From the Eagle Tribune;
Letter: Thanks for vote of confidence
To the editor:
I would like to thank the residents of Atkinson for their vote of confidence during last week's voting.
Article 32 requesting that the Police Department's command structure remain as it presently is with a part-time police chief overwhelmingly passed with 1,146 voting yes and only 261 voting no. This is about a 5 to 1 margin.
Again, to the residents of Atkinson I say thank you for your vote of confidence.
Philip V. Consentino
Atkinson Police Chief
Director of Elderly Affairs
What our police chief once again chooses to ignore is that it was not a vote of confidence. For the majority of voters who do not pay attention to deliberative session, they saw an article asking to change nothing, It is like having one name on a ballot, OF COURSE they voted for it.
Chief, ask yourself, how would the people have voted if your friends, like Jack Sapia, hadn't moved the article forward to be discussed immediately after lunch, then quickly demolished the original petitioned article on town floor, and then quickly moved the question before there could be any debate.
It is easy to claim a win when you didn't face a challenger. Try standing toe to toe with someone as determined as yourself, before you claim victory.
Atkinson Town Hall
The Norman Rockwellian picture of Atkinson
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
65 comments:
How arrogant can you get?
Considering his cronies reworded the original warrant article at deliberative session to mean something different than what was originally intended, he's giving himself a mandate, while misleading the public again!
Warrant read:
Warrant Article for a Full time Police chief
To See if the voters will direct the selectmen to Advertise; direct the State Police interview unit to conduct the screening process, and hire the MOST QUALIFIED by objective standards of; education, and time in service (minimum qualifications are; a Bachelors degree in Criminal Justice, and at least 15 years of certified service on a civil police force) candidate for the position of full time police chief. Said position to encompass the duties of the current part-time chief, and the current full time administrative Lieutenant, and will have a starting salary of $60,000, plus the commensurate benefits, enjoyed by the current chief of police. The selectmen are to begin this process within 14 days of this article being passed by the voters, and this process MUST be completed within 60 days of the passage of this article. Advertisements for this position are to run in at least 3 newspapers of general circulation in the Town, for at least 14 days.
They changed it to read:
Shall the Police Department Command structure remain the same as prescribed under the RSA'S?
Voters never got to vote on the real warrant. Disgusting! Extremely Disgusting thing to write by Phil Consentino.
BTW the RSA's prescribe no particular command structure. That is determined by the town.
Typical Phil, close off all other options so the town HAs to do it his way. Then thank them for the support they showed by doing it his way.
Yeah but....
the RSA's do not state what wes represented in the letter (" Article 32 requesting that the Police Department's command structure remain as it presently is with a part-time police chief overwhelmingly passed....")The article 32 passed states " ...the police department command structure remain the same as prescribed under the RSA's?" NOTE the limitation is to the RSA's not current practice. The RSA's controling state:
105:1 Appointment. – The selectmen of a town, when they deem it necessary, may appoint special police officers who shall continue in office during the pleasure of the selectmen, or until their successors are chosen or appointed. The selectmen may designate one of the police officers as chief of police or superintendent and as such officer the chief of police or superintendent shall exercise authority over and supervise or superintend other police officers, police matrons, watchmen or constables appointed under the provisions of this chapter, and said police officers, police matrons, watchmen or constables shall be accountable and responsible to said chief of police or superintendent. Nothing herein shall be construed to preclude or prevent a town from electing constables or police officers at an annual town meeting pursuant to the provisions of RSA 41:47.
105:2 Form. – Such appointment shall be made in writing, under the hands of the selectmen, and recorded, with a certificate of the oath of office thereon, by the town clerk.
The Selectmen must comply with these statutes an not on some arbitrary or capricious practice.
So The people of Atkinson voted OVERWHELMINGLY, (isn't that the word, Phil?) to make the selectmen obey the RSA's concerning the police dept. structure.
So Selectmen, when are you going to appoint a part time chief, seeing as Phil's appointment EXPIRED May 1, 1999!
You CAN re-appoint Phil, but that probably wouldn't be good seeing as he is the subject of two multi-million $ lawsuits against the town.
Oh, what to do? what to do?
Well?? Who is the public spirited citizen that will write the letter and inform the Selectmen that 2009-32 requires their action?
Quit whining!
You bait people--they stoop to your level (human nature) and respond--and then you blast and/or sue them!
Pretty childish to me!
You all will never do for the town what Phil, even with all of his shortcomings, has done. Pity!
