in a mature and half-way intellegient way. I know I have learned (or been influenced by) quite a few of the "heated" debates I've read here. Why not make a New Year's resolution to leave the puerile, personally vicious and ultimately downright embarrassing entries for the thousands of other useless blogs out there.

Happy 2008 everyone!

GREETINGS TO ALL.
We are still in the PEACE
AND GOOD WILL , time of the year and are now entering A NEW DAY, A NEW YEAR,time for a a new begining..TO ALL, I WISH YOU A VERY HAPPY, HEALTHY, PROPEROUS AND PEACEFUL NEW YEAR,,
BLESSINGS,
ROWE

Since we evidently now have an attorney monitoring this site for "slander", I thought it might be prudent to do a little research on the subject.

Slander is a form of "defamation", but to defame someone over the internet (that is, in writing), is considered libel, not slander. Anyone interested can do a web search using the terms "libel and the internet." Below are a few paragraphs I found in that manner that present some basic information.

As I read these paragraphs, it appears that, in order to be libelous, a statement has to be a false statement of fact, not just opinion. So if I call a woman a witch, it is not libelous, because that is just my opinion of her character. But if I say I saw her brewing a poisonous broth and casting evil spells, when I didn't really see it with my own eyes, that could be libel.

Anyway, that is just my interpretation of the following paragraphs -- I am not a lawyer!

When an injurious false statement is made about an individual, the individual is *defamed*. Defamation can occur in two forms: libel or slander. Libel occurs when there is a written statement injuring an individual, and slander occurs when there is an oral statement that injures an individual. Since on-line is considered to be written material, on-line defamation is considered to be libel.

Libel occurs when a false statement is written which injures an individual by disgracing him. The statement must be about an individual and the readers must be aware that the individual is the subject of the false statement. Furthermore, the defamatory statement must not be an opinion, but rather one of fact. *This is true because . . . only false statements are actionable, and the Supreme Court has held, under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries, but on the competition of other ideas.* (Internet and the Law, p. 162-163.)

An individual considered to be a public figure must prove that the libeler knew the statement was false, or had serious questions regarding the truth of the statement. When the individual that was libeled is not a public figure, the threshold to recover damages is lower and requires proving negligence on the part of the libeler. (Internet and the Law, p. 163). There have been some proposals during recent case litigation that individuals libeled on the Internet should be regarded as a public figure, thus requiring the higher threshold level to recover for damages. (See libel treatment in the United States, infra.)

Dear Not a Lawyer,

For not being lawyer, your treatise was fairly accurate. To be more precise, I should have said "slander and libel," because if someone repeated here a slanderous remark made by someone else, the one who made the remark could be liable for slander, and the one who committed it to writing could be liable for libel.

Calling me a witch is neither, in fact, it was humorous (at least to me). Saying Ojai got an early Christmas present when Jeff died so suddenly is not slander, just sickening behavior by a classless lout (my opinion, thus not slander). Anonymously calling me insane, which could damage my business and reputation, even though it was the last resort of cowardly idiot bloggers with nothing better to do on New Year's Eve, would qualify as libel.

Going back and carefully editing one's contributions to a blog have serious legal implications unrelated to libel and slander. Fortunately, we have copies of the originals.

Thank you for your clarification.

-Cathy Elliott Jones

Dear Cathy -

Your continued participation on The Ojai Post, the accompanying accusations against myself and the other participants and the reactionary name-calling are not welcomed.

If you feel the continued need to reach the Ojai community through a media outlet, please start your own blog or utilize the OV Voice. Your continued legal threats against The Ojai Post, a completely non-commercial entity that takes no advertising and has no revenue streams by design, is causing serious and tangible injury to the publication, as evidenced by the extensive correspondence I am receiving from individuals who are frightened to be the victim of a lawsuit, frivolous or otherwise, and thus are weighing the decision to not participate.

Posts and comments have not been edited - they have been left intact because I believe that the correspondence between community members speaks for itself.

As the moderator of the site, I am banning you from further participation, and wish you the best of success in future endeavors, provided it does not negatively impact myself or the participating members of the Ojai Post community.

I will provide you one final comment, in which you can either accept the olive branch extended or not.

