Parents Petition Caltrain to Reduce Train Speed In Palo Alto
Gavin Newsom's Mariah Carey-like Interview Demand
How to Keep Your Car Windows Safe In the Tenderloin
Urgent: SF Food Bank Needs Your Help
Gavin Cans Film Commission Head Stephanie Coyote
As we were dozing off our hangover this morning after the wild party we threw when we found out we were named the Guardian readers' "best local blog" (did you hear us? The "we're number one!" chants even drowned out the random shooting in the Lower Haight last night), we found ourselves perusing the letters section of the Examiner. Specifically, the two letters from today from one today claiming that the case against Ed Jew is a witch hunt. Our favorite is from one Patrick Monette-Shaw, who says that "if Newsom files an ethics complaint, it will again call into question his judgment."
After the jump - who is Patrick Monette Shaw?
Patrick Monette Shaw is this guy, who made the Weekly's list of city pains-in-the-ass last year. Awesome. UPDATE: We screwed up - the quote in the post was not about Monette-Shaw. We apologize, and the offending quote has been removed.
Shaw, however, pales in comparison to the other letter from one Joanne Gomez. If you're like us, when you read the phrase "The right to express one’s thoughts and not be condemned for doing so should be championed with as much vigor as defending democracy from tyranny," you immediately think of Ed Jew. Hey, if defending democracy involves taking $40,000 in cash payment from the owner of a tapioca shop, sign us up! We'll head right to the Sunset today and start shaking 'em down for freedom!
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
as the republicans keep insisting (in the context of campaign finance laws):
money = speech
stop the oppression!
I remember reading about the annoying gad-flys last year and thinking, seriously, what do these people do for money. Google him and find minutes from meetings that he has interjected him opinion in.
Here is a nice little piece he wrote slamming 2006's Prop D and the Bay Area Reporter.
Names: Patrick Monette-Shaw
Tactics: Monette-Shaw is big on the Sunshine Ordinance, making about 50 document requests annually over the past five years, according to a health department source.
Taxpayer cost: "Thousands yearly," our department source says.
People of San Francisco, Residents of District 4:
Make your voice heard!
This Friday, July 27th, at 9AM.
Go to the Steps of the Hall of Justice (850 Bryant @ 7th), and tell Ed Jew that it is time to resign.
It is only right that the D4 Supervisor represent the people of District 4.
We will be showing up early, about 8AM, and making ourselves heard!
Ed Jew's multiple staged entrances through the crowd of Chinatown folks should not be the only story that the media covers.
Bring Signs, bring your voices, and bring your friends!
Can’t make it Friday?
Let Gavin know how you feel. The Mayor is scheduled to make an appearance at Jefferson Elementary. (Irving and 18th Ave.)
That’s Saturday, July 28th, 9 AM.
Once again, come early, and express your opinion!
These gatherings of concerned citizens are in no way affiliated with any political candidates or organizations.
If you have read the Sunshine Complaints Mr. Monette-Shaw has filed against the Health Commission and Laguna-Honda you would see that his concerns have great merit and in fact the Sunshine Taskforce has frequently ruled in his favor.
Additionally Mr. Shaw convinced Supervisor Peskin to stop the circus environment regarding Mayor's Question Time.
Get a clue people - the Press doesn't like gadflys who show them how they should be doing their job rather than cozy relationships with Public Information Officers and Press Releases.
DAN you better correct your post pronto!!
Petrelis is not Monette-Shaw. Patrick Monette-Shaw is not Michael Petrelis who you confuse in your post and libel.
Where the heck did you get your journalism training dude? I hope you don't get sued - or maybe I do.
Sample legitimate complaint by Monette-Shaw against the Health Commission for failure to properly describe agenda item.
Sunshine Taskforce voted 5-2 in his favor.
http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/sunshine/meetings/materials/072407item3.pdf
We can't sit idly by as SF taxpayers and continue to pay for Ed Jew's salary!! As residents of San Francisco, it is our civic duty to protest the joke which is Ed Jew. I will be there at the steps of the Hall of Justice on Friday!!! See the rest of you there!!!
Re number of Public info requests:
http://www.sfgov.org/site/sunshine_page.asp?id=31022#67_26
The work of responding to a public-records request and preparing documents for disclosure shall be considered part of the regular work duties of any city employee, and no fee shall be charged to the requester to cover the personnel costs of responding to a records request
The people who hate this are the ones with something to hide or have poor record keeping systems. Hello Google Desktop??
