Atkinson Town Hall

Atkinson Town Hall
The Norman Rockwellian picture of Atkinson

There is a NEW POLL at Right--------------------->

Don't forget to VOTE!
Make your voice heard!

Welcome Message and Mission Statement

Welcome to the NEW Atkinson Reporter! Under new management, with new resolve.

The purpose of this Blog is to pick up where the Atkinson Reporter has left off. "The King is dead, Long live the King!" This Blog is a forum for the discussion of predominantly Atkinson; Officials, People, Ideas, and Events. You may give opinion, fact, or evaluation, but ad hominem personal attacks will not be tolerated, or published. The conversation begun on the Atkinson Reporter MUST be continued!

This Blog will not fall to outside hacks from anyone, especially insecure public officials afraid of their constituents criticism.

Monday, February 16, 2009

NEW VIDEO AT RIGHT-------------------------------------->

At right you will notice a block of three videos that appeared on YouTube yesterday. They are the actual video footage of our Town Moderater, falsely quoting the law, in order to stop someone from exercising their rights under the NH Constitution to take photos of town officials in public meetings. This is CLEARLY a violation of RSA 91A:2, II. Which states;

II. Subject to the provisions of RSA 91-A:3, all meetings, whether held in person, by means of telephone or electronic communication, or in any other manner, shall be open to the public. Except for town meetings, school district meetings, and elections, no vote while in open session may be taken by secret ballot. Any person shall be permitted to use recording devices, including, but not limited to, tape recorders, cameras, and videotape equipment, at such meetings.

149 comments:

Anonymous said...

Frank has been holding public meetings for 20 years, he HAD to know what the open meeting law says, He just didn't like the fact that someone challenged his legal advice publicly.

TOO MUCH EGO!!!

Anonymous said...

I'm impressed with the DVD quality sound and picture of these videos.

Anonymous said...

Any person shall be permitted to use recording devices, including, but not limited to, tape recorders, CAMERAS, and videotape equipment, at such meetings.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

I guess, Good-by BLOG

Anonymous said...

ANY PERSON can take a picture of ANY PERSON at a public meeting. How long has he been a mood-erator? How many years?

Anonymous said...

I find it odd then anyone would want to go to the town meeting and take pictures unless it was used for a newspaper article.. Other then that, I as a citizen would not like my picture taken at a meeting for someones person use. My opinion of course. I just find this something that was planed by the people behind this blog. just to create a distraction, and to have something else to whine about.

Anonymous said...

Well, the pictures were only taken of the moderator, and selectmen performing their official duties. They have NO RIGHT to demand, or stop ANYONE from taking pictures FOR ANY PURPOSE!
That is the LAW!
This is why our town keeps getting into lawsuits, because our town officials can't get their ego's out of the way of their duties!
If they would act IN THE TOWNS BEST INTEREST INSTEAD OF THEIR OWN BEST INTEREST then everything would be ok.

Anonymous said...

Since it is mandated by law that anyone can take a picture of ANYONE at a public meeting, if you don't want your picture taken, you should stay away from a public meeting and stay home so you don't have to whine as your pic gets took. How could a photographer possibly PLAN to have his CIVIL RIGHTS be violated by a public official? So you want to SPIN the moderator was tricked into violating the law? I read the published moderator rules given out at deliberative session. I got a copy. Doesn't say you can't take pictures.

Anonymous said...

Gees, you want to whine your picture took with a camera? Then you can whine about the video taken of you that was sent all over town by ACT TV. Boy, you could file a lawsuit against the town officials for taking your picture and broadcasting on TV where anyone can copy it. They did that. My, my, my, wonder if your court case will get thrown out and the town attorney and selectmen will sue you for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

Comment deleted said...

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

Comment deleted said...

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

Anonymous said...

OMG, who was that lady taking pictures at the back of the room by the food stand with a big telephoto lens? What did she do with those pictures? Moderator's attorney - get busy!

OMG, what did the Eagle Tribune do with their pictures? Better to use the town attorney against em and save some dough. Go get em.

Comment deleted said...

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

Comment deleted said...

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

Anonymous said...

GET A LIFE!

Anonymous said...

Whats your problem moderator? This issue important to you but the water issue isn't? Why not seek out springer to screw up the comment in this article also?

Anonymous said...

If you speak the truth, eventually your words become the law of the Universe. If you speak falsely, your words become what?

Anonymous said...

This man in my opinion has just left himself open to be sued. I hope Mr. Brownfield gets a million dollars for this.

There is nothing like asking the public to vote against something that is already a LAW, to show proof positive that YOU BROKE IT. They could all be included in the lawsuit as well.

I JUST HOPE SOMEONE IS SUING THIS GUY!
Under RTK laws, you can audiotape, videotape, and photograph meetings NO MATTER WHAT. I don't see anyone being ''disruptive" in that there is no yelling, not tipping of chairs, etc. That is what "disruptive" means, NOT THE ACT OF TAKING PICTURES ITSELF.

This guy should be locked up in jail, soon.

Anonymous said...

I just watched this again and my blood pressure went up.

The mere ACT of videotaping, audiotaping, or photographing a meeting alone, CANNOT BY LAW be viewed as a 'disruption' and this guy should be SUED, as well as all the people who 'voted' to disallow the RTK provisions.

You cannot VOTE away someone's rights.
I HOPE SOMEONE IS SUING THIS GUY.

Anonymous said...

Sue everybody! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Anonymous said...

Frank's premise is the guy was a disturbance for taking photos and as such the moderator can have him removed. The moderator's argument is lost because the first words out of his mouth were not "stop causing a disturbance". His first words were "Excuse me I would kindly request that you not take my picture." It got ugly from there which led to "I make the rules" and his notion of "your causing a disturbance" and therefore I can have you removed.

Getting everyone to vote on his enterpretation of the law just shows how many people will simply believe whatever Frank says is truth. That part I find very scary.

Frank got emotional and slipped by not getting to the disturbance point, first. Had he done so, I think he would be less vulnerable to liability at least in the PR war. He fell for the bait on videotape no less. I think some people somewhere are saying SUCKER! They got the last laugh on this one Frank. You really blew it big.

Anonymous said...

Just another law suit. I love them' It is the only way the folks in this town are going to smarten up and get the proper officials to run the place.

Anonymous said...

Obviously from the first video, Frank went looking for a fight with Mr. Brownfield. Frank never suspected that a meek guy like that would ever fight back. When he did, Mr. Polito wouldn't admit he misquoted the law an purpose and continued down the road to his own destruction.

Question is why Frank wanted to start a fight in the first place?

Looks to me that Frank started a fight he couldn't finish, and the courts will settle it. Frank should have kept his mouth shut, but everyone knows he can't.

This town needs a new Moderator. Frank has been around too long.

Anonymous said...

Ed Naile said:

The mob that comes with the chief and votes along with him and the so-called moderator are really to blame here.

It is THEY who give these spineless cowards the opportunity to beat up on a very small minority they dislike.

And THAT is thier weakness.

Every town has has cowards and opportunists. Atkinson is a prime example of mobocracy and the endless lawsuits that follow.

Pay close attention to this suit though. If ever there was a chance for a court to make an example of a corrupt meeting and punish those responsible, Atkinson's 2009 Deliberative Session is one.

