And this feeds into the whole story about the GOP wanting to stop the revolving door when it involves Democratic legislators. Apparently it was quite alright when John Minnis went to DPSST, Lane Shetterly to LCDC, Max Williams to Corrections.

I was very gratified to read a story (forget where) pointing that out.

Good journalism means investigating rumors, not so-called "Salem insiders" raising eyebrows .

There have been times when Democrats did things wrong--look up the Steve Duin columns from 20 years ago about Dix and Weideranders sometime when you are in a library with an Oregonian index. Look into what Peg Jolin did. Look on Counterpunch for the Michael Donnelly articles on how the AuCoin nomination to Forestry Board blew up--includes a chronology.

But don't invent things from whole cloth.

I'm currently listening to an audio book murder mystery where "everyone" was sure the sequence of events was that the bomb blew up in a building, the statue fell and hit the victim on the head and that was how he died.

But then the medical examiner's report comes back and it turns out the man was killed maybe half an hour before the bomb blew up.

Chronology is important. If a lobbyist is spreading lies, the truth needs to be brought out. Honest lobbyists provide concrete information. Dishonest ones play games and spread lies.

There are honest lobbyists?

Sorry Carla, but this seems like speculation, not evidence. If it untrue, it seems pretty unfair.

And yes, there are LOTS of honest lobbyists.

Carla,

This is disgraceful. You should have a lot more than this before you post an article impugning a person's integrity. The fact is that a number of Salem insiders HAVE raised eyebrows about Galizio's switch. I know because I work there and have had a number of these discussions. Personally, I believe Larry changed his vote for the reasons you state. But it remains true that many people have openly speculated about a connection between his vote and his new job, if only to say that they doubt there really was a quid pro quo. Esteve could have learned that from any number of people.

Is Blue Oregon now in the business of attack pieces based on raw speculation?

There are plenty of honest lobbyists. A friend who was once a political reporter said the best lobbyists were the experienced ones who could provide information to people who did not have background in that particular area.

Unfortunately, there are also lobbyists who believe winning is the only thing that matters. Sometimes it blows up in their faces. Read the story in Fire at Eden's Gate about the behind the scenes threat which was exposed when the legislator who was the target made the threat public.

Of course someone is innocent until proven otherwise, but that is as true of a legislator as it is of a lobbyist.

Wouldn't be the first time something sneaky happened. If BO did not exist, a story like this could come out on another blog.

As happened previously: http://www.counterpunch.org/donnelly03232005.html

I don't like Hasina Squires one bit and I'm thrilled the Metolius bill passed. And yes, had she done this it would not only be unsurprising, it would make complete sense.

But still, Carla, there's nothing concrete about all this, at least there doesn't seem to be from what you write. I've heard people speculating the same thing in Salem and out of Salem, and it could all be true. But to bring out the accusation in print the way you have is pretty weak.

I'm hoping you have something more than this to back up what you're writing.

Carla is absolutely right on this. The hatchet job on Betsy Johnson was shameful and as one man found not to have done what he was accused of saud.."Where do I go to get my reputation back?" Fortunately Betsy is, and was, held in high regard and should become chair of Ways and Means. What is so wrong is that WWeek and the Oregonian have just slurped up this crap designed to to wing a truly remarkable and honest politician. Well sorry folks....it didn't work snd people who frequent Blue Oregon should make their support clear for the woman who saved the Metolius for the next ten generation of Oregonians, when she could have made a killing if the area was rezoned. Betsy is the very rare politician who GIVES money to people and good causes...never asking for any. The state would be a better place if there were more straight shooters like Senator Betsy Johnson and Carla was dead on with this one.

This is the standard Blue Oregon pattern. Find a person to blame and demonize them, while never ever ever admitting an elected Democrat might possibly have done something wrong.

In the total absence of hard data or evidence of any kind, Carla is working very very hard to earn her pay, directing attention away from Galizio.

Carla - One specific thing you seem to not have a grasp on with regard to what actually separates investigative journalism from slander: You've run with a story making a specific accusation against a person without any confirmed facts. Or apparently not even an "unnamed source" who can confirm the facts and that the legally responsible party for Blue Oregon is satisfied is credible.

That you have found people who think your conclusion "would not only be unsurprising, it would make complete sense" doesn't come close demonstrating the truth. There is a fundamental difference between drawing a conclusion and publicly accusing a specific person by name before you can absolutely confirm it, and in drawing a conclusion that you keep to yourself while you investigate until you can report you have sources who can confirm the fact. That you made an accusation based on your own conclusion without sources who can factually confirm it might even be evidence of malice.

One even wonders if in citing your own previous work of this nature if you have provided evidence of a pattern of reckless disregard for journalistic standards to insure accusations aren't made without being able to demonstrate the truth of them.

Kari, the level of critical thinking has gotten pretty low on Blue Oregon, but frankly this really is in a completely different category.

Carla, not only is your piece full of weak unfounded accusations, but it repeats the bogus rumors about Galizio. Unhelpful on both counts.

BTW, the Melolius bill wasn't changed at all between the first and second House votes. It was the exact same bill.

LOL @ all these craven, have no nuts anonymous sources calling slander on a freaking blog of all places.

First, those who read political blogs are true believing partisans and highly informed politicos. Blogs do not invade your ears via the radio and they sure as hell do not invade your via CNN, Fox News and MSNBC.

