#1 2009-09-08 06:46:54

http://warehamobserver.com/uploads/thumbs/615_wsj1.jpg
Click to enlarge

Volunteer 5-0: Civilian Patrols Grow As Recession Puts Citizens on Guard
Wareham, Mass., Rakes in Parking Fines -- And Complaints; Mr. Coleman's Bumper Crop

WAREHAM, Mass. -- After parking her truck in this beachside town in July, local resident Pamela Miller says she was confronted by a man wearing a neon-lemon "Parking Enforcement" T-shirt. He accused her of parking illegally, called her "retarded," and, after she refused to move her truck, bumped her legs with his Ford Crown Victoria, she later told town officials.

Complete with a drawing of George Coleman!

Last edited by urneighbor (2009-09-08 06:47:58)

Offline

 

#2 2009-09-08 07:44:59

Neighbor, I have only one thing to say about this:

Bahhhh ha ha ha ha ha!

Oh my God, that drawing of Coleman nearly threw me off my chair from laughter.

Ahhh yes, they're doing so much to help Wareham's reputation.

Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2009-09-08 07:45:30)

Offline

 

#3 2009-09-08 07:49:25

I'll have to get a paper copy of the paper. This one's a keeper.

The article focused mostly on the Wareham Crime Watch and not in a good way. It was difficult keeping this a secret since Coleman and the people Jennifer Levitz interviewed already knew. Of course they didn't know it would be a front page article.

I suggest when people read it they copy and save it, because if you click on it a few times you'll go to the subscription page and won't be able to see it.

If you can't see it now PM me.

Last edited by urneighbor (2009-09-08 07:50:02)

Offline

 

#4 2009-09-08 07:51:15

This is hilarious:

He leans back in his swivel chair with a sudden defeated look on his face. It seems Mr. Baptiste has outmaneuvered the Crime Watch by finding a way to avoid getting ticketed. "Now, every two hours, he backs his car up a few feet and forward a few feet and the time starts over," Mr. Coleman says.

For Christ's Sakes, he acts like Batman cursing a supervillian for foiling him!  "My God, he moves his car up a space and down a space to avoid being ticketed!  The horror, the horror!!!"

Tailing Steve B. around Onset trying to catch him in a parking violation is the best use of resources for Crimewatch?  He works, a foreign concept for these people, so his car might be in one spot for awhile, that happens, you know, when you're employed...something these people know nothing about.

Offline

 

#5 2009-09-08 07:51:25

AMAZING.. i just wished it was more about our beaches, pizza shops or maple park campground.. this negative press should and could be positive and generating revenue for our town instead it is keep tourists at bay..this is yet another reason why we all need to

TAKE BACK WAREHAM...

Offline

 

#6 2009-09-08 07:52:36

Oh God, we need to turn Mixie loose on that drawing.

Offline

 

#7 2009-09-08 08:22:39

You know that the bad publicity George Coleman got, including on this website, is what got the reporter's attention and led to him and Wareham Crime Watch being the main focus of the article.

He must have been (or should have been if not in denial) sitting on pins and needles waiting for this article to comes out, and probably hoping it would be buried where nobody would notice if it cast him in a negative light.

I wonder if certain not to be discussed this week "reporters" will cover this.

Offline

 

#8 2009-09-08 08:58:31

Hamatron5000 wrote:

Bahhhh ha ha ha ha ha!

Exactly.

Nice pics, neighbor. Great job.

PShooter

Offline

 

#9 2009-09-08 09:14:57

People, please get yourselves a paper copy.  The Internet version is ok, but there's just something about picking up a national newspaper and seeing a drawing of that fat gremlin face staring back at you on the front page that just makes you want to keel over laughing.

I love this headline - "Wareham, Mass., Rakes in Parking Fines -- And Complaints; Mr. Coleman's Bumper Crop"

Ha ha ha - "bumper crop," get it?  Because he hit a lady with his bumper then called her a retard?