A town is obligated to pay for a public officer doing his or her job - not to abuse people so blatantly. This payout should come from individuals pockets, not taxpayers or the insurance company.

Lucky for the plaintiffs, Atkinson's power elite has a well documented history of abusing individuals.

This case is a Superior Court case which will be heard in front of a jury if I understand it. I hope they are as angry as anyone outside the Atkinson mobocracy.

Maybe it is time to post the names of all those good Atkinson "citizens" - the mob, who showed up for all NH to see.

That is legal as well.

Anonymous said...

Oooh...tough words by Mr. Naile! He's so sexy when he's angry!

Folks, here's an ironic twist. Most of you claim you stayed away from the deliberative session due to fear of being identified and intimidated. So what does Mr. Ed "I'm too lazy to 'haul' my camera with me" Naile propose? That you identify and POST names of people who attended deliberative session and whose votes you did not agree with! Why should that be done Ed? To INTIMIDATE and BULLY people?

Ed Naile = HYPOCRITE AMBULANCE CHASER PUPPET MASTER

He is such a two-bit,cheap shot artist. Thanks Mark, Leon, and Gary for introducing such trash into our town.

Atkinson Reporter said...

To all those who read this blog. The following comment was removed because it constituted little more than an ad hominum personal attack upon Mr. Springer of Danville, and contributed nothing to the discussion.

Anonymous said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
February 16, 2009 10:02 AM

The Following "comment Deleted" posts were not comments removed by this blogs administrators, but posts by some anonymous prankster, made to look as if posts were removed.

Comment deleted said...

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

February 16, 2009 11:36 AM
Delete
Anonymous Comment deleted said...

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

February 16, 2009 11:37 AM

Comment deleted said...

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

February 16, 2009 11:37 AM
Delete
Anonymous Comment deleted said...

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

February 16, 2009 11:38 AM

Notice that when an outsider tries to post that it says;

"Comment Deleted said" The "said" tells you that someone has posted that comment under the NAME Comment Deleted.

This is what happens when the power of town government is impotent to stop comments that they do not like.

Anonymous said...

How did Ed Naile bully and intimidate people?

I understand you guys trying desperately to concoct the spin to protect your own, but just what did HE do wrong?

I was at that meeting, and he just sat there and watched. And Brownfell just sat there next to him. I was 5 or 6 chairs away, and even when he was taking pictures, he only took 7 or 8, and he did it while sitting in his seat. He was quiet, and disturbed nobody.

Frank, deliberately demanded that he stop doing something he had a right to do, and Frank knew it when he told him that the law said he couldn't. Frank knew it was a lie, when he said that was the Law "he had been taught".

And this is the weasel you try to defend?

And I saw Brownfell, and Artist talking to Naile during the meeting, but Acciard was only there a little while, ad as far as I could tell, had nothing to do with any of them, so why do you keep blaming the three of them for bringing Mr. Naile to town? And why is that bad?

God knows we need somebody to clean this corruption up.

Anonymous said...

Maybe its just me ,then maybe not!! If meetings are recorded on film or by other modern methods then why not let the public take its pictures and ,in most cases of filming, recording of voices ? There maybe some thing that the towns recorder might miss in their camera or in voice due to some error or other misfortune. Open government has to be accountable as do the people participating in the forum before the public and those watching at home. So, why all the opposition to OPEN GOVERNMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY ? Does some one have an agenda or some thing to hide if they are doing the taxpayers work ? They shouldn't if they are doing the taxpayers work!!

Anonymous said...

The extreme differences in opinion on the blog are quite interesting to behold. When you watch the video Frank asks not to have his picture taken. What immediately follows is some low level applause. I think Frank could have said he just farted and the same people would have applauded. I've never seen anything like this behavior anywhere. It is in a word, bizarre. Our town is truly dysfunctional.

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:52,

Perhaps if there were not blogs that had town officials with their faces over Nazis, people would not object to the photographer. The concern was over the intent of the use of the photos.

Anonymous said...

No it wasn't. You tried to anger a person that named you in a lawsuit, in the hopes you could use your position as Moderator to throw him out. Then try to discredit him in court as a hot head.

Your own dirty trick backfired on you, and you got caught in your own trap. Couldn't happen to a better person.

Anonymous said...

To 5:43 and 5:53 , I am not either of you for those who may read this. My concern is only for open straight forward government and not just at the local levels. I feel the right of any person with guts enough to record or film any gathering is and should be a welcome thing to do. My earlier reasons are enough to say no more on the subject. Again, I ask why deny that right when it can and would back up any thing that were missed or non intelligent to ones sight or hearing. Are we to lose our right to know in law as well as our personal knowledge that we deserve as taxpayers ? If we lose these things we then have dictatorship instead of free governing process.

Anonymous said...

OMG will someone show some sanity in this town? Perhaps if there were not blogs??????? I understand now. Let's blame the blogs. Next week we can blame those pesky camera manufacturers. It doesn't matter what the moderator thinks. Heres the RSA text for you once more.

Any person shall be permitted to use recording devices, including, but not limited to, tape recorders, cameras, and videotape equipment, at such meetings.

Do you see that word in there CAMERA. Its an important one. Brownfield was within his rights. Period. End of story. Whether we like it or not. There isn't a judge in this state that will agree with our moderator. The videotape aint gonna look good in court. The RSA is too clear. Judges are not allowed to legislate from the bench and no judge will challenge interpretation of this particular RSA and see his decision get overturned by a superior court. Unfortunately for Frank there are no judges from Atkinson drinking our kool aid. Maybe we could have HAWC run a water line up to Rockingham County courthouse. It just showed why we need new people running our town. Thanks for another lawsuit. We appreciate it.

Anonymous said...

I could be wrong but wasn't the Nazi pics with the faces attached on another local site not of Atkinson making?

Anonymous said...

I almost forgot to mention the author of the Nazi pics has an on going dislike for that towns officials and Unitil from way ,way back.

Anonymous said...

Frank is right all of the time in his own mind. Don't mess with him, or he will yell at you and tell you what a moron you are. How dare anyone stand up to Frank?
Please, give me a break, anyone can question anything anytime. Except here in Atkingdome.

Anonymous said...

Satire is legal folks. Just ask the guy who sued Hustler magazine. Jerry Falwell didn't like the parody of his image. Here is the majority decision which was a unanimous Supreme Court 8-0 decision. I would bet the judges didn't exactly care for Larry Flynt, either.

"At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern. The freedom to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty – and thus a good unto itself – but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole. We have therefore been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions."

The appeal of the political cartoon or caricature is often based on exploitation of unfortunate physical traits or politically embarrassing events – an exploitation often calculated to injure the feelings of the subject of the portrayal.

So when you are a public figure you shouldn't do anything politically embarrassing like deny people their rights not unlike certain dictatorships from history. If the shoe fits....smile you're on candid camera!

Anonymous said...

Now I know why Frank didn't want his picture taken. He deserves having his pic overlaid on a Nazi Thug image. What he did was no different than painting a swastika on the door of a Jewish synagogue. Mr. Polito had no problem trying to embarrass, disparage, humiliate, and degrade Mr. Brownfield in anyway he could in a public forum. He set himself up as an authority that no one could challenge and took a vote(s) on his authority. He did everything he could including lying about RSA’s, Mr. Brownfield being a disturbance, and punctuated it with a threat to throw him out. His actions were enough to insist that he remove himself as Moderator. Guess what……….he didn’t. Mr. Brownfield’s CIVIL RIGHTS were VIOLATED by Nazi Polito. Now………someone please……..get his picture up for this blog. That doesn’t violate Polito’s Civil Rights.