Second, the thought about suing a person over expressing their 1st Amendment, freedom of speech, rights on a blog does not have a history of established precedent in case law and could very well fall down on those who think that "slander" is appearing.

Third, BlueOregon is not publishing material available to all Oregonians like newspapers. Once again, only a select, informed audience is visiting this site regularly.

Finally,you are really overestimating the power of blogging. At the utmost, this will be picked up and run by some hungry journalist from Willamette Week trying to make their first break. At worst, it disappears with less than 30 comments. Expected, it breaks the 30 comment mark with a healthy back-and-forth between those who post with their real name like myself and you, the no nut, anonymous coward.

Go suck a duck you. Construe that as slander and eat a ham sandwich while you are at it.

LOL!!

Nothing new here. Carla Rove is judge, jury and smear merchant.

But her premise here is hysterically hypocritical as Blue side lobbyists feed ginned up stories to the local media all the time in order to intimidate or smear opposition and or for self preservation.

A problem in need of a fix?

Here Carla Rove is attempting the same thing she is accusing lobbyists of doing. She has nothing but presumption of feeding and trots out the smearing she enjoys.

She has no idea if a signal for that job was received prior to Galizio changing his vote.

And if it was? It was already old news and nobody cares anyway.

So Carla brought it up why? Seems a little middle school IMO.

And why with all of the other things going on would she even bother spending so much time on it?

There's some real judgement issues here.

The last 50 people to die in Oregon all ate carrots at one time or another in their lives. Several well placed sources tell me Carla has publicly said she likes carrots and they are healthy. Therefore, Carla must be guilty of killing the last 50 people to die in Oregon. It is the only plausible explanation, right Carla?

Are we talking about the same Larry Galizio who left his wife for a union lobbyists who he immediately knocked up?

Here is what we know for certain:

1. Galizio is divorced and must pay alimony/child support to his ex-wife
2. Galizio is a new dad with a girlfriend (wife?) to support
3. Between the first vote (where Galizio voted no) and the second vote (where Galizio voted yes) there was no substantial change to the Metolius bill

Seems to me that the evidence (albeit it circumstantial, but far stronger than the rumor and innuendo in Carla's article) points to Galizio selling his vote. He suddenly has a bunch of new obligations, needs the money, and the Governor needed Galizio's vote. Classic quid pro quo.

Did you look into Larry's eyes and see his soul, Carla?

Carla is a blogger. she has a certain thing for the Metolius and can't let anything surrounding it go. Her spurious attack on Ms. Squires will go un-noticed publicly, but retained in Ms. Squires memory.

A friend sent me this link. It’s by NY Times best selling author Steve Alten. The book deals with the 9/11 incident, calling for the 8th anniversary to figure out THE TRUTH BEHIND THE 9/11 ATTACKS ONCE AND FOR ALL. “THE SHELL GAME.”

http://rcpt.yousendit.com/728731397/8d8c0b1d73c997a9a0194e7bc638c8ae

There's a list of confirmed facts, all in the story.

Actually, it is pretty easy to see that the only confirmed fact that matters, and that you apparently don't have, is someone who can factually confirm that the person you accuse did what you accuse her of doing. Why do you think having just the basis for just a suspicion, no matter how factual that basis might, protects you if you cross the line into making a specific accusation against someone if you don't actually have specific facts identifying the person you accuse? It doesn't make any sense. But it sure suggests to the dispassionate observer that you don't understand how making a specific accusation is crossing a very distinct line.

Btw, this is a POLITICAL BLOG, not a newspaper. Get a grip. The idea that I'm to be held to some sort of high minded journalistic ethic that you or anyone else makes up is garbage.

Well, it also seems pretty obvious it doesn't matter what you believe or claim, or what anybody else here believes or claims. Especially since no one else here would be a party to any legal action. So it seems the most you are doing is providing more material for the other side to potentially use and for your lawyer to have to unwind. Digging the hole deeper, as it were. The fact remains that you have made an accusation that impugned a person in a public forum, with the intent it be read by the public, should it come to that.

3. Between the first vote (where Galizio voted no) and the second vote (where Galizio voted yes) there was no substantial change to the Metolius bill

Factually incorrect AND without the context that the transfer of development option was also tweaked, allowing the developers to do more.

Interesting example of how you provide insight to the other side about your standards of judgement. And your implicit judgement that the community sees it your way. That you (and Kari? and Jeff? and Jesse?) seem to believe there are different legal protections for a POLITICAL BLOG (whose prominence Kari has touted) and other types of publications, and that this guides your actions, is another striking example.

RyanLeo also seems to have a number of misunderstandings about the First Amendment and defamation. We regularly witness and read about how one can get away with more when it comes to saying things about politicians and certain types of public figures, but you'd also have to prove she is in that category.

All very interesting and illuminating.

Carla:

Since you have followed this issue so closely - care to explain the changes that were made in HB 3298 during the time that Galizio changed his vote?

I remember that the bill was placed on the table after the House did not have the votes to concur on the Senate amendments. So, it was NOT changed during the time that Galizio changed his vote.

I also remember that HB 2228 (the TDR bill) was floating around during that time. Are those the changes you are speaking of? If so, please explain how you believe that those changes may have led to Representative Galizio supporting the bill.

Excellent story- Destination Resort zoning proponets smeared Becky Johnson repeatedly with the most vile allegations- From reading the Madras Pioneer one would think she was an alien life force sent to Earth to eat your children and your pets- Forgetting she is the daughter of former long time GOP State Rep and former Redmond Mayor Sam Johnson who championed the cause of developing Central Oregon AND preserving it's natural resources- an approach long abandoned by Central Oregon's crop of short sighted greedy politicians.