Again, I will extend the offer to amicably sit down for a cup of tea with you, to which I have received no reply from you or others to date who are threatening legal action.
http://www.ojaipost.com/2007/12/memorial_service_for_jeffrey_w.shtml#comment-74037

Love,
Tyler

Tyler,

Anonymous though I may be, you have my full support on this. You tried numerous times to be civil and engage in a worthwhile discussion and were rebuffed every time. This person is such an obvious, foolish and unworthy disruption and absolute antithesis to the spirit and community you have so amazingly fostered here. And I'm sure that people are much more stymied by her big mouth (and absolute inability to self-edit or communitcate with other adults in an appropriate fashion) than any supposed legal prowess. I have many lawyers in my family and they would be embarrassed by all of this - as many of us are!

Some people really need to get over themselves!

To the notorious Cathy Elliot Jones,
I'm sure you have been kicked out of loftier haunts. You give 'em hell darling.

Tyler-
ditto here.
your actions under stress and Legal Action are exemplary.
I only wish I could handle conflict as well.
I swear, if I didn't know any better (wink-wink) I would think Ms. (Idiot) Jones was actually trying to create a disturbance that she would then "graciously" legally "unentangle"

How about a new thread on (old) lawyer jokes?

Tyler, you have my full support, too, and if she didn't scare the bejesus out of me I would sign my name to this.

Rude, obnoxious bullies are always scary to civilized, decent people. But legally, she can't do a darn thing to anyone here. It's laughable, really.

Tyler, perhaps you could file a complaint against her with the the ABA for harrassment. Or at least conduct seriously unbecoming (and ridiculous, frivolous, inane...etc.)

Dear Anonymous #51 -

Thank you for your suggestion - consider it duly noted. While I reserve the right to pursue any legal action necessary to protect The Ojai Post and my own personal livelihood, I stand by my commitment to resolve the issue outside the courts of law.

And thanks to everyone for their ongoing support of The Ojai Post, the premier alternative media source in Ojai, and me personally - it is appreciated.

Cathy Jones,

With all respect, it seems to me your attempted clarification only blurs the crucial distinction in libel law.

You made it sound as though the important distinction in determining whether someone is libelled is whether they themselves regard the comment as humorous ("witch") or injurious ("insane").

But as I read the law, the crucial distinction is rather between statements that are merely opinion -- therefore not subject to libel -- versus statements that are falsifications of fact, which are potentially libellous.

Since calling you a witch and calling you insane are equally matters of opinion, aren't both statements equally immune from libel prosecution?

Here's one for you, not an attorny:

If Suza Francina were as litigious as CEJ, would the former have a case against the latter for malicious defamation of character? Sadly, on a previous thread that should have been dedicated to the memory of a much beloved man, CEJ felt compelled to publically bash and debase Suza. And then goes around accusing others of being libelous and hypocrits...Or do we just have to chalk this up to extremely bad taste??? Personally, I bet many of us would love to see Ms. Jones shake a little in her "expensive" little boots!

Maybe someone legally competent and objective will review the entire sequence of comments and give us all an independent assessment of where, if anywhere, the actual legal liability may lie.....

This shall be quite interesting.

Tyler and Suza, again, what facts to you have to support your claim that Jeff San Marchi "didn't get it right" ?

Respectfully,
Joel A. Anderson

re The Ojai Post as a non-Commercial Site ?

I've noticed links to Tylers web business,on this sight. Tyler, do you do free web building ?

Respectfully,
Joel A. Anderson

Joel -

I am cleaning house and banning you as well. Treating you with respect and courtesy, while repeatedly attempting to in good faith answer your questions, has paid zero dividends. No additional explanation necessary. Go find another sandbox.

Tyler

I hope the Ojai Ventura Voice will continue with the writers and photographers that were in place but it seems that the decision is in the hands of Mr. San Marchi's estate of which the executor - who again shows her true colors by promising to "monitor" (for reasons only she can reiterate) this very site that offers the free speech which Mr. San Marchi supported. So not only do we have aspects of Suza Security but now we have big brother - or sister. And maybe I'll be called a name or two but it seems that the daughters of Jeff San Marchi should take a good hard look at who they've entrusted their father's legacy to.

CEJ- FYI - Could you imagine that people post their comments anonomously or post their thoughts about you because you are simply another litigious being on this planet who contributes to its destruction demonstrated by your posts? Again, it shows your true colors, that, in addition to announcing publicly your "Suza "Security" plan, you're "monitoring" a thread that basically constitutes free speech. Hello? And you're representing Jeff San Marchi's estate? I'd urge Jeff's two daughters to take a good hard look at who they've entrusted their father's legacy to. I'd love to see the Ojai/Ventura Voice continue, but not in the hands of a lawyer, but in the hands of all the existing writers, columnists and photographers. But if the daughters decide otherwise, it should be their right to walk away with their dad's legacy intact and any financial gains he was able to leave for them.

