
RE: Cease and Desist Letter and Demand For Retraction
Dear Mr. Patrick J. Monaghan, Jr. Esq.
the Ridgewood blog takes theses issues very seriously .Your unsubstantiated threats and accusations seem a stretch at best .
As you are aware :
Publishing the Statements and Content of Others
“If you have web forums, allow reader comments, host guest bloggers on your site, or if you repost information that you receive from RSS feeds, you generally will be shielded from liability for defamatory statements made by your users and guests under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act(“Section 230″). This important federal law protects you from certain types of liability, including defamation, associated with the statements and other user-submitted content you
publish on your site.
Section 230 grants interactive online services of all types, including blogs, forums, and listservs, broad immunity from liability so long as the information at issue is provided by a third-party. You will not lose this immunity even if you edit the content, whether for accuracy or civility, and you will be entitled to immunity so long as your edits do not substantially alter the meaning of the original statements. However, if you alter someone else’s statement so that itbecomes defamatory (e.g., changing the statement “Bob is not a murderer” to “Bob is a murderer”), you would be responsible for the
content of the edited statement; and if it turns out to be untrue, you could be liable for defamation. In addition, if you add your own commentary along with the user-submitted content, you will only be shielded from liability for the material created by your user, not for your own statements. For more on this important protection, see the section on Immunity for Online Publishers Under the Communications
Decency Act.”
In the case of your client , Ridgewood blog received information from a source that was corroborated by a police report and at lest one witness.
Next in your letter you referenced the well know conflict between your client and Mrs McWilliams .
To paraphrase your own words Mrs Taddei and Mrs McWilliams have a well know history of conflict , that would render any reporting non defamatory since even according to you, only “minimal investigation” would have made us aware of that fact .So the Ridgewood blog reported on what everyone already knows.
As for damages you have presented none at all and according to your own words Mrs Taddei does not work.
As for your claim of “maliciousness “, it would be hard to argue that fact given that the Ridgewood blog approved comments that contradicted the post and took a comment from Mr Taddei that contradicted the
entire account and turned it into a post that received a similar amount of attention.
Reader Says The encounter between Mrs. Taddei and Mrs. McWilliams contained no yelling or obscenities as erroneously stated https://theridgewoodblog.net/reader-says-the-encounter-between-mrs-taddei-and-mrs-mcwilliams-contained-no-yelling-or-obscenities-as-erroneously-stated/
Interesting to note that we were contacted by Mrs Taddei about the parking situation on Bogart on March 15th and published a post she crafted about that very issue.
Recently implemented regulations prohibiting day time parking on Bogert and Cambridge during School hours, Implemented without Resident input https://theridgewoodblog.net/recently-implemented-regulations-prohibiting-day-time-parking-on-bogert-and-cambridge-during-school-hours-implemented-without-resident-input/
In fact it has also come to our attention that some negative comments posted anonymously appear to be the work of the same posters who under their own name voiced strong support for Mrs.Taddei . We would have to
confirm this of coarse but it does appear to be the case.
Now we get to the “cyberbullying” claim and the “harassment “claim.
1. The definition of cyber-harassment is very broad.
New Jersey’s cyber-harassment statute defines the crime as making a communication online or through a social media site with the purposed to harass another and then threatens another in one of the following
ways:
Threatens to inflict injury or physical harm to any person or the property of any person; Knowingly sends, posts, comments, requests, suggests, or proposes any lewd, indecent, or obscene material to or about a person with the intent to emotionally harm a reasonable person or place a reasonable person in fear of physical or emotional harm to his person; or Threatens to commit any crime against the person or the person’s property
No such language exists in the mentioned blog article.
2. Intent is key
Cyber-harassment has two elements to the crime — the action or conduct constituting harassment, known as the “actus reus,” and the intent to harass the victim, or “mens rea.”
Seton Hall law professor John “Kip” Cornwell said the “actus reus” covers a “wealth of conduct” under the statute, but “an individual is only guilty, however, if his or her conduct is undertaken with the
intent to harass or to place a reasonable person in fear of physical or emotional harm.”
According to Cornwell, “if person A sends a sexually provocative photo to person B in which person C is pictured, there is no liability if A was doing so merely because she thought the photo was funny and/or
never expected word to get back to C.”
“As such, it seems to insulate those who carelessly harm others, focusing instead on those who truly intend to cause harm,” Cornwell said. “If that intent is present, on the other hand, the potential for liability is great, in light of the breadth of qualifying misconduct.”
Clearly there is absolutely no evidence that the Ridgewood blog had any “intent” to engage in “cyberbullying” and or “harassment” . And you have presented no evidence of any “intent” or any actions that would meet even the most lenient definition .
However there is ample evidence to suggest that Mrs Taddei and her co-conspirators colluded to engage in “cyberbullying” and “harassment” against myself and the Ridgewood blog .
Blitzing the Ridgewood blog with hundreds of comments many threatening in nature by Mrs Taddei’s supporters fits the very definition of ” cyberbullying” and “harassment” as well as cyberstalking .
Key factors to identifying cyberstalking cases include:
False accusations. A cyberstalker often tries to damage the reputation of his victim by posting false information on social media websites or blogs. A perpetrator may even create fictitious websites or other accounts for the purpose of spreading false rumors and allegations about the victim.
Gathering information about the victim. A cyberstalker may try to gather as much information as possible about the victim by interacting with the victim’s friends, family, and colleagues. In serious cases, a cyberstalker may hire a private investigator.
Monitoring victim’s activities. A cyberstalker may attempt to trace his victim’s IP address, or hack into the victim’s social media accounts and emails to learn about his online activities.
Encouraging others to harass the victim. The offender may encourage the involvement of third parties to harass the victim.