I know he can’t be prosecuted for war crimes, but he can be sued for his actions.

Anonymous said...

I think this is such a waste of time. Mr. Polito was attempting to maintain order in the meeting and, given the fact that Mr. Brownfield and Mr. Naile have stated publicly that the pictures were for Mr. Naile and seeing as Ed Naile has posts on this website saying some very negative things about Mr. Polito, he has every right to question the intent of the use of the photos. If it can be thought that the intent of the photographer is to cast an individual in a false light, the individual does have the right to refuse to be photographed.

Anonymous said...

Make this clear. The intended use of the pictures is not a factor considered by the court. Try to rationalize the moderators behavior is this manner is a confession of intent to harm. Stupidity got you where you are and will keep you there.

Anonymous said...

Anon 7:53,

So much anger...

I suggest you visit:

http://www.photosecrets.com/law.privacy.html

Judge for yourself whether or not this could be considered an invasion of privacy, especially given some of the comments made on this board by Mr. Naile about Mr. Polito. In addition, there is the issue of keeping order during the deliberative session.

This is not as cut and dried as you think it to be.

Anonymous said...

To Anon February 17, 2009 9:04 AM

If that is what you are going to hang you legal hat on, you are in more trouble than you think you are. Good luck trying to confuse the issue using that web site.

The law says Polito violated Brownfield's Civil Rights. It's that simple. Guess you little mind can't wrap its thought process around the facts and law.

Anonymous said...

To Anon @ 6:40;

You conveniently forget some facts here;

1.) Mr. Polito CREATED the disturbance by singling out Mr. Brownfield, who was sitting in his seat, quietly taking pictures, LEGALLY!

2.) Mr. Naile's comments on this blog, and Mr. Brownfield's comments about the intent of his picture taking happened AFTER THE FACT, and can hardly be justification for Frank's Violations of law.

3.)Frank is a public official performing his official duties, HE HAS NO RIGHT to inquire about the intended use of the photos, the LAW, which Frank lied to all of us about, is clear! Anyone can take pictures in ANY public meeting, by ANY means, for ANY purpose.

4.) When Frank said he had been taught that the law forbade cameras, HE WAS LYING! You have read the law, as posted here right from the State's website. HE LIED!

He didn't like having his pronouncements challenged in public, so he lied to back them up, and he got caught! And we are ALL going to have to pay for his ego and his arrogance!

Anonymous said...

To anon @ 9:04;

Frank? All of these comments were after the fact and cannot be justification for Frank's actions!

The law IS clear in NH, and Frank not only broke it, he lied about it!

Anonymous said...

Ed Naile? A two bit cheap shot artist?

But he is so good at it.

Anonymous said...

What you are missing is that he was a public official in a public meeting. There is no privacy right in that context. Nice try Frank, but you can not defend this that easily.

Anonymous said...

Not only that FRANK, but this could turn to a criminal offense. Hope you have plenty of money to spend on you private attorney.

Anonymous said...

Not only that FRANK, but this could turn to a criminal offense. Hope you have plenty of money to spend on you private attorney.

Anonymous said...

Frank is a public official and he is in a public place. However, he requested that he not be photographed. What you are missing is the request part of it and that Mr. Brownfield caused a disturbance during the meeting.

Think of it this way, if you are in a public place like a mall or a park and someone is taking pictures of you and you ask them to stop and they don't, is that intimidating? Now if this is happening while you are trying to conduct a meeting, it is not only intimidating, but it is causing a disturbance.

What you are failing to understand that although he has rights to take pictures in a public place, there are rights of the individuals as well. Especially when their is a request to not be photographed.

Anonymous said...

The moderator has no right to decline his picture being taken in a public meeting out of a potential concern as to how the pictures might be used or distributed by the CNHT newspaper or by Mr. Brownfield himself personally. If the moderator has a subsequent concern, after the pictures are published, he can address that at that time. But the moderator has ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT, in a public meeting, under the law, to PREVENT a photographer from taking photographs of the moderator or anyone else present at a public meeting for any reason. Any photographer taking pictures to be used by a newspaper and/or his own personal use is free to do so, by law. Using the excuse, "I don't know what he is going to do with those pictures AND THIS CONSTITUTES A DISTURBANCE" is not justifiable under the law. A professional photographer, Mr. Brownfield took his pictures AND turned them over to the CNHT newspaper for their use (submitted to CNHT during the Deliberative Session). While Brownfield did not retain a copy of the pictures he does have the right to obtain a copy of his pictures as they are also his own intellectual property, under intellectual property law.

The additional issue is: DENIAL OF FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AT DELIBERATIVE SESSION.

This plus the personal violation of Brownfield's right as a registered voter of the town of Atkinson to take pictures at a public meeting, plus the violation of Brownfield's Right to Know, plus the violation of Brownfield's Civil Rights and Intellectual Rights to photograph and retain his pictures without the intimidation and "chilling impact" of official actions.

DENIAL OF FREEDOM OF THE PRESS suggests additional litigation and penalties.

Anonymous said...

Yawn.

Anonymous said...

Keeping it simple

The law in the United States of America is pretty simple. You are allowed to photograph anything with the following exceptions:

• Certain military installations or operations.

• People who have a reasonable expectation of privacy. That is, people who are some place that's not easily visible to the general public, e.g., if you shoot through someone's window with a telephoto lens.

That's it.

You can shoot pictures of children; your rights don't change because of their age or where they are, as long as they're visible from a place that's open to the public. (So no sneaking into schools or climbing fences.)
Video taping has some more gray areas because of copyright issues, but in general the same rules apply. If anyone can see it, you can shoot it.

And yes, you can shoot on private property if it's open to the public. That includes malls, retails stores, Starbucks, banks, and office-building lobbies. If you're asked to stop and refuse, you run the risk of being charged with trespassing, but your pictures are yours. No one can legally take your camera or your memory card without a court order.
You can also shoot in subways and at airports. Check your local laws about the subway, but in New York, Washington, and San Francisco it's perfectly legal.

Airport security is regulated by the Transportation Security Administration, and it's quite clear: Photography is A-OK at any commercial airport in the U.S. as long as you're in an area open to the public.

Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Anonymous said...

Ed Naile said:

Isn't it ironic that of all the pictures ever taken at any Atkinson meetings it will be the clips from the town of Atkinson's own videos shot at the meeting which do the most harm to the ruling elites.

I have the flash drive with the ten photos Gary Brownfield took at the meeting.

How foolish Polito, Sapia, and Consentino will look when we post these high quality random shots of people at the meeting.

The Atkinson thugs had a bad plan for the Deliberative session and it blew up in THEIR faces.

End of story.

Anonymous said...

If the moderator wants to whine about his picture not being lawfully taken, he should have stepped down and appointed another moderator to take his place, as he did not have the right, to request his picture not be taken FOR ANY REASON at a public meeting and in an official capacity. If there was a disturbance, let me suggest it was moderator who brought it on by failing to follow RSA law.

