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.

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Selectmen refuse to let serious town business disrupt their party





A funny thing happened at last night's selectmen meeting....

The selectmen had announced the previous week their intention to keep last night's meeting short, so that they could have a party with a dual purpose. On the one hand it was to welcome the new town administrator, on the other to wish a farewell to Lt. Baldwin who is being deployed to California.

A town resident, Mr. Artus, remained sitting in the back of the room throughout the meeting, until there was a lull in the proceedings, at which time he asked the board if he could ask them a question. They said yes, but keep it brief, while selectman chairman Childs sent chief Consentino out to find the Lt.

Mr. Artus asked the Board, who there had authorized a resident to destroy Valcat ln., a town owned, class VI road? The selectmen immediately retorted that no one there had, and when Mr. Artus tried to follow up on that, Mr. Childs announced that Mr. Artus was not allowed on the agenda this week because of the party, and would have to return next week to discuss this matter. Selectman Chairman Childs then ordered the cameraman to take Mr. Artus's seat at the table, denying him any further comment. The party then commenced without a hitch, although if looks could kill, as they say.....

A little research has shown that Mrs. Maggie Osborne of 8 Valcat ln. has apparently dug a trench through Valcat ln. so that her new driveway to Chase Island rd. will have a gentle enough slope to enable her to receive a clean bill of health from the fire dept. to pave the way for her occupancy permit. She evidently needs the fire depts. blessing because she has failed to install sprinklers in her new house as required by town ordinance, and Valcat ln. is too steep and narrow to permit a fire truck to pass.

It also appears that Mrs. Osborne's neighbors have filed a lawsuit in Rockingham Superior Court, seeking an injunction against her driveway construction, alleging that it is being built on land owned by the neighbor!

With Mrs. Osborne's new house being on the lake side of Valcat ln. and Chase Island rd. being on the inland side of Valcat ln. It appears that Mrs. Osborne has cut a trench 24 feet or so wide, and 8'- 10' deep through this town owned road, to lower the slope of her new driveway project. The hill use to be so steep that you could barely see Mrs. Osborne's house over the top of the hill if you were sitting in a car on Chase Island rd. Now you can readily see her garage.

Mr. Artus brought up a very serious issue last night, and we are disappointed that the selectmen thought a party was more important than this pressing town business. If the selectmen allow this project to continue, than what is to stop any town resident from destroying any town road at their whim? The town can not treat one resident different than they treat another, that is precisely what has caused this town so many lawsuits in recent years.

What will the selectmen do? We can only wait and see....

186 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ignoring a resident who has an important issue, who is engaged in a lawsuit against you already, is not the smartest move.

This town is crippled and totally dysfunctional.

Anonymous said...

Did she redirect Valcat Road or block it? Can you drive on it?

This is outrageous!

I feel for the neighbor who is now in a lawsuit with a ZBA member (Maggie) who does whatever she pleases.

Anonymous said...

At least the Lt. is leaving.

Anonymous said...

When the H... did Valdcat beome a town road? All of the roads up there are narrow - a lot of them less that 18 feet. I thought ValCat was a glorified driveway.

Anonymous said...

Valcat is on the map but my driveway is not.

Anonymous said...

You can drive up Valcat as far as her ditch.

The ditch cuts of the rest of the road beyond, you can barely see this in the bottom picture. btw, the lots beyond just lost their access, with her stunt, too.

Anonymous said...

Doesn't Valcat lead to Chase Island Rd? There are houses all along there that need access. It sounds as if access has been cut off.

Anonymous said...

Valcat is town owned, but not town accepted. Residents pay for thier own plowing and maintenance.

Anonymous said...

HOW THE HELL DO YOU DIG A TRENCH ACROSS A TOWN ROAD? WHERE THE HELL WERE THE SELECTMEN, OR THE ROAD AGENT? OR THE BUILDING INSPECTOR? OR THE FIRE INSPECTOR?

Surely ALL of these town officials had to know/see/be aware of this, why does it always take a resident to get the right thing done in this town?

Anonymous said...

Hey I live on a really steep hill on Crown Hill rd. Can I cut the road down to lower my driveways slope too?

Anonymous said...

Another bully.

Anonymous said...

They were too busy partying.

Anonymous said...

For a matter like this Mr. Artus should have requested to be put on the agenda. He knows this and I would not be at all surprised if he timed his question to raise this controversy.

Also, at this point it is not a BOS issue. It belongs to the Planning Board and then the Zoning Board. Mr. Artus also knows this.

There is a process for this sorta of thing, Mr. Artus tried to bypass it, and when he was not allowed to, holy molly, his rights have been violated yet again, only this time he set it up.

I also find it interesting this topic, and its pictures, were not submitted for posting. Again, I point out, only the blog owner can directly post articles and especially pictures. Very convenient for Mr. Artus, don't ca think?

Does this blog belong to the public or is it really a soapbox for Mr. Artus and his buddies?

Anonymous said...

Why do we need zoning, if the selectmen don't enforce it for their friends on one of their boards, and make everyone else comply? Who do they think they are?

What about Mrs. Davis's rights to own property without fear of illegal taking by a board member, especially if it's blessed by the selectmen? Are they going to do what they have done in the past, saying they had no idea what was going on? BULLSHIT!!!

Once again Selectmen, ZBA, Planning Board, Police, Fire Dept., road agent refused to do their jobs. We can see many more lawsuits coming over these issues, all because these people are incompetent or worse yet complicit. Our best wishes go out to Mrs. Davis. She is going to need it.

Think it’s time to re-examine our zoning laws and the people that oversee them.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Artus DID request to be put on the agenda, the BOS DENIED him!

They said they were having the party for the Lt. Guess it was more important to wish the Lt. well in California, than to actually do town business.

Anonymous said...

Why not the BOS? Someone is destroying a town road. The selectmen control all town assets. Why woudl the destruction of Valcat be a planning board, or ZBA issue?

They already gave her a driveway permit. Their job is done.

It is the BOS that will have to deal with the destruction of a town road.

Nice try.

Anonymous said...

September 29, 2009 3:01 PM: You say "Mr. Artus DID request to be put on the agenda, the BOS DENIED him!"

However the post says, "A town resident, Mr. Artus, remained sitting in the back of the room throughout the meeting, until there was a lull in the proceedings, at which time he asked the board if he could ask them a question."

If he was on the agenda he would not have been sitting in the back requesting to ask a question. Remember, agenda requests have to be submitted before the meeting.

This whole thing sounds fishy, and not from the towns standpoint. I think Mr. Artus is playing victim again and frankly I don't believe half the things in the original post because I think Mr. Artus posted it and heavily misrepresent the true facts.

Anonymous said...

He tried to get on the agenda, in time to do so, but was denied. They wanted to have a short meeting because of the party for Lt. Baldwin.

He showed up anyway.

I think you are trying discredit him with your assumptions about his motive. You are guilty of what you are projecting on him!

Anonymous said...

Poor Mr. Artus, always the victim.

The BOS announced a week beforehand they were having a short meeting. You say he was denied but showed up anyways. Why?

Let him apply for the next meeting.

And what of the Planning Board and Zoning Boards. When was this addressed and what was the out come? Usually when someone does not like their ruling it ends up in court. Did this indeed go before them, and when?

If this can't be answered then the BOS is not the place to start the discussion.

Anonymous said...

Hey 4:02;

He put in the agenda request form on Thurs morning as required by the BOS. They said NO, because of the party.

He came anyways to ask that one question. Chief was visibly pissed that he was there. Childs did not look happy that he was there. He waited until there was a time with nothing happening while they went out to look for Billy.

Why do you have a problem with that?

Anonymous said...

the driveway permission went before the planning board and ZBA, which Mrs. Osborne sits on, that doesn't have anything to do with her destruction of a town road.

