#2 2010-01-05 07:01:03

"In more serious cases, the matter can be the subject of "an adjudicatory hearing," and violators of the conflict of interest law may be required to pay a civil penalty."

I guess she would have to stand in line behind the IRS and State of MA to get paid. I understand he has outstanding bills to them in the amount of $181,000. Good luck Ms. Haupt.

Offline

 

#3 2010-01-05 09:34:10

She has a good attorney and a good case. He will be forced to sell whatever assets he has soon to cover what will undoubtedly be his swan song.
Adios, Bruce.

Offline

 

#4 2010-01-05 10:34:45

Should be more news breaking this week. You can only ignore the rules for so long before people call you on your actions. April cannot come soon enough. Take Back Wareham

Offline

 

#5 2010-01-05 16:36:34

Larry McDonald wrote:

Should be more news breaking this week. You can only ignore the rules for so long before people call you on your actions. April cannot come soon enough. Take Back Wareham

What made her do this?  If the town took this property and paid twice for it, do you think that she is seeing that the people aren't able to access this beach?  Who owns the lock on that parcel?

Offline

 

#6 2010-01-06 12:22:06

mama bear here...coming out of hibernation

I stand ready to answer questions when the entire COMPLAINT with attachments is published on this site ... or contact me directly.   The poeple of Wareham deserve to know.  The S-T article barely touched the tip of the iceberg.  Most violations investigated by the relevant State agencies have minimal results but this COMPLAINT could have more serious impact on the person charged.

Last edited by mama bear (2010-01-06 13:10:05)

Offline

 

#7 2010-01-06 12:30:20

I look forward to hearing more! I love when facts win out over lies and political spin!

Offline

 

#8 2010-01-06 13:48:40

DO TELL MAMA BEAR. WE KNOW THAT BRUCIE DID VOTE TO TAKE THE PROPERTY IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. PLEASE TELL US MORE

Offline

 

#9 2010-01-06 13:53:49

Let's plan a BBQ for Swift's Beach the weekend after we get it back from Sweet Brucey.
Let the tin foil hat clan come (we can wrap potatoes in the foil and cook them in our bonfire)

P-SPAN
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
April 6, 2010

Offline

 

#10 2010-01-06 16:34:46

I just want to clarify, the identity of the individual who filed the complaint has not been released, it is pre-mature to assume that Mrs. Haupt is that individual.

In addition, in all fairness to the individual who has had the allegations made against them, since the allegations have not been published any and all assumptions as to what they are remain speculation.

I say this because should someone stumble upon this site I would not want information which is not verified becoming fact. That is harmful to all parties involved.

The Ethics Commission will conduct a complete investigation.

Offline

 

#11 2010-01-06 16:53:59

Cara, thank you for your polite, civil and intelligent response.  I still think it is a shame that you aren't sitting on our Board of Selectmen.  I probably wouldn't be reading this site if you were!

My concern has little to do with the complaint or Bruce, but what is being done about Swifts Beach?  Is it totally in the hands of the CPC?  Do we get any input into how the conservation restriction is going to read?  Will Wareham residents be able to use the beach next summer?

Offline

 

#12 2010-01-06 18:05:04

I can testify to you that mama bear knows what she is talking about. Anything she posts here will be fact, and only fact.
As many have pointed out, it's refreshing to know that facts can be distributed to the people of Wareham through a reliable source...this web site.

Offline

 

#13 2010-01-06 18:51:45

It's my understanding, from a reliable source, that CPC paid for an environmental study to be done to identify any priortiy habitat, rare species, etc, etc prior to moving forward with a conservation restriction. In the process of the study it was discovered that there were several encroachments on town property by neighbors and/or an easement that was not investigated prior to the taking, and those matters need to be resolved before any conservation restriction can move forward.

Steve Urbon and the S-t had requested copies of that study and from what I've been told, Mr. Sanguinet, in an effort to not allow the study to become public information, put the study in the safe and no one has seen it.

I would suspect that the town will need to take these neighbors to land court or resolve the matter in some way and that this might cause the expenditure of more money for this property and perhaps this is why it has been put on the back burner. Certainly the next move belongs to the Board of Selectmen, not CPC.

There is absolutely no reason why next summer that gate can't be unlocked and people allowed to park and use the beach.  It's absurd that it wasn't done last summer. Think of the parking revenue we lost.

Offline

 

#14 2010-01-07 12:59:58

Episode one: Who Owns the lock?

I guess I do.  The Study produced at a cost of approx. $50,000 to the Town (CPC)
is being kept a secret from the public.  "Why?", You ask.  According to two legal opinions, BD Realty Trust (Barbara Deighton Haupt, Trustee) has legal title to the land.

In 2003, after destroying Certified Mail and lying to Town Meeting Voters, unknown (so far) parties proceeded to prepare the "Taking Deed"  - a homegrown document -
thinking that the Eminent Domain action would give the Town a clear title.  This faulty document was signed and notorized the same night of the Selectmen's vote. With no public input or proper legal advice they chose the third option granted by the Town Meeting: ..."to acquire by purchase, gift, or eminent domian..." rather than considering the gift of the beach offered by the owner in the destroyed letters.

