*Blogmaster's Note - Todd complained to Google about having his comment reposted. So if Google takes down this article, you'll know why. (If I was Todd, I'd be embarrassed for signing my name to such bs, too.)
Pacifica Riptide, 9/3/14. "Eric Rachames launches city council campaign." Comment by Todd Bray, 9/4/14, 2:13 p.m. from that article by popular request.
| Ribbit... ribbit ribbit There's probably a reason for that. |
"During the Fog Fest of 2006 before the Measure E vote, a local woman dressed as a frog was manhandled by Don Peebles. She wanted to make an assault charge after a photo of her being bullied by Don was published in the Tribune. She had never given Peebles permission to touch her, much less throw her around. The woman, a Pacifica resident, wanted company and a ride to the police station to make a formal complaint.
I had driven this woman to the police station to place an assault complaint against the Measure E sponsor, and I heard Sergeant Ruchames verbally bully her rather than take her complaint. I heard the whole one-sided discussion from under the door of a private room the Sergeant had led her into. Sergeant Ruchames would not allow me to accompany her into the room with him, even though she had asked that I do. Once inside and alone with the woman, he verbally bullied her for several minutes rather than take her statement. I heard the whole thing from under the door while I waited outside in the police station lobby. When we were exiting the police station, he tried to pick a fight with me when I questioned him about not taking her statement. Yeah, so I guess I won't be voting for him."
----------
Reference Eric Ruchames. Campaign website. Facebook. You Tube "Library Foundation", 3:14 minutes.
Related Measure L 2006. Aggregate Research, "Pacifica quarry proposal loses by narrow gap." Smart voter, Measure L, 11/7/2006.
Related campaign against Measure L, 2006. No on Measure L, website: "Joining in saying No to Measure L." "Sierra Club, Committee for Green Foothills, Greenbelt Alliance, SM County League for Coastal Protection, Green party of SM County, Assembly Speaker Pro Tem Leland Yee, Surfrider Foundation of SM, SM County Times Editorial Board, Pacifica Mayor Sue Digre, Committee to Save the Fish and Bowl, Pacificans for Sustainable Development, Concerned Manor Residents."
Related anti-progress sentiment - Noisy Frogs, YouTube, 28 long seconds. Notes: photograph from Muppet Stuff. Comment: there have been a couple of requests to reprint the above Pacifica Riptide Todd Bray comment, so here it is for your review.
Posted by Kathy Meeh
71 comments:
Kathy you do not have my permission to re-post my comment from Riptide as an article. I will contact GOOGLE to have it removed if you don't remove it yourself. again you do not have my permission to post my comment from Riptide as an article. Please, take it off your Fixpacifica site. This is not the first time you've abused your visitors and I am not the only one you've done this to.
Sounds like a case for Brent Plater.
Todd 1252, your permission is not needed. Your comment is public, and there is no copyright violation.
You stand by your comment on Riptide. You do not stand by the same comment reprinted on Fix Pacifica. Is there something incorrect about the comment?
And, as for abusive comments here and elsewhere, you are the king.
Kathy you are a plagiarist. You do not have my permission to regurgitate my comment and repackage it as your own creation. The saddest thing is a plagiarist who does it purely for attention, like you.
Kathy, please as a courtesy to one of the only people on your libelous blog who uses his own name remove my comment. It was posted on Riptide and you have no right to repackage it here on your blog as your own work, nor do you have my permission.
Pot, Kettle, Black.
Hyprocrite much, Todd?
In the red shorts hailing from pacifica Californiaaa Kathy "take no crap from Bray' Meeeeeehh.
In the blue shorts parts unknown Todd "BS" Bray.
Let's get ready to rummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmble.
Todd
Is this when you threaten to call your fictitious attorney's?
No wonder why the "gang of no" won't talk to you.
Zero credibility!
Todd 447, total nonsense. Get some sleep.
"libelous" ? You mean your libelous slander against Ruchames and Peebles? I don't blame you for wanting it taken down.
Fix Pacifica is a news outlet. They are merely posting a public accusation you made about a candidate. and are protected. If you don't want your idiotic rants reported on then I suggest not making them.
The best thing that ever happened to Bray is that there were no reports or charges. Peebles would have owned his hobbit hovel when real lawyers got finished with him.
You dodged a bullet, Oh blustering bloviater.
Not to mention his vulgar comments about the high school girls in Vallemar, Mr. Peebles had helping with his campaign for his quarry project.
Todd what are talking about? Kathy did not "repackage" your comment as her own. She clearly gives you credit at the top. Too many Guinnesses last night?
