Go Back   Winnipesaukee Forum > Lake Issues > General Issues
Home Forums Gallery Webcams Blogs YouTube Channel Classifieds Register FAQDonate Members List Today's Posts

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-13-2015, 06:43 PM   #1
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,769
Thanks: 755
Thanked 1,462 Times in 1,018 Posts
Default

I didn't see his speaking as disrupting the meeting. The selectmen seemed to be the ones who disrupted the meeting when they didn't want to give him his 5 minutes- even if it was a rant.
tis is offline  
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to tis For This Useful Post:
Charlie T (03-13-2015), Jersey Ed (03-14-2015), wifi (03-14-2015)
Old 03-13-2015, 07:03 PM   #2
Rusty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,028
Thanks: 603
Thanked 687 Times in 425 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tis View Post
I didn't see his speaking as disrupting the meeting. The selectmen seemed to be the ones who disrupted the meeting when they didn't want to give him his 5 minutes- even if it was a rant.
It's not the rant, it's when the board asked the chief to remove Clay and Clay refused to get up and leave and he continued to talk.
__________________
It's never crowded along the extra mile.
Rusty is offline  
Old 03-13-2015, 08:28 PM   #3
Charlie T
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 319
Thanks: 260
Thanked 185 Times in 89 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty View Post
It's not the rant, it's when the board asked the chief to remove Clay and Clay refused to get up and leave and he continued to talk.
By virtue of the fact that the BOS acknowledged him and granted him his 5 min to speak, nothing that Mr. Clay did was out of order!! His presence and the action of speaking were allowed by the BOS and therefore must be considered "lawful" .He committed no "breach of the peace" because of those actions and I think the BOS and the Alton PD will have a hard time justifying both the arrest and the decision to call the police and ask for his removal or arrest based upon Mr. Clay's actions that evening prior to his arrest.
Charlie T is offline  
Old 03-13-2015, 08:56 PM   #4
Rusty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,028
Thanks: 603
Thanked 687 Times in 425 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie T View Post
By virtue of the fact that the BOS acknowledged him and granted him his 5 min to speak, nothing that Mr. Clay did was out of order!! His presence and the action of speaking were allowed by the BOS and therefore must be considered "lawful" .He committed no "breach of the peace" because of those actions and I think the BOS and the Alton PD will have a hard time justifying both the arrest and the decision to call the police and ask for his removal or arrest based upon Mr. Clay's actions that evening prior to his arrest.
By virtue of the fact that the BOS acknowledged him and granted him his 5 min to speak, nothing that Mr. Clay did was out of order!!
That’s true.

His presence and the action of speaking were allowed by the BOS and therefore must be considered "lawful" .
That’s true also.

He committed no "breach of the peace" because of those actions.
By virtue of the fact that the BOS acknowledged him and granted him his 5 min to speak, nothing that Mr. Clay did was out of order!!
That’s true also.


His presence and the action of speaking were allowed by the BOS and therefore must be considered "lawful" .
That’s true also.


He committed no "breach of the peace" because of those actions.
You’re right again, there was no unlawful “breach of peace” with his rant.

and I think the BOS and the Alton PD will have a hard time justifying both the arrest and the decision to call the police and ask for his removal or arrest based upon Mr. Clay's actions that evening prior to his arrest.

I disagree with that statement. The Alton BOS have all the right in the world to get the police to remove someone who is disrupting there meeting. Therefore when the police chief asked Clay multiple times to leave and he refused, than the chief had no other option but to arrest him.
Whether you believe that Clay’s rant was against the Alton policy has nothing to do with his arrest. Clay didn’t get arrested because of his 2 minute rant, he got arrested after the board voted to shut down public input and continued to talk and disobey the police.
__________________
It's never crowded along the extra mile.
Rusty is offline  
Old 03-13-2015, 09:46 PM   #5
Charlie T
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 319
Thanks: 260
Thanked 185 Times in 89 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty View Post
By virtue of the fact that the BOS acknowledged him and granted him his 5 min to speak, nothing that Mr. Clay did was out of order!!
That’s true.