Did everyone catch reported in the Madras Pioneer that Jefferson County hired a former planner who lobbied for the Metolian "resort" to develop a long-term resource plan for the Metolius Basin among other tasks?

This fight isn't over.

This may be the single funniest thing I've read yet from the Blue Oregon circle jerk:

"There have been times when Democrats did things wrong--look up the Steve Duin columns from 20 years ago about Dix and Weideranders sometime when you are in a library with an Oregonian index. Look into what Peg Jolin did."

Yep, Dave Dix and Peg Jolin -- the alpha and omega of Democratic corruption.

BTW, does anyone really believe that Galizio would've gotten that job if hadn't switched his vote?

Championing the cause of developing Central Oregon while preserving it's natural resources- as was done successfully with various resorts, is an approach long ago abandoned by Democrats turned extremisist who are now simply blocking development.

The Metolius Resorts would have been fabulous additions to Oregon's resorts in preserved Nature drawing toursim and generating large revenue streams for local and state governments. Extremists killed the projects through sleazy politicing and demogoguery.

"I have no idea whether Carla's accusation is defamatory in any actionable sense."

It is not defamatory to say a lobbyist fed a story to a reporter -- they do that all the time and it's perfectly legal. But it is defamatory to say the lobbyist fed a false story -- a smear -- to reporters.

I have been a big supporter of the Metolius bill and nobody was happier than I when Galizio switched his vote and it passed. But the fact that he was handed a juicy plum of a state job shortly thereafter does have a suspicious odor to it. Apparently, also, this is a job that had been vacant for some years for budgetary reasons. Nope, the whole deal doesn't pass the smell test. And for Carla -- whose work I generally greatly admire -- to try to counter it with unproven accusations that a lobbyist "smeared" Galizio is disappointing.

Carla, you're usually a good blogger, but you've gone way too far this time. Whether you like Hasina or not, you cannot accuse someone of lying unless you have solid evidence.

And it does NOT help when you have Oregon's biggest union bully Art Towers backing you up.

Carla, that was a decent piece of well-researched journalism from someone who has been all over the Metolius issue from the beginning.

A political blogger knows she's doing her job well when all the anons come running over to attack her, the louder and more hysterical the better.

Jack, you might want to check out this: http://www.ridenbaugh.com/

Commentary on this blog post is the topic currently on the top as most recent.

Thank you for saying, "There is no evidence tying Rep. Galizio's job to changing his vote on the Metolius."

Ditto on laughing at the anonymous commenters. Although actually, I suppose it could be one commenter, with multiple anonymous names?

Sure, Carla ran a story that was speculative. It sure seems like a very good guess, but I would have preferred it as a comment and not a BlueOregon posting.

As for the lobbyist, she ran a very dirty campaign against Metolious protection from Day 1, and it's difficult to muster any sympathy when it's her finally getting muddied. Sort of like Perez Hilton getting decked. Boo hoo. What took so long?

Squires is free, of course, to come on this site and deny that she was the source, or connected to the source, for the Galizio and Johnson stories.

I've never spoken with Ms. Squires, but the moment Galizio was appointed, it crossed my mind to wonder if it had anything to do with his reversal on the Metolius. It's not a ludicrous thing to wonder, and it strikes me as a bit hysterical to attack such speculation as planted by a paid lobbyist. You don't give us enough credit for independent thought, Carla.

"Posted by: Richard | Aug 23, 2009 11:11:03 AM

Championing the cause of developing Central Oregon while preserving it's natural resources- as was done successfully with various resorts, is an approach long ago abandoned by Democrats turned extremisist who are now simply blocking development."

I guess now they all forget that just a few years ago it was the Democratic Legislature and Teddy Kulongoski that passed the destination resort legislation that allowed this current spurt of subdivisions for the rich-

So-called "destination resorts" may generate tax revenues but they also generate demands for increased services which negate any of this benefit unless you are a county bureaucrat looking for a larger empire-

All of these start out as vacation spots and end up with full-time residents - look at Black Butte, Sunriver, Crooked River Ranch, Three Rivers- all of them.

Do you know how far the proposed Metolian is from a public school and what it would cost for a school district to bus kids from out there in the sticks? Even if they don't live there they will have support workers- habla Espanol-

And furthermore-

Vicki Walker got her appointment and she supported the destination resorts.

Don't get mixed up. Was Les Hannon the best person for the parole board or was it a soft landing for him for PERS? Does Vicki Walker's clear bias against cops qualify her for a job because she's been whining how underpaid she is? Her main qualification is that brags about her brother was a career criminal who knows all about parole. Is it sheer coincidence that Lane Shetterly and Max Williams got plum jobs and now a 73-year legislator gets a $121,000 job that never existed before? Anyone understand how PERS works? Top last three years of state pay determines your benefit. Really good money of your previous 10 to 15 years was $27,000 a year as a state legislator. Are some of these people qualified? Absolutely. Is a lot of this pure pay for play? Just as absolutely but no-one will dare discuss it in the MSM. oes that make Carla's point about Betsy Johnson wrong. No, it doesn't. This lobbyist stinks more than all these serendipitous appointments.

Two things. First, I want to remind everyone of the "legal stuff" that's posted on every page here:

This site is published by Kari Chisholm at Mandate Media, but copyright to and responsibility for all posts and comments are owned by their respective authors.

