#131 2009-07-21 09:21:24
This board, meaning this message board, is finally shinning much needed light on abuse of power in Wareham.
Right now the George Coleman case is the tip of the iceberg.
Interesting play on words, one board is all about secrecy and the other about openness.
#132 2009-07-21 09:24:25
.... and this thread moves onto page three and message 132!
#133 2009-07-21 09:47:25
I'm almost positive the woman working at the beach are part of the senior work off program. This program allows seniors to work and use the money they make as a credit against their property taxes.
However there is no excuse for anyone being rude. I'm not sure where you would go to complain about someone. I know you can sign up at the COA good luck filing a complaint with Marcia Griswald, she gives new meaning to the word RUDE. Maybe you can call the town clerk, she should be able to tell you who is responsible for the seniors in the work off program.
Does anyone know where the money comes from for this program? Is it a grant? I wish we had one place to go to ask questions and get answers to financial questions.
Neebee please tell your friends about this site and once again welcome
#134 2009-07-21 09:59:28
That is the biggest problem! Their management skills are poor at best. You would think these seasoned vets of the REAL world would have tested and proven management skills? I presented their track record (don't make me recount the entire list) to a meeting of execs and senior management as a study, and they were summarily dismissed for poor decision making, bad asset management, and for improper leadership qualities. Now, why are they still in charge of this town and can they honestly believe they are doing a good job?
#135 2009-07-21 10:23:21
You have a town run by people who would be in need of a merciful professor to get a D in a management class. You have a weekly online paper run by a president-publisher-editor who would be disowned by any J-school that he took a course in.
You have a town which we are considering moving to in a year or two but every time we learn about how it is being run we have second thoughts. We love many things about the town and have good Wareham friends who are upset about how it's being run.
You have a town which makes The Boston Herald with a sensational headline, "Cops pin assault on Wareham crime crusader" and these choice excerpts from Steve Urbon's Standard Times article:
Wareham’s crusty Crime Watch crusader found himself being watched in court yesterday as he sat handcuffed and accused of assaulting a woman with his car.
The victim and other witnesses described Coleman as abusive and angry, calling the woman “stupid and retarded,” according to a police report.
It doesn't sound like a town people want to move to, let alone relocate their business to.
#136 2009-07-21 11:47:53
I am so frustrated with the entire process. One paper reports facts, the other speculates. One group wants to remove the Selectmen, the other group thinks they are doing a great job and it's the hate bloggers that are ruining the town. It completely baffles me. How much more obvious can things be? How can the hate bloggers be at fault for the decisions of the Selectmen? I nearly fainted when I read the log from Sunday night chat. You would have to either be living under a rock or walk on the T tracks to conclude it's the hate bloggers that are ruining the town. Geez.
I won't get started on the difference in the news reporting. If you have to change your news article more than once, you should have waited to publish it until you got your facts straight. And now, we have the COLEMAN was Railroaded article. Are you serious? How do you make someone hit you with a car and call you stupid and retarded? Wait, emotional outbursts from the Selectmen might be what his behavior is modeled after? That makes sense!
I'm so tired of the actions of the Selectmen, the spin of Slager, and I look forward to a day when I can quit complaining and return to the quiet life!
#137 2009-07-21 12:31:29
WHY IF COLEMAN CALLED THE POLICE RIGHT AWAY THEN WHY WOULD HE BE TRYING TO LEAVE IN HIS CRIMEWATCHMOBILE? HE CALLED AFTER HE STRUCK THE CITIZEN. THE VICTIMS STORY MAKES SENSE AND WITH SIX WITNESSESS IT SEEMS LIKE COLEMAN IS LYING ABOUT THE INCIDENT
#138 2009-07-21 12:50:42
Good point IHS. I hadn't thought about it. If you called the cops and were waiting for them---why drive off? Wait for the cop to tell your side of the story.
I was always suspicious of the "woman jumping in front of a moving vehicle" angle. And it isn't like there were no witnesses. A little logic is too much to ask of some people.
