Paso city computer pressed into service to slam citizen

October 7, 2008


At least one Paso Robles city computer was used to post on this Web site’s blog dozens of derogatory, revealing remarks and private information about a citizen in the aftermath of a recent CalCoastNews commentary on Paso Robles police practices.

For five days over many hours, a blogger posting under the pseudonym “NoMoreLies” used the tax-supported computer to write critical observations while identifying a local businessman, the subject of a Sept. 24 commentary entitled, “Under Paso Robles’ Wild‘n’Crazy ‘Big Tint.’” The comments also were directed at CalCoastNews reporters.

Information was provided to CalCoastNews by sources connected to law enforcement that “NoMoreLies” was exploiting city time and resources to create postings targeting the citizen.

Following a subsequent complaint by CalCoastNews to Paso Robles City Attorney Iris Yang, the blog posts from “NoMoreLies” abruptly ceased. Sources told a reporter that an e-mail was sent by officials to all Paso Robles city employees last week warning them against unauthorized use of city computers.

A city council member, Fred Strong, promised to look into the matter.

“I do see that whomever it is has spent a lot of time doing this and it still shouldn’t be done from a city site,” wrote Strong in an e-mail to a reporter. “I was surprised at the detailed knowledge and information provided. I am inclined to think that the person’s emotions overrode judgment and common sense.”

The original CalCoastNews commentary did not identify the local businessman because, he said, “The police already know who I am, but I do business with other city departments.” The commentary related how the man was issued a “fix-it” citation for having tinted windows on his work van, and his annoyance that many local police officers’ private vehicles had similarly tinted windows in violation of state traffic codes.

The first post from the yet-unidentified individual using the city computer appeared the day after the commentary’s publication and noted, “This article is full of inaccurate ‘reporting,’ one-sided, slanted opinions and chalked (sic) full of lies…. The Paso Robles Police Chief and her officers have more integrity in their little fingers than any one of these tabloid reporters. Stop creating news… and maybe you will gain some credibility.”

Later that same day, “NoMoreLies” identified the businessman even though the citation issue remained unsettled:

“So, you guys want facts…here are the facts: 1. The person who got the ticket is Mike Hove, a local Paso Robles auto detailer. 2. Do some investigative reporting on Hove’s credibility. 3. Hove wasn’t contacting the Chief of Police when he was approached by the cops on Wednesday. He was visiting Mason’s auto-detailing across the street. He was parked eastbound in the westbound lanes of traffic with the rear of his car one fourth of the way into the street partially obstructing traffic. Apparently Mr. Hove feels if he cries loud enough he can continue to violate the law with a free pass. 4. Veile knows who the mysterious female officer originally talking to Hove is. She and Hove baited the Officer into a confrontation under the guise of having his ticket signed off. Veile and Hove showed utter disrespect to her and her boss… she defended her boss. Veile twists the words and puts them in print. The facts are this [sic]… citizen gets ticket… gets mad… accuses the cops of wrongdoing in an attempt to get out of trouble. Local tabloid runs with a story without collecting the facts. The police don’t like talking to local tabloid because they lie and twist the truth – no win situation. Limited information is given to the tabloid. The tabloid fills in the blanks and attempts to discredit honest people in an attempt to sell advertising space.”

The reporter did not, in fact, know the officer or speak during the coincidental incident.

“NoMoreLies” elaborated in a Sept. 27 comment:

“Until [CalCoastNews] releases an audio tape of the conversation you can’t assume the officer wasn’t professional. She can defend her boss and herself and still be professional. Many of us were raised with the expectation that we call someone Mr. or Mrs. or Sir or whatever. The police service is a paramilitary organization. Titles are a big thing. However, if someone starts referring to another party by their first name… while having a formal ‘professional’ contact, I personally think it is okay to ask if they know that person. After all, Hove was referring to the Chief by her first name…. The bad thing about this whole scenario is the story and the way the writer has chosen words that paints a picture in the reader’s mind. I’ll tell you right now – unequivocally – that this female officer is nothing but respectful and professional.”

