YMCA Camp Belknap, Inc. Randy Owen Update

[Randy Owen]

State v. Owen (2026 N.H. 5) Commentary
Date: Feb 13, 2026

Rule 403 Limits “Post-Threat Security Measures” Evidence in Harassment-by-Threat Trials; Conditional Threats Turn on Objective Meaning (Not Specific Intent)
Case: State v. Owen, 2026 N.H. 5 Court: Supreme Court of New Hampshire Date: February 10, 2026
1. Introduction
State v. Owen arose from a long-running property dispute on Farm Island in Lake Winnipesaukee between homeowner Randy Owen and YMCA Camp Belknap. After Owen awoke at night to voices and lights near his house—later attributed to camp counselors or campers on or near his property—he called the police (no answer) and then left a voicemail at the camp. The voicemail included explicit language and a conditional statement: “You better get them the f**k out of here or I will shoot them.”

The State charged Owen with harassment under RSA 644:4, I(e), which criminalizes communicating “any matter containing … a threat to the life or safety of another” when done “[w]ith the purpose to annoy or alarm another.” The central issues on appeal were:

Sufficiency: Whether the evidence proved Owen acted “with the purpose to annoy or alarm.”
Evidence: Whether testimony about the camp’s subsequent security measures (closing island activities, increasing security systems, communications to parents) was admissible under N.H. R. Ev. 401–403.
Jury instruction: Whether a conditional statement can be a “threat,” and whether “reasonable tendency to create apprehension” properly captures the law of threats.
The Supreme Court affirmed the sufficiency of the evidence and largely approved the trial court’s response to the jury’s “conditional threat” question, but reversed the conviction because admission of the camp’s “security measures” evidence was unfairly prejudicial and not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

2. Summary of the Opinion
Holding: The trial court committed reversible error by admitting testimony describing the camp’s post-voicemail security measures because the evidence’s limited probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under N.H. R. Ev. 403, and the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The conviction was reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Key clarifications:

Evidence was sufficient for a rational juror to find Owen acted with the “purpose to annoy or alarm” under RSA 644:4, I(e).
“True threats” analysis follows federal definitions where no distinct state-constitutional theory is developed; threats turn on what the statement conveys objectively, with a constitutional minimum mens rea of recklessness per Counterman v. Colorado.
A conditional statement can constitute a threat; “apprehension” language was acceptable in the trial court’s response when read in context.
3. Analysis
3.1 Precedents Cited (and How They Shaped the Decision)
A. Sufficiency of the Evidence and Circumstantial Proof
The Court applied its familiar sufficiency framework:

State v. Seibel and State v. Saintil-Brown supplied the de novo standard and the “rational trier of fact” lens—reviewing all evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the State.
State v. Harris and State v. Seibel governed cases where an element is proved solely circumstantially: the evidence must exclude “all reasonable conclusions other than guilt,” not every imaginable innocent explanation.
State v. Pepin reinforced that when intent is an element and not conceded, it must be supported by evidence at trial (and is commonly inferred, not directly proved).
State v. Kim was used to connect motive evidence to proof of intent: past disputes can supply “the reason that nudges the will.”
State v. Hanes served as a close analogue: a threatening voicemail to a public official (“start shooting these [plow drivers]”) supported an inference that the defendant intended the message as a threat despite claimed frustration.
State v. Dunbar supported considering a defendant’s own acknowledgments (e.g., that others “could” be put in fear) in evaluating mens rea.
These cases enabled the Court to treat Owen’s prior conflict with the camp, the voicemail’s tone and content, and Owen’s own testimony (“should’ve been alarmed”) as a permissible inferential chain establishing “purpose to annoy or alarm,” notwithstanding his asserted “fear and transient anger.”

B. “True Threats” and Constitutional Mens Rea
The Court anchored its “true threats” discussion in federal law, expressly relying on:

Counterman v. Colorado, which defines true threats as “serious expression[s]” that the speaker means to “commit an act of unlawful violence,” and requires at least recklessness as to the threatening character for First Amendment exclusion.
Virginia v. Black, quoted for the “serious expression” formulation and the principle that the speaker need not intend to carry out the threat.
Elonis v. United States, cited (through Counterman) for the proposition that threats are assessed by what the statement conveys to the recipient, not the author’s private meaning.
By using these precedents, the Court rejected Owen’s claim that the jury needed to find he specifically intended his words be understood as a threat. Under Counterman v. Colorado, the constitutional floor is that the speaker is aware others could regard the statement as a threat and delivers it anyway (recklessness).

C. Relevance vs. Unfair Prejudice Under N.H. R. Ev. 403
The evidentiary reversal turned on the Court’s Rule 403 jurisprudence:

State v. Gordon supplied the Court’s definition of “unfair prejudice” (appealing to sympathy, horror, instinct to punish) and the balancing factors (emotional impact, outrage, whether the proposition is otherwise established).
State v. Mitchell supported the “little incremental probative value” concept where other evidence already establishes the point.
Zola v. Kelley reinforced that evidence can be unfairly prejudicial when it invites the jury to decide based on disapproval rather than the elements.
State v. Fuller was acknowledged for the narrower proposition that a victim’s reaction to a threat may be relevant circumstantial evidence of intent—helping the Court distinguish admissible “reaction” evidence from inadmissible “operational consequences” evidence (security measures, closures, parent communications).
State v. Yates and State v. Harris framed the “unsustainable exercise of discretion” review and the requirement of an objective basis in the record to sustain the ruling.
The Court accepted that the camp director’s immediate reaction (alarmed, shaken, scared) was relevant. The line was crossed when testimony expanded into the camp’s subsequent security decisions and programmatic restrictions—matters with substantial potential to inflame jurors by emphasizing impacts on children’s summer activities.

D. Harmless Error Doctrine
The Court’s refusal to deem the error harmless relied on:

State v. Boudreau, establishing the harmless-error standard (State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the error did not affect the verdict) and enumerating factors for assessing prejudice in context.
State v. Reynolds, applied for the principle that when a case turns on credibility/intent, prejudicial evidence that may sway the jury’s credibility assessment is less likely to be harmless.
State v. Woodbury, used to emphasize the centrality of credibility determinations when intent is disputed.
This cluster of precedent mattered because the State’s proof of “purpose to annoy or alarm” depended heavily on inference from words, tone, history, and Owen’s testimony. With intent contested, emotionally resonant “camp disruptions” evidence risked becoming a decisive narrative shortcut.

