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, June 22, 2009

Our Atkinson moderator was WRONG?

Anonymous said...

ARTICLE SUBMISSION PLEASE:

Our Atkinson moderator was WRONG?

Someone please tell me it ain't so. I rely on him for knowing all there is about RSAs and running deliberative session. He and his attorneys now admit after getting nearly everyone in deliberative to vote along with his interpretation of 91-A he was mistaken. How did it happen?

I read the RTK Lawsuit Response 2009 found on the Atkinson Taxpayer website. I found reference to the 2009 deliberatvie session incident with Brownfield and Polito when our moderator did not want his picture taken.

Page 9, item 37 states

"Thus, while Mr. Polito’s understanding of 91-A was incorrect, his position was taken in complete good faith."

Page 16, item 6 states

"As to plaintiff Bownfield’s RSA 91-A claim, neither he, nor any of the other plaintiffs, is entitled to relief. Mr. Polito honestly, but mistakenly, was unaware that 91-A expressly allowed citizens to use still photography cameras (as opposed to video, movie and sound recording), and he based that understanding on his recollection of information from a memorandum from the Attorney’s General office. He has since learned that the statute expressly allows persons to use still photography cameras."

The defense admits our moderators understanding of 91-A was incorrect. Its one thing to make a mistake and its another thing to lead an entire legislative body to vote along with your incorrect understanding. I found the excuse funny. They blamed it on a memo from the Attorney General. Of course. Hey at least they didn't blame the police chief.

Did he have to blow it on 91-A? It couldn't have been on some other remote little RSA it had to be 91-A. Mr. Moderator please don't ever quote me an RSA again unless you have a hard copy to show so I can read it for myself so the town doesn't get sued based on your interpretation or mistaken recollection.

Go see the document for yourself. Maybe the next time our moderator starts interpreting RSAs for the rest us we should ask to see a copy of the RSA before we all follow along blindly to his interpretation of the law. Ya think?

The Atkinson Taxpayer web site serves a purpose. Let people read the documents & think for themselves without anyone's spin.

http://www.atkinsontaxpayers.org

230 comments:

1 – 200 of 230   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

Mr. Polito always brought his little RSA book to deliberative session in past years. Anytime someone questioned him; he would stop the meeting and look up the correct answer. I believe he had it with him in 2009, so why didn't he stop the meeting when Mr. Brownfield and others questioned him about it?

Another taxpayer asked him to step down as moderator, if he didn't want his picture taken during a public meeting. He refused.

I think I know the answer after watching the video and reading the lawsuit details. Mr. Polito was "gunning for a fight" and he got it. He intentionally misquoted the law in order to intimidate Mr. Brownfield. Mr. Brownfield didn't buy his answer and complained.

Since Mr. Polito violated the law and Mr. Brownfield's civil rights, Mr. Brownfield had no choice but to sue the Town. This suit arose because of Mr. Polito not Mr. Brownfield. In my opinion It was a conspiracy of the political machine within in this town.

What would you do if someone wanted to take your right away? Especially, if that person was a politician who wanted his own rights and yours too?

Anonymous said...

Gee, after 9/11 GW went on a "take away our rights" rampage. Where was the outrage then?

"Mr. Brownfield had no choice but to sue the Town."

Yes, he did have a choice. He could have asked for an apology. But no, with the suit happy bunch he belongs to that was not a consideration. With all this talk of taxpayer rights, what does he do, sue's us taxpayers.

Oh, and the hat over the TV camera was a nice little bonus. Childish, simple childish.

Anonymous said...

Moderator didn't want his pic taken. Video guy disobeyed moderator's ruling his pic can't be taken. Video should a been turned off. Hat was right.

Anonymous said...

Twenty years of training and our Moderator doesn't know the basics of 91-A? He advises people as to the law years on end, and he can't get this one right?

What else has he gotten wrong and we didn't catch it? How many more votes has he wrongly influenced? How many other civil rights violations has he managed to get away with?

If Polito loses this court case, he should never be allowed to serve in any political position again.

Honest mistake, my foot. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, period. (That's the law) If it’s proved he broke the law, he should pay the price.

Just may opinion

Anonymous said...

It's hard to believe we are approaching July and still discussing the events of the January deliberative session.

At this point, it will be up to a judge to decide who was right and who was wrong. It's so ugly, I can't see a settlement on this case.

After reading the lawsuit and the counter claims from the town, it is clear to see there no one is innocent here. It seems like Brownfield, Artus, and Naile were also "gunning for a fight" as well. And since the counter suit is on the Atkinson Taxpayers website and it is a public document, it must be a fact, and therefore it is the truth. At least, that seems to be the logic I generally see applied to this equation. No spin there, right?

I would have to say the timing of the blog signs going back up in town just before deliberative session, as well as the posting of the lawsuit notice here certainly would appear as if there was an organized effort afoot to direct people to the blog to read about the pending lawsuit. And let's not forget about Mr. Brownfield practically begging Mr. Polito to ask for a vote at meeting to delete his pictures. Clearly, they were trying to bait him further into breaking the law.

Anonymous said...

To Anon June 22, 2009 5:50 PM

This isn't GW or 9-11 it's Atkinson. You're saying Polito saw GW and decided to do the same thing as you claim GW did and it's ok with you? I don't think so.

Polito got caught and must pay the price. Taxpayers can do something on the local level, they can't always do the same at the Federal level.

Polito is no GW. He's just a local thug.

We have many thugs in this town.

Just my opinion.

Anonymous said...

Anon 5:50 p.m. if you watch the meeting, you will see Mr. Polito quite clearly stated that videography was needed to record the meeting. Now whether or not you agree with his claim it was an honest mistake is one thing. But if you truly believe Mr. Polito broke the law and must "pay the price" then so did Mr. Brownfield when he covered the cameras with his hat. Whether it was intentional or unintentional, he still broke the law.

Anonymous said...

jury will decide who broke the law. Video guy violated moderator's law.

Anonymous said...

video = camera that takes many picutures. Hmmmm

Anonymous said...

really, what law says you can't obstruct a video camera?

Anonymous said...

isnt this the guy who quotes the law in selectmens and ZBA meetings for years on end?
Isnt this the guy who spends an hour at the start of every town meeting lecturing us on the law?
Now he claims he didnt know it?
I find that hard to believe!

Anonymous said...

This couldn't possibly be a reaction to that letter notiying the town about the lawsuit, could it? And I read the counter claim and I dont see any facts in there anywhere.

Anonymous said...

"Polito is no GW. He's just a local thug.

We have many thugs in this town."

This is rich. Everyone here hates him so much, but, when he runs for reelection, he repeatedly runs unopposed.

You people are big on words, little on action. You don't like the job he's doing, run against him.

You don't like the way the town is run, volunteer for a committee. Stop complaining and get off your fat asses.

Anonymous said...

Frank always uses that old canard, I always run unopposed, nobody beats me.

It is hard to beat the entrenched incumbent.

Anonymous said...

To Anon June 22, 2009 5:43 PM

The Town officials never admit when they are wrong, they just try to turn the table and shot the messenger. This is their approach anytime a citizen brings an issue to their attention.

It took a lawsuit to get them to admit that Polito broke the law, and they try to say it was an honest mistake. Huh? They admit it in their counter suit, but I see nothing where they issued an apology to Mr. Brownfield.

Let's see...........Town officials break the law then want the abused citizen to issue an apology. Now isn't that rich!

Polito needs to resign now. He broke State law and violated Federal Civil Rights against a taxpayer of Atkinson.

Just my opinion

Anonymous said...

To Anon June 22, 2009 6:59 PM

I think this lawsuit is big on action. Defendants lose, Polito won't have to worry about running again. His ass will be somewhere else.

Anonymous said...

To Anon June 22, 2009 6:59 PM

I think certain citizens did get off their fat asses. They took on the entrenched political machine head on.

The political machine decided they were going to bully those people into submission and broke established laws.

The defamed citizens filed a lawsuit against the machine, and the rest will be decided in Federal Court.

Anything can happen in court, but from what I'm reading on the ATA, the defendant's are not putting on a very good defense. In fact it looks like they are coming from a position of desperation.

If their not careful, their fat asses could be in a lot of trouble.

Anonymous said...

Political machine?! This is a small, NH town we are talking about. This is why this blog has lost its credibility.

Political machine in one post and local thugs in the next.

Anon 5:43, you said: "The Town officials never admit when they are wrong, they just try to turn the table and shot the messenger. This is their approach anytime a citizen brings an issue to their attention."

Can you please be more specific here? I assume you are referring to this year's deliberative session, but since you this happens "anytime a citizen brings an issue to their attention..." I would be interested to see more examples of this.

Reading the lawsuit, it said Frank admitted he was incorrect, now has a better understanding of the RSA, and will not do this again. But an apology is demanded too? Hmmmm...I wonder if the plaintiffs would drop their lawsuit if Frank apologized? I doubt it.

Anonymous said...

Frank has been to moderator school many times. He has lectured us on RTK law, and election law year after year, is it realy believable that he didnt know the law?

Anonymous said...

Why is there a police line set up on Meditation this morning?

What happened?

Anonymous said...

"This is a small, NH town we are talking about." --too small for a nasty political machine.