Unless you think they KNEW that she would destroy it....... hmmm..... could it be?

Anonymous said...

"Why do you have a problem with that?"

Let me get this straight. He requested to be on the agenda. They said no, not that night but he may do so next week. Rather than wait for the next meeting he shows up and brings up the subject anyways.

So, because he has to wait a week for reasons he already knew about we get the same old evil BOS rant from him. I think he went there specifically because he knew they would not let him speak because he was not on the agenda and follows up with his posting, pictures and all.

Why did he do this? What was the harm in waiting a week?

Mr. Artus likes to shake things up, loves being the victim. My problem is that I think he set this up deliberately to make the BOS look bad. And I believe as moderator of this blog, or a close personal friend of same, he got to make this posting without submitting it.

Anonymous said...

Yo!, Frankie Polito, Consigliere for the "Goombah Quartet", is that you, Frankie?

Wassamata Frankie? Tings ain't goin youse guys way lately, huh?

Das ok, tho, Frankie, cuz you'll get yours back, huh!

Youse just tell em the way its gonna be, Frankie, and everyting will be copacetic!

Anonymous said...

Hey, could it be that he thought that this is serious because if the BOS waits, Ms. Osborn could be done with her driveway, done with the destruction of town property, and given her occupancy permit and living in the house before anybody could do anything?

And just how would you feel if your neighbor cut down trees and excavated, and laid a road across your yard, without your permission, while you were away?

Think you would be pissed off? I know I would be!

And why DID the ZBA chairman take the requirement for Mrs. Osborn to prove ownership of the land out of the application process?

I am sure it wasn't favoritism for one of your board members and friends, was it Mr. Polito?

Anonymous said...

OTIS, OTIS, ODIS is fun.

Anonymous said...

No, it is not Frank speaking so you can lose that as an excuse.

Who knows what Leon thought. I don't live in that universe.
If Leon is so upset why is he not talking to the building inspector. He is the one who issues building permits, can issue stop work orders, and is the only one who can issue a occupancy permit.

Has he called Sue Killam?

I've seen nothing here that anyone followed the proper order.

How about this: On what date was the Planning Board hearing held? How about the ZBA date?

Unless those can be answered then he had no business trying to lay it on the BOS, especially since he knew it was a short session.

OBW, If Ms. Osborn is found to have done something illegally she can be forced to repair the damage, including replacement of the full grown trees.

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

Talk about not staying on topic and trying to shoot the messenger, where ta hell did that come from? Mr. Artus is trying to get the facts out to people and you slander him?

You have to be a public official. Stick to the subject.

Anonymous said...

One thing I know about Leon Artus. That guy has friends that respect him totally. Whenever I visit Leon Artus I have to wait in line to talk to him because there are usually two other friends in the driveway ahead of me chatting him up. And they don't want to give him up. I have to sit in the car and twiddle my thumbs and bide my time.

My opinion is that Leon Artus has such loyal friends because he helps folk in town in so many ways. For one thing he helps with their property taxes and generously volunteers his time to the max.

Leon Artus helps good people get justice and also fights corruption where he sees it. He is a warrior against corruption in this town. And that's the truth.

Anonymous said...

Val Cat is not town owned. Show me the minutes from the BoS meeting where it was accepted as a town road. It is a private way. It is not plowed by the town during storms.

Anonymous said...

It was never accepted as a town road, but it IS town owned. Town has certified such to state for years in DOT reports and Storm Water Managment reports. No one pays taxes on land under it. Town owns the right of way.

Anonymous said...

Same crap different place!
This stuff goes on all the time and nobody does a thing. I like the guy that got turned down for a 4 stall garage and then went and put up a Quonset hut with a foundation and poured floor 10' from a swamp and said it was temporary. RIGHT!

Anonymous said...

Why are people focused on Leon when the real problem is that a woman is being bullied in her own home? Her property is destroyed, she is now in a law suit?

I think that this is serious enough for the BOS to have taken the time to listen and act right away. Has anyone stopped this? Has the court? The town? The BOS can just as easily involve the building inspector if they see fit. Not everyone is up on the rules of who does what in the town.

People are tired of their government putting them off, working against them and denying them their rights to service and information.

Anonymous said...

Article Submission:

http://www.eagletribune.com/punewsnh/local_story_273005140.html

Atkinson gives bonus to administrative assistant

By Eric Parry
eparry@eagletribune.com

ATKINSON, N.H. — Atkinson recently hired its fourth town administrator in the last two years. Throughout that time, one person has worked countless hours to make sure the town's business has been taken care of.

On Monday night, Barbara Snicer, the town's administrative assistant since 2007, was recognized by the Board of Selectmen for taking over the town administrator's responsibilities and her own.

"It's incredible, the amount of work she's been doing," Selectman Bill Bennett said.

To reward her, selectmen unanimously approved paying Snicer a onetime bonus worth 15 percent of her salary. Bennett said the bonus is about $5,000.

Town employees did not receive any pay raises this year and selectmen said it would be inappropriate to single out Snicer for a raise. But this bonus was the next best alternative.

"It's really small compared to the effort she's put in," Bennett said.

During the latest seven-month absence of a town administrator, Selectmen's Chairman Fred Childs said he would go to Town Hall just about every day to help Snicer. But, he said, she deserves most of the credit for running the day-to-day business of the town.

Town Administrator Philip Smith was hired two weeks ago, but the job had been vacant since late January when the previous administrator quit suddenly.

Snicer has been involved in town government for years as a member of the Budget Committee, the Building Needs Committee and head of the town's television studio, according to Childs.

Whenever a new selectman is elected, Childs said Snicer helps them learn the rules and responsibilities of the job.

"She's got to teach these guys, even if they have experience," Childs said.

Anonymous said...

"Why are people focused on Leon when the real problem is that a woman is being bullied in her own home?"

Because Leon started the discussion. He or his good buddy Brownfield posted it. Remember, only the blog administrator can directly enter posts and post pictures. Don't you think it is interesting, looking over old postings, it only ones involving them that bypass the normal submission process.

He knew he was not on the agenda so I think he went looking for a fight knowing what the outcome would be and then followed up with this posting.

This is not about a resident. It is about Leon deliberately stoking the flames of hatred that many here have regarding ANYTHING those serving in a public capacity do, right or wrong.

Question, why did he not request to be put on the agenda a week earlier or wait one week for a proper hearing.

Anonymous said...

Always turned the attention away from the subject and onto the person posting.

It's just petty to keep attacking these people and you are not gaining any points for it.

Who cares owns this blog? Really, what does it matter?

There used to be a link to the webmaster. If there is, you could send your articles to them via email rather than post then here. Maybe he's doing that, bit still who cares?

Anonymous said...

"This is not about a resident. It is about Leon deliberately stoking the flames of hatred that many here have regarding ANYTHING those serving in a public capacity do, right or wrong.

Question, why did he not request to be put on the agenda a week earlier or wait one week for a proper hearing."

This is about you looking to make Leon a villian and it is supposed to be about Mrs. Davis. This is an important situation for the person going thru it, likely stressed out and under represented in town.

Leon, BTW, is serving in a public capacity without any glory or pay for what he is doing.


I personally don't know these people but I did take a ride over there yesterday and found the house and looked at the problem because one of my fellow town residents is being shafted! Stop blogging if you are only going to be part of the problem. We don't want to hear from you.

Anonymous said...

I need to feed my children. Please deduct the 5K you gave away from my next tax bill. Thank you.

Before moving on to gifting tax payer money and who is next to get a gift, LETS STAY ON THE MORE IMPORTANT ISSUE of a lady having her property taken.

My opinion

Anonymous said...

"Who cares owns this blog? Really, what does it matter? "

You'd like that, wouldn't you.