Then, “NoMoreLies” outlined a few suggestions:

“Folks, question everything about any police department…it’s healthy and you have a right to know. However, hold these journalists to a high standard. Make them prove they don’t have an agenda. Report the information and let the reader decide (without the editorials and inflammatory language). Make them show you some video or audio. Make them produce some reliable witnesses. If you can’t see they enjoy painting these slanted pictures regularly, I’m sorry for that. Lastly, I encourage you to talk to a police officer from any city. Walk up and say ‘hi.’ Ask them some questions. I’m confident you’ll be pleasantly surprised at the results.”

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Member Opinions:

By: NorthCountyGuy on 10/12/08

I'm not surprised that a Paso Robles city employee was caught robbing taxpayers for his/her personal benefit. Several years ago, I witnessed a Paso Robles police officer doing an exparte Personal Services coverup for a politically-influential elitist who purposely rear-ended his victim with his face contorted in road-rage. The malicious Road-rage Elite was speeding in excess of 50MPH in a 25MPH zone when he bushwhacked and rear-ended his surprised victim.

By: WiseGuy on 10/11/08

Anyone who posts on a blog or forum and expects assurances that what he/she writes will be absolutely "private and anonymous" is unrealistic.

It is much more prudent to expect that anything posted will NOT be "private or anonymous." Anyone who expects or needs it to be otherwise would be wise to not post at all.

By: George on 10/10/08

Dear John Galt here is in all its glory our privacy policy:We have created this privacy statement in order to demonstrate our firm to privacy. The following discloses our information gathering and dissemination practices for this website. We use your IP address to help diagnose problems with our server, and to administer our Web site. Your IP address is used to help identify you and to gather broad demographic information.

This site makes use of the technology known as "cookies". A cookie is a small data file that certain Web sites write to your hard drive when you visit them. A cookie file can contain information such as a user ID that the site uses to track the pages you have visited. However, the only personal information a cookie can contain is information you supply yourself. A cookie cannot read data off your hard disk or read cookie files created by other sites. Any material, information, or idea, other than credit card information, transmitted to or posted on this Site by any means will be treated as non-confidential and non-proprietary, and may be disseminated or used by the site for any purpose whatsoever, including, but not limited to, developing, manufacturing and marketing products. non

By: whoisjohngalt on 10/10/08

This comments section was supposed to be completely private and anonymous. The fact that NoMoreLies is being "outed", and having articles written about him/her is disgusting.

Why not search the IP's of the other bloggers, to make sure none of them are posting on the clock as well? Is it because NML is sometimes critical of things written here?

I'm done with this site; since your promises of privacy don't seem to be worth much, I'm going to assume that the rest of what you say is of equal importance.

So long.

By: calvertworthington on 10/10/08

This issue is straight forward. Taxpayers should not be subsidizing municipal employees using time and equipment for personal matters. In private business, employees are disciplined-terminated for using business internet access for personal email & browsing.

Hopefully Mr. Strong has/will investigate as promised.

By: Cindy on 10/10/08

First I think NML is referring to what is often called The Freedom of Information Act. The Brown Act has nothing to do with any of this and I have no doubt her use of the term probably gave Fred Strong (and some other City Council) a chuckle.

NML seems convinced that she did nothing wrong because the complainant met with the press. If you read the story its clear that he was simply saying that police gave him a ticket for things that some of them were guilty of themselves and that the Police Chief had stood him up and didn't address his concerns. Everything else that transpired during and after that meeting was seen by the reporter and revealed from her perspective. No one revealed the name of the officer who signed the ticket, only her behavior was questioned. Somehow NML is the only person who sort to come forward and start using names and thats what caused the problem here. I don't think anyone wants to deprive anyone of their freedom of speech. I hope NML continues to voice her opinions , her perspective is interesting. Regardless I don't agree that it was proper or becoming of her (NML's) profession to "out" the complainant.

By: NoMoreLies on 10/9/08


Your source was not a "victim." He was issued a citation…therefore a violator. He is not protected by any laws. Comparing him to a rape victim is laughable…apples to oranges.

