ARTICLE SUBMISSION
Atkinson residents' lawsuit dismissed
By Eric Parry
eparry@eagletribune.com
CONCORD — A federal court judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by three Atkinson residents against town officials alleging First Amendment violations.
Residents Leon Artus, Gary Brownfield and Steven Lewis filed the lawsuit in February, alleging several town officials prevented them from placing warrant articles on the 2009 Town Meeting ballot.
Artus and Brownfield alleged that after collecting signatures for a petitioned article to make the police chief a full-time position, Chief Philip Consentino called several people and threatened them into taking their names off the petition. Consentino is a part-time chief and would not qualify for the full-time position as described in the petitioned article.
The lawsuit alleged Consentino also intimidated residents regarding another article that would have changed oversight of the town's elderly affairs services, a program headed by Consentino.
Judge Paul Barbadoro wrote in his decision Wednesday that Consentino didn't break any laws, even if he did call people asking them why they signed the petition.
"The complaint does not allege Consentino told any elderly citizens he would stop providing them with certain benefits if they signed the petition," Barbadoro wrote.
Brownfield also alleged his rights were violated when Town Moderator Frank Polito did not allow him to take photographs during the 2009 deliberative session.
Brownfield's claims against Polito are not valid because state law allows him to run an orderly deliberative session, Barbadoro wrote.
The town of Atkinson, two current selectmen and two former selectmen also were named in the lawsuit for not reprimanding Consentino.
Atkinson Town Hall
The Norman Rockwellian picture of Atkinson
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
108 comments:
Good! Now maybe Artus and Brownfield will go climb back under the rock they came out from. If they want to improve the town, they should move! Leetches.
Actually the Judge dismissed only the 1st ammendment claims and remanded the rest of it back to State Court.
So much for the almighty Attorney Douglas. I suppose the next thing we'll hear here, "The judge is corrupt and part of the Atkinson Mafia."
How did you know! LOL! Don't worry. I'm sure those two slime balls will try to drum up another suit.
Now we can do whatever we want, whenever we want. We can even arrest you or intimidate you at town deliberative meeting and there is nothing you can do about it. The courts will not defend you. We own you. Osborn gets to take Carol Davis land because we say so.
And no more citizen warrant petitions will be effective. Hell, you try it and we will call em and tell em to get their damn names off.
And in Deliberative Session, we own that too. Cat calls and boos will silence you. And if those don't new rules are and the laws are made up on the spot. State laws be damned.
Dear citizens and voters...enjoy our town government. We certainly will.
Actually the Judge dismissed only the 1st amendment claims and remanded the rest of it back to State Court.
Obviously, Brownfield will still sue the defendants in State Court.
10:17 isn't taking the news so well. If you want your citizens petitions, then show up with enough supporters to get it done! Otherwise, stfu.
I can't believe the court just basically said that it is ok for a police chief to intimidate and harrass people because they signed a petition he didn't like!
If the case had any merit, it wouldn't have been dismissed. Get over it. The leetches lost.
There will be no more Citizen Petition Warrant Articles in the town of Atkinson. It's over.
But an exception will be made if you propose one that gives us raises. Officially, we don't need you to go to the trouble. We can do that for ourselves. Thanks anyway.
Pretty much what I expected. Bitch and moan but don't actually take any action. Par for the course.
Came into the office this morning and saw the above article. It made me curious enough to go the Federal Court's PACER website to read the actual Order and Memorandum. The Court ruled surprisingly Narrowly in it's dismissal, here are some excerpts;
III. ANALYSIS
The defendants have launched a multifaceted attack on the
complaint. They argue that Artus and Brownfield’s allegations
arising out of Consentino’s phone calls to their supporters fail
to state a viable First Amendment retaliation claim under § 1983.
They also argue that Brownfield may not sue Polito based upon his
conduct at the town meeting because Polito has absolute
legislative immunity, and may not sue Sapia under § 1983 because
Sapia did not act under color of state law.
