The Text of the Newest Lawsuit against the Town is now available!

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


So Finally, there it is!

The question that each of us should be asking ourselves is; How would WE feel, what would WE do, if these things were done to us?

What would YOU do if you saw a selectman who is also a police chief VOTE on police matters?

What would YOU do if you worked to get signatures for a petition warrant article for a full time chief, and the chief of police called your signers, and intimidated them into attempting to withdraw their names?

What would YOU do if the Town Moderator, in the commission of his official duties, prevented you from exercising your right to photograph the meeting?, And misquoted law to you, then threatened you with removal if you kept trying to use your rights?

What would YOU do if after all these things happened to you, you were talked about at meetings? or sued? or labelled as a crank, or a troublemaker, because you decided you were not going to take it any more?

The answer is we all reach a point where we refuse to take the abuse any longer. This is the point where lawsuits are the only option left. When the selectmen refuse to act, when one corrupt individual can drive in his supporters to get anything he wants passed, or destroyed, where do you go for justice?

When one man can abuse the authority of his badge to write official threatening letters, and the town does nothing, it is time for the silent, the afraid, the meek, the intimidated to rise up and put an end to this corruption in our town.

Here are some of the highlights;

III. Factual Background
13. This case arises out of the defendants’ violations of the plaintiffs’ and other Atkinson citizens’ rights to freedom of speech and to petition and have fair access to their government officials and proceedings, as guaranteed to them by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and New Hampshire law.
14. The defendants have engaged in an organized conspiracy to suppress the views of the plaintiffs, which are critical of the defendants’ conduct in their official positions. The conspiracy involves the Atkinson Chief of Police, its current and former Selectmen, and the Town’s current Moderator. Each of these individuals has taken part in organizing and furthering the purpose of the conspiracy, which is to intimidate, humiliate and oppress the plaintiffs and other similarly-situated Atkinson residents for attempting to voice their opposing viewpoint to certain decisions of their police chief and local government.


16. Despite being certified only as a part-time police officer, Chief Consentino defends his “turf” as head of the police department and Elderly Affairs Director with an iron fist, using and abusing the authority granted by his position to intimidate, bully, and retaliate against citizens who question his actions or oppose his views on various issues.
17. Chief Consentino’s intimidating and retaliatory actions have been the subject of a multitude of lawsuits and other official adjudications since 1981. Despite the multiple monetary settlements and findings that Chief Consentino has inappropriately abused his position as police chief, the Town of Atkinson has established a pattern and practice of permitting Chief Consentino continue to violate citizens’ constitutional rights – particularly their rights to free speech and to petition their government – with virtual impunity. He runs the Town of Atkinson like a stereotypical southern sheriff of the 1920’s.
18. The instant case is just the latest in a long line of well-documented violations of citizens’ rights by Chief Consentino, which have been allowed and approved explicitly or tacitly by the Selectmen of Atkinson. Leon Artus, Gary Brownfield, Steven Lewis, and other Atkinson citizens in their positions are but the latest victims of Chief Consentino’s flagrant abuses of power.

22. The citizen-signed petitions were filed at the Atkinson Town Offices on January 13, 2009. Within an hour of the petitions being filed with the Town Clerk, and before the petitions had even been verified by the Town Clerk, Chief Consentino had been provided copies of them by other Town of Atkinson officials, and was phone-calling citizens who had signed them.
23. Many of the citizens who received calls from Chief Consentino were elderly, and thus reliant upon the Elderly Affairs Office for services. It is known that Chief Consentino angrily demanded from one citizen an explanation as to why his family “signed this shit?”
24. Not surprisingly, within 24 hours many of the citizens who received the intimidating and angry phone calls from Chief Consentino began calling Mr. Artus, Mr. Brownfield, and others who worked to have the petitions signed, as well as the Town Offices, to request that their signatures be removed from the warrant article petitions.
25. Chief Consentino’s use of his authority as Police Chief and Director of the Elderly Affairs office to intimidate Atkinson citizens into remaining silent on issues which affect his public positions constitutes an abuse of his office and a violation of those citizens’ and Mr. Artus’ and Mr. Brownfield’s First Amendment rights to petition their government.

B. The Atkinson Select Board’s Complicity and Tacit Approval of Chief Consentino’s Suppression of First Amendment Freedoms through Official Intimidation:

26. Chief Consentino’s conduct with regard to the citizen-petitioned warrant articles filed in January of 2009 would be alarming enough if it were the first time it had ever happened. However, it is not the first time that Chief Consentino has been allowed to abuse the authority of his official position to jealously protect his interests, to the detriment of Atkinson citizens’ rights.
27. To the contrary, the Town of Atkinson has a nearly three decades old record of allowing Chief Consentino to engage in abuses of power and coercion of citizens who dare to stand up to him, without any meaningful consequence to him.
For instance:

a) In 1981, a civil rights lawsuit was filed against Chief Consentino by then-Atkinson resident Wayne Peak, alleging that the Chief had engaged in a plan to discredit, disgrace, and coerce Mr. Peak by repeatedly charging him with baseless motor vehicle and criminal complaints, resulting in Mr. Peak being forced to move out of state to avoid Chief Consentino’s harassment. The harassment began after Mr. Peak filed a writ of mandamus seeking to compel Chief Consentino to account for monies collected by the Police Department. Upon information and belief, this lawsuit resulted in a significant monetary settlement in Mr. Peak’s favor. Despite that, the Town of Atkinson did nothing to change or eliminate Chief Consentino’s propensity for retaliating against political opponents or abusing his power as police chief.

