#1 2009-02-21 14:17:55

OBSERVER OPINIONS by Slager (with commentary by commonsense)

Just call it a momentary lapse of reason.

First you ruin Batman, now Pink Floyd.

Last week the pressure of keeping the Observer going finally got to me. I had begun to buckle under the financial strain of keeping two newspapers afloat during the worse economy since the Great Depression.

I’ll bet at .75 for 8 pages, the economy had no impact. 

On top of that I’ve had to shell out legal fees to fight a ridiculous lawsuit that I believe was designed solely to drain my financial resources.

What happened to I’ll never give up?  I’ll take on anyone.  Oh you’re finally starting to realize it’s not as easy as that.  Court is expensive.  So is divorce court.

If that wasn’t enough, the hate bloggers had begun writing shameless things about my wife and children for the entire world to see.

I don’t remember reading anything about the children.

But what began to finally push me over the edge was the apathy and fear many local residents had displayed regarding the upcoming election. Only three candidates had stepped forward, each apparently sharing the same political philosophy and backing.

Based on YOUR opinion.  And probably the fact they don’t believe in the current BOS.  So that automatically makes them bad.

From this perspective, Wareham wasn’t being given much choice, and that was very disheartening for me, especially because it occurred primarily through intimidation.

Which one of those candidates were intimidating people? Another fabricated notion!

I’ve never wanted the Observer to be just another community newspaper. I always hoped we could serve as a catalyst for positive change. Knowledge really is power. An informed public is a powerful one, but power only matters if it is used to make things better for everyone.

Although preying on the elderly and the un-educated proved to be more of an easier route for The Wareham Observer to report the “truth.”  Because Slager’s “version of the truth sells papers.”

I had begun to doubt the success of that dream. The Observer may have succeeded in bringing the truth to its readers, but if our readers weren’t inspired to act on that truth, then what difference had we made?

Change “may have succeeded” to “initially tried to bring”, then decided to go with lies, half-truths, and opinion.

Apparently more than I realized. Three new candidates stepped forward on Friday to take out nomination papers - Cape Verdean businessman Walter Cruz, and Onset residents Christopher Gay and Richard Hagopian. Former Observer columnist Pat MacLeod had taken papers out earlier last week but decided the next day not to run.

You pompass, ego-centric ass!  Your head is so fucking big that your actually think it was YOU that inspired them to run.  God forbid they have a mind or passion of their own.

Now there are a total of six candidates vying for the soon-to-be-vacant spot left by Jim Potter. Wareham has a choice.  I do not know much about the three new candidates.

Once again, because you said they didn’t have a choice?  I don’t know any of the six candidates.  Tell me, which one is on the democratic town committee with Bruce, Brenda, and The Donahues?

Onset certainly deserves the kind of representation it received during Potter’s term on the board. It would also be wonderful if the Cape Verdean community had a voice at the table.

Yes, awesome chairman.  He kept things in order.  I mean, did what he was told. 

Perhaps I shouldn’t care so much about Wareham, but I do. The thought that good people chose not to run for fear of being smeared by the power elite was difficult for me to swallow. Scaring people away from participating in the political process is nothing less than tyranny.

If they were truly scared by that bullshit you just wrote, clearly they didn’t have the balls to be a politician anywhere in America.

But three local residents stood up to these shameless tactics, and by doing so they’ve restored my faith in this town. I don’t have a horse in this race. I just wanted everybody else to have one.

Maybe because they “stood up to these tactics” didn’t have so much to do with the “smearing,”  but maybe it was more that they had less or no history of controversy in comparison to the Maple Springs complainer you are eluding to.  You know, the one that advertises with you.  They one you would want to say nice things about so she'd continued to advertise. 

Last week I finally showed signs of strain. In an edition of the Observer Dossier, I questioned the wisdom of continuing this battle. I’ve put my heart and soul into the Observer. The pressure it’s put on me financially and emotionally has been considerable.

Now you know what its like for the people you spread lies about.  Now you know what its like for the people that were steamrolled by the Selectmen for no good reason.  You made your bed, now you have to lie in it.

Things will be particularly difficult over the next few weeks. I can’t get into too many details, but there will finally be a hearing on the Tommy Joyce lawsuit in March. His attorney has done everything imaginable to stretch out these proceedings. We’ve filed a special motion to dismiss under Massachusetts’s Anti-SLAPP law.  According to Wikipedia,…..

Wait a minute!  This makes perfect sense now!  You’re going to cite from a source that is “user created.”  An Encyclopedia that anyone can contribute information to at any time, factual or not.  They don’t check facts.  Me, you, everyone can add what we want on any subject we want.  This explains your whole “news reporting.”  This is why the library is dead.  Because people like you think that if it’s on the Internet, it must be true.

A "SLAPP" lawsuit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) is "intended to intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition. Winning the lawsuit is not necessarily the intent of the person filing the SLAPP. The plaintiff’s goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate."

Yeah, the suit couldn’t possibly be based on the facts that you lied and slandered the Chief of Police.  No way!  Now everyone remember the term SLAPP for the next time Bobby threatens to sue you.