His presence and the action of speaking were allowed by the BOS and therefore must be considered "lawful" .
That’s true also.

He committed no "breach of the peace" because of those actions.
By virtue of the fact that the BOS acknowledged him and granted him his 5 min to speak, nothing that Mr. Clay did was out of order!!
That’s true also.


His presence and the action of speaking were allowed by the BOS and therefore must be considered "lawful" .
That’s true also.


He committed no "breach of the peace" because of those actions.
You’re right again, there was no unlawful “breach of peace” with his rant.

and I think the BOS and the Alton PD will have a hard time justifying both the arrest and the decision to call the police and ask for his removal or arrest based upon Mr. Clay's actions that evening prior to his arrest.

I disagree with that statement. The Alton BOS have all the right in the world to get the police to remove someone who is disrupting there meeting. Therefore when the police chief asked Clay multiple times to leave and he refused, than the chief had no other option but to arrest him.
Whether you believe that Clay’s rant was against the Alton policy has nothing to do with his arrest. Clay didn’t get arrested because of his 2 minute rant, he got arrested after the board voted to shut down public input and continued to talk and disobey the police.
The problem I have with your argument Rusty is that Mr. Clay was granted 5 minutes and the BOS, after granting that decided to take it away because they didn't like and/ or agree with what he was saying or ranting. As someone else said this isn't a "police state". If the BOS had let him go on for the 5 minutes and then shut it down all would be fine. They didn't, and in my opinion they violated his rights and broke their own rules. The rules can't and shouldn't change depending on who they are being applied to. Isn't that what the entire Civil Rights movement in the United States was all about? The BOS are acting like a kid on a ball field who are saying "my ball, my rules" and then changing the rules in the middle of the game because they aren't winning.

For the record I don't necessarily agree with what Mr. Clay was saying, I'm just defending his, mine and your US Constitution given right to say it.

CT
Charlie T is offline  
Sponsored Links
Old 03-13-2015, 10:13 PM   #6
Mr. V
Senior Member
 
Mr. V's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: the left coast (Portland)and West Alton
Posts: 1,415
Thanks: 65
Thanked 260 Times in 178 Posts
Default

The BOS and other pols need to wise up and do what a smart wife does to placate and shut up her husband: "You just yes him to death then do as you please."
Mr. V is offline  
Old 03-13-2015, 11:37 PM   #7
Rusty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,028
Thanks: 603
Thanked 687 Times in 425 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie T View Post
The problem I have with your argument Rusty is that Mr. Clay was granted 5 minutes and the BOS, after granting that decided to take it away because they didn't like and/ or agree with what he was saying or ranting. As someone else said this isn't a "police state". If the BOS had let him go on for the 5 minutes and then shut it down all would be fine. They didn't, and in my opinion they violated his rights and broke their own rules. The rules can't and shouldn't change depending on who they are being applied to. Isn't that what the entire Civil Rights movement in the United States was all about? The BOS are acting like a kid on a ball field who are saying "my ball, my rules" and then changing the rules in the middle of the game because they aren't winning.

For the record I don't necessarily agree with what Mr. Clay was saying, I'm just defending his, mine and your US Constitution given right to say it.

CT
I don't disagree with you "Charlie T" and the court/s might take that into consideration.
However the second issue where the police got involved is separate from the BOS not allowing Clay to complete his allowed 5 minutes. Clay probably should have been allowed to finish beating up the selectmen but that will have to be worked out separate from the arrest.
Once the Board Chair turned Clay over to the police chief, the selectmen are (IMO) absolved from what happend after that.
__________________
It's never crowded along the extra mile.
Rusty is offline  
Old 03-14-2015, 06:27 AM   #8
wifi
Senior Member
 
wifi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Lakes Region
Posts: 1,321
Thanks: 282
Thanked 287 Times in 169 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty View Post
.....Once the Board Chair turned Clay over to the police chief, the selectmen are (IMO) absolved from what happend after that.
By state law, the BOS cannot command the police department to arrest someone. They can ask, and its up to the police department to evaluate the situation and be solely responsible for their action of arrest. So you are right that the PD will have to defend their actions.