If the moderator wants to maintain his picture not be taken then he should write that in his own moderator's rules. It isn't there folks! And if it was there it would be a violation of the RSA law. It is all so simple except, perhaps, for the few that spew invalid SPIN against state laws to protect official wrong-doing.

Anonymous said...

I would be interested to hear Curt Springer's opinion on this issue. Curt, what say you? Violation of civil rights or disturbing the peace?

Anonymous said...

To Anon @ 10:26;

Again, you miss the fact that as a public official in a public meeting doing his official duties, Frank HAS NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY, and NO RIGHT to demand that his picture not be taken!

RSA91A:2 is clear! Here it is again, for you, Frank, to try and figure out another line of defense because this one isn't working.

II. Subject to the provisions of RSA 91-A:3, all meetings, whether held in person, by means of telephone or electronic communication, or in any other manner, shall be open to the public. Except for town meetings, school district meetings, and elections, no vote while in open session may be taken by secret ballot. Any person shall be permitted to use recording devices, including, but not limited to, tape recorders, cameras, and videotape equipment, at such meetings.

Anonymous said...

Pleeeeeeeeease stop trying to convince Frank or Jack with FACTS or the REAL LAW. It ruins their day and makes them ugly. It bounds them up and they hate the taste of XLAX. They are professional SPIN-DOCTORS and facts don't MATTER to them.

Stop wasting your time. Let the Judge give them the enema they so truly deserve.

Anonymous said...

After taking only a few pictures and finally getting my settings down; GIVEN THE DISRUPTIVE ACTIONS REGARDING PHOTOGRAPHY BY THE MODERATOR, I did shut my Nikon D300 down immediately, took no more pictures, and turned over my 16 gig card to CHNT during the meeting. (Note: I want that big card back once it can be legally released. I paid $350 for it! Whoever has that card don't misplace it and don't you dare defame it by putting in a Canon Camera.)

One reason I did not shoot any more pictures is it could have provided some lame excuse for the moderator to unlawfully eject me for taking pictures and therefore I would lose MY RIGHT TO VOTE at the Deliberative Session. I will also proclaim that I did not speak to the Warrant Articles for which I gained many signatures to also avoid a potential opportunity for a trumped up excuse for ejection. And I was NOT ejected for creating a disturbance. Take note of that.

For professional photographers and amateur photographers: Those lights on the ceiling look like incandescent lights but they are really fluorescent lamps. So white balance must be adjusted for that. ISO has to be bumped up considerably too as no flash is used. (The D300 is great at extended ISO settings.) So, I learned my lesson and at the next Deliberative Session I can set up to take pictures very quickly.

Is there an RSA as to the size of the telephoto lens I can use? I saw a town citizen shooting with a REALLY BIG ONE. I used a small lens. Hmmmm... can I use my Sekonic L-758DR light meter? Can that be added to the RSA so I can take even better pictures of public officials?

Anonymous said...

OH, Another reason I did not shoot pictures is the group was "poisoned" to such an extent it would have been impossible to shoot. Nothing beats an official "chill" on photographer rights to put the "toxin" into the room that everyone present has the right deny having their picture taken.

Anonymous said...

I am trying very hard to understand the situation. The deliberative session was being videotaped, right? And the moderator didn't want somebody to take his picture even though there is a law that allows cameras, etc.

OK I understand the situation but am trying to understand the logic.
The moderator knew there were video cameras taping the meeting, didn't he?

OK

But he didn't want his picture taken, right?

Video = OK
Cameras = Not OK

I guess I am really dumb because this makes NO FREAKING SENSE! Think about this for a minute. No logic going on here. None. People from outside this town must think we're nuts and I have to agree with 'em.

Anonymous said...

The best part in the meeting was when our moderator acted like a know it all quoting RSA blah blah blah and the idiots in the audience believed every word he said. Now THAT's entertainment. And I give him credit. Its a skill to get a whole room full of people to agree to break the law. I want to hire Frank as a salesmen because he's has a Jim Jones like ability to get the masses to believe really dumb stuff.

I used to think he was a really smart guy. Now I see he's really just good at the con game. He talks a good game and then when he has people's confidence, he abuses their trust and makes up crap to serve his personal agenda. The people are then left to look like fools. I feel bad for them. Next time Mr Know It All quotes you an RSA, you should ask to see it first before you just blindly believe it.

Anonymous said...

Desperate people do desperate things. Polito is just another bully, they all collapse under scrutiny and make stupid mistakes. Polito, Gapia, and Pill Consentino are wrong in this matter and will be reminded of such, in due time, my pretty.

ahahahahahaha

Anonymous said...

Here's what I don't get...

Two days before this meeting the Town get served notice that it and Phil, Frank, and Jack are being sued. The usual culprits.

So, If you just got told you are a defendant in a lawsuit, why would you pick a fight in a videotaped public meeting 2 days later, with the guy who is suing you?

Anonymous said...

Cause Polito and the rest are S-T-U-P-I-D!

Curt Springer said...

I was online early this morning, then my internet connection went south until this evening.

So I didn't read any of the deleted comments, some or all of which pertained to me.

Anonymous@February 17, 2009 11:15 AM
wrote:

I would be interested to hear Curt Springer's opinion on this issue. Curt, what say you? Violation of civil rights or disturbing the peace?

I had resolved not to participate in this discussion, as I was not there and I am not sure that I will actually add to what has already been said.

But as a participant in this blog, not necessarily to the pleasure of others, I feel an obligation to respond to direct questions.

The law is clear. Cameras may be used to record meetings. IMO a meeting includes everyone who is there, not just people who speak. Your moderator seems to think that there is some difference between a video camera aimed at the microphone and a camera aimed at members of the audience. There is none.

Also, your moderator seems to think that members of the press have greater privileges than the rest of us. There is no such distinction in the law.

I agree that nobody has the right to disrupt the meeting. But your moderator asserted no particular disruptive behavior, such as walking up to people while they are talking and putting a camera right in their faces. He clearly asserted that simply taking a picture was disruptive.

And of course the rights under RSA 91-A are not subject to votes of the persons attending the deliberative session.

Also there was a court case involving the Union Leader that established that the motivations of somebody asserting rights under RSA 91-A are not to be questioned. Thus from a legal POV Mr. Brownfield's reasons for taking photos are not to be considered.

I don't think the video record is complete. My understanding is that at some point Mr. Brownfield blocked the cable TV camera. I think that should be presented as well. Two wrongs do not make a right. The denial of his rights did not justify him interfering with the rights of others to record the meeting.

And while Mr. Brownfield's motives have no legal bearing, they are not beyond discussion. I wonder if Mr. Naile and Mr. Brownfield set a trap, and your moderator took the bait.

I did some research. I called my dad, Clint Springer of New Castle. He is 84 years old today (Wed), a former selectman, and frequently photographed by the Portsmouth Herald at his (traditional) town meeting. I think it is because he has a certain presence, a 30 year old trapped in the body of an 84 year old. Anyhow, I asked him if the paper had ever asked permission to take or publish his photograph, and he replied "never". I explained the circumstance of my question and his response was "gimme a break."

Regarding talk of law suits, it seems to me that if there were to be a law suit based on this incident, it would have been filed by now. I haven't made any study of RSA 91-A law suits, but my sense is that the judge would probably just say don't do it again. The one issue would be whether the petitioners' legal expenses would be payable by the town or by your moderator personally. There is case law on this but I'm not familiar enough to make a guess as to how this would come out. but I would think it would be no more than a thousand or two, basically chump change in the scheme of things.

