It seems that the domain registration for ‘Lie BoylesTM new place of employment has been missing since October 30. Perhaps they should check her purse.
Now, see, that would be scapegoating, in addition to being physically impossible. Of course, as you can see, it’s merely that the domain registration has expired “and is pending renewal or deletion”.
But, you know, it’s pretty nice timing.
Over on Metroblogging Portland, I threatened to do it: “I’m vaguely pondering opening my own, with a much spiffier design. I figure if she grumbles about my using her new ‘brand’ I can just point out that I invented it in the first place.”
Now that ‘Lie BoylesTM, sitting out there in Glendive this evening, is busily working on an attempt to turn her new name here back around on me — with new products which say “‘Lie (about) Boyles? Hmm… wonder who would need to do that?” — I’ve followed through.
Don’t want to allow ‘Lie BoylesTM to get you both ways, stealing your tax money and then having you buy products from her so she can pay that tax money back? But find the idea of a t-shirt at least vaguely amusing?
Then support the person who actually coined the now-defunct “Emilie Oy” moniker in the first place instead.
Buy the one true Oy shirt and proudly proclaim your opinion of this politician, scofflaw, and deadbeat.
Once upon a time, the term “scapegoat” referred to a goat upon whose head were symbolically placed the sins of the people, after which he was suffered to escape into the wilderness.
Apparently, once upon a time, one such scapegoat returned after being set free. This being somewhat of a bad omen, the custom switched to pushing the scapegoat off a mountain to make sure it died.
All of which eventually gave rise to use of the term to refer to a person or thing that is made to bear blame for others, or someone punished for the errors of others.
On her newly-created and launched CafePress shop, ‘Lie BoylesTM refers to herself as a scapegoat.
It’s not the first time she’s made sure to mention that she somehow is not to blame for the course of her campaign and her actions before, during, and after it. So let’s roll out the general facts — or, as she will argue, “misinformation”.
To qualify for public funds, ‘Lie BoylesTM needed to demonstrate a certain level of support through the collection of a set number of $5 contributions. In her case, ‘Lie BoylesTM relied upon the efforts of one Vladimir Golovan, whom she paid $15,000. This expenditure was determined by the City to be inappropriate, a ruling later upheld by an administrative law judge. A grand jury is being convened to determine whether or not to charge Golovan, possibly for crimes related to identity theft, for faking those signatures and contributions.
To house her candidacy, ‘Lie BoylesTM took out a one-year lease on a campaign headquarters, in direct violation of the terms of public funding, which require that public funds for a given election only be used during that election cycle. Back in April, the City Auditor noted this violation and revoked ‘Lie BoylesTM‘ certification. That determination later was upheld by an administrative law judge.
To promote her campaign, ‘Lie BoylesTM paid her daughter $12,500 to infiltrate online discussion groups, many completely unrelated to politics, in order to market the ‘Lie BoylesTM candidacy. That expenditure later was deemed improper by the City Auditor, a determination upheld by an administrative law judge. Her daughter also spammed dozens of online discussion groups unrelated to politics seeking an attorney to represent ‘Lie BoylesTM.
Back in June, an administrative law judge ruled that ‘Lie BoylesTM utilized campaign finance funds to “make expenditures for a purpose other than her nomination or election to the office for which she qualified as a candidate”, make “expenditures to consultants that were not for bona fide services provided” or pay “more than fair market value for the service”, to “pay for household utilities for a part of her personal residence”, and to “repay debts”.
Then in August, the deadline for ‘Lie BoylesTM to repay the City passed without the City hearing from her. At the time, according to reports, there was a “growing suspicion among both city regulators and her own campaign team that Boyles may have left town.”
During much of this saga, ‘Lie BoylesTM blamed the media for her situation. She also blamed her situation on the fact that she was poor, disabled, and Christian. At one point, she tried to scare off her critics by asserting that if the media kept reporting on what she had done, she’d never find work and therefore would just end up taking more public funds by living in a homeless shelter.
Sometime in September, someone who had encountered ‘Lie BoylesTM and figured out who she was called the City with the information on Boyles’ whereabouts, at which point the City moved to serve her with court papers.
That’s the gist of the ‘Lie BoylesTM saga. And it really prompts only one question at the moment: Given the above facts (read: not “misinformation”), is ‘Lie Boyles a scapegoat? Or is she simply a deadbeat and a scofflaw?
There’s no book announcement yet, but today on her website, Emilie Oy announced the availability of other eponymous swag.
Yes, that’s right. She has opened a CafePress shop. And guess what she named it. Yes, that’s right. She named it “Emilie OY!” — and in fact that’s what appears on all of her products.
(And aren’t you just dying to have an Emilie Oy thong of your very own? Come on, now. Admit it.)
It’s a clever move. She stole the thunder of my derisive nickname for her and converted it to her own self-deprecating commercial use.
Well played.