Refer to the Belknap Commissioners meeting, where the deputy spoke up and disagreed that there was any disorder and (legally) refused the orders from the chair. This, IMHO, is what should have happened in Alton. In a non life threatening situation, arresting first and figuring it out later is lame.
wifi is offline  
Old 03-14-2015, 08:24 AM   #9
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,769
Thanks: 755
Thanked 1,462 Times in 1,018 Posts
Default

I agree the police should be able to decide what to do. However, I imagine the Selectmen are the policeman's boss and do the hiring and firing. That puts him in a tough spot.
tis is offline  
Old 03-14-2015, 09:56 AM   #10
Tired of Waiting
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 519
Thanks: 111
Thanked 259 Times in 107 Posts
Default Illegal actions

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty View Post
I don't disagree with you "Charlie T" and the court/s might take that into consideration.

(snip)

Once the Board Chair turned Clay over to the police chief, the selectmen are (IMO) absolved from what happend after that.
One illegal action that brings on another illegal action does not absolve anyone.

For instance: You go down and swear out a complaint against me, cause you don't like me, and the complaint is that I trespassed with a gun on your property. You bring a couple buddies that say the same. (We call you and your buddies the BOS)

The police take the complaint and arrest me for felony trespass.

Later it's found that you filed a false police report and are arrested under perjury.

I sue you and the police for false arrest. Think I'd win only from the police or would you also be held accountable.

This I what is going on here with this case.


ToW
Tired of Waiting is offline  
Old 03-14-2015, 10:17 AM   #11
Rusty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,028
Thanks: 603
Thanked 687 Times in 425 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of Waiting View Post
One illegal action that brings on another illegal action does not absolve anyone.


This I what is going on here with this case.


ToW
As far as I know there hasn't been any determined illegal action by the BoS or the Police Dept.
__________________
It's never crowded along the extra mile.
Rusty is offline  
Old 03-14-2015, 01:27 PM   #12
Tired of Waiting
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 519
Thanks: 111
Thanked 259 Times in 107 Posts
Default I know

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty View Post
As far as I know there hasn't been any determined illegal action by the BoS or the Police Dept.
Never said there was a determined illegal action. I was referring to this statement you made:

"Once the Board Chair turned Clay over to the police chief, the selectmen are (IMO) absolved from what happend after that."

You said in your Humble opinion the BOS is absolved from what happened after they turned the issue over to the police.

The police chief acted on the BOS word without stopping to review what was actually going on and inserted himself into the issue by arresting Clay.

Therefore "if", to be determined, the BOS violated his rights then they will not be absolved of the police action they initiated. They will be complicit to the action.


ToW
Tired of Waiting is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Tired of Waiting For This Useful Post:
Jersey Ed (03-14-2015), secondcurve (03-22-2015)
Old 03-14-2015, 01:49 PM   #13
Mr. V
Senior Member
 
Mr. V's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: the left coast (Portland)and West Alton
Posts: 1,415
Thanks: 65
Thanked 260 Times in 178 Posts
Default

Quote:
The police chief acted on the BOS word without stopping to review what was actually going on and inserted himself into the issue by arresting Clay.

Therefore "if", to be determined, the BOS violated his rights then they will not be absolved of the police action they initiated. They will be complicit to the action.
We'll find out soon enough when Clay's lawyer files suit: the heading of the complaint will name the defendants.

Out West where I live we have some real bozos in county positions, whose idiotic actions have literally cost the taxpayers millions of dollars, only some of which is covered by insurance.