Offline

 

#10 2009-09-08 09:15:36

I guess Stevie Baptiste, a former Sgt. on the WPD and a very fine man, found a way to "beat" the system.
Stevie may be old, but, he is certainly not stupid.
By the way, what do you think would have happened if one of these crime watch volunteers ran into that neo-Nazi the other day?
Some poor, untrained citizen would undoubtedly be lying in the street shot or stabbed.
Let the cops do the work of cops, and protect the people who volunteer for crime watch. Neighborhood watches are a good idea. Being a pseudo-cop can only get you hurt eventually.
Then you will see a lawsuit like never seen before in the Town.

Offline

 

#11 2009-09-08 09:17:57

Is that even beating the system?  You're supposed to keep the parking spots open so other people can use them, right?  What's he supposed to do if he has a business he has to be at all day?  So he parks in one space, then opens that space up and moves to another.  What's he supposed to do, parachute in from a helicopter every day?

Offline

 

#12 2009-09-08 09:19:16

To reiterate: Bah ha ha.

Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2009-09-08 09:20:27)

Offline

 

#13 2009-09-08 09:21:40

just a side note sept 10 is george colemans court date here in wareham..

Offline

 

#14 2009-09-08 11:14:07

Hopefully, this gets covered by the local papers (Not you, Bobo-no spin required).

We should print/hand this out.

PShooter

Last edited by PShooter (2009-09-08 14:36:23)

Offline

 

#15 2009-09-08 13:17:15

What a way for Wareham to make the FRONT PAGE of the Wall Street Journal, not only online but in print as well.

Offline

 

#16 2009-09-08 13:20:03

How embarrassing for Wareham. For a community that is supposed to thrive on tourism, this will keep them coming---straight on through to the cape without stopping even for gas.

Offline

 

#17 2009-09-08 18:06:27

I wonder if Director Coleman sent a copy of this to his family? It's not every day Dad gets his picture on the front page of the second largest paper in the country ( 2 million paid circulation).

http://warehamobserver.com/uploads/thumbs/615_photo_on_2009-09-08_at_1801.jpg

Is anybody planning to go to court on Sept. 10th?

Offline

 

#18 2009-09-08 18:59:45

Is anybody planning to go to court on Sept. 10th???

yeah me not 100% sure yet..

Offline

 

#19 2009-09-08 19:01:48

I don't know if I'm going either. For those of us who don't know each other don't forget the secret recognition signal.

Offline

 

#20 2009-09-08 19:28:32

uhhhh i am out of the loop i dont know the signal..

Offline

 

#21 2009-09-08 19:29:08

next week i will be wearing my

TAKE BACK WAREHAM tshirt

Offline

 

#22 2009-09-08 19:33:45

Wearing an aluminum foil hat.

Offline

 

#23 2009-09-08 20:01:50

Check
http://www.gwally.com/news/photos/catintinfoilhat.jpg

PShooter

Offline

 

#24 2009-09-08 20:13:29

The guy is Ok...the cat is doomed.
HAMATRON5000A

Offline

 

#25 2009-09-08 20:17:55

foil and duct tape dammmnnn hes cool..

i dont think you can get thru the metal detectors with foil how about chewing gum wrappers??

Offline

 

#26 2009-09-08 21:01:37

urneighbor wrote:

I suggest when people read it they copy and save it, because if you click on it a few times you'll go to the subscription page and won't be able to see it.

I've cached it here:

http://warehamobserver.com/cache/Crime.Watch.WSJ.html

Offline

 

#27 2009-09-08 21:20:40

http://warehamobserver.com/sidepic/george.coleman.wsj.png

Offline

 

#28 2009-09-08 21:45:28

He looks like he's wearing a straightjacket.

Offline

 

#29 2010-01-05 18:42:33

Case against Wareham Crime Watch head continued

WAREHAM - George Coleman’s day in court has been continued to March 30.

This news was handed down to the head of Crime Watch Tuesday, Jan. 5, when he and his counsel, Wareham attorney Leonard Bello, went before a judge at Wareham District Court Tuesday, Jan. 5.

According to Bello, the decision came at the request of the commonwealth.


http://takebackwareham86bos.blogspot.co … 70709.html

P-SPAN
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
April 6, 2010

Last edited by P-SPAN (2010-01-05 18:53:11)

Offline

 

#30 2010-01-06 00:06:36

Sometimes, the longer you string things along, people don't remember how important it was.  I hope this isn't so with this case.