Ahh, this small town has a political machine. Everybody knows it. You want to see it working? Want proof? Go to deliberative session and watch it or turn on your TV or rent the tape from the library. It is so disgusting that most decent citizens avoid deliberative session like cancer. They turn off the TV and go skiing.

You want to know the answer to the big mystery as to WHY people won't volunteer for committees in this small sleepy town? Answer: the machine stink sends them reeling.

This machine gets pumped up at deliberative session as that is when a small group of 50 or 75 violate the 6,000 voters who don't attend.....carve up the taxpayer dollars and determine WHAT you are allowed to see or WHAT you are allowed to know on your ballot.

So, only few control it. Only a few dominate it. And YOU, dear fellow citizen, allow it. And this is democracy? It begs the question, "Do voters simply abdicate their responsibility to democracy, or is the horror and stink of intimidation so nauseating, they run away?"

Most decent people would rather eat a can of garden worms than attend Atkinson deliberative session or volunteer for a committee.

As to the court case, the court will award justice. Justice is what is needed. The jury can determine a financial penalty commensurate to the crime.

The moderator apology for violation of the law should come after a verdict and award is determined. The apology from the selectmen who knew the laws perfectly, yet sat mute as tombstones, should come after a verdict and award.

A lengthy apology on video is mandated. That will allow the apology to be played repeatedly for future selectmen and future moderators forever. Plus a copy on file at the library so honest citizens of the town and especially children, can view it and learn from it.

Anonymous said...

"Why is there a police line set up on Meditation this morning? "

Well, if you were to listen to this group of blowhards and their conspiracy theory's it obviously must be the police have identified someone associated with this blog and they are probably in there right now violating every right he has, probably with bright lights and rubber hoses. After all, everything that happens in this town is part of a bigger conspiracy to subjugate its citizens and tromp on their rights.

Everyone in town government, employed, elected, and volunteer should resign immediately because they have all been tainted by the machine and can no longer be trusted.

This will leave room for those who we can trust and we'll all be standing in line at town hall with RTK and abatement requests. Bring your cameras and hats. Get a lawyer too.

Anonymous said...

Irankinson continues...

"Taking pictures is an increasingly dangerous act in Iran. The police in Tehran confronted citizens who were trying to film near a memorial to Ms. Agha-Soltan on Monday.

Threatening people who have cameras is only the latest in a series of steps by the authorities."

Anonymous said...

Yes, please keep comparing Atkinson to Iran. That will help you earn credibility.

And Anon 8:30 a.m., your message is quite sad really. It is filled with excuses as to why your are not happy in our town. You must have an excuse for everything in your life you are not pleased with, right? Never your fault. You're the victim, eh?

How dare you question my knowledge of democracy! While I agree with you that it is disgusting most citizens avoid deliberative session,you, MY DEAR CITIZEN, are fooling yourselves if you think it is the "political machine" that is causing this. And it is the political machine that prevents people from volunteering. I'll bet that is the excuse you tell yourself when you didn't want to go to deliberative session or volunteer your extra time. It's not me, it's the machine! So sad.

Yes, let this go to a judge. And if the plaintiffs lose, what will you say then? Activist judges? Status quo? Always the victim my friend...always the victim...

Anonymous said...

Irankinson continues...

"At one time, authoritarian regimes could draw a shroud around the events in their countries by simply snipping the long-distance phone lines and restricting a few...

But this is the new arena of censorship in the 21st century, a world where cellphone cameras, Twitter accounts and all the trappings of the World Wide Web have changed the ancient calculus of how much power governments actually have to sequester their nations from the eyes of the world and make it difficult for their own people to gather, dissent and rebel."

Anonymous said...

Anytime Atkinson gets involved in a lawsuit, our public officials always say they can't discuss it because it's an ongoing suit. My wife and I have always complained they were keeping facts form us. We feel we have a right to know as thing progress.

I for one like the ability to see each filing on the ATA web site, so we can follow the case as it unfolds.

I would like to thank the people of the ATA for their hard work, and look forward to any additional filings made by both sides. I think it will be a long time before a jury gets to hear this case and that we will be talking about it for months to come.

Thank you

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:54,

So true. Rumor has it the political machine will force women in Atkinson to wear Birkas within a week. Ohhh....we are so oppressed! It's getting dangerous to leave my house for a fresh brewed coffee at Starbucks or the Beanetowne Coffee house. I'm Twittering for the world to see how the Atkinson political machine is oppressing me. You can follow me at @ibelonginhampsteadhospital. I'll send you a tweet.

Tweet. Tweet. Tweeeeeeeeeeeet.

Anonymous said...

Would bloggers please stop the name calling. This is a serious matter.

Anonymous said...

I agree with June 23, 2009 9:41 AM. Comparing Atkinson to Iran is ludicrous and does this blog no favors. When people in Atkinson start getting killed for exercising their rights, well then....

Frankly, I have a very hard time feeling any sympathy for Mr. Brownfield and his associates. Two years ago at the Deliberative Session they made fools of themselves. Same this year. They muster signatures for warrants, but can't fill enough seats to get them passed. Whose fault is that? Rather than a voice of the people they are turning into a bunch of kooks, with the credibility to match.

Frank did something wrong. But he also does a job that no one else seems willing to do. I'm sure some of the conspiracy advocates would claim the "Machine" is preventing anyone else from running for his position, but we know that is not true.

You don't like the job he does, run against him and make sure you have the votes to win. If he continues to run unopposed, whose fault is that? YOURS.

Anonymous said...

From @ibelonginhampsteadhospital:

Tweeeeeeeeeeeet! Someone help me! The political machine has oppressed me. They are forcing me to drink my fresh brewed coffee BLACK! ACK!!!

Tweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet!

Anonymous said...

Our moderator admits he was wrong in court documents. I only have one thing to say to him.

GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!!

Anonymous said...

from @ibelonginhampsteadhospital:

Anon 10:24 is oppressing me too! He or she wants me to stop the name calling. FREEDOM OF SPEECH! FREEDOM OF SPEECH! FREEDOM OF SPEECH! FREEDOM OF SPEECH! FREEDOM OF SPEECH! FREEDOM OF SPEECH! FREEDOM OF SPEECH! FREEDOM OF SPEECH! FREEDOM OF SPEECH! FREEDOM OF SPEECH! FREEDOM OF SPEECH! FREEDOM OF SPEECH! FREEDOM OF SPEECH! FREEDOM OF SPEECH! FREEDOM OF SPEECH!

Tweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet!

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:32 AM!

Holy shit!!!! You told him! Jeez, I'll bet Frank is shaking in his boots now. Here's an idea...run against him next year and see if you can do a better job! Wait, let me guess...you won't bother because the political machine is holding you down. That and you don't want to give up your nights playing poker at Rockingham Park. No...it's the Chief's fault.

Anonymous said...

Here we go again. Polito, Chief, Sapia supporters breaking down a serious discussion with their foolish comments. That tells everyone, they are afraid of what people will learn here. Are these the type of people we want in office?

Anonymous said...

From @ibelonginhampsteadhospital:

Jon and Kate are divorcing! Chief's fault!

Tweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet!

Anonymous said...

If Polito admits he broke the law, why doesn't he issue a public apology on ACT 20, in the newspaper, and send Mr. Brownfield a letter of apology?

It would seem to me, that would be the manly, appropriate thing to do. At that point, it would be up to Mr. Brownfield to accept or not to accept the apology. At least Mr. Polito would have tried to do the right thing.

Anonymous said...

I think Mr. Polito should wear a scarlet RSA-91 on his chest until the next deliberative session. And when not broadcasting meetings, channel 20 can continuously display a picture of Frank with his scarlet letters and a dunce cap. And we should make Mr. Brownfield king of Atkinson and Sir Leon Artus can be supreme protector.

Let's make him pay for him mistake!

I am so glad we are back to serious discussion now. Hey, I'm having difficulty knowing if I live in Atkinson or Iran. Has anyone else had this same problem?

Anonymous said...

I like public apology suggestion.

The clowns trying to change the subject are highly entertaining. the article headline is:

"Our Atkinson moderator was WRONG?"

How irritating these people trying to stay on topic.

Anonymous said...

From @ibelonginhampsteadhospital:

Ed McMahon has passed away. Damn you Chief!!!!

Tweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet.

Anonymous said...

I dont think anybody blames Phil for Franks arrogance. Phil has his own arrogance issues.

Frank didnt want his picture taken. It is that simple! When he was questioned about his decision, he got pissed that anybody would question him, and he had the people vote to stop this bald guy from exercising his rights.

So hey if they told you that you cant speak your mind at town meeting, would THAT be ok too?

Whats the Diff?

Anonymous said...

Actually, if you read the lawsuit and review the tapes of the meeting on YouTube, you will see that Frank was extremely consistent with his request to not have HIS picture taken. As much as many of you want to believe Mr. Brownfield was prevented from taking pictures during deliberative session, that was never the issue. If you think I am incorrect, I invite you to give evidence showing otherwise.

So we are now forced to go to court over the fact that Mr. Brownfield is upset over the fact that he could not photograph Frank. Frank has admitted he was wrong, has better understanding of RSA-91 now, and will not prevent him from photographing him again in the future.