So anybody else notice that on the one hand Kari seems to be trying to save himself here and saying this is all Carla's doing and responsibility? Yet on the other hand, he is asserting he can and will act as an editor of content when he feels like it?

Obviously, the posts and comments here are the views of their authors, and not of anyone else.

While we're strong believers in free speech, we reserve the right to delete comment spam or other offensive material. Our contributors, however, reserve the right to embarass themselves in public.

This whole affair provides more and more interesting insights into Kari and Carla's reasoning abilities and character. So far neither seems to demonstrate any belief in a distinction between "opinion" and "accusation". Or an understanding of apparently how, in a defamation action, the person Carla accused of a nefarious act does not have to prove the accusation is false, but that the challenge will be for Carla and Kari to prove the accusation is true. Or at least that it was an innocent mistake based on an valid reading of the facts and there was no malice intended.

Based on what was written, do people think that Carla and Kari can prove the accusation is true, or an innocent mistake with no malice intended? After all, a jury is composed of members of the public.

[Off-topic comment removed - editor.]

Kari: Here's one clear false fact by Carla.

Carla wrote: 'Roadster: You are incorrect. Changes were made to the bill between the Galizio "no" vote and the Galizio "yes" vote.'

That is flat out wrong. The Metolius bill was not changed one iota between the two House votes.

The vote on the bill failed on the House floor, it was then tabled, and the EXACT SAME BILL was then removed from the table and approved with the switch in Galizio's vote.

There are many other allegations that Carla has made in this article that have no factual basis, but you asked for one false fact, and there it is.

The saddest part of this whole BO posting is that it has given new life to the Galizio-vote-trading story.

Which also appears to have absolutely no basis in fact.

Kari: OK, in her main post, Carla wrote "Based on everything I witnessed surrounding this vote, the change for Galizio happened because of tweaks to the legislation..."

Again, absolutely false. There was not a single tweak to this legislation between the first and second House votes.

Really? Perhaps you could enlighten as to how the posting of my opinion based on two years of gathering evidence and backed up with that experience is "defamation"?

It's up to the system to decide if Carla has defamed the person she accused of a nefarious act if it were to come to that. The only issue is that she made a specific public accusation and she doesn't provide documentation or a source that provides the specific fact the person she publicly accused did what she publicly accused that person of doing: She has only confirmed so far that It's a final leap she made from the actual facts she had. It's the specific content of what she has written and not her or Kari's views about her "opinion" that matters. (And didn't the accused act occur after a vote that just happened this past session? Not two years ago?).

I'll state it once again: if you can identify a single statement of fact in Carla's post that is false, we'll post a correction.

What Kari and Carla just can't seem to accept is that all the ancillary facts to the accusation can be true and that just doesn't matter. Their opinions about the facts they have don't matter. The only question is whether the person Carla publicly accuses of a nefarious act feels their reputation has been damaged as a result, and that they can prove the specific accusation. As already noted, so far Carla and Kari haven't shown they can prove that specific accusation. All they have shown so far is that they tragically confuse the difference between valid opinion and supposition with unconfirmed (unconfirmable?) accusation.

And, by the way, although it could be a whole lot easier to defend in a defamation action if they could prove the accusation were true, it still could be defamation if the jury decided it was defamation based on other considerations. Tricky business, and it's part of where the whole movie cliche of having 'two confirming sources' before going with a story comes from.

1. Carla has repeatedly asserted that there were no changes to the Metolius bill from the time that it failed on the House floor to the time it passed. Wrong. The bill was tabled after the first vote and sat there unchanged until it passed. Carla, if you are incorrect about an easily verifiable fact like this, you have to excuse readers from wondering what else you've been sloppy about.

2. Enough with the "this is just a blog, and it's just my opinion" defense. Defamation can occur on a blog. And like Sal Peralta said, a statement of opinion is not necessarily protected when it implies the existence of undisclosed facts. There is a difference between "Joe is a crook" and "I've been investigating Joe for a while now, and let me tell you, he's a crook." Carla's original post refers to a number of conversations with unnamed "sources" that supposedly back up her hunch. She later comments, “it's a reasonable conclusion based on all of the evidence and observations I have been witness to.” Later, "On the other hand, many Salem insiders do believe that what I've written in the post about Squires is absolutely correct." It sure sounds like Carla wants us to believe that this is more than sheer opinion. Fine, but that means she could be on the hook if she is wrong.

3. Carla and Kari, go ahead and dismiss this comment like you have other anonymous comments. But some people who read and comment here have positions that prevent them from always speaking candidly about issues in a public forum. I suspect that you know that perfectly well. Please take seriously the possibility that some anonymous commenters here are friends and sympathizers of Blue Oregon who expect better than this.

Kari: You've really got to intervene here. This post is getting out of control -- and actually doing more damage to Larry Galizio's reputation than the original story.

"Oh, and Carla, the legal standard for defamation for a "public figure" (which probably does not include Hasina) is saying or writing something that you know is false or with reckless disregard for its truthfullness."

Jack, what defines a public figure?

How do you know it doesn't include lobbyists?

Does it include pollsters?

http://blog.oregonlive.com/mapesonpolitics/2008/01/outlines_of_moore_polling_flap.html

Jack,

Whatever the merits of Carla's supicions, it's hard to argue that a professional registered lobbyist is not a public person.

Thank you, Jake.

And about that public figure business?