Offline

 

#31 2010-01-06 08:57:07

Well...after seeing that piece, first congratulations to Steve Holmes for being so erudite in his questioning and calm with the bullshit he was being served by obviously someone who has no concept of the law, liability laws, continuous liability laws, agent law, responsibility of the Town putting untrained, doddering old men in uniform out on the street with marked patrol cars and expecting that they signed a "waiver" so the Town is protected from their actions.
Find  the Law School this idiot is attending and remember to tell your children NEVER to attend it, or at the very least, look to see if he actually DOES attend it.
If he does, he is either the dumbest SOB in the class, or his instructors and professors have received their law degrees from a Caribbean School and someone took their Bar exams for them.
If Steve wasn't so polite, he could have lit that Chairman of the BOS up like a Christmas Tree and embarrass him with his lack of knowledge.
Truth is now obvious: April 6, 2010 can't come fast enough.
Good work, Steve!!

Offline

 

#32 2010-01-06 16:47:11

ST: Wareham Crime Watch director's trial postponed again

...Coleman was in the courtroom, dressed in a black suit and tie, but did not speak during the brief proceedings.

Another district court judge had earlier denied a defense motion to search for any medical records that would show how badly the victim was hurt — or not.

In the July incident, witnesses said Coleman, patrolling and ticketing illegally parked cars, argued with a mother of two near the Onset band shell, where free lunches were being distributed. Through his attorney he has claimed the woman had jumped in front of his car as he was leaving the scene. The woman and several eyewitnesses say Coleman drove into her.

The case achieved such notoriety that Coleman's portrait appeared Sept. 8 on the front page of The Wall Street Journal in a story about dysfunctional crime watch patrols.

P-SPAN
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
April 6, 2010

Last edited by billw (2010-01-06 21:45:14)

Offline

 

#33 2010-01-06 17:06:51

I have actually given Mr Slager credit for the following statement in the past.

A memorandum of understanding between the Wareham Police Department and the Crime Watch Program, signed on June 20, 2009 by Lt. Irving Wallace, Coleman and then interim town administrator John Sanquinet, states the volunteers of Crime Watch are "indemnified, defended and held harmless for all claims by any person arising out of the performance of their duties of parking enforcement and shall be named insured to a certificate of liability insurance maintained by the Town of Wareham covering its employees in connection with their official duties."


Unless Mr Slager is incorrect, each one of those Selectmen that spoke in the video as well as the ITA,  were lying through their teeth. I appeared before them about 18 days after this was supposedly signed. And NONE of them have a memory of that document.

I will head down to Town Hall and request the document to see which version of the story is correct.

Offline

 

#34 2010-01-06 17:57:17

I mentioned about Steve and how well he did at the Selectmen's' Meeting that P-Span posted.
Steve is right, in fact after I read the wording, it is obvious that the Chairman of the BOS was lying as well as the other members, or they are totally ignorant.
Ignorant of the law by a law student.
It is not an oxymoron.
The Town is obviously responsible for Coleman's defense through the Insurance Co. Who is Coleman's lawyer, who pays him, who does he work for?
It will all come back to one place: The Town of Wareham.
April 6, 2010!!

Offline

 

#35 2010-01-06 21:21:09

Well you should all read that statement again. As I read it says "covering its employees in connection with their official duties."
Now as I understand the charges against Coleman they are criminal charges brought by the Wareham Police department for using his automobile as a weapon against a defenseless lady. So I ask you since when is it within any town employee's official duties to act as a criminal? Coleman is not being charged for writing a parking ticket. He is charged as a criminal for trying to run over a woman with a child nearby.
So if any other town employee decided to rob a bank, or run over anyone while on the clock, would the town be so quick to pay for his or her legal defense?
The language quoted above is common in contracts to protect employees against civil actions brought about due to their actions within their official duties. In other words if Coleman wrote a ticket, placed it on a windshield and broke the wiper blade, then he would be protected by the town for whatever the cost to fix the situation. Regardless of whether the damage was just the wiper or if he got sued for it, the town would and should cover this example because he was acting within his job responsibilities. If Coleman deliberately hit a woman with his automobile or pulled out a gun and shot her for parking where she did not belong, he is then acting outside of his official capacity. No town documentation give Coleman the authority to use his vehicle as a weapon if he does not like where a woman parks her car.
The fact that this town is now defending its employees/ agents for criminal actions is a very dangerous precedent to start.
This is another example of an extremely poor decision by the BOS to support their friends at the expense of the town. 
Your tax dollars at work.
Focus April 6, 2010