As you can see the Court dismissed only upon the claim that the harrasing phone calls posed a First Ammendment Claim, for that cause of action.
To state a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation under
§ 1983, a plaintiff must show that the defendant intended to
chill his expression. See Tatro v. Kervin, 41 F.3d 9, 18 (1st
Cir. 1994) (the defendant’s “intent or desire to curb . . .
expression” must be the “determining or motivating” factor behind his action). In addition, the defendant’s action must be such
that it would curb the expression of a “reasonably hardy individual[].” See Agosto-de-Feliciano v. Aponte-Roque, 889 F.2d 1209, 1217 (1st Cir. 1989)
The Court is stating that the phone calls themselves should not be enough to cause someone to wish to remove their names from a petition that they signed, while ignoring the fact that they did.
A “reasonably hardy” person, however, would not remove his name
from a petition whose goals he supported because of such demands
even if the alleged speaker is both the chief of police and
director of the local Elderly Affairs Office. The complaint does
not allege that Consentino told any elderly citizens he would
stop providing them with certain benefits if they signed the
petition, nor does it allege that anyone who called Artus and
Brownfield cited this fear, or any similar fear.
Here the Court is stating that the chief of police did not EXPLICITLY state he would restrict services, or otherwise retaliate against those signatories, the Plaintiffs contended that the threat was implied given his past history.
To Be Continued
Continuation of above...
Brownfield, who served as a photographer at the Atkinson
town meeting, appears to make three claims based upon Polito’s
actions: (1) that Polito denied Brownfield the right to take
photographs and use them to express his views; (2) that Polito
engaged in improper viewpoint discrimination by prohibiting
Brownfield from taking photographs while allowing other
photographers to continue their work; and (3) that Polito chilled
Brownfield from speaking at the meeting by publically harassing
and embarrassing him. All three claims fail because Polito is protected by absolute legislative immunity.
“Local legislators are entitled to absolute immunity from
§ 1983 liability for their legislative activities.” Bogan v.
Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44, 54 (1998). Courts use a functional
test to determine what activities are legislative: “Whether an
act is legislative turns on the nature of the act, rather than on
the motive or intent of the official performing it.” Brownfield also alleges that the Town of Atkinson is 5
liable for Polito’s actions because the town meeting incident was “a result of the town’s de facto policy and custom of permitting its officials to oppress free speech through retaliation and harassment against political adversaries.” (Mem. of Law in Supp. of Pls.’ Objection to Def. Town of Atkinson’s Mot. to Dismiss All Claims in Count I, Doc. No. 25-2, at 26.)
A municipality may be liable under § 1983 if a violation of First Amendment rights resulted from “execution of [a municipal] policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy.” Monell v. Dep’t. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). Even the acts of one individual may constitute “policy” if that individual is a “decisionmaker” who “possesses final authority to establish municipal policy with respect to the action ordered.” Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 481 (1986). Finally, if the activity at issue is legislative, the actor may not be held liable even if the activity violates the
Constitution, so long as it is not “flagrantly violative of fundamental constitutional protections.” Nat’l Ass’n of Soc.
Workers v. Harwood, 69 F.3d 622, 634 (1st Cir. 1995).
The Court here reserved it's judgment not for the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the act, but that it happened in Legislative Session.
Further the Court remanded all remaining issues back to the State Court, while preserving the Right to Know and Equal Protection issues.
I don't think a guy like Douglass would take a case on a contingency if he thought for a moment a Judge would dismiss it. He must have thought it had merit
"Further the Court remanded all remaining issues back to the State Court, while preserving the Right to Know and Equal Protection issues."
What does that mean LegalBeagel?
Polito is protected by absolute legislative immunity. He can make up his own laws if he wants.
"the acts of one individual may constitute “policy” if that individual is a “decisionmaker” who “possesses final authority to establish municipal policy with respect to the action ordered.”