Happy New Year Everyone :-)
> A Kansas City lawyer went duck hunting in rural Kansas . He shot and
> dropped a bird, but it fell into a farmer's field on the other side
> of a fence.
>
> As the lawyer climbed over the fence, an elderly farmer drove up on
> his tractor and asked him what he was doing.
>
> The litigator responded, "I shot a duck and it fell in this field,
> and now I'm going to retrieve it."
>
> The old farmer replied, "This is my property, and you are not coming
> over here."
>
> The indignant lawyer said, "I am one of the best trial attorneys in
> the United States and, if you don't let me get that duck, I'll sue
> you and take everything you own."
>
> The old farmer smiled and said, "Apparently, you don't know how we
> settle disputes in Kansas. Here, we settle small disagreements with
> the 'Three Kick Rule.'"
>
> This prompted the lawyer to ask, "What is the 'Three Kick Rule'?"
>
> The Farmer replied, "Well, because the dispute occurs on my land, I
> get to go first. I kick you three times and then you kick me three
> times and so on back and forth until someone gives up."
>
> The attorney quickly thought about the proposed contest and decided
> that he could easily take the old codger. He agreed to abide by the
> local custom.
>
> The old farmer slowly climbed down from the tractor and walked up to
> the attorney.
>
> His first kick planted the toe of his heavy steel toed work boot into
> the lawyer's groin and dropped him to his knees.
>
> His second kick to the midriff sent the lawyer's last meal gushing
> from his mouth.
>
> The lawyer was on all fours when the farmer's third kick to his rear
> end, sent him face-first into a fresh cow pie.
>
> The lawyer summoned every bit of his will and managed to get to his
> feet.
>
> Wiping his face with the arm of his jacket, he said, "Okay, you old
> fart. Now it's my turn."
>
> The old farmer smiled and said, "Nah, I give up. You can have the duck."

What kind of free blog bans the posters simply for not agreeing with the owner of the blog ? Doesn't seem like the West, more like communist China ?

A psychologist at a major university gave a presentation at a seminar describing an important innovation in the animal studies he was conducting -- rather than using rats in his studies, he said, he was having some success using lawyers instead.

He described the advantages of using lawyers instead of rats.

First of all, lawyers are far more plentiful.

Second, the psychologists got far less attached to the lawyers than they did to the rats.

Finally, and most important, there are some things rats just won't do.

What kind of free blog bans the posters simply for not agreeing with the owner of the blog ?

Dear Angela -

I see you're a first time commenter. Welcome to the Post - it is a pleasure to have you participate.

Thank you for raising the issue - I am glad I have a chance to address it. It's not as simple as someone "not agreeing" with me. I have three recent participants who share the same agenda, and that is in part to bait me into saying something libelous or defamatory about a certain publication or individual, with the intent to enter into a legal action. They have been blunt in their intention.

When it's just a matter of retorts, repartee and disagreements, I rather enjoy sparring a bit over the issues. And I don't ban anyone for that. As a matter of fact, in the 22 months of the Post's existence prior to today, I have banned a single person, who went by the moniker "evan is great" and repeatedly denigrated an author and friend, despite multiple warnings.

But when that disagreement directly threatens what I have built here as my contribution to the Ojai community, and when it directly threatens my financial stability and my livelihood, then it is in my best interest to graciously remove those people from participating.

Perhaps you simply don't agree with me, and that's fine. You're welcome to participate, and I don't mind being criticized. Threatened with a lawsuit? That's a whole 'nother ball of wax.

Blessings,
Tyler

Why would you feel threatened by a lawsuit if you did nothing incorrect?

Angela Davis-
I'm going to sue you for improper use of the English language.
"...did nothing incorrect"?

try "...did nothing incorrectly"?

and i have a proper grammatical lawyer to back me up on this.

you see, "did 'nothing' incorrect", of course means he did "nothing" and he was "incorrect"

but "did 'nothing' incorrectly" means there was "nothing" he could do "incorrectly", hence all his actions were "correct".

or as Joel A. (for ahol.) Anderson might add that he "didn't get it right" since he never could do "nothing" "incorrect(ly)"

sosume, i gotta nuthin to care...