If you view the video ( 2minutes, 27seconds to read the motion, discuss the subject and vote) you will observe the Selectmen proudly laughing at their smartness.  Bruce Sauvageau sat there abstaining and bursting with pride.  He pulled it off!  It must have been a surprise to him when the various Conservation Organizations would not assume the responsibility for property so tainted with  controversy, environmental problems, and maintenance expenses.

According to the present CPC, the Conservation Restriction status would create the opportunity for the Town to restore the land to the condition it was in the 1930's --- a marsh, the future home for a Million Mosquitoes - and a nonuse for people.  More secrets and lies...

(to be continued)

Last edited by mama bear (2010-01-07 14:41:36)

Offline

 

#15 2010-01-07 22:06:55

mama bear wrote:

mama bear here...coming out of hibernation

I stand ready to answer questions when the entire COMPLAINT with attachments is published on this site ... or contact me directly.

Hang on, I'll get there momentarily.

Offline

 

#16 2010-01-08 10:38:44

IHATESLAGER wrote:

DO TELL MAMA BEAR. WE KNOW THAT BRUCIE DID VOTE TO TAKE THE PROPERTY IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. PLEASE TELL US MORE

This was verified and exposed by the DA investigation (Swifts Beach)  prompted by John Decas. The minutes from most of the executive sessions of the past seven years seems to have disappeared. The DA's office ordered reconstruction (racall?) of the "missing" minutes from the five years of Executive sessions.  Cindy Chamberlain Perola recalled Bruce not only attended the exec sessions (in 2003)  but refused to leave when she advised him he had a conflict.  I'll see if Bill will post that letter from Cindy to the DA.

It was obvious the real vote was taken in exec session.  The open meeting - two minutes - had no discussion or public input.  The deed was ready for signatures that night December 16, 2003.  Bruce signed the deed.

Offline

 

#18 2010-01-09 15:03:29

WOW!!!
That was great reading, wasn't it?
mama bear is the GIRL!!
I'll be talking with you in a couple of weeks. You left the door open and we need you to shut it on the way back. Too damn cold here.
I wonder who is going to get the Chairman first?
The IRS?
The FEDS?
The DA?
The Ethics Commission?
Barbara Deighton Haupt?
His father-in-law?
My money is on Barbara.
Bye, bye Bruce.
Take the troll with you.

Offline

 

#19 2010-01-10 07:14:22

That complaint is a good read - should be required reading for every voter.  Wareham won't last another three years under the control of this scumbag.  Vote his ass out in April.

Not to change the subject, but while we are discussing Sweet Brucey shenanigans, let's not forget this deadbeat also owes $181,000 in back taxes to the state and federal government.

That's the same deadbeat who has money to be on a month long Mexico trip right now, but can't scrape together a few bucks to pay his taxes.

BUT - as a selectman, he still expects YOU to pay your taxes.

I guess that is why they made Sweet Brucey the King of the Hypocrite Elite.

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbc … /906040378

Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2010-01-10 07:22:16)

Offline

 

#20 2010-01-10 08:16:44

I was thinking the same thing Ham. He owes all that money but he can afford to take a month’s vacation. He is also missing the first day to file election papers I think it is Jan 15. Maybe he is taking time off and sitting in the sun trying to decide if he is going to run or not.

Offline

 

#21 2010-01-10 09:21:06

From the complaint:

After all of this, two days later, on July 19, 2007, Mr. Sauvageau is alleged to have provided written notice pursuant to M.G.L. 268A §23(b)(3) to the town clerk of Wareham. (Attachment G)

It is curious how illegible the date is at the bottom of Attachment G.

Offline

 

#22 2010-01-10 10:26:15

I thought there was an a legitimate reason the date was blocked out.  I was curious as to why there was no date on the letter.  Hmmm...now that I think further, I would think if someone in the clerk's office blocked out the date...well they might have covered it with marker, but then again, if they wanted to hide something, why not just move the stamp backwards?

Offline

 

#23 2010-01-10 10:51:22

Hamatron5000 wrote:

That complaint is a good read - should be required reading for every voter.  Wareham won't last another three years under the control of this scumbag.  Vote his ass out in April.

Not to change the subject, but while we are discussing Sweet Brucey shenanigans, let's not forget this deadbeat also owes $181,000 in back taxes to the state and federal government.

That's the same deadbeat who has money to be on a month long Mexico trip right now, but can't scrape together a few bucks to pay his taxes.

Bruce didnt make tues meeting but his car was parked at the  town hall on wed morn.....

Offline

 

#24 2010-01-10 11:51:47

By the way, I should also point out on that Standard Times story, there is a link on the right side of the page that brings you to pdfs of Sweet Brucey's tax lien related documents. 

Brucey (with the help of his lackey - yes, I'm trying my best to keep up with that New Year's resolution to ignore the bagel biter!)  has been lying straight to the faces of the voters about this for awhile now.

Amazing how they lie about things that are right there in black and white.  There is no "appeal."  Many of those liens go all the way back to 2000.  No one is appealing any 10 year old tax liens.