If she or her friends were concerned about that, did they scream bloody murder in 2007?

http://media.wweek.com/attach/2007/06/25/062507_WeaklyDem.pdf

Or was that different?

Scroll down to the quote someone made that she wanted to plant the world's biggest billboard in the Metolious headwaters.

Reputable newspapers are going out of business in droves, while stuff like "The Enquirer" are doing fine. Does that explain why BO now regularly resorts to these types of pieces when, in the past, they didn't?

Carla's highly opinionated attack pieces (whether they be right or wrong, justified or not) inspire more comments protesting and defending her tactics than those that address the subject at hand lately. Likewise, those posts that do not resort to such sensational and inflammatory rhetoric typically do not inspire as many comments, and presumably generate less traffic.

That's just my opinion based on my observations, of course.

"As far as whether or not Hasina Squires is a public figure, you'd have to check the case law, starting with Times v. Sullivan. Or better yet, Carla's lawyer can research that if Hasina sues her."

Come on, Jack! A lobbyist really wants this sort of thing fought out in open court?

And if she didn't make a big stink about the 2007 story I posted where she is rated along with other lobbyists, is a jury really going to find that she was defamed by this?

What's more, how do you know a suit, if it was filed, wouldn't end up like when O'Reilly sued Franken?

Here's the difference. I have a strongly held belief that the world's blood supply is unsafe. That is based on my interviews and interactions with Doctors, clinicians and Health care professionals in the US and Canada over the past 20 years.

I have historical data linking US blood derived medicines to Hepetitis C and HIV/AIDS here in the United States, but most importantly in Canada, Great Britain, India and France (all after the material was removed from U.S. stocks). I have observed that Canada's blood system has had HCV infection concerns as recently as 7 years ago.

Further I have historical and other data developed over the past 5 years indicating that new, real threats to the blood supply include Parvo Virus 19 and Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease CJD, (mad cow) also know as Bovine Spongeform Encephylitis. There are two (2) Oregonians who have died this year in Ashland from CJD.

Even though I have very passionate concerns and beliefs about the world blood supply, I am not about to publish a huge 'expose' regarding these isues without giving actual chapter and verse of the sources of the data regarding my concerns or my opinion based upon my observations.

But hey, maybe that is just me.

Kevin,

The distinction you draw is not important. The legal test is whether the false statement damaged one's reputation. A statement doesn't have to be an accusation of a crime to be damaging.

If by "it's not that simple," you mean that whether a statement is false and damaging to reputation is not the only relevant question in a defamation case, then of course you are right. But the notion that a statement has to be an accusation of a crime in order to be actionable defamation is completely wrong.

Here is another discussion about Online Defamation Law which arguably is more layperson friendly.

Just a few notes. This clearly states why Carla's, Kari's, and Jeff's assertion about their right to state their opinion is a not a defense:

Can my opinion be defamatory? No—but merely labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.)

It also lists the three (or four if the defamed person is a public figure) elements in concise form:

1. a publication to one other than the person defamed;
2. a false statement of fact;
3. that is understood as
   a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
   b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.
4. If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual malice.

Carla made an accusation that is about about a verifiable fact, setting to rest the "it's just my opinion argument"). Now, testing the four elements: 1) She made it in a publication that is in fact open to general public. 2) She apparently can't prove it is true, she has admitted it's just a belief. 3) a) She made quite clear who it is about. b) And the accusation she makes is certainly about behavior that doesn't improve the public reputation of the person she accused. Finally, 4) While the accused is almost certainly a pubic figure, Carla sure doesn't evidence that she made the accusation because she has the better interests of the person she accused at heart.

Any questions whether Carla's statement would be actionable? Now anybody with a brain would have to agree with Jack that a libel suit is unlikely. The important question of principle is whether it Carla, Kari, and Jeff help the "blue" cause by engaging in blogging that almost certainly would be actionable over an accusation which they can't prove to be true.

Bad typo: Finally, 4) While the accused is almost certainly a PUBLIC figure

Just.... This is very interesing: Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.)

A lot of this may hinge on whether it can be proven who spread the stories about the Galizio vote.

I have seen rumor campaigns before. A candidate spread rumors about another candidate back in the days before desktop publishing, and it was eventually determined that it was that particular candidate sending out the mailings to people on the other campaigns (multi-candidate race) defaming ---in a much nastier way than anything here--the candidate who would end up coming in 2nd in the primary. Turned out to be the candidate who came in 3rd. Interestingly, the person who told me it was confirmed who sent out the nasty mailings was someone who had not been at all involved in the primary, having been running in a different primary himself.

In a court case, the lawyers involved, the judge involved, the jury questionaires ("do you have strong feelings about legislators or lobbyists?" might be one question) could all be unknown factors.

There is a problem with this statement:

"The important question of principle is whether it Carla, Kari, and Jeff help the "blue" cause by engaging in blogging that almost certainly would be actionable over an accusation which they can't prove to be true."

There are some assumptions in your remarks I think could be challenged.

At least 20% of Oregon voters (I recall reading about one county where the number was closer to 30%) don't register with a major party. So your implication that someone's actions on a blog can impact the "blue" team as opposed to the "red " team may not impact a very large universe. Most people have lives outside of politics.

For all the loyal BO readers and commentators, there are any number of people who not only don't read this, but in many cases (esp. above a certain age) are likely to say "A blog? What is that?". Talk to your friends who know lots of people outside the realm of politics. How many of those friends read any blog on a regular basis, much less this one?