I hope Mr. Brownfield keeps in mind that "any filming with the intent of doing unlawful harm against a subject may be a violation of the law in itself." So what was Mr. Brownfield's intent with the pictures? He was hired as press for CNHT. Did he identify himself as press? And Mr. Naile, who runs CNHT, has posted on this blog saying some very nasty things about Frank that are absolutely not true. Hmmmm...I wonder what HE would do with those photos...?

Anonymous said...

What a complete misrepresentation of facts.

Frank goaded the entire legislative body to take a vote on his flawed opinion. The sheep followed along with Frank voting to stop Brownfield from taking his picture.

I'll go along with the notion had Frank kept this to an issue of him asking Brownfield to not take his picture being a mistake in good faith. Our Moderator made it a BIG problem by suckering in the legislative body to vote on his mistaken understanding. BIG BIG BIG mistake. Everyone that voted along with Frank doesn't know the RSA either. It tells you alot about our moderator and our legislative body.

Anonymous said...

"That tells everyone, they are afraid of what people will learn here. Are these the type of people we want in office?"

I don't anyone has anything to be afraid of might be learned here. A little truth here and there, lots and lots of unsubstantiated assumptions, and the occasional lie.

Oh, let not forget kooks who run this thing and the few who follow them.

"The sheep followed along with Frank voting to stop Brownfield from taking his picture."

I was there. Not everyone raised their hands as some here would like you to believe. And to call those who did bother to show up "sheep" will really bolster the credibility of this rag. You just insulted a whole group of citizens. That's slander.

Since I was there you've now forced me to sue for slander. My lawyer will be in touch.

Anonymous said...

Spurious!

Anonymous said...

Nothing beats an official "chill" on photographer rights, to put the "toxin" into the deliberative session that everyone present has the RIGHT TO deny having their picture taken. "Ok, everyone who doesn't want their picture taken...please raise your green card!"

Anonymous said...

Nice try at intimidation. Getting desperate I see.

You voted "incorrectly" along with our moderator which means you voted to break the law and deny a citizen their rights under 91-A. Explain that one to the judge.

I will not be intimidated by the likes of you. Opinions are not illegal in this country.

Anonymous said...

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:51,

Thanks for your feedback. Can you kindly show us where in the video Mr. Polito "goaded" the legislative body (or sheep, as you so eloquently put it) into voting to not take his picture?

I saw Mr. Polito ask the legislative body who WANTS to have their picture taken by Mr. Brownfield (Anon 1:26, I suggest you watch the video again and see what was asked.) I saw Mrs. Goodrich make a motion to overrule the moderator's request not to have HIS picture taken. I never saw him ask the legislative body to vote not to allow Mr. Brownfield to take his picture. I did not see him make any attempts to prevent Mr. Brownfield from taking photos of others during the meeting. Did you?

Now if you want to talk about goading, how about looking closely at the video in which Mr. Brownfield reads carefully from his clipboard the questions he -- or Ed Naile -- wrote regarding asking the body to vote on forcing Mr. Brownfield to delete his pictures. THAT is goading. The only problem is no one fell for the blatant trap they were trying to set.

Also, I noticed in the tape Mr. Polito stated that Mr. Brownfield was not a member of the press. Now a day or two later Mr. Brownfield claimed he was a member of the press and was hired by CNHT. This was due to Ed Naile, who runs CNHT and also happens to be a lumberjack, was too tired to "haul" his camera to the meeting. So why did Mr. Brownfield not immediately correct Frank when he said he was not a member of the press? Why did he wait until AFTER the meeting to make this claim?

There are many claims here that there are bullies and thugs in Atkinson. It's all on video. I'll leave it to the readers to decide who the bullies and thugs are. Better yet, let the judge decide...

Anonymous said...

"Thus, while Mr. Polito’s understanding of 91-A was incorrect, his position was taken in complete good faith."

He was wrong. The court documents state it. Clear as day. It doesn't get any clearer than this.

Anonymous said...

Anon 1:55, so applying your logic, what it "right" of Mr. Brownfield to disrupt the meeting by covering up the video camera with his hat in an attempt to prevent those watching from home to see the events as they unfolded?

Anonymous said...

Someone spent some time studying videotape. I hope these IP addresses can't be traced back to any town offices especially during work hours.

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:02 PM. Let them trace it. I stand by what I said. It is more truthful than most of the garbage you find here. And I don't work for the town so you do not have to worry about your precious tax dollars being wasted.

By the way, nice way to NOT debate the merits of what I wrote.

Anonymous said...

And you are correct. I did spend time studying the video and reading the lawsuits. In other words, I didn't post gross exaggerations that could be considered slanderous.

Perhaps those are the folks who should worry about having their IP address traced.

Anonymous said...

Frank was wrong!!!! Court docs say so!

Brownfield blocked the CAMERA!! Doh!

Lots of INTIMIDATION going on out there!!

IP ADDRESSES!! Oh my! Freedom of SPEECH!!

Threatening to sue over sheep namecalling. BAAAAAAAAAD Idea!!
I SMELL COUNTERCLAIMS!!

Let's all fight it out in COURTROOMS FOREVER!! We keep lawyers employed. I bet half the posts are lawyers trying to drum up business cause IRANKINSON is so the place to sue and make $$$$$$$$$$$.

You people crack me up. Does any of you realize how RIDICULOUS ya'll sound? Beyond STUPID. Go getta life.

Anonymous said...

Sapia reads from notes all the time. Brownfield being prepared is no different. I applaud people for being prepared. Saves wasting time.

Anonymous said...

"Yes, he did have a choice. He could have asked for an apology. But no, with the suit happy bunch he belongs to that was not a consideration. With all this talk of taxpayer rights, what does he do, sue's us taxpayers."

An apology, get real? Clearly Polito knows the law after all these years (10 +) and EVERYONE knows that taking pictures is allowed. Polito did it on purpose or he's incompetent. Polito can't disallow pictures, it's against the law.

I don't think anyone of the plaintiffs were looking for a fight, I saw it and I think that Polito started it to prove that he was in control, he had no right to act the way he did. He got us into this because the residents are sick of being bullied and know their rights now and are willing to stand up to this.

I think what Brownfield did when he covered the camera was to prove his point that Polito was allowing others (yes more than one person had cameras) but he denied Brownfield. Brownfield proved with his hat that all of them should be treated equally. The defendants can't say Brownfield was wrong if they did not also allow his camera. How biased can they be? It's blatant.

ps - Brownfield did not sue the taxpayers, he sued the perps but we get to pay, thanks to last years mockery ammendment of a warrant article allowed by - - -POLITO!.

Anonymous said...

TO THE MODERATOR OF THIS BLOG:

Is it possible to bring copies of the current lawsuits everyone is talking about here from the ATA web site? For some reason we can't open them up from that web site?

I'm finding this topic very interesting and I'm having a few relatives and friends over this weekend (weather permitting) for a cookout. It would be nice to throw it up on our new HD television so we can discuss the pros and cons of this issue.

Thank you in advance if this is possible.

Anonymous said...

Anon 3:22,

The only thing Mr. Brownfield was prevented from doing was photograph Frank. It is quite clear if you read the lawsuit and watch the video. Wow! That is bullying at its worst!

Anonymous said...

Notice how all the name-calling is coming from the Pro Polito / Anti blog people. When I took Debating .............that was a sign of weakness.

Just an observation.

Anonymous said...

Little man did far more than limit pictures. Come watch the trial.

Anonymous said...

Body slam!! ouch!

good comment

Hey June 23, 2009 3:23 PM, can I come over for the cookout? It sounds like fun!

Anonymous said...

Actually, you are incorrect. The pro blog group (for lack of a better word) have called people here sheep, thugs, little man, and refer to our town as Irankinson. Aside from someone referring to the pro bloggers as kooks (which may be technically accurate,) can you please give more examples of name calling from the anti-blog side (again, for lack of a better description)?

But I do concur with you that name calling is a sign of weakness of position. As is repeated requests to back up claims with evidence or proof, only to see no reply.

Anonymous said...

Frank was a public official in a public meeting performing his public duty, he had no right to NOT have his pic taken!

And as a 3 year selectman, and a 10 year Moderator, especially one who lectures everyone else on election and RTK laws, HE KNEW IT!

just my opinion

Anonymous said...

I hope Mr. Brownfield keeps in mind that "any filming with the intent of doing unlawful harm against a subject may be a violation of the law in itself." So what was Mr. Brownfield's intent with the pictures?


Nice touch, Frank! What unlawful harm could he do with a photo of Frank being an ass?

He doesnt NEED to state his intent, he has the right to take photos!

Anonymous said...

The claim of no proof or evidence is incorrect. Its been pointed to on numerous posts that the moderator was wrong and evidence is contained in a court document where he admitted he was wrong.

http://www.atkinsontaxpayers.org/
pdf/Counter_Consentino_Polito_
Sapia2009.pdf

There is your evidence.

Anonymous said...

Brownfield covered video up AFTER frank stated he didnt want his pic taken.

Maybe he was complying with the Moderators wishes! ROFL

Anonymous said...

If you're having trouble downloading documents from the Atkinson Taxpayer website, there is reference to a email for webmaster@AtkinsonTaxpayers.org

Maybe if you send an email and tell them your having trouble downloading they'll send it to you.

Just a thought.