A sad state of affairs: JFK called out for "the best and the brightest," and in the end we get the whack jobs.

Ah, politics.
Mr. V is offline  
Old 03-14-2015, 02:44 PM   #14
Rusty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,028
Thanks: 603
Thanked 687 Times in 425 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of Waiting View Post
The police chief acted on the BOS word without stopping to review what was actually going on and inserted himself into the issue by arresting Clay.



ToW
Maybe you didn't know it but the Chief was in the audience when this all took place. This is one of the complaints from Clay that there are police present at the BoS meetings.
The chief witnessed the whole thing and from what I see he had no intention of arresting Clay until he refused to stop talking and either sit in the audience or leave the meeting; Clay had those two options that were given by the board chair.

I've seen where some forum member/s have said that Hussey went for the police, however the fact of the matter is that the police were there all the time.
__________________
It's never crowded along the extra mile.
Rusty is offline  
Old 03-14-2015, 09:39 AM   #15
Tired of Waiting
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 519
Thanks: 111
Thanked 259 Times in 107 Posts
Default Not quite

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie T View Post

For the record I don't necessarily agree with what Mr. Clay was saying, I'm just defending his, mine and your US Constitution given right to say it.

CT
NO, No, No the constitution does not give you ANY rights. It protects our rights!! You are born with these rights and the constitution was written so the Government couldn't take them away from us.

ToW
Tired of Waiting is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Tired of Waiting For This Useful Post:
ITD (03-14-2015)
Old 03-25-2015, 01:25 PM   #16
Charlie T
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 319
Thanks: 260
Thanked 185 Times in 89 Posts
Default I'll say it again

The BOS are acting like a kid on a ball field who are saying "my ball, my rules" and then changing the rules in the middle of the game because they aren't winning.
Charlie T is offline  
Old 03-25-2015, 03:25 PM   #17
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,769
Thanks: 755
Thanked 1,462 Times in 1,018 Posts
Default

If the Selectmen of any town don't want to listen to the people, they shouldn't run for office. They are elected to work FOR the people, not dictate TO them.
tis is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to tis For This Useful Post:
Grandpa Redneck (03-25-2015)
Old 03-25-2015, 03:42 PM   #18
ITD
Senior Member
 
ITD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 2,936
Thanks: 478
Thanked 695 Times in 390 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tis View Post
If the Selectmen of any town don't want to listen to the people, they shouldn't run for office. They are elected to work FOR the people, not dictate TO them.
I agree with this, but the time to weed these people out is election time, problem is most don't pay attention.
ITD is offline  
Old 03-25-2015, 03:56 PM   #19
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,769
Thanks: 755
Thanked 1,462 Times in 1,018 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ITD View Post
I agree with this, but the time to weed these people out is election time, problem is most don't pay attention.

A truer statement was never made, ITD. Most people don't pay attention. But it is very hard to know how somebody is going to be and what they will do even if you pay attention. I have heard many over the years complain about the way the town is run and they get elected and go right along with the existing people. It is very easy to say they are going to this and that but doing it is something else. When some have run for reelection, I have read or heard what somebody SAYS they are going to do and if you look at their back history, they haven't done that at all. People most often have no idea what they are voting for.
tis is offline  
Old 03-28-2015, 05:22 PM   #20
lagoon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 87
Thanks: 35
Thanked 17 Times in 11 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty View Post
It's not the rant, it's when the board asked the chief to remove Clay and Clay refused to get up and leave and he continued to talk.
It is the BOS who are wrong without much deep thought here. They granted Mr. Clay his 5 minutes, their choice, he spoke and was quickly interrupted, and the police ordered him to get up and subsequently arrested him. The BOS are clearly at fault and they need have followed thier own rules and waited 5 minutes and then, moved on.

It is as if they have patience for what they want to hear but discredit with actions like this, those issues and folks they do not want to listen to. Government does not work that way nor is it supposed to under the right to know laws in place today.