There are also folks who don't have a high opinion of lobbyists. Are they going to rush to the side of the lobbyist in question because someone on this blog is saying something similar to that Weakly Dem story in 2007? And this is order of magnitude worse than that because....?

Having worked much of my life with kids, I see this from a different point of view. If someone says "So you are saying the lobbyist on the losing side is spreading rumors about the person who cast the deciding vote? Talk about a sore loser!", is that person defaming the lobbyist?

Be careful, those of you who attack Carla, Kari et al. Carla is a friend of mine. Kari will be the first to tell you how many times he and I have tangled. But here I agree with Kari and with Jeff A. Love his last paragraph "Just to put some mustard on it..."

Now Jack, are you really saying that any lobbyist deserves to be protected because otherwise they can't do their job? Who elected lobbyists? That is a more noble profession than, say, being a teacher, doctor, lawyer, public safety official because....and therefore deserves our respect? Are they always to be considered above suspicion? Or just this lobbyist?

Let's look at how Jack has approached the situation where he doesn't agree with someone.

http://www.blueoregon.com/2007/10/smearing-jeff-m/comments/page/2/

Posted by: Jack Roberts | Oct 12, 2007 7:11:24 AM

There should be no confusion about whether Jeff Merkley's vote on the resolution supporting the war will be an issue in the general election if he is nominated. Of course it will, and it should be. Daniel Webster, as quoted by John F. Kennedy in Profiles in Courage, put it best: "Inconsistencies of opinion arising from changes of circumstances are often justifiable. But there is one inconsistency that is culpable: it is the inconsistency between a man's conviction and his vote, between his conscience and his conduct." Gordon Smith changed his mind about the war. Merkley, while speaking against the war, voted to support it. Voters will be asked to decide which man they trust to represent them in the United States Senate--the one who votes his conscience, or the one who votes his political calculation. <<

Gordon Smith was such a man of principle in the fall election that he seemed to have not trouble with an ad showing Merkley eating a hot dog. Exactly what point did that make? That while touring E. Oregon Merkley spent time doing something other than listening to breaking news stories?

Did the issue of how Merkley voted on a 2003 House resolution even come up in the fall campaign?

It may well be that Squires had nothing to do with stories about Galizio---that it was an upset constituent or something. Who knows? But would it really help the reputation of a lawyer who decided to take the Squires case and try to prove defamation?

All the fuss here has a "doth protest too much" quality.

To the ordinary folks with their own work, family, etc. concerns, is this really at the top of the radar screen for most Oregonians?

Are we to presume that every legislator who changes a vote is dishonest unless their job situation does not change for at least 12 months after they change a vote, but every lobbyist is to be considered as honest as the day is long because Jack wants us to believe that?

Sal, I read your link.

Here is my question. Under the definition, "A defamatory communication is one which would subject a person to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or tend to diminish the esteem, respect, goodwill or confidence in which one is held or to excite adverse, derogatory, or unpleasant feelings or opinions against one."

why isn't the Weakly Democrat ww.week story I linked above as defamatory as this? Given that story is over 2 years old, wouldn't there have been a lawsuit by now if it had been defamatory?

Certainly there are statements in that story which multiple lobbyists would have been unhappy about. But did it prevent any of them from doing their jobs in the 2009 session?

LT --- It's hard to follow the point you are trying to make. If from the start you are agreeing that Carla's accusation would be understood to be an existential fact that can be verified as true or false (ie. regardless of whether evidence can actually be produced at a specific point in time), well then there isn't much more to discuss. To grasp the point, a statement could be verifiable existential fact in the meaning of that element of the tort, even if the only person who could prove it to be true or false has passed away.

So contrary to your apparent assertion, the defamation question or this element won't hinge on who may have spread any other stories about the vote (if any stories were spread at all). The problem for Carla, which your comment seems to not quite recognize, is that the burden would be on her to conclusively prove the truth of her accusation, not the person she accused that it is false.

Carla, Kari, and Jeff's argument to this point has been that they have a strong defense against a claim of defamation based on simply stating they are expressing opinions, and furthermore there was a chain of facts that someone who saw the world as they do would find the final leap to the specific accusation as reasonable. Those arguments are simply beside the point as the two web links and several others have pointed out. In this particular matter so far they haven't demonstrated they can actually prove the accusation to be true.

It is a bit difficult to understand why you think warning people Carla is a friend of yours is at all relevant. Or how excusing work of questionable integrity on the basis that few care lends credibility to Carla or yourself. But note those are just my opinions since no assertions of verifiable facts are involved.

I also can easily agree with Jack's assertion it is very unclear the accused is a (limited) public figure. I am willing to concede that she is for the sake of argument, on the basis that she was engaged in the specific public policy controversy (the Metolius matter) that is associated with the accusation. In contrast, the allegedly defamatory statement about the McCain lobbyist was about a matter (an affair) that itself was not a public policy controversy in which she was engaged as a lobbyist and which therefore might make her a limited public figure.

Nonetheless, the point is that even that concession on whether the accused is a (limited) public figure doesn't really provide Carla, Kari, and Jeff with a defense on the only element for which it is relevant. As noted, does anybody really want to argue the accusation was made with the best intentions for the reputation of the person publicly accused at heart?

This is priceless. Carla would have you know she knows every insider and you don't, so shut up.

Anyone who's bothered to follow the Metolius even in a cursory way didn't have this wonder. There are no real "Salem insiders" who actually believe that Galizio did what he's accused of.

