NO one came in to pull papers today at the City Clerk’s office so here is your current slate of potential candidates in probable order of finish:
Laurie Ender
Bob Kellar
Ed Colley
TimBen Boydston
Jon Hatami
Steve Petzold
Brandy Brown
Garrison Lysik
On a related topic, someone has commandeered the Twitter handle “Juking Jon Hatami” and today started following a bunch of local twitter users. I will say nothing specific about the contents of the tweets but it is fairly clear the person is NOT affiliated with the Hatami campaign.
Loading ...
I find the name “Juking Jon” unfortunate. The genesis of the name: earlier this month, Myers wondered whether Jon would question Captain Becker about “jukin the stats” (a phrase from The Wire popularized/co-opted by Mike) and iMagic coined the moniker “Juking Jon” in an ensuing comment. If one Googles “juking”, they get an urban dictionary definition of a dance wherein a woman grinds her ass against her partner’s junk–to use the vernacular. There are numerous examples on YouTube, including one entitled “Ja’lessa Juking Jon.”
Basically, the name confuses me. Why does Jon juke so much? On whom does he juke, and why? Based on the tone of the tweets so far, a bro-ier name would be better.
I appreciate a reference to “The Wire” as much as anyone, I don’t know if there’s enough out there to say he jukes the stats. It’s funny, because I’ve struggled to find a match for him from the series, and no one seems to fit.
The best comparison might be someone like Eddie Walker, the cop who was especially tough on crime, and it backfired.
For a minute, it seemed like he was going to be a major character, but once the story got moving, he faded away and you hardly realized he wasn’t there anymore.
Laurie Ender is not ready to run yet. Her article in The Signal on Dec. 26 was pretty bad. And she said, “crime rates are down triple digits.” Huh? If that were true, we would have NO crime (0). These incumbents know absolutely nothing about crime in Santa Clarita.
Looks like IMagic has a little to much time on his hand. I guess the graphic design business is slow these days.
Duh! There is no crime in the SCV. Don’t you know that?
Juking Jon? Guess he wronged Imagic in another life. Don’t know where all this hatred comes from.
iMagic seems like a naturally hateful person.
I wonder if Nathan, opps I mean IMagic is familiar with the 529 section of the penal code? I am assuming he probably is, since he has so much time on his hands.
Satire, parody, etc are protected free speech and do not constitute impersonation. Clearly, the common person could identify that this twitter account is satirical, and as such 529 is not applicable.
But, thanks for trying.
I guess they don’t cover the 1st Amendment in the academy.
Satire, parody etc is clearly stated.
SB1411 also states it is illegal to impersonate someone without their consent “through or on an Internet website or by other electronic means for purposes of harming, intimidating, threatening, or defrauding another person.” Then there is the $1,000 fine, etc….
While I see your point, I would think there is enough there for a valid complaint. Not sure how that works.
But what I do know is that whoever made “JukingJon,” (Imagic, nathan or otherwise) would probably not want that trouble.
“clearly stated”?
I’m sorry, I must miss the disclaimer every week that runs before Saturday Night Live that says they’re all satirizing political and popular figures and that nothing is to be taken as an attempt to impersonate anyone.
No, I’m not missing it? Its not there? Then how is it clearly stated?
Its not. Common-person standard. Can they tell the difference? Clearly, yes in this case, they reasonably can.
Unless you want to refer back to Hatami’s own statements and how comical some of them can be… then you might have a case for confusion between whats real and whats fake.
Oh, and while we’re at it, I’m sure the good counselor might be able to back me on this, but my years of broadcast/first-amendment legal education tells me that the “acutal malice” burden of proof would also apply to 529, as it would in cases of libel and/or slander, since the candidate is already a public figure given his employ with the county in a high-profile position, and further, his desires for public office solidify that standing, and as such, it must be proven (with concrete evidence) that the twitter user intended harm and wasn’t doing it for satire/parody or even just to point out the obvious.
Just checked further, yup, the wording of 529 makes it a crime to impersonate anyone with the intent of benefiting (financially, or in status, etc) from said impersonation. So, the burden of proof would be that whomever is doing this tweeting is realizing some benefit from doing it.
Again, sorry, but no. Its not going to apply, and really, aren’t there more important things to worry about???
Of course if a city employee were to were to create such a “parody” account and spend his or her working hours engaged in sending out tweets meant to degrade or call into question a city council candidate’s honesty and integrity, it could be the basis for a complaint to the city or even a lawsuit….
It should be grounds for firing said employee.
Ignorance of the Constitution and overzealous application of the felony code is indeed the calling card of Team Hatami.
I was incorrect. 528.5 penal code is a better fit.
You’re still incorrect…wildly incorrect.
“any person who knowingly and without consent credibly impersonates another actual person”
“For purposes of this section, an impersonation is credible if another person would reasonably believe, or did reasonably believe, that the defendant was or is the person who was impersonated.”
One of the ironies-to-be in this upcoming Council race is that several years ago a current City Council woman warned another female candidate that one of the names above “is a wife beater” and to expect a dirty campaign. So if we see that Council woman endorse the person she alleged was a wife beater it will be a sure sign that the Council woman has gone over the wall and become a totally unethical piece of work.
Someone on our council might be unethical? Surely, you kid.
I’m not kidding… and don’t call me Shirley.
Owww, sorry, my bad Todd.
Petz granted a lengthy interview to The Signal on the telephone yesterday. When he returned the call-he was connected to the phone message center of Jonathan Randles-LOL, his old friend.
Thanks to Alan for inviting me to address the Canyon Country advisory council. In light of his support for cooperative development of the CEMEX facility, Petz will need assurance of his personal security. The folks in Canyon Country seem to be situational in their application of conservative principles.
Twitter folks can follow Petz2 for the latest info.
I think that we need to change the order of Petz and Hatami in finishing. People know Petz and he will do much better.
Let’s see how he answers my question before jumping to any conclusions
Petz, in your professional opinion, will the Cemex mine, operating at full proposed capacity have a negative, positive or no impact on housing prices in the Stone Crest and Shadow Pines areas?
Petz says no direct effect on housing values and the lower cost of aggregate may benefit those whose homes are yet to be constructed.
How many more homes do you anticipate being built in the City?
Petz while the “leadership” may wish it were a council, the Canyon Country Advisory Committee it is in fact a committee even though it does not function as one.
Really? So if this:
was across the street from a house, your position is that it would have no effect on the value of that house?
You can’t be serious.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/santa-clarita-creates-massive-citizen-coalition-to-fight-cemex-mega-mining-project-56229282.html
So Petz, when exactly did the real estate gurus decide that the most important thing us no longer “location, location, location”?