#5 - you're right, I screwed up and read the article too fast. That's been corrected. Sorry 'bout that.
SFist Dan -
Maybe Patrick Monette-Shaw isn't the pain in the ass you assert but instead someone who stands up against the power stucture at DPH?
As bad as Monette-Shaw might be, to confuse him with Michael Petrellis is way way way below the belt.
#11 Sunshine Taskforce an independent body of 11 citizens has overwhelmingly found in Monette-Shaw's favor.
One certainly wonders if you "Daithi" are another undercover PIO for DPH maybe? ala Peter Ragone, Eileen Shields?
Yesterday 7/24, Michael Petrelis' Sunshine complaint resulted in a finding of Official Misconduct by DPH head Katz for failure to produce emails and referral to Ethics Commission.
http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/sunshine/meetings/materials/072407item5.pdf
07030
The Compliance and Amendments Committee has referred to the Task Force for further consideration their recommendation that the Department of Public Health be found in willful failure and official misconduct for failure to comply with the Sunshine Ordinance, and failure to comply with the Order of Determination issued by the Task Force on June 26, 2007, by not producing the e-mails of Dr. Jeffrey Klausner for the month of December 2006, and that referral, based on that finding, to the Ethics Commission and to another appropriate body be considered. (discussion and possible action) (15 min) (attachment)
And the best part of PMS's complaints about DPH - he WORKS for DPH!
He and Petrelis can both have valid points from time to time, but unfortunately use such obnoxious tactics, and pursue their uninformed accusations with the same level of zeal that they do their valid ones, that they undermine their credibility.
#14 well it turns out the neutral SOTF has overwhelmingly found in their favor.
Just becasue PMS works for DPH that does not mean his concerns are *not* valid.
New word for you:
"Whistleblower"
#12 Who is this "one" you speak of who asks if I am undercover for the PIO or DPH? I would love to meet "one". Is he (she?) related to Obe "one" Kanobe ?
#16
ha ha only the Shadown Knows.. :-)
As for Ed Jew- At this point there are SO many questions. I have one. Why won't Ed Jew's wife write a declaration as well? She surely knows the truth? But that would open her up to perjury charges as well?
#18
I don't think Ed Jew's wife can be required to testify against her husband...
Is that right, anyone???
As the subject of SFist_Dan's libelous posting today, I attempted to register to Gothamist/SFist using my own name rather than resorting to being a "guest," but the verification code did not go through for some reason.
As a staff writer for SFist.com, Dan (a.k.a. the Burrito specialist) writing under the name of Dan Johnson, he had a special obligation as a professional writer to have performed adequate fact checking before posting his drivel, which he failed to do. I have never been "convicted of harassing the department of health" nor have I been convicted of any crime whatsoever, and have never had an injunction placed against me, as Mr. Johnson appears to have written, which false information is still posted elsewhere on the SFist.com web site.
I am also not a whistleblower; I have never filed any whistleblower complaints. Instead, I am an accountability activist watchdog, and have filed open government/public records complaints. There's a world of difference. And just because I am a City employee does not mean I have to give up my First Amendment/Free Speech rights.
As I consider contacting legal counsel regarding Mr. Johnson's libel, SFist.com should consider firing him immediately as a Staff Writer for failing to have accurately fact-checked before posting libelous statements and for having violated Gothamist LLC's Comments Terms and Conditions guidelines that as a staff employee, he should have been aware of.
Signed: Patrick Monette-Shaw (pmonette-shaw@earthlink.net)
An afterthought:
SF_Dan claims to have been “dozing off our hangover this morning” [how many hangovers, plural, can a single person have?] while simultaneously “we found ourselves perusing the letters section of the Examiner.” Earth to Dan: How can you be "dozing" and "perusing" simultaneously?
Perhaps Dan should have dozed a little while longer working off his 20’s-something drinking before venturing into slander and libel that later had to be retracted when he was informed of his glaring error. Jeesh!
Next time, you might want to take the whole day to recover from your self-admitted plural hangovers, or perhaps consider checking into a rehab facility before mouthing off, so you have adequate time to fact-check before racing into print.