Look at the lien documents yourself, they're right there on the Standard Times website.  Then after you realize you've been lied to for all this time, vote for change this April.

Sweet Brucey should pay these taxes before he even THINKS about taking out papers to run again.

Offline

 

#25 2010-01-10 11:58:48

Mixie wrote:

I thought there was an a legitimate reason the date was blocked out.  I was curious as to why there was no date on the letter.  Hmmm...now that I think further, I would think if someone in the clerk's office blocked out the date...well they might have covered it with marker, but then again, if they wanted to hide something, why not just move the stamp backwards?

One possibility: it was stamped by the clerk's office and marked out later by somebody else.

Offline

 

#26 2010-01-10 12:07:05

Mr. Onset wrote:

From the complaint:

After all of this, two days later, on July 19, 2007, Mr. Sauvageau is alleged to have provided written notice pursuant to M.G.L. 268A §23(b)(3) to the town clerk of Wareham. (Attachment G)

It is curious how illegible the date is at the bottom of Attachment G.

The Town clerk will probably use the budget problem excuse  -  no money for a new date stamp.  In the Selectmen's meeting following the sham notice, Bruce gave a "checkers" speech - full of lies.  Maybe someone can post that archive - priceless!

Last edited by mama bear 2 (2010-01-10 12:21:10)

Offline

 

#27 2010-01-10 12:23:03

How about a group of us get together, pay off the taxes on the property owed in consideration of a lien of that amount on the property, foreclose, pay off the first place holder(Bank or Mortgage Co.), and evict the residents of the property.
Sell the property to a responsible buyer, make a small profit, and have fun!
Anybody in?
All we need to know is what liens exist against the property now and how much the mortgages are.
Then, we'll know how much we have to kick in.

Offline

 

#28 2010-01-10 14:20:35

danoconnell wrote:

How about a group of us get together, pay off the taxes on the property owed in consideration of a lien of that amount on the property, foreclose, pay off the first place holder(Bank or Mortgage Co.), and evict the residents of the property.
Sell the property to a responsible buyer, make a small profit, and have fun!
Anybody in?
All we need to know is what liens exist against the property now and how much the mortgages are.
Then, we'll know how much we have to kick in.

If you look at Attachment A (above) following the Complaint you will see that Sweet Brucey and his relatives (especially Anna -sister-in-law and lawyer) own land abutting the ED land). If he loses his and wife's house he will still have options to hang around Wareham.  Someone mentioned that his plan was to encumber his residence so much trhat there would be no equity for potential lawsuits to grab.

If the DA pursues the Conflict of Interest - a possible Criminal Charge - the Town does not have to defend him.  Maybe he will go to jail - no need for a house!

Offline

 

#29 2010-01-10 15:02:48

mama bear 2 wrote:

If the DA pursues the Conflict of Interest - a possible Criminal Charge - the Town does not have to defend him.  Maybe he will go to jail - no need for a house!

Just desserts..you reap what you sow. How about the complicity of other's who "assisted" him? Maybe he can complete his law studies in the prison library..

P-SPAN
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
April 6, 2010

Offline

 

#30 2010-01-10 18:34:19

How about this scenario:  This group pays off all the liens on the property and then sells the property to Barbara H.?

Offline

 

#31 2010-01-10 18:55:15

danoconnell wrote:

How about a group of us get together, pay off the taxes on the property owed in consideration of a lien of that amount on the property, foreclose, pay off the first place holder(Bank or Mortgage Co.), and evict the residents of the property.
Sell the property to a responsible buyer, make a small profit, and have fun!
Anybody in?
All we need to know is what liens exist against the property now and how much the mortgages are.
Then, we'll know how much we have to kick in.

How much Sweet Brucey owes, according to the excerpt from the Standard Times article below:

The IRS lien against Sauvageau's home includes back taxes, interest and penalties for the years 2000 through 2004, a total of $161,670.37. The lien is dated Feb. 20, 2008.

For year 2000, he was assessed $4,064.21; for 2001, $17,886.78; for 2002, $57,633.82; for 2003, $11,940.06; for 2004, $70,145.50.

Two liens are on file from the state Department of Revenue: $8,481.27 in back taxes, interest and penalties for 2002, filed with the registry in March 2006, and $11,353.74 for 2004, filed by the state in November 2007.

The sprawling, one-story house, which is listed by the town assessors as owned by Rose Sauvageau, the selectman's wife, is within view of Swifts Beach and has an assessed value of $351,700, the land portion being $170,000 and the building $181,700. The Sauvageaus purchased the property in 1995 for $160,000, according to the records.

A Standard-Times check of the tax status of the other town selectmen turned up no similar liens or judgments. All of the selectmen are current in their town property taxes, according to the tax collector.

Offline

 

#32 2010-01-10 19:23:12

By: robertslager on 1/10/10
The ethically challenged don't understand that you really shouldn't take content off a paid web site to distribute for free. But that speaks volumes about them


Don't cry slager. Did you read your 1,000 membership ad yet proving I was right yet?