We can go round and round and round. You're entitled to keep printing tabloid journalism. Just remember, there are people entitled to respond.

I think you lost your cool and wrote an article out of anger…it shows. The shoe is on the other foot an you don't like it.

Since you haven't figured it out:

Man gets ticket = public information – period.

If a man decides to try and discredit good people in a public forum (by contacting the media) his expectation of privacy is lessened even more.

Your source is NOT A VICTIM! You and He are bitter. Your choice to have blogging on this web site provided an avenue for the truth to be told. Live with it.

By: MyThoughts on 10/9/08

Raising the Brown Act in order to defend the release of the citizens name in the context of this incident is a laugh.

Ask any police officer if the Brown Act permits them to publically release info as to someones credibility and suggest they should be investigated.

Hello! We are talking about a fix it ticket!!!

The Dept of Justice has rules and the agencies themselves have rules as to the release of such information.

No more Lies is a fraud and I hope the citizen who was outed launches a law suit to discover the real story and then maybe things will get fixed in this town.

By: CarolAnnRiley on 10/9/08

No More Lies says,

"Nope…it isn't confidential information.

The Brown Act makes all of it public information. You gave enough information for anyone, with the stroke of a pen, to get all the information described in your article. Your request to keep it confidential puts no obligation on anyone BUT YOU!"

So does this mean that when a crime is reported that the name of the victim is "free access to all"? How about the young woman who was raped by the gang bangers in her own drive way? Do you or any LEO have a right to divulge her name just because the news reported it? I think that you should take a good look at the "Brown Act" and to whom it applies to. I'm beginning to fear that there is a "loose canon (LEO) in our community"

Also you say "As I've stated in the past…the men and woman who serve are community are Heroes and when they've been wronged they deserve as much of a voice as they can get….even if you're trying to silence them." Would you care to explain the behavior of the "now questioned" fix it ticket officer? I appreciate law enforcement more than you could know. I have family who are the best of the best when it comes to integrity and honesty (as well as friends whom I have the utmost admiration for) involved in LE. I'm concerned about your ability to serve at this time.

By: NoMoreLies on 10/9/08

Nope…it isn't confidential information.

The Brown Act makes all of it public information. You gave enough information for anyone, with the stroke of a pen, to get all the information described in your article. Your request to keep it confidential puts no obligation on anyone BUT YOU!

If someone wants to complain great…look for that as a proper recourse. However, if you go to the media with lies about good folks and expect people to silently standby…good luck. Nothing unethical or immoral (except what you print) was done. Spin it like you want. The truth is there.

If Hove came to Karen and Dan and expected to be kept confidential….he can't have his cake and eat it too. The media is for EVERYONE. You believed you could burn the candle at both ends and win. You didn't.

As I've stated in the past…the men and woman who serve are community are Heroes and when they've been wronged they deserve as much of a voice as they can get….even if you're trying to silence them.


By: MyThoughts on 10/9/08

The most realistic way to get to the bottom of this issue is for the man whose confidentiality was exposed to demand an investigation by the City Council or better yet to file a law suit.

Unfortunately the only way to get the attention of bad govt is to sue them and expose the truth.

By: CarolAnnRiley on 10/9/08

To No More Lies,

You don't seem to be willing to take responsibility for your actions. You claim that Dan & Karen are out to "kill the messenger". The fact is that you posted information that could only have been known by Law Enforcement. Thats OK except you revealed the anonymous name of a citizen that had complained. Thats not OK. As it so happens you also did some of those posts from a city computer which strengthened the knowledge that you were undoubtedly in a position of "public trust" and had violated that trust. Maybe you did it on your lunch break or your coffee break. Maybe you have a desk job, who knows. The fact still remains that you flapped flapped flapped your mouth in public about confidential information. Thats why it's a BIG DEAL about where you posted it from. You sound like an intelligent person, so why should I have to tell this?

By: NoMoreLies on 10/9/08


"Smoke and Mirrors"

The Magicians, Karen and Dan, have decided to kill the messenger by trying to vilify me rather than focus on the messages contained in my posts. Once again the tactic is to degrade rather than report.