Addendum: Just since posting this item, she’s already updated the description (complete with further need of a copy editor) on her shop: “Please join Emilie in laughing with b!X and the bloggers!”
She says she is “throughly [sic] enjoying the humor and misinformation” — by the latter term, of course, she’s referring to all of the accurate reporting which has been done about her and her campaign.
The best part, however, is this: “Emilie Boyles approves the Emilie Oy! Product line and endorses the name ‘Emilie Oy!’ as an acceptable substitution for the name Emilie Boyles.”
As my Dad quipped: “This woman will steal anything that isn’t nailed down.”
So, having been robbed of its power, I suppose I will have to retire the Emilie Oy moniker. After giving it some thought, this blog now will refer to her by a brand new distortion of her name, and one which more accurately describes her: ‘Lie BoylesTM.
Regular news sites have entertainment sections that discuss celebrities, movies, television, and whatnot. Me? I have random items somehow related to the Emilie Oy saga. In this case, very loosely related.
Perhaps you’d like to see the two hits on YouTube on a search for “Glendive”, including some random teen going to visit her fiancee there.
Or perhaps you’d like to see the 173 photos which Flickr produces on a search for “Glendive”. Some of you might find this one especially amusing. They even have photos of KXGN, in case you want to see where Oy is working these days.
I’m confused. Why doesn’t Glendive Broadcasting’s latest intrepid news personality get a staff page listing if she truly is welcome out there?
Okay, I’m just being snarky. I’m sure neither the owner nor general manager wants to call any more problematic attention to their stations than they’ve already had to endure.
But the thought does give me an excuse to re-issue an earlier request, especially with all the increased traffic here from people in Montana: Can someone with access to any of the options please record and share some examples of Emilie Oy’s news reporting?
Over in Corvallis, the Gazette-Times makes use of the recent AP story on Emilie Oy as part of their Roses ‘n’ Razzies section (think of it like Willy‘s Winners & Losers).
“Raspberries to someone who isn’t such a model citizen,” the paper says, “managing to hit the trifecta of public loathing: a thieving politician-turned-TV reporter.”
For what it’s worth, I like how the paper makes sure to explain that a rose is “one of the most beautiful of all flowers, a symbol of fragrance and loveliness … [o]ften given as a sign of appreciation”, while a raspberry is “[a] sharp, scornful comment, criticism or rebuke; a derisive, splatting noise, often called the Bronx cheer”.
Mmm, raspberries.
Shout out to all of these people in Montana who keep coming through here this week to spend some time reading items posted regarding the Emilie Oy saga. I notice that I seem to have gotten several of you to Google for “Emilie Oy” instead of “Emilie Boyles”. How’s the weather out there today? It’s warmer and raining a little less here in The Portland of Oregon.
Then there’s this morning’s latest: “Hey Ms. Boyles, its kind of obvious you posted that yourself, noone in Miles City knows how to use craigslist. I think a more effective way to deal with your situation is probably to not be calling attention to yourself on craigslist, hmmm?”
I’m still partial to the theory that yesterday’s defense of Oy, which tried to turn her habitual jerking around of the City of Portland into something charming and innocent, was posted by her daughter, who, after all, was the much-vaunted “Internet marketing” guru (read: discussion group spammer) for Oy’s campaign.
More random sundries, as a counter-post to the earlier warning about Oy showed up this evening.
In part, the new posting serves as a resposne to the original one referring to Oy as a “criminal”. It’s a fair point, at least technically speaking, and perhaps people should begin using the term “scofflaw” instead: “One who habitually ignores the law and does not answer court summonses.”
The counter-post makes the following claims about Oy: “She has not been charged or prosecuted with stealing any money. She owes money, says she’s given back what she had to give back when she was asked for it, and is trying to get back on her feet to pay the rest back.”
That’s an interesting way to put it. While she wasn’t “charged” with “stealing” public funds, the administrative process put in place as part of the City’s public financing law — a process Oy contractually agreed to abide by when she accepted public funds — in fact did determine that she had utilized her public funds in violation of that law. Further, she was not “asked” to give the money back — she was ordered to. All of which came after she failed to repay her unused public funds by the due date.
None of which makes it sound as charming and innocent as the counter-poster would like Montanans to believe.
“How could she be missing since August if she’s been here since June?” the counter-post asks, and at this point I bet I’m not alone in beginning to suspect that this entire missive was posted by her daughter.
This one is a throw-away line which ignores the fact that when faced with having to pay back the money she owed the City, she skipped town and for a fair amount of time the City had no idea where she was — until someone called the City and told them.
Again, not quite as charming and innocent as the counter-poster would like Montanans to believe.
The rest of the counter-post welcomes Oy to Montana and disparages the state of Oregon: “Even with all the need for workers here we don’t want their kind polluting our Big Sky!”
All in all, it sounds to me like you’ll fit right in over in Montana, Emilie.