Offline

 

#33 2010-01-10 20:48:56

Let's see...approx $182,000.00, filing fees, etc. probably brings it all to $190,000.00.
All we need to know is how much the mortgages owed amount to, divide it by 123, and we should be able to pull it off.
I am sure Barbara would love to buy it.
We don't need to make a large profit. We all make a few bucks, Barbara has a sprawling one story Cape Cod estate, and people will be able to enjoy Swifts Beach.
Nice.

Offline

 

#34 2010-01-10 21:08:34

Sounds good ,Dan...I'll talk with my banker at breakfast....Too late to bring it up with her now....

Offline

 

#35 2010-01-10 22:19:26

Ha ha.  This is just plain funny.

Offline

 

#36 2010-01-10 23:39:45

Thanks, Dick.
It will be great to have you on board. Now all we need is the other 121 to join us.

Offline

 

#37 2010-01-11 06:59:00

Speaking of "Ignore the Bagel Biting Bastard" New Year's Resolutions, you know what was hard?  Not making any jokes about Bobo's response to the ethics complaint filed against Sweet Brucey?

Anyone read, "The Smearing of Sauvageau?"  I mean, reading that, it was literally as if Bobo stood atop a high diving board, jumped off, and dive bombed his head straight up Sweet Brucey's ass with that one.

"Waaah!  Don't be mean to my Sweet Brucey!  Waaah! Sweet Brucey can do no wrong! Waaaah!!"

OK, I have to try to get back to that resolution.  Hey, what can I say?  Sometimes we all have relapses.  It's hard not to make jokes about a guy like Bobo, who himself is a walking talking pathetic joke.  With Bobo, the jokes just write themselves.

Offline

 

#38 2010-01-11 08:16:37

By: robertslager on 1/10/10
I like multi-grain myself, but only when I'm wearing my tin-foil hat.

By: robertslager on 1/10/10
We really should have a tin foil hat bagel party one of these days.


ENOUGH SAID!

Offline

 

#39 2010-01-11 08:27:06

That should be interesting when one guy shows up with 17 personalities and one drunken woman dressed in pink with clown slippers.
Obviously they are unaware of my initial instructions. The foil hats must be worn while sitting in a closet in the dark at night only.
The only sure way to avoid detection.

Offline

 

#40 2010-01-11 08:49:40

Bobo, I thought every day was a party for you.  Every day is a party for the unemployed.

Offline

 

#41 2010-01-11 12:53:56

Is he having a party to christen the rag by naming it the wareham weak?

Offline

 

#42 2010-01-11 22:14:39

So when savago (improperly spelled on purpose because I'm too lazy to look it up) was operating a "business" by renting out parking spaces on his property for beachgoers, was this done under some business entity? Is the property zoned for a business or was this some illegal business operation that any other proprietor would be scorned for not paying their necessary income taxes to the state and for operating illegally?

The rental agreement looks like it was between him and not a business he may or may not operate. Then again, any lease payments would likely have been made on business checks because if they were done with personal checks and not shown as a business expense, that probably wouldn't be too legitimate in my mind. Then again, look who it is......nothing seems to be legitimate with this individual.

Wouldn't anyone that recieves any income for a business (daily parking spot rentals) be required to report it and pay income taxes on it either through their business or personal income? Oh yeah, he apparently doesn't pay his taxes anyway......

Last edited by GladToBeAway (2010-01-11 22:50:40)

Offline

 

#43 2010-01-12 08:11:05

OK...so...123 of us kick in 4K...that should be enough to satisfy all liens and the mortgage. We sell the property to Barbra, only taking $200.00 profit per person, and ask Barbara to let us invest in her new parking business in Swifts Beach.
Better investment than a CD any day and the money will always come in for generations to come.
My check book is out and ready.

Offline

 

#44 2010-01-12 12:17:45

GladToBeAway wrote:

So when savago (improperly spelled on purpose because I'm too lazy to look it up) was operating a "business" by renting out parking spaces on his property for beachgoers, was this done under some business entity? Is the property zoned for a business or was this some illegal business operation that any other proprietor would be scorned for not paying their necessary income taxes to the state and for operating illegally?

The rental agreement looks like it was between him and not a business he may or may not operate. Then again, any lease payments would likely have been made on business checks because if they were done with personal checks and not shown as a business expense, that probably wouldn't be too legitimate in my mind. Then again, look who it is......nothing seems to be legitimate with this individual.

Wouldn't anyone that recieves any income for a business (daily parking spot rentals) be required to report it and pay income taxes on it either through their business or personal income? Oh yeah, he apparently doesn't pay his taxes anyway......

The land was used as a 100 car private parking lot since the 50's with a refreshment stand and rest rooms - the building being destroyed in a hurricane. Parking on this land was legal as proved during the ED trial. However, when Bruce violated the lease by not providing the owner with liability insurance and not making the rental payments on time and secretly plotting to undermine the owner's development plans, Bruce and Rose opened up their Residentially Zoned side yard for parking. A complaint to the Zong Officer Mezesiak was answered with a "Cease and Desist Order" against the legal parking operation.  Bruce continued his illegal parking on his residentially zoned property for two years pocketing the cash... and summarily accomplished the Eminent  Domain Taking after the summer season of 2003.