Dear Angela -

I'd prefer not to comment any more on this matter, but suffice it to say that threats and legal action from an attorney are unpalatable and not something I wish to encourage.

Regards,
Tyler

THE FOLLOWING IS A STATEMENT OF OPINION:

Tyler, you are acting 100% correctly here. When trolls come on to the blog and try to bait people into saying something on which they they can hinge a malicious legal action, as moderator you should absolutely ban them. The blog is a free speech zone, not a SLAPP zone. It is shocking that Cathy Jones, an attorney, does not seem to get that. This faux-"journalist" Joel character is of the same ilk, focusing on extracting something from you regarding domain names or God knows what. Your statements stand on their own, if he thinks they constitute the basis for a legal action, he ought to put up or shut up. And stop insulting real journalists by pretending that what he is doing is within the realm of responsible journalism.

Hit these losers with an anti-SLAPP motion if they do bring an action.

In the meantime, by providing a public forum where even this distasteful insanity from these two can be recorded, I think you have once again done a public service. Now when people looking for an attorney are considering Ms. Jones, they can google her, and see this thread. Reading her own words here will give them a very good idea of whether to engage her.

Same with "Journalist" Anderson, who supports Cathy Jones' printing of private emails. Certainly if this character calls someone up pretending to be a journalist, looking for an interview, it will be helpful that a quick Google search will now reveal what one would be dealing with.

Unfortunately, there is the potential of real damage from this kind of malicious nonsense. These kinds of threats - "monitoring" indeed! - from Ms. Jones may induce some to refrain from participating on the blog. Others - like yours truly - are more likely to do so anonymously. Her intent appears to be just that - harm to the blog and to you. Let's hope she fails.

Ultimately, Cathy Jones and Mr. Anderson sadly malign the memory of Jeff with their anti-free speech, malicious and threatening nonsense. Using Jeff's passing as an occasion to indulge old grudges publicly is a new low in gutter mentality.

Cathy Jones, in your explanation of libel and slander, you forget that truth is an absolute defense.

It might seem insane to you, but consider that a jury of your peers - or even a judge as a matter of law - might read your posts here and find they demonstrate you in fact are insane.

Of course, that's just my opinion.

"Dear None of the Above,

Please be advised that I am monitoring this site on behalf of the Ojai and Ventura Voice; the Estate of Jeffery San Marchi; and any individuals who may be slandered by posted remarks herein...

-Cathy Elliott Jones

Comment #18 Posted by: Cathy Elliott Jones"

This is quite a statement for someone who is very "careful" with her words. Let's examine it.

"I am monitoring this site on behalf of the Ojai and Ventura Voice".

My understanding is that the Ojai and Ventura Voice is an unincorporated entity, essentially Mr. San Marchi. He has passed away. Assuming Ms. Jones in fact is the attorney for the Voice, or was at some time in the past, who authorized her as attorney to "monitor" the Post? And impliedly threaten legal action for statements she believes to be "slander"?

"I am monitoring this site on behalf of ... the Estate of Jeffery San Marchi..."

Really? Again, who appointed Ms. Jones? Until a legally authorized representative of the estate has been appointed by the court (i.e. an executor or administrator), who has the authority to engage Ms. Jones as an attorney on behalf of the estate? Mr. San Marchi passed away barely a week ago. It is highly doubtful that the court has appointed an executor or administrator for the estate. Until that happens, Ms. Jones may be acting on someone's behalf, but it would not be the estate.

"I am monitoring this site on behalf of ... any individuals who may be slandered by posted remarks herein."

What, is Ms. Jones claiming that individual citizens have engaged her prospectively to monitor this site on their behalf? Or is she just saying that she stands ready to represent anyone who feels "slandered", kind of like an attorney hanging out at the emergency room, or in the courthouse, watching the proceedings, ready to step in and tell some poor sap that she or he has been wronged and she can help (for a fee, presumably?).

Here is a selection from the California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct (www.calbar.org) which Ms. Jones might wish to take a look at:

"Rule 3-200. Prohibited Objectives of Employment

A member shall not seek, accept, or continue employment if the member knows or should know that the objective of such employment is:

(A) To bring an action, conduct a defense, assert a position in litigation, or take an appeal, without probable cause and for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring any person..."