Mr. McDonald--I share your frustration as do many people. We simply have to ignore those "chatters" who are blindly loyal to the bos and ragboy. And when will we stop looking at ragboy's crap? He has helped to bring ruin to Wareham and we are encouraging him to continue every time we mention him here.
We need to stop complaining and start acting. Grab a neighbor and/or a family member and go to the Take Back Wareham meeting on the 30th.
In times of strife in this country, it has often been the people who have enacted change from slavery to women's rights to something as important as Amber alerts. If the citizens of Wareham can't change the situation we are experiencing--the town is doomed. Don't let that happen--citizens of Wareham unite.
#139 2009-07-21 13:10:20
hindsight 20/20! Look at George’s smiling face!
Why? I get such a sour feeling about this vigilantly group of harassers!
They should be trained by going through the intermittent auxiliary police academy if they (the organization will still have the authority to write tickets!) If the town doesn’t want the liability mess then all of these powers should be revoked!
#140 2009-07-21 13:41:15
Spend, what is it now, some 13 weeks several nights a week and a few weekends being actually TRAINED at the reserve-intermittent police academy.... when with no formal training at all they get to ride around in fake police cars and intimidate people?
That would mean they actually wanted to spend their own time actually learning the basics of policing.
BY the way, I thought of this last night but forgot to write it in a post:
Because these vehicles look like police cars people may approach them in emergencies expecting immediate assistance. Whether it's to stop a crime in progress or render first aid don't they have a right to expect this help. At the least one person in each car should have first responder training (which includes CPR and other life saving interventions).
#141 2009-07-21 15:31:28
I've said it before, I will say it again...I am sure there are many former Police Officers in the Town of Wareham that would volunteer their time with the Crime Watch group. Especially if their property taxes are given a break for their service. I never heard of such a thing, but, whatever.
The Crime Watch would then be staffed by trained, certified, experienced Police Officers.
But...the question still remains: who is responsible for this Crime Watch organization?
Next time someone has a chance, ask to see their ID. See if there is a Wareham logo on it or any mention of the Police Dept., or any mention of any government organization attached to it.
Ask them if they are certified in CPR, do they have a concealed weapons permit, are they trained in traffic control, or any other Police training.
Again...SOMEONE needs to take responsibility.
I think I'd be on the phone with the AG about now to see if they can investigate this.
Something stinks...and it ain't fish..
#142 2009-07-21 21:46:47
I have said this before but it needs to be repeated. The POLICE, NOT the SELECTMEN, started the crime watch parking program back in 2006. (Some guy with a small opinion paper likes to make people think the selectmen created the crime watch parking program) You may remember seeing them driving around in a small electric car. The program worked good and the police and crime watch got along well until George Coleman started to let a little power go to his head. The summer cops do a good job with parking enforcement during the summer when there are a lot of parking issues. During the rest of the year parking is not a probelm and the full time officers can handle any parking issues that come up in the off season. The police created a monster and it is time to reel him in.
Last edited by TBL (2009-07-21 21:52:39)
#143 2009-07-22 00:32:41
#144 2009-07-22 08:39:43
Bill, too funny ---
My wife sent Hobo a message over a year ago comparing his rag to a car wreck. You know you shouldn't look but you have to. Then you turn away sick to your stomach. We've got to the point we've seen enough "car wrecks" and no longer look.
#145 2009-07-22 09:54:10
Grandpa Bobo was here long before the blogs, folks. He's here from now until whenever he can't afford to pay the printer anymore because really, what else is he going to do?
#146 2009-07-22 10:06:13
Back to George Coleman...
is he at the Crime Watch office? Is he driving around town in a crime watch vehicle?
Although not writing tickets, since he's still the director of Crime Watch, does he oversee those who do?
If there's a dispute over a ticket has he ever had the authority to resolve it?
If he still has this authority, was it the intention of the BOS pending resolution of his case to allow him to have in essence more authority than just writing tickets?
