Tag: ohio

Loveland, Ohio – This acrimonious, City Council debate may have brought to close the months-long debate over fees the Loveland Farmers’ Market and other groups planning public events in the City will have to pay. It will almost certainly not bring to end citizen debate about future vision for the City.

[quote_left]”The majority’s unilateral decision to welch on the deal is nothing short of outrageous.” – Kathy Bailey[/quote_left]The debate at the Council meeting on April 11, angry and loud at times, was over the last piece of legislation regulating public and private events. The Transient Businesses and Vendors, Mobile Food Vendors and Food Trucks ordinance was approved. The last contentious provision was that people and businesses supporting public and private events in the City will be required to undergo fingerprinting and background checks. The ordinance also regulates vendors going door-to-door selling goods and services.

Councilwoman Kathy Bailey said that after many hours negotiating what she thought was a compromise agreement that Council would vote on, a different ordinance was placed on the agenda. Council members, Rob Weisgerber and Ted Phelps also were surprised that the replacement ordinance appeared. Bailey said she did not know where it came from or who wrote it. The ordinance passed with Bailey, Phelps, and Weisgerber opposed. Mayor Mark Fitzgerald, Vice-Mayor Angie Settell, Pam Gross, and Steven Zamagias voted, “Yes.”

Gross did not agree with Bailey’s assessment of a compromise, saying, “I have no idea why you think there was an agreement.”

[quote_right]”You can’t renege on something no one has ever agreed to.” – Pam Gross[/quote_right]”Bailey said, “The blue line version that was distributed on March 28th represented the compromise reached between the majority and the minority, with Ms. Gross and myself representing each respectively, with Mr. Braun acting as an intermediary.” Joe Braun is the City Solicitor.

Bailey said that everything in that version had been previously agreed to by all parties. The major changes from that version versus what the majority surprised us with in the April 11th packet have to do with the fees charged. According to Bailey, the agreed-upon version capped fees for special events. “The version sprung upon us by the majority removes that language. I thought the blue line version represented a fair compromise and would like to have seen that passed. If the majority disagreed, the time to raise the issue was during our many hours of discussion and negotiation, not two weeks after agreeing to the blue line version.”

Bailey said that she was encouraged that, despite all the recent turmoil, the majority and minority were able to come together, albeit through an intermediary, and engage in a dialogue to reach a compromise. But added, “The majority’s unilateral decision to welch on the deal is nothing short of outrageous. The majority’s nonsensical explanation that there was no deal is patently false, and does not bode well for future collaboration, as without trust there can be no meaningful dialogue.”

In the end, Bailey was able to push through two amendments. The ordinance now says the event organizers, instead of City staff, will be responsible for ensuring individual vendors, or the event itself, has suitable insurance. The event organizers will also now be responsible for the background checks.

Peggy Goodwin: The Loveland Farmers’ Market will open as scheduled

The “BLUE LINED” version

 

Now Enrolling at All About Kids at Wards Corner today!

---

---

 

Gross alleges a local company’s truck was “kinda lurking” in the parking lot

Loveland, Ohio – It was a jaw dropping and eye-rolling allegation directed at a Loveland business and any, one, of their 75 employees when Councilwoman Pam Gross said from the council table on April 11, “There was a truck, for lack of a better word, that was kinda lurking in the parking lot.” She said she had just left the previous council meeting, heading to her car, when a truck seemed suspicious because it, “Kept stopping and slowing, and stopping and slowing.” Gross said it returned after a trip around the block. Gross identified a company name on the truck, and called out a resident who had just spoken at the public podium. She wanted the resident to identify who was driving the truck. The resident works for the company Gross made the allegation about and had also spoken at that previous council meeting.

Cries from the audience were of disbelief and became hostile, “Excuse me – are you kidding”  and “Oh my God.”

Mayor Mark Fitzgerald pounded his gavel telling the audience, You’re out of order, you’re out of order. Cease. You’ll be asked to leave.” He quieted the crowd, but not his council colleague.

The resident, who Loveland Magazine is not naming, went to work the next day and reported the allegation to the company owner. It was discovered, “The “lurking” pick up Ms. Gross referred to at our city council meeting last night, was a salesman leaving after a long day at work and dinner at Paxton’s. One Irish Coffee and an appetizer.”

Gross said that she wasn’t accusing the resident of anything, but wanted him to identify the driver. This was her clarification after she began her allegation by saying to the resident, “There is something on my mind that is directly related to you.”

When Gross said she wasn’t accusing the resident of anything, someone shouted from the audience, “Yes you did. Yes you did.”

This LOVELAND MAGAZINE TV video has portions blurred and some audio deliberately distorted so neither the resident, co-workers, or the local business would be harmed by the allegation.

