#1 2010-09-28 21:40:29

Is there anyone here who believes the orchestrated crap we just heard?



#2 2010-09-29 07:13:21

unbelievable. the report that was due in july is still not done. we paid this guy an extra 7500 dollars. another bad hire by this bos. dump torres along with k and p. this is what happens to our tax dollars. down the drain.



#3 2010-09-29 08:09:26

What crap did we hear?  I missed the meeting last night.



#4 2010-09-29 09:18:39


Atty Torres was to deliver his report (or whatever) on either 9/28 or 10/5.

BUT, Torres phoned the T/A late on 9/28 to say that his stuff would be delayed, due to an illness in his office.

The T/A promised to ascertain the facts and a firm delivery date (yeah, right) the very first thing this AM.

S-man Holmes was none too pleased at this and almost raised his voice at the T/A, then redirected his anger at the atty.

Stay tuned.......

Last edited by notalawyer (2010-09-29 09:19:45)



#5 2010-09-29 09:35:54

This is troubling.  I hope this doesn't mean that the ring of porno watching online shopping gamblers who have a stranglehold on our fair community will be getting a repreive just because some law office secretary has the sniffles.

Please get better, sick law office worker - until you do, our town will be in the clutches of masterbating poker playing Sham-Wow shoppers.

Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2010-09-29 09:39:11)



#6 2010-09-29 11:08:02

I heard a disturbing story/rumor this week. Remember when the discs were finally returned to the town from the DA who had confiscated the hard drive discs almost immediately?

When they were finally returned to the town, the ones dealing with the police department were returned to the police dept./acting chief.

I heard (not saying this is fact) they were still locked up at the police department. Soooooo, did we pay another $7500 for a partial report after Torres went over the remaining discs with the TTW's proverbial "fine tooth" comb???

Now, remember the reasons for the computer audit that came out of the illegal executive sessions?? Do they blog or don't they blog was on the list, sure. But wasn't another of the former BoS's main reasons for doing the audit some sort of police shenanigans??

So, if what I heard is true, and the police dept. hard drive discs were never turned over to Torres for fine tooth inspection, what are we paying for??

Rhetorical question: If you hired a lawyer who had a report due to you in July and the report MIGHT be ready in October, what would you do???




#7 2010-09-29 11:19:39

notalawyer wrote:

S-man Holmes was none too pleased at this and almost raised his voice at the T/A, then redirected his anger at the atty.

Stay tuned.......

Good advice and great description. I believe upon rewinding the video, you'll notice Steve Holmes was play acting and didn't deliver his best performance... littered as it was with specious and unconvincing, "With all due respect, Mr Andrews."

Last edited by billw (2010-09-29 11:20:06)



#8 2010-09-29 11:31:28

And another thing,

I seem to recall that there was a list of six (6) areas of concern on these discs. Five of them were characterized as non-criminal (may not be the precise descriptor), leaving one of potential criminal activity. Why haven't we been given the results of the non-criminal items? How hard is that?

An item with potential criminal liability is a different story. Much more caution may be required.



#9 2010-09-29 11:51:32

nota, let me help. I had to go back to the ST article where Asst. DA Lee commented:

"Lee dismissed virtually all of the selectmen's claims about the audit of town computers as justifying a closed session.

"The executive session minutes of June 2 and two prior executive sessions purport to explain the reason and purpose of the computer audit," Lee wrote. "On May 12, while allegedly discussing a person's reputation under purpose (1), the board decided that a computer audit was appropriate to deal with the problems raised.

"The problems went beyond the complaint that arguably raised a concern about possible criminal misconduct and addressed whether the town computers were more generally being used to criticize and denigrate people. The board planned a computer audit 'to see who is fueling this negative blog ... and to determine the amount of time employees are wasting on personal Web sites.' This stated purpose is not related to a criminal investigation.

"As demonstrated in the May 26th and June 2nd executive session minutes, those private discussions had little if any content about criminal matters," Lee ruled.

She also wrote that the May 26 meeting minutes reveal that only one of six reasons for the computer audit could even be construed as being a criminal matter, and that the board also talked about another litigation matter having nothing to do with criminal matters.

"Thus the discussion of the general computer audit, as recorded in these minutes, cannot be properly characterized as limited to a criminal investigation where it was undertaken primarily to address non-criminal matters," Lee ruled.

The June 2 meeting also was unlawful because it strayed well beyond the legal grounds for executive sessions, she wrote.

"The June 2 executive session discussion about the computer audit apparently focused on the details and costs of that audit," Lee wrote in her ruling, which was addressed to town counsel Kopelman & Paige. "The June 2 discussion also included the statements about Mr. Gifford, another individual and their department without any connection to criminal matters.