Anonymous said...

I remember grade school when the school yard bully would have his way and punch and intimidate me day, after day, after day. I was small and his victim and I had no big time attorney to protect me. That's for sure. I was just helpless. But there was this other little boy in the yard and we became friends. Well, one day the bully came up and punched me from behind. And, to my astonished amazement, my new friend Chuck, promptly kicked the caca out of that bully so hard that he started to moan and cry. That was a big lesson for me. I saw a bully can be put down if you fight back and don't just take it. Next time, I got up the courage to kick the bully myself when he tried to punch me. I WAS FREE! And never again did a bully get his way with me. Never again did I just take it.

There are many little boys and girls who never got to finish the fight with the big bully on the grade school play ground. And they grew up with the haunting memory of that abuse and humiliation.

But it's not too late to FINISH that school yard fight you remember so well. Confront your bully and do your best. Act with courage. And, If your lucky you will have a friend like my friend, Chuck, to show you how to win.

Anonymous said...

Right you are Springer. It's only gonna be a "slap on the hand" and we will continue as if nothing ever happened and our laughter will ring out over our drinks at the Atkinson Country Club. We got it all figured out. He, he, those pesky pukes mean nuttin to us. They can take thir RSA blah, blah, blah AND SHOVE IT.

MAcciard said...

But this is the point,

Our town officials act badly, I believe, because they know that 99.9% of people are not going to spend the time and money to take them to Court. And even if they do, look what damage they suffer to their reputations in town, at those individuals microphones, before verdict is rendered. Hance, they feel they can act with impugnity because even if they are taken to court, there is no personal cost to them, because the taxpayers pay for their personal legal counsel, and pay the judgement also.

And this is the root of the problem.

Anonymous said...

And, for those who would like to comment on the "intelect" of Mr. S. there is:
http://speakoutdanville.blogspot.com/

Anonymous said...

So, how many postings are we going to continue to get regarding this subject Mr. Brownfield?

Noticed you left the meeting early, and suddenly, the great freedom of speech debate starts again, WHILE the meeting is still in session. And, the first article is not entered as a request for posting. It was entered directly, and only a moderator can do that.

You may or may not have a case. But it does show that this blog is clearly biased and has an axe to grind.

We don't have freedom of speech here. We have a bully pulpit.

Atkinson Reporter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Atkinson Reporter said...

This blog was started as a place where people could come and have a conversation about the goings on in town without fear of reprisal form our police chief, or the selectmen. This blog raised the fallen banner hoisted by the original Atkinson Reporter, when the powers that be worked overtime to hack into it.

If this blog has an agenda other than as described above, it is to shine the light of truth upon the corruption of some of our town officials.

We attempt to show what is wrong. When a town official does something laudable, we compliment them on it, and draw attention to their act.

But when town officials act wrong, we show that as well, and it becomes fodder for conversation.

In this particular case, our town moderator overstepped his bounds. In our opinion, He lied about the law, we say lied because he has been in that position long enough to know the law, and he stated he was TAUGHT that the law prevented Mr. Brownfield from taking photos, and if he did not know the law he should have known it, and therefore is, in our humble opinion too incompetent, or too arrogant to hold that post.

We, as taxpayers, do not like being lied to by our public officials, so if Mr. Polito receives criticism here for that erroneous action, so be it! He earned it!

Anonymous said...

Ohhhh, hit a nerve, did we?"

I will agree this town has issues. But, they are not as black and white as this blog makes them out to be.

Mr. Brownsfield, aka, Atkinson-Factor. You wonder why Frank was upset. Look what you did to the chief's image. Photoshop is a powerful tool. Use it myself. Get a person's image and anything is possible. Think that might have been running through his mind?

I have no doubt our town officials know who runs this blog. I'm not one and I figured it out.

Funny how the same topics keep popping up again and again, and it is the moderator(s) writing them. Why do you suppose that is? Frank did something stupid. Moderator Brownsfield did some something even stupider. Hat in front of the cable TV camera. Come on, children do that. You had a point and you completely blew it. How are we supposed to take you seriously now?

Believe it or not, I was once a true believer in this blog. Even tried to get ET to post the address. Now, the fog has been lifted from my eyes and I see it for what it really is. A outlet for those with a grudge. Your grudge may be ligament, but you've created a forum that is entirely one sided. You claim you praise those who have done good. What about all those who helped Atkinson through the ice storm, like the fire department? All I saw were complaints about overtime.

So, when I read anything here written by a moderator, I consider the source. There are right ways to accomplish goals, and there are wrong ways. Portraying this blog as a voice of people is the wrong way because of the people running it. They are anything but neutral.

Time for a new blog, one that is indeed neutral and represents all opinions, not just those who feel they have been wronged. The town is not perfect. Guarantee you, no town is. But you make Atkinson out to be the evil empire and that is simply not true.

That said, I still think Jack Spaia is a total a**hole. One may misrepresent the facts when their understanding of them is flawed, but Jack outright lies and there is no dignity in that.

Anonymous said...

You say this blog doesn't represent the voice of the people, but this blog has no moderation. anybody can post pretty much anything about any topic dealing with the town. The only thing that I can see that get pulled(and even that happens AFTER they are posted) are personal slams that dont have anything to do with the thing being talked about.

There is more freedom of speech here than in a selectmens meeting. At least here the chief isnt going to have his officers remove you for criticizing him.

Anonymous said...

The blog is a symbol of a free voice that's finally been released and there's lots of pent up frustration coming out. Finally a place to speak and say whatever we want. And the crazies have no control over the forum. I bet its driving them nuts!

I doubt the discussions here sway many opinions but I could be wrong. This blog is simply representative of the want and need for change in a town that is controlled by a few who consistently break the law. Here are the things that are really most important from our town officials. Follow the law is all we want. Abusing the badge to silence critics is wrong and must be stopped. Misusing tax dollars to hand out vote buying obligations is wrong. Asking for donations from the obligated seniors is also wrong. Running a political wing from the PD is wrong. Using town counsel for a personal attorney is wrong. Paying your personal legal fees with taxdollars is wrong. Abusing citizens rights at deliberative session is wrong. Dragging a police officer with you to intimidate someone to give up there pictures is wrong.

These are a few of the things that are really important. In this blog they see the light of day. Some may not like what they read. They have the option not to read here. This is our free speech being expressed. Like it or not, it is our right. Get used to it. This is just the begining.

Anonymous said...

Who can possibly be sure of who Atkinson Factor is? Only Atkinson-Factor knows conclusively by process of self-elimination that one is not the other, or, in other words, they are not one and the same. Bravo to the mystery of the true identity of Atkinson Factor. Whoever that is. I, myself think the true identity of Atkinson Factor is Curt Springer.

Anonymous said...

Atkinson Factor... Good job finding a picture that looks like our Chief. I like the 'Indian Chief' one the best.

Anonymous said...

Hey, don't call Mr. Sapia such a nasty word. Calling him names like that causes your credibility to vanish.

Anonymous said...

Plus + + + it is dishonorable. BE more creative with your pen>>>

Anonymous said...

I will say this, Atkinson-Factor (whoever he or she is) does like photography. Is that a clue???