Last edited by urneighbor (2009-07-22 10:07:06)
#147 2009-07-22 10:36:20
COLEMAN IS STILL A MEMBER OF CRIMEWATCH. HE HAS BEEN SEEN DRIVING CW1, BUT NOW HE HAS ANOTHER MEMBER OF CRIMEWATCH IN THE PASS SEAT SO THAT PERSON CAN WRITE TICKETS. THE WHOLE ISSUE MAY HAVE STARTED WITH PARKING TICKETS , BUT THE ISSUE WAS HE STRUCK A PEDESTRIAN WITH THE CRIME WATCH CAR BUT THEY LET HIM STILL DRIVE AROUND AND POSSIBLY GET INTO MORE CONFLICTS WITH CITIZENS. AND THE TOWN ALLOWS THIS..............K&P WILL LOVE THIS ONE
#148 2009-07-22 13:39:46
If he's in the car and driving the perception will be that he's in charge. In fact, since he's still the director, he is. If someone has a complaint about a ticket they may very well approach him.
If they are angry, and we know some people do get angry at being ticketed, they may express that anger.
Those who know who he is and the trouble he is in may actually decide to see if they can provoke him. It's not right but it may happen.
Where is common sense in all of this?
If the BOS and town has a lawyer it seems to me they should be advising them on this.
#149 2009-07-22 14:24:23
BRUCIE WHO PRETENDS TO BE A LAWYER ON TUESDAY NIGHTS PROBABLY HAVE ADVISED THEM. THIS IS FROM THE SAME GUY THAT SAYS THE TOWN DOES NOT GET REVENUE FROM PARKING TICKETS.
#150 2009-07-22 14:31:59
And who claimed just two weeks ago that crime watch gets no money from the town, yet in the rag it now says they get a fuel reimbursment!
This is what this message board has been saying for at least a year.
Wareham, are you starting to see the truth is HERE?!
#151 2009-07-22 14:35:00
They know a lawsuit is coming, so they're trying now to hide any town involvement with Crimewatch, because people have been warning them for years that they need to remove town involvement with Crimewatch to avoid just such a suit.
#152 2009-07-22 15:00:03
But if Coleman is still driving around with some of his crimewatchers writing tickets the town is just begging for another incident which could lead to a law suit.
#153 2009-07-23 11:02:01
What a tangled web department:
As posted on another thread, I saw Robert Slager and WPD officer Carl Baptiste standing close together having a tête-à-tête just outside the district court after the Coleman arraignment.
No surprise they know each other.
A little Googling shows some history. As another poster pointed out, Chief Joyce sued them. He lost the case but reading it is quite interesting.
Read about it here.
#154 2009-07-24 06:54:16
I'm reposting these here, just put online by kimandoonagh, from the "Site News" thread where they posted it, to be sure that there's at least one thread of record for the entire Coleman affair. The two letters related to Slager's biased "reporting". He is a side issue re. Crime Watch, but the letters add information about the Coleman incident.
The first rule in jourmalism is to get your facts straight. You wrongfully reprted that I have a son. In fact,as I told you, I have two daughters. Two daughters who were deeply disturbed by what they witnessed last Friday.Also,you stated in this weeks paper that I said I knew the witness. I HAVE NEVER MET PAM MILLER BEFORE LAST FRIDAY.I told you that, though. The right thing for you to do would to be to print retraction in next weeks paper. What you do is completely up to you. I contacted you because I thought you were a decent guy. I contacted you because this is a story that needs to be told.
Also,what happened or did not happen between my husband and Crimewatch is not the issue here at all. The facts will come out in court.I stand behind what I saw last Friday. I may be alot of things,but I am not a liar. I will show my girls that in this world,you have to stand up for what is right. My seven year old GIRL saw the same thing I saw.Is her vision skewed because daddy works atthe police station?I think not, Mr.Slager. I have no personal vendetta against Coleman. He was wrong and that is that. I just want to tell you that there were other witnesses to this event. Are we all liars?