Your lawsuits will ultimately have to show "harm." I doubt you can do that--and you certainly can't point to much "good" that you have done.
Don't whine about the Dileberative Session! Placing blame on indviduals and procedures is just an excuse for the fact that your tired, repitious arguments just can't muster the votes.
Isn't democracy wonderful!
Having only a small percentage of voters at Deliberative Session, with a modus operandi to control and/or preserve self-interest and exploitation of funds, is not democracy. Deliberative Session as now allowed actually results in the destruction of true democracy.
If voters were given the choice to vote on Warrant Articles as written you achieve true democracy.
Look at history-- In Ancient Athens ALL citizens would gather at the marble steps of the outdoor forum, in sun or rain, and ALL citizens would hear all speakers--then vote. At first they voted using white and black stones but this was changed later to a method allowing increased anonymity.
By the way, jeering and booing were considered appropriate and enjoyed by all Athenians.
You want to see true democracy in Atkinson? Then do what the inventors of democracy knew to be right and allow all citizens to hear discussion and then vote. Hearing all discussion is not allowed in Atkinson
In Atkinson, you have an entrenched minority WHO STIFLE DEBATE AND control with the votes of 100 or so supporters distorting what THOUSANDS OF OTHERS are even allowed to see on a ballot! That system is corrupt. It is the purposeful perversion of democracy promoted by those (state officials included) who would not know democracy from a dog turd.
My Tsuggestion is that all readers learn about democracy and be honest with yourself as to the best way to achieve it. Here is a very prominent question-- WHAT VOTER WILL SIGN A CITIZEN PETITION WARRANT ARTICLE...IN FUTUREYEARS...KNOWING THAT THE INK FLOWING FROM THEIR PEN IS WORTHLESS? Ahhh. That's the definitive "rub-out" of democracy>
And to all citizens of the town that did not come to Deliberative Session--Well, in ancient Athens, you would be ostracized from the town and forced to wander in foreign lands!
To Ms. anon March 21, 2009 11:14 AM,
Exactly what is your problem? You were the first whiner in this thread. Did you think the article was screwed up and has no effect? Sorry you don't read well. Practice, practice, practice, then when you bring something to deliberative session you can whine better. You are not interested in the town just your anger and vengeance because of stupidity.
Huh? Last comment totally confused me.
There is a reason that some petitioned warrants fail at the Deliberative Session. Not enough people support them strongly enough to show up and defend them. Don't blame the majority who do show up--and do take an interest in the town--and who have every right to speak for--or against--petitioned warrants.
Those with weak arguments are always the first to "blame a conspiracy." Sometimes the petitioned warrants are not well-intentioned, or even well written. One of this years's, that I saw a petition for, even had the same phrase repeated twice in the same sentence. Indicating that the drafter had not even proofread their own words. Why should they not expect people to question something like that?
Deliberative session is corrupted like a bad hard drive. But since the result is so corrupt it is not worth my time to write more.
Good!
Hey 11:14, what are you whining about?
Did any of the commenters say anyhting factually wrong?
The article as ammended DOES say obey the RSA's and the RSA's do require an appointment, and Phil's appointment DID expire in 1999.
Guess what, if the selectmen had done their jobs, when resident complaints came in, instead of blowing them off, none of these lawsuits would be happening. But I read these things on the taxpayers website, and I have seen these things happen with my own two eyes.
And I know if they happened to me I would be pissed off too.
Maybe Mark Acciard would ask the selectmen to obey Article 32. His name is already out there, and he wouldn't be any bigger target by doing it.
Sure the chief has given lots of elderly people rides. But that is the job of the elderly affairs director, and when Carol Grant did it, she didn't use them for political support every time he gets into trouble.
But does doing things for the elderly make all the bullying, screaming at people at meetings, following them, harrassing people he doesn't like with his authority, and then calling them criminals in meetings, and what about the endless lawsuits?
WE PAY FOR ALL OF THAT!
Isn't time for it to stop?
Can you imagine what the selectmen would have done to Teddy, if he did any of that crap?
Consentino can never live long enough to make up for all the harm he has done to people. What little good he has pretended to do, is of no consequence. He needs a good "playground beating" and he will get it.
i vote for the playground beating
So all of you Phil supporters, think that he should destroy people on camera? You think he should investigate them? You think it is funny when people laugh that "you should drive 20mph through town for the rest of your life because you criticized the police chief? You think it is ok, for him to call Carol Grant a federal criminal on camera, even after the selectmen told him not to? You think it is ok for him to use the police dept. to go after people who piss him off? Then what are you going to say when YOU piss him off and he comes after you?