These exclusive LOVELAND MAGAZINE TV videos will tell you what is being proposed

by David Miller

Loveland, Ohio – Last December it was announced that City Hall would be demolished and a new four-story building would take its place. City Hall offices were to be located on the second-floor, with retail and commercial on the first-floor. The top two-floors would be residential. City operations would temporarily move to a leased building on Cottonwood Drive when City Hall was demolished. In January, City Council was positioned to vote on the $89,000/year lease, when something went wrong, exactly what, has never been disclosed.

Loveland Magazine was quite surprised with this announcement and apparently many in the community as well. After reviewing meeting minutes from various City meeting going back several months and finding nothing about this specific plan, Loveland Magazine sent an Email to City Manager Dave Kennedy on January 26 asking if this detailed project had ever been discussed in open meetings at City Hall. This is how he responded:

?’s about new City Hall – January 26, 2017

LM: Did Council ever made a public vote on the decision to proceed?

DK: No they have not made an official public vote.

LM: Was there ever any public discussion in open session of Council or other public bodies, about the specific plan that was announced in the Straight From the Heart newsletter of December 15, 2016? I know I heard general discussions over the past year of perhaps selling City Hall, but I do not recall reading about or hearing any discussion of this specific plan.

DK: I have updated council through our council goals which includes the project. At the most recent council meeting I discussed the status of the project.

LM: If I have missed any of this and you could point to specific Council minutes, could you tell me which ones I should read?

DK: (Kennedy did not answer)

LM: I guess I am interested to have answers to these same questions if they pertain to the Planing and Zoning Commission, CIC, or the Finance Committee.

DK: We have referenced/updated the Finance Committee on the concept of the project.

DK: Could you tell me where all of the financing for this project comes from? Including legal, and cost of hiring McGill Smith Punshon Architects, or any other outside costs now attributed to planning and implementing this project, including bond counsel.

DK: That is still being formulated.

Resident Neil Oury has also recently questioned the apparent done deal and lack of transparency. Read background: “Here’s what Vice-Mayor Settle didn’t want you to know” published on March 22. Oury said he also research City Hall records going back several months and found nothing. He was also critical that an architect had been hired and drawings completed without the public knowing anything about the project.

Below is the announcement made in the City newsletter on December 15, 2016

The re-branding

Loveland Magazine was the only media outlet at the Community Improvement (CIC) meeting last Tuesday when the City Hall project was re-branded as if the December announcement had never been made. Today we are publishing the first of a series of videos from the meeting. It was quite a long meeting, so the meeting is presented in a series of shorter segments so you can view them one at at time, and go back at your leisure and not feel lost.

Apparently, the CIC has been given the task of making recommendations to City Council on the rebuilding of City Hall, although when or where that decision was made is anyone’s guess.

It will take a lot of effort on the reader’s part to view the entire discussion, but when finished you will be one of just a few in the community who know what options are under consideration and the recommendations that are going to be made to City Council.

The next CIC meeting is at 1 PM on April 24 at City Hall.

Loveland Magazine will not be summarizing the discussions. It is the public’s homework to do, and they can draw their own conclusions.

Loveland Magazine was the only media outlet to attend and report from this council meeting

Loveland, Ohio – Peggy Goodwin spoke at the Loveland City council meeting on March 28, explaining how provisions in a proposed “Transient Business and Vendors” ordinance can have a negative impact on the Loveland Farmers’ Market and other public events in the City. She told Loveland Magazine yesterday via an Email, “We are moving ahead with plans to open the market on May 2, but I’d like to withhold comment on the proposed changes until this ordinance comes back to Council next week. We want to be sure those changes negotiated by Kathy Bailey and Pam Gross are actually adopted by the full Council as our successful operation depends on the provisions outlined in that draft document.”

At the meeting, the ordinance that had been previously introduced was voted down, and replace with that draft document. The revision, a red and blue lined document, that can be read below, was not passed out to those in attendance until after the open forum. The ordinance that will be in front of Council for a vote this Tuesday can also be read below. Goodwin is one of eight volunteers that manage the market. At the open forum, she said they have serious concerns about the ordinance. She said, “This places an undue burden on the market and our vendors.” She told the council that the fees and process make the Loveland market uncompetitive with markets in areas surrounding Loveland.

Goodwin said many of the farmers who sell at the market will have to make a 2-hour round-trip to come to Loveland to fill out paperwork and pay the fees. She detailed other concerns, and you can learn about them in the video below. Included are requirements for insurance, fingerprinting, and background checks. She said that many vendors will find the entire cost too much and they might soon realize that Loveland is no longer an “Attractive entity.”

Clerk of Council Misty Cheshire said on Friday that the ordinance has been amended further, but did not disclose if there are further changes.