It matters as much as who owns a newspaper, TV station, or a network. FOX for instance is well known for their right wing leanings. CNBC for their left. He who own the medium owns the message content.

Mr. Artus and Mr. Brownfield have made it well known their position of matters affecting the town and when something happens to them, like the deliberative session incident, it was blog front page news barely after it happened. If that happened to you or me we'd have to post a submission in some other post and hope it gets to the front page.

Their positions on many matters is highly biased and the "Heard around town" series awhile back showed they have no hesitation in posting rumors or slanting stories to make certain town officials look bad.

So, it is all about who owns the blog. Given their history of distorting the facts anything they post is suspect. I suspect with this story there are relevant facts not stated that would change the tone, but why would they want to do that?

Anonymous said...

"So, it is all about who owns the blog. Given their history of distorting the facts anything they post is suspect. I suspect with this story there are relevant facts not stated that would change the tone, but why would they want to do that?"

Man, you are a paranoid mess! Get a grip, or a lawyer, 'cause they are doing alot to raise awareness about issues that affect the residents and I like it! I don''t much care who is behind it because I am not doing anything wrong.

How about yourself? Got something to hide?

Anonymous said...

If you want to be aware of what's going on, go to the meetings and find out first hand. Getting your "news" from an obviously slanted source is just plain dumb. They post rumors and half truths and are constantly trying to find their next lawsuit. Yes, they're really "friends" of the town as they line their pockets with our money. Please. I agree with the other poster, the owner of the blog does matter as this is clearly not "fair and balanced".

Atkinson Reporter said...

For the record, This blog is about Atkinson, and by extension, Timberlane. ANY article pertaining to those two subjects can be submitted, or may be written by the Blog administrators.

If you look back over the archived articles, you will find many written by the admin, without submission, pertaining to many issues throughout town.

As always, there is a core group of those who are relentless in their mission to discover who "owns" or "moderates" the blog, why??? Because it is always easier to "shoot the messenger" than to have to deal with the substance of the message.

Anonymous said...

Editorials are never "fair and balanced". But are the facts correct? after that you can make your own judgement

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately the "substance" is usually not very factual. Since you, the blog admins, are busy lining your pockets with tax payer money, who runs the blog IS quite relevant. Dodge all you want, but your chicken shit approach to help your own cause is very transparent.

Anonymous said...

Will you please stick to the subject matter and discuss the illegal taking of a town class 6 road? What is your position as to a regular taxpayer cutting through that road without permission?

I too don't care who owns the blog. I want to hear what regular people have to say about the subject matter and what the town should do about it.

I would expect your next posting to address the subject matter. If you don't have a position, please say so and stop trying to muddy the waters with your foolishness. It wastes valuable time.

Anonymous said...

Please explain how this blog is making money. I see no advertising here, so tell me how it's being done.

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

Lawsuits.

Anonymous said...

"As always, there is a core group of those who are relentless in their mission to discover who "owns" or "moderates" the blog, why??? Because it is always easier to "shoot the messenger" than to have to deal with the substance of the message."

No need to discover. It is well known. The evidence is been shown over and over again.

We shoot the messenger because you spend so much time shooting others. Remember the accusation against the LT. and then that half-assed apology.

Anonymous said...

So you have no position on the subject matter posted here, showing you are only interested in diverting the issue, wasting time without any concern for a fellow taxpayer having their property taken with Selectmen's consent, and are an advocate of thievery.

How much are they paying you to post here? Are you the person that vandalized personal property of people that spoke out against the towns polices? Are you the person that gave Brian Kaye the death threat? I'm thinking you are. There are people that would like to talk to you personally. I think I know how to find you.

Anonymous said...

It takes an honest judge and jury to create change. Bet they will. Hope she gets her property rights back.

Just my opinion

Anonymous said...

1 cent. They pay the vandals 2 cents and they pay the death threat makers 3 cents. Want in on the action??? They make sure they give us nice shiney new pennies too!

Anonymous said...

I liked the article about our moderator admitting in court documents he was WRONG about the 91-A RSA at deliberative session. That was way more interesting than who runs the blog. I don't care who runs it. But Frank being wrong about something and admitting it? That's just plain funny.

Anonymous said...

I hear Artus likes to plow Gary's Brown Field. Film at 11.

Anonymous said...

Hey 2:37 what do you mean the blog admins are lining their pockets with taxpayer money?

And who are they anyways? And how are they getting my money?

Anonymous said...

Well maybe in the future they will line their pockets with insurance company( not taxpayer) dollars. But as a paralegal, I can tell you that right now, they are probably spending a shit load of money just to prove a point, with little hope of any pay out at the end.

Anonymous said...

To Anon September 30, 2009 3:49 PM

Finally you admit you are getting paid to vandalize personal property of those that disagree with the selectmen. The only issue is the amount you are getting paid.

Now we want to know who is paying you. Think you have already provided that source. Now we have to put you behind bars. Will be nice to finally meet you face to face sucker.

JMO

Anonymous said...

To Anon September 30, 2009 3:09 PM

You know who runs the blog, then bring suit big mouth. Bet you will pay BIG TIME. Put your money where you BIG MOUTH is.

Anonymous said...

To Anon September 30, 2009 7:42 PM

Typical Consentino supporter. At least one of two need to be put beind bars. Who will go first?

Just my opinion

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 8:27. I'm mocking you dumb ass.

Anonymous said...

OH, I get it!

You are saying that Artus and Brownfield OWN the blog!

But wait, I thought Acciard owned it, and before that it was Grant that owned it, and before that it was Acciard and Boyle.

Why is it that every time there is somebody new complaining about shit, do you people paint them as owning the blog?

Anonymous said...

It's called passing the torch dumb ass.

Anonymous said...

Don't forget Steve L.

Anonymous said...

I think Jane C should be mentioned.
How about you?

Anonymous said...

Because o da blog , you ain't never going to get away with nuttin ever agin in this hear town.

Anonymous said...

i cept da chalange big doggy dog

Anonymous said...

The problem is, Maggie doesn't play by the rules. And, she gets away with it.

Rumor has it, she won't be paving her driveway, which will cause all the dirt and debris to go into Chase Island Road, causing issues with ALL her neighbors.

Anonymous said...

again, if the facts of the story are accurate, what difference does it make who writes it?

Anonymous said...

If you can't see the obvious grand standing by Artus, then you need to take your blinders off.

Anonymous said...

When the case against Osborne wins, you'll owe Leon a big fat apology. We'll see if you are big enough to give it.

Anonymous said...

Oh please, like Leon is going to be the deciding factor in the case. Give it a rest will you.

Anonymous said...

Lets review the history of the Osborn Family! Since early 2001 or so!
1 -Built a second floor on their island house without permits! Family states "did not know that permits were required". Created septic isssues for Big Island Pond
2 - House they had built on Hemlock Shore Drive approved for 2200 sq ft and when they sold it was listed as 3000 sq ft
3 - Built their driveway over Hemlock Hts property
4 - Chase Island property multiple issues:
A -Did not build according to ZBA approval
B- Still has not taken down boat house according to ZBA
C Driveway over private land destroying trees and changing property.
In the past if you went to the authorities in reference to any of these issues - Mrs Osborn had town officals including police believe that "Everyone was against her!"

Anonymous said...

The article says there's a town ordinance to install sprinkler systems. Really, where is it? I'd like to read it.

Anonymous said...

To Anon October 1, 2009 2:12 PM

Go to the planning board and ask Shirley to give you a copy of Fire Chief's letter dated Nov. 14, 2008 to Mr. & Mrs. Osborn requiring house to be sprinkled.

Do we have to do all the work for you to be a believer? Get off your butt and do a little research instead of complaining about the blog all the time.

Anonymous said...