Offline

 

#36 2010-01-06 22:16:58

Good point, RU
If Coleman is found guilty in criminal court, the civil case against him will be a breeze.
Has anyone spoken with the lady who complained about being hit lately?
Is anyone trying to have her accept a civil penalty against the Town and it's agent to avoid a criminal trial?
One would think that they are trying to make a deal to reduce the charges from a criminal offense to a civil one, thereby giving Coleman the advantage of Town paid counsel. Maybe that's why the continuances.
Your point is well taken however: who is representing him now?
The question is, and always has been: is he a Town employee?

Offline

 

#37 2010-01-06 22:21:17

Dan, she was told by the D.A.'s office not to speak to anyone about this case.

I might see her tomorrow.  She will probably still have the same answer.

Offline

 

#38 2010-01-06 22:32:51

YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN PROUD OF YOUR BROTHER'S AGAIN TODAY, DAN.

  I think one of them may have gotten smacked tonight during a domestic.  I may be wrong, but mother and addict daughter domestic was around the same time as the cop getting a slap, or whatever.  They laughed about it on fb.  The log will answer that later.

Anyway, a 911 domestic call on Gault Rd.  These guys are good.  The guy was in the house but wouldn't let the cops in.  They got in and searched the house for him, called for more help and found him in the basement crawl space.  Glad they didn't give up the search, he would have just gone back inside.  Sounds like they got her an emergency 209A order.  They are a group to be proud of.   You hear in their voices, disgust, anger, frustration, deep breathing after a chase and then relief when they have succeeded.  That's the best sound.     Thumbs up WPD.

Offline

 

#39 2010-01-06 22:36:42

Hear, hear Bornof...re: WPD
Regarding the Coleman situation, it is interesting that she has been told not to speak about the case. Told by whom? Why?
Looks like you will be cutting a big check again real soon.

Offline

 

#40 2010-01-06 22:55:56

Dan, when the incident happened, the witnesses and the victim were asked to go the the station for the report.  I forgot how many hours they were there, but quite a few.  I believe Officer Fluegal took the reports.  I was told either by a witness or the victim that some one told Paul that what he had was good enough (the report), but he wouldn't stop until the report was perfect - all t's crossed and i's dotted.  Whoever told me that was really impressed by Officer Fluegal.

I believe the District Attorney's office, out of the 4th District Court contacted everyone (separately) to discuss what happened.  Who ever the victim spoke to there, told her and her husband not to speak to anyone about this case.  This was asked of them so NO one could say, "well, I overheard the victim saying this to so and so" or "she told me such and such about the incident."  They have done what they were told.  I even asked if they were going to get enough money to send their two children, who witnessed this, to college.  All I got was a grin.  I don't think they are after money.  With them, it's more like "what's right is right and what's wrong is wrong" and the children need to know that this man has been punished for what he did and that they shouldn't back down to a bully.  After all, they pay taxes and vote here.

Offline

 

#41 2010-01-07 00:26:51

Well, I have no doubt that their children will be going to college, and now knowing what I do, I know they are not in it for the money.
However, it seems unusual for anyone in the DA's Office to ask them not to discuss the case when it has already been spread literally throughout the whole Country.
My instincts tell me what I have posted earlier.
I may be wrong. I recently found out how wrong I was about one poster in this site, so, I won't be shocked if I am wrong about this situation.
Bottom line: Wareham pays for stupidity generated out of the BOS office.
Plain and simple.

Offline

 

#42 2010-01-07 01:11:08

I agree that this is known all over, but there has been no interview done.  She was contacted by a tv station and a new reporter but she declined to speak at that time.  She did take their names and #'s and told them when she felt better about it, she may call them.  I think that her concern is more of keeping the children from hearing from their friends, what the parents may be saying.  They are 11 and almost 8, and very smart.  They definately know how to put two and two together now.  They watched the whole incident and were screaming and sobbing.  It is definately protection of her kids along that line, but I think the DA may have something up their sleeve.  I hope it is her favor, but I doubt at his age in a small town, that they will make him serve jail time.  I doubt if they will even fine him or take his license - probably just court fees and a slap on the wrist.  But, If he is found guilty, they can proced with a civil suit for money.  If she comes out and mentions that and someone hears her, they can say she "jumped out in front of his car" just to sue him for money.  I am going to bed now, finally.   Take care and say hi to wifey.