E. Jury Question: Conditional Threats
On jury-instruction review, the Court cited:

Goudreault v. Kleeman for the trial court’s discretion in answering jury questions and reviewing the answer in the context of the whole charge.
State v. Deschenes for the standard requiring a showing the instruction was a substantial error likely to mislead the jury.
State v. Brooks for addressing a likely-to-recur issue on remand in the interest of judicial economy.
United States v. Schneider (Posner, J.) for the practical observation that most threats are conditional because they are designed to induce compliance.
These authorities supported the Court’s conclusion that a conditional statement can be a threat and that “reasonable tendency to create apprehension” is compatible with true-threat principles when “apprehension” is understood as fear/dread arising from perceived intended violence.

3.2 Legal Reasoning
A. The Elements: RSA 644:4, I(e) and Purpose
The Court treated RSA 644:4, I(e) as requiring proof of: (1) communication of a matter containing a “threat to the life or safety of another,” and (2) that the defendant acted “with the purpose to annoy or alarm another.” It cross-referenced RSA 626:2, II(a) for “purposely” (“conscious object”).

Applying the sufficiency standard, the Court emphasized four inferential pillars:

Prior acrimony and motive: multiple lawsuits and defendant’s belief the camp sought his land.
Voicemail content and delivery: yelling, profanity, “or I will shoot them,” and “I will see you tomorrow.”
Defendant’s own testimony: the camp “should’ve been alarmed,” and he “would’ve said anything.”
Timing/inference of diminished immediate danger: defendant’s testimony that the group was leaving by the time he called police/camp allowed an inference the voicemail served to alarm/influence rather than respond to an ongoing emergency.
B. “True Threat” Requirement and Recipient-Facing Meaning
The Court acknowledged that RSA 644:4, I(e) requires a “true threat” and applied the federal definition: the question is what the statement objectively conveys to the recipient, not whether the speaker harbored a specific intent to threaten. The Court then identified evidence supporting both:

Objective threatening content: “I will shoot them” tied to “kids … 10 feet from my house.”
Recipient understanding: testimony that staff were “alarmed, shaken, and scared,” and that the director sought to “mitigate the potential threat.”
Constitutional mens rea: defendant’s testimony that the camp “should’ve been alarmed” supported at least recklessness (delivering statements while aware others could regard them as threatening).
C. The Key Evidentiary Boundary: Reaction vs. Consequence
The Court drew a functional distinction:

Admissible (generally): evidence of the recipient’s immediate reaction (fear/alarm) because it can be circumstantial evidence of intent and relevant to whether the statement conveyed a threat.
Inadmissible here (Rule 403): evidence of institutional follow-on actions—closing the island, altering programming, increasing security systems, communicating with parents—because it contributed little to the intent inquiry once the jury heard the recording and reaction testimony, while carrying a high risk of emotional decision-making.
The Court’s prejudice analysis was concrete: testimony about curtailing children’s camp activities “is difficult to imagine” as anything other than resentment-inducing. In short, the evidence risked shifting the jury’s focus from “did the defendant commit harassment-by-threat with the required mens rea” to “did the defendant harm this camp and its children,” a classic Rule 403 problem.

D. Harmlessness Rejected Because Intent Was the Battleground
Although the State had substantial evidence, the Court refused to call it overwhelming because the defendant offered an alternative narrative (fear/self-defense, urgent attempt to get help). With “purpose to annoy or alarm” turning on credibility and inference, the improperly admitted “security measures” evidence could have tipped the scale by coloring the defendant as someone who disrupted children’s safety and programming—an improper basis for conviction even where the threat itself was serious.

E. Conditional Threat Instruction: Largely Approved
The Court approved the trial court’s response that a “threat” can include a conditional threat “if it has a reasonable tendency to create apprehension that the speaker will act in accordance with its terms.” It rejected the defendant’s proposed rule requiring specific intent that the statement be understood as threatening, explaining that:

Threat “existence” is objective (what it conveys), per Counterman v. Colorado and Elonis v. United States.
First Amendment exclusion requires at least recklessness as to the threatening nature, not specific intent.
“Apprehension” was treated as aligned with threat harms (fear and disruption), and the Court linked apprehension to understanding that the speaker “means to commit” unlawful violence.
3.3 Impact
A. Evidentiary Practice in Threat/Harassment Cases
The decision’s most immediate doctrinal impact is a sharpened Rule 403 warning: prosecutors may introduce evidence that a recipient was alarmed, but should expect close scrutiny (and potential exclusion) when they attempt to introduce evidence of organizational, financial, or operational consequences framed as “security measures.” State v. Owen effectively signals that “impact on children/camp operations” can become an unfairly prejudicial substitute for proving statutory mens rea.

B. Litigation Strategy and Trial Management
For the State: focus on the communication itself (recordings, context, tone), the defendant’s relationship to the recipient, and narrowly tailored recipient reaction testimony—while avoiding “downstream consequences” narratives.
For defendants: Owen supplies a template Rule 403 objection: where reaction evidence is already in, “incremental probative value” of later measures is limited and prejudice is high.
For trial judges: the opinion encourages active gatekeeping, including limiting instructions or tighter questioning; here, the attempt to limit detail (“not how much money”) was not enough because the core “camp disruptions” theme remained.
C. Threat Doctrine and Conditional Language
On remand and beyond, Owen confirms that conditional threats remain actionable: “or I will…” formulations do not immunize a statement. The key remains whether the statement objectively conveys a serious expression of intended unlawful violence, with at least recklessness as to that threatening character.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified
“Purpose to annoy or alarm” (RSA 644:4, I(e))
“Purpose” means it was the defendant’s conscious objective to cause alarm/annoyance—rarely proved by confession. Juries infer purpose from context: prior disputes, word choice, tone, timing, and what the defendant did after the event.

“True threat”
A “true threat” is not protected speech. It is a serious expression that the speaker means to commit unlawful violence, assessed by what the statement conveys to the recipient—not by the speaker’s later claim he “didn’t mean it.” The speaker need not intend to carry it out.

Recklessness (the First Amendment minimum in threat cases)
Recklessness here means the speaker is aware that others could view the statement as a threat of violence and makes it anyway. That is different from purpose or knowledge; it is a lower (but still culpable) mental state.