Or, take a look at Rule 1-400, governing advertising and solicitation. This says pretty clearly that attorneys are prohibited from making untrue or misleading statements, or transmitting them "in any manner which involves intrusion, coercion, duress, compulsion, intimidation, threats, or vexatious or harassing conduct".

Ms. Jones appears to be claiming she has already been engaged by the estate - something that appears highly doubtful - to monitor for slander, and then seems to hold herself out for further employment by individuals feeling slandered. If what Ms. Jones intends here is to troll for clients to sue the Post, might she be running afoul of these provisions?

Hmm. Does Ms. Jones' post constitute the following from the California Penal Code?

"158. Common barratry is the practice of exciting groundless
judicial proceedings, and is punishable by imprisonment in the county
jail not exceeding six months and by fine not exceeding one thousand
dollars ($1,000)."

(But perhaps she is saved by the following:

"159. No person can be convicted of common barratry except upon
proof that he has excited suits or proceedings at law in at least
three instances, and with a corrupt or malicious intent to vex and
annoy.")

From Ms. Jones' later post: "But please be aware that if you come anywhere near my very expensive shoes and cocktail dresses and evening gowns, a lawsuit would be the best thing I will do to you."

Is this member of the California Bar now threatening violence in addition to lawsuits?

Here is a portion of Penal Code section 422:

"422. Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which
will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with
the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or
by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a
threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out,
which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made,
is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to
convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an
immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes
that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own
safety or for his or her immediate family's safety, shall be punished
by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by
imprisonment in the state prison."

Ms. Jones published her statement at 5:30p.m. on New Year's Eve. Was she trying to terrorize Tyler into staying home, for fear of running into her around town?

Longstanding Ojai Citizen (LOC):

You (semi) hijacked my pseudonym. Where’s my attorney!! :) :) :)
(I like it –I hope you keep it! )

Speaking of posting pseudonymously / anonymously: I think this is a perfect time to point out specifically why some of us choose to chime in here at the OP in this manner.

I know there has been much comment by those aggravated by anonymous / pseudonymous posters. They talk about the inappropriateness of doing so. Some have even gone so far as to write that they have zero respect for any comments written by those not signing their real names. Fair enough and to each his own. But what was done to Suza on the other notorious thread is EXACTLY why I personally don’t reveal who I am (and suspect others may feel the same way.)

I have led a very full life here (and made many mistakes, faux pas, had many embarrassing moments, etc.) Ojai is a small town with long memories. There are mostly wonderful people here, but there are also some extremely shallow and vindictive revenge-seeking missiles here as well. The LAST thing I want or need is for some boyfriend I broke up with or some girl I dissed in the 11th grade or someone I partied with at Club Soda (back in the day) or someone I had a creative disagreement with to come onto this post and verbally flog me, point out inconsistencies, even lie here in this forum. It is just too easy for someone (both anonymously or not) to do. Just ask Suza how that feels!!

I respectfully submit that it is a breeze to post under your real names when you haven’t lived here as a youth, teenager, young adult, etc. (I’ve lived in many other places and larger cities around the world and that feeling of anonymity can not only act as a cocoon, but emboldens one to speak out with conviction and clarity when it comes to their deeply held opinions and beliefs.) So, “hiding behind” anonymity does not necessarily follow that we don’t have the courage of our beliefs or any of the other charges that have been leveled against us here.

I admire Suza for even putting herself out there after being here for the amount of time she’s been. In this town – that’s gutsy.

That's my rant for the day - Carry on!

LTOR-
I will never forgive you for the comment you made about my pretty calico dress in the 5th grade (yes, I WAS a cross dresser back then) and then again the other night at Movino (well, YES, you DID seem to have 1 too many marga-tinis).

But I post (el) anonymously because i have a deep need to be "cool" and gain some "web cred".

but at least 1 notorious poster (yes, you know who you are even if you "claim" to be "too busy" to peruse here frequently) has told me he did not reply to a point/question i made because i was hiding behind an empty make-believe shell.

it really makes my day when someone aske me "do you have any idea who this bizarre "El Anonimo" dude/ss is?

What a great year so far!!!

El, you are too funny! But with the amount of clues you leave I’m surprised you weren’t outed by Ojai a long time ago! Or have they just been clever false decoys?

Dear Cathy Elliott Jones,

I wrote to you previously shortly after you posted your original comment following the memorial service for Mr. San Marchi. What I said at that time was a little bit impulsive, and I fear may have contributed to the current impasse. If so, I deeply regret that, and would like to attempt to make amends.

