#1 2009-03-14 06:27:09

http://warehamobserver.com/img/plymouth-district-attorney-001.jpghttp://warehamobserver.com/img/plymouth-district-attorney-002.jpghttp://warehamobserver.com/img/plymouth-district-attorney-003.jpg

Offline

 

#2 2009-03-14 07:49:10

we all know that bruce will lie any time any way he can ,

Offline

 

#3 2009-03-14 08:06:38

Wow, I'd imagine Bruce and Ragman are crapping their pants these days.

Offline

 

#4 2009-03-14 08:22:39

I notice that this is not a headline on the slobserver site, why is that?

Offline

 

#5 2009-03-14 08:45:13

Flox, he always 'buries' under another headline anything he doesn't want to write about.  It's on there believe me and it's nothing but a pack of lies by Bruce, who obviously is the dissenting board member that didn't want to see letters written by former board members that but him directly in the line of fire with regard to the Swift's Beach issue.  Everybody knows he's the one who brought this neighborhood issue to Hartman in the first place since he didn't want his precious view ruined.  He and Deighton-Haupt were business partners early on; both making money off of beachgoers by parking cars.  When the deal soured, well, you know the rest of the story.

Offline

 

#6 2009-03-15 10:41:19

Folks, keep in mind, there's the embarrasment factor, in that if the reconstructed minutes show Brucey's involvement, then Ragman has egg on his face for shouting Brucey's innocence, and Brucey has egg on his face for lying to the people.  They'll spin it and have the Ragman proclaim that all the people interviewed in the minute reconstruction are liars.

But, also keep in mind, if throughout this entire ordeal, if Bruce lied to any government agency investigating this and told them he didn't have any involvement in the deal, and if the reconstructed minutes show that he did...there's a possibility he could be outfitted for a well deserved, long overdue bright neon orange jumpsuit.  (Much to the Ragman's chagrin, because Cedar Junction limits conjugal visits - Yeah yea, just kidding Ragman, not saying you're gay, sheesh I have to explain every joke now so as to not offend Ragman's delicate sensibilities.)

I guess we'll have to wait till the minutes are released March 25 to know for sure, but I have a feeling Christmas is going to come early this year.

Offline

 

#7 2009-03-15 12:43:37

YOU CAN SEE HE IS ALREADY TRYING TO DISCREDIT ALL OF THE WITNESSES IN HIS COLUMN.

Offline

 

#8 2009-03-15 13:03:35

Why didn't Renee give testimony?  And why doesn't Hartman give testimony?
No one should be surprised that Ragman isn't printing the truth.  The big surprise would have been if he actually did print the truth.

Offline

 

#9 2009-03-15 13:27:47

This is the money quote right here, from the Rag quoting Brucey:

“This is so ridiculous,” he said. “There were never any votes taken. Selectmen can’t take votes on issues concerning the public in executive session. It’s illegal. That is a violation of open meeting law.”

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but when the selectmen meet for one of the select purposes of executive session, isn't it legal for them to vote in executive session if the vote pertains to that topic, and therefore, don't such votes happen all the time?

And didn't this board vote to hire McAulliffe during executive session?

They must be getting desperate if they're trying to throw out misinformation like that.

Offline

 

#10 2009-03-15 13:37:08

But then keep in mind, in that same Rag story, just above, Brucey is quoted:

“There have been on-going accusations that I am responsible for the Swifts Beach lawsuit when I was the only member of the board who didn’t vote on it,” he said. “The other selectmen at the time all voted for it. And that’s who is going to be allowed to recall what happened in executive sessions?”

So...wait what, Brucey? There wasn't a vote for it, but they all voted for it but you?

Yeesh...Desperation is a stinky cologne.

Offline

 

#11 2009-03-15 14:00:12

Thanks Bill for posting this for us. 
At least there are 2 other papers we can count on to print the truth.  And then we get to be entertained by ragboy deciphering the other 2 nespapers reports.  Things are starting to look better for Wareham.

Offline

 

#12 2009-03-15 14:16:09

Hamatron5000 wrote:

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but when the selectmen meet for one of the select purposes of executive session, isn't it legal for them to vote in executive session if the vote pertains to that topic, and therefore, don't such votes happen all the time?

Yes, it is legal to vote in executive session. Most towns get in trouble with the open meeting law because they think that they are not in an illegal meeting when there was no vote taken.

Does it surprise you that bruce doesn't know how the open meeting law works?

The big thing with executive sessions is that the minutes become public record once the matter is settled. In this case that would not include the litigation afterwards, but rather the sale of the property if it goes through or if it is refused.

Another rookie mistake, lots of towns fall into the open meeting law trap. Seriously, no minutes, makes you wonder what was really going on in there.

Offline

 

#13 2009-03-15 14:44:38

The power of the volunteer position went to his head, but he forgot all about the responsibilities.

Offline

 

Board footer

warehamwater.com