Signed: Patrick Monette-Shaw (pmonette-shaw@earthlink.net).
I would like to see SFist Rita go back to doing the Oh No, Ed Jew!:
columns
She has a writ, wry style of writing
These are the best political stories that the main papers wouldn't produce cause of their corporate holdings...
Oh No, Ed Jew!: is the best.
I.D.A.
As already mentioned and corrected above: "UPDATE: We screwed up - the quote in the post was not about Monette-Shaw. We apologize, and the offending quote has been removed."
Patrick, CHILL OUT, they made an error, they rectified it. I can appreciate nobody wants to be compared to Michael Petrellis, but SFIST are the good guys.
Dear Brock Keeling, SFist.com Eidtor: Claiming "we screwed up" and posting a weak-ass apology is not an option I'm willing to settle for.
On legal advice, I demand that this entire thread be removed from the SFist.com web site at once, and a personal e-mail apology from both Dan Johnson and SFist.com be sent to my personal e-mail account immediately, or I'll continue to consider persuing a legal remedy. I am hereby notifying Jen Chung at Gothamist LLC of this demand.
My personal reputation is important to me, and I don't need people recovering from hangovers wrongly slandering me. This is not about "chilling out." Do you hear me?
I am not ashamed of being compared to Petrelis; I know him and respect his accountability work, in spite his ill-considered involvement that landed him in legal hot water. He paid his debt to society. What concerns me most is the fact that Dan Johnson dared to accuse me of having been convicted of anytjing in a court of law, when no such thing ever happened. Had he not been hung over, perhaps he would have fact-checked first. Don Johnson, as did Petrelis, needs to be held accountable for his wrong actions.
Johnson should not be handed a get-out-of-slander-jail-free card simply because SFist.com may be the so-called "good guys." Instead, Johnson should be fired.
Signed: Patrick Monette-Shaw (pmonette-shaw@earthlink.net).
daithi - it's just fine for you to tell Monette-Shaw to chill out except the damage has been done
Most people read the libelous posting dragging his name threw the mud all day long.
looks like sfist is in deep doo doo...
We want Rita!!
Dear Patrick,
You sound like a real head case.
threw/through/
#27 he has every right to be very pissed off, you would be too! That is why there are slander and libel laws and this:
NMU (06/06/2007): High court recognizes false light claim
NEWS MEDIA UPDATE · OHIO · Privacy · June 6, 2007
High court recognizes false light claim
The state's highest court said plaintiffs in Ohio can sue for placing them in a false light before the public.
June 6, 2007 · The Ohio Supreme Court said today that litigants can sue for placing them in a false light before the public, a type of invasion of privacy claim that has divided courts over its very existence and worried media organizations that say these lawsuits chill speech.
To sue for false light, a plaintiff must prove that the media or another defendant publicizes facts that place a plaintiff in a " false light" before the public in a manner that would be "highly offensive to a reasonable person."
Recognizing the First Amendment concerns, some state high courts have said the false light claim does not exist, citing its similarity to libel. Unlike libel, where journalists can use the truth of the allegedly damaging statement as a defense, false light claims can proceed even if nothing incorrect has been stated.
The Ohio Supreme Court in today's 5-2 decision said the claim does now exist in Ohio courts, saying that a "majority of jurisdictions in the United States have recognized" false light as a valid claim and that "the First Amendment concerns that some courts have raised in regard to false- light claims are overblown."
Aw, come on, guys, I love Dan! The more people on the Ed Jew beat the better, I say.
And I screw up plenty of posts, as everyone well knows (just click on my name for a long list of my corrections), and Dan does what we all do -- apologize and correct in a prompt and timely manner.
SFist does apologize again for the mixup between Mr. Monette-Shaw and Mr. Petrelis (though Mr. Petrelis seems nice enough to me!), but we're not usually in the practice of taking posts down entirely.
Mr. Monette-Shaw, you're welcome to contact Jen at Gothamist if you want to discuss it further -- this might be better resolved offline if you're still upset.
Dear #27: If you had any balls, you would not have hid behind being a "guest." If you're so freakin' convinced of your "case" against me, why are you so afraid of using your real name? Are you that cowardly, after all?
Calling someone a "head case," is not too far from (and probably your generation's way of) calling someone a "nut case," just to avoid an accusation against you of having either been politically incorrect, or way, way, too culturally insensitive.