N.H. R. Ev. 403 balancing
Even relevant evidence can be excluded if it is likely to trigger an emotional verdict (sympathy, outrage, “punish him”) and adds little to proving an element. In Owen, “camp security measures” carried high emotional weight and low added value once the jury heard the voicemail and fear testimony.

Harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt
If evidence was wrongly admitted, the conviction can still stand only if the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt the error did not affect the verdict. Where intent/credibility is the central dispute, prejudicial evidence is less likely to be harmless.

5. Conclusion
State v. Owen delivers two practical rules for New Hampshire threat-based prosecutions. First, while a recipient’s fear reaction may be relevant, testimony about post-incident “security measures” and disrupted programming can cross Rule 403’s line when it invites jurors to convict out of resentment or sympathy—especially where intent is contested. Second, conditional statements can be true threats; the legal focus is on the statement’s objective meaning to the recipient, with a constitutional minimum mens rea of recklessness under Counterman v. Colorado. The case was reversed and remanded because the improperly admitted “security measures” evidence may have influenced the jury on the pivotal mens rea question.

Case Details

State v. Owen
Year: 2026 Court: Supreme Court of New Hampshire

[thinkxingu]

1. Why are you posting this here?

2. You lose me with your "voicemail [that] included explicit language and a conditional statement: 'You better get them the f**k out of here or I will shoot them'.”

Sent from my SM-S931U using Tapatalk

[lakewinnie]

You may not want to litigate this in the court of public opinion.
Just sayin

[pondguy]

What a bitter man!

[TomC]

you guys read that wall of text?

[fatlazyless]

In 1914 NH resident, Robert Frost, wrote a long poem, "Mending Walls" that became very famous and it included the line "Good fences make good neighbors" which was the opinion of his neighbor when he questioned why a fence was even necessary.

And it's usually true that "Good fences make good neighbors."

So, maybe you want to hire a fence company or build one yourself. You can put up an el cheapo temporary fence using wood stakes and a yellow line to indicate the boundary, and then slowly build an attractive all-natural wood fence stained light gray.

[Mr. V]

The trial court's holding was "reversed and remanded" which means it will go back to the trial court level for further hearing consistent with the appellate court's instructions.

In other words, there will be a "do over."

[codeman671]

I'd love to be this guy's attorney. I am sure he keeps them busy!

[FlyingScot]

So you're proud that you won on a technicality? After threatening children? After going to jail?

Unbelievable.

[lakewinnie]

On a totally irrelevant but much happier note, the US women's hockey team just beat Canada 2-1 in OT to win the gold medal!

[longislander]

https://www.courts.nh.gov/sites/g/fi...026005owen.pdf

[ishoot308]

Good Lord! There goes 10 minutes of my life that I will never get back!….

Dan

[Randy Owen]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

So you're proud that you won on a technicality? After threatening children? After going to jail? Unbelievable.

Flying Scot,

There were multiple matters where I prevailed.

First, I prevailed before the Tuftonboro Planning Board and again on appeal. The subdivision approval stood.

Second, I prevailed in the civil case filed in Superior Court by YMCA Camp Belknap. They alleged I lied about pollution and illegal construction. The camp verified spending approximately $440,000 before unilaterally withdrawing the case. I had insurance to defend myself and I consider that outcome clear.

Third, the illegal construction and environmental compliance issues were addressed through the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. DES letters document violations and required corrective action. That corrective work occurred.

Now, regarding cyanobacteria — this is not political, and it is not personal. Cyanobacteria blooms in Lake Winnipesaukee and other New Hampshire lakes are a documented public health concern. Nutrient loading, including nitrogen and phosphorus from wastewater sources, is one of the recognized contributing factors to harmful algal blooms.

My reporting was about wastewater releases and unpermitted construction near sensitive waters. Whether one agrees with my tone or not, the broader issue is protecting lake water quality for everyone — families, campers, residents, and visitors alike.

You may disagree with how I handled matters. But please do not characterize the situation inaccurately. The individuals present that night were adult employees, not children. I reacted defensively when confronted late at night by a large group outside my home. No one was harmed.

Reasonable people can disagree. What matters to me is that environmental compliance was enforced and corrective actions were taken. Clean water benefits all of us.

[Randy Owen]

Originally Posted by lakewinnie

You may not want to litigate this in the court of public opinion.
Just sayin

There is certainly merit to your point, and I understand the concern about litigating matters in the court of public opinion.

That said, the reality is that piercing the long-standing patina surrounding YMCA Camp Belknap and motivating regulatory review was not easy. When an institution has decades of goodwill attached to its name, raising concerns — particularly environmental concerns — is not simple.

What matters most is this: the pollution issues and unpermitted construction have been addressed. Regulatory authorities, including the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, ultimately required corrective action. That process was not automatic; it required persistence.

The encouraging news is that curative steps have been taken, and I am learning that further efforts to restore Camp Belknap to what it once was are underway.

If nothing else, the outcome demonstrates that accountability and correction can occur — even when it is uncomfortable to raise the issue in the first place.

[Mr. V]

Originally Posted by Randy Owen

If nothing else, the outcome demonstrates that accountability and correction can occur — even when it is uncomfortable to raise the issue in the first place.

But is it worth the cost in reputation and good will?

Judging by the comments I've read about this matter it seems you're about as popular and welcomed by locals as ants at a picnic.

[BillTex]

This Guy must be a ball at a cocktail party.

[WinterHarborGuy]

TL;DR

[Lakegeezer]

So, if I read this right, a New Hampshire man threatened to shoot people near his property in an angry voicemail, got convicted of harassment, but won a new trial because the prosecution played the "think of the children" card too hard, introducing emotional testimony about disrupted camp activities that the Supreme Court said had no business swaying a jury.

[TiltonBB]

Randy: I hope you are a major financial contributor to Winnipesaukee.com since you have used it at length so extensively to plead your case to the public.

[lakewinnie]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

Randy: I hope you are a major financial contributor to Winnipesaukee.com since you have used it at length so extensively to plead your case to the public.

Will the court of public opinion please issue a cease and desist order on him?

[Randy Owen]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

Randy: I hope you are a major financial contributor to Winnipesaukee.com since you have used it at length so extensively to plead your case to the public.

TiltonBB,

I would genuinely be happy to contribute constructively to Winnipesaukee.com.

I ask for some understanding of what I believe I have contributed to Lake Winnipesaukee itself. My involvement in these matters has always been about pollution, environmental compliance, and protecting the lake we all value — not about personal attacks or theatrics.