On the other hand, many Salem insiders do believe that what I've written in the post about Squires is absolutely correct.

Carla, you ROCK! Pick the target, freeze it...personalize it....polarize it!!

You go, girl! It's bare-knuckle politics, and it's time to up the body count!

Based on the speculation here, apparently one can file a defamation suit if you say that your next door neighbor sneezes too loud.

One of the truest truisms is that anybody can sue anybody for anything and of course all that matters is whether someone can prevail in court. But Carla surely misses the substance of the comments here if she fails to grasp critical differences between the elements of what she has done here and the elements of the example she describes.

My attorney and I would certainly look forward to discovery in the case of this particular post, if necessary.

The interesting question here is on whom could Carla serve relevant discovery that would be helpful to her defense? The newspapers will claim a First Amendment defense to protect their sources, initially without even having to acknowledge the person Carla accused is a source in the matter at controversy. And maybe Jack can enlighten us as to the limits of what discovery Squires would have to produce or testify to that would be of benefit to Carla in her obligation to prove the truth of her accusation, particular if any alleged incriminatory communications were oral and only between her and journalists. That generally leaves third parties with specific knowledge, raising issues of hearsay. Not exactly the position from which most of us would want to start a defense in a defamation case.

I don't think any of us should be worried about whether or not this Hasina gal did what Carla said. Bottom line is that she chose the wrong side and she should learn what happens when we get crossed. Sooner or later, all those corporate interests will get the message that a heavy toll will be exacted on them and it will be bad for business to go up against the Blue Machine. All we have to do is keep the rumor mill cranking and pretty soon, Ms. Squires won't have a job. That, and Larry G. needs a little covering fire on this one.

There's a lot of chatter about what defamation is or isn't, but so far, no one's even bothered to copy and paste the sentence that's allegedly defamatory.

Kari, do you really feel that anyone finds this less than bizarre after all the material that has been presented (including this from the EFF website: No—but merely labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it so.)?

"Hasina doesn't like to lose and she has built relationships with local reporters. Galizio was the guy that changed his vote and handed Squires the loss. If she can screw with his reputation and maybe his new job, she gets back at him."

I don't know. For me, this certainly "tend[s] to diminish the esteem, respect, goodwill or confidence in which [she] is held or to excite adverse, derogatory, or unpleasant feelings or opinions against [her]."

But forget the defamation issue. What about ethics Kari? You sure dodged TJ's assertions there.

And really, the ad hom attacks against those who use pseudonyms are really pathetic. It's been discussed to death and it is BO's own policy that they are allowed, so either change the policy or shut up about it. BTW, signing your name "Kevin" is no more revealing or honest than calling yourself by some other unique moniker, whether it's your real name or not.

Kari wrote;

JS -- OK, I'm a moron. Make it easy for me. Copy and paste the sentence that you think someone, somewhere (maybe not you) might think is defamatory.

Famous proverb:

“Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime” - author unknown

So in the spirit of teaching, perhaps the best suggestion here is to ask you and Carla to write a comment in which you take the elements of defamation as describe in either Open Oregon (OO) or Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) linked webpages and test Carla's comment against them:

0) Identify statements that can "reasonably be interpreted as stating actual fact" (OO) about a person, regardless of whether they are labelled "opinion". This means statements that could be interpreted as having the nature of being provable as true or false in the context they were made.

1) Confirm they were published here. Of course that is perfunctory.

2) Of those statements, exclude the statements that you and Carla can definitely prove are true. As proof you can cite sources who have conclusive knowledge a statement is true.

3) Of the remaining statements, exclude those "tending to harm the reputation of the plaintiff" (EFF) in your own judgement.

4) Of the remaining statements identify the person that is the subject of each allegation and determine if that person is a private person or a (limited) public person.

5) For the statements that are about a (limited) public person, eliminate statements that a prudent publisher would not have any reason to entertain any doubt they could be false.

If you do that for us here, and I think it would be informative for us all if you would, the statements left in your list should be the potentially defamatory statements. Of course, it's up to a court to make a finding of fact whether they actually are.

Jack Roberts - if you wouldn't mind answering a question, in Oregon law can only natural persons be defamed? One cannot help but notice on closer reading of Carla's comment that statements were made about several persons.

This of course should have been:

3) Of the remaining statements, exclude those NOT "tending to harm the reputation of the plaintiff" (EFF) in your own judgement.

Carla, if you get hauled into anonymous commenter court, your fellow editors are happy to help cover the legal services of LegalEagle627, the best anonymous defense lawyer money can buy.

So this is a fancy way of saying that you think discovery can be dodged.

That all depends on whether you are trying to attach negative connotations to people exercising important rights they themselves have in our legal system with the term dodged. Or trying to stoke populist antipathy to "the system" and people who take a careful, dispassionate approach to complex issues with the term fancy way.

I love the lay commentary about defamation. And frankly, although I appreciate Jack Roberts' comments on this site, I suspect he doesn't really deal with defamation on any kind of regular basis. Apart from the merits (or lack of them) to such a claim, one thing that I think is clear is that if there was a defamation claim, it would be brought by Ms. Squires. And if she brought such a suit, "truth" would be in play, and the defendant(s) could do all kinds of interesting investigation that wouldn't involve piercing the Oregonian's reporter privilege. Just think about all those interesting emails and cell phone records ... In the end, I would think that one of the last things a lobbyist would want is that kind of prying.