Sorry to inform you...but that land you own...you don't own it anymore. Why? Because I say so.
11:41. You should really share those drugs you're on with the rest of us.
Leon Artus is arrested and in hand cuffs and leg chains at the Atkinson Police Station. No joke! We got him.
Move out of town or we will move you out.
What claims got sent back to the state level? Won't Douglas have a better chance at the state level?
Well, this one will be worth a lot of discussion. As usual, some are very happy, others very pissed. Can't please everyone.
However, I will make this one observation, "And no more citizen warrant petitions will be effective. Hell, you try it and we will call em and tell em to get their damn names off."
OK Bucko, lets try clear this one up one more time. You want to get a citizen petition to pass, PUT ENOUGH SUPPORTERS IN THE SEATS AND HAVE A STRATEGY IN TO KEEP IT FROM BEING AMENDED TO DEATH. It is that simple.
We saw this last part at work, in reverse, last session. Did you not notice the icy precision in which Leon's "chief" petition was sliced and diced. As much as I detest the people doing it, it was a work of art.
This lawsuit has absolutely nothing to do with getting citizen petitions through. Didn't before, not now. You need supporters, and you need them at the session, not in front of their TV's.
Don't understand why Leon cannot understand this simple truth.
If Leon keeps up with his benders, his liver is going to explode before the next deliberative session. I hear he went on a real bender after he got the news about the suit.
There will be no more Citizen Petition Warrant Articles in the town of Atkinson. It's over.
I just love quitters.
Actually as one of the signers, I had planned to be there in the afternoon because they weren't until the end of the warrant. I saw on tv at lunch that they were only at article 10 or so.
When they came back form lunch Jack Sapia moved to bring those two forward, seconded by Bill Bennet. And they diced them up, and disposed of them, when people weren't even fully back from lunch yet.
Legal? yes. Slimy and underhanded? YUP!
Town officials are now free to call signers and ask them to come down to town hall and take their names off any Citizen Petition Warrant Article.
There will be no more Citizen Petition Warrant Articles in the town of Atkinson. It's over.
There will be no more law suit submissions in the Town of Atkinson. It's over.
Right. We get to do whatever we want. AND WE WILL!
There will be no more law suit submissions in the Town of Atkinson. It's over.
What are you guys waiting for? Arrest them. Teach em who runs this town.
We got Artus. That's a start.
If Artus was really arrested, where's your proof?
We still have to appear in State Court. I forgot about that. It's not over.
There will be no more law suit submissions in the Town of Atkinson. It's over.
We still have to appear in State Court. I forgot about that. It's not over.
Artus WAS arrested last night, because Mrs. Osborn filed a complaint that he tried to run her and her husband over. The same complaint she made about Carol Davis's son. She has made that complaint a couple of times against Mr. Artus. Offers no proof other than her word.
Also claims Carol Davis's kid was on her property with a shotgun.
As we have learned in this town the quickest way to win in court, and in the court of public opinion is to smear your critics.
Phil has been very sucessful at it! Just look at Grant and Acard's standing in the town, and they WON!
There will be no more law suit submissions in the Town of Atkinson. It's over.
I wonder if Osborns realize its a felony for false accusations. But then again, when did they ever consider anyone but themselves.
Maybe they're not false. Maybe Leon was a bit drunk at the time and upset about losing the lawsuit.
WOW...so much for uber- Atty. Chuck Douglas and his arrogant, scumbag friend Ed Naile at CNHT riding in on their white horse to "rescue" us. And what about the ace in the hole? You remember: Steve Lewis is part of the lawsuit! He made the suit legit! LOL!!!!!
So no court ordered apology from Frank. No jail time for Jack. No forced retirement for Phil. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
I've maintained there are probably a small handful of people who frequently post here and give poor Brownfield, Artus and Acciard the false notion that there are more in the town behind them than there actually are. Deliberative session showed them the truth, but they refused to believe it.
