What a joke!
Remember last year, when Jack claimed town counsel told him that the signs were illegal and to remove them, and Paul Sullivan pointed out that he was lying, saying that HE had contacted Sumner, and was told that Sumner advised no such thing, in fact town counsel told Jack to "leave them alone"! See Video "Jack Busted" at right----->
Well, here we are again, a new year and Jack is trying to get the current board of selectmen to ratify his improper actions of last year. He steadfastly maintains that the signs are illegal. That they are neither political or temporary, even when selectmen Friel tells him that they appear to be temporary to him. Jack launched into a lengthy dissertation on why they violated the sign ordinance.
Our advice; Contact whatever school you obtained your law degree from, Jack, and get your money back! Here is the video from you tube of this incident.
Here is the sign ordinance that Jack was intentionally misquoting;
470:7 Temporary Signs. Temporary signs identifying an upcoming event are permitted to be
displayed not more than four (4) weeks before the event and shall be remove within ten
(10) days following the event. Temporary signs include but are not limited to flags,
banners, portable signs, for rent, sale and yard sale signs. National, state and municipal flags are allowed.
Here is the definition of a temporary sign;
T1 Temporary Sign Any sign that is used only for a limited time, and is not permanently mounted.
That is quite a bit different from the lengthy description put forth by Jack, about timing, and qualifications, and the like.
So here is the question for the selectmen;
Why do you listen to someone who is obviously trying to get you to ratify a decision of his that the Town is currently being sued for?
Why are Fred and Jack so concerned about these signs?
What make these signs so onerous, yet the open house signs, and the political signs, and the signs on telephone poles for the country club are all ok?
Why does Jack and Fred FEAR the freedom of speech which this blog represents so much?
Atkinson Town Hall
The Norman Rockwellian picture of Atkinson
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
They want them taken down because if it werent for this blog, most of the crap they pull would never be found out.
You are so right! That fella that looks like Colonel Sanders' brother, I assume Fred, what axe does he have to grind in all of this?
The same attorney that will have to answer why they illegally took down the signs last year is representing Fred and Jack. If they can convince one of the other selectmen to support doing it again this year, they will attempt to convince the court that it is the town policy they were following.
It's my guess that all they will succeed in doing, is adding another count to the current lawsuit.
I can't stand Jack Sapia...stay home with your family & stop mugging at the camera on Mon. nights...no one cares!!! The blog infuriates you because it tells us town people what's going on & you don't like that.
This blog infuriates them because we not only discuss what they did, but post the video of it for all to see.
Hard to argue with video! And that one on the right from 3/10/08 is pretty damning!
Say what you want, Jack, but you were caught lying to all of us!
Everytime Sapia opens his mouth, he lying to anyone who listens. Jack lies even when the truth would be better.
This really was great to watch; Sapia is so annoying that he's obciosly losing credibility with the board members that actually think (sorry Fred).
It's almost sad, he's simply making a fool of himself on TV, again...
Sapia doesn't mind making a fool out of himself. He does it over and over and over. What a DOPE.
Who cares about the blog signs? For that matter, who REALLY cares about the blog? It's all a joke.
Obviously Sapia and Childs are all worked up over it!
Didn't Bennett say at Monday's selectmen's meeting say they were illegal and had to come down? He asked a representative of the blog to call him to discuss it. Am I the only one that saw this?
Town Counsel says not to take them down. Signs are not illegal. If I were Douglas, I would add another charge in the suit, for each sign removed.
Honest Selectmen would never want to take the chance. Let's see what they do next week.
What a waste of the Selectmen's time. Jack, go spend some time with your family.
Has Jack moved into the town hall? Seems like he's always there.
Since "DON" Consentino has been forced to take a low profile, Jack "THE MOUTH" Sapia has become his mouthpiece.
You know how the Mafia works, right?
Number two man has to step up and take over the job of intimidating the Selectmen.
If the blog signs had a small phrase like, "Fighting for Free Political Expression!" at the bottom of the signs, wouldn't it clearly make the signs political in nature?
I believe the blog signs are inherently political because of what the blog represents, but that wouldn't necessarily be clear to a judge...
If that's the case, then a website such as Politco.com should be able to put up signs correct? Or any website that deals with political content for that matter. Heck, the Tribune should be able to put up signs if that's the case. Is this what we want? Political signs should be a "vote for" type of sign, not an advertisement for a blog or website or anything else.
who said they were political? and what does it matter? they are temporary. They are gone now. I am sure they will be back another time, so what? Why do they get so worked up over anything to do with this blog? If it really was the signs that are the issue, then why not crack down on the country club?
I was responding to anon @ April 4, 2009 9:06 AM who implied that they were political. The town should have well defined rules for what signs can and can not be displayed. They can get to be an eye sore.
Post a Comment