As BB said over on Riptide this is what happens when you cry wolf, you have no credibility.
As far as right to reprint, when you make a serious accusation on a public forum about a retired police officer and city council candidate any news source absolutely has a right to report and reprint it.
Hutch
Your asking someone with zero accountability to be accountable!
Todd, steps in a big pile of poop.
Then cries he is a victim!
Wow Kathy. Two frogs with one stone.
"every now and then you have to take a beating"
Is Fix Pacifica in violation? Let's look at the facts First, user generated content (e.g. comments) is the property of the user and is protected under copyright law.
the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) states that while an ISP is not liable for transmitting information that may infringe a copyright, the ISP must remove materials from users’ websites that appear to constitute copyright infringement after it receives proper notice. Mr. Bray should find who is hosting Fix Pacifica at whois.netand send them a Take down Notice.
Now what about "fair use" - Can Fix Pacifica claim it is a "news story" that they are just reprinting? In addition to the statutory requirements of your letter, courts require that you must evaluate whether the use of your content at issue is a fair use before you send the demand letter. A copyright is created at the moment a work is made into a fixed form. For authors, it is created when you type the words on your computer. Copyrights give the owner the exclusive right to do, or to authorize others to do, specific things with their works. Fair use is the right to use copyrighted materials without the copyright owner’s permission. It was designed as an exception permitting limited and reasonable uses without permission as long as they do not prejudice the copyright owner’s rights or interfere with normal exploitation of the work. The classic example of fair use is the quotation from a book being reviewed. Since an author usually does not review his own book, the impact of the quotation on his interests should be minimal. If, however, so much material is quoted that the review will substitute for a purchase of the book, the use will not be considered fair.
However the most important aspect of fair use is the “purpose and character of the use.” Courts determine whether the copyrighted work has been used to create a new work (often referred to as a “transformative use”) instead of simply copied and/or placed into another work. When the unauthorized use directly effects and competes with the copyright owner’s business or potential for income, a court will usually find that the use was not a fair use. It would be very hard to prove a comment on a website had any commercial potential as opposed to the comment being "newsworthy".
There have been many inconsistencies cases about fair use, but this seems pretty clear that this is a legitimate fair use, however a take down notice by the copyright owner would probably result in the ISP raking it down regardless as to avoid further legal hassles.
It was lovely, perfectly sublime. You should put it away now lest it bite you on the arse.
Hey wanna be lawyer 10:47, Judge Weiner didn't believe your bull crap why should we.
#1 Fix Pacifica is for sure broadcasting news and current events which is protected by the first ammendment under freedom of the press.
#2 Is Todds "story" news? Yes.
#3 Did Todd actually write this piece as Kathy asserts? Yes.
#4 "Does ‘freedom of the press’ mean the news media can say or write anything they want?
Unless restricted by a valid prior restraint (which is rare), the news media are free to publish any information or opinion they desire as long as they are true words uttered or written.
Todd could sue but he has no grounds and it's doubtful any credible attorney would take the case.
Well, there's another one not destined for the Supreme Court bench.
Wasn't the woman in the frog suit the button pusher causing traffic backups during the quarry campaign? Haha, a real credible person like Todd.
Duh 1221! Where else you going to wear your genu-whine astro-turf frog suit?
If the frog suit does not fit, you must aquit!
Peebles dodged a frog. He probably sees his time in Pacifica as surreal. A gulag.
Oh dear. It looks like another case of failure to document in Pacifica. Leaves us to rely on memory, he said, she said. A little mud clings to everyone and we stumble on.
Kathy
Wasn't the frog lady Elaine Carry?
The woman in the frog suit was not Laurie Goldberg
Okay, usually find one, find both. Eight years ago memory.
Furk the freakin' frog suit. Who cares who was in it? Any proof of the alleged
frog bullying by Pacifica PD officer Ruchames? A record the frog was in the station? It's not like an everyday occurrence. Phone log? Contact report? Does no one on this town's payroll write anything down? It might come in handy from time to time.
Not much happens in Pacifica. That is why people are all wound up over Frog Gate.
Not that 4 million bucks is unaccounted for.
It was Elaine Carey. Since this happened at Fog Fest, you'd think dozens of people would have seen Peebles "manhandling" Carey. Yet no one did. Ruchames didn't believe Todd, and Todd is still mad about it.
Todd jumped the shark with this dishonest and absurd story.
