Old FURIOUS nads! by The One True b!X

“Andrew Carlstrom, the city’s elections officer,” reports Anna Griffin, “says all he knows is that the auditor’s office hasn’t heard from Boyles for ‘quite some time.’” All I can say to that is that they should go look in the discussion forums of the Glendive Montana Directory, billed thusly: “Got a hot Glendive topic? This is the place to discuss it!” The irony, if you don’t want to figure it out? She’s moderating, helping to weed out the spammers there. Given that today is Election Day, that seems like a good time to remind you of our fine EOPSD-brand clothing, just waiting for your order.

Remember Volodymyr Golovan, the accused forger who worked for Lucinda Tate and ‘Lie Boyles? Apparently this month, according to the Trib, the criminal case against him just got even more bizarre.

Did I mention that ‘Lie Boyles (nee Emilie Oy) is blogging now? Today she mentions an item from the Committee of Concerned Journalists in which they peg as their “tool of the week” a short list of what citizens should expect from the press.

The list is a shortened version of the one I used on Portland Communique, taken from The Elements of Journalism: What Newspeople Should Know and the Public Should Expect, by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel.

What’s interesting is that Boyles apparently believe certain things should be expected from the press that aren’t to be expected from, say, publicly-funded candidates for office.

“We should expect, above all,” the writers of CCJ say, “truthfulness.” This is certainly true, of course. But we should also expect truthfulness from publicly-funded candidates, rather than accusations of a vast Sten-wing conspiracy against them, coupled with blaming their troubles on being poor, or disabled, or Christian.

“We should expect proof,” the writers of CCJ say, “that the journalists’ first loyalty is to citizens.” This is certainly true, of course. But we should also expect a loyalty to citizens from publicly-funded candidates, rather than a stubborn refusal to take responsibility for their own actions.

“We should expect journalists,” the writers of CCJ say, “to maintain independence from those they cover.” This is certainly true, of course, and much of this has to do with refraining from any conflicts of interest. But we should also expect publicly-funded candidates from engaging in conflicts of interest, such as using public funds to pay personal bills or hiring their children to spam online discussions groups at an exorbitant rate of pay.

“We have the right to expect that journalists will monitor power,” the writers of CCJ say, “and give voice to the voiceless.” This is certainly true, of course. But we should also expect publicly-funded candidates who see themselves as watchdogs to not also see themselves as above being the subject of other watchdogs.

“We have a right,” say the writers of CCJ, “to a forum for public criticism and problem solving.” This is certainly true, of course. But we should also expect publicly-funded candidates to not blame the press for their problems when what the press is doing is reporting on the problems which already exist, and which said candidate or candidates caused entirely on their own to begin with.

“We have a right,” say the writers of CCJ, “to expect news that is proportional and relevant.” This is certainly true, of course. But we should also expect publicly-funded candidates to not engage in irrelevancies, such as blaming being poor, disabled, or Christian for their problems, rather than blaming themselves for their misacquisition and misspending of public monies.

For hypocritically proclaiming what citizens should expect from the press while at the same time believing that the citizens of Portland should have not expectations of her, and for proclaiming that the press has a job to do properly as long as they don’t do it properly when she’s the one being reported upon, I proclaim ‘Lie Boyles (nee Emilie Oy) to be the Tool of the Week.

‘Lie can’t comment on the grand jury looking into Vladimir Golovan. But she can blog about UPS.

Her website still says that her book is “expected to be available in early November 2006″ but it’s now the middle of the month. So, where’s the ‘Lie Boyles tome we’re all awaiting with bated breath?

Addendum: Sometime on Thursday, the note changed to “late November”. Trying to pony up the cash to register the “Emilie Oy” trademark must be taking up all of her time.

It’s a mildly banner day when the region’s newspaper of record actually subjects its readers to the URL of this blog, given its name. Why have they done so? Well, because they make mention of the t-shirt war between me and ‘Lie Boyles^TM, of course.

Dig the parenthetical: “For a woman so anxious to be left alone — several months ago, she asked the media to stop mentioning her because she no longer considers herself a public figure — Boyles sure is doing her part to stay in the public eye.”

(To add my own parenthetical, yesterday’s Willy noted of Glendive that “the city’s twice-weekly newspaper, is not writing about Boyles and the trail of campaign woe that followed her to Montana, because she’s not a public figure” — so at least one person has swallowed the “not a public figure” line.)