#13 Yesterday 23:29:32
I am extremely disappointed in how I was perceived in the article that came out in todays paper. I quoted to you exactly what I saw. At that time, I had no clue who George Coleman was. I did not know that he was the director of the Onset Crimewatch. In fact, I only found out once I left the police station after giving my statement. Call me an idiott if you will,but I do not get involved with town politics or gossip. I simply do not like to see someone take advantage of their position and throw their weight around. i think that there should be a mandatory class on community policing. Mr.Coleman needs to work on his interpersonal skills.If my family needed help, as it stands right now, I would not be comfortable walking into the crimewatch office to get it. Hopefully,when you report on this again,you will take a nuetral position. I think we should all just wait and see what happens in court.
#155 2009-07-24 12:42:13
I'm glad to see that the people of this town are finally seeing Slager, Coleman, and the selectmen for who they are.
Last edited by TBL (2009-07-24 12:45:18)
#156 2009-07-24 14:33:29
The BOS apparently have NO control over Crimewatch. Or gain we are being misled or lied to....it's just so simple to tell the truth. Having false or misleading information printed about you is just not necessary.
I had the same issue with Mr. Slager, there was a retraction printed. See how simple it is, if he had just asked me in the first place we would not have had to process a retraction.
Bruce originally stated, according to Mr. Slager's column that Coleman would remain a member of Crimewatch, however he was no longer allowed to give out tickets. (One Story)
On Tuesday night after their ES, Bruce made a speech, declaring that Crimewatch would continue to hand out tickets. No exception noted for Coleman. (Story Two)
Coleman has been seen in the cruiser driving around alone in the vehicle, I saw him as have others. So he is still on the beat, and if he has a passenger to harrass citizen's what's the difference, he's still involved with handing out the tickets.
If this was a real Police Officer, the BOS would have had him suspended or behind a desk until the issue was resolved.
Based on what we know, my conclusion is correct, the BOS has NO CONTROL over Crimewatch, at least this is one group that is not afraid of Bruce. Nice leadership Mr. Chairman. Again you need to step up if you expect us to follow any of your recommendations at Town Meeting.
#157 2009-07-24 15:05:07
Once again the facts would help. This piece comes from Mr Slager's post, referring to Steve Urbon
"Then he wrote that Martin Himmelfarb is an attorney for Crime Watch. He’s not. He is personally representing Mr. Coleman in a criminal matter. He is also reportedly a member of the Crime Watch board. Legal issues involving the Crime Watch program as a whole would be addressed by Town Counsel Kopelman and Paige. "
According to Bruce two weeks ago, the Town is not liable for anything Crimewatch does. Now they are entitled to our Town Counsel??? at taxpayer expense??
Also if you watch the tape it was Bruce that told us that the Board met in ES with Crime watch and THEIR LAWYER.
So what are the facts????
It just so easy to tell the TRUTH the first time. So these two sources cannot both be correct.
#158 2009-07-24 15:10:29
This is why I DON'T read the rag. You can't believe what he says, so why bother with it? If we don't read it, who will?? The bos and their lackeys? He'll have to declare bankruptcy before long if we let it dry up and blow away.
But let me comment---if this is going to be another K and P bill for the taxpayers, it is time to revolt, not just meet in the middle school. I'm done with having my tax dollars go to frivolous lawsuits by this bos.
#159 2009-07-24 15:14:07
I appreciate your disdain for Slager and his propaganda sheet, but it will not go away until the deep pockets that support him stop. I wouldn't spend a penny to read his paper, but I will view it when it's given to me.
Also, I find it funny to watch his articles change as the news comes out and his initial "facts" are proven wrong. He is an editing editor!
#160 2009-07-24 15:23:44
I wasn't being critical. It's just that I have seen him hurt so many good people with his lies that I want him to go away. I do not think Wareham can even begin to heal until he is gone.