I sincerely hope, now that this suit has been dismissed, the town moves forward and counter sues this group to recover MY TAX MONEY spent on hiring lawyers defend against these CLOWNS!
The Osborns need to stop spreading lies. But then again, they can act like babies if they want. Waaa
Well, 3:46, at least you got that right...
"defend against these clowns"
You are right, those town officials ARE clowns.
So you think they were wrong, so you must think it is ok for;
1.)A police chief to call signers demanding they remove their names.
2.)A police chief to help those people he intimidated draft their letter to the town asking for their names to be removed, while in the town hall, his badge in full display.
3.)A Moderator to single out a resident sitting in his seat, obeying the law taking pictures, and when singled out by the moderator, and telling him that he has a right to take pictures, being told he is creating a disturbance and can be removed.
4.)A police chief who uses selectmen meetings to verbally bash people who asked him to obey the law.
5.)selectmen who accuse residents of breaking the law on camera.
6.)selectmen who refuse to follow the votes of the people forcing a special town meeting to demand that our wishes be followed.
7.)A police chief who admits in a meeting to violating the towns sick leave policy for 6 years, costing the town $5,500. And the selectmen do nothing.
All of this must be ok with you, right? because all these rabble rousers, are costing you money.
Yes, I think Artus and Brownfield were wrong to sue the town and apparently the court agreed. Of course you want to bring up issues that are outside of the scope of this particular case to try to strengthen a weak argument. It's very transparent, just as the fact that Artus and Brownfield control this blog. They're looking for a quick buck at the expense of the tax payers. Screw them. I'm glad those dirtballs lost!
As usual you make blanket statements but refuse to answer the individual questions
Ah. Looks like the sweet smell of loser lament. Keep hitching your wagon to these two donkeys and see where it gets you. LOL!
Anon 6:23,
I've read your list of complaints and I have one question for you:
How many times have we heard on this board, it will be up to a judge to decide?
I have one word for you: DISMISSED!
LOL!!!!!
Hey Anonymous 2:14 PM . Step out of your ananymity and I will adjust your attitude. Guess who!! Yes It is me !!! Not the one you call names. You egg-sucking coward. That will serve.
So do you think it is alright for your town officials to do those things?
How would you feel if they were doing them to you?
But I'll bet none of you have the integrity to answer those questions
oh! 2;48pm lets see the osborns thinking of themselves... Leon has a tow truck dump a crashed car in the row so they cant' use their deeded row, gets caught, comes back later when osborns are in the row and charges his vehicle at them, so selfish, they should let Leon hit them so he will feel better about himself and all the help he is doing for others.
So what was Leon doing there if not the assault or harass??? He is only there to harm.
TTo the boot-licking coward that comes here to smear people who have the guts to stand up to the petty tyrants in this town:
Gutless fools like you have been around since the beginning of time; everyone here knows that you're one of the people that we're fighting against on this blog! I so enjoy your empty attempts to make it seem like your just an average citizen...
You are a cockroach caught in the glare of a local blog that has shined a light on the corruption you thrive on and support; that's why you try to clutter up this blog with multiple posts when we all know there's only one of you!
Post coward, post! Ignore the specific questions you're asked, post your rubbish, while we laugh at the time you waste here!
what did the town officals do to you again, that we don't want done to the rest of us??
we can smear you but you can't smear us! Get off my blog i don't want to play with you anymore. I only like my fellow bloggers who meet me at town hall!
Yawn.
Wow. Lots of bile being spewed here. Artus and Brownfield are trouble makers. Look what happened to Artus. Arrested. Brownfield had ill intent with those photos. He brought the negative attention down upon himself. A court dismissed the case. I'm sure that wasn't done because the judge has something against the plaintiffs. It was done because the charges were trumped up and the case had no merit. As for Grant, she's had her run ins with the law. Didn't she have a problem on the conservation committee? I think they got rid of her. I certainly don't trust her. She's been one to be quick to turn on people.