Offline

 

#43 2010-01-07 07:57:45

searay240 wrote:

I have actually given Mr Slager credit for the following statement in the past.

A memorandum of understanding between the Wareham Police Department and the Crime Watch Program, signed on June 20, 2009 by Lt. Irving Wallace, Coleman and then interim town administrator John Sanquinet, states the volunteers of Crime Watch are "indemnified, defended and held harmless for all claims by any person arising out of the performance of their duties of parking enforcement and shall be named insured to a certificate of liability insurance maintained by the Town of Wareham covering its employees in connection with their official duties."



I have discovered that Mr. Slager is a very unreliable source of information.  I suggest that the debate on this site will improved if other sources are used.

Offline

 

#44 2010-01-07 08:08:48

Mr. Onset,
YOu are just discovering that? Whew...

Offline

 

#45 2010-01-07 08:10:36

rukidding wrote:

Well you should all read that statement again. As I read it says "covering its employees in connection with their official duties."
Now as I understand the charges against Coleman they are criminal charges brought by the Wareham Police department for using his automobile as a weapon against a defenseless lady. So I ask you since when is it within any town employee's official duties to act as a criminal? Coleman is not being charged for writing a parking ticket. He is charged as a criminal for trying to run over a woman with a child nearby.
So if any other town employee decided to rob a bank, or run over anyone while on the clock, would the town be so quick to pay for his or her legal defense?

The assumption being made by rukidding is that Mr. Coleman is guilty.  If he is innocent, then the charges are incidental to his "official" duties.  Unfortunately, he needs a lawyer before his guilt or innocence is decided.

Justice is best served if witnesses wait until the trial  concludes before they discuss the incident in public.  Is anyone really surprised that this was explained to the witnesses?

It shouldn't be that hard to obtain all the documents signed by Crime Watch and their volunteers.  We should also be able to determine if the town pays for Coleman's lawyer.... eventually.

Offline

 

#46 2010-01-07 09:22:01

Mr. Onset,
Wow, what a concept! I don't know how many requests you have made for documents, but based on "our" experience, public records that show the Selectmen or the Administration in a negative light are diifficult to get. They will hem and haw and delay. It took letters to the State in order to get some documents.

As far as this case goes, the people that know the truth aren't talking, so I will wait until the case is completed.

Offline

 

#47 2010-01-07 12:45:05

Mr Onset, I am not making the assumption that Coleman is guilty. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty. I am saying that while the language in Lt Wallace and butt monkey's agreement with Coleman is typical language in employee contracts, there is no criminal charge that is "incidental to his official duties". For example that language does not protect a tax collector from "allegedly" assaulting this woman for not paying her taxes. That language does not protect a police officer from "allegedly" running down this woman for j walking. Coleman should be on his own for putting himself in a position of being criminally accused.
The fact that the BOS lied to the town when they said very clearly that crimewatch was separate from the town is a completely different issue. 
Focus April 6, 2010

Offline

 

#48 2010-01-07 16:11:57

Again....the question is...is Coleman a Town employee?

Offline

 

#49 2010-01-07 19:41:49

Hey Biff: In order to be an employee he must be paid and/or appointed  as Parking Enforcement Officer by the BOS. There is no record of such when I went before the BOS, so his group had no right to write parking tickets. I do not care what agreement was made with the upper crust of the PD or the BOS.

Offline

 

#50 2010-01-07 20:03:54

So if Capt C is correct then this town is paying for the costs of a criminal defense on a private citizen. This is like paying the criminal defense on drug dealers!
Focus April 6, 2010

Offline

 

#51 2010-01-07 20:35:02

capt c wrote:

Hey Biff: In order to be an employee he must be paid and/or appointed  as Parking Enforcement Officer by the BOS. There is no record of such when I went before the BOS, so his group had no right to write parking tickets. I do not care what agreement was made with the upper crust of the PD or the BOS.

