Dispelling Rumors

When we created this site we wanted people to submit experiences they’d had with an elected official, whether they were good, bad, or indifferent. To date, the only stories that we’ve received have been “less than complimentary”. We have not received one single complimentary submission.

That’s apparently what has caused some controversy. So, we’re going to break from our norm and take the time to dispel some rumors.

Candidate Connections

The creators and curators of this site do not work for or have any other connection with any candidate running for any office. This includes candidate’s websites. To repeat. None of use built any of the websites for any of the Syracuse City Candidates. We don’t know where that rumor got started, but this should put an end to it.


Some call the articles on this website slanderous. They’re not “spoken”, so they don’t fall under that definition.


Libel means “to publish in writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation”.

The operative word here is “an untruth”. Before we approve an article of being published, we ensure the sources are cited and a sufficient amount of confidence to the validity of the claim is agreed upon.

To date we have not received a single response challenging the accuracy or validity of any information posted.

If the third party (such as a reporter, or a curator on a website such as this one) did everything a “reasonable reporter” should have done to verify the information in his or her story before publishing it, the reporter is not legally “at fault.”

Famous persons, public figures, or governmental officials must prove a higher level of “fault” than would an ordinary person, based on U. S. Supreme Court decisions.

New York Times Company v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
In order for a public official or a public figure to prove defamation, they must prove actual malice. Actual malice requires that the person suing prove that the challenged statement was published by those who either knew it was false or were reckless in verifying its accuracy.


Defamation is “any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person’s reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person.”

The operative wording there is “intentional false communication”.

We’ve turned many accounts that were hearsay or that we felt were too poorly documented to ensure only accurate information is posted.

To date we have not received a single response challenging the accuracy or validity of any information posted.

 Safe Harbor

This site falls under the definition and protections of the “Safe Harbor” provisions of the DMCA. Every submission is the property of the person who submitted it. The Safe Harbor provisions allows persons who feels they’ve been damaged by any content to submit a “Takedown Request” to the site maintainers.

As of today we have not received a single takedown request.


The word “coward” has been thrown around by several in the community. We respectfully disagree.

We’ve tried to keep most submitters names confidential for their own protection — just like many reporters do.  Similarly, we’ve kept our names confidential as well, for fear of retaliation.

That having been said, we welcome any factual rebuttals on any article (past or future) that would help “set the record straight”. So far we’ve had one single comment, and that was not to rebut any claim.


Hopefully this will help answer some questions and dispel some of the rumors that are floating around.

We call on any curators, editors, or administrators of any other sources of information to remove any speculation or rumors regarding any information that has been addressed herein to clean their respective pages of incorrect, false, or misleading information.

If you have a story to share and have documentation to back it up, please head over to our About page and submit it there. Be patient, it takes us a little time to read through them and validate the information. Please cite your sources.

If you have factual information that disproves any information contained on this site, please comment on the corresponding article. Make sure you cite your sources as well, and again, provide us adequate time to verify your claims.

SyracuseTruth exposed

The Truth about Syracuse Truth

There are a few Facebook groups floating around that cater to Syracusians. The “Syracuse Citizens” group, for example, is “by residents for residents”.

Another group has recently surfaced that is supposed to be all about the “truth”. But who are they? Why don’t they feel comfortable in the Syracuse Citizens group?

“Syracuse Truth” on Facebook is administered solely by Anna Jeffs (according to her own words). Mayor Jamie Nagle regularly posts and comments there, disparaging the Syracuse Citizens group.

According to the Syracuse Truth group description:

“… This group was created to provide facts and information relating to specific issues facing our city talk about issues affecting our City. … ” (9/17/2013, noon MT).

SyracuseTruth.com is a domain name for a website that is presumably under construction and was registered by Clint Jeffs, Anna’s husband. The purpose of the website? It’s the voice of a PAC — a Political Action Committee.

The TRUTH about “Syracuse Truth” is that it’s been “formed by business, labor, or other special-interest groups to raise money and make contributions to the campaigns of political candidates whom they support” (definition from to FreeDictionary.com).

It’s now very clear:

  • “SyracuseTruth” isn’t about the truth at all, it’s about getting someone elected to office.

We can guess at who that person is.

We can guess at who the “business, labor, or other special-interest groups” are that are contributing money to the PAC. Anna Jeff’s herself has admitted the “special-interest group” connection.

Know your sources and the motivation behind them.




Anna admits she is the only admin


Anna admits to the Special-Interest-Group connection

Red Herring

What do you know about Jamie Nagle’s latest Red Herring?

In her recent rant on Facebook about a specific member of the City Council filing a complaint against her, Mayor Jamie Nagle implied that doing so was wasteful.

“This is your tax payer dollars at work. Instead of pursuing murderers, rapists and child sex offenders, you have people asking the county attorney to investigate a council who can’t get along. (SIC)”

That’s not the case at all. The complaint to the County Attorney was that Mayor Nagle appeared to be violating the law. Specifically, Syracuse Municipal Code 2.01.010 and 2.02.170. When it looks like someone is breaking the law should we ignore that if that person is the Mayor?

Mayor Nagle went on:

“This is your tax dollars at work people. For all you residents in Syracuse who want your roads fixed, with all the money that Lisonbee, Duncan and Terry Palmer have wasted asking the county attorney to investigate non issues, your roads would be fixed. (SIC)”

Wrong again. This is what’s called a “Red Herring”.

According to Wikipedia, a “Red herring is an English-language idiom, a logical fallacy that misleads or detracts from the issue.  It is also a literary device that leads readers or characters towards a false conclusion…” (emphasis added).

The County Attorney’s office operates out of a different budget than when road funds come from. Not only that, the roads Nagle seems to be referencing are City roads, not County roads, which come out of another governmental entity’s budget entirely.

To quote from one resident:

“Either the mayor knows this and chooses to hope others don’t (she is lying) or she is not aware, in which case she is ignorant…”

Nagle concludes:

“Remember this when you go to vote.”

Yes, please do! When talking with candidates, ask them if they think it is right for the City Council and/or Citizens to ask the County Attorney to investigate our elected officials when there is evidence of possible wrongdoing.


Jamie Nagle’s Facebook Page Has Disappeared

Shortly after Jamie Nagle took to Facebook to vent her frustrations with a certain member of the City Council, Councilperson Lisonbee fired back. If you missed all that, we covered it just a few days ago.

Councilperson Lisonbee posted a screen capture of the Mayor’s comments, along with her side of the story to her own web page, and cross-posted to the Syracuse Citizens page on Facebook. The  backlash has been overwhelming with few (if any) coming to the Mayor’s defense.

If you want to go back and find Mayor Nagle’s Facebook page, chances are that you cannot. A search for her name yields no results, leading many to believe that she has deactivated or deleted her Facebook account in the wake of what can only be considered a personal attack and political faux pas.

For someone who advocates “openness” and “transparency” as much as Mayor Nagle does in public, closed-door meetings and closing down her Facebook page seem to tell a different story.