Over at Riptide the story has come out with independent credible witnesses. Ruchames even apologized for his actions. These facts weren't good enough for Hutch who doubled down by commenting that putting hands on a woman doesn't rise to the level of assault. In other words.... he's a sexist creep.
Did Todd jump the shark then drive the frog lady in his shark mobile?
"Over at Riptide the story has come out with independent credible witnesses. Ruchames even apologized for his actions."
Who are the independent, credible witnesses? Todd is neither independent or credible, and Karen R. is simply repeating what she'd heard.
Todd managed to get it on two blogs. Like a virus. Has Ruchames lost a vote? Doubtful. He didn't have much to start with on here and even less on Riptide. Pretty sloppy, Todd.
Only in Pacifica would a candidate have a frog in their closet.
741 Todd don't jump.
741 My mother ran battered women's shelters and taught me well concerning laying a hand on a woman. But sorry to say that putting your hand on a woman's shoulder to take a picture does not equate to assault.
Word to the wise--first taught in kindergarten--don't put your hands on other people. They have the legal right to be offended or frightened regardless of your intent and things can get utterly ridiculous from there. Particularly if someone wants them to get utterly ridiculous.
This is truly hilarious.
Saturday Night Live (early years),
Second City TV.....
quality entertainment.
Thanks Fix, for the great guffaw.
For what it's worth. At the time of the brouhaha the story circulating immediately after was that Chris Hunter in fun encouraged a Peebles photo with the Frog without asking the frog. Peebles is tall and laid an arm across the frog's shoulders. Probably didn't know who was in the frog suit, man woman frog. The frog was not pleased. Ruchames handled it with common sense, but that's not good enough for some people. I won't vote for him because of the UUT and Beach Blvd, but 25 years in Pacifica and I've never heard a bad word about his job performance as a peace officer.
The photo was in the Tribune. Had she had been in harms way in her mind, she would not have stood so close to Peebles. Or she would have tried to push him away, yell and scream.
Todd, heard about this and thought he would twist it against Peebles.
Peebles is tall and thin and I don't think anyone would think he is scary looking or a threat to anyone.
In my few brief conversations to him he was a perfect gentleman.
Maybe we can all pitch in a few bucks and buy Todd, a checker board or some Lego's, or a couple cans of paint and brushes.
He has way too much free time on his hands.
Kathy, from your Cornell reference, that little froggy clearly tried to make something out of Option 1. With help from Todd. Ran right into an officer with the good old common sense and the opportunity to sort out the reasonable from the unreasonable. This nonsense doesn't always get nipped in the bud, nor should it, but unchecked it ties up resources in civil and criminal courts--as Pacificans know all too well.
I want to say that even though I am not voting for Eric Ruchames, I see this kind of attempt by Todd and others to drag a good man down through innuendo of alleged wrong doing for their own gain to be disgusting but not surprising at all. I am a little surprised to see Chris Fogel join in on these feeding frenzy's more and more. Guess he drank the Koolaid too.
Chris Fogel, is working on John Keener's campaign.
Watch him at city council, another apologist!
It's Eileen Carey, not Elaine.
I just won't have that.
Elaine Larsen
I sign my name; you anonymous posters are cowards
This false accusation has borderline racist overtones. Did the big scary out of town black man manhandle a a local white woman? All these white people seem to think so, so it must be true. And Peebles is rich on top of it all. They tried to make something out of nothing for their own selfish reasons. Thank God Ruchames saw through it and didn't lynch the man.
Ha, Thank's for that Elaine. Don't worry, nobody thought it was you. Do you think that picture is floating around somewhere at the Trib? It would be great to see what all the fuss is about.
It's been said before.
I wish to point out Todd signed his name to his little dirt bomb. And many defenders of then-Officer Ruchames did not. The anonymi are diverse and they are not always anon.
And Todd, calls everyone else, Drama!
1051 Jeez, don't even kid about that. And she was green not white.
LMAO. I thought this was getting nutty. Of the 54 comments responding to Todd's "post" on this thread there's really only one on 9/6 @741 that seems to believe and defend Todd's version of the event. Only one bought the story hook, line and stinker. The Republic is safe. Stand down, Fix Pacifica.
1207, that's because Kathy is censoring the hell out of submissions.
Elaine Larson
I doubt anyone thought you were the Elaine in this.
Not even Bray!
105, I only spam comments that are raciest, sexist, insane, inappropriate, personal attacks (most), really low, slow or half-witted, and criminal. (Steve Sinai, Blogmaster, may override any alleged errors of judgement on my part.) 105, some of your comments did not get posted? And did not make override cut either?