Last edited by mama bear 2 (2010-01-12 13:45:43)

Offline

 

#45 2010-01-12 15:35:29

People wonder why this whole fiasco still strikes a nerve..Savageau costs the
town two million dollars and we all should just put it behind us???..I'll reiterate: Wareham's darkest days have come under the watch of the current BOS...

Offline

 

#46 2010-01-13 08:19:49

By: onevote on 1/12/10
It's funny when the fake website says that Bruce and Rob are unemployed. Bruce works harder and longer than any of those who ran this town. Bruce has a fulltime job tackling the corruption that has plagued this town for years.Rob has a fulltime job telling us who's related to who and what is going on with these "backroom deals".You're
not going to find out what really goes on in this town from the paper that is cleansed
by the power elite

Offline

 

#47 2010-01-13 08:41:36

Really?  Because I thought all Rob did was sit on his fat ass at home because no real paper would ever hire a fraud and write about how great Sweet Brucey is all day. 

Meanwhile, I thought all Sweet Brucey did was sit on his fat ass because no one will hire a financial planner that owes $181,000.

I assume both of them sit around all day blaming all of their problems on everyone else but themselves.

Onevote, go observe them work sometime.  I bet a work day for them is 23 hours of Rob kissing Brucey's ass, followed by a break where Rob kisses his own ass.

Offline

 

#48 2010-01-13 17:59:53

*Copied from other thread

Swifts Beach Land Tour (1 of 2)


Swifts Beach Land Tour (1 of 2)


Swifts Beach TM 10/27/03 (1 of 2)


Swifts Beach TM 10/27/03 (2 of 2)


Swifts Beach BoS Mtg. 12/16/03


Swifts Beach TM 10/25/04 (1 of 5)


Swifts Beach TM 10/25/04 (2 of 5)


Swifts Beach TM 10/25/04 (3 of 5)


Swifts Beach TM 10/25/04 (4 of 5)


Swifts Beach TM 10/25/04 (5 of 5)




                                                                      (click pics to zoom)
*If you look carefully, on the zoomed in version of the top photo, you can see six vehicles parked in Sweet Brucey's yard.

Aerial view with tags (owners)

P-SPAN
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
April 6, 2010

Last edited by P-SPAN (2010-01-13 18:16:50)

Offline

 

#49 2010-01-14 18:01:09

Most of you have heard and seen this material, but putting it together with the COMPLAINT enforces the fact Sweet Bruceywas acting in his own self-interest and abused his "his power" position as a Selectman.  There is  a natural curiosity of why this Swifts Beach situation is being revisited.

The Town has spent $2Million for a deteriorating wasteland (current aerial to follow soon).  The K&P meter is still running on the land court problem and the battle with the State Highway Commission over changing the nameof the frontage road of Bruce's family compound and the Swifts Beach land to "Oceanside".  Excerpts from the 30 page brief will be posted next week. Does K&P charge by the page?

The DA has sanctioned the Selectmen for not keeping Exec Session records. A more serious charge is the destruction of Certified mail which produced the big lie at the 2003 Town Meeting.  What can the Town do to correct this horrible situation? We may be able to fix it.

Last edited by mama bear (2010-01-14 18:04:25)

Offline

 

#50 2010-01-14 18:13:09

Mama bear...I'd like the name of the street to be "Mama Bear Way".
Talk with you soon.

Offline

 

#51 2010-01-14 19:21:22

danoconnell wrote:

Mama bear...I'd like the name of the street to be "Mama Bear Way".
Talk with you soon.

A while back we had a lot of suggestions.  One was "Eminent Domain Drive".  Maybe some of the other volunteers will come forward.
Please send me a message and a way to reach you by phone tomorrow.

Offline

 

#52 2010-01-14 20:40:39

mama bear wrote:

The Town has spent $2Million for a deteriorating wasteland (current aerial to follow soon).  The K&P meter is still running on the land court problem and the battle with the State Highway Commission over changing the nameof the frontage road of Bruce's family compound and the Swifts Beach land to "Oceanside".  Excerpts from the 30 page brief will be posted next week. Does K&P charge by the page?

I have plenty of experience with K and P and they are the masters of keeping a case going as long as possible with the meter running double time!!  The federal judge who mediated the library case said it was way "over-litigated" for the type of case it was. Since I have evidence that we requested mediation at least 4 times during the two years, I can say it wasn't the library parties' lawyers who were dragging it out.

K and P's actions waste our taxpayer dollars. In my opinion, they do NOT represent their clients who are THE CITIZENS OF WAREHAM  and NOT the BoS. But be careful mama bear. One of our less eloquent selectmen will go running to K and P and tell them that you are saying "bad" things about them on the blog. The last K and P lawyer on the library case complained to our lawyers that she didn't like what I was saying about her and K and P. Boo hoo.  It was good for a laugh anyway.  My opinion is that the taxpayers should DEMAND that we get rid of K and P as soon as possible and hire an in-house lawyer.

Offline

 

#53 2010-01-14 21:04:43

Nora Bicki wrote:

My opinion is that the taxpayers should DEMAND that we get rid of K and P as soon as possible and hire an in-house lawyer.