MAcciard said...

WOW, There was a time when there was some decorum on this blog. Comparing Atkinson to Iran? You've got to be kidding!

I have been to Iron Curtain Countries, and I can tell you that in spite of it's difficulties in recent years Atkinson has little in common with any totalitarian regime.

Is it possible for the histrionics about Atkinson and Iran, and the juvenile tweeeeeeeeeeet ing to stop, they add nothing to the conversation, and only serve to belittle the character of the person making them.

Anonymous said...

And this comes from a guy whose house and car were vandalized? That's amazing.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, I typed wrong. I meant to sya limit man did far more than limit pictures.

Anonymous said...

From @ibelonginhampsteadhosptal:

Remember this: Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurp! Is that better? ;-) Decorum?! LOL!!!!!!

Tweeeeeeeeeeeeet. (It's called humor Mark!)

Anonymous said...

wait you forgot BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:21,

I was not referring to that statement. We all know Frank was wrong...he admitted it.

It has been asked here to provide further examples of: "The Town officials never admit when they are wrong, they just try to turn the table and shot the messenger. This is their approach anytime a citizen brings an issue to their attention."

It has also been asked to show anywhere in the video that Mr. Polito requested Mr. Brownfield not to photograph the Deliberative Sesssion (which seems to be the ongoing consensus around here).

It has also been requested to give an examples of Mr. Polito "goading" the "sheep" into vote on his opinion (never happened).

But no one bothers further elaborating when they hoist a careless statement out here.

Anonymous said...

From @ibelonginhampsteadhospital:

Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Tweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet!

Anonymous said...

The Deliberative session video has the evidence you seek. Apparently your interpreting the video differently from me which is perfectly OK. To keep saying no evidence is put forward that Frank goaded (your word) the legislative body is in my opinion, incorrect.

I saw Frank ask everyone (in short he sold everyone on his knowledge of the RSA) to vote on his mistaken interpretation of 91-A. And the body voted in agreement with Frank's position. Please tell me what I missed.

Anonymous said...

There is no humor in civil rights violations. Glad you think it's funny. It would be appropriate if your permanent home was @ibelonginhampsteadhosptal

Anonymous said...

Frank asked the legislative body if anyone wanted to OVERTURN his ruling not to have his picture taken. There was no vote taken. Ms. Goodrich took him up on his offer, and it was debated and voted on. He asked for a show of hands of anyone who WANTED to be photographed by Mr. Brownfield.

All other votes were from motions of citizens attending the deliberative session. Please show me where he asked people to VOTE on him not taking his picture.

Anonymous said...

I'm trying to follow you but you mixed two things when you added Mrs. Goodrich in. What exactly was voted on and what exactly was not voted on?

By not over-ruling his mistaken understanding of the RSA you get the same outcome as voting for it. The body had to be convinced Frank was right not to over rule. He was selling the interpretation. They bought in.

Anonymous said...

Anon 5:40,

If you carefully watch the videos, Frank NEVER asks for a vote on anything. The only thing he asked was if anyone wanted to overturn his decision not to be photographed. And Mrs. Goodrich made a motion to overturn his decision.

So it is completely incorrect to say: "I saw Frank ask everyone (in short he sold everyone on his knowledge of the RSA) to vote on his mistaken interpretation of 91-A. And the body voted in agreement with Frank's position."

That is simply not true. He asked the legislative body if anyone wanted to OVERTURN his decision and Mrs. Goodrich made a motion to do that. Debate was allowed and it was voted on. I'm sorry, I do not see goading on Frank's part.

Aside from him ASKING if anyone cared to overturn his decision, he asked people to hold up their green cards for Mr. Brownfield to see who WANTED to have their picture taken. Please show me where Frank makes a motion to vote on anything pertaining to Mr. Brownfield taking his picture.

Anonymous said...

Frank was no longer moderator once he said he was acting as a private citizen. Any vote after that was illegal. He was told to step down and he didn't. The whole meeting was null and void from that point on.

Can anyone see another lawsuit coming here?

Anonymous said...

Anon 5:40 says: "By not over-ruling his mistaken understanding of the RSA you get the same outcome as voting for it. The body had to be convinced Frank was right not to over rule. He was selling the interpretation. They bought in."

The only problem with this is he did not give his interpretation of the rule, let alone "sell" it during discussion of overturning his decision to not allow himself to be photographed. It was not until after the break that he went into detail about his understanding/interpretation of RSA-91.

So I am afraid you have your sequence of events mixed-up.

Anonymous said...

Can anyone tell me from what area the jury pool will be selected? I would love to be chosen and see how the evidence is presented. I would also love to see Consentino, Polito, Sapia, Friel, and Sullivan testify. If I can’t be chosen I hope the ATA presents a day by day blow of the testimony.

Anonymous said...

Ok Frank, which was it?

Were you acting outside the scope of your office, in which case your violations of statute are a personal offense.

Or were you Moderator, as indicated by your recognition of the "motions on the floor", and "overruling the moderator" in which case your offense was official?

Anonymous said...

Ok, Polito, Consentino, Sapia admit Polito broke the law. Where is the apolgy in the Eagle Tribune, Manchester Union Leader, Act 20 TV and a letter to Mr. Brownfield?

It's not enough for them to admit it in a obscure Federal Court document that nobody get to see. It only counts when they do the manly thing, and admit it to all taxpayers. Taxpayers have a right to know.

Anonymous said...

I know that Frank Polito and Jack Sapia posts on this blog.

Frank, why don't you post under your own name and tell us when you are going to apologize to us taxpayers? Tell us when we can expect it on Act TV, when and what newspapers you are going to publish it in, and when the letter will go out to Mr. Brownfield.

Same goes for Sapia for his intimidation antics with police protection.

Now we will get a chance see if public officials admit when they are wrong in public (as a previous post pointed out) or if the attempted cover up continues.

Ball is in your court guys, do the right thing for once.

Anonymous said...

The problem is that there is no incentive for these guys to not do whatever they want, because when they do something wrong, they have excellent lawyers paid for by the taxpayers. It doesn't cost them anything to defend themselves, and when there is a settlement, the towns insurance company pays that too!

Anonymous said...

Of all the outlandish stuff I've seen posted on this blog, this post beats them all.

Do you people have any idea what you sound like to someone reading this blog for the first time?

Kooks, you all sound like kooks. Only thing missing is the aluminum foil wrapped around your heads to keep the alien voices quiet. Then, of course, it could be the liner in Brownfield's hat.

The fringe element is out if force, alive and well in Atkinson.

Anonymous said...

What is outlandish about this article? It is what they filed.

Anonymous said...

Yes, we are all aware of your overused tactic to discredit people by naming them kooks or the lunatic fringe.

Anonymous said...

"Kooks, you all sound like kooks. Only thing missing is the aluminum foil wrapped around your heads to keep the alien voices quiet."

Big blow-hards in Atkinson, who adore the sound of their own voice, use this kook defamation ploy and scheme to go after good people who have the "nerve" to stand up to them and demand their rights.

Atkinson Bullies are known to use the kook and lunitic fringe defamation on a regular basis. Do you smell the stench of a bully at work?

By the way, jails are filled with bullies. Why is that?

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...

What a nice lesson here. Use violence and if all else fails, you can sue them too.

Anonymous said...

Bullies begin their careers in the school yard. Bullies love to bully and get away with it. It feeds the ego and makes the bully feel in control. If not careful, this can go on for a lifetime.

I think the bully syndrome arises out of profound self-doubt.

What is the "payoff" in remaining a bully? You could give it up.

There are also "cost" to being a bully. It is not a risk free activity.

Anonymous said...

From @ibelonginhampsteadhospital:

It's raining again! Chief's fault

Tweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet!

Anonymous said...

Far best is he who knows all things himself.

Good, he that hearkens when men counsel right.

MAcciard said...

Anonymous said...

And this comes from a guy whose house and car were vandalized? That's amazing.
June 23, 2009 4:32 PM


What is amazing about that? I simply prefer the debate about issues to name calling, and shooting the messenger.

Anonymous said...

"Atkinson Bullies are known to use the kook and lunitic fringe defamation on a regular basis. Do you smell the stench of a bully at work?"

And you base this statement on what?

The last thing I would ever be considered is a bully. I was the kind of kid who got stuffed in a locker in high school. If you want to call me that to diminish my comments, fine. Ignore the message by berating the poster.

What I'm seeing now is a new tactic of what I would call the "blog bully's": The ones who come out if force anytime anyone dare says anything to criticize the blog. Want to see a bully, go look in a mirror.

What I state if purely from observation. The posting here have shown the worst of the blog and provides further proof it is the voice of the minority and provides no value beyond a soapbox to say anything they want, true or not. As such, I give it the same amount of credence.

Anonymous said...

You're describing a selectmen's meeting, not this blog. Especially when Sapia was Chairman.

Anonymous said...

"You're describing a selectmen's meeting, not this blog. Especially when Sapia was Chairman."

I'd say nice try, but this was pitiful. Sapia has not been on the board for two years. The current board is nothing like it was under his disastrous stewardship.

I most definitely meant the blog and said so. If you wish to speak for me, first ask for my permission or power of attorney.

Anonymous said...