OK big mouth. Open mouth, insert foot. I'll spell it out for you.

the blog article states "she has failed to install sprinklers in her new house as required by town ordinance"

There is in fact a town ordinance on sprinkler systems. I copied & pasted it directly from the town's website. Click on Selectmen, its on the right hand side of the page, Town Ordinances Update 2/11/2009. Here's exactly what it says.

"Installation of Sprinkler Systems.

Residential buildings. All living units within a rural residential cluster development shall be sprinkled in accordance with the provisions of NFPA 13-D, adopted by the State Fire Marshal on November 8, 1984."

Is her home in a rural residential cluster development??? I didn't think so. Unless you can find some unknown hidden town ordinance we're all unaware of, the BS your spreading is to go look at the fire chief's letter. Sorry but a letter from the fire chief is NOT A TOWN ORDINANCE. moron.

GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT! And pray the blog doesn't get sued for printing misleading and inaccurate information.

Anonymous said...

Why are all of you allowing one idiotic enemy of this blog to absorb so much energy and attention from the important matters at hand.

BY ARGUING WITH THIS PERSON YOU ARE ALLOWING THEM TO DISRUPT THE OPERATION OF THIS WEBSITE.

They don't listen to reason; the defend the chief and the other hacks here, and all they do is accuse the blog owner and Leon of being enemies of the town.

SO WHY ARE YOU WASTING YOUR BREATHE ARGUING WITH THEM, AND CLOGGING UP THIS BLOG WITH BULLSHIT, ENDLESS GARBAGE POSTS?

If you want to have a useless argument, go outside your home and yell at a tree. PLEASE stop engaging with this brainless suckup and IGNORE their posts. USE YOUR ENERGY TO DISCUSS AND FIND INFORMATION TO FREE OUR TOWN FROM HACKS!

Anonymous said...

BUT YOU ARE THE HACK! AND IT'S MORE THAN ONE DIPSHIT! NO GO YELL AT YOUR FRIGGIN TREE RETARD! I HOPE IT DROPS AN ACORN ON YOUR HEAD!

Anonymous said...

ignoring last post...

I think Leon possibly should have waited, but I can certainly understand that this was also a time sensitive issue that needed the board's immediate attention; that should at least recognize that this is a VERY important issue and at least released a statement to the public letting us know that they realize the issue and are working on it.

Unfortunately, there are enough of Phil's ass-kissing friends in town to insure that our public officials do very little...

Anonymous said...

To Anon October 1, 2009 3:41 PM

Thank you for producing a small part of the Zoning Ordinance as an example for your argument. Suggest you look at the total Zoning Ordinance in its entirety before you call me a big mouth. It's available at the Town Hall for a fee, and suggest you read it fully.

I would also suggest while you are at the Town Hall, you get a copy of the Osborn's conditions to obtain a building permit, then read all the letters showing her in violation (s) of her conditions.

We have our facts straight and you have fallen behind. The only fear is that you get sued for your stupidity.

I have seen a lot of stupid people post here, but you have proven to be the worst. God help us if the whole town is made up of people like you.

JMO

Anonymous said...

To Anon October 1, 2009 5:55 PM

I second that.

Anonymous said...

Anon October 1, 2009 3:41 PM

You insult me but the fact is I quoted my source for all to see exactly what the town ordinance says right on the town website. EXACTLY.

You attack the messenger like others do cause of inconvenient facts I pointed out. First I pointed out the blog article states "she has failed to install sprinklers in her new house as required by town ordinance". WHICH ONE? Show me the ordinance word for word, PLEASE.

I pointed everyone to the town website which states the ordinance for sprinklers is for cluster housing. Is the website wrong? If it is they should fix it cause I'm being misled.

Next someone said go see Shirley and read the fire chief's letter. A demand letter from a fire chief is quite a bit different than an ordinance. He doesn't have the power to write an ordinance from his pen.

Now your saying go buy a zoning manual and find some letters about violations of her building permit.

WELL WHAT THE HECK IS IT? Is it a violation of an ordinance? What does the fire chief's letter have to do with the alleged ordinance that's been violated? What does the entirety of the zoning ordinance say that we are missing? What do "all" the violation letters (all 2 or all 200?) say and for which conditions?

Your shoveling lots of spin & empty BS is what I'm hearing.

The bottom line is you keep changing your story and you fail to provide one single, hard, conclusive fact. provide the text of the zoning ordinance your talking about. How many letters for which violations? FACTS. We want FACTS not spin. Get it? SHOW US THE FACTS. Otherwise shut up and stop insulting us.

Anonymous said...

To Anon October 1, 2009 8:32 PM

I've told you how to educate yourself. It's not my job to spoon feed you every fact you want / need to know. You should have learned that in grade school. If you want me to tutor you, I just did. If you want me to re- educate you again, that's going to cost you a lot of money.

Grow up and become a man/woman or whatever. I'm thinking you are to old, a lost cause AND a waste of any educated person’s time and effort.

Good luck in life. You are going to need it. The lazy are lost.

JMO

Anonymous said...

To Anon October 1, 2009 8:32 PM

Yes, you are being misled. The town website just shows the revisions, not the whole law.

Unfortunately, the fire chief can make exceptions to conditions of the law, without notifying the public. (Least the selectmen will tell you that) That needs to be corrected.

Nobody is changing their story here. The Osborn's have violated the conditions for getting their building permit, and the board says they can't stop her. Why do we have zoning laws that the board can't enforce?

No wonder the Osborn's keep thumbing their nose at the board, knowing the board will approve anything they do behind the taxpayers back.

If you or I did what the Osborn's are doing, we would be hit with fines. No, they don't get hit with fines, and you should be shouting WHY? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, could you possibly think she has FRIENDS THERE? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

You should be OUTRAGED at the selectmen, not this blog.

Anonymous said...

Any house over 34' in height must have sprinklers

Anonymous said...

The selectmen are here to serve the town and its residents. When will you act to protect all the residents who are impacted by this illegal construction? Failure to act results in continued loss of respect. This loss occurs little by little but eventually your credibility will be reduced irrevocably and irretrievably. You have a responsibility to act consistent to protect citizens and to obey the laws of this state.

tim dziechowski said...

The requirement for sprinkers comes from the state fire code, not our zoning. By law no building permit can be issued by the town which does not comply with fire code. Maggie's driveway was too steep and is still too narrow to comply with fire code. The FD chief has authority to waive some code requirements for one and two family homes or if the building has a sprinkler system.

There are many roads in NH (Chase Island Road past the bridge comes to mind) which are narrower than the fire code requirement for new driveways.

Anonymous said...

JMO look and learn at the posts following yours. You sound like a little bully who can't get his way. The posts after you at least try to educate and inform.

You use insults because you lack the intelligence to provide a cogent response. Stop wasting our time.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry but the BOS lost ther credibility quite a few years ago(2004) when they did not up hold their oath of office then.

Nothing has changed over the years and will not until the people in office are removed, and so far the town doesn't seem to get it yet.

This is some thing that has been said over and over ad nanauseum. It is still up to the people to change it but no one seems to be listening.

So we can expect more of the same in the future.

Anonymous said...

If you know what the problems are, then why don't you run and try to fix them? All gripe, no action.

Anonymous said...

Let's see. We have an election for a Selectman every year. So you're saying that as soon as they get elected they should be thrown out?

If I have my math right, we've had two brand new Selectman in the last two years. Hardly the same board we had in 2004. Are you saying the new selectmen lost credibility as soon as they were elected?

What you say is total crap. Say everyone in a town position is thrown out tomorrow. Who would replace them. I keep hearing this rant, "throw them all out", when such a thing is totally impossible barring a civil uprising.

Is that what you want. Are you proposing anarchy and that the citizenry should storm town hall. Perhaps we should do what they did in France: Erect a guillotine in the square and start chopping some heads.