I really laughed when I saw that I rated my own article. Here is my 15 minutes of fame!! People who read this tabloid journalism should be totally enlightened into the tactics used by Karen and Dan. If you continue to read articles from these forums good for you! However, now anyone with a discerning bone in their body will see how these folks work and how they're more interested in creating the news, silencing those with a voice, than reporting quality work.



By: CarolAnnRiley on 10/9/08

I went back and read the posts by "NoMoreLies".

With that said I have to agree that Laura made an excellent point. Here is what NoMoreLies had to say about the officer calling in the name of the citizen after being asked to sign a fix it ticket.

" of course she's going to "stab" at her microphone. He wanted her to sign off a ticket. She needs to verify information…of course there is no reference to what she said. However, I'm sure she was doing her job…verifying identity, license information, etc…

Verifying identity and license information??? Was he being issued a traffic violation or about to be arrested?? Its ridiculous and unheard of that the officer had to identify the person who said "this is my ticket please sign it for me"? Give me a break. I agree that the officer was in my opinion attempting to intimidate the citizen. While I so happen to appreciate LEO's and the job they do I am having a problem with this particular scenario. It doesn't hold up and to answer Cindy's question. NO I have never had an officer verify who I was when I handed them a fix it ticket to sign and I've had at least 3 of them in my life. They never asked for my Id (why should they) and they certainly didn't call the police station to verify who I was!

By: Cindy on 10/9/08

Laura has really made a point about the "fix it" ticket. I too have had those kinds of tickets signed off and the officer never called in my name to verify anything. I can't imagine why they would have to. Has anyone ever had an officer call your name into the PD when you asked them to sign your "fix it" ticket?

By: Laura on 10/9/08

It's good to see No More Lies is back. She obviously has some strong opinions about this saga. I have to say that I have been witnessing (via posts on this site) and reading about some very bizarre behavior. The tinted window incident was amusing (really not a big deal) but here's what stands out to me. That the officer who was approached to sign off on a fix it ticket told the citizen not to call the Police Chief by her first name! Who do you think pays the Police Chiefs salary? Do we work for the police chief? In a sense I guess we do. We work to pay her salary among other things. The citizens also pay the officers salary and I think the officer was "out of line" to chastise the citizen. Also No More Lies claims that "of course the office called in the citizens name" because she had to confirm that he had a fix it ticket. I've had fix it tickets signed off and never, ever has a police officer called in my name to confirm that I had a fix it ticket. Of course the person had a fix it ticket with his name on it. He was handing it to the officer to sign it and I'm sure she had to inspect his vehicle to confirm he had made the corrections. Again the officers behavior was extremely odd and sounds like she was attempting to intimidate the citizen. Then by some strange coincidence two different PRPD followed the reporter around for a bit. If thats not enough then No More Lies got on this web site from a city computer and told everyone who the citizen was. Now she wants to complain that her rights are being trampled on. Scary… Blog on no more lies, keep informing us about what were dealing with.

By: CarolAnnRiley on 10/9/08

This is getting interesting. One thing I know is that computers located in public libraries

aren't going to have the same IP address as say that of the PRPD. I also know that if an e-mail such as one received from Lisa Solomon can be linked to the IP address of another e-mail then it came from the same network. It's also true that some IP addresses are constantly changing (such as my own) and yet if a website wants to identify me they can do still do it. The question here is two fold. Did you log onto this site and enter all those posts while you were on duty and being paid by the citizens? and.. Are you a LEO who publicly revealed the name of a citizen that wished to remain anonymous?

Good Luck "NOMoreLies". This is going to get very interesting indeed.

By: Inquiry on 10/9/08


You'ce quoted me out of context. I've asked for some "proof" from you that this was a city computer. I've received none.

I noted that an I.D. system can be flawed. I stated, "Much of the evidence may be circumstantial."

Without agreeing that this is, or was, a city employee, I stated in the email you quoted: "I would, however, point out that working in the public sector doesn't require a resignation from citizenship and all the rights that go with it."

I also told you, "I look forward to something substantial from you so that I can proceed." I haven't received anything yet, Dan.