What in the current lawsuit postings on the ATA, is not true? They are the actual filings to the court by both parties. They have credence, value, and truth. These facts will be put in front of a jury to make a decision. It is a process put into place to protect the rights of the minority and majority alike. I didn’t see any soapbox there, only the opportunity to prove the illegal actions of the local political machine. That machine has been named in the suit and they have to defend themselves.

The counter suit admits the illegal actions of Polito, which the defendants denied before. The plaintiffs will get the chance to prove the other issues. Question is: How many more issues will the defendants are found guilty of and what will the punishment be.

This blog has credence and it’s the defendants that have lost theirs.

Anonymous said...

To Anon June 24, 2009 9:29 AM

You said "The posting here have shown the worst of the blog and provides further proof it is the voice of the minority and provides no value beyond a soapbox to say anything they want, true or not."

Another attempt to discredit and distract from the facts.

The proof in front of us is our moderator was WRONG as stated in court documents. His mistake led to further litigation against the town. Irrefutable, documented facts. We have our facts straight.

Anonymous said...

Sorry to hear you got stuffed in a locker. That's terrible. I'd say go back to your grade school year book and find and call up that person and have a talk with him...or her. Confront your bully and do your best. Act with courage. Who knows, maybe he/she gave up being a bully.

Anonymous said...

"Another attempt to discredit and distract from the facts."

Spoken like a true blog bully.

"Sorry to hear you got stuffed in a locker. "

Read again. I said I was the type. Actually, throughout my school years I endured very little bullying, and I certainly did not bully anyone.

Yet, here a poster described my post as having "smell the stench of a bully at work?"

I thought this blog encouraged free thought and expression. Yet, when someone posts something the Blog Bullies don't approve of, rather than counter the argument, they accuse the poster of all sorts of things. We've been called sheep, thugs, little men, trolls, bullies,and probably a few others. And now we have a stench. This speaks volumes about the blog bullies

Maybe I am a bully. I surely have no tolerance for idiots and they have all crawled out of the woodwork here. I'm going to start immediately on a plot to bring this whole thing down.

I would also like Mr. Brownfield to move. If he feels the town is out to get him, let him move to another town so that they can go after him.

Anonymous said...

Sounds to me like you hit your head pretty hard when that little girl stuffed you into the locker. Is that when you started putting lifts into your shoes?

Anonymous said...

free speech and expression means that just like you get your say, someone else who doesnt like it gets theirs.

And noone should have to move because it is considered vindictive to criticize your governments actions.

If our governmental officials are so thin skinned they should leave office, or just DO THE RIGHT THING and noone would ever criticize them again.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like Anon June 24, 2009 12:38 PM has identity and anger issues. Who are you to insist and plot to make anyone move?

Have you had this problem before? Could you be the person of interest for vandalizing a car and home with "MOVE LEAVE THE CHIEF ALONE MOVE" statements? Obviously you are a Chief supporter.

If so, I have a few people that would like to talk to you personally. No worry, they won’t stuff you into a school locker.

Anonymous said...

Oh man. This is going downhill and fast.

So to lighten the mood, let me offer up a good blonde joke (sorry Mark, but humor is a good thing!):

One day, a neighbor goes over to a blonde's house, sees the blonde crying, and asks her what happened. The blonde said that her mother had passed away. The neighbor made her some coffee and calmed her down a little and then left. The next day the neighbor went back over to the house and found the blonde crying again. She asked her why she was crying this time.

''I just got off of the phone with my sister, her mother died too!''

Anonymous said...

To June 24, 2009 12:38 PM

"I would also like Mr. Brownfield to move."

You are one funny act.

BREAKING NEWS. This just in. Brownfield is taking you up on your offer. He did move. He bought the house next door to you.

Now THATS funny.

Anonymous said...

hey June 24, 2009 12:38 PM

"I surely have no tolerance for idiots"

like the idiot who don't know his RSAs. You gots to be upset wit dat guy big time.

Signed,

One of dem udder idiots

Anonymous said...

Oh Goodie. I upset a lot of people. Not hard really.

Mission accomplished.

MAcciard said...

Guy sits next to a blonde at the bar and strikes up a conversation.

As the news comes on he bets her $20 that the guy on the ledge will jump.

She says he won't

Just then he jumps!

She hands over her $20. and the guy says, I really can't take your money, I saw this story on the 5:00 news!

Blonde replies: So did I, I just never thought he would jump again!

Guy quietly took her money

Anonymous said...

"Sounds to me like you hit your head pretty hard when that little girl stuffed you into the locker."

Not so little. About 300 lbs. like your wife.

Anonymous said...

That's right and now she looking to do you again!

Anonymous said...

Hey I'm blond and I don't like being slandered so Im gonna sue yer butt off!

Anonymous said...

I want to watch.

Anonymous said...

Fifteen minutes into the flight from Kansas City to Toronto, the captain announced, "Ladies and gentlemen, one of our engines has failed. There is nothing to worry about. Our flight will take an hour longer than scheduled, but we still have three engines left." Thirty minutes later the
captain announced, "One more engine has failed and the flight will take an additional two hours. But don't worry ... we can fly just fine on two engines." An hour later the captain announced, "One more engine has failed and our arrival will be delayed another three hours. But don't worry ... we still have one engine left." A young blonde passenger turned to the man in the next seat and remarked, "If we lose one more engine, we'll be up here all day!"

Anonymous said...

In the last day.
After all the debate here.
After all the attacks.
After all the spin.
I doubt any opinions or positions were swayed.

But we all still live in the same town and are still neighbors.

Tolerance. It must become a new way forward or we'll forever be wasting effort and money in court. And there will be no progress in a town with so much potential.

If we redirected the effort, energy and money wasted in the courtroom toward improving our town, what a truly great place it would be.

It starts with tolerance.

Anonymous said...

I think a lot of opinions or positions were swayed. I know mine was.

Proof positive was presented that Polito broke the laws of the state, with Federal Civil Rights issues to be resolved.

You forgot the one thing for success. You have to get rid of the Atkinson Mafia to suceed. Until they are gone or some behind bars, nothing will change.

Just my opinion.

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:03,

I doubt very much your opinions were swayed at all.

But I'll take you at your word. So would you help me to understand how you were behind the town, but you came here, read some posts and now Mr. Polito, et al is the "Atkinson Mafia" and belong behind bars.

What changed your mind? The slander? The tweets? The blonde jokes?

Please, I want to know...

Anonymous said...

"I think a lot of opinions or positions were swayed. I know mine was."

You're kidding, right? Sounds more like a self serving post to convince others the posting had merit. Given the direction it has take (down, down, down) only someone under the influence could be swayed by anything said here.

Anonymous said...

Shameless self-promotion?! Here?! Nah, that would never happen. Only the truth is spoken here and should anyone dare speak out against the slander (oops! I mean truth), they are Chief supporters trying to discredit "the blog!"

Anonymous said...

"Ok, Polito, Consentino, Sapia admit Polito broke the law. Where is the apolgy in the Eagle Tribune, Manchester Union Leader, Act 20 TV and a letter to Mr. Brownfield?"

This is another example of the careless comments that you see here. So, to be fair, aside from Frank's admission about RSA-91, can you please back up your claims that Chief Consentino and Frank Sapia ADMIT THEY BROKE THE LAW?

You said it, people here reading it may believe it. So please reference where in the lawsuit Consentino and Sapia confessed to breaking the law.

If you can't, this is just another example of how this blog is used by anons to slander public officials in town. But keep it up, you are doing a good job supporting their claims in the counter suit.

Anonymous said...

Hey 5:40 tell the chief of police about tolerance!

Maybe if he didn't go after people who disagree with him this shit wouldn't be going on now!

Anonymous said...

OMG! I GET IT NOW!

When you criticize Phil, Frank, or Jack, you are guilty of slander.

When they do it ON CAMERA IN A PUBLIC MEETING, it is just their opinion, and perfectly ok!

Bad Bad Critics!

Anonymous said...

To Anon June 24, 2009 7:25 PM

I don't know who you are expecting to answer your question, but after reading the Counter lawsuit I'll take a stab at it.

Polito, Sapia, and Consentino's names are named in the Counter suit as plaintiffs. The way I read it, they are admitting to Polito's guilt and counter suing. I know I'm a layman but that's how I read it.

I'll read it again, but suggest you and everyone else here do too.

No slander, just public record.

Just my opinion

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:23, I do believe your layman's interpretation is wrong. How can Sapia and Consentino be in violation in RSA-91 simply because Polito admitted he had an incorrect understanding of the law? It's all in video.

So yes, slander.

Just my opinion.

Anonymous said...

"they are Chief supporters trying to discredit "the blog!"

Now see, there is that association again. Everyone who criticizes the blog is a chief supporter.

Have you ever stopped to consider why the blog is criticized? For one, the blog bullies automatically make that assumption. Yet, I have not see a single post, not one, where the poster has criticized the blog while in the same post supported the chief. Come on, show me one.

No, this tactic has been used repeatedly through the weeks in an attempt to marginalize the critics. When they can't do that, they come up with delightful names. Troll was a good one.

This topic has shown everything that is wrong with this blog and the blog bullies are in a major state of denial.

This place has become such a joke it is no longer a factor in Atkinson politics, and the owners of this blog are directly responsible for that.