BTW, while we are also cleaning up the article information, 1) the unnamed frog (alleged assault victim), is established as Eileen Cary. DONE, (and thanks for that proper name, Elaine Larsen, 1009). Outstanding is proper identification of 2) the proposed quarry development ballot measure. The ballot measure was Measure L, 11/7/2006, rather than Measure E, 11/5/2002.
Any other corrections, or clarifications? How about the integrity of the article text itself: namely, 3) the "assaulting" words by the author (Todd Bray). Words with no proof. The retelling of an improbable incident of 8 years ago. An alleged assault with no police charges. Comments timed to discredit or sully the political campaign of city council candidate Eric Ruchames (a good man). The political motive seems transparent enough Todd, but hits another new low, even for you.
155, that's Elaine Larsen at 1009. She plans to post some comments, and probably submit some articles here as well.
Remember Elaine Larsen posted that really well written tribute to Vi Gotelli comment on the Vi Gotelli obituary article, (see 8/22/14, 11:32 AM).
Welcome aboard, Elaine!
Oh Kathy, come on, let the raciest stuff through. We're all adults.
Verifiable facts: Don Peebles, uninvited, put his arm around Eileen Carey in the frog suit and Chris Hunter took the picture which was printed in the Tribune. Eric Ruchames was also there. Later, Eileen Carey was called by the police to come to the station. She asked Todd Bray to accompany her, which he did. She was met at the station by Eric Ruchames who interviewed her in a room while Todd Bray waited outside the door. No charges were filed.
Anon 428 excuse me, but how do we get from the picture being taken to Ms. Carey being called to the police station?
I don't know 5:08. Do you doubt the truth of that statement? It's easily proved.
"I only spam comments that are raciest, sexist, insane, inappropriate, personal attacks (most), really low, slow or half-witted, and criminal"
Kathy,
I've tried to post several times asking if anyone knows the details about a lawsuit Ruchames was involved in back in 2006.
Where does this honest question fall into those catagories? Why are you censoring this?!
609 You misunderstand. I think your story is incomplete. Moving on.
644, do some homework, and get back to us. You've already told us there was a lawsuit in 2006. Who knew? So, you're fishing or setting-up an answer. And the blog is not "Ask Jeeves", so let us know. A link and context of the lawsuit might be helpful.
Vague allegations and unknown implications related, or not related, "lawsuit, 2006" suggesting some kind of unusual activity, negligence, wrongdoing, abuse, anything. So that is not a nice comment on your part, it suggests a subtle, premeditated, disingenuous attack by implication, FMV.
Under the best and worst of conditions, lawsuits periodically do happen to people in the course of living or occupation. And is the implication important and relevant or not? So get with it, and let us know anonymous voice with an agenda. Some of us will be waiting for you, and that information. Or, if you're only on the smear patrol, you may prefer to just go away.
I did my homework, Kathy. That's how I found out about about Ruchames being sued in 2006. It settled out of court but I don't know anymore and I don't have a way to link to the case.
Since I don't have any more info, I thought I'd ask here to see if anyone knew anything more about it but I guess this makes you lose your mind and start blocking posts. Your worse than Mayberry.
So I take it, that Ben is Eric's son and he was in an auto accident. Either insurance was in Dads name or the car was registered in Dads name. Or maybe the kid was a minor.
06/14/2005 is listed twice.
Looks like the (kid) got into another accident a couple years later.
RUCHAMES, BEN DEFENDANT FAYE BALLEZA VS BEN RUCHAMES ET AL PI/PD MOTOR VEHICLE UNINSURED CIV447499 06/14/2005
RUCHAMES, BENJAMIN PAUL DEFENDANT KAREN BELL VS BENJAMIN RUCHAMES PI/PD - MOTOR VEHICLE CIV460551 01/30/2007
RUCHAMES, ERIC DEFENDANT FAYE BALLEZA VS BEN RUCHAMES ET AL PI/PD MOTOR VEHICLE UNINSURED CIV447499 06/14/2005
Thank you for the background, 803. Looks like it was no big deal.
Kathy, all of this could be avoided if you'd stop acting like Mayberry, Jr., and next time just let us post without your dumb lectures.
928, that's not happening. A "dumb" lecture is exactly what you earned.
Thanks for further clarification 803.
If John Maybury, Steve Sinai and I would all give some of your comments the dumpster treatment, think about it.
Maybury, high tailed it out of town. Exit stage left, or exit stage south.
As far as I know Kathy is still around.
Kathy
He moved to Moss Beach or Montara
Tunnel opened up and old John made a break for it.
Post a Comment