Also check on the legal bills Alton has had to pay out in the last 5-6 years, its online and its staggering. Alton and its legal representatives have taken on one losing campaign after another and one wonders why? Its right there on the website, money, big money, and the trend has been sharply upward all but a year or two. And who oversees the legal representatives of Alton, take a guess.
lagoon is offline  
Old 05-15-2015, 02:01 PM   #21
mcdude
Senior Member
 
mcdude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Rock Haven Lake - West Newfield, ME
Posts: 5,367
Thanks: 374
Thanked 1,057 Times in 495 Posts
Default He's BBAAAAACCCKKKK!!!!

this time at the School Committee meeting....
(from the Baysider may 14th)
Quote:
ALTON — The Alton Central School Board met for its regular monthly meeting on Monday, May 11, in the school’s media center.
ACS Administrative assistant Janna Mellon spoke during public input regarding her concerns over cuts being made to support staff and the turnover of administrators.
Alton resident Jeffrey Clay also spoke during public input stating he was not fond of the five-minute limit imposed on the public during public input.
Clay touched on a few subjects including questioning how ethics violations are handled within the school board itself. He also stated the board should not have an ethics policy without a protocol for consequences related to violations.
Additionally, Clay requested the board update the community on the progress of hiring a new superintendent and a new principal.
School board Chairperson Krista Argiropolis* was poised to answer Clay’s questions when Vice-Chairperson Steve Miller called for a point of order.
Miller reminded Argiropolis and the rest of the board they were under no obligation to give information out in response to Clay’s questions at this time as it was public input.
Board member Terri Noyes agreed it was not appropriate to have a "back and forth" dialogue in public input, but she did not see a problem with giving out numbers.
*Argie's Wife on the forum
__________________

mcdude is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to mcdude For This Useful Post:
8gv (05-16-2015)
Old 05-15-2015, 03:25 PM   #22
Tired of Waiting
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 519
Thanks: 111
Thanked 259 Times in 107 Posts
Default That went over very well.

See how it could go in the BOS meeting. Just let the fellow have his say and move on. Next.

Seems they handled it the right way. Maybe they learned from the BOS.


ToW
Tired of Waiting is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Tired of Waiting For This Useful Post:
Jersey Ed (05-15-2015)
Old 06-09-2015, 06:05 PM   #23
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,769
Thanks: 755
Thanked 1,462 Times in 1,018 Posts
Default

ALTON, N.H. —Charges have been dismissed against an Alton man who refused to stop talking during a town board of selectmen meeting.

Jeffrey Clay said he was robbed of his right to free speech when the council cut him off, and a judge agreed.

The court called the board's actions censorship and said in the ruling that Clay did nothing wrong and arresting him violated his First Amendment rights.


There is more on the WMUR site if you want to read it all.
tis is offline  
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to tis For This Useful Post:
Charlie T (06-09-2015), Skip (06-09-2015), Tired of Waiting (06-10-2015)
Old 06-09-2015, 07:45 PM   #24
Charlie T
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 319
Thanks: 260
Thanked 185 Times in 89 Posts
Default Got it right

Quote:
Originally Posted by tis View Post
ALTON, N.H. —Charges have been dismissed against an Alton man who refused to stop talking during a town board of selectmen meeting.

Jeffrey Clay said he was robbed of his right to free speech when the council cut him off, and a judge agreed.

The court called the board's actions censorship and said in the ruling that Clay did nothing wrong and arresting him violated his First Amendment rights.