March 23, 2009 11:16 AM,
Do you mean a beating at the new playground that is being built for drug dealers, gangs and what other unsavory characters you can think of?
Wait till the folks in Atkinson feel the burden from that voted in perk.
I get so sick of hearing the standard "but Phil does such good work with the elderly" whenever he bullies somebody.
That is like the bank robber expecting to get off because he gave the money to charity!
Sound like a referendum Castro or Saddam would put to the people.
And it was not the warrant article that petitioners wanted. So it is time for another petition. And again and again until the voters understand what it is that was supposed to have been presented.
I think the voters understood what was suppose to be presented. They would have voted it down anyway. except the facts. You lost now take your toys and go home.
I feel the town has functioned well under the current structure. And I dont really see a need to change it. Some of the comments suggest that people who voted for this did not watch or participate in the town deliberation. That is a biased assumption to back your own opinion. I for one did watch and voted for what I thought best for the town and myself. I cant speak for other voters but then again I will not make biased assumptions.
Thank you Eagle Tribune for your continued thoughtful journalism and serious investigative reporting. Not.
All the paper does is pour gas on the fire to say - "look what so and so said". I am going to cancel it. One week they show the chief getting investigated by the AG and soon after they have him shaking hands with a senior like he is some god.
Which is he? Criminal or saint? You can't be both. That newspaper ain't worth recycling. Their editor should be fired.
By publishing the chief's propoganda, they're nothing more than his tool.
Maybe you should sue the Tribune too. Then you can sue the organizer of this blog for reposting it. Definitely sue the people who commented on it. Did I miss anyone else who should be on the sue list???
Oh yes you missed suing the people who receive the Tribune and read it because they are all part of the conspiracy..omg it just might be the Trueman show..:)
uh huh, I think you are right, the people complaining are whiners!
They should cancel their lawsuits and go home.
I mean, come on,, lets be real here, if they didn't question Phil, nothing else would have happened!
If they didn't question the stupid shit he did, then he wouldn't HAVe to tell the town about them at meetings, or give them tickets, or have his officers kick them out of town hall, or sue them, or screw with their jobs.
If they didn't complain in the first case, they wouldn't have been vandalized! Come on, these people need to shut up and go home.
RIGHT?
Hey, I have a question...
Is anything these people have complained about wrong?
I mean did Phil really do this stuff? and if he did, is that acceptable? and why?
I think the damage done to Mark's house was reprehensible. I also think comments like:
"He needs a good "playground beating" and he will get it."
are equally reprehensible! This sounds like a threat to me.
So much for exchange of ideas on this blog...it's just full of anger and vitriol.
to Anon March 24, 2009 11:03 AM
"Maybe all of you whiners and complainers should pack up and move to a nice big city where you belong."
You must be the clown that vandalized Mark's house. I bet you get along real well with your neighbors too. They must love the 10 foot high stockade fence around your yard with the barbed wire on top and pit bulls. When are you putting in the guard towers?
You must be the clown that vandalized Mark's house. I bet you get along real well with your neighbors too. They must love the 10 foot high stockade fence around your yard with the barbed wire on top and pit bulls. When are you putting in the guard towers?
Are you kidding me....1 I think it's terrible, that some one would vandalize someones house..2. I get along with all my neighbors just fine. As far as the other stupid remarks, well they just baffles me. Have a great day..
Hey baffled, I think you were the one who suggested people should leave town. Maybe that's what's irritating people, ya think?
Hello, it occurs to me that if we all posted with a name, that confusion about who posted what anonymous comment would be eliminated.
I fully understand the reasons why many of you choose not to post under your own names, but you do have the option of choosing a psuedonym that appeals to you, as some others on this blog have done.
Think about it please, it would make conversation on this forum much clearer and easier for all.
Thank you
Mark Acciard
I suggested those who want this small town to be run like a city, and complain find about every public official,
may just want to move to a city. that would be pretty much what i said. so I am still baffled.
What's there to be baffled about? It's pretty simple actually. You have two groups who don't like each other. One group is in charge, the other wants to be. When the second group doesn't get their way, they sue the first group. Our own version of the Hatfields and McCoys. Makes for great entertainment.
NO..I am baffled at why the hell someone would say that I have a wall and pit bulls......I can follow the rest around..
Well this is just entertaining in itself.
