3.28.2007

How to Spot a Fake - Monte/Esslinger Edition (it's not the crime, it's the coverup...)

As I have pointed out in previous posts, Kent Monte sometimes has a problem with the truth, and likes to change history on his blog. He has been known to post, then change the post without attributing the update, and then delete all together to hide his mistakes and lies.

Well, today he seems to be working with Paul Esslinger to attempt to provide cover for Paul Esslinger using of city resources for campaigning. Because Monte cannot be trusted to keep the posts on his blog as he originally put them up, I have saved the screen captures below:

How to spot a lie on Blogger:

After I filed my complaint, Esslinger had the banner link changed to Kent Monte's website and a post copying the City's website bio. Here is a screenshot (you might have to click on it to see the bigger version to read):

Esslinger/Monte want you to believe that this post has resided on Monte's blogsite since Jan 1, 2007, the obvious date of the post (second circle). However, Blogger has a standard for publishing posts. They put the year and month it was created in the URL (first circle). It is plain to see that even though Esslinger/Monte want the readers to believe that this post was put up on Jan 1, 07 it was actually published in March of 2007.

In fact, it even gets sillier.....

This blog didn't even exist in Jan 2007. As Monte admits below, the blog was created and the first post made on Feb 21, 2007. In this post (pictured below), you can see that the date of Feb 21, 2007 is plainly heading the post (2nd circle), that the year/month of the post is plain in the URL (first circle) and Monte writes that this is, in fact, the first time he is posting to this site (3rd circle).




Esslinger and Monte are trying to cover up using taxpayer resources with a lie to all of Oshkosh. Monte's posts on this are here and here, but I don't expect them to stay there very long. If the links disappear, that means the cover-up is continuing...

I think it is time to expect more out of our City Councilors - and much, much more out of a Mayor.

18 comments:

Kent Monte said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kent Monte said...

Corrected post...

Mr. Hall,

You cry of a conspiracy, but it is simply a "pre-date" of a post to prevent it from showing up as the first post on my site. I chose January 1st because it was easy.

Let me clue you in on a couple of things while you are on your tangent. City Attorney, Warren Kraft, has said that because the city website is copyrighted, any person that has a LINK to the site MAY be in violation of the law. That would include your buddies Frank Tower, Bryan Bain, Cheryl Hentz, and many others. I don't see you jumping through hoops to slander them...

Now, let's get down to business. I am serving notice that you have 24 hours to remove any representation of MY website from yours. It is copyrighted and you have NOT obtained permission to use any reference of it. You will also remove any unsubstatiated material as it pertains to me or Mr. Esslinger. Failure to do so will result in a complaint filed with the District Attorney.

Thank you for your time and have a nice evening.

Kent Monte

3/28/2007 6:19 PM

Anonymous said...

The site may be copyrighted but there is absolutely no violation of the law by other site operators linking to it. Just as there is no violation of copyright law by linking to any copyrighted site. If that were the case even Kent Monte and his wife Michelle would be in violation because they routinely link to city and school district sites. A stronger case of could be made against Kent Monte's previous blog where he allowed full posts of coprighted material from Gannett publications. But he claimed fair use privilege. Now he threatens legal action and complaints to the DA's office. Get a clue Kent. This is not criminal so the DA is not going to be bothered by your childish whining. File suit in small claims court if you think you can win. Since you're always complaining how you're so strapped for cash I wonder how you'd pay for it.

jef said...

For anyone that might read Kent's comments and think he know what he is talking about...

If you look at this website: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html
it explains fair use and why you can sample writing for criticism. It says:

---------------

Fair use is a copyright principle based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials forpurposes of commentary and criticism. For example, if you wish to criticize a novelist, you should have the freedom to quote a portion of the novelist's work without asking permission. Absent this freedom, copyright owners could stifle any negative comments about their work.
-------------

Which is exactly what Monte and Esslinger are trying to do: "stifle any negative comments".

Once again, is that what you want from your representation?

Don't be fooled by bullies and blowhards.

Kent Monte said...

Quoting comments and actual picture representations are completely different Mr. Hall.

You have been warned...

What you fail to realize is that I am no longer a candidate and I don't have anything to lose. Can you say the same? You can take your shots all you want. I have nothing to fear from a ______ like you.

Anonymous said...

Some random thoughts for your readers, Jef;

Judging by Kent Monte's last comment and childish behavior I think voters can sleep comfortably knowing they made the right choice in eliminating him from council contention.

Nice find Jef on the fair use law. What's really funny is Kent Monte used that same link when he was defending his allowance of full Gannett material on his site. Double standards abound.

