Reader says the deafening silence on the MIke Sedon email is very telling that little breach of civility had real consequences
The deafening silence for the three of them, most notable the large-and-in-charge Mayor speaks volumes. They want the MIke Sedon email forgotten. Sorry, Sir Paul, you keep sweeping it under the rung and we will keep pulling the rug back.
Why doesn’t the mayor open the case of Mr. Sedon’s job being threatened if he did not quit his candidacy two years ago???? Hello? Paul Aronsohn? Are you listening???
Very good question . Who did write that e-mail? Not a peep from the Council majority on that one. And that little breach of civility had real consequences unlike most of what these 3 are complaining about. Also, not a peep from our Deputy Mayor or Mrs. Hauck about their beloved Valley Hospital, its most uncivil attorney and even less civil lawsuit. How do they reconcile their support of Valley while sitting on the Council as defendants? How do they sit through these silly civility hearings knowing that Valley is the biggest bully in town next to them.
Our Mayor wants to ” Move Forward” and not dwell on the past. We must “Double Down” on our civility and “Drill Down” on all who oppose our plans.
Any follow up on the “e-mail” that caused Mr. Sedon to lose his job in Long Island should be left to Mr. Sedon to pursue with is own legal advisor .
Councilman Sedon has more important Village business to spend time on.
will the same standard go for the Mayor Dom?
let’s just Tommy-Boy quarters thief Rica go with a free pass, but keep harping about this? Seriously?
neither are getting a free pass , NY State considers the Sedon email a felony , as for Quatergate and a few other issues around town it should be interesting
Good to hear, that forensic accounting report was an eye opener
Thanks James the other poster is just trying do deflect from the e-mail. Must be a friend of the 3 amigos.
Im just waiting for someone at a council meeting to ask for an update on this. The Village Manger will probably say “we are still working on it” Here a thought. When the Mayor goes to Trenton to meet with the Attorney General maybe he will ask if e-mail gate can be investigated also.
why the heck should councilman Sedon have to pursue this himself? he tried, and his boss would not tell him anything, would not show him the email, and would not provide the IP address. Mr. Sedon had no chance but to resign his job and pursue his candidacy in Ridgewood.
Our Mayor is running to Trenton about the quarters, as well he should. But he never, EVER did anything about the email. This is not a minor issue. It interfered with our election process and tainted our town. And we deserve to know who did it.
Hello????? Paul????? Are you reading this??? (We know you are).
Let’s remember, the contact was made with Sedon’s employer within MINUTES of his candidacy being certified at Village Hall in Ridgewood.
who certified his candidacy? who else knew within minutes?
Well after reading all these post Im sure the James and the Ridgewood Blog will surely be on the Mayor’s next civility meeting agenda. In fact the Blog maybe the only thing on the agenda. The question is who will have on the panel? Long live the Ridgewood Blog .
only if you still do the group hug
I wonder if the Deputy Mayor will fly our Mayor down to Trenton in his plane. You know because he can.
James I would go for a group hug but then we would all be together and easy targets.
It will be shown, although we may never hear about it, that no email was shown because it never existed. The mayor picked up the phone and instructed that editor (or a politico who instructed him) to pretend there was an email message while giving Mike the heave-ho. I would *LOVE* to see Aronsohn on the stand with a forceful prosecutor staring him in the eyes and demanding to know if that was not the case.
Suppose it were the case. What would the penalty be?
Sedon’s got a potential claim in civil court, regardless of whether the act is considered criminal. Tortious Interference with a Business Relationship is nothing to engage in lightly. If you engage in it, make sure you’ve got a darn good reason for doing so, because you should expect to be sued, and made to pay money in compensation for the damage you’ve done. To start with, the plaintiff could name the defendant(s) as John and Jane Doe if your identity is unknown at the time of filing the lawsuit. Only later, after your identity has been determined through the process of legal discovery (Sedon’s former employer can be forced to comply and cough up the relevant data and documentation) and/or forensic digital investigation (e.g., if the email was sent anonymously, examining the related metadata to determine the sender’s IP address, and going where the evidence leads you until the sender is identified), your actual name will eventually be added to the lawsuit, you will become a defendant, and you will be summoned publicly to answer the claim against you.