Joe Wahler, a nearby resident and vendor at the market who sells jams and jellies also urged council to reconsider what they were doing. He started what he felt was an amusing presentation by saying, “Howdy. How y’all doing? I’m back again.” He continued, “Um, I feel really, really ignorant – because, I cannot for the life of me begin to comprehend or understand what it is about the Farmers’ Market that makes you think that putting us out of business is going to bring more money into the City of Loveland.” He asked council if they were serious about wanting to fingerprint him and make him undergo a background check just to sell jams and jellies.

Mayor Mark Fitzgerald told Wahler that the open forum was Wahler’s chance to speak, but would not enter into a dialogue. The question Wahler asked went unanswered. Fitzgerald said, “You’re our guest and we welcome you, but we are not here for your question and answer – so if you’d just please conclude your comments.”

Wahler responded, “I’m tickled no end to be here.”

“I will be paying much attention to how the voters react when they find out that their daughters in the Girl Scouts selling cookies need to be fingerprinted, and that their sons in the Boy Scouts selling popcorn need to be fingerprinted.”

Waller concluded his presentation by barking.

Read: Transient Business and Vendors Ordinance that will be at Council Table Tuesday, April 11, 2014

City attorney instructed to distance City Hall from letter Mayor sent to 5 residents

Loveland, Ohio – Concern about the ethical behavior of Mark Fitzgerald and his fitness to continue serving on Council escalated at the March 28 council meeting. On March 23, the Mayor, through his private attorney, sent a letter to five residents demanding they preserve phone and computer records, email, voicemail, and, “All Internet and Web-browser-generated history files, caches and ‘cookies’ files generated at your workstation.”

[quote_left]Mr. Mayor, I will not allow myself to be intimated by you, or by members of this council that aligns themselves with you.[/quote_left]Ellen Mershon was first to the open forum microphone to express her outrage over the tone and specific language of the letter she received. It was sent to her on behalf of Fitzgerald in his, “Capacity as the Mayor of Loveland, Ohio.” The letter (below) contained 5-pages of demands. It said the recipients may be the subject of a defamation lawsuit and their personal files may be used as evidence. She refuted the allegation that she has defamed the Mayor. “There is nothing personally that I have stated that is not a matter of public record or available for a quick internet search. Mr. Mayor, I will not allow myself to be intimated by you, or by members of this council that aligns themselves with you.”

[quote_right]We will rise by continuing to make our community a better place.[/quote_right]Mershon’s voice rose over the Mayor’s objection to her talking about the letter, saying above the sound of the Mayor’s gavel, “People face everything together and rise. I thank you for strengthening my resolve in that regard. I will rise as others will. We will not be deterred because I am now more determined than ever that our community needs a change. We will rise by continuing to make our community a better place. We will rise during the upcoming election, educating our community and supporting candidates who have a positive vision for our entire community.”

[quote_left]The demand letter’s broad brush seems to included all users of the resident’s personal devices. It also demands the preservation of passwords, network access codes, ID names, and business records.[/quote_left] The letter said, “In the event of action for defamation or any other cause of action is commenced against you, we expect to obtain from you, personally and through discovery, a number of documents and tangible things including (without limitation) files stored on your computer(s) an all other electronic storage media.”

The demand letter’s broad brush seems to included all users of the resident’s personal devices. It also demands the preservation of passwords, network access codes, ID names, and business records. It tells the residents, “Pursuant to this Notice” they must immediately make a copy of all Data on the storage device of their personal computers, and any external storage devices must immediately be put into storage.

It goes on to say that Fitzgerald anticipates possibly filing a motion in court requesting the preservation of the documents, “Notwithstanding, this notice obligates each of you to preserve Data and any other documents independently of any Order on such Motion” by a judge. The request applies to any handwritten notes on any requested documents that may have been printed as a hard copy.

Fitzgerald is looking for any comments the five may have made about him concerning his tenure as City Administrator of North College Hill. It warns the residents that destruction or failure to preserve files, “Can result in sanctions being imposed upon you by a Court of competent jurisdiction for spoliation of evidence or potential evidence.” (For background about Fitzgerald’s tenure as Administrator for North College Hill, read: Here’s what Vice-Mayor Settle didn’t want you to know)

Neil Oury also received the letter and spoke about it. However, he had an additional beef. He said that the Mayor personally contacted his employer to inquirer if he knew what Oury said about him at a previous [quote_right]Oury concluded by saying, “Your mischievous tactics, shaky shenanigans won’t shut me up[/quote_right]council meeting. Oury believes that was a further act of intimidation. He said, “Typical behaviors of bullying and turmoil by intimidation. My employer doesn’t tell me what to say – how to act. My employer has nothing to do with my views or my opinion on politics. Texting him was simply an attempt to intimidate – to pressure him, to shut me up.”