Mr. Brownfield, as you are one of the "bullied three" in town, how come you do not post with your name like Mr. Acciard and Artus? We can tell your writing style anyway...

And let's be honest, you've said some rotten things (anonymously) here! Everyone knows it!

You may think of this board as a symbol of free speech, but I think the bullied are the bullies here! And they have done nothing but to divide the town and place it in a negative light.

Anonymous said...

The bullied three?
Currently there is;

Leon Artus, Garry Brownfield, Mark Acciard, to a lesser degree Patricia Goodrich,

Before them there was;

Carol Grant, Ken Grant, Eddie Grant

Brian Kaye
Eleanor Zaremba
Jane Cole
Elaine Woodbury
Brian Boyle
Officer Gary Lorden
Officer Michael Rivera
Dale Childs
Fred Childs
Officer Scott Wood
Officer Rick Daniels
Selectman Wayne Peak

The List of the bullied in Atkinson is long and distinguished, and the common denominator in ALL cases.... Our police chief accused of doing the bullying!

The names change, but the cause remains the same.

Anonymous said...

TO anon February 19, 2009 7:11 AM

No, Phil Consentino, Frank Polito, Jack Sapia, Boards of Selectmen etc. have divided the town and put a negitive light on it. This blog only exposes their illegal behavior.

Get rid of the illegals and this blog would be able to talk about all the good issues that come from it.

Oh, almost forgot. You support illegals. Guess no good comes from talking to you.

NEXT?

Anonymous said...

Anon (Gary) 8:14,

See what I mean about the bully here. Get rid of everyone you want in town and it won't matter. Local cranks will always find something to complain about. Your not happy unless your unhappy.

Next?! What am arrogant pant load you are. So much for discourse....

Anonymous said...

No, just want to get rid of the Atkinson Mafia, and put good honest, decent people in office that know the law and work for the people.

Oh, and the way you STRUT YOUR STUFF...........appears that it is you that has a pant full. Suggest you clean up your act.

Anonymous said...

Oh Oh, they are bacccccccccck! Set the snares, start the fire..............

HERE PIGGY, PIGGY, PIGGY

Anonymous said...

Cans I gets me some of your pig meat? I wants some of dat. Dont you tryin to give me no mystery meet or bullie-beef. I wants me genuine roast pork bellie. Whens the feed?

Anonymous said...

TO anon February 19, 2009 9:16 AM


“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace.

We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.

May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!” Samuel Adams

Anonymous said...

How come STEVE is always left off the bullied list? duh?

Anonymous said...

Steve who?

Anonymous said...

you must be new to town.

Anonymous said...

That's Right, forgot about that one! Add Steve Lewis to the bullied list!

Any more to add.....

Phil, how many more are there?

Anonymous said...

Phil is not talking. First time we've seen the selectmen put a muzzled on the guy. Oh, forgot.........selectmen are to scared to that so must be Polito. Oops, Polito isn't that smart, must be his wife. No, that doesn't work either.

Muzzle on the Chief? Bet he must be chewing his own arm off about now. Couldn't happen to a better guy. Makes him UGLY not being able to pick on some old person.

Perhaps he should call his attorney to complain!

AAAAAAAAAaaaaah that's the answer. His attorney put the muzzle on. Wonder what that's costing us? (That’s got to be an ugly picture to put in the ET.)

Anonymous said...

Chief is not photogenic. Every picture you see of him makes one think he has a TWISTED BOWEL. How ugly can you get?

Anonymous said...

HOW MANY MORE MR. MODERATOR, HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW MANY MOOOOOOOOOOOORE MUST SUFFER or die under your or the Chief's "REIGN of TERROR" befooooooooooooore the HAMMER OF JUSTICE is LEVELED UP0N YOUR HEADS? HOW MANY MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORE MR. MODERATOR HOW MANY MOOOOOOOOOOOOOORE?

Anonymous said...

Mr. or Mrs. Moderator.

You remove justifiably critical but truthful comments about Springer by calling them ad hominum personal attacks.

But you allow ad hominum personal attacks against Ed Naile. See Feb. 16, 3:56 pm. Your bias is showing.

Anonymous said...

Anon 7:36 pm.

You're right. Ed Naile is not sexy when he is angry! The rest is all true though....

Anonymous said...

Oh Oh, they are bacccccccccck! Set the snares, start the fire..............heat the frying pan. I can taste them now. BURP!

HERE PIGGY, PIGGY, PIGGY

Curt Springer said...

Anonymous@February 19, 2009 1:08 AM wrote:

I, myself think the true identity of Atkinson Factor is Curt Springer.

LOL. 'taint me, I've never used Photoshop. Maybe it's Dennis Herrick, he's certainly put a lot of effort into photoshopping Plaistow officials. :-)

If I were to endeavor to make some sort of clever picture out of your chief, I would make him some product on a supermarket shelf with a way expired "sell by" date. If I had to make a bet on what will remove him from office, my money would go on the passage of time, in view of how close he is to the biblical three score years and ten, not a mega-lawsuit, not criminal charges, not town meeting votes, not selectmen actions.

Anonymous said...

February 19, 2009 7:36 PM

Just call the moderator Mr. Brownfield. It fits and he's not denying it (though I'll admit that in itself is not proof). But, good enough for me.

Anonymous said...

To Springer: You think? You a betting man? How much money do you have? I'll bet he's gone under a plea agreement within 14 months.

Curt Springer said...

I don't know how much money I have. A lot less than a year ago. :-(

There's a lot of big talk here. We'll see.

Anonymous said...

TO ANON: (Jack Sapia) known liar to all Atkinson Citizens. February 19, 2009 7:54 PM

Nice try to discredit Mr. Brownfield. You admit YOUR interpretation of him is good enough for you. Not good enough for thinking taxpayers. Take a hike.

Your pants are full of it (JUST LIKE YOU) and your reasoning is corrupt. Just like you. No decent people want to be associated with you. Why? Cause you stink., smell, and have the flavor of our septic system being pumped.

Anonymous said...

Springer, you think it's funny that people have less money than they had a year ago? That may be funny to you, but not to us. You just showed your ture colors. I want you to pay my share of the bailout, cause you have it and we don't.

Anonymous said...

Sapia, Springer...........what ta hell is wrong with you two? Did you hide behind the door when GOD passed out brains?

Anonymous said...

I know who the moderator is now. That guy behind runnin CNHT. I saw they got 3 videos there. I read it................

If this moderator did not want his photograph taken specifically, he had the right to leave the room. He did NOT have ANY right to call a ‘vote’ to give special rights to the press and none to the citizens. Members of the press get NO preferential treatment, and under the RTK law, EVERYONE is considered to be ‘the press’.

The rest of the attendees should also be held accountable since they participated in what we are sure will be determined an illegal vote.

This moderator is clearly out of line in our opinion and should be made to step down from his position for this blatant violation and for attempting to determine ‘rights for some, but not for others’. Watch the videos and see for yourself.

http://www.cnht.org/news/2009/02/16/atkinson-moderator-votes-away-a-citizens-rights/

Anonymous said...

Look for the Polito pic under News topics. that photo guy can sure cook.

Curt Springer said...

Anonymous@February 19, 2009 8:18 PM wrote:

Springer, you think it's funny that people have less money than they had a year ago?