Oh boo hoo. That vindictive bitch called me an egg sucker. My poor little feelings are just soooo hurt. And someone else called me a boot licker. They got me. My name is Philip Francis Sapia. LOL! Yes, I am the Atkinson Mafia! LOL! The stupidity of some of you just makes for great entertainment! You better look over your shoulder because I'm staring at you through your window.
Thank you for your IP 904
Holly cats. I stop watching what is going on here for a few hours and all hell breaks lose.
Only two observations. Yes, how many times did we hear, "The judge will decide," as if it were a sure thing Artus and Brownfield would prevail. And then they threw in, "Attorney Douglas," as if we were suppose to quake in our boots at the thought. In the words of that most famous character, Gomer Pyle, "Surprise, Surprise, Surprise."
Second: This should now provide convincing evidence this blog needs new ownership. You would have to be deaf, dumb and blind to not see who runs it. They had there self promoted day in court, and they got hammered.
Time to pull the plug and start over with someone with at least a small amount of gray matter between their heads.
Oh, one last thing. I'll remind all of you that the moderators can read your IP address, and with that and Google Earth, can pinpoint your home. I've seen it, even though my IP address is dynamically assigned. If you are visiting this site from your home account, they can see where you live, no kidding. Stating your anonymous is one thing. Being anonymous takes some effort. www.ninjacloak.com if your are serious about keeping your whereabouts from the clowns who run this thing. This is not about being paranoid. It is about being prudent.
To distill fear in people you continually post that everyone needs to protect their IP address.
Anonymity has protection under the 1st Amendment, as do political parodies and statements of opinion.
to 8:23. The Osborns do NOT NOT NOT have a deeded ROW to the excavation site they created on Davis's property. Their ROW refers to Valcat Lane and the road in existence that runs next to Davis's house. The Osborns are stealing Carol's land for their own personal use. If you look on Pedler plan from 1924 the proposed roadway doesn't even lead to the Osborn's house. The Osborns are LYING to the town and everyone else. They think if they keep telling everyone often enough that they have a right to what they are doing they hope to wear everyone down to agree with them.
You must be right. The deeds are wrong, the Lawyers who read the deeds are wrong and the engineers who surveyed all the properties up there are wrong too. If you want advice don't pay a professional for it. Get it from Leon (he plays a Lawyer) and his fellow supporters on the blog!
Good luck with that IP address. I'm almost peeing my pants with fear from that implied threat. LOL!
Hey Maggie @ 8:23 Thats not what happened and you know it. You were videotaping Daniel running at my car brandishing his umbrella.
Keep up the lies, babe, they are going to catch up with you.
Actually no, they did not have their day in court. The court said that what the chief did isnt a restriction on speech. He didnt say it was right.
Maybe when he starts going after you you will sing a different tune, but there will be no one to stand up for you, because you turned a blind eye when Phil was bullying others.
I have to ask Leon, what the hell were you doing there in the first place? Sounds like jail is a good place for you.
Maybe is time for the Poll results on the Blog Home Page to come down? Now that justice has been served!
Leon was STILL on Carol's property and Osborne had no right to chase him off and attack him with his umbrella.
It's a felony to file a false police report and make false statements and accusations to the police.
Good thing they put those cameras up at that neighbors house.
Osbornes had better drop the charges against Leon before they are arrested.
After watching the delierative session, I have to say I think this judge is wrong and time will prove that there is serious corruption in this town and there will be other lawsuits.
I don't want to pay for them however, this had to stop. The BOS could solve this thing once and for all but will they?
Ask the stand in lewd tenant how his depression medication is working.
Maybe his judgement is off because of his altered state of mind and they'll just dismiss every case he's involved in.
I would like to see all these politicians put out to pasture. Their rude and obnoxious behavior gets us into these suits, not the people who are holding them accountable.
This is not justice, it's a bump in the road. This will be ammended and/or put into a different court.
Can you figure out who I am? I'm posting from an RV travelling down RT 111 right now, using an iPhone. My IP address is out there...