Amen, Capt c.  The only problem that may be is - did you ask to see any written agreement, because others in town have asked to see public records, which this would be, and they were denied or ignored.  I have a "feeling" that the agreement between Mr. Coleman and the town was already written up and Lt. Wallace was summonsed to town hall to "sign it".  My opinion is that if there is an agreement signed, it won't hold water.   The main problem here is that we have been blatently lied to.  We should know everything about crimewatch and it's duties, if the town pays for their fuel, the cars, the insurance, the registratons, how much money they get from the parking tickets, are they independently insured or bonded, why are they a private corporation with Coleman & his wife as Pres, V.P., Sect. & Treas.?  We ask if there is liability insurance to cover them in case there is a problem and all you could hear from Jane is "they signed a waiver".  Just what does that mean?  Crimewatch being put under an umbrella policy of insurance is most likely for injury on the job.   Paul - you know everyone, go find out the truth.  You say you're in Wareham every day.  Pay us back for those 30 years you thanked us for.  I know you have connections.  Thanks.

Last edited by bornofwareham (2010-01-07 23:53:32)

Offline

 

#52 2010-01-07 21:06:31

rukidding wrote:

Mr Onset, I am not making the assumption that Coleman is guilty. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty. I am saying that while the language in Lt Wallace and butt monkey's agreement with Coleman is typical language in employee contracts, there is no criminal charge that is "incidental to his official duties". For example that language does not protect a tax collector from "allegedly" assaulting this woman for not paying her taxes. That language does not protect a police officer from "allegedly" running down this woman for j walking. Coleman should be on his own for putting himself in a position of being criminally accused.
The fact that the BOS lied to the town when they said very clearly that crimewatch was separate from the town is a completely different issue. 
Focus April 6, 2010

I believe the best way to resolve these differences of opinion is to first obtain and post a copy of the contract so we can all read the entire document.

Offline

 

#53 2010-01-07 21:18:23

Mr. Onset.  Please, go to the TA and ask for copies of all the paperwork to do with Crime Watch.  I'm not being a smart ass, either.  They will ignore you.  They will tell you that they don't have any.  They will tell you to come back another day.  They will tell you anything to get you to leave.  If you don't, they will call the police.

If we could get our hands on anything from the BOS or TA about crimewatch, believe me, it would have been posted for everyone to see.  Please, seriously, go to the town hall and try to get this information.  If you are able to, you will be a hero.   Even the minutes aren't clear.

Offline

 

#54 2010-01-07 21:39:46

I was sued enough while playing cop to understand what a waiver is. It  releases  the town  of liability for negligent or malicious conduct by that individual who did sign the waiver. According to my source in the  Insurance Liabilty Game, no coverage in any Town Policy would cover them. There is no record of him being appointed as an agent for the Town.   But remember I still believe what goes around comes around sometimes it just takes awhile. Was it a private corporation or  tax exemp for running raffles and seeking donations. I believe the latter to be correct.

Offline

 

#55 2010-01-07 21:55:52

This is getting more interesting by the minute.
Who determines negligence in this case?
Obviously the Police thought that he was negligent, because they arrested him. The DA thought he was negligent because they are prosecuting him.
So...who is paying the bills?
Who represents this guy?
As always: who determines if he is a public employee?
Glad to read Paul's comments.

Offline

 

#56 2010-01-08 00:09:18

capt c wrote:

I was sued enough while playing cop to understand what a waiver is. It  releases  the town  of liability for negligent or malicious conduct by that individual who did sign the waiver. According to my source in the  Insurance Liabilty Game, no coverage in any Town Policy would cover them. There is no record of him being appointed as an agent for the Town.   But remember I still believe what goes around comes around sometimes it just takes awhile. Was it a private corporation or  tax exemp for running raffles and seeking donations. I believe the latter to be correct.