And I guess someone has to keep refuting his many lies, so I know some people will keep checking it out.
I used to blog all the time on his articles changing and his bad writing etc. It was fun, I have to say. But I will rejoice when he is gone. Beers on me at Gateway when that day comes.
What deep pockets? The guy is operating on a shoe string. The pockets can't be that deep---
#161 2009-07-24 15:26:31
Someone is tying his shoestrings, that's all I'm saying.
He will re-invent himself as he sees the change in Wareham. No one will ever trust him again.
#162 2009-07-24 16:15:12
Beers on me at Gateway when that day comes.
Beers, schmeers, there's going to be a full scale parade and fireworks show.
#163 2009-07-24 16:36:52
Slager is only the Teriq Aziz of the cabal running Wareham.
He was Deputy Prime Minister under Saddam Hussein and often his mouthpiece.
He never made it past number 25 of the 55 most-wanted Iraqi leadership members and wasn't even considered bad enough to execute.
Aziz had a silver tongue when he lied his ass off and Slager has a way of tripping on his own tongue.
#164 2009-07-24 19:52:28
Some of you people do not understand the five idiots do not worry about their action because they are covered by thye Town Liability Insurance. Kopelaman doesn't care because it is billable. Brady you should know that.
#165 2009-07-24 20:33:03
I think everyone DOES understand. And that adds to the frustration. They also see that violating public records laws and open meetings laws will bring no consequences. The point is to continue exposing their behavior at every turn whether or not you get legal justice. Eventually the truth will sink in with enough people. With the exception of Bobo, of course.
#166 2009-07-26 08:49:53
I just have one question, in most communities Crime Watch is a group of citizens who "watch" for crime. They may walk the neighborhoods to make their presence known. But, actually driving around in a car that looks very much like a police car and writing tickets is something I have never seen anywhere but here. Short of the Guardian Angels, and we have all heard how controversial they are.
This Crime Watch is a private group, so we have been told, and therefore should be receiving no assistance from the town in any form of financial aid or tax breaks. This would be like offering tax incentives to people who work on the Habitat builds.
If we , as a community wish to subsidize private groups with our tax dollars then then the groups who receive them should be decided by the citizens. I for one would like to see some aid go to Turning Point and Habitat. While I have nothing against Crime Watch, I prefer the traditional model I have described above. Now, the town is going to be on the hook and more services or employees will be sacrificed to pay more legal bills.
We should all be focused on the facts, the fact here is that one organization has been choosen to receive a special benefit paid for by our tax dollars. Because of that the community has to bear the burdens of any wrong doings, alleged or perceived or actual, in the form of litigation. Need I make a list of all that has been lost to the community? Lifeguards, recreation.......
#167 2009-07-26 10:37:13
Special Intrests is what this BOS is noted for. BoBo gets to view executive session tapes, BoBo and apparently only BoBo gets notice of a special session of the BOS, campaign funders get help making a public road private, known criminals receive preferential treatment and on and on it goes....
#168 2009-07-26 20:26:28
Don't know if anyone noticed, but Bobo the Hobo did finally use the word "soliciting a prostitute" in his coverage of Crusty Crimewatchman.
Of course, he said the bloggers "claim" he solicited a prostitute, and then goes on to note that this was in 1986 "the year the ball went between Bill Buckner's legs." (Probably the same year Bobo bought that damn Barracuda jacket he wears in 80 degree July heat).
Bobo, sorry, but while we should forgive Bill Buckner for screwing up a baseball game, no one should ever forgive a person who was a police officer, charged with the duty of stopping crime, and yet committed this crime.
It is sad you apparently do not see it Bobo, but anti-prostitution laws were created for important reasons. They keep women from being subjected to degradation and abuse and being treated like objects and slaves. I'm sorry that your loyalty to the BOS has you so fargone now that you would actually defend this behavior. That he did it a long time ago is a pretty lame defense.
Frankly, in my opinion, anyone who solicits a prostitute is, pardon my french, a pig.