October 2, 2009 12:46 PM is right. All talk and griping and the only solutions offered are not realistic. Go get a hobby.

Anonymous said...

What do you expect from people who live in storyland? They need to keep after their favorite boogeyman, the mythical "Atkinson Mafia". They don't realise just how pathetic they really are. Speaking of pathetic, then we have the likes of Artus and Brownfield who are just waiting and praying for their next lawsuit. Apparently that's the only way they know how to make a buck. Yeah, they're real town "heroes" those two...

Anonymous said...

The previous message was sponsored by the "Atkinson League of Gutless Suck-Ups". Any appearence of guts or spine by that author is purely a coincidence and not meant to appear real.

Anonymous said...

The current issue is the rights of of a town property owner. As the town abdicates responsibility, it is up to a court to deliver justice.

It appears Town officials also violated citizen rights before and during last years deliberative session. Written laws were clearly violated and the perpetrators are unrepentant.

Consequently, the Federal Grand Jury will decide liability and what penalty will offset the violations as well as discourage future infractions.

An effective way for the town administration and their cohorts to avoid lawsuits is simply obey the laws of the State of New Hampshire and Federal Government.

If you don't violate citizens rights, you are unlikely to generate a lawsuit and penalty.

But if you do choose to violate citizen rights, then accept responsibility for it and don't blame those you harm for seeking justice under the law.

Anonymous said...

Dear October 2, 2009 4:10 PM. What I see is that October 2, 2009 3:04 PM and October 2, 2009 3:16 PM have apparently made some observations that are hitting a little to close to home and bear some truth you'd rather we not hear or deem credible.

A very feeble attempt. Go get some writing lessons and try again.

Another observation. I'm seeing the word "bully" in a great many posts recently. The chief is a bully. The BOS are bullies, Kay is a bully, the Tech Committee are bullies, my news carrier who throws my uncovered newspaper in the driveway when its raining is a bully. Atkinson is a town full a bullies. I see it everyday passing the Country Store. Someone getting a wedgie by a town bully. I thing the word is getting a little overused.

Now, I'll grant you, there are some real bullies in town. I hear two guys named Artus and Brownfield use a blog to spread rumors and half truths, with a lawyer ready if you say boo to them. Now that is real bullying.

Anonymous said...

Covering the lens of camera broadcasting a public meeting violates my rights.

The perpetrator should expect a letter from my lawyer.

Anonymous said...

I know how it is goin down now. I am gonna build that garage. One foot will be on my neighbors land. Too bad for em. He He.

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...

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...

Now, I'll grant you, there are some real bullies in town. I hear two guys named Artus and Brownfield use a blog to spread rumors and half truths, with a lawyer ready if you say boo to them. Now that is real bullying.


Agree 100 percent to this statement!!!!

Anonymous said...

Oh, ask the paper boy in and give him a mug of cocoa and tell him how important it is for you to receive a dry paper. Most likely he is just scared of you.

Anonymous said...

Those who stand up for their legal rights are not bullies. They are courageous citizens doing what is right. You can call them names or cast dispersion all you like. But it is in a court of law that you will have to explain your behavior.

Judgment day is coming. Then you can rant about how the judge and jury are these big bullies out to get you. Meanwhile ignoring your own culpability.

Anonymous said...

Why is it whenever somebody files a lawsuit against the town they are accused of "waiting for their next lawsuit, just so they can make a buck"?

Do you think their suit has no merit? If so what about acciard's suit? or grants?

Anonymous said...

"Do you think their suit has no merit? If so what about acciard's suit? or grants?"

I believe theirs have/had merit. There was real wrong doing that needs/needed to be addressed (and what, you too lazy to hit the Shift key. Names are proper nouns).

Artus and Brownfield took something that could have been resolved with a simple apology and went to town with it. Yes, what Frank did was wrong. But I also think he had reason to be concerned over Brownfield's taking of photographs. See, there is another blog site that has taken great liberties with photographs, and Frank figured out, just as the rest of us have, who was doing it.

Real harm was done to Mark and Carol. What happened to Artus and Brownfield is nowhere in the same league and I believe they provoked it.

So please, don't tell me how terribly wronged they were and how justice needs to be served. All I see is self serving grandstanding.

I remember the first Deliberative Session put on by the Artus/Brownfield team. Brownfield was not prepared by not knowing how to work his computer and the Artus speech came off as ridiculous. And now the recent Artus show, and the directly entered blog article describing such. Any credibility these two may have ever had with me was lost forever with the "Heard around town" foolishness.

They want to do some good? Hand the blog off to somebody who does not have an axe to grind.

Anonymous said...

October 2, 2009 6:45 PM

Gee, my eyes started to tear up. Just like they did the first time I read this story in Reader Digest.

See you all down at the Country Store tomorrow for the daily wedgie show. Now serving number 26.

Anonymous said...

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 will 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...

Here is the root of the problem;

Artus went out gathering signatures for a petition warrant article.

When her turned it in, the chief within the hour started calling the signers, and whining about how this article would put him out of a job, after all he had done for them, giving them rides and such.

Chief escorted these people to the town hall, where they spent an hour with the TA, preparing a letter asking for thier names to be taken off the petition.

This abuse of office, and coercion is wrong and he should be punished for it.

Brownfield was sitting in his seat at a public meeting, legally taking pictures of the moderator, when the moderator, told him to stop. The moderator took a vote to enforce his opinon that he had a right to privacy on town floor. He was wrong, and after 12 years of doing this, and lecturing the town on the right to know law, and meeting and election law, he knew he was lying when he lectured brownfield on the law. Brownfield was told that he would be escorted out if he continued to create a disturbance, this was after Frank created the disturbance. Result, Brownfield sat down and shut up, not even speaking on the article he was there to advocate for.

This type of "official Oppression" is illegal, and needs to be stopped. The hanging his hat over the camera was after all of this, and probably foolish, but was probably intended to be a demonstration of Franks order not to have his picture taken at all.

And it was Chief and Jack who first coined the term "Goombah Quartet" for themselves, Frank, and somebody else

Anonymous said...

The wheels of Justice are rolling along on DouglasVsAtkinson.

For those still uninformed you can read that lawsuit at

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

However, this is a distraction from the matter at hand.

The current matter is the property rights violation and resultant legal actions currently in progress regarding Valcat Road.

Anonymous said...

" 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."

Anonymous said...

The current matter is the property rights violation and resultant legal actions currently in progress regarding Valcat Road.

It deserves to be the main topic of conversation. It is a deplorable situation.

Anonymous said...

Regardless of what Mr. Brownfield does with his pictures he still had all the legal rights to take as many pictures as he wanted. He had the legal right to take them under the law. He has the legal right to take as many pictures as he chooses at any future deliberative session as well.

Mr. Brownfield's rights under New Hampshire statutory law, and under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, are guaranteed.

The moderators personal "laws" are null and void as the legitimate laws are set by a higher authority and enforceable by the courts.

Intimidation of a voter at deliberative session is a serious offense prosecutable in Federal Court.

Anonymous said...

BACK ON TOPIC:

The current matter is the property rights violation and resultant legal actions currently in progress regarding Valcat Road.

It deserves to be the main topic of conversation.

Anonymous said...

Artus and Brownfield are nothing more than a couple of leeches. How about trying to find a legitimate way of making money like most of the other hard working citizens of Atkinson instead of sucking off the lawyers teet. Truly the dregs of the town.

Anonymous said...

You have no respect for the law sir. Read the lawsuit. Then prepare for judgment day. We look forward to seeing you there.

Anonymous said...

"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."

We've seen this statement before and I believe it speaks volumes about what Artus and Brownfield are attempting. Whereas as a simple apology would suffice for many because of a misunderstanding, Artus and Brownfield are asking for what amounts to extortion. They have set conditions no reasonable person would accept so they have no interest in an apology.