Now getting down to other business: what exactly does he mean that it is a pre-date to keep it from appearing as the first post on his site? That is clear as mud. Using the date the post was written and actually appeared would also prevent it from appearing as the first post on his site. Who does Monte think he's kidding here? The actions and their motives are crystal clear. I look forward to Monte's court action against you, if he can find a lawyer stupid enough to take on something so inane. He'll be a loser twice in the same year.

jef said...

I have used that link as few times.

It gives the best simple explanation of fair use I have found on the net.

Who knows, maybe Monte stole it from an earlier post of mine....?

Anonymous said...

Some blog operators have even used screen shots from the ONW's website and they certainly would not stand for copyright infringement if it happened. Monte doesn't have a leg to stand on and it's nice to see you're not being bullied and intimidated. That's been the style of that group for some time. They're just not smart enough to see that it never gets them anywhere.

Anonymous said...

Well well well. Mr. Monte has not only removed the posting in question but his archive too. How convenient. Good thing it's preserved here and if any legal action proceeds forward on his part or with the DA, his and Paul Esslinger's actions can't be denied.

Anonymous said...

http://www.wisinfo.com/sales/proofs/esslingerformayor/index.html

Anonymous said...

http://www.wisinfo.com/sales/proofs/esslingerformayor/

Anonymous said...

It's nice to see the proof for their first mistake still exists. Thank you Jef.

Can we talk for a minute about Kent Monte's continual lies? In a posting on this site yesterday he talked about not wanting the bio to appear as the first item on his site, so why would he date it as such (or even worse, date it before the blog was in existence)? Today on his own blog the comedy continues. Today he talks about using a feature that can keep something from being the last item posted. Since he wanted to draw attention to Esslinger's bio why wouldn't he want it to be the last thing posted? That would only make sense. Lastly, he suggests Jef should get a life. This from a man who has also just posted about how he's going to run around and look at Mark Nielsen's yard signs to see if they have an authorized and paid for disclosure on them. He also makes the assumption that Jef is concerned about him, instead of the fact that the possible election law violation was directed at Paul Esslinger, not him. Kent was right about 2 things in his comments. He is washed up and he did get his ass kicked in the primary.

Anonymous said...

I'll go you one better. Everytime Mr. Monte gets caught at something he uses the worn out excuse "I was misunderstood" or "It was a mistake and I've corrected it." That would be believeable if it happened once and a while but that's not so with Mr. Monte. Shouldn't we expect more precision from a quality assurance person? Now as for Mr. Esslinger, who boasts of his 7 years on the council. I would expect someone with that kind of experience to be mroe careful. Especially when he, Melanie Bloechl and Mr. Monte all took such great pride is beating up on Meredith Sheuerrman for her mistake on election papers. At least her mistake wasn't a possible election law violation.

People who live in glass houses...

Anonymous said...

Who's mistake was this???????

All I see Monte doing is allowing space on his website. Who made the mistake in the first place? Is it an ad for Monte? Is it Monte that paid for it? Is he a campaign manager?

Why is everyone so worried about a wannabe politition that couldn't even make it through a primary?

Who cares about Monte? He's out.

How is the complaint progressing Jef? Have you heard from the DA yet?

Anonymous said...

Funny how you clowns always ask if someone's heard about their complaint yet? Get real. If you used your brain you'd know investigations take time. "Is Monte Esslinger's campaign manager" you ask. Hard to say. They're joined at the hip investigating squad cars, going to health care facilities and putting up yard signs. And Monte has been Esslinger's mouthpiece. It's quite conceivable he is. No matter what though, the Esslinger/Monte team must've been concerned to have called the city attorney, state elections board and changed their links. Good job Jeff. Keep 'em on the run.

Anonymous said...

And Kent Monte's wife is running for school board. With the antics he has shown in the last several days, do we really think she is a viable candidate? Birds of a feather....

Anonymous said...

You make a wonderful point Anonymous 1:34. Mr. Monte is whining on his site that Jessica King is being suppported by Jef Hall and there's also talk over there about the company a person keeps. If we should discount Jessica King because of Jef Hall, we should discount Michelle Monte because of her husband and his juvenile rants and threats of the last few days. We should also judge her by her alliance with Paul Esslinger (someone who very well may have violated election law), and Dan Becker who threw a temper tantrum last year over his loss to Amy Weinsheim.

Chuck D said...

There are those of us around who take fair use very seriously. On the off chance that Mr. Monte decided to bring a (totally unfounded) suit, there are numerous organizations and individuals who would be eager to support Mr. Hall in such a clear-cut case. I would encourage both of you to keep that in mind as you consider how to proceed.