I will take Marks suggestion and naming my comments. I have lived hear my whole life and have seen how people move to Atkinson and because they like the town. Its not long till they try to change it or say things like "Well we had this where I was from, and we should have it hear".
Now I know progress is progress and I am all for it, but there is a valid argument for the pack and move responses, although I would not convey it that way.
Vandalism is wrong period. Its no solution, and I am sorry it happened Mark, and whoever did it should be prosecuted if arrested.
I know Mark personally. I don't pick his agenda nor side with him but he has a right to question his government, as we all do. Personally I feel if there are concerns with the way Phil is operating the PD fiscally then a warrant should be drawn up to have an independent audit done. Everything else is assumption and conjecture. I have no problem with Phil and know him personally as well, and unless real evidence is presented ,I stand by him and approve of his handling of the police department. Phil has done a lot of good in the town as well as his officers and we should not forget that.
Suing each other over things is not the answer, and I (we) end up paying the suit anyway through taxes. So I am not for any suit. I am for honest town warrants and requirements to see a check and balance of accountability.
To Anon March 25, 2009 6:12 PM
Welcome to the Blog. If you want the proof as to who is causing the problems in town visit:
http://www.atkinsontaxpayers.org/atkinson/category/lawsuits/
There is no assumption and conjecture, Phil has caused all the lawsuits within our town. This is the real evidence and more is about to come. After reading the evidence and you want to stand with Phil, you deserve to pay any additional taxes that are assessed. Good luck with that, but taxpayers have paid enough for selectmen refusing to do their job. It's the selectmen and Consentino that force good law abiding citizens into court, because they refuse to do thier jobs.
You want to change things for the better, I suggest you get involved with holding your elected officials accountable. That includes attending deliberative session once a year. If you don't attend, you have no right to speak here.
Questions:
1. Are you a registered voter?
2. Are you involved in the budget process?
3. Did you vote this year for town issues?
4. Did you know what was going to be on the ballot before your showed up to vote?
5. Did you study the issues before you voted, in order to make an informed decision?
If you weren't an informed voter before you voted, I can understand why you would support the Consentino.
Please answer the questions above, so I can make an informed decision on your opinion.
Again, welcome to the Blog.
I think the Atkinson Taxpayers Association has their own agenda. Not exactly a biased free source of information. As far as the lawsuits, they're nothing but allegations until they've been tried. I'll withhold my opinion until I see what becomes of them.
It is a clue when someone's had so many complaints and lawsuits filed against them. I wouldn't be surprised to see an occaisional complaint or even one or two lawsuits but the collective pattern and documentation in itself is embarrassing. Even his own officers filed complaints against him. Too many people have grievances to say you'll wait for a conviction. It must be like the conspiracy against O.J. Simpson then. Just because he's avoided prosecution doesn't mean he's innocent. You must think OJ is innocent too even though a civil court found otherwise.
The bottom line is that some people who've benefitted from our chiefs generosity with my/your taxdollars will never believe he's done anything wrong so the debate is pointless.
Wow. I see now that Consentino and OJ are on the same level. What a joke. I recognize that some people have an axe to grind. Until the facts come out in a court of law, I will not be one to prejudge. I suppose you don't believe that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty then.
have some more kool aid.
The Atkinson Taxpayer website is but one source of information. I don't rely on any individual source but prefer documentation and then corroboration of that information to verify accuracy. Do I think the organization is biased? Of course it is just like every other organization. At least the documentation posted there is publicly available and I haven't yet heard anyone is printing up phony documents and putting them out there. I can read and form my own opinion if I choose to make one or maybe not. I prefer not having my opinion dictated to me.
To Anon March 26, 2009 11:01 AM
No axe to grind, just want town officials to be held accountable for their illegal actions.
If you are unable to make an informed opinion until the court tells you how to think, stop blogging here. Wait till the decision is made, and then go......."Oh how could this have happened to our poor chief"!
OJ got caught within a short period of time. Consentino has been breaking the law for 30 plus years. Now that he has been caught, it's time for him to pay.
Good luck with your non-opinion. Consentino may not have pulled the trigger on a person, but he has ruined a lot of lives. I hope he is stopped before he decides to ruin your life or anyone else’s.
Just my opinion.
I love it when people say that the Atkinson Taxpayer website is biased.
How is it biased? They have no commentary, just documents! Anyone can submit any public document. It is what it is, how are documents biased?
Or do you think that all those complaints, lawsuits, and newspaper articles never happened?