At its core, this matter is about two fundamental things:

Addressing pollution and ensuring lawful construction near sensitive waters; and

My right — like every other reader here — to own property and enjoy being on Lake Winnipesaukee.

We all benefit from clean water. We all benefit from transparency and compliance. Whether someone agrees with my tone or my approach, the outcome included corrective action and environmental review. That matters.

Lake Winnipesaukee is shared by residents, campers, business owners, and visitors alike. I believe protecting it is a common interest — not a partisan or personal one.

I remain willing to engage constructively and respectfully with anyone who shares that goal.

[Randy Owen]

The right to own and possess property is not a suggestion. It is a fundamental constitutional protection.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect against deprivation of property without due process of law. Courts exist to adjudicate disputes — not to weaponize process to strip someone of their home through attrition.

Farm Island is not theoretical to me. It is my residence, my investment, and my lawful ownership interest in Farm Island Acres, LLC.

I prevailed before the Planning Board.
I prevailed on appeal.
The civil case was withdrawn.
The criminal matter was reversed.
I am now prevailing in a conspiracy case!

Those outcomes matter.

Property rights are foundational in this country. When someone lawfully acquires property, maintains it, invests in it, and defends it through proper channels, that right must be respected.

I am asserting nothing more — and nothing less — than my right to own, access, and enjoy my property without unlawful exclusion or procedural manipulation.

Resolution is available. But make no mistake: I will defend my property rights fully and lawfully.

[John Mercier]

I read it you have to be retried.

[Randy Owen]

Public Notice

Because the name “YMCA” carries global recognition and goodwill, I want to be clear and precise in my statements.

My concerns are directed specifically toward YMCA Camp Belknap and certain recent actions and management decisions associated with that entity. My comments are not directed at the YMCA organization globally.

I personally support the broader YMCA mission and have contributed to YMCA organizations over the years. In fact, I was recently reminded that I donated a boat to a New Hampshire YMCA camp and provided priority service when needed. I have also previously supported YMCA Camp Belknap, Inc. directly, working with Gene Clark, including reciprocal business dealings and providing preferential consideration in a boat sale.

It is important to distinguish between the broader YMCA mission — which I respect — and specific actions taken by local management that I believe warrant scrutiny.

My position remains focused on pollution, accountability, property rights, and lawful conduct — not opposition to the YMCA mission itself.

Randy Owen

[Winilyme]

Originally Posted by Randy Owen

Public Notice

Because the name “YMCA” carries global recognition and goodwill, I want to be clear and precise in my statements.

My concerns are directed specifically toward YMCA Camp Belknap and certain recent actions and management decisions associated with that entity. My comments are not directed at the YMCA organization globally.

I personally support the broader YMCA mission and have contributed to YMCA organizations over the years. In fact, I was recently reminded that I donated a boat to a New Hampshire YMCA camp and provided priority service when needed. I have also previously supported YMCA Camp Belknap, Inc. directly, working with Gene Clark, including reciprocal business dealings and providing preferential consideration in a boat sale.

It is important to distinguish between the broader YMCA mission — which I respect — and specific actions taken by local management that I believe warrant scrutiny.

My position remains focused on pollution, accountability, property rights, and lawful conduct — not opposition to the YMCA mission itself.

Randy Owen

Thing is, Randy, it’s hard to know what to believe with you. Your questionable reputation precedes you.

[BillTex]

Oral diarrhea comes to mind…

Better to let everyone think you are an arsezule, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

[Randy Owen]

Originally Posted by Winilyme

Thing is, Randy, it’s hard to know what to believe with you. Your questionable reputation precedes you.

I question the basis upon which you are forming an opinion about my reputation.

For the record, I applied for and obtained a lawful subdivision. It was granted.

It was appealed, and the Town reviewed the appeal and upheld the approval.

I reported serious pollution as a whistleblower. They sued me, claiming my truthful reporting was false. They spent a verified $440,000 alleging my statements were untrue and ultimately withdrew the case. That withdrawal speaks for itself, particularly after expending $440,000. My insurance provided $1.5 million in coverage, and in the course of that defense, additional acts of pollution were identified and substantiated.

Thirty adults — not children — were just feet from my door at 11 p.m. Startled, I came out of my house and yelled at them to protect myself. They attempted to have me jailed. The Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court decision.

I reported illegal and unpermitted construction that could have killed someone. The DES investigated, agreed with my concerns, and required proper design and permitting. The illegal and unsafe construction was dug up and redone under DES supervision.

So I step forward to protect human life, prevail in court, and follow lawful process — and yet my reputation is questioned.

All courts have ruled in my favor, and still my reputation is portrayed as questionable.

Please explain.

Thank you,
Randy Owen

[John Mercier]

The Supreme Court sent it to be retried.

The outcome has yet to be determined.

[LIforrelaxin]

This is all so interesting.... and has gotten to the point where it is hard to believe any side of the story.... When it all started some odd years ago I remember being by farm Island and hearing a Rooster... No doubt to wake up the campers, and cause some grief....

But it has been drawn out into a soap Opera, and to be honest I can't quite figure out who owns farm Island.... Randy has made all this noise about it but I have also found that someone who I assume is a relative, Cody Owens professing to own the Island as well... But Honestly I don't care....

What I do care about is the fact, that a Property Owner, and a YMCA Camp directory, can't be adult enough to work through some differences. To my knowledge the camp has owned and used part of the Island for years... When the Owens family bought the rest of the Island they knew that full well, or at least should have known that full well.... Likewise the Camp should have known there was new ownership and not continued to use the island like the owned the entire Island.... While subdividing the Island may have been properly planed, there should have been a thought in the back of ones head that hey I am doing something that is likely not going to make people happy.... It wasn't just camp Belknap that had issues with the idea of subdividing the island. But instead of working through issues, both sides decided to start mud slinging.... and now many years later the mud is still flying...

At the end of the day, this chapter in the History of Farm Island is pretty sad. One Wonders what the Winchesters would have to say about this unsavory notoriety.....

[Randy Owen]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

This is all so interesting.... and has gotten to the point where it is hard to believe any side of the story.... When it all started some odd years ago I remember being by farm Island and hearing a Rooster... No doubt to wake up the campers, and cause some grief....

But it has been drawn out into a soap Opera, and to be honest I can't quite figure out who owns farm Island.... Randy has made all this noise about it but I have also found that someone who I assume is a relative, Cody Owens professing to own the Island as well... But Honestly I don't care....