Meanwhile, after wondering yesterday why Boyles’ rant about working For the Good of Portland no longer was linked off the main page of her website, she (or her daughter) has restored it, along with a note which demonstrates not much more than Boyles (or her daughter) having a sense of humor that never quite left junior high school.

Outside of making me throw up in my mouth a little bit, trying the “he must love me if he hates me so much” taunt doesn’t really have much of an effect.

But more importantly, for anyone coming in from Theo, feel free to add to the sales activity on my t-shirt. And for more background than you would ever in your right mind need, check the tags at the bottom of this post.

Addendum: In the wake of my mentioning the junior high school taunt, she (or her daughter) has removed it.

Addendum: In the wake of my mentioning the removal of the junior high school taunt, she (or her daughter) has put it back. In case they remove it again: “You show your love more every day. You do know I’m taken & will NEVER leave him to marry you. So quit your begging.”

Could it be that newly-minted Montana newswoman ‘Lie Boyles^TM suddenly has second thoughts about her laughable claims to be working For the Good of Portland?

At some point over the last week, her extensive rant about her “intentionally unincorporated watchdog organization that neither accepts or distributes funds” no longer was linked from the main page of her website, although the text which once formed that link — “The Good of Portland” — remains in the left-hand sidebar.

Perhaps there’s something in that rant which Boyles doesn’t want her new Glendive media audience (and/or employers) to come across? Oddly, the page remains online and easily found for anyone who recalls the URL, which is linked above for your convenience, and that of your friendly neighborhood search engines.

“I’ve never been missing,” says ‘Lie Boyles^TM in today’s Willy in an eerie echo of an anonymous posting on Montana Craigslist. “From day one I’ve been in contact with the appropriate authorities.”

Really?

You mean how the deadline for you to repay the City passed back at the start of August, leaving the Auditor to admit he hadn’t heard from you, and leading to “growing suspicion among both city regulators and her own campaign team that Boyles may have left town”?

You mean how the only way the City of Portland learned where you were was when someone who had run into you in another state called to let us know?

“My response to people is to get a life,” she says in the article. How about you stop lying first, ‘Lie, and take responsibility for being a scofflaw and a deadbeat?

The problem with ‘Lie Boyles^TM moving to claim a trademark on a moniker I coined at least as early as April of this year is that, according to USPTO, “A ‘use’ based application must include a sworn statement (usually in the form of a declaration) that the mark is in use in commerce, listing the date of first use of the mark anywhere and the date of first use of the mark in commerce.”

Emphasis added to the important bit, because (as already stated) the “first use of the mark anywhere” would be here on this website, at least as early as April of this year, by me. So it was a nice attempt at finding her “magic bullet” to solve her problems, but she’s not going to be able to claim “Emilie Oy” as a trademark.

Addendum: This means that I erred in my earlier statement that trademark law had nothing which resembled “prior art” in patent law. What the above indicates is that you can’t claim a trademark on something which someone else has been using. For example, I couldn’t go register “Jack Bog’s Blog” as a trademark, since it can be shown that the “first use of the mark anywhere” belongs to Jack Bogdanski.

So, feel free to purchase the shirt, and I promise that my shop will not include any thongs.

“Anyone found to be using Emilie OY! for commercial purposes,” ‘Lie Boyles^TM added to her CafePress site sometime overnight or this morning, “will be considered in violation of Federal Trademark Law and subject to fines and penalties.”

This, of course, is aimed at coming after me for money. So, if she follows through, I guess we’ll find out whether she can trademark my intellectual property for her commercial purposes, since I coined the term “Emilie Oy” in the first place and it can be seen throughout this site going back at least as far as April, and except for a couple uses elsewhere, this site was the only place it could be found.

Technically speaking, there doesn’t appear to be anything in trademark law akin to “prior art” in patent law. But we all know where the term came from. She knows where it came from. It was my parody of her name, and still appears in the tags on every post about the ongoing saga.

She’s welcome to try, if she thinks it’s a valid way to spend what little money she has. But last I saw, she was asking people to leave her alone so she could repay Portland. Does she really think coming after me (really, coming after me after she misappropriated my intellectual property) is a gamble that’s going to pay off for her?

Addendum: Really, this is little more than Boyles trying to find, and believing she’s found, some sort of “magic bullet” to solve her problems. It’s a stereotypical belief for anyone who refuses to admit their own responsibility for those problems.

Addendum: Really, this is somewhat like the GOPresident trying to register a trademark to prevent any further usage of, say, “Bu(ll)sh(it)” on anti-administration t-shirts.