I also thanked you "for your inquiries and concern."

If you are going to tell me things and ask me things, please provide verification and inform me that you will be quoting me publicly.

Respectfully, although somewhat disappointed in you,


By: NoMoreLies on 10/9/08

WoW…talk about some major assumptions in this article…

I could go on to about all the public computers in the City of Paso Robles…libraries, youth centers, etc…But, it wouldn't make a difference.

Additionally, there is no mention of the "other" I.P.'s my posts have come from. But, that wouldn't make a difference either.

Bottom line here is, my first amendment rights appear are being trampled.

Don't think for a second that all of you posting here aren't subject to the same scrutiny for posting! You're IP's are being recorded too!

Long live free speech! Don't let CCN oppressively restrict or scare people into NOT posting the truth!

By: Garfield on 10/8/08

What does Lisa think about this?

By: Stefan on 10/8/08

To: Truthbeknown As far as IP addresses, All websites can "see" who is connected to there network if they want. Behind the "seen" IP address there may be 1 computer or 1 thousand+ computer network. It works both ways, just as you can see what site you connect to. (see

By: MyThoughts on 10/8/08

A sociology professor once said that when the the law became lawless the people need to act. Sounds like the case here.

By: Black_Copter_Pilot on 10/8/08

Anyone that believes all that they read, especially online is a fool. Cool-aid anyone?

By: Laura on 10/8/08

It was probably Lisa Solomon herself that did those posts. I bet Karen and Dan know who the person is but unfortunately all they can prove is that it was a city computer. I find it so funny that people call these reporters liars and everyone who has ever accused them of printing falsehoods has ended up with mud all over their face. I for one believe everything they print because its always turned out to be true and its usually worse than they (uncoveredslo) initially tell us. I'm waiting for the next "Dumpster Chronicle".

By: CarolAnnRiley on 10/8/08

Thanks for the clarification George,

I just assumed that USLO must have traced an IP address because I know that they never print anything that isn't true. It was obvious that "no more lies" was law enforcement and I for one was incensed that LE had "outed" the name of the person who complained despite that he had asked to remain anonymous. I have no knowledge on how USLO proved that it was from a city computer. I just know that they never get things wrong and it's pretty interesting that they have so many connections particularly with LEO's but obviously they do. Again thanks for clarifying.

By: Truthbeknown on 10/8/08

Thanks for the clarification. Not to get the thread off subject, but one last question please:

Does a blogger have to be logged into your website for the IP address to be shown, or is the IP address of people who merely browse shown as well?

By: George on 10/8/08

Modern websites have a cool feature that allows the administrator to look at "WHO IS ONLINE" your own ip address number and the service provider at a glance, this and the Email address you provided on the signup page is the only data we have. Nothing illegal or sinister going on, this is how the internet functions.The Cabal has spoken!

By: Truthbeknown on 10/7/08

I'm surprised that no one has asked the question, so I will. To the keepers of the blog:

Please clarify how it was discovered that a PR City computer was used? You alluded to this in your paragraph "Information was provided to CalCoastNews by sources connected to law enforcement that “NoMoreLies” was exploiting city time and resources to create postings targeting the citizen."

However a poster mentioned tracing IP addresses. Are bloggers IP adresses being traced? If so, isn't that illegal, or at least a privacy violation? I would love to hear from fellow bloggers as well on this question . . .

By: ThomasPaine on 10/7/08

Paperboy. Unfortunately you bring up a valid if not controversial point. Today's LEO are not anything like they used to be. My son and I were just talking about how a lot of LEO are beginning to look alike, talk alike and act alike. It is difficult to talk about this issue without sounding like you are anti police or some conspiracy nut. I don't know what the answer is.

I do know that a group of LEO will do things that most LEO would not do by themselves. Like a gang mentality.

I have family members and friends who work in LE and they are concerned about the direction that the profession is heading also. There are many decent and professional people working in LE. Unfortunately the bad ones make it bad for everyone.

By: Joe on 10/7/08

Maybe "NoMoreLies" will go on over to the library and surf on their lunch break.