What I do care about is the fact, that a Property Owner, and a YMCA Camp directory, can't be adult enough to work through some differences. To my knowledge the camp has owned and used part of the Island for years... When the Owens family bought the rest of the Island they knew that full well, or at least should have known that full well.... Likewise the Camp should have known there was new ownership and not continued to use the island like the owned the entire Island.... While subdividing the Island may have been properly planed, there should have been a thought in the back of ones head that hey I am doing something that is likely not going to make people happy.... It wasn't just camp Belknap that had issues with the idea of subdividing the island. But instead of working through issues, both sides decided to start mud slinging.... and now many years later the mud is still flying...

At the end of the day, this chapter in the History of Farm Island is pretty sad. One Wonders what the Winchesters would have to say about this unsavory notoriety.....

The roosters were nothing of my doing and nothing to do with the Camp. It was a buddies prank on me. Hell, I lived there. In the end, though, we became good friends. That was the summer of COVID, and CB was shut down.
Thank you for asking about the Winchesters. The “soap opera” began long before Cindy Pratt and Randy Owen, through C & R Realty, LLC, made a deposit on Farm Island.
While in the permitting stage and before I closed, I agreed with the Winchesters to be caretaker. I met David Winchester for the first time in November of 2018 at the island for dock removal instructions. He was aware that the CB tactics had begun. He was extremely apologetic and said, “The realtor should have warned you about Camp Belknap.” He went on to explain how CB had promised him a mainland dock space for his boat and, when Seth came in, he never even called him but pulled his boat out and dumped it in the sand. He said, “Sure, it was an older boat, but he just dumped it in the sand. Had he called me, I would have been able to load it at the boat ramp.”
He went on to tell me how CB would break into my house — his at the time — and he would secure the door. He put better and better locks and boarded it up more securely, and again and again they would break in. He reported and re-reported the break-ins to Seth, and they continued. David shared many of the extended fights and disputes with CB and ended with, “And Randy, you will not believe the lies,” and “All they do is lie.” At one point, the camp was riddled with bullets, and I am not sure whether David said or believed CB did it, but every single person who knew anything about the Winchester-CB battles felt it was CB. One day just prior to a Planning Board meeting I was gathering information from David about the CB tactics and David's last words of encouragement were “Go get em Randy”..
As soon as the ice was safe in January of 2019, I went out to the island and took down a huge dead tree leaning toward my house. While doing this, three nice young men came up to the house, past the no-trespassing signs, and spoke with me. One’s first name was Owen — how could I forget — and the other was a grandson of Lucy, who owned the infamous Cow Island restaurant.
At the time, I did not yet own the property, and their trespassing while we were there seemed harmless. The young men were very pleasant and identified themselves as off-duty counselors. Cindy and I shared our life stories about Cow Island and going to Lucy’s. They explained the ritual of entering the Winchester home with a cadet and spooking him inside. They even detailed the furniture and what room it was in. It all seemed innocent as they congratulated Cindy and me on our new endeavor.
At one time, she was one of the most peaceful, loving people I have ever known, now hardened by the fight with Camp Belknap.
Please read Heart Home by Cynthia Pratt.
“Heart Home”

For much of her life, Cynthia Pratt had a hard time answering the question, “Where are you from?” She grew up in New Jersey, but would spend all of her childhood summers on Winnipesaukee’s Cow Island, and those summer months were more meaningful to her than the rest of the year in New Jersey. So, she started answering that question with, “New Hampshire is my heart home,” she said.
“That’s where my fondest childhood memories came from; that’s when our family came together. It was a place where we came together and bonded,” she said.
Then life took her away from New Hampshire. She got married, had children, got divorced, raised her children to adulthood, and eventually was able to move back to New Hampshire, where she met her current partner, Randy Owen. Owen had also grown up summering on Winnipesaukee, and he also has three adult children.
“It has always been my dream to get back to Winnipesaukee, create the same wonderful experience for my family,” Pratt said. “I know he [Owen] wants the same for his family.”
Pratt and Owen are behind C & R NH Realty Trust, LLC, the name on the subdivision application currently before the Tuftonboro Planning Board. Pratt said it’s upsetting to hear their plan as a destructive force by their potential neighbors.
“Our dream for the property is to try and maintain the tranquility of Farm Island, while being able to create that wonderful family environment that they all get to enjoy on their properties and we enjoyed as children. We just want the same for our families,” she said.
At the center of Farm Island is the remains of a circa-1906 cottage, which Pratt and Owen plan to restore for their personal use. She said they do not plan to market any of the other lots in the near future.
“It is quite a substantial purchase price and quite a substantial price for the project. To invest that kind of money, we do need some sort of security should something happen down the line to Randy or me. The subdivision is more about financial security in the future, should we need that,” she said.
She said that she can see where the opponents of the plan are coming from. After all, both she and they are motivated by the same thing: a love for Lake Winnipesaukee.
“I understand it from their perspective. It’s not that we’re trying to hurt anyone or mess up anyone’s experience, we just want the same experience for our families. The lake is such a magical place,” Pratt said.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

This is all so interesting.... and has gotten to the point where it is hard to believe any side of the story.... When it all started some odd years ago I remember being by farm Island and hearing a Rooster... No doubt to wake up the campers, and cause some grief....

But it has been drawn out into a soap Opera, and to be honest I can't quite figure out who owns farm Island.... Randy has made all this noise about it but I have also found that someone who I assume is a relative, Cody Owens professing to own the Island as well... But Honestly I don't care....

What I do care about is the fact, that a Property Owner, and a YMCA Camp directory, can't be adult enough to work through some differences. To my knowledge the camp has owned and used part of the Island for years... When the Owens family bought the rest of the Island they knew that full well, or at least should have known that full well.... Likewise the Camp should have known there was new ownership and not continued to use the island like the owned the entire Island.... While subdividing the Island may have been properly planed, there should have been a thought in the back of ones head that hey I am doing something that is likely not going to make people happy.... It wasn't just camp Belknap that had issues with the idea of subdividing the island. But instead of working through issues, both sides decided to start mud slinging.... and now many years later the mud is still flying...

At the end of the day, this chapter in the History of Farm Island is pretty sad. One Wonders what the Winchesters would have to say about this unsavory notoriety.....