Your comments about Suza were rather shocking to me, but perhaps not for quite the reasons you would expect. I had followed the stream of comments up to that point and found Suza's remarks to be consistently positive and laudatory of both Mr. San Marchi and of the Voice, as well as of the memorial service held in his honor. Therefore to hear that you felt she was attacking him was bewildering to put it mildly.

The one tiny qualification she made in her otherwise laudatory statements was to question whether Mr. San Marchi "always" got it right. Every time Joel Anderson quotes Suza about this, he leaves off her qualifier "always", but that is crucial. She was not making a general comment about Mr. San Marchi's journalistic credibility, but merely suggesting that, mortal man that he was, he was not entirely infallible.

Given the fact that she evidently had some kind of falling out with him when she served on the City Council, I felt the overwhelmingly positive drift of her remarks was to her credit, as well as to the credit of Mr. San Marchi.

Her refusal to provide specifics I feel is also to her credit, as she obviously does not want to be drawn into amplifying anything negative about a man so recently deceased.

So I hope this will help you understand why I reacted in the manner I did to your comment. If anything I said there was intemperate, I do apologize.

Now I would like to invite you also to see this controversy in a larger and more reflective light. Your friend is gone, and I am sure all of us who remain would like to live together in this valley in peace. Do you think it would be possible for all of us to turn the page at this point and make a fresh start? In any case, I will forgive you for your comments about Suza if you will forgive me for mine about you.

Most sincerely,

David Moody

Hey El,

Someone just pointed out that my last message to you could have been misconstrued. By saying “outed” of course I meant your true (versus your virtual) identity. It was meant as a lighthearted and fun comment. Hope you took it that way!

Joel (the photog who says he's a journalist), Tyler answered your question many times and you childishly refused to read the answer. And nearly everyone plugs what they do here (yourself included), but there are no paid ads. Tyler was right to ban you and CEJ. What you two have done to Jeff's memory is disgraceful. This is a great place for debate and disagreement, it's readily permitted and encouraged, but threatening and terrorizing is inappropriate and unacceptable.

Here's a suggestion for a solution: Why don't Cathy Elliot Jones and Monte Widders sue each other into oblivion, and leave the rest of us alone?

My my. Who knew my thanks for clarification to Not an Attorney would produce such hysteria. Six comments before I sign off:

1. To Mr. Moody, thanks for your comments. I bear you no ill will.

2. To whomever thinks I will be running the Voice; I have always said I was just the attorney for the Voice and Jeff's estate. I always act in the best interest of my clients, which is why, at their request, we put a security plan in place to prevent Suza from taking over the mike. My obligation to my clients includes monitoring this site, which should not concern anyone at all if he or she is behaving appropriately. And I can monitor it whether I am "banned" or not.

3. Tyler, you're "banning" someone who disagrees with you? What a harbinger for free speech. And if your entity is noncommercial, how can I be hurting your livelihood?

4. Wherever he is Jeff is laughing his ass off over this, and that eases my grief.

5. Please stop coveting my shoes, or boots.

6. Tea with Baby Doc or banned for life? I'll take the ban.

- Cathy Elliott Jones

My my. Who knew my thanks for clarification to Not an Attorney would produce such hysteria. Six comments before I sign off:

1. To Mr. Moody, thanks for your comments. I bear you no ill will.

2. To whomever thinks I will be running the Voice; I have always said I was just the attorney for the Voice and Jeff's estate. I always act in the best interest of my clients, which is why, at their request, we put a security plan in place to prevent Suza from taking over the mike. My obligation to my clients includes monitoring this site, which should not concern anyone at all if he or she is behaving appropriately. And I can monitor it whether I am "banned" or not.

3. Tyler, you're "banning" someone who disagrees with you? What a harbinger for free speech. And if your entity is noncommercial, how can I be hurting your livelihood?

4. Wherever he is Jeff is laughing his ass off over this, and that eases my grief.

5. Please stop coveting my shoes, or boots.

6. Tea with Baby Doc or banned for life? I'll take the ban.

- Cathy Elliott Jones

DING-DONG THE WITCH IS GONE

Ding-dong the witch is GONE
Which old witch? The wicked witch
Ding-dong the wicked witch is GONE
Wake up you sleepyhead
Rub your eyes, get out of bed
Wake up the wicked witch is GONE
She’s gone where the goblins go
Below - below - below
Yo-ho, let’s open up and sing and ring the bells out
Ding Dong’ the merry-oh, sing it high, sing it low
Let them know the Wicked Witch is GONE

CEJ, when I saw that the ban was either lifted or wasn't working, I thought maybe your post would be one of conciliation, apology, etc.
My, my indeed.