How could this be done? Could it be added as a warrant article at TM?

P-SPAN
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
April 6, 2010

Offline

 

#54 2010-01-14 21:16:15

I don't know how it is now, but the Board of Selectmen used to choose Town Council. The budget was set at Town Meeting, but the hiring was done by the BOS.

Offline

 

#55 2010-01-14 21:43:39

Is there any actual evidence that it was K&P dragging things out rather than the demands by the BOS that were then carried out by K&P?

Offline

 

#56 2010-01-15 05:54:20

How about a TON of emails between our lawyers??? Plus quite a few snarky letters from one of the K and P lawyers. Not only that, but since the library litigation lasted well over two years, I have our first letter asking for mediation which came within one month of the first filed complaint, to our final request a few months before we began the very expensive deposition process. I can speak with authority to the issue. The library people tried to resolve the litigation multiple times while K and P, no doubt on the directive of the BoS, kept refusing to mediate.

(One thing library people are good at, is keeping records in an organized fashion. In the long run, that means we had excellent evidence throughout the case and more recently to refute false allegations against us.)

It took almost two months a a slew of emails back and forth to change the language of the settlement agreement (that the BoS finally refused to sign) because K and P kept diddling with it. Fortunately for the Friends, our indemnity insurance paid our bills, and as you all know, the town paid a chunk of the trustees bills. So who got screwed on paying excessive legal fees to K and P??

Take a look in the mirror folks. It's you, the lowly taxpayers of Wareham. And don't think we miss the irony here. The Friends, Trustees, and Foundation members pay our taxes, which pay K and P. Double screwed by this BoS.

Offline

 

#57 2010-01-15 08:51:54

Nora, good to see you speaking out so eloquently...
During the ED proceedings, the selectmen through K&P refused all mediation:

1. A letter (posted?) 1 copy with Hartman's name survived the shredder and turned up in the DA investigation of the "missing minutes"  The Town was offered the beach for zip.

2.  Mediation, scheduled prior to the Trial,  was cancelled by the Selectmen. 

3.  While the jury was out , the judge in a side- bar, reqested that BD Realty Tust make a settlement offer.  It was reluctantly made. One of K&P's finest approached BS - the lone Selectman attending four days of the trial - as he sat in his usual arrogant pose with his arms folded across his chest. A smug grin and the shaking of his head NO was his response.   The offer was $300,000 less than the Jury Award.

The plaintif walked away with a net of a little over $350,000 for eight years of work and heartache.  The industry of eminent domain in Massachusetts awards the municipalities and lawyers on both sides.  No damages for the plaintif.  The appraised value (determined by court testimony), reduced by all expenses goes to the victims of Eminent Domain. Over 40 States have changed their ED Laws.  Massachusetts has not.

Offline

 

#58 2010-01-15 09:05:09

Interesting mama bear. I see a pattern emerging here.

During the library mediation, the BoS and counsel were in one room and the library parties and counsel were in another. The judge went back and forth and "mediated" the case.

When the judge told us the case was "over-litigated" we said we had asked for mediation multiple times over the two year period. He was surprised to say the least. He went back to the BoS room.

He came back a little later saying that the BoS and counsel said we NEVER asked for mediation. Now I have the letters and emails as documentation to prove that we did.

So, who is telling the fib here??  Did K and P NOT tell the BoS we asked for mediation to prolong the case and increase those ever-billable hours?  Or did the BoS instruct K and P to refuse our requests for mediation, knowing full well that earlier mediation would have saved the taxpayer's quite a chunk of money.

The long and short of it is, when you have documentation, you can prove your claims.  The judge certainly took this into account during the mediation process.

You say in #2 that it was the BoS who canceled mediation. We will probably never know in our case, but I still have the documentation showing our multiple requests!!! Evidence/proof will win the day!!!!

Offline

 

#59 2010-01-15 09:54:19

It should be obvious that K&P does not represent the taxpayers. The politicians create more billable hours - scary words.

Offline

 

#60 2010-01-20 21:19:33

(click to zoom)







Letter: Former Swifts Beach landowner addresses reconstructed minutes
   
Thu Apr 23, 2009, 06:08 AM EDT

To the editor:

Your feature story and editorial comments in the April 2, 2009 issue have prompted me to share the discovered facts made public through the "reconstructed" executive session minutes demanded by the Office of the Massachusetts District Attorney , Plymouth District. During the court proceedings in 2007, I was advised by counsel to not publicly discuss the eminent domain taking of my Swifts Beach property. After the trial and subsequent appeal by the town, I was advised to build a bonfire with all the files and materials - forget the whole thing. I didn't.

Just looking at the big numbers, you may surmise that I made a fortune from the proceeds generated by the jury award. I didn't. Fighting "City Hall" - especially a corrupt one - is very expensive. One cannot put a price on the emotional and financial trauma. Rather than rehashing the previous information offered to the public -some factual and some erroneous- I offer the following list of facts that I can back up with documents, videos, pictures, witnesses, and my very vivid memory.