"Your letter of July 27 indicates that a criminal investigation was, at best, only part of the computer audit: 'To the extent that the audit might result in evidence of use of town computers for illegal purposes, such information could have criminal implications.'

"It is not a sufficient justification for the generalized discussion of the computer audit under purpose (5) that evidence of a crime could hypothetically be uncovered while the board is conducting an investigation into non-criminal or other matters. The board must actually be discussing a criminal investigation in order to meet privately," Lee wrote.

"Even assuming that the board was permitted to enter executive session to investigate the potential civil rights violation or criminal harassment of the individual who complains to the board, the ensuing discussions far exceeded the limited scope of the purpose of the executive sessions by discussing a computer audit into other matters," she wrote."

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbc … /912080322

By the way, I sure do miss Steve Urbon who wrote this article!!



#10 2010-09-29 12:06:37

For those who, like me, need to refresh our memories, I found this letter called "Looking at the facts of the Town's Computer Audit" in the Courier archives. It was posted on March 24, 2010:

To the editor:

Information has been made available and obtained through the Freedom of Information Act that shows the costs and what was being looked for in the infamous computer audit. From the invoices of the parties involved, the town has spent $58,000 on the audit, approximately $46,000 on the computer diagnostic company and $12,000 on legal fees to town counsel and special counsel. In a copy of the minutes of the executive session of May 26, 2009, a week after the copying of the computers was done, the scope of work, or the job of the computer diagnostic company, was to research the following:

· GDF scope would consist of who is blogging on Town Hall computers to Whitehouse site.

· Who is using company time to be on the internet.

· Name search of selectman to see who is investigating them.

· Outside businesses being run on town computers.

· Double log vs. private log at police station.

· Who is performing Cori, DMV, outside searches of selectmen and Mr. Coleman.

It appears that the reasons for the audit were to see who was looking up stuff on the selectmen and not corruption, money laundering and pornography as told. The majority of this information could have been obtained, I am told, with a computer program that costs about $2,000, which our IT department has been asking for five years now. By copying all town computers, state and federal privacy laws may have been violated in copying the treasurer/collector’s office. The treasurer’s office handles payroll, and payroll accounts have Social Security numbers, bank account numbers for direct deposit, pension accounts and any court ordered payments. This affects about 500 employees, from town employees to the school department. The town clerk’s office was also copied, which contains birth records and private information that is supposed to be nonpublic. The information was copied by a third party. State and federal laws state that if private financial information is copied by third parties, then it must be reported, and the persons whose information was copied must be notified, and the town has not done that (Executive Order 504 for the state; Gramm, Leach, Bliley act for the federal).

Procurement laws may not have been followed, as any work done over $25,000 must be posted for bid and the bids opened to award the work. The town has said that they did not need to follow procurement laws, as the computer company was obtained from a third party. The third party was town counsel. The bills and responses I received from the town, however, show the town paid the computer company directly, not to the third party.

Lastly, the letter the town received from the District Attorneys office on the audit concluding their involvement states that they are sending all the info to the State Ethics Commission and the Inspector General’s office for their review of this matter. Secondly, when the selectman stated that the DA’s office came in and took the computers tapes without their knowledge and permission is false. The town received a court summons to appear at the grand jury and to bring all copies of the discs copied when they appeared July 10, 2009. As of the 17th, they had not complied.

In closing, it is the right of every voter, citizen and taxpayer to question their leaders and elected officials. If you are looking for answers, ask questions. Do not believe one newspaper or one source who may give one side of the story. Remember the old saying: there are three sides of a story, yours, mine and the truth, and the fourth is what you read in the papers. Check the sources, ask the questions and find the truth, then make your decision on what is fact or fiction.

Steven Curry




#11 2010-09-29 13:51:27

Thank you Nora for refreshing my memory about Steven Curry's great article.  We need much more of that kind of article.



#12 2010-09-30 07:40:12

$65,500 and counting for this witch hunt. take a look at the budget changes in the town warrant and see where that money could have been spent. this is a gross waste of taxpayer dollars. we've been screwed again my friends.



#13 2010-09-30 07:46:36

Ham of Peace here.

Sounds like the Hypocrite Elite are doing everything they can to stall.  Remember they allowed the disks to sit in the DA's office for months even though they could have been picked up at any time.  They ranted and raved about "when will we get our disks back?! waaaahhh!!!" only for the public to learn they'd been told they were able to pick them up for months.

They lied right to our faces - telling us that the DA was holding them back when all along, the DA had told them to come on over and get the disks.

Then the report by the audit firm is completed but the Hypocrite Elite tells us "oh no, we need a new report!  Give us another $7,500 and a couple weeks!!"

A couple weeks!  That was back in June. 

Then we're told it'll be out Oct 5 - oops, nope, sorry!  A secretary in the law office has a tummy ache!!!