Or maybe you think they were all created just to fool the taxpayers of Atkinson?
How about, they were all put in one place so it was easy to find them all, and what do they all have in common?
SOME STUPID, BULLYING, sometimes illegal action of our CHIEF OF POLICE!
Enough is enough.
Btw, if you dont believe that one source, you can go to all the places those documents exist, and look at the originals yourself.
I do believe the taxpayers website made recommendations on candidates did they not? At that point they became more than just a centralized information source. As far as the "illegal actions", that's for the courts to decide. I can have an opinion on it, but I don't have access to all of the discovery that the lawyers do who are trying and defending the case. Do you? They are allegations. If the allegations are proved to be true, then accountability needs to happen. Who here has never been falsely accussed of something? So if that constitutes a non-opinion, so be it. I'll stick to my belief in the tenet of one being presumed innocent until proven guilty. If you don't like my blog entries, a simple solution is don't read it. I'll blog here if I wish.
I do believe the taxpayers website made recommendations on candidates did they not? At that point they became more than just a centralized information source. As far as the "illegal actions", that's for the courts to decide. I can have an opinion on it, but I don't have access to all of the discovery that the lawyers do who are trying and defending the case. Do you? They are allegations. If the allegations are proved to be true, then accountability needs to happen. Who here has never been falsely accussed of something? So if that constitutes a non-opinion, so be it. I'll stick to my belief in the tenet of one being presumed innocent until proven guilty. If you don't like my blog entries, a simple solution is don't read it. I'll blog here if I wish.
Very well said ..I agree 100 percent.
To answer your questions...
Yes to everything but #2. I am not on any budget process or group, but I do read the budget and the report.
I also dont profess to be a lawyer, and unless others are, and are experts in this area of law I would respect the opinion of the courts as to what is legal illegal or mittigated. People can right anything they want on the web because of the constitution, so innocent till proven guilty is guaranteed for everyone including phil.
The Atkinson Taxpayers Association pays close attention to issues facing the residents of our fair town. It is with much pride and excitement that we disclose the 2009 list of candidates who most closely support taxpayer rights, concerns, and values of our community in bold type.
This statement seems biased/opinionated to me. pasted from the home page of the site.
Here is my take on the Chief of Police...I know he has done some great things for this town. I like him and respect him. I also feel he does say and do some stupid things. But hes also trying to protect the residents of Atkinson.
I don't personally feel he does these things to cause harm. I just think he has an "old school" attitude. I think he needs to take a step back and realize you cant take things personally. I also think he needs to think about how some of his actions effect peoples lives more greatly then he realizes. Some people are intimidated easier then others. But I really truly believe hes not trying to cause harm. as far as the OJ comment that's just a disgusting comparison.
The OJ analogy is quite fitting when you think about the accusations and how a man was deemed innocent by a jury of his peers when their appeared to be sufficient evidence to get a conviction. But to the surprise of many he was found innocent.
In my humble opinion there is sufficient documented evidence on the Atkinson Taxpayer website alone to realize you have a person that is a problem. And from what I've heard/seen, no measures have been enacted to stop the recurring complaints, issues and lawsuits from happening. THAT is the problem. It keeps happening and nobody puts a stop to it.
Waiting for the court outcome is a delay tactic because we all know this will be settled out of court. It won't go to trial. So we can live forever in the OJ world of trying to determine beyond a reasonable doubt his guilt or innocence. A clear verdict, one way or the other, for our chief will never be obtained. Welcome to OJ land.
Is OJ Land anything like Wally World???
To Anon March 27, 2009 1:43 PM
From what I'm hearing around town, the plaintiffs have already said they will not approve a settlement. They are insisting that a jury hear the case and make a decision.
I'm also hearing that criminal charges are pending. If this is true, so much for the OJ/Wally World Theory.
I for one would like to hear the jury outcome. Might even take a few vacation days off from work to attend the trial.
Well, I maintain that unless you have pissed him off, and he has come after you and yours you have no idea how vindictive he really is.
I had a run in with him when I was 17 22 years ago, and he hounded me until I moved out of town. Following me, and harrassing me, and calling my firend and neighbors and talking to them.
Well I have not experienced the Phil that a few of you claim to have. I also looked at some of the documentation on the taxpayer website. I have seen accusations and one side of the story for most things. I agree I have not gone through everything. But I read alot of the suit currently being brought against Phil and the selectman and anyone else in office it seems. I will say there are two sides. For example the Wayne Peak notation in the case. I actually knew the Peaks well when they lived in town. Had dinner over there house and all. I also know he was not the victim that he is portrayed. I know the some of the other side. So I am still not convinced that Phil is this little dictator running the town.
