“Unacceptable behavior,” by Councilman Shawn Juris

[marklingm]

The police can then scan all your computer systems - including deleted emails - to prove your innocence. Matt

Hmm... just a little comment on the snippet above. We live in the good ole' USA, so I believe he is presumed innocent unless he is proven guilty. It seems folks here are often ready to torch people they don't agree with in other 'areas' prior to proof, and Shawn already openly stated he did not send the email.

He doesn't need to prove his innocence but I hope he definitely follows through to stop whoever may be using his address wrongly or otherwise.

Well … J Hrlec ... I think Shawn needs to come forward with more than:

I had not sent you anything through email and I'm incredibly concerned about whoever is manipulating my business account in such a way. I trust that you and the rest of the Observer staff will correct this false information and do what is necessary to correct this error.

The following sure looks like it came from Shawn:

In any event, I do hope that this email-gate situation gets resolved soon through a speedy law enforcement investigation.

Matt

[Stephen Eisel]

It's not a matter of guilty or innocent. Steve Davis presented an email that certainly looks like it came from Shawn Juris. The content of that email is disturbing, on many levels. Now Shawn claims he was not the sender of that email. Since it is Shawn's word against Steve Davis's tangible evidence, I think it does behoove Mr Juris to follow up on his claim that he did not send that email. Until then, we only have a verbal claim that he did not send it.

[Jeff Dreger]

I rarely post here. I don’t know Mr. Juris or 99% of the others from Adam. I have no skin in this game. However, this caught my eye and struck a nerve. If a public servant is threatening to use that position/power to interfere with a free press because of an individual(s) he dislikes/disagrees with then that is extremely troubling and really gets under my skin. If someone is impersonating a public servant to create trouble between politicians or between the government and the media (or to interfere with a private business) then that is equally troubling. Certainly there are some childish antics on this and other boards and it seems to be seeping into this conversation but that does not negate the seriousness of the issues raised. It’s easy enough to doctor an image, especially a screen cap. It’s equally easy to just deny having sent a particular message. All parties should be requesting a quick and thorough and open third party investigation and let the chips fall where they may.

[Ryan Salo]

The following sure looks like it came from Shawn:

Not saying Steve did this, but the picture was almost definitely altered with photoshop, it looks like more than just the back of his email was whitened. It is hard to trust what you see now because technology is readily available. I am terrible at photoshop (compared to those that can add street polls with signs )and I can still have fun with it.

Matt did you send the same email?

[Stephen Eisel]

Maybe this is a job for jpegsnoop?

[marklingm]

I rarely post here. I don’t know Mr. Juris or 99% of the others from Adam. I have no skin in this game. However, this caught my eye and struck a nerve. If a public servant is threatening to use that position/power to interfere with a free press because of an individual(s) he dislikes/disagrees with then that is extremely troubling and really gets under my skin. If someone is impersonating a public servant to create trouble between politicians or between the government and the media (or to interfere with a private business) then that is equally troubling. Certainly there are some childish antics on this and other boards and it seems to be seeping into this conversation but that does not negate the seriousness of the issues raised. It’s easy enough to doctor an image, especially a screen cap. It’s equally easy to just deny having sent a particular message. All parties should be requesting a quick and thorough and open third party investigation and let the chips fall where they may.

Well said, Jeff.

[Stan Austin]

I agree with Matt Markling that this should be investigated promptly and thoroughly. Even though the email was allegedly sent on a private (non council) account the whole exchange is based on Mr. Juris's position as a council member.
Therefore, in part to benefit the rest of us so that we may be vigilant of our own electronic security and to demonstrate total transparency which is expected of public officials, the total release and publication of such an investigation is imperative.

Stan Austin

[Jeff Dreger]

Does anyone know the status of this or who is investigating? I see nothing in the police call logs for 6/25 but I could have missed it and I'm not familiar enough with this kind of thing to know if it would even show up there. If Mr. Juris or someone in the media or another concerned citizen has a police report number that would be most appreciated. I understand that ongoing investigations are not open to the public but at least the initial report should be. Again, the issues involved here trouble me greatly and I want to be sure that this is not swept under the rug.