By: ThomasPaine on 10/7/08

I don't have a problem with people who post while working as most posts are rather brief and could be written in a moments notice. But divulging such inside information while working at a public agency just adds fuel to the fire. It is too bad the the PRPD continues to do the same as most politicians, rather than get out in front of the issue they circle the wagons and become defensive, thereby increasing suspicions of impropriety.

I can understand a coworker or friend wanting to defend the actions of someone who has been shown to be of less than stellar responsibility. But there are correct ways of dealing with that kind of situation and then there is the despicable way from someone like NoMoreLies utilized.

By: paperboy on 10/7/08

No More LIes? The name tells it all. People who call others liars are often themselves liars in some way or another. It's typical for police to go postal whenever someone criticizes them. They claim not to be above the law, but the truth is the law isn't applied equally to police officers. They protect their own and will make your life hell if you complain about them.

If the cops don't want to get called on their BS then they should obey the same laws they insist we obey. If the tinted windows are illegal, then they are illegal for everyone. After all, the only reason for this law is because the cops were afraid to go to a driver's window in a traffic stop if they couldn't see everyone inside.

That's also the reason we have laws against things like carrying a concealed weapon, it's all to protect the police. And then they turn around and break the same laws with things like this stupid window tinting. Hypocrite is too weak a word for them.

And if you complain about a police officer, who investigates? The police. The state even passed a law making it illegal to file a false complaint, but just who decides if it's a false complaint? The police.

You have to sue to get satisfaction. But then again, who works hand-in-hand with the police? The judges and DAs. The only hope is to de-militarize the police again and return them to being public servants and away from being Nazi Stormtroopers. Hell, most cops now look more like jarheads or maybe skinheads than regular people. It's a cult-like organization and getting worse all the time.

And don't even get me started on their pay and benefits…

By: Newsome on 10/7/08

"Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone," is my opinion on chastising employees' use of company computers for this type of activity.

My assumption is that most the mid-day posts on this site are being done on the boss's time, or by the unemployed.

However, the content of the missives posted bears scrutiny …

By: Cindy on 10/7/08

Hi There U-SLO,

Well isn't this interesting? It was easy to deduce that it was a PRPD LEO that was responding to your article about the tinted vehicle windows and revealing the name of the complainant. It's now revealed (thanks to you) that someone was in fact logging on using city computers which begs the question, were they on duty (paid by the citizens) at the time? Regardless- the fact is that public trustees used public owed equipment to reveal the name of an individual who had questioned the integrity of a violation and how it applied to all citizenry. I could continue to elucidate on these matters however I think the rest goes without saying. Way to go Cal Coast News and thanks a million for the facts.

By: MyThoughts on 10/7/08

The police employees need to spend less time blogging and more time on the streets chasing the gang bangers and drug dealers. Save the blogging for when you are off duty.

This is a classic case of attacking the messenger because the Chief is embarrassed about the bad press.

Outing the citizen who complaint is really in bad taste and probably against city and state laws or proceedure.

I hope City Council fixes this shameful conduct. The taxpayers deserve better

By: CarolAnnRiley on 10/7/08

I don't think that Boy Cops was logging on from a city computer. What they at times had to say on these blogs I agree was in fact very telling. I hope that they will continue to comment from time to time as they think is necessary. I commend Cal Coast News for bringing the news to the forefront, at the same time I fear that people will become fearful of blogging considering that it's now obvious that IP's can be traced. At the same time if you have an honest opinion and have nothing to hide then you as a citizen have nothing to fear. Please blog on.

By: Laura on 10/7/08

Uncovered SLO just rocks,

This is a fantastic update. The down side is that we won't be receiving any more post from "Boy Cops". Those posts were far and few in between but very telling. Great job U-SLO. Keep us informed.

By: ThomasPaine on 10/7/08

We all knew that NoMoreLies was an unbalanced sort when he posted his vilifying hyperbole. This just confirms it. I had assumed that NoMoreLies was either the officer in question or a coworker of said officer.

Hopefully a real investigation will take place to uncover who perpetrated the nonsense under the guise of NoMoreLies. Good update.