Judges and the legal system in NH have a pretty poor track record. I know Artus and Brownfield was a Federal Civil Rights case, but there have been some piss-poor judges in NH. How about the NH Supreme Court Justice that refused to recuse himself a few years back and the Superior Court Judge that fell asleep on the bench during trial and got off? And how about the Judge that tried to protect her husband's fortune from the long arm of the law? And then there was former US Supreme Court Justice Souter and his decision on eminent domain and private property rights. Disgusting!
Remember, the proponents of kindergarten never gave up and it was eventually passed. It's just going to take a little while longer to clean up our town.
There, I had my say and my IP address is now gone...
Mr. Artis was told to meet Detective Farah at the Carol Davis's property and when he got there, Farah was gone. Mr. Artis was driven off by Mr. Osborne who was smashing Leon's car and trying to stike Leon thru the car window with his umbrella. Mr Osborne is a much younger man than Mr. Artis and Detective Farah should come forward and make public the fact that Mr. Artis was there at his request.
If Farah does not do this, his is a coward .
Farah also should arrest Mr. Osborne based on Mr. Artis's complaint. If he doesn't he is exhibiting bias and can be sued for not providing EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.
Again the PD is teetering on getting us into another law suit.
ET article on Artus arrest
who is the STAND IN LEWD TENANT on meds?
oh nevermind...
Well, the ET article about Leon is terrible.
So slanted and I look forward to an article about Maggie when they arrest her.
he's on meds and they let him carry a gun?
I hope he doesn't lose it somewhere.
Again with the false comments by the Osborns...implying people are on meds plain mean. Are for carrying guns in NH...you better check with the police. Last I knew the state allows people the right to carry guns, you just need a license to carry concealed. Learn the facts Osborns.
I'm not an Osborne and I didn't imply anything. The detective is on meds and carrying, it's no secret. Maybe he went there to arrest the Osbornes and made a mistake and arrested Leon.
It's too much of a coincidence that Leon was arrested by Farrar hours after the suit was dismissed. We can expect more arrests.
Maybe someone called the PD from town hall to tell the Chief that the coast was clear, go git 'em.
It's been know to happen that the selectmens office notified the PD everytime there's something to tell. They called the PD right after the warrant articles were brought in.
Maybe there's a close connection between someone in the town hall and someone in the PD.
Yup. There's a seedy tale to tell alright. This stuff is leaking out and has been for years. Why people put up with the deceit I don't know.
Believe me this is more truth tan poetry. Wake up
Socrates says: "I must ask you a question: Which is better, to live among bad citizens or among good ones?
Answer I say; for that is a question which may be easily answered. Do not the good do their neighbors good, and the bad do them evil?
And is there anyone who would rather be injured than benefited by those who live with him?
Periodically I read the blog to find out which issues comments: first: as a former selectwoman, the second as no more than a retired senior citizen.
I. If a resident came to a BOS meeting angry, critical, or upset about a position or action of the board, we would always very courteously listen WITHOUT INTERRUPTING, ARGUING, OR CUTTING THE RESIDENT OFF, no matter how much we disagreed with what was said. When the resident was finished, we would say, ‘’Thank you for your comments. We will take them under advisement.’’
After several years of absence, happily for the town, selectmen civility to residents has returned. Then last night I read the blog and was so disappointed about the loss and total lack of civility and deliberate abusiveness by that small clique which continues to abuse the anonymity of the blog..
In this particular topic’s forum, their lack of civility—the name calling and insulting – is appalling. Just because one disagree with others, is no reason for personal attacks or resorting to the low-class behavior of calling fellow residents 'clowns',’leeches’,
’donkeys’,dirtballs', ’slimeballs’, ’egg sucker’,’climb back under the rock they came out from’,
’move out of town or we will move you out,’ a really appalling personal attack on one person citing ‘’his benders,’’ and even one (out of the clear blue since I have not even commented on any recent blog topics) inexplicably aimed at me, ’nasty vindictive bitch’.