2001:   Lease granted to Bruce Sauvageau for parking lot as a continuation of his business relationship with former owner. He defaulted through late payments and not producing liability insurance to BD Realty Trust. Labor Day weekend, Susan Blais, the organizer/manager of the neighborhood group opposing home construction on the five acres, subleased the parking lot from Bruce for a family reunion without my permission. I refused to renew Bruce's lease for 2002.

Bruce and Rose Sauvageau offered to purchase the parking lot in 2001 with the additional offer to assist in the permitting of the residence. Bruce was on the Finance Committee. I refused. I don't do business that way.

2002-2003: Anticipating construction as approved by the DEP, I rented a house on Swifts Beach   At the proposed site of the house, I installed a temporary electric service and connected a shower for parking patrons. I purchased a small camper to store beach chairs and equipment. Ted Meseziak, the zoning officer, sued me (criminally), claiming that I was living in the camper. Kopelman & Paige represented the town (Lawsuit #1 Mass. Superior Court Civil NO. 02-0856). After the case was dismissed, there were several incidents: vandalism of my personal property, ice picking the camper tires, broken windows, defacing my car, egging the camper. My parking lot attendants were harassed by Bruce's family members, who constantly trespassed on my land for a shortcut to the beach. The town’s municipal maintenance men took down a section of my fence and placed three different signs declaring my land a "public way.”

Bruce, now a selectman, opened up his side yard for public parking with illegal signs. The zoning officers issued me two cease and desist orders while Bruce openly ran his new enterprise -- which did very well, especially when my gate lock was filled with superglue on the hottest day of the summer.

2001-2003:Bruce organized and participated in the meetings and activities of this neighborhood group - mostly Bruce's family and close friends; not the Swifts Beach Improvement Organization, who remained silent on the issues. Georgia Chamberlain, as offered by Cindy (Chamberlain) Parola in the reconstructed minutes, paid for the general     expenses of a group of neighbors and the appeal of the DEP Permit issued to BD Realty Trust. The Town of Wareham also appealed the permit (Lawsuit #2).

2003:   In "the reconstructed minutes," then-Town Administrator Michael Hartman justified the eminent domain article to be part of the fall 2003 Town Meeting as an emergency. I guess he expected the DEP to turn down the town’s appeal. In his deposition during the pretrial depositions, Hartman stated that a group of people “…about the age of my parents" came into his office and wanted the town to buy the land. He couldn't recall their names. With no formal petition, he sponsored the article to "acquire" the land. My first knowledge of the article was the Courier legal ad, which I received three weeks later in Florida. The next day, Wednesday, I received a call from Hartman asking for a meeting to discuss "the land." Sitting in his office, he assured me that the town would use eminent domain only to clear the title. There was to be an appraisal. He handed me a letter that invited me to attend the site review the next day -a Saturday.

I tried to reach the Rochester number - never got an answer. The appraisal that has surfaced was dated several weeks after the Town Meeting where the people voted to acquire my property and another small lot for $500,000. Hartman offered $450,000. I refused and suggested that we negotiate for the beach, which was the purpose of the article. I wanted to build my house where planned. I also received a call from Jane Donahue. I met with her and Geoff Swett of the Finance Committee requesting a meeting at her house on Saturday. I agreed. They asked if I was willing to accept the $450,000. I gave them the same answer. No. I did attend the Town meeting, but didn't speak (not being a town voter). They were voting to acquire. I expected negotiations for the beach to take place. The handout showed the beaches being connected.

There were many omissions and large gaps in the "reconstructed minutes" from the executive sessions and many missing documents relative to the eminent domain taking (Lawsuit #3), the subsequent appeal (Lawsuit #4), settlement conference and the use of CPA funds (Lawsuit #5: a citizens group filing). I don’t believe that these are random omissions. The Town of Wareham and its attorneys have withheld information that we now have a right to know.

The executive session minutes and dealings were not available to me and my attorneys prior to our filing the lawsuit with the two counts: eminent domain was used in bad faith; and compensation.

I did not realize that we could pursue only one count once the hearing started. I was advised that since Count I was difficult to prove, especially with sketchy evidence and a conspiracy going on behind closed door, the only remedy to Count I was to get the land back. No damages. My costs were already over $700,000 and running. We went with Count II. We were up against a Town with an "open checkbook." Proving the claim for the value was strong, although damages above minimal witness fees are not allowed. The damages I incurred, over $700,000 in expenses, are not recoverable under the Massachusetts laws regulating eminent domain. Similar expenses incurred by the town of Wareham were paid out of the legal budget as part of the General Fund. 

The prime things that occurred and did not surface in this investigation are:

1. When Renee Fernandes-Abbott told Town Meeting (2003) that there was no objection from the owner (DVD), she was obviously not aware of my discussions with Hartman nor my meeting with Donahue and Swett. Or she was telling a lie.

2. The vote, including the reading of the description and discussion to use eminent domain, took two minutes and 27 seconds. The deed was signed that night. There is no record of the executive session where these arrangements and decisions were made.