Some will say it spreads the truth. Maybe a little, but it also spreads a lot of what the Lewis's spread on their corn.

Come on, let me have it. Give me those good old three questions whose proper answers will legitimize my posts.

Die blog, die.

Anonymous said...

Simple, they are counter suing while admitting guilt. Read the counter suit yourself.


http://www.atkinsontaxpayers.org/pdf/Counter_Consentino_Polito_Sapia2009.pdf

Are you blind? Their names are all over this suit.

Did you get any grade for reading comprehension in any school?

Anonymous said...

Or are you a troll hiding under a bridge to mislead people. In other words a defendant in this case.

Anonymous said...

Someone wrote that Mr. Brownfield should move out of town. That is no joke. That is serious. I hear Mr. Acciard had it keyed into his car and painted on his home. I hear he moved. Mr. Kaye was told to move and received death threats. Mr. Peak was told to move too from what I read.

What is going on in my town? The state police should be brought in immediately.

Anonymous said...

"Simple, they are counter suing while admitting guilt. Read the counter suit yourself."

Nah, I don't want to read it.

"Are you blind? Their names are all over this suit."

Actually, my vision is pretty good.

"Did you get any grade for reading comprehension in any school?"

I actually did very well in reading. Aced my speed reading class in college, which stresses comprehension by the way. So, yes, I got an A in the subject at a state university.

Oh my gosh, I answered three questions. No, wait, the first one was not a question, but a request, so I'm safe. Sorry Mr. TQ.

Die blog, die.

Anonymous said...

To Anon June 24, 2009 11:02 PM

To your reply of:

"Simple, they are counter suing while admitting guilt. Read the counter suit yourself."

You said:

Nah, I don't want to read it.

Shows you don't want to be informed, or a defendant.

To the question:

"Are you blind? Their names are all over this suit."

You said:

Actually, my vision is pretty good.

Which I doubt.

To the question:

"Did you get any grade for reading comprehension in any school?"

You said:

I actually did very well in reading. Aced my speed reading class in college, which stresses comprehension by the way. So, yes, I got an A in the subject at a state university.

Again I don't believe it, so give us the name of the State university you graduated from and the year. (Don't want to send my kids there)

You said:

Oh my gosh, I answered three questions. No, wait, the first one was not a question, but a request, so I'm safe. Sorry Mr. TQ.

I say you have served as a public offical in this town and are a defendant in the most recent lawsuit. The question is do you deny it?

To your statement:

Die blog, die.

You can only wish for it, because this blog will never die while you are are in politics.

The time has come for your demise.

Anonymous said...

Oh, forgot to say...........Good night Sapia.

Anonymous said...

Sapia, Consitino, and Polito's name are all over the lawsuit because they are being SUED by Artus, Brownfield, and Lewis. What does their names being "all over the lawsuit" have to do with anything?

It certainly does not make them guilty of anything. It does not mean Sapia and Consentino admit that Frank was guilty. You're really stretching it here.

Just my opinion.

Anonymous said...

"It does not mean Sapia and Consentino admit that Frank was guilty. You're really stretching it here."

Let me GET MY FACTS STRAIGHT.

You are saying Sapia, and Consento do not admit that Frank was wrong so he does have the right to violate RSA-91 and voters civil rights?

I read Sapia brings the police with him about the pictures of himself. (He was VERY polite!)

No wonder the names are all over the lawsuit.

Anonymous said...

Just my opinion.

Anonymous said...

"I actually did very well in reading. Aced my speed reading class in college, which stresses comprehension by the way. So, yes, I got an A in the subject at a state university."

Please read RSA 91-A very slowly.

"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...

NOT just my opinion.

Anonymous said...

"This suit arose because of Mr. Polito not Mr. Brownfield. In my opinion It was a conspiracy of the political machine within in this town. What would you do if someone wanted to take your right away? Especially, if that person was a politician who wanted his own rights and yours too?"

"I want Mr. Brownfield to move out of town."

Just someone's opinon.

Anonymous said...

"I say you have served as a public offical in this town and are a defendant in the most recent lawsuit. The question is do you deny it?"

You wish. OK, I deny it. Happy?

I can say, without hesitation and my hand on a bible, I have never served as a public official in Atkinson nor have I been named in any lawsuit, ever.

Why do you people have such a hard time getting it through your heads that some ordinary people have trouble with this blog, and when we criticize you automatically assume it is a town official or chief supporter doing the criticizing?

Got news for you my friend, some of us see this blog for what it really is, a platform for those doing the suing. I truly believe Mr. Brownfield is involved in the day to day operation of this blog and it would not surprise me if Mr. Artis had his hand in it also. They have the most to gain and past posts, with its false and damaging statements and goes hand in hand with there public actions.

Now, believe what you want. I say I'm not a town official, never have been. If you chose not to believe that, then how can one believe anything said here?

Anonymous said...

"I read Sapia brings the police with him about the pictures of himself. (He was VERY polite!)"

Much has been made of this. Did anyone, other than the participants, see this happen?

Anonymous said...

Witnessed by several other people who will testify, plus the police officer. Want to bet the police officer won't tell the truth? I bet he will.

Anonymous said...

Wait. Not sure. Don't know how many heard that confrontation. But there could be other witnesses.

Anonymous said...

http://www.atkinsontaxpayers.org/pdf/DouglasVsAtkinson2.pdf

" 41. Mr. Sapia subsequently followed Leon Artus and Edward Naile (who runs the CHNT newspaper) out of the building and demanded that they turn over the digital memory card for Mr. Brownfield's camera, which had been turned over to Mr. Naile for his use, per his photography arrangement with Mr. Brownfield. Mr. Sapia was accompanied by a uniformed member of, you guessed it, The Atkinson Police Department."

" 42. These actions by Moderator and former Selectman Polito and former Selectman Sapia constitute official intimidation and an effort to suppress Mr. Brownfield's rights under New Hampshire statutory law, and under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which both guarantee a right of reasonable access to public government proceedings."

You think the officer will not tell the truth under oath? He is a police officer under oath.

A very polite conversation. Hmmmm.

Just my opinion.

Anonymous said...

"41. ...Sapia admits that he was outside at the same time Mr. Artus was and at the same time Mr. Naile was but at the time did not know who Naile was....Mr. Naile, clearly trying to provoke an incident which he could then direct be included in this lawsuit, waived in Mr. Sapia’s face what appeared to be a camera memory chip and said something to the effect, “This is mine. Is this what you are looking for? Why don’t you try to take it?” Mr. Sapia refused to take Mr. Naile’s bait and then asked Lt. Baldwin to come over and be a witness to the
conversation. Sapia then again politely asked them to either not publish a photo of Sapia (a private citizen at that meeting) or to delete any Sapia photo. Artus/Naile declined the request. Polito and Consentino were not immediately present for that exchange and therefore deny knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion or belief as the truth or falsity of the allegations of paragraph 41 and therefore deny them. All remaining allegations of paragraph 41 are denied."

So Mr. Sapia was polite and Mr. Naile was impolite. It's in the lawsuit and posted on the ATA website. So that makes it a fact and therefore, it must be true.

Just my opinion.

Anonymous said...

"Someone wrote that Mr. Brownfield should move out of town. That is no joke. That is serious...What is going on in my town? The state police should be brought in immediately."

Someone recently wrote some pretty nasty things about Lt. Baldwin. That was serious too. Where was the outrage there? Maybe the State Police should be brought in to investigate that slanderous remark too.

Just my opinion.

Anonymous said...

Why don't we all call the state police on a conference call?

Just a suggestion.

Anonymous said...

What did Mr. Naile tell you? Please let us know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Just curious

Anonymous said...

Polito made a mistake. Big deal. Now he knows and next Del. Session Mr. B'field and company can take all the photos they want - but they won't. C'mon guys, find something more intelligent to worry over - like our country being a financial trainwreck, etc., etc.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Brownfield can take all of the photos he wants provided he is not being disruptive. And he probably will be.

Just my opinion.

Anonymous said...

Anion 7:44 a.m. said:

"Let me GET MY FACTS STRAIGHT.

You are saying Sapia, and Consento do not admit that Frank was wrong so he does have the right to violate RSA-91 and voters civil rights?"

You are making some huge and incorrect assumptions here. What I am saying is that Frank Polito admitted he had an incorrect understanding of RSA 91-A during deliberative session. I do not believe his admission of this means that Sapia and Consentino admit in the lawsuit that he was incorrect. It certainly does not mean they feel Frank has a right to violate RSA 91-A.

Just my opinion. And no, I am not Frank, Jack, Phil or any other public official (sorry.)

BTW, you seem to forget Frank's only request was that he asked Mr. Brownfield to not take HIS picture. While I understand he was wrong to do this, he never prevented Mr. Brownfield from using his camera or from photographing others.

And that is not my opinion. That is FACT!

Anonymous said...

What did Mr. Nail say? Won't really know till Mr. Naile testifies to what he said in front of witnesses and it gets posted on the ATA site.

OH, I just read the defendants own "answer to the Douglas lawsuit" (Atkinson Taxpayer Site).

Naile had the memory card with pictures. The defendants in their own "answer to the Douglas lawsuit" state he said:

"This is mine. Is this what you are looking for? Why don’t you try to take it?”