Didn't you see the frowny face I put after my statement -- :-(

Anonymous said...

To Springer February 19, 2009 8:39 PM Who said:

Didn't you see the frowny face I put after my statement -- :-(

Yes we did, but we also saw you say: I don't know how much money I have.

Soooooooo, if you can't keep track of your own money, you are an idiot who wants to give us advice. Until you can control your own life, don't be giving us advice.

Question: Are you and Sapia IN BED TOGETHER? Our guess is yes. You have a incestuous relationship with our elected officials. No doubt you are and are like them...........something we stepped in and can't get off the bottom of our shoes. You and Sapia are so FULL OF YOURSELF, you don’t know your pants are full of.............. SH.T!

You are what is in your pants……..and you stink.

Like Sapia…………..TAKE A HIKE! Visit him on weekends when your wife is away.

Anonymous said...

Oh, my! Springer and Sapia in bed together? Would like to know who would concede to being the BITCH! Our guess it would be Sapia. Sapia has ALWAYS been servant to SPRINGER. Wanna see how dynamics change.......... throw Phil into the equation.

Curt Springer said...

To anonymous@February 19, 2009 9:47 PM

Like many middle class middle-aged people these days, I have some money invested. I get statements every month. The value goes down every month. I suppose I could log into various web sites to get daily updates of the bad news, but I don't have the time, or frankly, the interest (no pun intended). So I truly don't know how much money I have today. Who does?

As for everything else you wrote, I think you need to be sedated. SMILEY FACE --> :-)

Curt Springer said...

Anonymous@February 19, 2009 10:01 PM wrote:

Oh, my! Springer and Sapia in bed together? Would like to know who would concede to being the BITCH! Our guess it would be Sapia. Sapia has ALWAYS been servant to SPRINGER. Wanna see how dynamics change.......... throw Phil into the equation.

Wow this is like something in those tabloids at the supermarket checkout.

I think some of you are convinced that Sapia is behind all the evildoings in Atkinson, either directly or as some sort of catalyst.

So now you are saying that he is my "servant" or even my "bitch"? Wow, does that mean that I have been pulling all the strings in Atkinson? I did not know that!!! DOUBLE SMILEY FACE: :-) :-)

Anonymous said...

Springer.......stop the excuses. You don't have time to track your expenses or your worth, yet you spend soooooooooo much time here sprewing your knowledge? What ta hell is wrong with you? You want to disparage us with sedation? It's YOU that needs sedation and counseling.

Get off your high horse and come down to reality. Check your pants because you are to full of yourself. (just like your pants) and there is a reason why you stink.

Curt Springer said...

To anonymous@February 19, 2009 10:17 PM:

OK, we've established one thing this evening:

You have no sense of humor whatever.

TRIPLE SMILEY FACE --> :-) :-) :-)

Anonymous said...

Curt,
When the bullies get bullied they sue. What say you shouldn't have to take these personal attacks on yourself and perhaps papers should be sent?
sue,sue,sue for slander of post's
9:47 and 10:01. I smell blog piggy.

Anonymous said...

Sapia as moderator. In a sinister way, that would make sense.

But, take a long look at the Atkinson-Factor website. Bigfoot is trying to make a point, but in a juvenile way. Then, Mr. Brownfield covers the TV camera with his hat. One could argue, that was juvenile.

But, the final brick in this house, Mr. Brownfield leaves early from the Deliberative Session, and while it is still in progress, an entry from the moderator screaming violation of freedom of speech.

We know Mr. Brownfield likes cameras, he said so. Last year he went through the whole session with a laptop in his lap. He knows photography, he knows computers. Setting up a blog on Google is child's play. Most of you could do it. Doesn't take a great leap of faith to put two and two together given Mr. Brownfield's obvious grudge against the town.

Curt, he is just an obnoxious distraction. This blog is being run by a person(s) who have a score to settle. I put the (s) in because I believe there may be a second person with moderator privileges. His gripe may be legit, but he is also fanning the flames of discontent.

Also, consider this. The moderator of a forum has powerful tools at his disposal. He can enter topics directly without requesting they be posted. Look at past topics. Do you see any of these recent critiques entered as requests?

Also consider this, carefully. The moderator may have access to the IP addresses of those viewing and submitting to the blog. He may not be able to tie names to those addresses, but he may know by pattern who is doing the talking.

So, you think this forum is anonymous? Think again my friends. The moderator knows a lot more than you wish him to know.

You want to post truly anonymous, use a web proxy that disguises you address. I use www.ninjacloak.com .
My entries cannot be tracked so I am free to say anything I want, so long as the moderator does not delete it. That I cannot overcome.

What you need to now, what you need to realize, is that the basis of this forum is biased, and that you are not truly anonymous. Mr. Brownfield, and a possible second moderator, know a lot more about you that you would like.

The Internet is a powerful tool. But, if you have the knowledge, it can also reveal a great deal.

Try this. Google your name, both with and without your middle initial. Observe what is out there. If you are not shocked, then you've been off the grid. Good for you.

Anonymous said...

Yes, we have a GREAT sense of humor in this town but no use for an idiot. You admit to not knowing your worth while trying to tell us what to do. Take your knowledge of RSA's (misquoted) and stick them with your knowledge of your personal finances.

Take your TRIPLE SMILEY FACE --> :-) :-) :-) and command respect from Sapia while in bed together. (Doesn't impress us)

We are guessing you will win the contest between two idiots.

Our guess is Sapia will be the BITCH. What's your guess? (be honest) Will you be his BITCH?

Anonymous said...

So what is the "axe to grind" of the blog owners/moderators?

This should be good.

Anonymous said...

On CNHT site there's

//The rest of the attendees should also be held accountable since they participated in what we are sure will be determined an illegal vote.//

Anonymous said...

Curt......Curt........where are your ALL KNOWING ANSWERS? You fading along with Jack?

Earth to Curt........WHERE ARE YOU?

Anonymous said...

This moderator is clearly out of line in our opinion and should be made to step down from his position for this blatant violation and for attempting to determine ‘rights for some, but not for others’. Watch the videos and see for yourself.

http://www.cnht.org/news/2009/02/16/atkinson-moderator-votes-away-a-citizens-rights/

Anonymous said...

Curt-Jack, Jack-Curt...........where are you? Are you married, just living together, or have visitation rights? Please don't make us
look up PUBLIC RECORDS to verify.

Curt.....please don't make us verify your incestuous relationship with Jack.

Anonymous said...

Atkinson Chairman of the Board-Jack Sapia-lies to taxpayers and fellow Selectmen. Freedom of speech is denied to citizens by Sapia. Board allows theft of personal property. Evidence of harassment of citizen and denial of personal freedoms during election season.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Br-kRj0qOc&eurl=http://atkinsonreporter2.blogspot.com/

Anonymous said...

HELLO...............JACK........CURT............WHERE ARE YOU?

Anonymous said...

Curt,

Don't the the naysayer get you down. I'm pretty sure most of these posts are from Mr. Brownfield. I am also sure the anon piggy posts are from Ed Naile of CNHT. It has his twisted humor all over it.

By the way, did you have a chance to watch the videos? I think you are correct in that Mr. Brownfield was conspiring with Ed Naile to set a trap. Especially telling was Brownfield's request to know if the moderator was going to ask the body to vote on deleting his photos. It's as if he was saying, pleeeeease violate my rights!!!