A very interesting post--one side with a troubled reputation floods the thread with things we know to be half true at best, the other side is quiet here but has an excellent reputation. You then conclude that they both must be wrong? (sadly, we see this in national politics every day...)

If you can find some reason independent of Owens's posts for us to question the basic honesty/decency of Camp Belknap, please share. Until then...

[Randy Owen]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

A very interesting post--one side with a troubled reputation floods the thread with things we know to be half true at best, the other side is quiet here but has an excellent reputation. You then conclude that they both must be wrong? (sadly, we see this in national politics every day...)

If you can find some reason independent of Owens's posts for us to question the basic honesty/decency of Camp Belknap, please share. Until then...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wUJesUik5A

I have attached a link that I would like you to listen to, featuring Harry Markopolos. Harry went to the Securities and Exchange Commission five separate times reporting Bernie Madoff as a fraud. At the time, the fraud was around $10 billion. Had the SEC listened, it would never have grown to roughly $50 billion and ruined the lives of many more people. In his words, he could not pierce the good patina surrounding Bernie Madoff.

Likewise, I believe you are focusing on the good patina of Camp Belknap. I do not deny that Camp Belknap has done good things in the past and may well do good things again. However, within that institution there has been a bad actor. That bad actor repeatedly risked human life and attempted to move forward with unsafe and unpermitted construction. I stopped that.

This entire investigation arose from Camp Belknap exploiting New Hampshire construction and environmental laws. Because of my efforts, those violations appear to have been addressed and curbed.

What remains, however, is the continued issue of zoning compliance. The State of New Hampshire is clear that a nonconforming use may remain a nonconforming use, but it cannot become more nonconforming. That is where I continue to see a problem.

I have been around Camp Belknap my entire life. I was born in 1959 and began spending time around the camp when I was about ten years old, often near Russ Witten’s. Since those days, Camp Belknap has expanded significantly within what is designated low-density residential use. In my view, that expansion has at times made it a difficult neighbor.

That said, my objective is not to oppose the camp itself. I would prefer alignment and coexistence — but with appropriate containment of illegal expansion and adherence to the law.

Specifically, Farm Island is zoned low-density residential. I would ask Camp Belknap to recognize and respect that designation by removing loud, high-impact commercial activities that affect my property and the surrounding neighborhood. Doing so would benefit not only my property but all property owners within the low-density residential zone.

[BillTex]

Unfortunately you have failed, miserably, in the court of public opinion.

I suspect this does not matter to you…

[John Mercier]

The problem is the presupposition that any positive outcome offsets a negative.

The only issue at hand is the charges that have yet to be resolved, and no past positive will be taken into consideration.

A case needs to be made to the jury at the appropriate time.

[Randy Owen]

Originally Posted by BillTex

Unfortunately you have failed, miserably, in the court of public opinion.

I suspect this does not matter to you…

i did not initiate my investigation as part of any popularity contest. i did not turn to social media to hurt anyone. my actions were taken because i could not get camp belknap to stop. furthermore i could not get the des, epa, district court, superior court, planning board, zoning board, and numerous other regulatory authorities to address what i believed were serious issues.

pollution occurred — significant pollution. unsafe construction was also underway and, if put into service, could have posed serious risks.

whether i am liked or disliked is secondary. my responsibility was to report what i saw.

mission accomplished.

the pollution has been acknowledged and contained. the unsafe construction has been corrected and redone properly.

though zoning law exploitation remains, we will be "toe tagging"
no victims

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

A very interesting post--one side with a troubled reputation floods the thread with things we know to be half true at best, the other side is quiet here but has an excellent reputation. You then conclude that they both must be wrong? (sadly, we see this in national politics every day...)

If you can find some reason independent of Owens's posts for us to question the basic honesty/decency of Camp Belknap, please share. Until then...

I believe that both sides to this dispute carry blame... At the end of the day, life is fully of disagreements, eventually the get settled.... the problem here is that there seems to be know effort from either side to figure out a solution to this disagreement.... All I continue to see from both sides is posturing...

[Winilyme]

Originally Posted by Randy Owen

I question the basis upon which you are forming an opinion about my reputation.

For the record, I applied for and obtained a lawful subdivision. It was granted.

It was appealed, and the Town reviewed the appeal and upheld the approval.

I reported serious pollution as a whistleblower. They sued me, claiming my truthful reporting was false. They spent a verified $440,000 alleging my statements were untrue and ultimately withdrew the case. That withdrawal speaks for itself, particularly after expending $440,000. My insurance provided $1.5 million in coverage, and in the course of that defense, additional acts of pollution were identified and substantiated.

Thirty adults — not children — were just feet from my door at 11 p.m. Startled, I came out of my house and yelled at them to protect myself. They attempted to have me jailed. The Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court decision.

I reported illegal and unpermitted construction that could have killed someone. The DES investigated, agreed with my concerns, and required proper design and permitting. The illegal and unsafe construction was dug up and redone under DES supervision.

So I step forward to protect human life, prevail in court, and follow lawful process — and yet my reputation is questioned.

All courts have ruled in my favor, and still my reputation is portrayed as questionable.

Please explain.

Thank you,
Randy Owen

It appears that you struggle to take a pragmatic approach to resolving issues. By understating your own actions while overstating ​your opponents, you ​foment divisiveness.​ There's so much "I this" and "I that".

Consequently, this has impacted your reputation and perceived motives. Your ​presence ​in this forum immediately raises flags because of this history.

There are other ways.

​My perspective only - thank you for asking.

[Randy Owen]

Originally Posted by Winilyme

It appears that you struggle to take a pragmatic approach to resolving issues. By understating your own actions while overstating ​your opponents, you ​foment divisiveness.​ There's so much "I this" and "I that".

Consequently, this has impacted your reputation and perceived motives. Your ​presence ​in this forum immediately raises flags because of this history.

There are other ways.

​My perspective only - thank you for asking.

It didn’t start as “I, I” and “me, me.” This began with a partner — partners — and a peaceful partnership. That partnership was taken from me, and from her as well, because of the convoluted actions of others with a mission to take over my insight, my vision, and OUR shared vision, resulting in the loss of OUR dreams.