Is it against the laws of the State and Supreme Court to demand pictures be deleted or turned over that were legally taken to be published in a state-wide newspaper?

Is it against the laws of the State and Supreme Court to demand pictures be deleted or turned over that were legally taken at a public meeting by Mr. Brownfield for any reason?

--Just a couple of darn good questions.

Maybe ask the Washington Post or New York Times for their opinion?

Just a suggestion.

By the way, why WERE the police present? Hmmmm

Just curious.

Anonymous said...

I can't wait to see how the defendants do under oath and questioning by attorney Douglas. Boy o Boy o let the fun begin and the truth prevail.

The spin here is fun. Like an appetizer to a big meal, it whets the appetite.

Good job by all.

I wonder if this will go only state wide or to the National Press? I think it will go out to the entire country.

Wouldn't it be a scream to have the deliberative session tape played on CNN --Boy o Boy o I can hear the reporter's clashing over the facts. NEWSFLASH --"And in the Atkinson lawsuit today, the defendants said they were just being polite when they....."

Just an opinion. Boy o Boy o

Anonymous said...

Sapia was NOT a private citizen at deliberative session. He was a member of the conflict of interest committee and NOT A PRIVATE CITIZEN.

Imagine that.

Anonymous said...

Soon the nation will be thinking Atkinson a Civil Rights train wreck.

Anonymous said...

"Soon the nation will be thinking Atkinson a Civil Rights train wreck."

doubtful

Anonymous said...

"Sapia was NOT a private citizen at deliberative session. He was a member of the conflict of interest committee and NOT A PRIVATE CITIZEN.

Imagine that."

As much as I dislike and distrust the man, this is a bit of a stretch. At the Deliberative Session the Conflict of Interest committee plays no part in the proceedings. And without approval of the committee, he cannot solely represent the committee. And since the people he supposedly confronted regarding the pictures are not members of any board or committee under which the Conflict of Interest rules apply, he could only be acting as a private citizen.

Again, I'm not defending Sapia. It is my sincerest wish he would remove himself from all town matters and go spend time with his kids like he promised. But in this matter, I believe you are wrong.

Just my opinion.

Anonymous said...

""Someone wrote that Mr. Brownfield should move out of town. That is no joke. That is serious...What is going on in my town? The state police should be brought in immediately.""

Actually, if you go back and read that post again (called doing research before you publish a falsehood) the person actually said, "I would also like Mr. Brownfield to move."

Is it still a very serious matter and the authorities called in? I'm sorry, can't resist, "Get your facts straight!"

Anonymous said...

"Again I don't believe it, so give us the name of the State university you graduated from and the year. (Don't want to send my kids there)"

I don't care diddly what you believe. And, I wouldn't worry about sending your kids to college. Considering the gene pool, high school will be a stretch.

Anonymous said...

From @ibelonginhamsteadhospital:

RIP Farrah Fawcett. Chief's fault! Call Atty. Douglas!

Tweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet!

Anonymous said...

To Anon @ 10:49;

Nope, Billy came over to those two WITH Sapia. Do you know that police in uniform have no place in a meeting of the legislative body?

This is why the legislature appoints a Master at Arms, instead of the State Police.

Pics were taken of a public meeting, no one who participated had a right to have their pics deleted, and neither did Frank, and he knew better.

Just my opinion

Anonymous said...

So are you saying what is on the ATA is incorrect? I thought if you found it there, it was indisputable? Or is it true only if it a claim from someone SUING the town?

Just my opinion.

Anonymous said...

To Anon June 25, 2009 1:10 PM

Speaking of “Gene Pools”, your Mother must have had to pull some BIG TIME strings with truckloads of money to get you into college.

Question is how much more did she have to pay to get you graduated? My guess you flunked out.

Just my guess.

Anonymous said...

Please! Someone tell another blonde joke!

Anonymous said...

"Just my guess."

And you're not very good at that either.

A blind guy on a bar stool shouts to the bartender, "Wanna hear a blonde joke?"

Quietly the guy on the stool next to him, leans over and says "You should know that the bartender is blonde and so is the bouncer. Plus I myself am blonde and there are two blonde football players sitting on your right. Now go ahead and tell your joke."

"Oh no..." replied the blind guy. "I'm not telling it and have to explain it 5 times"

Anonymous said...

Funny! However for clarification: females are blondes and males are blonds. True!

Anonymous said...

Could be. I just cut and pasted.

BTW, June 25, 2009 5:23 PM - Let me guess for a change. You and your family is blond, right. Don't know, just a feeling.

The blonde reported for her University final examination which consists of "yes/no" type questions.

She takes her seat in the examination hall, stares at the question paper for five minutes, and then in a fit of inspiration takes her purse out, removes a coin and starts tossing the coin and marking the answer sheet - Yes for Heads and No for Tails. Within a half an hour, she is all done whereas the rest of the class is sweating it out.

During the last few minutes, she is seen desperately throwing the coin, swearing and sweating.

The moderator, alarmed, approaches her and asks what is going on...

She replied, "I finished the exam in half and hour. But, I am rechecking my answers!!"

Anonymous said...

What an ass. The stuff on ATA is what it is. The lawsuit section has actual documents filed with the court. The verdicts are the verdicts, the arguments are the arguments. Obviously you have two contenders, both sides cant be right.

Anonymous said...

Correct! I will maintain the Town will prevail in this matter and it will be Mr. Brownfield's covering the camera with his hat that does them in.

Anonymous said...

Don't hang your hat on that one.

Anonymous said...

LOL, sure it will! the hat things was AFTER the incident. Hardly CAUSED a disturbance that led to Frank being a putz.

Anonymous said...

If that's the best our attorny's can come up for a defense, God help us.

Anonymous said...

Really? Mr. Polito can make a very strong argument that Mr. Brownfield was causing a disturbance during deliberative session. As moderator he has very broad authority to keep the session in order. Certainly Mr. Brownfield's hat incident would be videotaped proof that he was not acting properly. Oh, and remember, Frank asked only that HE not be photographed. He never restricted Mr. Brownfield from using his camera or photographing others. So Mr. Brownfield covered up the videocamera because he couldn't take Frank's picture? Seems rather petty now, doesn't it?

Yes, let the judge decide...

Just my opinion.

Anonymous said...

"LOL, sure it will! the hat things was AFTER the incident. Hardly CAUSED a disturbance that led to Frank being a putz."

Maybe not but it says volumes about Mr. Brownfield's character, which in this case was purely childish.

I believe Brownfield, Artus and Naile went to the session with the intent to create some sort of incident. I believe this because it was evident they could not muster enough supporters to attend and outvote the usual folks who do bother to attend.

There is one other thing that I have found very curious. The whole incident, including the verbal exchanges that occurred outside and out of camera range, was posted on the blog, in the afternoon, WHILE THE MEETING WAS STILL IN SESSION. This could not have been posted by a TV viewer because they would not have been privy to the discussions between Brownfield, Naile and Sapia outside the building.

Now, how could that be. It was not posted as an article submission, but entered by someone with Moderator privileges. Since it contained details only known to those who participated, it stands to reason one of them posted the article.

I don't think it was Jack. Naile has his fingers in to many pies to spend time running a single blog. So, that leaves Brownfield and Artus.

The countersuit suggests that either Brownfield or Artus, or both run this blog and they hope to prove that during discovery. But, I for one, don't need that proof.

The direction this blog has take, the bias it has clearly demonstrated, and the recent disgraceful moderator posts regarding the new Comm Committee and the slander against the Lt., of which every claim was either wrong or unsupported, show what this blog is really about.

The Deliberative Session posts, and the recent posts mentioned clearly show me that Brownfield and Artus, with the support of Naile, run this blog, and given their past actions, run it with an agenda.

Now, Brownfield and Artus will deny this. They have to. They are in a middle of a lawsuit where ownership of the blog is an issue. The Blog Bullies will jump in with all sorts of claims about me, not one backed by any proof.

I don't care what Brownfield and Artus say or what the Blog Bullies say to discredit what I've said. I've looked at the evidence and made my own conclusions. Ignore the rhetoric that will surely follow and decide for yourself.

Is this truly an open forum for the people of Atkinson, or a platform for some to promote their own views?

Saying that, it is true that anyone can reply to any posting here and say anything they want, but only the Moderators have the ability to make the front page posts, create the so called "polls", provide the YouTube links, and whatever else is shown when you enter the blog.

So, you decide. I've made statements backing my claims. Other than call me names or distort the message, prove me wrong.

Anonymous said...

"LOL, sure it will! the hat things was AFTER the incident. Hardly CAUSED a disturbance that led to Frank being a putz."

Very tough to say here. Could easily be looked at as supporting the argument that he was being disruptive. The timing of the incident is most likely irrelevant.

Just my opinion.

Anonymous said...

I hope you don't try to use that argument in court, or my tax rate will go out of sight with the settlement the Town will have to pay.

You better try to get a settlement now, but I don't believe the plaintiffs will even entertain any offer you make, after reading your approach.

You just posted an argument that the plaintiffs can plan for. If I were they, I'd cut and paste this in an email and forward to my attorney.

How stupid can you be? If I knew who you were, I'd slap you up beside the head, in order to bring you back to reality. Unfortunately, I don't believe anyone could hit you hard enough to get the desired result.