Believe me, I do not have any psychiatric diagnosis, and am nut a "nut," or in your trite words, a "head" case. You are most probably not licensed in the State of California or elsewhere to be rendering a medical or psychiatric diagnosis without a license to practice medicine, which, my friend, is a crime somewhat closely related to libelous slander.
I'd watch it if I were you. You are dangerously close to the same kind of libelous slander as our friend Dan Johnson. Or maybe you are Dan Johnson hiding in guest-wool sheep's clothing?
If and when I find out who who are, I am not afraid of pursuing slander charges against you, either, since you are violating SFist.com's parent company — Gothamist LLC — Comments Terms and Conditions, too.
Signed: Patrick Monette-Shaw (pmonette-shaw@earthlink.net).
?
Rita,
While you may be an apologist for a hung-over Mr. Johnson and for SFist.com, it's an insufficient apology.
Yes, I've written Jen at Gothamist stating my demands that this entire thread be removed by morning.
If it is not, SFist.com and Gothamist.com will have persisted in painting me in a false light, and a previous poster has informed you that painting people in a "false light" is also an egregious violation of defamation-related law.
While SFist.com and Gothamist.com may not "ordinarily" be "in the practice of taking posts down entirely," Gothamist.com indicates that's a remedy. I'm seeking that remedy before sun-up.
It this crap is not taken down in its entirety, I'll pursue either slander/libel claims, or false claims, wrongly being alleged against me.
I am not bullshitting you, and I don't want to be bullshitted in return. Take this entire thread down.
Rita, if you possess any common sense whatsoever, you will convince Jen at Gothamist LCC to get this crap off of the Internet quickly, and to have the apologies sent to my home e-mail account ASAP. You may not know me personally, but I'm a very determined person when I'm falsely wronged, and in particular, wronged in a false light by a foolish person recovering from a hangover.
Signed: Patrick Monette-Shaw (pmonette-shaw@earthlink.net).
I don't think a libel charge would go very far in court at this point: Everybody at SFist has apologized, but the offended party won't let it go.
My layman's opinion is that the offended party is a nutcase.
If you guys yank this article, what's going to stop Chris Daly, Ed Jew or any other local newsmaker who might be "offended" from demanding takedowns "or I'll sue!" as well?
What Milk of Magnesia may not understand, being a so-called "layman," it that there are different thresholds regarding slander of private citizen's vs. public officials.
Jew and Daly are the latter; I'm the former, and I do not have a criminal record. If I did, I certainly wouldn't be objecting to young Mr. Johnson's slander.
There's the difference, and that's what stops Jew or Daly from acting. But if I chose to act on this, that does not make me a nutcase, Mr./Ms. Magnesia. It makes me a person wrongly vilified publicly of having a criminal record when I do not have any such record.
I'll let this go when the entire ball of false wax is taken down; not before.
Signed: Patrick Monette-Shaw (pmonette-shaw@earthlink.net).
FALSE WAX!!!!!!
SUNDAY SUNDAY SUNDAY AT THE COW PALACE!
Me thinks you are a grouchy old crank Patrick,
daithi-
you are welcome to your opinion of course but - come now? you would be grouchy too, if you had been treated badly like this... sfist correcting the post does not change all the impressions made by everyone who already read the post yesterday morning.
What if sfist said you have were a convicted molester - then, oh, sorry, our mistake 8 hours later...
signed - not Monette-Shaw or Petrelis (who by the way has paid his debt to society).
Woof!
Mountain out of a molehill!
I am just now catching up, and if PMS hadn't repeated that it had been written that he was convicted of something or other, I would never have known or thought about whatever it is he is flailing about.
Mr PMS, in case this is your virgin outing here at SFist, the blog style is lightly, slightly silly tongue-in-cheek delivery.
When Dan writes "...we were dozing off our hangover this morning after the wild party we threw when we found out we were named the Guardian readers' 'best local blog...'"
it was not a statement that he had nessarily been drunk; the statement is concerning the "best local blog."
The likelihood is that there was no party or drinking. It's merely an ironic, over-the-top way of stating that he was just plumb tickled pink that SFist had been singled out for praise.
Further, all bloggers here refer to themselves in the editorial "we." Plural just sounds so much more gently ironic, adding to the flippant nature of the -ist blogs.