What a joke! The judge will see this too!

Anonymous said...

Curt...........do you really want to continue your incestuous relationship wiih Jack? We think jack will go to...............well you know.

What do you say?

Anonymous said...

Curt,

Be careful what you say regarding what jack says he wants you to say.

We like you in some ways, but not in all ways. Take a stance and so will we.

It's crunch time. Where will you stand?

Anonymous said...

Hello............Curt............time to make a decision. No one cares where Jack stands. We do care where u stand. Tell us now, or forever hold your peace.

Curt Springer said...

To Anonymos@February 19, 2009 11:32 PM:

Thanks for your comments. I'm getting the sense that a simple stupid RSA 91-A violation is not going to be pursued as a 91-A violation, but as evidence of some grand conspiracy.

I don't recall having any sort of relationship with Jack Sapia. I don't even recall meeting him. But everything in this blog is true, so it must be that I'm suffering from early onset Alzheimer's disease. And it's said that our relationship is "incestuous." So we must be close blood relatives. Hmmm, my parents never told me about that. I thought we were total Yankees, but there must be some Italian in the blood lines. Hmmm, my mom's name is Francesca, it must be that her maiden name was Sapia, not Judkins as she told me. Jack and I must be first cousins. Kissing cousins as it were.

QUADRUPLE SMILEY FACES --> :-) :-) :-) :-)

Curt Springer said...

Anonymous@February 20, 2009 12:06 AM wrote:

Hello............Curt............time to make a decision. No one cares where Jack stands. We do care where u stand. Tell us now, or forever hold your peace.

Where do I stand on what, exactly. I already gave my opinion on the incident at the deliberative session.

Anonymous said...

Curt,

Nice attempt to dodge. It doesn't work for anybody. Sorry you don't have a close relationship with your family. It explains why you deny your relationship with Sapia.

Also explains your attempt to dodge your knowledge of 91-A.

You think 91-A is stupid? You don't recall? You sound like Clinton to us! Doesn't work. Been there..........Done that! Take a hike ......Stupid.

Live by he sword....die by the sword.

Anonymous said...

People. please be focused on issues. It is getting so weird.
-And whoever is trying to portray me as moderator of this site, I'll tell you, I don't have the time to do that. I think you have to be retired or semi-retired to put out that kind of time and energy. My attention is elsewhere. But I do know who the moderator is. (It's Michael Milken. Wait, no, its James Levine and that's a fact.)

Anonymous said...

And no one is going to read what you write, if you lose control and it looks silly. Think it over.

Anonymous said...

Curt.......

We thought you were much younger than you are by your posts. Apparently you mislead us. (Not the first time) You are much older than we thought. Thank you for clarifying your age and may we extend our most sincere regrets that you are suffering from Alzheimer's disease. That explains a lot with your not remembering your relationship with Sapia.

Our best thoughts will be with you. Would have said we would pray for you, but know you don’t believe or wouldn't remember there is a "Higher Being" to look over you. Accordingly, we are unable to help you in any possible way. We wish you the best for your situation. So, if you post here again on this blog……….we will understand and take it for what it’s worth. May GOD have MERCY ON YOUR SOUL.

Curt Springer said...

To Anonymous@February 20, 2009 1:55 AM:

I was going to thank you for your kind thoughts but now I can't remember what you wrote.

OK this is getting silly. ;-)

Will take my serious pills in the morning, if I can remember. :-)

good night all

Anonymous said...

Good night Curt....That's the most intelligent thing you have said all day. Only hope you remember tomorrow. Rest well.

Anonymous said...

and Curt..........don't let Jack sneak up behind you while in bed.

Anonymous said...

One of you will like it.

Anonymous said...

Are we going to discuss the issues or continue with this gay fest dialog?

Lets get back to reality folks.

Anonymous said...

I agree! Someone needs to go back on their meds!

Anonymous said...

WOW! I think someone needs to get a life. Pretty sad that someone is posting about Curt Springer at 2 AM. Can you say LONELY?

MAcciard said...

I have to say, I really enjoy reading and responding to this blog each day. I enjoy the frank(no pun intended) discussion of ideas and events in the town I have lived in for 41 years. But I also have to say, when this blog degenerates into smarmy little comments about Mr. Sapia, rather than his actions, or Mr. Springer, rather than the merits of his comments, I feel less than enthused about reading this, and I refuse to participate in useless drivel of that sort.

I ask my fellow bloggers, would it be possible to raise the standard of discussion a little?

Thank you

Anonymous said...

Mark,

I agree 100%. And let's be honest, if ever there was a power couple at the deliberative session, it was Ed Naile and the wedding photographer. Ed's constant homophobic references here and on other boards, makes one wonder what does he have to hide...

Curt Springer said...

OK, back to reality.

Anonymous said...

Saturday Feb 14

Texas Judge Forces Topix To Unveil Info About Anonymous Commenters
While plenty of other countries don't provide very much protection to anonymous commenters online, US courts have time and time and time and time again found that it's important to protect the rights of anonymous speech online. That doesn't mean that you can say anything you want -- but it does mean that a court should be quite clearly convinced that the speech violates the law before allowing any progress in an attempt to unmask an anonymous participant. Unfortunately, it looks like a judge in Texas has ignored all of that. Topix, the online news aggregation and local community site, has apparently been told by a judge to cough up identifying information on 178 formerly anonymous commenters on the site. The details are still a little unclear from the article linked here -- but it looks like the commenters were discussing a sexual harassment case that was happening in Texas. In that case, the defendants were found not guilty, but apparently the online comments on Topix got somewhat nasty. So the couple, fresh off being acquitted of sexual assault charges, sued 178 different anonymous commenters -- and the judge seemed to have no problem ordering Topix to turn over any identifying information it had on those commenters. This is troubling for a variety of reasons, as it does not appear that the court spent much time in determining whether or not actual libelous statements were made -- it just ordered Topix to hand over the info. Previous courts have found that even if the commenters were being jerks and totally obnoxious, that doesn't take away their right to anonymity. So why is this judge so willing to wipe away anonymity?
Read full story from techdirt.com

Read All 12 Comments
Read All 12 Comments

Posted by: Spanish Mike Alvarez

Full Story: techdirt.com

Anonymous said...

That case in Texas is on appeal and will be thrown out. Nice try to intimidate people. It won't work as people will find out their anonymity is protected. Just like you tried to intimidate over picture taking. The truth came out.

Anonymous said...

Oh, I didn't realize you were a visionary that knows what the courts will decide. Can you pick my lottery NUMB ers for me Mr. Blah, Blah, Blah.... ps I didn't try anything B.Bungle.

Anonymous said...

Once a bully, always a bully. Correctional facilities are filled with bullies.

LegalBeagle said...

For your information, there has been no ruling in that case yet.

Plaintiff filed action, and the Judge said produce requested information.

Topix, is very likely in the process of perfecting an interlocutory appeal for a ruling on the first ammendment rights of it's clientele. An appeal likely to be successful, unless the Plaintiff can demonstrate specific damage resulting from the comments of each of those 178 John Does. And Each one of those John Does may file for an injunction against the production of this information, which will serve to put the production of those names off for years even if the Court should ignore established U.S.Supreme Court precedent.