It’s certainly acceptable to post anonymously, but to egregiously mis-use that privilege to be abusive to others is
un-acceptable. It’s easy to act in an abusive manner towards others under the cover of ’Anonymous’- to not have the backbone to identify oneself.
Blog users, --you –we—all of us -have to IMMEDIATELY repudiate each and every case of such nastiness and incivility on the blog. The actions and mean-spirited of this small ilk are an offense against all civil blog posters.
2. As a non-town official and a senior citizen, it always surprises and amazes me when some hater will use the cover of anonymity to be inexplicably nasty to me personally. I’m out of the public eye, don’t get around much and rarely post on the blog. On those very infrequent times when I do post on the blog, it is usually only to talk about the merits of a proposed warrant article, usually about water quality protection.
I have posted no comments or expressed any opinions about any current blog topics. More importantly, I’ve never, ever, engaged in name-calling or posted a personal attack against anyone on the blog— which makes me wonder what could possibly be the motive of this one particular hate-filled blogger.
I just noted that my computer skipped around in the first two sentences on my just posted comments.
It should have read:
''Periodically I read the blog to find out which issue bloggers are caught up in. I'd like to make two comments: the first as a former selectwoman, the second as no more than a retired senior citizen.'
Well, while you have a valid point that the slander is out of control, you overlook what is even more important.
Democracy by Citizen Petition Warrant Article is now destroyed in this town. When town officials can call signers at home and frighten them to where they call and desperately try to take their names off a petition, there is no democracy, only tyranny.
Harassment of citizens seeking to petition their own government is a crime of the highest order.
Calling people names is one thing; corrupting constitutional rights - despicable beyond description.
When I moved to this town I was warned about you, Mrs Grant. I was told you were mean and nasty and to stay far away. When I got my first opportunity to talk to you, I quickly learned you were a just and decent person with immense integrity.
It is my conclusion they call you names because they fear your integrity and decency and willingness to stand up for what is moral. Need I say more?
Amen to that. Carol and Ken are good people.
Amen to that. Carol and Ken are good people.
Leon's arrest seems quite obviously to be payback to someone that dared use the tools of a representative democracy to try to check the power of those who abuse it in this town. The clown(s) that come here attempting to harass users of this blog and defending everything that our petty local tyrants do just become more petty and pathetic with each post.
I hope those that defend freedom here will stand with Leon against his harassment at the hands of a Podunk Police chief gone crazy. If we don't stand together when we face a crooked chief we're merely cowards. When all the facts come out on this we've got a decision to make which will reflect what our core values and our understanding of freedom and democracy really mean. Please stAnd together on this.
The Court is stating that the phone calls themselves should not be enough to cause someone to wish to remove their names from a petition that they signed.... WHILE IGNORING THE FACT THAT THEY DID!
My opinion.
This Atkinson case goes to the United States Supreme Court, Washington D.C.
"To distill fear in people you continually post that everyone needs to protect their IP address.
Anonymity has protection under the 1st Amendment, as do political parodies and statements of opinion."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
How am I distilling fear when I suggest people take easy and prudent measures to protect their identity? I fail to see the connection.
Indeed, your Anonymity has protection under the 1st Amendment but what good is that if someone has a means to find out who you are? Please, I want to know.
What I have tried to say, but some refuse to acknowledge, is that your IP address can be viewed by the blog owners and its originating location can, in some cases, be found by using Google Earth. I've seen it. Even though my address is assigned dynamically (which means it can change) by my provider I saw Google Earth point directly to my house, showing the street and number. Go to the town web site and look at the tax list and bingo, guess who is not so anonymous anymore.
Now, please tell me, if the blog owner did that would I still be anonymous? Would you?????
It's funny. You hear on this blog all sorts of conspiracy theories and plots, but when something real is presented, and are given the information to deal with it, it is shrugged off, and in this case, called disseminating fear. Unbelievable.