Here too I offer "Heat Home" Cyntia Pratt

“Heart Home”

For much of her life, Cynthia Pratt had a hard time answering the question, “Where are you from?” She grew up in New Jersey, but would spend all of her childhood summers on Winnipesaukee’s Cow Island, and those summer months were more meaningful to her than the rest of the year in New Jersey. So, she started answering that question with, “New Hampshire is my heart home,” she said.
“That’s where my fondest childhood memories came from; that’s when our family came together. It was a place where we came together and bonded,” she said.
Then life took her away from New Hampshire. She got married, had children, got divorced, raised her children to adulthood, and eventually was able to move back to New Hampshire, where she met her current partner, Randy Owen. Owen had also grown up summering on Winnipesaukee, and he also has three adult children.
“It has always been my dream to get back to Winnipesaukee, create the same wonderful experience for my family,” Pratt said. “I know he [Owen] wants the same for his family.”
Pratt and Owen are behind C & R NH Realty Trust, LLC, the name on the subdivision application currently before the Tuftonboro Planning Board. Pratt said it’s upsetting to hear their plan as a destructive force by their potential neighbors.
“Our dream for the property is to try and maintain the tranquility of Farm Island, while being able to create that wonderful family environment that they all get to enjoy on their properties and we enjoyed as children. We just want the same for our families,” she said.
At the center of Farm Island is the remains of a circa-1906 cottage, which Pratt and Owen plan to restore for their personal use. She said they do not plan to market any of the other lots in the near future.
“It is quite a substantial purchase price and quite a substantial price for the project. To invest that kind of money, we do need some sort of security should something happen down the line to Randy or me. The subdivision is more about financial security in the future, should we need that,” she said.
She said that she can see where the opponents of the plan are coming from. After all, both she and they are motivated by the same thing: a love for Lake Winnipesaukee.
“I understand it from their perspective. It’s not that we’re trying to hurt anyone or mess up anyone’s experience, we just want the same experience for our families. The lake is such a magical place,” Pratt said.

[lakewinnie]

Randy:

Refer to my post #3.

[Randy Owen]

Originally Posted by lakewinnie

Randy:

Refer to my post #3.

Do you mean this???
You may not want to litigate this in the court of public opinion.
Just sayin

If so, I reported my concerns to the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, the EPA, local police, the ZBA, the Fire Department, the Planning Board, and others. I followed the proper channels repeatedly. I screamed in the Carrol County District Court, and Superior Court too!

It was only after those efforts failed to gain traction that I turned to social media. That step was not taken lightly. It was taken because I believed the matter involved public health and environmental risk, and traditional avenues were not producing action.

Ultimately, with additional attention — including a nudge from a U.S. State Senator — the DES conducted further review and corrective measures followed and did their job. Its all in the DES files.

This situation reminds me of the broader principle illustrated in the case involving Erin Brockovich and PG&E: when institutions have resources and legal backing, it can be difficult for an individual to be heard. Persistence is often required to bring facts into the open.

Yet, I thank you for your advice and the risk was worth the outcome. Because of my risk I have contained the environment risk for others.

Do know I have been contacted to tell my story. If I have my way the title will be "the third lagoon"

[John Mercier]

They meant on the charges that you are currently under.

[Randy Owen]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

They meant on the charges that you are currently under.

it might be necessary to amend my name to randy owen, esquire, after all of this.

there are two witnesses: police chief james hathcock and seth kassels.

in the civil case, with $1.5 million in insurance coverage and roughly a dozen attorneys involved, we uncovered and proved the pollution i reported. i forced the correction of the unpermitted construction through the des, and that record is now memorialized.

separately, throughout the civil proceedings we demonstrated that seth was not credible. plainly stated, he lied.

the other witness is james hathcock. during the years of investigation and while living under the unjust restraint imposed by camp belknap, inc. (ymca intentionally removed), which weaponized the courts in an attempt to silence my whistleblower reporting, james and i exchanged hundreds of phone calls and emails. that level of communication alone may remove him as an independent witness.

with all the camp belknap–orchestrated pressure placed on local police since 2018, and given that the case itself is dated 2022, james himself recently remarked that “enough is enough.”

lastly, in a criminal matter there must be a victim. the simple question remains: who is the victim?

i would also add this: at 63 years old, confronted with roughly 30 adults charging my home at 11 p.m., i said what i said.

yet vice president kamala harris has publicly stated words to the effect of: “if someone comes into my house, they’re getting shot.”

[Mr. V]

Originally Posted by Randy Owen

This situation reminds me of the broader principle illustrated in the case involving Erin Brockovich and PG&E: when institutions have resources and legal backing, it can be difficult for an individual to be heard.

You said your huge attorney bill for going to war with the camp was paid for by your insurance carrier.

How then did you lack resources ?

[Randy Owen]

Originally Posted by Mr. V

You said your huge attorney bill for going to war with the camp was paid for by your insurance carrier.

How then did you lack resources ?

you open an entirely new chapter of this saga — perhaps the sequel to “the third lagoon."

the lack of resources i faced resulted from what new evidence proves was a three-person effort or civil conspiracy that effectively blocked my insurance coverage. because of that delay, i suffered significant harm. during that same period, the courts accepted the premise that the plaintiff might prevail and imposed approximately two million dollars in attachments against my residential home on farm island and all of my commercial assets and companies, effectively making me unbankable.

the plaintiffs orchestrated and timed what they referred to as “sister cases,” civil and criminal. the sixth amendment guarantees the rights of criminal defendants. as the civil case drove the criminal case and the two were conflated, i was effectively deprived of my constitutional protections. i could not borrow a dime to defend myself. only when i finally pierced the blockage of insurance coverage was i able to secure protection.

as a result, i was forced to operate three businesses for nearly three years — including my rapidly growing marine business — while carrying those attachments and operating in a drastically undercapitalized position. the pressure placed on my businesses and creditors during that time was immense. the financial losses stemming from the plaintiff’s actions, and the conduct of the other two individuals involved in the civil conspiracy, have been staggering.

to illustrate how burdensome the attachments were: when i ultimately secured $1.5 million in insurance coverage, i requested a partial release of the attached assets so i could continue normal business operations. the court declined that request. as a result, the practical exposure became roughly $3.5 million.

for context, the largest non-fatal attachment historically issued in carroll county was approximately $1.1 million. in my case, due to the plaintiff’s misrepresentations to the court, i was subjected to an attachment amount more than three times that figure ever awarded in carroll county superior court.

separately, the insurance coverage did not apply to the bogus criminal case that emerged after the civil case began to collapse.
despite all of these circumstances, i ultimately prevailed in all matters brought against me.