I know you will inevitably either answer with a silly, not-all-that-funny attack or try to turn everything around to glorify and elevate yourself in your usual deplorable and feeble way (I know, I know, to you we must all seem soooo jealous and threatened by…uh…what?... your degree and couture? Please!), but I just have to ask: Can you honestly be so self-delusional as to think that you do any client a service by acting the way you have in these last few threads?!? You have not only acted immaturely, non-professionally and imprudently but also viciously and seemingly without even a 10 year-old’s ability to listen, absorb and internalize what others are saying. In a nutshell, my dear – you just don’t get it. You stand out on these threads filled with people of intelligence, warmth, civility and propriety as a complete and utter self-absorbed empty shell of a moron. So sue me, my dear!!!

Um, dear Anonymous, if I'm not still banned, which part of your post demonstrated your "intelligence, warmth, civility and propriety?"

Don't you get why I think many of you are phonies?

-CEJ

(Scratching my head) Ummm…do I need to be an attorney to understand the logic of that?!?! Being banned or un-banned has absolutely no bearing on how I feel about your behavior (both before and after the ban). Quite frankly, you won't get warmth or civility from me until you earn it! And since the concept seems to elude you, let me clue you in: YOU started this. YOU brought this on yourself. YOU verbally pranced around like you were oh-so-clever. YOU trashed Suza. YOU used your professional status to threaten to monitor all of us. YOU baited and then threatened Tyler to keep this going. Another clue - the average person (intelligent or otherwise) rarely takes kindly to a threatening, higher-than-thou, self-glorifying bully. They ALWAYS get taken down. ALWAYS!!! What the hell did they teach you in the law school you went to anyway!!!

Rains a comin'! And we really need it. Love the way the clouds look in the Ojai sky.

It would seem to me that if a person has been officially banned from commenting here and that person finds a way to return and continue to comment in spite of this ban, that person may be found guilty of cyber-stalking and criminal trespass.

This blog is private property, and permission to pass is, and should be, revocable at any time. Perhaps Tyler needs to amend his Terms of Use to indicate his indisputable ownership of this blog and all of its concomitant parts and features (server, bandwidth, etc.), so that it becomes completely clear to all users that when he bans someone he is not simply banning their IP address; he is banning that person, regardless of their IP address.

Every lawyer is a moral bulimic. When will Witchie learn she has bitten off more than she can chew?

2008 predictions:

1.Witchie will be fired by the Voice when they realize that Witchie only represents Witchie.
2.Witchie will be disbarred.
3.A big twister will pick up Suza's house and ceremoniously land it on top of Witchie.
4.Suza will be sporting a pair of expensive ruby red shoes.

Eight-five posts and counting, not to mention the 55 on the closed thread. How many comments on this morning's photograph? You people eat this up.

Side note: Suza and her supporters and I battled it out on the pages of the Voice 10 years ago, and Jeffrey never "banned" any of us.

Bye bye for now.

-Cathy Elliott Jones

Did Tyler lift the ban? Or is CEJ now trespassing?

Since she's here, perhaps she can answer post #69.

One more thing, since you seem to think all those in opposition are phonies:

The two posts above (12:42 and 1:22) were mine (LTOR).

Cathy, I supported you during the horrible arrest incident and I have truly admired parts of your character and actions in the past.
But, F-ing hell! This whole episode (and the way you dealt with it) was, to me, so far beyond the pale…

And yes, I know I am being hypocritical after appealing to everyone a few days ago to be civil and mature, etc. But to me, you had it coming.

If you were to have just treated fellow posters with respect and really listened to what they were trying to say and maybe presented your side in a fair and more moderate way (including Tyler and Suza, to whom I still think huge apologies are due), then perhaps you would have found the respect and understanding you (hopefully) are looking for. (At least for the sake of your clients.)

There, that’s it. Going into self-exile for a bit…

There's only way to peacefully solve this issue:

Hug It Out

Come on, y'all -- give each other a squeeze!

Hi all -

I'm back from a meeting. A few points of order. Cathy, thank you for taking me up on posting your final comment. I realize you squeezed in a few extra, and am happy to let those stay up, but all future submissions from you will either be automatically blocked or deleted on sight, effective immediately.