Artus and Brownfield are professional victims and their only goal here is to "milk" the citizens they proclaim to serve.

I've seen these two in action. You'll excuse me if I do not accept their unsolicited assistance.

Yes, the wheels of justice are turning and after a judge and jury sees what is really going on, perhaps they will have turned in a different direction. Careful what you wish for. Try putting your hat over that one.

Anonymous said...

I have plenty of respect for the law. What I don't have respect for are these two money grubbing low lifes. Big difference. I wonder how it is they can stand to look at themselves in the mirror each day.

Anonymous said...

See you in court. Really looking forward to hearing the best lawyer in the state and a supreme court justice bring you to account.

Anonymous said...

Attorney Douglas is a former Superior Court and Supreme Court Justice and served in Congress representing the Second Congressional District of New Hampshire.

Anonymous said...

You don't get it. If these maggots win or lose, it doesn't change my opinion. The McDonald's coffee case was a victory and I think we all know what a joke that was.

Anonymous said...

I don't understand your attitude. The moderator stood there in front of the town, misquoted the law, lectured brownfeld on it, then enforced his mistake with a vote. All while allowing others to take pictures, only singling out Brownfeld. Then during lunch break, he and his buddy, proceeded to compound their arrogance by abusing their authority over the police to attempt to confiscate the pictures. Frank even threatened Brownfeld with removal if HE didn't stop causing a disturbance.

ALL of this happened in a public meeting where pictures are allowed by LAW.

Those are the facts, and the moderator was not only wrong, but arrogant about it.

Anonymous said...

For the simple fact that Brownfield and Artus run around and lay traps trying to find their next lawsuit. They're behavior is disgraceful. While Frank was wrong, I understand it given how they target him. There's two sides to that coin. Quite frankly, I wouldn't want my picture taken by these jerkoffs either.

Anonymous said...

"Attorney Douglas is a former Superior Court and Supreme Court Justice and served in Congress representing the Second Congressional District of New Hampshire."- in no way indicates that the lawsuit has merit nor that the plaintiffs will prevail. Citing him as an excuse for the suit has no relavance.

Anonymous said...

"October 3, 2009 1:30 PM" I was there and Artus and Brownfield did everything they could to exacerbate the incident.

I still find it incredible, and not entirely coincidental, that the details of this whole incident, with details only those involved could have known, hit blog barely after it happened.

I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no sympathy for these two. The evidence has been pointed out again and again - These two run this blog and those entries that are not reprints of the ET (copyright infringement and all) are completely self serving, and is many cases libelous.

It is these two calling the kettle black.

Anonymous said...

You continually try to name anyone suing you to be running the blog. It makes you look ridiculous. But then...you are.

Your sympathy matters to no one. It is a quality you lack.

The plaintiffs WILL get justice. Having the best lawyer in the state puts up the "A-Team" against the "B-Team". Poor you.

In the words of George W. Bush ...GET READY!! You better huddle up with your "B-Team" and have a few prayer sessions.

"Dear Lord, please save us from the justice. We don't deserve no justice. Thank you O Lord."

Anonymous said...

Anyone want to find out the truth about January 31, 2009 Deliberative Session. You REALLY want to know or are you satisfied with the vulgar spin of these town political hacks?

If you want to know the truth for yourself, borrow the Deliberative Session video from the Atkinson Town Library.

"The truth will set you free."

LegalBeagle said...

To the poster at 6:10pm;

It is not libelous nor copyright infringement to reprint a newspaper article that is already in the public domain, if it is properly attributed, and it is not being reprinted for profit.

The truth is always an absolute defense to slander and libel.

It IS clearly a violation of someones civil rights for a governmental entity(or it's officials) to establish one set of rules for one person or group, that is more restrictive than that established for the general public, it is called "Equal Protection under the law" and is codified in the 14th ammendment to the Constitution of The United States of America.

If I were you, I would seek a credit from the institution that granted your Juris Doctorate.

Anonymous said...

AMEN Anon October 4, 2009 9:32 AM

Anonymous said...

LegalBegal,

The proper way to repost an article is to provide a link to the original and only copy and paste a few paragraphs at most, not the entire article. This is copyright infringement. I called the editor of the ET and he agreed. We'll see if he decides to pursue it. Perhaps you should brush up on your legal books. Either that or ask for a refund from your institution of higher learning.

Anonymous said...

The last comment speaks volumes: this person admits to tattling on this blog in an attempt to limit our ability to cap the power and expose the corruption of a few local hacks.

Make no mistake: these same 1 or 2 posters here aim to close this blog because it exposed what was happening behind the scenes.

If it's not Sapia, Fred, or Consentino then it is certainly someone in their family. PLEASE limit your responses to these fools, because they love derailing the exchange of information here with their empty non-arguments.

They are not interested in logical arguments. YOU WASTE YOUR TIME, and this blog's energy, when you respond to them!

Anonymous said...

The last comment speaks volumes: this person admits to tattling on this blog in an attempt to limit our ability to cap the power and expose the corruption of a few local hacks.

Make no mistake: these same 1 or 2 posters here aim to close this blog because it exposed what was happening behind the scenes.

If it's not Sapia, Fred, or Consentino then it is certainly someone in their family. PLEASE limit your responses to these fools, because they love derailing the exchange of information here with their empty non-arguments.

They are not interested in logical arguments. YOU WASTE YOUR TIME, and this blog's energy, when you respond to them!

Anonymous said...

Try some Midol. It might help you with your condition.

Anonymous said...

Okay, so someone reports a crime (copyright infringement) and you're crying because you think they're a "tattletale"? Are you deranged? I guess you only want certain people to be held accountable but not others. Hypocrit.

Anonymous said...

Wow. Sounds like LegalBegal is both wrong, and an Artus and Brownfield lapdog. And for the whiner that's crying about the poster expecting the blog admin to play within the rules, that's just pathetic.

Artus and Brownfield, sounds like the jig is up. Too bad you've been exposed for what you really are. The town deserves better than what you two bring.

Anonymous said...

LegalBeagal really went to the dogs. Remind me not to hire that bow wow when I need a real lawyer. Woof.

Anonymous said...

LOL!!! What did Artus and Brownfield hire their own blog lawyer? LOL!!! This is classic! Talk about scrapping the bottom of the barrel! What a couple of losers!

Anonymous said...

There are two courts. Those who dispense justice according the law, and the court of public opinion.

Artus and Brownfield may have a case and they can tout their high power lawyer as evidence that they may have an edge.

But, given their proclamations of having the public good at heart they must ask themselves this: What is more important to them? Dragging this town through a messy court battle and demanding what amounts to extortion as a remedy, or are they more concerned with what the citizenry thinks of their actions.

The way they handled themselves at the Deliberative Session, and the foolishness that also occurred, does not give this citizen reason to cheer them on.

They may win the battle, but they are also surely losing the war.

Anonymous said...

Yes, but if they win the battle and the war then what for the town?

Anonymous said...

if you do choose to violate citizen rights, then accept responsibility for it and don't blame those you harm for seeking justice under the law.

Anonymous said...

" Yes, but if they win the battle and the war then what for the town?

October 4, 2009 8:37 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

if you do choose to violate citizen rights, then accept responsibility for it and don't blame those you harm for seeking justice under the law.

October 4, 2009 9:00 PM"

You completely miss the point. People are not rooting for these two. It is harming their reputations. They have trouble being taken seriously by anyone associated with town government already. Now they just sit there and pump gasoline into the situation.

What kind of reception you think these two will get at the next Deliberative Session if they come up with more petitions? Not with welcomed arms I assure you. And they might as well forget trying to get these petitions through. That well was dirty before. Now it is completely poisoned. I would not be at all surprised if there is some booing from the crowd if either one tries to speak, and those booing will be exercising their rights.