You are a stupid, stupid little man, and hopefully not a woman.

How dumb can one person be? If you are a defendant, God help our Town.

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:33,

IF Atty. Douglas is the blazing legal star you all claim him to be, do you really think he was already not planning for this?

How stupid can YOU be?

Anonymous said...

Not as stupid as you.

Anonymous said...

"If I knew who you were, I'd slap you up beside the head,"

He just made a threat to cause physical harm. The treat could be considered Assault. If he actually did it, that would add Battery to the charge.

What a wonderful way to state your case, threaten physical harm. I'd be very careful who you call stupid.

Anonymous said...

The posting regarding the Lt. could be regarded as slander. If the sources the moderator used as evidence cannot support the claim, and the Kingston Chief denies it, outing of the moderators in open court could definitely put them in legal hot water if the Lt. were to pursue it.

I think the discovery phase in the counter suit will be extremely interesting.

Anonymous said...

June 26, 2009 11:57 AM

What a wonderful retort. Your brilliance and skill with language leave me awe struck.

Anonymous said...

Be careful what you ask for, you might get it.

Anonymous said...

Now who is sue crazy? Looks like Baldwin is now going to file suit. Good. Let's take this to the moon. What spoiled brats.

Anonymous said...

This should help the defense with their case. Blazing Star Strikes Again.

Perhaps we should ask for a complete audit of this town. Windsor defenders and (selectmen) use the same approach as our selectmen to discredit opponents, in order to give themselves credibility.

If proven, Windsor (as least some) and Tax Collector could go to jail. Could the same happen here in Atkinson? Let's watch to find out.

Manchester Union Leader:

Lawsuit Claims Windsor Tax Collector Didn't Pay Taxes
Residents Say Former Tax Collector Let Friends, Family Skip Taxes
POSTED: 5:36 pm EDT June 24, 2009

WINDSOR, N.H. -- Some Windsor homeowners have filed a lawsuit claiming that their former tax collector failed to pay her own taxes for years and allowed friends and family to get out of paying.

The two couples filing the law suit claim that more than $300,000 of taxes have gone uncollected in the town of about 250 people.

Don Palmer said he and his wife are retired and have to scrape to get by. He said that's why he couldn't afford to keep quiet when he began to suspect that not everyone in Windsor was paying their share of property taxes.

"If I'm paying my taxes, I expect the people down the road to pay theirs, too," Palmer said.

Palmer and another couple reviewed budget and tax documents dating back to 2007 to reach their conclusion. Now, they have filed a lawsuit against the town of Windsor and some town selectmen, along with former tax collector Beverly Hines.

Lawyer Charles Douglas, who is representing the couples, claims Hines had been covering for friends and family for years.

"If you were a friend of the tax collector or a family member, someone she knew, you didn't have to pay interest," Douglas said. "There was no lien put on your property."

No one at Hines' home wanted to speak on camera, but the town's lawyer said he's awaiting a state-ordered audit on Windsor. He said that already, some numbers aren't adding up.

"It appears by the first blush that there are some funds that haven't been accounted for," said town lawyer Douglas Hatfield.

Palmer and the three others filing the lawsuit call themselves the Windsor Coalition of Taxpayers. He said they're looking for a clean slate -- new town officials -- and proof everyone is shouldering the burden.

"The financial support of a town is supposed to be equally among our residents," he said. "In my town, it has not been."

The commissioner of the state Department of Revenue Administration said his staff has wanted Windsor to have an audit since 2002. Once the audit is complete, it will go to his office and the attorney general's office.

THANK GOD FOR TAXPAYER GROUPS TO FIGHT OUR BATTLES. There is no justice without lawsuits. sigh

Anonymous said...

What, no snappy comeback? I'm sure there will be one.

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:37 PM,

You say: "If proven, Windsor (as least some) and Tax Collector could go to jail. Could the same happen here in Atkinson? Let's watch to find out."

That may happen, but this is a civil lawsuit. So even if the plaintiffs win, there will be no jail time. The same applies to our town. Now, in Windsor, if it is revealed that something fishy was going on with the tax collector that results in an indictment and criminal court case, then definitely yes, there is the potential for someone to go to jail. That said, you cannot even compare the two cases, they are so different.

The only thing they have in common is that it is Ed Naile at CNHT driving this and his favorite atty. is representing them. Nice work if you can get it, eh?

Just my opinion.

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:33 AM,

Basically everything that has been said regarding Mr. Brownfield's actions are in the defendants responses to the lawsuit and the counter claims. So I don't see how anyone is tipping their hand here.

Honestly, anyone with half a brain can see this. Perhaps that explains why you missed it.

Anonymous said...

"Honestly, anyone with half a brain can see this. Perhaps that explains why you missed it."

Somebody probably slapped him along side the head and knocked something loose.

Anonymous said...

To Anon that posted:

The counter suit suggests that either Brownfield or Artus, or both run this blog and they hope to prove that during discovery. But, I for one, don't need that proof.

I for one, don't need that proof?

Why do you bother posting? It says volumes about your character.
Go post where people don't care about proof. The jury will demand more than you are willing or capable of giving.

Just my opinion

Anonymous said...

Really, so what is slander? and why should a claim that apparently there might be a letter floating around, be taken more seriously than th original story?

Anonymous said...

"Why do you bother posting? It says volumes about your character.
Go post where people don't care about proof."

I'm curious.what are these volumes of character you refer to?

And, FYI, I am posting where people don't care about proof. Just look at the posts the moderator made about the communications committee and the Lt. story. The moderator didn't care about proof, and most of the responders just assumed it was true because the moderator said it. They weren't too concerned with proof either.

Proof is in very short supply here.

"The jury will demand more than you are willing or capable of giving."

Now this is also a very curious comment. If I had absolute proof I would have no reservation whatever to testify.

So, you are in no position to state what I am willing or capable of.

That was not an opinion, but fact.

Anonymous said...

Spin, Spin, Spin........I'll wait till the jury comes in with their verdict. If it's for the defendants nothing will change, if it's for the plaintiffs, can only guess what spin we'll be getting from the defendants.

Either way, we need a new broom to clean us. Top to bottom, everyone needs to go.

Just MY opinion

Anonymous said...

You're assuming a jury will hear it. Few of these kinds of cases make it that far. They're called settlements. And, it is not unusual for a settlement to be sealed.

If that happens there will be all kinds of spin about who won or lost, but it could also be an insurance company just wanting the thing to go away, no matter who is right and who is wrong.

This is not an opinion, but fact.

"Either way, we need a new broom to clean us. Top to bottom, everyone needs to go."

And who would replace everybody. The town already has enough trouble getting volunteers. You going to replace them too? And look at the last election. No one ran for the open Conflict of Interest seat. The winner was the one with the highest number of write in votes.

So, go ahead, fire everyone. Have you thought of a plan to replace them all?

Big words, no meaning.

Now that is an opinion.

Anonymous said...

What are you talking about? From what I've read and heard, the plaintiff's have said they will not agree to a settlement. Have they said something different we don't know about?

If their stance is still the same, your post is a waste of time.

Who will replace? Someone always steps up to fill a void. As long as the current people are gone, it could be a programed robot and I wouldn't care.

I'm sick of the spin, taxes, excuses, and denials that the pro establishment write here. For the selectmen to allow this to go on for so long, it's time for them to be gone. None of us need them or you.

Anonymous said...

"None of us need them or you."

This says volumes about our divided little town. So sad...

Anonymous said...

"As long as the current people are gone, it could be a programed robot and I wouldn't care."

"None of us need them or you."

Classic signs of a dissociative disorder with paranoid tendencies.

Lets not be critical of him, but instead offer our support and hope he seeks professional help. Yes, it is sad.

Anonymous said...

A blonde hurried into the hospital emergency room late one night with the tip of her index finger shot off.

"How did this happen?," the emergency room doctor asked her.

"Well, I was trying to commit suicide," the blonde replied.

"What?" sputtered the doctor? "You tried to commit suicide by shooting off the tip of your finger?"

"No, silly!" the blonde said. "First, I put the gun to my chest, and I thought, 'I just paid $6,000 for these; I'm not shooting myself in the chest."

"So then?" asked the doctor.

"Then I put the gun in my mouth, and I thought, 'I just paid $3,000 to get my teeth straightened; I'm not shooting myself in the mouth."

"So, then?"

"Then I put the gun to my ear, and I thought 'This is going to make a loud noise, so I put my finger in the other ear before I pulled the trigger."

I wondered why all the Taxpayer Assoc people had bandages on their fingers.

Anonymous said...

Good night Jack.

Anonymous said...

Good night Frank.

Anonymous said...

Much talk about the hat thing if it was right or not. I want to know if right or not. I got a copy of the meeting to watch it with my friends Sunday. See how long the hat went over the camera and what happened after the hat thing. Some kinda sparks had to have gone off. July 4th kinda stuff. Dyin to see it.

I will put here after the party what I saw.

We Cook out Sunday and party with it. Beer and video. Everyone got real excited. This will be fun but my friends get so pissed off anyway. I bet this is gonna be a big pissed off party but its gonna be a hell of a ride.

Thank you blog. I look forward to the blog every day. I laugh my ass off mostly.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 230   Newer› Newest»