3. Tyler, you're "banning" someone who disagrees with you? What a harbinger for free speech. And if your entity is noncommercial, how can I be hurting your livelihood?

No, I am banning someone who threatened me with a lawsuit and has the ability to sue me without hiring a lawyer. My livelihood is threatened by a lawsuit, which would not only take a tremendous amount of my time to fight, compromising my ability to effectively represent my clients, but also cost me a significant amount of money in defending said lawsuit, no matter how frivolous.

Banning you has nothing to do with free speech. In fact, in my opinion, your actions have demonstrated that you are only a champion of free speech when it benefits you or your clients. Otherwise, you have proven you are willing and eager to stifle discussion and free speech through the threats of legal action.

Side note: Suza and her supporters and I battled it out on the pages of the Voice 10 years ago, and Jeffrey never "banned" any of us.

Jeffrey never offered an open forum. Apologies if I have hurt your feelings by banning you. This is my site, and I'll operate it as I see fit. With all due respect, you are not welcome here.

Love,
Tyler

I've learned so much legalese here I'm ready to sit at, I mean FOR the bar.

Next rounds on me.
Drink up boyas and girls.
Swirl it through and through.
This New Year may never get old.

Off to ANOTHER yoga healing retreat.
See you next week

I am not a frequent user of this website, and I am not about to become one. Quite frankly, I find this place to be very nearly nauseating. However, several previous comments posted regarding CathyElliottJones, my mother, have made me decide to hold my breath and brave the festering cesspool that is this blog (no offense intended, Tyler -- it's just my opinion. We're still allowed to have those here, right?).

I'm not here to threaten legal action, and believe me when I say I will leave the monitoring of this nightmare up to those more equipped for the task. I'm also not about to get involved in a petty "E-argument" with a bunch of bored suburban plebeians and pseudo-intellectuals hiding behind the mask of anonymity. I'm not here to question the credibility of the regular posters (however questionable they may be). I'm here to simply make a few obvious observations that some seem to be too ignorant to acknowledge.

This site is underscored with hypocrisy. To you, Tyler: I am sure you would love to compare this blog, this "open forum," to those of ancient Athens. You enjoy preaching the first amendment, and I am sure that placing your blog among the roots of democracy itself would make you positively giddy. Perhaps you mean well, Tyler, but in all actuality your blog could more easily be compared to Stalinism than democracy. You silence those who disagree with you, all the while preaching the right to free speech and calling your blog an "open forum." There are many on this site, hidden behind their anonymous masks, who praise you as a peacekeeper and wise decision-maker. I cannot help but wonder if they are even capable of realizing how foolish they are to celebrate the banning of those who simply disagree. The free voice should never be silenced, especially by one who stands beneath the banner of the first amendment and dares to call this place an "open forum."

The world became a darker place with the death of Jeffrey San Marchi, a man who not only understood but exercised the right to freedom of speech.
Tyler, you claim in all your ignorance that Jeffrey didn't offer an open forum. What you fail to understand is that the Voice was just that.

Kind regards,
-Samuel E. Jones, the proud son of a witch.

A child with much to learn...

A geezer with nothing to say...

Dear Samuel -

Thanks for participating - I welcome it. Absent the threat of a lawsuit, I'll allow virtually any and all interaction on the Post, your contribution included. As I've explained numerous times now, those who "simply disagree" are more than welcome on the Post.

But your mom repeatedly threatened lawsuits (and is in a position to act on her threats) and along with Joel Anderson and one other individual, repeatedly baited me in an attempt to elicit a response that they might consider legally actionable.

I don't have to put up with that. So I have banned them from participation.

As far as you putting words in my mouth, which your mom also did, well, I'll just say that one single little blog is hardly comparable to the roots of our modern democracy, nor could it ever be remotely be considered "Stalinist".

Might I offer, finally, a bit of advice to the apple near the tree. I haven't called your mom any names, and I attempted to engage in actual dialogue - those efforts were laughed away. You will find, were you to be so inclined to try it, that civility can open many doors in the world for you. Calling me a hypocrite, Stalinist, ignorant and a moderator of a cesspool won't win you any votes in the court of public opinion.

Myself, on the other hand, believe that your loyalty to your mom is admirable, and while a little more discretion in the words you use to criticize how I run this website might be advised, your defense of her is perfectly underst