And our Board of Selectmen knew this person committed this crime and they put him in charge of overseeing the town's volunteer parking enforcement. They gave him authority on the town's behalf.
I don't know about you all, but I don't think anyone who has committed a crime should be employed in the lowliest toilet scrubbing job the town has available, let alone be given a law enforcement role.
Doesn't surprise me that the BOS is all for this, since one of them copped a plea when caught in a crime.
People, I know Bobo has tried his best into scaring you all off from talking about this, but it is all true, and all part of the undeniable public record.
There are people who have committed crimes holding positions of public trust in our town, and yet somehow, WE are all the bad ones.
Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2009-07-26 20:43:59)
#169 2009-07-27 07:25:47
Capt. C and Dan, as former LEO's you may want to weigh in on this opinion; but how likely is it that the first time someone is arrested for soliciting a prostitute it is the actual fist time they did this?
Those in law enforcement know that by the time someone gets caught for just about everything but the murder of someone they know they have committed the same and similar crimes many times before.
Most criminals are dumb. Even the dumbest beat the law of averages and aren't caught until fate finds them in the form of a video of the crime, good eye witnesses, someone ratting them out, good evidence, the cop being in the right place at the right time or like with Coleman, a police sting.
Last edited by urneighbor (2009-09-04 14:45:07)
#170 2009-07-27 07:26:08
Ham, Let's see if we can recap the crimes/ethical violations--please fill in where I am incorrect or incomplete:
Cronan--felony conviction for accepting a bribe (I'm shaky on the details but it had to do with soil), putting a deck on without a permit, violating open meeting law, supporting crime watch after the assault with a deadly weapon, going against the state's ruling on the ocean side drive street naming issue.
Sweet Brucie--non payment of federal and state income tax, impeding the movement of an emergency vehicle, assault on a kid with a fork, perjury when he said he had nothing to do with swift's beach, defamation of Officer Pillsbury in a publicly televised meeting, violating open meeting law, supporting crime watch after the assault with a deadly weapon, going against the state's ruling on the ocean side drive street naming issue.
Janey--advocating at town meeting that although the DOR said it was illegal to accept the million dollars from CPC to pay off the swift's beach debacle, she encouraged town meeting to vote for it, which it did although I did not, instructing the Donahue machine to steal signs off the front lawns of political opponents, violating open meeting law, supporting crime watch after the assault with a deadly weapon, going against the state's ruling on the ocean side drive street naming issue.
Brenda--DUI, unable to construct a single complete logical sentence, defamation of Cara Pillsbury in a publicly televised meeting, violating open meeting law, supporting crime watch after the assault with a deadly weapon, going against the state's ruling on the ocean side drive street naming issue.
Mr. Cruz--sleeping during his first town meeting, not saying anything when this bunch of bozos continues to ruin the town including supporting his cohorts on the computer audit when the town has no money, supporting crime watch after the assault with a deadly weapon, going against the state's ruling on the ocean side drive street naming issue.
Of course, these lists are just, in my opinion, reasons why these folks should not be running our town.
#171 2009-07-29 16:44:48
Lest we forget in the midst of all this distraction (or damage control) coming out of the BOS camp...their buddy hit a lady with a Crimewatchmobile and the BOS openly does not give a shit, supports the guy before the case makes it into court, and shows no initiative to keep it from happening again.
Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2009-07-29 16:51:06)
#172 2009-07-29 17:14:40
Best of luck to you all tomorrow night at the meeting. I am sure of one thing: there will be two people in that room that will be elected Selectman next April.
It's up to you who they are.
Don't ever underestimate your opponent, and always support your choice.
I can't wait to read what happens!
I am there in spirit!!
#173 2009-07-29 19:26:53
How can you all complain about who sits on the BOS if you don't get out and support your candidate. I can remember some of the older selectmen went door to door to solicit votes and were part of the local clubs and charity organizations. HOW CAN YOU ALL COMPLAIN if you donot get your candidate elected. Start pushing the positives instead of the negatives. Wareham is a beautiful community, blame the golden boys in 1989 for most of your financial issues. New Highschool, Sewerage, New Library just a few of the thing the present complainers went along with.