Sounds like they are just trying to stall until next April in the hopes that Janey and Brenda will get back into office.

Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2010-09-30 07:49:30)



#14 2010-09-30 08:17:00

I hear from contacts in Taunton that Mr Steve Torres has problems.

I moved to Wareham 45 years ago from Taunton but I have family and many friends still in the city.  A few weeks back the scuttle was that Mr Esq. allegedly is double dipping.  While working for the city as a "legal expert" he's also billing out to various clients.  I'll bet Wareham is one of those clients as he's been doing most of Wareham's "special counsel" work.

He's special alright.  I hope Wareham's newbie accountant and top notch managers are scrutinizing his invoices.



#15 2010-09-30 08:17:17


Last edited by ihateliz (2010-09-30 08:19:24)



#16 2010-09-30 08:21:32

A little blast from the past for you:

Wareham selectmen vow to continue computer audit

By Steve Decosta
March 25, 2010 12:00 AM

WAREHAM — Selectmen say the Plymouth County District Attorney's Office has returned the disks the town copied as part of a forensic audit of all town computers, and are promising to continue the investigation they began last May.

But the DA's office said Wednesday that neither the town's counsel nor police chief have picked up the disks as requested.

"Our attorney has them," selectmen Chairman Bruce Sauvageau said in response to a question about the disks from a colleague Tuesday night.

"They have not yet picked up the disks," Bridget Norton Middleton, spokeswoman for Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz, said Wednesday. "We've been in contact with them, but no one has come to pick up the disks."

"The disks have been available to them since January," Middleton said. "If they wanted to get them, they knew how to get them."

Contacted Wednesday afternoon, Sauvageau first asked the reporter, "Why are you harassing me?" When advised of the reason for the call, Sauvageau responded, "I don't know what the discrepancy is. Last call. No more," he said before hanging up.



#17 2010-09-30 08:31:47

just a FYI.....





#18 2010-09-30 09:25:45

Why do I get the feeling that the hard drives in the BOS and Town Clerk's offices were skipped?



#19 2010-09-30 14:02:59

Of course Silva's computer wasn't copied...she is the victim.  How could anyone ever imagine that she would ever do anything bad???  What a joke!  She is probably the worst offender in that building with the exception of Bruce.  I'm sure the (most likely) two biggest offenders computers weren't copied which is a crime in of itself!!!!  I would scrap this whole damn investigation at this point.  I would also want a refund from this inept lawyer!



#20 2010-09-30 14:12:45

Bosoxx wrote:

I would also want a refund from this inept lawyer!

As I recall, the stated reason for Mr. Torres' ineptitude was, according to Mr. Holmes, "a mental health problem."

Who can argue with that?

Last edited by billw (2010-09-30 14:13:43)



#21 2010-09-30 14:15:04

witchunter wrote:

I hear from contacts in Taunton that Mr Steve Torres has problems.

I moved to Wareham 45 years ago from Taunton but I have family and many friends still in the city.  A few weeks back the scuttle was that Mr Esq. allegedly is double dipping.  While working for the city as a "legal expert" he's also billing out to various clients.  I'll bet Wareham is one of those clients as he's been doing most of Wareham's "special counsel" work.

He's special alright.  I hope Wareham's newbie accountant and top notch managers are scrutinizing his invoices.

Inept and corrupt, from my sources.



#22 2010-09-30 14:33:54

Sounds like the Hypocrite Elite is playing a game of "Beat the Clock" - try to delay it as far past next April as they can in the hopes of getting Janey and Brenda re-elected.



#23 2010-09-30 21:33:32

Torres is nothing more than a pupit for the former and present administration, I dealt with  pieces of garbage like him for years. It is called BILLABLE HOURS. This crap with Don Bliss is a travisty because of the the time. Rule one way or another.

Last edited by paul cardalino (2010-09-30 21:34:39)



#24 2010-10-01 07:52:17

By: LenSkynyrd on 9/30/10
I'm willing to wait as long as, if deemed appropriate, heads roll after the results come out. I am hopeful that will happen.




#26 2010-10-03 23:03:05

Thanks P-SPAN for posting this video.

Watching it over again makes me think something FISHY is definitely going on here.  As Holmes asked, how can it be that the lawyer said he'd definitely have it done and ready to present on either Sept. 28 or Oct. 5, only to email Andrews late in the day to say it's going to be delayed due to a sick person in the office?

He said it was going to be done by Sept. 28, so why is a sick person in the office even relevant?  Why wasn't it already done?  If he said it was going to be done by Sept. 28, why would he write to the TA late in the day on the 28th to postpone?  Why wasn't it done already, regardless of the employee's illness?

Why would someone say something is done and then all of a sudden, it's not done?  Something doesn't smell right.  Doesn't pass the sniff test.

Something fishy going on here...very fishy indeed.



Board footer