Artus has this big thing about evaluations. His ability to get any changes to the laws have dropped to nil.

What do think will happen when if they win. You think anyone will throw a parade for them? Will people shout from their rooftops, "We have been avenged." Well, I can only think of two.

So, continue harping about justice. Goody for them. As I said, they may win the battle, but the they have completely lost the war for the hearts of the Atkinson citizens. Atkinson is fed up with them, and I guess there is some justice in that.

Anonymous said...

You sound desperate.

Anonymous said...

Desperate? That poster is dead on. Artus and Brownfield are no heros. Their act is sorry and tired.

Anonymous said...

I disagree with Anonymous said...
October 4, 2009 2:48 PM and the Editor of the Eagle Tribune.

Google "Fair Use Doctrine". It certainly applies to blogs.

And there isn't much point in quoting part of an article and including a pointer to the original
article. Many newspapers delete the online version after 30 days or
restrict access. That's the whole point of quoting entire articles.
In case the originals disappears.

Anonymous said...

Anon October 5, 2009 6:47 AM,

Many newspapers do not delete an article after 30 days, they archive it. So if you want access to it, you'll need to go to a local library which has a subscription to the newspaper archives or you can pay for the article. You can make a case that the blog is potentially cutting into the ET's profits by publishing the full length articles.

Anonymous said...

copyright infringement isn't a crime, it is a civil matter

Anonymous said...

Read it and weep:

Free Republic, LLC, owner of the political website freerepublic.com, was found liable for copyright infringement in L.A. Times v. Free Republic for reproducing and archiving full-text versions of plaintiffs' news articles even though the judge found the website minimally commercial. She held that "while defendants' do not necessarily 'exploit' the articles for commercial gain, their posting to the Free Republic site allows defendants and other visitors to avoid paying the 'customary price' charged for the works."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Practical_effect_of_fair_use_defense

The wholesale lifting of ET articles is infringement. Our "heros" strike again.

Anonymous said...

Now really Anonymous said... "minimally commercial"? Has the owner of the Atkinson Blog made any money off the site?

If anyone's making any money it's the Eagle Tribune, trying to capitalize on the discord in our town.

Anonymous said...

The ET hires and pays for their reporters and deserve to be compensated for providing coverage. If I'm not mistaken, the ET charges for archived articles. This blogs reposting of their articles can impede the ET from making money on them. Therefore, what the blog admins are doing is infringement.

LegalBeagle said...

The standard that the Court set in the FreeRepublic case, as well as another case in Alabama, was that the site had to be "minimally commercial" in the FreeRepublic case, or "making money from the content" in the Alabama case. Reprinting for information use only, when there is no charge or profit motive, would not qualify.

Anonymous said...

It's preventing the owner of the content from making money on it. It would qualify. So, how much do they pay you to keep you on retainer?

Anonymous said...

"You sound desperate."

And you sound scared. That is the only explanation I can come up with a response like that.

I'm not desperate about anything. Never have been. I'm stating it like I see it. As it is now when anyone sees these two show up at a public meeting the overwhelming response is the rolling of eyes and muttering of "Here we go again." And this is occasionally accompanied by taking a whiff of air to see if any distilled products can be detected. Is this the mark of a someone who can be taken seriously or someone who can effect change?

Someone earlier posted, "The truth will set you free." Well my friend, this is the truth these two have created for themselves. If I need help with a town matter, I think I'll seek out someone else who is taken seriously.

Anonymous said...

"What kind of reception you think these two will get at the next Deliberative Session if they come up with more petitions? "

I personally hope that the residents of this town are not ignorant enough to go against future petitions because they are biased against the person seeking signatures. It would be so prejudicial for anyone to react this way, but people show their true character in tough times.

Anonymous said...

why are you so sure that brownfield and artus own this blog?

I remember when acciard was suing chief, it was claimed that he owned the blog?

Or does ownership automatically pass to the town's newest critics upon lawsuit filings?

Anonymous said...

Acciard did run the initial blog. As far as Artus and Brownfield running this one, the evidence is pretty overwhelming.

Anonymous said...

Yawn

Anonymous said...

ok so now you can give EVIDENCE that Aciard ran "initial blog", and the OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE that Brownfield and Artus run this currently.

Evidence is defined as "fact", not an opinion or assertion.

Anonymous said...

what does it matter who writes the story as long as what it is discussing happened?

Does who reports an event, change the event itself?

Anonymous said...

"I personally hope that the residents of this town are not ignorant enough to go against future petitions because they are biased against the person seeking signatures."

You're kidding, right? When presenting petitions the character of the person doing it is a major factor in peoples decisions. No matter how important a petition may be, if the voters can't stand the presenter it does not have a chance. This is called human nature.

If Artus and Brownfield wish to ever be taken seriously again they may wish to rethink their strategy. IT DOES NOT MATTER whether they are right or not. People are not going to care about that after the spectacle they made of themselves and their actions afterwards.

You can't shoot yourself in the foot then claim you're a victim. Case in point: Hat in front of the camera. Stupid, stupid, stupid. And boy, have these two overplayed the victim card.

Anonymous said...

"Does who reports an event, change the event itself?"

Does not change the event, but the reporter can sure change the interpretation. FOX will take a political activity and put an entirely different spin on than would CNBC.

Do you think the New York Times and the National Enquirer would publish the same story in the same way?

Anonymous said...

hat in front of camera came after Frank's behavior.

And how have they overplayed the "victim card"?

I think they filed suit, nothing more. What else have they done?

Anonymous said...

"October 5, 2009 1:07 PM"

There is circumstantial evidence. Lights go out. Gun goes off. Lights come on, there is a dead man on the floor and another man holding a smoking gun in his hand.

No one saw him do it but you can sure bet the jury will believe he did.

The circumstantial evidence that either one or both of these two run this thing has been posted many times in many topics.

No, I have not see them at the keyboard, but I've seen enough to believe beyond a reasonable doubt this blog is under their control.

I don't have to prove it. I only have to believe its true and that is what counts.

Anonymous said...

"Do you think the New York Times and the National Enquirer would publish the same story in the same way?"


NO! I think the National Enquirer would be more honest, whereas the Times can't distinguish between news and editorial.

Anonymous said...

It's funny to see Artus and Brownfield's merry gang of blog supporters squirm now that they've been identified as the blog admins. It's not hard to see the men behind the curtain. So tell us guys, has this blog been worth the effort you put into it to try to advance your own selfish needs? Do you enjoy driving up our tax rates with your never ending lawsuits? Can you even look at yourselves in the mirror and see what a sorry state you really are? I didn't think so.

Anonymous said...

"October 5, 2009 3:02 PM" It was a rhetorical question numb nuts. I guess its like satire in this little universe. You have to point it out first.

Anonymous said...

OUTSIDE OBSERVER SAYS

I'd bet 3-5 people on each side posting. Lots of slander back and forth. Speculate speculate speculate on a case before its trial. Lotsa blah blah blah.

JUDGEMENT

Nobody's convincing anybody of anything here. some sympathy for both sides but for very different reasons.

Let's see what the court decides. I hope for no settlement but want a CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR verdict from a jury to put an end to it once and for all. Until then all the blather on a blog don't mean SH--. Oh and one other thing, I don't really care who runs this thing. I appreciate the blog entertainment value & would rather have it that not.

MAcciard said...

Ok so I have a question for the last couple of commentators;

I have read a lot of condemnation of those, like myself, that have filed actions against the town or it's officials, but I read little condemnation from those same sources of their town officials who did the action, or created the situations that required the lawsuits, why do you reserve your venom, and your endless plaintive whinings about your tax rate for the Plaintiffs, and none for the Officials who caused the situation in the first place?

and as a Postscript;

The lawsuits, unfortunately affect the tax rate very little, as the Town does not pay, but the managed risk pool, Primex, does. Perhaps if people were more aware of the total amounts being spent in their names to defend the actions of our town officials, there would be a greater demand for accountability.