#174 2009-07-29 20:23:36
capt c wrote:
Wareham is a beautiful community, blame the golden boys in 1989 for most of your financial issues. New Highschool, Sewerage, New Library just a few of the thing the present complainers went along with.
True but nothing entirely out of character. Count your blessings they left the police station alone. Wareham cheaped out on every last project, as it always has.
"The natural parsimony of the people which led them to prefer to patch out the old meeting-house rather than spend money for a new one was again shown in December, 1730, when the shabby condition of its windows was making the cold house colder; and it was voted "to mend the Glass that is Least broken and where the Glass is Quite Gone to nail up bords in Lue thereof for ye preasant."
What has changed fundamentally, for the better, is everyone's watching. The tom fuckery of the past will never stay secret again for long.
Last edited by billw (2009-07-29 20:28:39)
#175 2009-07-30 07:42:52
Boy George made it to the Metro section--not Globe South--of the Boston Globe today. I don't have the link as I read it in the hard copy.
Talk about embarrassing. One thing that bothered me was that he was listed as a former policeman and we all know the truth about that. At least it didn't mention the prostitution thing.
Otherwise, it made us all look like a bunch of morons with a rogue group of "crime watchers" running people down in their cars. Very sad. It also didn't make mention of the love and support Boy G continues to get from his adoring COA and BOS fans. Just another day in Wareham but it did not go down well with my first cup of coffee.
Here's hoping that today will end better than it began---with a group of concerned citizens making a plan to TAKE BACK WAREHAM.
#176 2009-07-30 08:37:46
here is the boston globe article: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massac … _arrested/
#177 2009-07-30 09:37:33
It amazes me that they don't mention the prostitution thing. How is someone with that on his record fit to exercise authority on behalf of the town? Oh wait, one of the BOS has a crime on his record too, so no wonder they don't see a problem with it.
#178 2009-07-30 16:12:29
I was just wondering if the meeting tonight is going to cover The Crime Watch Incident at all. My friend and I want to attend,even though things could turn very ugly.I was just wandering what is on the agenda.Also,I am not that comfortable attending if either Crusty or Bobo are going to be there.I am afraid of noone,but do not really want to make a public spectacle out of myself.Thanks Guys.
#179 2009-07-30 16:19:21
kimandoonagh, regardless of whether or not Crusty or Bobo goes, you too really need to attend. Just your question alone is playing right into their hands. They are so desperate they will resort to anything and everything just so you feel the way you are. If you don't attend - they win! If you do attend (and everyone else does as well) then they will get the message that their ways of intimidation are over. These people are only in power with lies and intimidation. It is only then will we truly begin to Take Back Wareham! I will be there and I am bringing friends. Hope to see you there as well.
#180 2009-07-30 23:00:56
Not having served as a LEO in MA, I know in my local area just out of state, an individual must be sworn in by someone in order to be able to issue criminal or civil citations (i.e. tickets).
Anyone verified in MGL whether that's the case and who the heck swore these people in? Otherwise, there's a possibility all of these 'tickets' are pretty much null and void.
#181 2009-08-02 16:48:52
Just wanted to remind everyone, amongst all the BOS cronies' campaign of distraction, their buddy hit had been charged with hitting a lady with a Crimewatchmobile and they openly don't give a shit.
There are still alot of unanswered questions about this mess, and I hope that Paul Shooter will get to the bottom of it.
#182 2009-08-03 10:08:57
Find someone who got a ticket adn have them appeal it. The first question that should be asked to the Crimewatch person is, "please identify the MGL that authorizes you to issue this citation and provide evidence you have been sworn in as a limited duty law enforcement officer."
Now you get to verify where they got their authority in either a criminal court or in front of an independant entity.
Is there not an appeal process for these tickets?