3. In addition to the missing minutes, seven CERTIFIED letters that I sent to the selectmen, Hartman, planning director, CPC, Conservation Commission, and others must have been destroyed. Although I have the green cards with the signature of the selectmen's assistant, all claim not to have received the letters refusing their offer of $450,000. My letter expressed a willingness to give the town the beach. The shredder in Hartman's office could have been working overtime.

In the letters responding to the request from the District Attorney’s office, the previous selectmen and Bruce Sauvageau, presently a selectman, offered the following (even this short version is revealing):

1. Renee Fernandes-Abbott has nothing and remembers nothing.
   
2. Brenda Eckstrom’s contribution is all hearsay.

3. Bruce Sauvageau protested the "reconstructed minutes" process and claimed that he had no memory or involvement in discussions on the Swifts Beach property.

4. Patrick Tropeano recalls being at three executive sessions regarding Swifts Beach: the trailer issue (going to court); the eminent domain subject (Bruce was present and wouldn’t leave); and the use of CPA funds to pay for the taking.

5. Cindy (Chamberlain) Parola sent two letters, in which she stated Kopelman and Paige attended some executive sessions with documentation of legal issues. She explained her mother's involvement as a party and financial donor in the neighbors’ campaign against me. Bruce and Rose Sauvageau attended these meetings. Bruce also would not leave executive sessions where the Swift Beach issues were discussed.

There were also four sets of executive session minutes typed and transposed from sketchy notes: 6-04-2007        (Discussion on the appeal of the jury decision and litigation with the appraiser’s "malfeasance.”); 8-27-2007       (Discussion of legal use of CPC money); 10-09-2007 (Nothing pertinent); and 10-19-2007 (Big discussion on the use of CPC money – legalities).

I did not have access to the executive session minutes until now.

The three important events regarding vital decisions on the Swifts Beach taking that are not included in the "reconstructed minutes" are:

1. An offer on our part to mediate, which was scheduled by both parties and then abruptly cancelled.

2. A sidebar offer under pressure from the judge for much less than the jury award.

Bruce Sauvageau was in the courtroom for four days of the trial. When he was approached by the town's counsel, he sat with his arms folded and shook his head "no.”

3. The settlement conference for the town's appeal of the jury decision award. took place at the Federal District Court in Boston July 17, 2007 The selectmen present were John Cronan, Jane Donahue and Bruce Sauvageau. They continued an executive session that had started in Wareham. Jane Donahue took notes.

The minutes from this and other executive sessions during the trial and up to Aug. 27, 2007 (the date the agreement was signed) are still missing.. The minutes after June 4, 2007 and up to Aug. 27, 2007 remain missing. During this period, the selectmen were scrambling for sources to pay the balance of the judgement -$1.1 million.. They were concerned about lawsuits involving the use of CPC Funds.

These facts and newly exposed backroom dealings are evidence of a conspiracy. The people of Wareham have the right to know.

Barbara Deighton Haupt

Courier: Letter: Former Swifts Beach landowner addresses reconstructed minutes

P-SPAN
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
April 6, 2010

Last edited by P-SPAN (2010-01-21 01:00:35)

Offline

 

#61 2010-01-20 22:39:41

A little explanation of my post (above)

These are 4 letters submitted to the DA's office through the ITA regarding the "missing minutes" investigation in 2008. The DA's  findings and a refusal to extend the investigation beyond the issue of violations in the Open Meeting Law. The  facts, in part, contained in Barbara Deighton Haupt's Letter -To- the Editor published in the Wareham Courier - also above - are being addressed in the Complaint addressed to the Massachusetts Ethics Commission and assert a Conflict of Interest on the part of Bruce Sauvageau.

You can see by the testimony offered by Cindy P. and Pat T, that Chairman of the Board of Selectmen Bruce Sauvageau was a party to the subject of taking of the land by Eminent Domain. Note that The purpose of using Eminent Domain was originally "to connect the beaches" at the 2003 Town Meeting, "public good",  "emergency", "general municipal  purposes", and various references to "recreation", "conservation" and "open space"  were used by the authorities as the case proceeded to the conclusion (so far) with the payment of the jury award with Community Preservation Funds and the subsequent efforts for a Conservation Restriction request.

P-SPAN
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
April 6, 2010

Last edited by P-SPAN (2010-01-20 22:54:37)

Offline

 

#62 2010-01-20 22:41:43

WOW!!
Great stuff!!

Offline

 

#63 2010-01-21 18:10:57



They say you get what you pay for...not in this case. To see photos taken today of what we payed (alot) for..but don't get to enjoy..please click here

P-SPAN
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
April 6, 2010

Last edited by P-SPAN (2010-01-21 18:14:58)

Offline

 

#64 2010-01-21 20:42:47

Good for you, P-Span.
What a shame that people can't enjoy their beaches in Town.
I think that things are going to change quickly. Hopefully in time for summer when citizens of Wareham can go back to Swifts Beach.

Offline

 

#65 2010-01-22 18:39:47

How Swifts Beach Used to Look

1952


1977

                                                                           (Click to Zoom)

P-SPAN
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
April 6, 2010

Last edited by P-SPAN (2010-01-22 18:51:55)

Offline

 

Board footer

warehamwater.com