Seems Ms. Alicia Boyd of MTOPP was none to happy with this piece in Politico, knocking her tactics fighting for Jesse and against Zell. In fact, she was so mad she had lawyer pen a cease and retract note to the Q for calling out her misuse of her non-profit "New Directions For Healing." Who knows who's been giving her money...she doesn't follow basic rules for 501c3's, like not electioneering, or having a functioning Board of Trustees and filing annual reports. So how does she respond? By threatening to sue a lowly blogger (moi) for calling out her corruption. I suspect I haven't heard the last of her calling me out as a racist, publishing untrue stories about my ties to developers (whom, I wonder?) - essentially for disagreeing with her politically. Very Trumpian if you ask me.
In the end does any of it matter? The neighborhood continues its swift though roundabout march towards wholesale change, despite the rhetoric. A great example this:
 |
| 146 Linden Blvd |
A sterling example of what's becoming to skinny lots as a result of NOT engaging in neighborwide rezoning to protect inner blocks. Whatever. I'll just start calling these Boyd Buildings.
 |
| This is what it was. Coming to your block if it hasn't already. |
3 comments:
Boyd Buildings! I love it!
Maybe you should consider renaming your blog to "Alicia Boyd is sooooo bad, I really hate her, here's another post about her." Even better, you could call it the "Castration Complex Times."
Sending her lawyer against a defenseless, simple-minded blogger - how upsetting to hear this. In the spirit of free speech, I think I am going to take a knee at the next CB9 meeting for such legal threats on free speech.
I mean, as a public figure of MTOPP, she will have to prove actual malice.
"'Actual malice' means that the person who made the statement knew it wasn't true, or didn't care whether it was true or not and was reckless with the truth -- for example, when someone has doubts about the truth of a statement but does not bother to check further before publishing it.
Later cases have built upon the New York Times rule, so that now the law balances the rules of defamation law with the interests of the First Amendment. The result is that whether defamation is actionable depends on what was said, who it was about, and whether it was a subject of public interest and thus protected by the First Amendment.
Private people who are defamed have more protection than public figures -- freedom of speech isn't as important when the statements don't involve an issue of public interest. A private person who is defamed can prevail without having to prove that the defamer acted with actual malice." https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-simple-29718.html
And on our next episode, we will discuss the counter-claim and discovery. That means you get to ask for all of the documents of the 501(c)(3) in question, bank statements, tax returns, meetings. People in glass houses don't send cease and "retract" letters.
and Tim, please keep writing and adding to the culture,
MAKE BROOKLYN LITERATE AGAIN
Post a Comment