There is more on the WMUR site if you want to read it all.
I don't necessarily agree with what this guy had to say but I"m damn glad the court system worked and defended his right to say it. A small battle but a win for our country and the beliefs it was founded on!
Charlie T is offline  
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Charlie T For This Useful Post:
Bear Islander (06-10-2015), Cindido (06-10-2015), jeffk (06-10-2015), Jersey Ed (06-10-2015), Scott's Yott (06-09-2015)
Old 06-10-2015, 07:51 AM   #25
Tired of Waiting
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 519
Thanks: 111
Thanked 259 Times in 107 Posts
Default Like I said

Stand up for your rights!! Now maybe the BOS will act like they should and the police state in Alton will relax a bit.

http://www.wmur.com/news/charges-dis...-case/33488002


ToW
Tired of Waiting is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Tired of Waiting For This Useful Post:
SAMIAM (06-10-2015)
Old 07-15-2015, 12:11 PM   #26
HellRaZoR004
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Litchfield/Gilford
Posts: 828
Thanks: 233
Thanked 224 Times in 131 Posts
Default ACLU sues Alton

I guess this isn't done yet.

http://www.wmur.com/news/aclu-sues-a...eting/34179060
HellRaZoR004 is offline  
Old 07-15-2015, 02:05 PM   #27
LIforrelaxin
Senior Member
 
LIforrelaxin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Texas, Lake Ray Hubbard and NH, Long Island Winnipesaukee
Posts: 2,876
Thanks: 1,037
Thanked 892 Times in 524 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HellRaZoR004 View Post
Of course the ACLU is suing the town... it is what is wrong with this country, there has to be a lawsuit with everything.... The BOS did what they did, the court decided that it was in appropriate, the charges where dropped... And Life should move on....Instead there is now a law suit by the ACLU, and soon to be we another I am sure by Mr. Clay Personally...

Did the BOS act rather hastily... Yep probably... the court thinks so
Did the BOS learn their lesson about the abuse of power??? who knows time will tell.....
Does Mr. Clay have a reputation that may have inspired the BOS to act the way they did.... Yep Probably, I know my research should he has an interesting past
Who will pay for the monetary gain of the ACLU lawsuit... The tax payers...

There was a mistake... let it go and move on.... PEOPLE ARENT PERFECT... lawsuits will not fix society!!!!!
__________________
Life is about how much time you can spend relaxing... I do it on an island that isn't really an island.....

Last edited by LIforrelaxin; 07-16-2015 at 09:09 AM.
LIforrelaxin is offline  
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to LIforrelaxin For This Useful Post:
AC2717 (07-15-2015), ishoot308 (07-15-2015), Pineedles (07-15-2015), rander7823 (07-15-2015), Resident 2B (07-15-2015), secondcurve (07-16-2015), Tundra (07-15-2015), VitaBene (07-15-2015)
Old 07-15-2015, 08:36 PM   #28
kawishiwi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 519
Thanks: 227
Thanked 167 Times in 108 Posts
Default Toss off the 1st amendment?

There is a lot to be said for moving on but, a court has found that first amendment rights were violated by the government. Enforcing accountability for that is not trivial. I would feel a greater injustice if nothing were done about it. Rock on ACLU!
kawishiwi is offline  
Old 07-15-2015, 09:33 PM   #29
VitaBene
Senior Member
 
VitaBene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 3,596
Thanks: 1,642
Thanked 1,641 Times in 844 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kawishiwi View Post
There is a lot to be said for moving on but, a court has found that first amendment rights were violated by the government. Enforcing accountability for that is not trivial. I would feel a greater injustice if nothing were done about it. Rock on ACLU!
Something was done about it. Clay is a semi-professional muckraker.

As noted, the taxpayers are "the government" who pays.
VitaBene is offline  
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to VitaBene For This Useful Post:
LIforrelaxin (07-16-2015), secondcurve (07-16-2015), smith point boater (07-16-2015)
Old 07-15-2015, 10:53 PM   #30
kawishiwi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 519
Thanks: 227
Thanked 167 Times in 108 Posts
Default Weird priorities

Quote:
Originally Posted by VitaBene View Post
Something was done about it. Clay is a semi-professional muckraker.