b) In 1999, the Public Employee Labor Relations Board ruled that Chief Consentino had engaged in a pattern of harassment, intimidation, and coercion against members of the Atkinson Police Department who sought to unionize. The PELRB’s Order of December 23, 1999, stated that “[s]uch fears, interference, domination and coercion must be abated. The Town’s conduct, through its agent and employee is, taken as a whole, violative of RSA 273-A:5.” Despite this documented finding of overt bullying toward even his fellow police officers, the Board of Selectmen continue to this day to allow Chief Consentino to go on abusing his position of power and trust. See Tab C attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

c) In 2000, plaintiff Steven Lewis circulated a petition for a warrant article to have a full-time police chief appointed. See Tab D attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The warrant article in question was much like the one that Mr. Artus circulated this year. Chief Consentino responded by visiting Mr. Lewis’ office, leaving his cruiser running outside. Inside the office, he loudly and abusively castigated Mr. Lewis for having the audacity to initiate the petition. Chief Consentino then followed up by contacting a local police chief and attempting to torpedo Mr. Lewis’ son’s application for employment. This incident was widely reported, and yet Chief Consentino still holds his position as Chief.

d) In 2005, Chief Consentino flagrantly violated Orders of the Rockingham County Superior Court in a case initiated by resident Mark Acciard that required Consentino to leave Selectmen’s meetings at any time the agenda turned to matters involving the Police Department or Elderly Affairs Office. See Tab E attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. He ignored the judge’s order and was found to be in contempt of court by Judge McHugh. See Tab F attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Chief Consentino retaliated against Mark Acciard by charging him with trumped up traffic offenses and contacting vendors for Mr. Acciard’s business to tell them that Mr. Acciard was “under investigation by the Atkinson Police Department.” Chief Consentino’s retaliatory behavior against Mr. Acciard resulted in yet another defamation and civil rights lawsuit being filed against the Town, which is currently pending in this Court as Docket No. 07-C-1039.

e) Also in 2003, Chief Consentino retaliated against Atkinson resident Leigh Komornick after she raised concerns about an illegally established firing range used by the Atkinson Police Department near her property. The Chief of the Haverhill Massachusetts Police Department taped Chief Consentino calling Leigh Komornick a “f—king whackjob” or words to that effect in an attempt to silence and embarrass her into dropping her complaint about the illegal firing range.

f) In 2006, former Selectwoman Carol Grant filed a petition to have Consentino removed from his position as Chief of Police. Her petition cited a lengthy history of rogue behavior which would have justified removing Chief Consentino from the position which he so frequently abused. See Tab G attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Among other things, Chief Consentino unlawfully taped Ms. Grant during a conversation, in violation of New Hampshire’s wiretapping statute, and then destroyed the evidence of that illegally taped conversation. Despite these serious violations of the law, the Selectmen took no meaningful action to curb Chief Consentino’s flagrant abuses of his official position. A lawsuit filed by Ms. Grant resulted in the Town being forced to pay out another settlement because of the Chief’s outrageous conduct, yet he still holds his position and continues to abuse it with the knowledge and apparent complicity of the Select Board.

g) Also in 2006, Chief Consentino angrily erupted during a Board of Selectmen’s meeting when a citizen, Brian Kaye, read a prepared statement concerning his opposition to Chief Consentino’s plan to expand use of a communications tower near Kaye’s property. Consentino’s rude and belittling responses to Mr. Kaye’s concerns were then followed up by his sending Mr. Kaye two threatening letters, on police department stationary, demanding that Mr. Kaye provide him copies of his prepared statement. This is yet another example of the Chief abusing his position to intimidate a citizen who dared to speak out against him. See Tabs H and I, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. When Mr. Kaye’s attorney wrote the Selectmen to complain about Consentino’s conduct the letters were ignored and went unanswered for over a year. See Tabs J and K attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

h) During the early 2008 election cycle, several temporary political lawn signs put up by the “Atkinson Reporter Blog,” a website dedicated to observing and reporting on matters of public interest in the Town of Atkinson, were taken down by order of the Atkinson Board of Selectmen. The Atkinson Reporter Blog supported candidates opposing the sitting Board of Selectmen and Chief Consentino, and publicized criticism of the actions of Chief Consentino and the Board. Some of the removed signs were seen in the Atkinson Police Station. Then-Selectman Jack Sapia claimed that he obtained clearance from the Town’s counsel to remove the signs – a claim which was later publicly refuted by Selectman Paul Sullivan. The advice had been not to remove the signs.

Read it and judge for yourself, if those things had been done to you, What would YOU DO?

Is it RIGHT for a public official to act in this manner?

Why have WE as a Town allowed this Reign of Terror to continue for 30 years?