[WinnisquamZ]

Do we know if the councilors and campers were on his property. If so, does the castle doctrine apply?


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[John Mercier]

No.
But even on his property, Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground does not apply.

You have to be in mortal danger, not just irked by the noise and nuisance.

[WinnisquamZ]

As a elderly gentleman alone one can easily feel in “mortal danger”.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[John Mercier]

Yeah... and that will get you a visit in the prison shower.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by WinnisquamZ

As a elderly gentleman alone one can easily feel in “mortal danger”.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

From kids at a summer camp? Wielding canoe paddles and gimp? Please...

[BillTex]

I hope this Guy doesn’t have any lethal weapons around…

[Randy Owen]

WINNIPESAUKEE FORUM STATEMENT

Randy Owen
Tuftonboro, New Hampshire

Let me be absolutely clear: this case did not start with a confrontation. It started with land lawfully purchased, a subdivision lawfully pursued, and environmental violations lawfully reported.

I followed every required step before the Tuftonboro Planning Board. The subdivision was reviewed in detail. It was scrutinized. It was appealed. I prevailed. The appeal challenging the Planning Board’s approval failed.

During that public process, violations by YMCA Camp Belknap came to light — including a documented 2017 lagoon breach involving the release of human waste and additional unpermitted construction activities in subsequent years. I explored those violations further and reported them to regulators.

The response was not transparency. It was litigation.

YMCA Camp Belknap filed a civil defamation lawsuit alleging my pollution reporting was false. That case proceeded in Superior Court with substantial legal expenditures on both sides. After significant investment and full opportunity to pursue their claims, YMCA Camp Belknap unilaterally withdrew the case. I prevailed in the civil matter.

In the criminal arena, I have also stood my ground. My actions were examined. Context was evaluated. I was not convicted of wrongdoing for defending myself. I prevailed there as well.

So to recap:

I prevailed before the Planning Board.

I prevailed on appeal of that Planning Board decision.

I prevailed in the civil defamation case.

I prevailed in the criminal matter.

Those are not opinions. Those are outcomes.

The constitutional principle at stake is larger than any one dispute. The 14th Amendment guarantees that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law. When litigation is used as a pressure tool against a property owner who reports environmental violations, serious due process concerns arise.

Regarding the night that is now being discussed publicly: at approximately 11:00 p.m., I was awakened by roughly 30 adults — many in their twenties — gathered within feet of my door. I was 63 years old. I was outnumbered. I reacted verbally in what I believed to be a defensive posture to deter entry. No firearm was discharged. No one was injured. The deterrent worked.

Anyone awakened late at night by a large group outside their home would experience fear. That context matters.

This narrative is not about instability or exaggeration. It is about lawful property rights, lawful environmental reporting, and the constitutional guarantee of due process. It is about standing firm when pressured to be silent.

The record shows I followed the law, I reported what regulators ultimately required to be corrected all supported with extensive DES efforts, and when challenged in multiple forums — planning board, civil court, and criminal court — I prevailed.

The full history matters.

— Randy Owen

[Randy Owen]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

From kids at a summer camp? Wielding canoe paddles and gimp? Please...

These were not kids. They were adults from the ages of 18 to 28.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Randy Owen

These were not kids. They were adults from the ages of 18 to 28.

Doesn't matter.
The legal basis for Stand Your Ground would not exist.
Which is what they were discussing.

[granitebox]

ok.....waste of good data reading this nonsense. Blocked.

[Randy Owen]

Originally Posted by WinnisquamZ

As a elderly gentleman alone one can easily feel in “mortal danger”.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

As soon as the ice was safe in January of 2019, I went out to the island and took down a huge dead tree leaning toward my house. While doing this, three nice young men came up to the house, past the no-trespassing signs, and spoke with me. One’s first name was Owen — how could I forget — and the other was a grandson of Lucy, who owned the infamous Cow Island restaurant.
At the time, I did not yet own the property, and their trespassing while we were there seemed harmless. The young men were very pleasant and identified themselves as off-duty counselors. Cindy and I shared our life stories about Cow Island and going to Lucy’s. They explained the ritual of entering the Winchester home with a cadet and spooking him inside. They even detailed the furniture and what room it was in. It all seemed innocent as they congratulated Cindy and me on our new endeavor.
I had already been told that the ritual was to ENTER the house. I was 63. They were 18 to 28 YEARS OLD and ALL 30 of them. And I get in trouble for BLUFFING I had the capacity to defend my self?? And during this whole mess Karmela Harris, VICE PRESIDENT OF UNITED SATATES SAYS "COME IN MY HOUSE AND I WILL SHOOT YOU!"
They told me they would entered the house. I knew they would enter the house. Can you imagine had I not awoken and they barged in there again what might have happened?

[WinnisquamZ]

Please explain? Unless one is defending themselves thru a door or wall no one can tell another’s fear. In this case unless you have walked in his shoes you are just guessing


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[John Mercier]

Because you have to prove it to a jury.
And it can't be just "fear".

[TiltonBB]

All this negativity towards Camp Belknap. Should I be a little less proud of my 1963 Boating Certificate?

[chaseisland]

Hey TiltonBB! NO! Timmi-hi!

[Descant]

Timi Hi

1957 for me. In September of that year my little boat got swamped by a big Shepard near Glendale. Camp Director Reid Besserer in the NYMCAH was on scene to pick up me and my buddies. First question was "Did you pass your boat test?"|

[WakeboardMom]

Is there a backstory here that applies to this forum? Meaning at some point was Randy Owen disparaged here and so he came to clear his name? What’s the point of the original post?

[John Mercier]

The two sides have been battling since the he bought the property.

[Randy Owen]

Originally Posted by WakeboardMom

Is there a backstory here that applies to this forum? Meaning at some point was Randy Owen disparaged here and so he came to clear his name? What’s the point of the original post?

whistleblowers stories

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBLRUteB6EE

[Grant]

Originally Posted by Descant

Timi Hi

1957 for me. In September of that year my little boat got swamped by a big Shepard near Glendale. Camp Director Reid Besserer in the NYMCAH was on scene to pick up me and my buddies. First question was "Did you pass your boat test?"|

Wow -- I feel like a youngster here! I was there '70-'77 (the last year when I worked in the kitchen). Still have my medals from the All-Camp swim meets, when Belknap, Alton, Dewitt, Wyanoke, and others would convene and compete at our main dock. Good times. Boomalacka!