I agree with the old school comment made earlier. Don't forget this was a small town where the bureaucracy was not so important, but I guess now people like bureaucracy.
LongTimeRes
I guess if I were getting free rides, free lunches, free Fall Scenic Bus tours, free concerts, birthday cards, flowers, free medical equipment and let's not forget its paid with everyone else's money, I would say he's a swell guy too. Heck I'd even vote for who he recommended.
You're right, there are two sides to every story and its obvious you've only seen one.
To LongTimeRes
Be carefull what you say....If Consentino gets control of the blog you will be TOAST.
Back it down before he gets you. Pigs like to roll around in the mud.
A police chief calling up people to tell them how to vote is wrong! and electioneering.
A police chief calling up petitioners to ask them why they signed a petition is wrong! and electioneering.
A police chief who send people letters for writing an opinion on a blog is wrong!
A police chief who is held in contempt of court is WRONG!
A police chief who has to be forced by a court to follow the law is WRONG!
A police chief who uses his position to read statements about his enemies is WRONG!
A police chief who investigates his enemies is WRONG!
If you think any of this is ok, please tell us why.
If you think any of this stuff didn't happen, or there is some "other side" that explains it away, please tell us what it is.
I think when you have been the chief in the same town as long as he has been. the residents are your friends, so i can tell you, if my friend signed a petition that would eliminate my job I would call them up and ask them why they would sign it. Its all hear say that he yelled or threatened anyone. If you sign your name to something you better be ready to explain why. I would not sign anything I didn't feel strongly about. If I had signed it I would be ready to explain why I wanted a full time chief. so I don't see anything wrong with asking someone there reasons..
It is called electioneering by a public employee. and it is against the law.
To Anon March 28, 2009 7:14 PM
It's against the law for any official to talk to people who signed a warrant for whatever reason. It's intimadation if they do it. Consentino broke the law and he knew it. Now he will pay for it, regardless what you think. Stay tuned and don't make the same mistake he made. Call your attorney if you don't believe me, but bet you won't go to that expense.
Thank goodness there are people out here that will fight for everybody rights, not just theirs. To bad you don't know what rights you have, let alone fight for them.
Please stop defending lawbreakers that are your selectmen and police chief. You should be helping people that are willing to take the lead to defend rights you don't even know you have.
Ohhhh. That post was tough and to the point. I reviewed the lawsuit on the Atkinson Taxpayers site again. I have no doubt about it. The law was broken. It could be that town citizens are so used to being violated by public officials in town, they feel helpless and this opens more violations by the perpetrators. The bottom line is you got to defend your rights or you lose them. But, rich residents of Atkinson with four car garages and architectural lighting, have other priorities, like a ski trip to Aspen AND a new plasma TV. Those who are not rich... remain... "small enough to fail" yet "rich enough to pay for the bailout"....the bailout of corrupt town officials that is....but, hey, the rich and privileged don't want to know or do anything about those costs a-coming. (I never feel sorry for a man with an airplane.)
Here is an exercise in outrage.
Got to the Atkinson Taxpayers website, link is on front page.
Read all the lawsuits, going back 30 YEARS!
ALL of them are because of something Phil did that he shouldn't have done.
Now think for a moment, and try to guess how much all of these lawsuits over 3 decades have cost our town, and our taxpayers.
Now add in the settlements, and ask yourself, is ANY number of good things for the elderly worth all of this?
And here is the REAL problem, this current suit makes the town responsible for looking the other way for 30 years and allowing this to happen!
GRRRRRRRRR!
I am still waiting for my apology from the Chief! He actually called and emailed me and said he was going to send me something. I thought he would actually make right the mistakes he made on my case 19 years ago. As many of you know... I sent him an apology email I got from the young lady that falsely accused me of charges 19 years ago. I accepted her apology and forwarded onto the chief. I have still never asked the town for a dime! He arrested me after less than 8 hours of investigation. (Overnight). If he had taken the time to look into the case, the charges would have never been filed. My reputation would have never been ruined. My family would not have been out thousands of dollars. All I want is an apology. I guess I will be waiting for a long time. It has been almost 20 years as it is. He can ignore me... but he and I both know the truth. I cannot believe he would not want to help me clear my name. Thanks for nothing Phil!
Post a Comment