Oury concluded by saying, “Your mischievous tactics, shaky shenanigans won’t shut me up. Mark, we’ve had enough of your lies. We’re fed up with your bullying, and we have no hope in you. We feel you can’t be trusted anymore. We don’t want you as our mayor anymore. In fact, we don’t want you on our council anymore. So, I’m here to publicly ask you to resign from our council immediately.”

[quote_left]And, quite frankly sir, this letter right here is obviously an intent to silence and threaten us. It cannot stand.[/quote_left]Halie Rebbeccaschild received the letter and asked the other council members if they were OK that the letter was sent with language saying it came from Fitzgerald in his capacity as Mayor of Loveland. Fitzgerald interrupted saying she could not talk about the letter because it did not relate to matters of City business. However, Rebbeccaschild persisted, “And, quite frankly sir, this letter right here is obviously an intent to silence and threaten us. It cannot stand.” She asked the other council members if it was acceptable that the mayor of the City is a harasser. “And, I also question how each of you are implicated by this letter.  Do you want to associate yourself with that come election time?”

Several times throughout the meeting Fitzgerald reprimanded people for clapping and shouting from the audience. He threatened to remove one person from the room.

When Councilmember Rob Weisgerber tried to discuss the letter he was ruled out of order by Fitzgerald. He appealed to council to overrule the Mayor. His motion failed with a tie vote and he could not continue. Fitzgerald, Angie Settell, and Pam Gross voted not to allow Weisgerber to speak. Kathy Bailey and Ted Phelps voted to allow the discussion.

At the conclusion of the meeting, Bailey made a motion for the City Solicitor to send a letter to Fitzgerald’s attorney instructing him to not represent that he serves as attorney for the City or its elected officials, and to correct the misstatement where he said he was representing Fitzgerald in his capacity as mayor of Loveland. She said she made the motion, “To protect the City.”

City Solicitor Joe Brawn said, “I saw this for the first time tonight. I had no role in this.” He said he would prefer that the letter did not state, “In his capacity as Mayor of Loveland, Ohio.” He said he could easily send the letter, however, Fitzgerald could also tell his attorney, “Don’t repeat that statement in the future.”

Both Angie Settell and Pam Gross said they had no knowledge of the letter, and abstained from voting. Fitzgerald voted, “No.” The vote on Bailey’s motion passed 3-1, with Weisgerber and Ted Phelps voting, “Yes”. Council member Stephen Zamagias was absent.

You can read the letter the five residents received: Spoliation Warning – Possible Defamation of Mayor Mark Fitzgerald

Resources for protecting your own personal Data from lawyers, the government, and people who wish you harm

by Elise Hendrick

For most of it I’m more of a compiler than a source, and whilst I probably know a lot more about this stuff than most people, I’m far from an expert on the subject (I mostly just know people). I guess you could just put me down as ‘writer and translator’ or something like that.

The basic takeaway from the ‘Vault 7’ release from Wikileaks is that encryption works. In fact, it works so well that the CIA is having to go through all sorts of difficulties in order to target and hack individual devices because they can only actually look at people’s traffic BEFORE it’s encrypted. 

Panopticlick is a tool provided by the Electronic Frontier Foundation that assesses how vulnerable your browser is to tracking. Apart from the things people know about, there are all sorts of random settings that can be used to deanonymise web traffic, and this lets you know how well you’re doing at it.

Privacy Badger – Chrome extension that blocks various types of trackers. 

 

 

 

 

 

User-Agent switcher for Chrome – Chrome extension that allows you to choose what ‘User Agent’ is submitted when your browser interacts with a website. The ‘User Agent’ field is one of the various settings that can be used to track and deanonymise you, so by choosing a User Agent that’s extremely common, you can defeat that to some extent. 

 

 

 

uBlock )rigin and uBlock Origin Extra – Chrome extensions that block ads and trackers.

Ricochet – Tor-based desktop chat proggram that anonymises users by assigning everyone random user IDs. No logs are kept anywhere, so the chat itself erases the minute you close the session

TrueCrypt is basically the gold standard of full-disk encryption. It allows you to encrypt and hide files on your hard drive. The project ended abruptly a couple of years ago, and the original developers (who emained anonymous to make themselves less vulnerable to state pressure) released a version 7.2 that is basically useless. This link has version 7.1, the latest good version of TrueCrypt. It’s actually passed an extensive security audit. The cool thing about this is that it can actually take your encrypted files and render them totally invisible so that even if someone were to require you to let them look at your computer or your external drives, they wouldn’t even see the files in the first place, so they’d never demand the password for them.

(BitLocker, Microsoft’s disk encryption utility, is useless, because it’s known that the NSA has a backdoor)