From:
https://www.steinlegal.com/news/NJSB-GiglArticle_feb08.php
Tortious Interference:
What are the Rules of the Game?
By Robyn B. Gigl
In the seminal case of Printing Mart v. Sharpe Electronics1, the New Jersey Supreme Court laid out the four prong test that a plaintiff must satisfy in order to establish a cause of action for tortious interference with either contract or prospective economic advantage. The plaintiff must prove that it has some protectable right, either a contractual relationship or a prospective economic right; 2 the plaintiff must establish that the interference was done intentionally and with “malice”, which is defined to mean harm that was inflicted intentionally and without justification or excuse; 3 the plaintiff must establish that the interference caused a loss and in situations where the plaintiff does not have an established contract right but claims a loss of a prospective gain, the plaintiff must show that there was a reasonable probability that it would have received the alleged gain; 4 and finally the plaintiff must prove that the loss in question caused damages to the plaintiff. 5
While certainly there can be disputes as to whether or not a plaintiff really did have a legitimate prospective economic advantage that was interfered with, 6 the most difficult prong of the Printing Mart test for litigants, practitioners and the courts to deal with is whether or not the interference was done intentionally and with “malice” and exactly constitutes malice in the tortious interference context.7 In this regard, our courts have recognized that when looking at business practices, determining what conduct is justified is governed by a “somewhat amorphous”8standard. In particular, New Jersey Courts have appeared to have difficulty in defining and applying this somewhat amorphous test for reasonableness in the context of businesses that are in direct competition with one another. Trying to operate under admittedly amorphous standards makes it difficult for the business community, practitioners and trial judges to differentiate conduct that is sanctioned by the rules of the game and that for which liability may be imposed. This article gives an overview of the important cases in the area in an attempt to help practitioners navigate the murky “rules of the game”.
3:15 – whoever you are, please get the ball rolling.
I would really like to see follow through on this. It was wrong and the person was trying to interfere with Mr Sedon,s candidacy.
The voters have a right to know.
That is how Liberals operate.
Look at Obama and Holder…
Yes, we all have a right to know. This is one of many recent smears on Ridgewood. The mayor could have fixed this by aggressively pursuing it from the start. Nothing. Radio silence from him. It is disgusting and can only lead one to speculate………………..
3:15 pm here.
As a Ridgewood resident, this commenter takes very seriously the wrong that was visited upon Mr. Sedon. If you are of the same mind, as it appears you are, we are probably equally as eager to see the person or persons who did this to get what’s coming to them.
“Community News Watch” put the word “email” in quotes. We should wonder why that would be.
Is this some kind of deranged implication or suggestion that reasonable, well-grounded people who hold themselves out as being responsible stewards of the public trust should also and in all circumstances have a thick skin, should want to demonstrate that to the public, and for that reason Mr. Sedon do well to let sleeping dogs lie, lest he risk being portrayed by a political opponent during a reelection bid as a too-sensitive naif for which self-respecting village residents have lost all respect? (If so, that would seem to be the mother of all ‘dog whistles’, wouldn’t it?)
Or is it that no “email” of the type described by Mr. Sedon’s former employer in fact ever did exist, and that a certain someone has thus inadvertently tipped his/her hand?
That said, there is one thing that “Community News Watch” and this commenter do agree on (and that is the watchword of the day, isn’t it? Focusing on common ground, straining to maintain a civil discourse?): Follow-up in civil court in this matter can occur only at the discretion of the only individual who potentially has standing to sue: Mr. Sedon himself. Noone should or ever could get that particular ball rolling who is not doing so at the behest or direct instruction of the principal or real party in interest.
8:55, I disagree. Mr. Sedon is not the only wronged party. This was an act against our community, against our clean election system. The village should initiate an investigation immediately.