False victimization. It is not uncommon for a cyberstalker to claim the victim is harassing him, taking the position of victim in his own mind.
Many of the above mentioned factors have clearly been met by Mrs Taddei and her co-conspirators as evidenced in this “Cease and Desist” letter along with the comment section on the Ridgewood blog.
Also this “Cease and Desist ” letter appears to be nothing more a blatant attempt to bully the Ridgewood blog to post only articles in support of Mrs Taddei position in her feud with Mrs McWillaims in violation of the 1st amendment and in an attempt to influence public opinion in her favor.
Finally ,we noticed the address on the letterhead was to :James J Foytlin 144 South Maple Ave ,Apt C-2 Ridgewood NJ 07450. This address is not my address.It was the address of my long deceased
father and frankly its in very poor taste sending things there and demonstrates clear intention of an attempt to harass, intimidate and bully me .
The Ridgewood blog does not take kindly to anyone telling us what we can of can not post .We also have no interest in getting dragged into a “cat fight ” between Mrs Taddei and Mrs McWilliams. We hope that
the two parties can work out their differences .
Make no mistake however, the continued attempt by your client and her co-conspirators to use the Ridgewood blog to further their advantage in this situation will be met with a VERY AGGRESSIVE LEGAL ACTION.
thank you
James Foytlin
www.theRidgewoodblog.net
Well done James.
Don’t you just love Lawyers and all they do for America..
Go James! Don’t let stupid threats slow you down. Very proud of you.
Although much as been mentioned, here and on Facebook, about the “well known history of conflict between Mrs. Taddei and Mrs. McWilliams,” there has been no mention of the genesis of said “conflict.” That is, why have these two been at each other’s throats for years? Anyone know?
Does anyone have a copy of the police report in question? If so, what does it contain? Who said what to the police?
C&D letters typically mean they have nothing and hope you will get scared and conform. If they really had anything, they would just bring it on.
So supporters of Taddei wrote negative things about her in order to make McWilliams look bad? Wow.
Diva Central…stay strong, Peter Zenger !
Yes, they have have been at each other’s throats for years unfortunately. Quite evident to us neighbors. Neither of them know how to laugh off a conflict and just de-escalate! Ugh.
.
Melanie in particular only knows one mode: bully and attack. In this case she talked to basically none of her neighbors about the ordinance to try to get their support before it passed. Then proceeded to attack and blame them for not being at the council mtgs when it became an issue after passing. Most people have better things to do than involve themselves in this petty BS thankfully. And speaking for the neighborhood, pretty much all of us think Ms. McWilliams would be better off focusing on her home life than wasting time getting into these conflicts in person and online…
i think everyone needs to find a middle ground and take a deep breath
Should obviously be Bogert of course in above comment! Autocorrect ugh…
“On the internet nobody knows you’re a dog.” (One dog, typing at a computer, to another, in a long-ago but memorable New Yorker cartoon)
So Mrs Taddei started all this by posting to the blog, now she’s mad at the blog and mad at Melanie. And had daddy write a letter to defend her craziness. I’m getting my popcorn waiting for the next episode.
Saucer of milk – table five
looking forward to attorney’s response…please post it
I regret that I was unable to attend the said council meeting,and therefore my comment has nothing to do with the “fight” between residents of this neighborhood. I find this new”law” has taken things to the limit. I park my car a block away to allow a repair man to park in my driveway. My dog walker comes, parks in my driveway to walk my dog as I have recently had surgery. Repairman said he may need to go out before the dog walk is back I tell her to pull in the street and I will stand with her car. A few min later , while standing in the street a traffic office pulls up, I explain the situation and that she will be back in a min or 2 and he says the car is in violation and MUST give me a ticket to put on the car. He never even gets out of his car! I ask why must he be so severe and I was told it is his job. I take the ticket to avoid upsetting my dog walker and I am told it I don’t put it on the car or move the car she may get a second ticket. I email this to all council members, only to hear back from 1who doesn’t even seem to know what I am referring to when I ask for the so called safety study that I have asked for on 3 separate occasions.Is this level of law enforcement really necessary!
Nice reply James. Case law protects you. ( remember the eye-on-Emerson blog, which was great fun to read)
Erin Taddei and Gwenn Hauck use the same play book – When in trouble, call Daddy.
Wow I was wondering why these stupid signs were put up on the street. Funny I have seen said neighbor park in front off her house during school hours,in the restricted area-what a hypocrite!!!
Hahahah! Erin had a family member wrote this. Too much plus writing junk to make Melanie look bad and it back fired. I’m just about to bust out laughing.
She sure didn’t and doesn’t mind the blog when it suits her. Go backkkkk she’s been posting anon for years.
Essentially Erin is a hag and loves to play innocent while actually being a complete brat. Melanie hadn’t even looked at her except to wave at her in years. Granted because it was funny to watch Erin combust and not wave back. And I’ve watched his first hand. No clue why the older lady hates this one. It’s funny as can be.
I’m actually concerned that Erin has finally officially lost her marbles. This is hilarious though. Oh Erin. Just get a hobby!!
3:35. Provide evidence. I live down the street. If you mean Melanie she has not done that. If you mean Erin she has. I have stayed out of it but I’ve been watching. Like a hawk. Erin repeatedly parks where she shouldn’t. Melanie nope. And let me tell you. I’ve seen it all…
correction to the last comment today about 11:15 a car was parked in front of melanie’s house people were in the yard but the car was in the street lets all play by the same rules!! why was no ticket given out? I saw this from my house!
Daddy Duke and Daddy Taddei
Remember when Daddy Duke ran a full page ad for Gwenn’s campaign saying ….Vote for Gwenn because she …..hmmm…because why? There was no good reason to vote of that woman. Glad she is outta office