"Leon's arrest seems quite obviously to be payback to someone that dared use the tools of a representative democracy to try to check the power of those who abuse it in this town."
In case you didn't hear, those being sued saw the case dismissed. The embarrassment suffered by the plaintiffs is the payback. If Artus was arrested I'm sure every i was dotted and t crossed to assure it was legit given the circumstances. Of this I have no doubt.
And for the clown who had this comment, "he's on meds and they let him carry a gun? I hope he doesn't lose it somewhere."
Shame, shame, shame. The meds I believe you're probably referring to save a great many in this country from misery and higher a likelihood of suicide. Would you prefer people not seek help for this? I would much rather entrust my life with someone who has a problem and being treated for it than one who tries to tough it out, and there are plenty of them out there. Be careful my friend. You could be one layoff or tragedy from needing the same help.
Artus's arrest was payback eh? Now tell me, why would he be there in the first place? What standing does Leon "the hero" Artus have in this particular affair? Is he a neighbor? Last I checked, Maple Ave doesn't come anywhere near Valcat. So why was Artus there if not to try to provoke the Osborns? I don't know if the Osborns are right or wrong. I'll leave that for the authorities to decide, whether that be the governing board or the courts. What I do see is that Artus declared war on the Osborns and is now further provoking them. Is this guy an asshole or what? Why is he going down this path? For what means? He's nothing more than an old asshole with nothing more to do with his pathetic ass than to interfere in other peoples business.
"The Court is stating that the phone calls themselves should not be enough to cause someone to wish to remove their names from a petition that they signed.... WHILE IGNORING THE FACT THAT THEY DID!"
What the court said is that the plaintiffs did not offer enough, or any, proof the calls did anything. This is not the court's fault. It is the responsibility of the plaintiffs and the great Attorney Douglas to have provided this. Apparently they did not.
We listened for months how justice would prevail and the Attorney Douglas would assure that. The fact that it was dismissed, not even allowing it to go to trial, says the suit was ill prepared. Don't blame this on the judge. I bet this one does not go on Attorney Douglas's resume and web site.
To Anon October 17, 2009 9:07 PM
Thanks Maggie for your vulgar mouth. Your opinion is worth the agreements you sign. Not worth the paper it's written on.
Maggie, you ask why Artus was there? It's something you can't understand. Its called integrity. I've known him for years and he hates people like you who steal from the weak and poor.
Look the word up in a new dictionary, because I'm sure you tore it out of yours.
JMHO
Why doesnt he? he and his lady's property abuts this destruction. ad Maggies new driveway is partly on their land.
The critics who rage against Leon and others here really aren't very bright, or very civic minded. Here's some proof:
"if it's not his land, why is he even involved in this conflict with the Osburnes?"
Well, let's see Einstein; did he get a percentage of all the property tax rebates that helped people recieve? Didn't someone say his girlfriend had adjacent land that would be cut off by the TRENCH that those people cut across Valcat?
Are you stupid or do you just like asking blindingly obvious questions? Is that your hobby maybe?
If the critics of this blog are annoying we can at least take some comfort in the fact that they are blindingly selfish and stupid!
Leon does not get any money from those people he helps with abatements! He files them, he follows them through the process, and doe snot charge for his services.
I would say he has done more good for the people in this town without reward than Phil has.
Its entirely possible he has. His marketing campaign sucks compared to the chiefs.
We support you Leon, please come and here and give us an account of what happened when you can.
Oh, and don't forget the brewski's
Finally the real truth comes out....
burrrrrrppppp.....
if it is anyones buisness maybee leon was asked to help in this situation !daniel attacket leon not that leon desrved it but if he went after him imagine what he would have done if it was mrs. davis? hello not that it was fair for leon to get the brunt of this but i see a brave man sticking up for the weak i think leon did the right thing and is being wronfully accused for meddling when that is clearly not the case
Post a Comment