I looked it up and when you just threw that tax exempt bit out to me, I need to go back and look it up again.  Damn you, Paul.  Seriously, giving out parking tickets, even if not on paper, is still acting as an agent of the town, be it the police department or the Town Administrator, who is the parking ticket king.  If you want to appeal your ticket, that's where you go, to the TA.  The liability I'm speaking of would be if a Crime Watcher was leaning over to place a ticket under the windshield wiper and as he stepped back he broke his ankle or if the party getting the ticket broke Coleman's nose, he would be insured under an umbrella or blanket policy.

I am also a believer of what goes around, comes around and the words of my late mother that are always in my head:  Everything happens for a reason.  You may not see it now but somewhere down the road you will.  Thanks for the words of wisdom and I'll try to find the crap on Coleman's organization.  Oh, yeah........why commercial plates on their crime watch cars?

Offline

 

#57 2010-01-08 10:21:02

bornofwareham wrote:

Mr. Onset.  Please, go to the TA and ask for copies of all the paperwork to do with Crime Watch.  I'm not being a smart ass, either.  They will ignore you.  They will tell you that they don't have any.  They will tell you to come back another day.  They will tell you anything to get you to leave.  If you don't, they will call the police.

If we could get our hands on anything from the BOS or TA about crimewatch, believe me, it would have been posted for everyone to see.  Please, seriously, go to the town hall and try to get this information.  If you are able to, you will be a hero.   Even the minutes aren't clear.

I can't figure out how to ask for this information and post it without compromising my blog identity.  That is more important to me than being viewed as a hero.  However, we don't have to depend upon the town providing information about the waiver signed by Crime Watch volunteers.  All we need is one volunteer to post the waiver they signed (deleting their signature if they like).

Offline

 

#58 2010-01-08 14:55:20

If Crime Watch was organized as a 501-C-3 non profit organization, which it should be if they raised and spent money, they would have to file with the Secretary of State listing the officers and the Board of Directors and the address from which it legally operates.
On an annual basis Crime Watch would have to file the annual report as well as any changes made to the officers or Board; and/ or any changes made to the location of operation. (Didn't they move out of the Onset building?)
Perhaps one of you who has the computer expertise can go to the State web site and find the information. It would at least tell you who the members of the Board of Directors are. If anyone knows anyone who is listed, you could personally start asking some questions and if they have nothing to hide, they may share how, when , why, they got organized and how they are covered or not covered by the town.
I think there was a posting in additon to one from Capt C that said that unless they were officially appointed as Parking Attendants under the proper state statute, that by law they should not have been issuing parking citations. And that may play a large role in this case. If they were not legally able to write tickets, then the town has itself in a huge mess.
I understand that Chief Joyce did not want them to be able to write tickets, knowing that they were not legally entitled to do so, but was "told" by the  acting TA that he should allow it or face a consequence.

Offline

 

#59 2010-01-08 15:45:06

Maturevoter wrote:

If Crime Watch was organized as a 501-C-3 non profit organization, which it should be if they raised and spent money, they would have to file with the Secretary of State listing the officers and the Board of Directors and the address from which it legally operates.
On an annual basis Crime Watch would have to file the annual report as well as any changes made to the officers or Board; and/ or any changes made to the location of operation. (Didn't they move out of the Onset building?)
Perhaps one of you who has the computer expertise can go to the State web site and find the information. It would at least tell you who the members of the Board of Directors are. If anyone knows anyone who is listed, you could personally start asking some questions and if they have nothing to hide, they may share how, when , why, they got organized and how they are covered or not covered by the town.
I think there was a posting in additon to one from Capt C that said that unless they were officially appointed as Parking Attendants under the proper state statute, that by law they should not have been issuing parking citations. And that may play a large role in this case. If they were not legally able to write tickets, then the town has itself in a huge mess.
I understand that Chief Joyce did not want them to be able to write tickets, knowing that they were not legally entitled to do so, but was "told" by the  acting TA that he should allow it or face a consequence.

here it is..
http://corp.sec.state.ma.us/corp/corpse … ftype=.pdf

Offline

 

#60 2010-01-08 16:20:39

Liz, your link did not work for me.  Here is my try at it, you can link to all filings for the enitity since 1999 by clicking on All Filings in box at bottom of form

**edited to get link that works**:

  http://corp.sec.state.ma.us/corp/corpse … =201628467

Last edited by falcon (2010-01-08 16:24:46)

Offline

 