[marklingm]

Corey and Ryan,

We are friends. Our wives are friends. Our families socialize together. The same is not true of Steve Davis – although I have met Steve and actually do have an opinion of him.

Steve should be applauded for having the courage to come forward with a valid concern – i.e., a public official allegedly sent him an email stating that he was going to use his public position against a Lakewood business and resident.

While Ward 3 Lakewood City Councilman Shawn Juris alleges that he never sent Steve the email in question, there is no doubt in my mind that Steve would never alter an email to falsely accuse a public official of serious ethics violations.

Matt

[Peter Grossetti]

Two observations ...

1.) Shawn's alleged email was allegedly sent from his business email account (Shawn@thejurisagency.com) not from his council email account (shawn.juris@lakewoodoh.net)

2.) Shawn's alleged email says: "I will use the full force and power of my position to make this clear".

One question ...

1.) Which "position" ... that of council person or that of fellow Lakewood businessman?

[Ryan Salo]

Steve should be applauded for having the courage to come forward with a valid concern – i.e., a public official allegedly sent him an email stating that he was going to use his public position against a Lakewood business and resident.

While Ward 3 Lakewood City Councilman Shawn Juris alleges that he never sent Steve the email in question, there is no doubt in my mind that Steve would never alter an email to falsely accuse a public official of serious ethics violations.

Matt,

I agree that this is serious. I was just stating that in this tech world it is tough to trust what we see.

I also agree that Shawn needs to go to the police if he was hacked.

However, if he did send it, I believe he needs to consider resigning, since he publicly denied sending it multiple times. We cannot have that kind of behavior from our elected officials. Remember Congressman Weiner?

I am sure that the Mayor and other elected officials will urge Shawn to do the right thing.

[Stephen Eisel]

I am hoping that the poster of "the e-mail" at least did a little due dilligence before posting "the e-mail" in a public forum. Did Salo just call someone a weiner? Sheeesh

[Mike Zannoni]

1.) Which "position" ... that of council person or that of fellow Lakewood businessman?

This would have been an interesting question a few days ago, but it is now mute since Mr. Juris has claimed not have sent this message. It might in some universe be construed as vague which "power" and what "position" are being referred to precisely, though it coming allegedly from a City official, it makes far more sense that it's referring to that position, compared to someone threatening to wield the mighty power and position of an insurance agent.

Now that Mr. Juris has claimed not to have sent this message, we have something entirely else to be concerned about: If Mr. Juris actually wrote and sent it, denial notwithstanding, then both the threatening posture and the lying need to be called out and censured, as I think that it is, already, among us, because it is too egregious to be overlooked. Not to find it egregious would be pure civil obsequiousness. And who wants to be that? Should we be threatened and lied to by public officials, even when they're off the public clock? I think not.

But yes, maybe a skilled master hacker or prankster with Photoshop skills is framing Mr. Juris using this foolishly emotional threat with his name on it. OK, again, I guess in some universe that is possible. But clearly nobody here thinks that. I don't think that.

No matter what “shenanigans” Jim O'Bryan might responsible for, it is not proper for a Councilperson to threaten him, directly or through Steve Davis. A cop or a public official has to be much better than that. He has to be held to a higher standard, or there will be no standards of behavior for public officials at all.

Personally, I'm not saying penitentiary would be in order, I'm saying penitence. They say it's good for the soul, and I think it actually is.

And likewise we shouldn't stone, crucify, lynch, or otherwise collectively seek to make Mr. Juris miserable, having some enjoyable self-righteous comeuppance for all the bullying we've ever endured from this City, and if we have been, we should stop. I for one will stop.

[Peter Grossetti]

did I say "alleged" enough times?

[Stan Austin]

Folks--- I'd say a more than reasonable enough time has passed particularly if one has felt violated by a criminal act to notify the police or proper authorities.
This could easily be confirmed by the posting of the police report number.
Stan Austin