As noted, the taxpayers are "the government" who pays.
Saving a few dollars per taxpayer are more important than the govt using police power to silence a citizens constitutional rights under the 1st amendment? Really? REALLY?
kawishiwi is offline  
Old 07-16-2015, 07:02 AM   #31
VitaBene
Senior Member
 
VitaBene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 3,596
Thanks: 1,642
Thanked 1,641 Times in 844 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kawishiwi View Post
Saving a few dollars per taxpayer are more important than the govt using police power to silence a citizens constitutional rights under the 1st amendment? Really? REALLY?
I prefer to see our local town's limited dollars spent on educating students, repairing roads and policing the streets rather than paying the costs of defense and potential payout of a lawsuit. If that makes my priorities "weird" so be it!
VitaBene is offline  
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to VitaBene For This Useful Post:
LIforrelaxin (07-16-2015), SAMIAM (07-16-2015), secondcurve (07-16-2015), smith point boater (07-16-2015)
Old 07-16-2015, 08:01 AM   #32
smith point boater
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: West Alton,NH
Posts: 216
Thanks: 339
Thanked 98 Times in 57 Posts
Default

Agree 110% with Vitabene. A mistake was made, challenged, judicated and resolved. We don't need the town (and ultimately the tax payers) wasting money on legal fees when there are other more important issues in the town.
Get over it and move on
smith point boater is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to smith point boater For This Useful Post:
secondcurve (07-16-2015)
Old 07-16-2015, 10:12 AM   #33
Bear Islander
Senior Member
 
Bear Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 1,764
Thanks: 32
Thanked 441 Times in 207 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VitaBene View Post
I prefer to see our local town's limited dollars spent on educating students, repairing roads and policing the streets rather than paying the costs of defense and potential payout of a lawsuit. If that makes my priorities "weird" so be it!
I agree with you. I would not want my tax dollars used to defend a stupid lawsuit. That is why I want my towns elected officials to respect the rights of it's citizens, and not get the town in situations like this.

I can agree that there is to much litigation in our society. However if I am ever arrested in similar circumstances, and the judge later says I was being censored, I will file a lawsuit - guaranteed!

Perhaps the people posting that he should "just move on" have never been arrested, cuffed and booked when what they were doing was perfectly legal.
Bear Islander is offline  
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Bear Islander For This Useful Post:
Newbiesaukee (07-17-2015), Tired of Waiting (07-16-2015), wifi (07-16-2015)
Old 07-16-2015, 10:52 AM   #34
Mr. V
Senior Member
 
Mr. V's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: the left coast (Portland)and West Alton
Posts: 1,415
Thanks: 65
Thanked 260 Times in 178 Posts
Default

One can only hope the lawsuit will act to deter others from discharging their public duties in a ham-fisted, tyrannical manner.

I suspect the end-cost of litigation will be borne by the insurance carrier (assuming this is a covered risk) as opposed to the tax payers, but no doubt future insurance premiums will increase.
Mr. V is offline  
Old 07-16-2015, 11:52 AM   #35
Pineedles
Senior Member
 
Pineedles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Moultonborough & CT
Posts: 2,545
Thanks: 1,072
Thanked 668 Times in 367 Posts
Default

I used to believe that if there was no malice and no gross neglect, suing is not who I am. However, several years ago I fell on some ice at my sportsman's club that had not been cleared the day before and was now covered with a fine coat of snow. Ended up rupturing my quads. Insurance paid for the operation, short term disability paid my salary, and all I was out was the co-pay for rehab. I didn't sue even though it was negligent to not have removed the ice, particularly since the surface was directly behind the pistol ports and was on an incline. If I sued, I would only be "taxing" my own club and club members.

The next year I observed the same situation with ice not being removed. The officers of the club didn't learn their lesson. If I had sued, perhaps they would have. Who knows?
Pineedles is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Pineedles For This Useful Post:
Newbiesaukee (07-17-2015), Tired of Waiting (07-16-2015)
 

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

This page was generated in 0.65831 seconds