#61 2010-01-08 16:38:10

This is what I found -- It appears they are a 501c(3)

Nonprofit Report:ONSET COMMUNITY CRIME WATCH INC
Contact Information:
ONSET COMMUNITY CRIME WATCH INC Also Known As:Physical Address:4 Union Ave
% George H Coleman
Onset, MA 02558

Unable to access any 990's

Last edited by spideratc (2010-01-08 18:03:45)

Offline

 

#62 2010-01-08 16:53:45

Who is the out of Townee on the Board? From Somerset?
Can anyone access financial records?
Obviously there must be a contract between the BOS (The Town) and this non-profit organization.
Who gave the the authority to drive around in marked cruisers, dressed like cops, and writing tickets?
Ignorance is no excuse in the law, and it appears that a lot of ignorant people put this together.

Offline

 

#63 2010-01-08 17:39:12

Maybe someone with more expertise can get the whole pdf file from Commonwealth document web site I referenced in above post to insert instead of just this last page of the May 2006 amended filing for Onset Crime Watch to become a 503-c.


go to
   http://corp.sec.state.ma.us/corp/corpse … =201628467

   then at bottom select All Filings item and then click View Filings

from the list on right side of panel, click on link to  http://corp.sec.state.ma.us/corp/corpse … 7060_1.pdf


The last of 3 pages is all I can get to copy/paste here:
   

MA SOC Filing Number: 200650067060 Date: 06/08/2006 3:32 PM

THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
I hereby certify that, upon examination of this document, duly submitted to me, it appears
that the provisions of the General Laws relative to corporations have been complied with,
and I hereby approve said articles; and the filing fee having been paid, said articles are
deemed to have been filed with me on:
WILLIAM FRANCIS GALVIN
Secretary of the Commonwealth
MA SOC Filing Number: 200650067060 Date: 06/08/2006 3:32 PM
June 08, 2006 3:32 PM
178403-1-0.

Offline

 

#64 2010-01-08 18:22:50

From www.irs.gov web site, the organization is listed as a charity organization:

  http://www.irs.gov/app/pub-78/searchFro … ame=Search


    Home  |  Change Text Size  |  Contact IRS  |  About IRS  |  Site Map  |  Español  |  Help             

Advanced Search   Search Tips       

IRS Resources

Compliance & Enforcement
Contact My Local Office
e-file
Forms and Publications
Frequently Asked Questions
Newsroom
Taxpayer Advocate Service
Where To File
Search for Charities, Online Version of Publication 78 Search Results
Organization 
Name  Includes Starts With     At least one of the words Onset
All of the words


Location 
City    State  MA
Deductibility Code 
Deductibility Code  All... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 None 
           
    Begin New Search    Search Tips


Show  10 25 50 100 250 500
           
   « Prev | 1-13 | Next » 
Name  City  State  Country  Code   

Neponset Choral Society Inc.  E Walpole MA  USA -- 
Neponset Community Services Inc.  Dorchester MA  USA -- 
Neponset River Watershed Assoc  Canton MA  USA -- 
Neponset Valley Hospice Inc.  Norwood MA  USA -- 
Neponset Valley Humane Society Inc.  Norwood MA  USA -- 
Neponset Valley Philharmonic Orchestra Inc.  Boston MA  USA -- 
Onset Bay Association Inc.  Onset MA  USA -- 
Onset Community Crime Watch Inc.  Onset MA  USA -- 
Onset Youth Center Inc.  Onset MA  USA -- 
Residences at Neponset Field Inc.  Boston MA  USA -- 
Sconset Trust Inc.  Siasconset MA  USA -- 
Siasconset Beach Preservation Fund Inc.  Nantucket MA  USA -- 
Siasconset Union Chapel  Siasconset MA  USA -- 

« Prev | 1-13 | Next »  Accessibility |  Freedom of Information Act |  Important Links |  IRS Privacy Policy |  USA.gov |  U.S. Treasury

Offline

 

#65 2010-01-08 18:28:45

What in the hell is going on???
Maybe the DA has a little more information about Crime Watch, it's Directors, and possibly some elected officials that have made a little side business at the expense of the people of Wareham.
I can't wait to see where this one is going.

Offline

 

Board footer

warehamwater.com