Anonymous said...

There's maybe 2-3 people (I suspect less) here that post against the blog; if you mention that suddenly there's a big flurry of like-minded posts.

Don't believe the hype folks, it's the hacks themselves or their family members that have been revealed here that try and slam the blog. They're either selectmen or maybe big interest related (i.e. Hampstead Water/Lewis Homes/East Coast Lumber).

Just imagine who stands to lose the most if they lose their hold on power, that's who works against this blog: long live Leon/Carol/Mark and any others with the courage to fight the Atkinson Mafia! Stand with us!

Anonymous said...

"You're kidding, right? When presenting petitions the character of the person doing it is a major factor in peoples decisions. No matter how important a petition may be, if the voters can't stand the presenter it does not have a chance. This is called human nature."

This is ignorant. I don't vote for articles because of my feelings about the presenter. If you do that, you are a making a mockery of our voting process and you might as well stay home because this type of behavior only hurts the town because it's vindictive and petty.

Anonymous said...

"There's maybe 2-3 people (I suspect less) here that post against the blog; if you mention that suddenly there's a big flurry of like-minded posts."

Oh, so most of those who "post against the blog", which means in this case Artus and Brownfield, are just like lemmings who blindly follow a few leaders. Sorta like another poster who calls anyone who disagrees with Zombies.

That is a good way to gain support. Insult a majority of the posters by essentially calling them stupid. Good marketing move.

You say "post against the blog." Almost this entire post has been about Artus and Brownfield. Are you saying people are actually posting against them because they run it? That is certainly what it sounds like.

Anonymous said...

Mark,

Actually, very few of the posts here have been directed at you, or Carol. Perhaps that is because real harm was done. Though we may not like it, I can personally understand the actions you and Carol took.

In this case, however, the Frank made a mistake and I feel Artus and Brownfield are doing everything they can to milk it. No real harm was done and their actions at the Deliberative Session made them look foolish. I'm not saying Frank was right, and I believe in freedom of speech. But, I was there, I saw it, and between what I saw there and the vitriol I saw written here, posted virtually in real time, makes me truly wonder if this is really about freedom of speech or just an attempted money grab.

Example - The apology they demand. They have made it impossible to comply with because no one would agree to such terms. They want the suit, not an apology.

Hence I don't put their grievance in the same league of what you and Carol endured.

Frank was wrong but quite frankly, I don't want Brownfield taking my photo either, whether he has a right to or not.

Anonymous said...

It's very telling that you object to Leon and Brownfield's actions BUT...

You're not bothered at all by the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dollars the Consentino has cost the town through lawsuits?

Care to explain that?

Anonymous said...

We're just waiting for any local blog critic to answer that last question...

Anonymous said...

"Care to explain that?"

Simple, he is not the topic of discussion. Artus and Brownfield are.

And again, the term blog critic is used when the topic is Artus and Brownfield. How is criticizing their actions criticizing the blog, Hummmm?

Anonymous said...

"In this case, however, the Frank made a mistake and I feel Artus and Brownfield are doing everything they can to milk it. No real harm was done and their actions at the Deliberative Session made them look foolish. "

Frank didn't make a mistake, everyone in that room knew that you cannot deny photos be taken at a public meeting, everyone. Not one selectman or other town official stood up and corrected him. He did this on purpose and had every opportunity to correct it as he was reminded at the time that he was wrong. His apology means nothing.

I think this town is run by a bunch of jerks.

Anonymous said...

Didn't hitler say a lie can be made to look like the truth? This guy writing over and over the same stuff is evil and a liar and looks like a bad person to anyone.

I saw All the videos on here. Not simple mistakes like this liar says. Hope they pee in the pants when convicted.

This town needs house cleaning. Too many nasty people treating common folk badly.

Anonymous said...

"His apology means nothing. "

Then why are Artus and Brownfield demanding this from Frank: "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."

If his apology means nothing, then why make this demand? Because Artus and Brownfield know no reasonable person would agree to such a thing. So, since they can't get this apology, "On with the lawsuit".

You know, your right. Frank's apology means nothing because they know that this demand will never be met. They want the cash.

Anonymous said...

"Didn't hitler say a lie can be made to look like the truth? This guy writing over and over the same stuff is evil and a liar and looks like a bad person to anyone.

I saw All the videos on here. Not simple mistakes like this liar says. Hope they pee in the pants when convicted.

This town needs house cleaning. Too many nasty people treating common folk badly."

You are obviously a very bitter person and probably no fun at parties, if you are ever invited to one.

Anonymous said...

Well I heard that Leon went to the meeting and the end result is Maggie is in a buncha trouble with her permits.

He proved her wrong.

Anonymous said...

Where's mention of Steven Lewis? He's a plaintiff. Why isn't he getting mentioned?

I'm looking at this case and reading the court documents on the Atkinson Taxpayer association website for all the cases against Frank, Phil , etc and there's lots of info there I find hard to dismiss. The PR battle can wage on but the facts are getting lost in all the spin. Guess we'll have to wait for a verdict. Plaintiffs are being forced to go to a verdict to prove their point and will never settle is how I'm seeing it.

Anonymous said...

Why would they? They settle it allows the defendants to come back to town laughing about how they did nothing wrong, nobody proved anything, etc.

back in '04 or '05 that budget guy won against Phil, and Phil STILL was saying in meetings that he won, nothing would change, and that guy got nothing!

These people don't have any shame. And it doesn't hurt them because they have big fancy lawyers paid for by us! It doesn't cost them a dime, they don't lose any sleep over it, but the guys who take them to court, i'll bet it huts them!

Anonymous said...

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 will 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...

Saw that Artus speak on TV last night. He has his shit together. He asked the BOS to stop that lady- so can't get an occupancy permit or other permit.

Artus shows this 2008 paper the BOS signed that says the lady has to get permission FROM THEM before any mods to the road. And it wasn't done before the land was dug up!! The BOS said they had no authority. Couldn't do a thing. Now this paper where they signed there names. OMG

Anonymous said...

To Anon October 4, 2009 9:55 PM

Please explain how you know that:

They have trouble being taken seriously by anyone associated with town government already. ?

Please explain how you have that inside information.

Anonymous said...

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, no answer? That's because you are AN INSIDER trying to slander the people that have the facts.

You are a selectman.

JMO

Anonymous said...

The BOS and PB screwed up on stating that Valcat was a public road. The Road agent knowing it was private gave permission for the BOS office and issued a permit. Document singed by the Osbournes is not worth paper it is written on. Right to the ROW is clearly stated on Davis's deed BK 3523 PG 2681, Osbournes deed BK4709 PG1468 a plan of the land and ROW Mr Davis was subject to is recorded under Catalano BK0457-5057 Plan 00001-36117 registered on 11-08-1995. Mr. Davis has no right to keep others from the deeded ROW to their private road" Valcat Lane". BOS are in hot water for getting bad legal advice and not doing their do diligence. The town has caused these neighbors to turn on each other creating nothing but bad blood, expense and hardship that will cost the taxpayers big. Mr. Davis and the Osbournes need a good attorney and Leon should be in jail for breaking the law and taking advantage of this situation for his personal gain.

Before you tar, feather or charge to the town hall with your pitch forks do your homework or you will be in jail next to Leon. This is no ones business but the people involved. No sides to take just the law!

Anonymous said...

New driveway looks great!

Anonymous said...

The information here is great. I will invite my friends here.

Thanks

Anonymous said...

If some one needs expert view about running a blog after that i advise him/her to pay a quick visit this webpage, Keep up the
pleasant work.

my web site: cheap health insurance