Kari, Carla please stop with the faux outrage over anonymous internet posters. While it's commendable to put your name on something and put yourself out there, not all of us are in the game to be "blue cheerleaders." There are those of us who do have something to contribute to the conversation, and do, but absolutely cannot freely discuss information publicly as ourselves on this site. You know it as well as most everyone reading here. I'm not in the game to slam Republicans and praise Democrats, I'm in it to advance progressive public policy. That goal and the blue cheerleader mission Kari and Carla have decided to undertake don't always, if rarely, converge. Nobody should have to endanger their livelihood in politics to give Kari and Carla a warm and fuzzy. And nobody that matters will. The moment Blue Oregon tries to force people to ID themselves is the moment this site ceases to be relevant.

Carla, you and Kari have become complete shills for the Dem establishment. It's ugly, and if you want to run your site into the ground keep it up. This insecurity over anonymous internet posters would be embarrassing for most people.

If you want to be big babies and try to "out" people over posting anonymously on your blog than it says more about you than it does the person posting.

No Kevin, the problem is that anyone who challenges Carla's assertions gets labeled a "chickenshit anonymous poster." (not that it matters). I actually agree with what Carla is saying, but disagree with how her and Kari are going about this. If we're all supposed to come clean with our identities, who are Carla's sources? Yes, just what I thought, for professional reasons their identities are redacted. Just like others who choose to post here but can't reveal themselves for professional reasons.

No Carla, the point is that it's completely ridiculous to be freaking out like you and Kari are over anonymous internet posters on a blog.

It looks like Randy Cohen's piece yesterday has an interesting discussion of both defamation and anonymous blogging ...

http://ethicist.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/is-it-ok-to-blog-about-this-woman-anonymously/

Isn't it ironic that Carla is being threatened by anonymous commenters (and Jack, keeping bad company) with being labelled "unethical" for ferreting out a political activist's character-assassinating whisper campaign?

Yes, clearly BO does have power. Kari handles the websites of almost every single Democrat in this state. It's easy for Carla and Kari to act tough when the have the weight of the establishment behind them.

The only point I'm trying to make is that there are those of us who do like to post here, but don't feel comfortable to be "out" based on the previously mentioned factors. If you don't think retribution is part of the Dems playbook (even on legit disagreements) than you're completely naive.

For Kari and Carla to make a big stink about anonymity, on a site that currently doesn't verify IDs, is beyond absurd.

Have fun with your 8 person circle jerk.

And the only "character assassination" I've taken part of is to call Kari and Carla "shills of the establishment" (which they are).

Oooh, look who's counselling against hot-headed responses! Better shut up about abuses of power; the R's are ready to pounce!

the whole defamation arguement is pointless anyway. the only way it even matters is if squires decides to take carla to court over it. who cares what a bunch of anonymous commenters think?

" The moment Blue Oregon tries to force people to ID themselves is the moment this site ceases to be relevant"

"Looks like we're about to find out if you're right..."

Ooh Kari, what a badas...I mean small pathetic little man you are.

You should definitely start charging people for the great honor of commenting on your great site. Apparently being the only game in town has gone to your big head. So go ahead and charge people, even fewer people will read BO, and you'll have more time to make mediocre websites for candidates that you spin content for.

I'll tell you what though, maybe your just having a bad day. Blue Oregon Readers: I will pay the dollar fee, and the fee for the first hundred folks that shoot me an email at:

[email protected]

Either Jack is seriously concerned about BlueOregon editor's legal well-being (possible... not likely) or he is attempting to block free speech damaging to his party by threats of legal action.

Kari,

narconews.com

Kevin,

Whoever said any blog was irrelevant? What I stated earlier was that as soon as BO requires ID verification they will cease to be relevant. They haven't done that yet, and I stand by my statement that if they do they will become irrelevant. But I'm just a chickenshit anonymous poster on a political blog. :)

"The answer to your comment..made by others..is that WE WILL SEE if BlueO ceases to be relevant once ID verification is installed. It's about to happen, as I understand it."

I have no problem with the idea of registering with a website and then having a username and a password. Notice Oregonlive.com has a username and password. And with Facebook, one can control who sees what one writes--many of us have it set to only friends.

Another disgraceful, speculative hack job by carla the wonder brat.

no one's even bothered to copy and paste the sentence that's allegedly defamatory.

Uh, McFly, You accused a lobbyist of feeding lies to reporters. That most certainly damaged her reputation and could cause financial harm because it hinders her ability to do her job.

Malice in this case would be EASY to prove, given Carla's hisotry at Blue O. And the reckless disregard here is equally as obvious.

I'd say the lady has a pretty solid libel case against both Carla and Blue Oregon.

And yeah, kari, good luck with using that little disclaimer to get you out of any repsonsiblity. That's precious.

Carla Axtman,

I see your so proud of the "nerve" you've hit with folks. But the root of this is it's obvious your accusations are bullshit. The voices in your head are not real sources. You made up a story, so it's understandable people are going to call you out over it. I know with Kari at the helm, BO is not exactly the standard bearer of journalistic integrity, but save the accusations and rants you and your other personalities invented to yourself.

Dear What a....

If you know for a fact that stories were planted by someone other than Squires, please let us know who?

Or are you saying nasty stories were never planted by anyone?

Hi Carla. Goldy linked to you.

Must have hit a nerve to get that kind of backlash.

<h2>You're one of my heroes. Keep up the good work.</h2>