Such lawsuits are illegal in Massachusetts. If a judge rules in our favor, Joyce will be required by law to reimburse us for all our legal expenses and court costs. We remain confident that we will prevail.

Didn’t it seem so easy in the beginning?  Court’s a bitch!  If you knew anything about it before you started your crap, you probably would have avoided it.  Now you’re getting the hard lesson.

But getting this far has been brutal. I do believe the intention of this lawsuit was to immediately silence our criticism of Chief Joyce and, ultimately, to put us out of business.

Because my lawyer said I should stick by that phrase.  It relates to the wording of the SLAPP statute verbatim.  I do recall your initial claim of why the lawsuit was filed was because it was the dying wish of Mrs. Pillsbury.  Changed your tune already?

Although his lawsuit has not intimidated us into silence, the next few weeks will present the most difficult challenge we have ever faced.

I’m not a lawyer, maybe flox can help me out, but aren’t you supposed to be intimidated and pressured to be silenced in order for the SLAPP statute to apply to you?  You just claimed you are not.

Our attorney must be paid in full prior to the hearing. In this economy, even a few thousand extra dollars are hard to come by.

Welcome to the real world dip shit!  You must have tried James Sokoloff first because he doesn’t get paid unless you win.  Then he explained the difference between a personal injury attorney and a defense attorney, and now you’re fucked.

We will manage somehow. We always do.

A thinly veiled attempt to solicit money for your legal fees.  I can’t even see your brain-dead supporters wanting to even touch that one.

My wife lights a candle at church every Sunday. If God’s not pulling for that woman, he’s not pulling for anyone. She is truly a saint.

Then she looks back at the pew, sees that you’re still sitting there, and realizes her prayers have yet to be answered.

Last week I finally stood at the precipice and looked down. I saw the distance remaining between each ledge. For a few moments that distance seems too far away.

One of the last acts of a desperate man.  A wise man once told me to be leery of those that hide behind the Constitution or the flag or religion.  You’re one flag away from hitting the trifecta!

But after learning that Wareham doesn’t completely belong to the power elite just yet, I took a few steps back, dusted myself off, and hit the ground running.  That’s the only way to fly.

You are NOT a martyr Slager!  Only in your head.  You created this power-elite bullshit.  If anyone is wielding their power out of control, it’s the current BOS.  I claim no allegiance to either, but I was certainly better off with those deemed the “power elite” than I am with the current morons.

Offline

 

#2 2009-02-21 14:57:22

TBL

The only "power elite" is the current board of selectmen.

Slager, you scum bag. Enough of that race card stuff about the Cape Verdean community. Cape Verdeans have been part of this community for many generations before your rag "newspaper" came here and created the illusuion of racial tension. The line between Cape Verdean and white is very blurry in this town because of all the mixing that has occured over the years due to racial harmony. Cape Verdeans occupy many positions of influence in this town from the court house, town hall, municipal maintence, school department, utilities, police department, and fire departments.

Stop trying to divide this town you sick bastard!

Last edited by TBL (2009-02-21 14:59:55)

Offline

 

#3 2009-02-21 18:01:49

TBL wrote:

The only "power elite" is the current board of selectmen.

Slager, you scum bag. Enough of that race card stuff about the Cape Verdean community. Cape Verdeans have been part of this community for many generations before your rag "newspaper" came here and created the illusuion of racial tension. Stop trying to divide this town you sick bastard!

And it seems to me that Robert Slager chased the last Cape Verdean off the BOS...as a matter of fact, chased her clear out of town.

Offline

 

#4 2009-02-22 09:00:01

I was going to say that too.  The ragman is all for Cape Verdean representation until the Cape Verdean disagrees with Bruce. 

I thought it was interesting that Ragman referred to MacLeod as his "former columnist."  Why is that? I thought she just wrote every once in awhile whenever she felt like it, I hadn't realized that had ended.  Interesting.

But that reminds me, the Cat Lady was such a lousy town official that even MacLeod, a rag columnist (woops former columnist) had complaints:

http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/dail … are_a1.htm

Will you be leaving the light on for MacLeod too, Ragman?

Offline

 

#5 2009-02-22 09:48:54

commonsense wrote:

OBSERVER OPINIONS by Slager (with commentary by commonsense)


Because my lawyer said I should stick by that phrase.  It relates to the wording of the SLAPP statute verbatim.  I do recall your initial claim of why the lawsuit was filed was because it was the dying wish of Mrs. Pillsbury.  Changed your tune already?

Although his lawsuit has not intimidated us into silence, the next few weeks will present the most difficult challenge we have ever faced.

I’m not a lawyer, maybe flox can help me out, but aren’t you supposed to be intimidated and pressured to be silenced in order for the SLAPP statute to apply to you?  You just claimed you are not.

Remember, this is costing billw $275 an hour, but here's my take on the legal comments...

The old (new) Anti-SLAPPP defense, interesting, but an incredible risk, it must be all or nothing time for the ragman's lawyer.

Basically, this defense says the ragman is being sued to shut him up and for no other reason. The motion will be heard outside the public realm to further protect the ragman's reputation, ha!, sorry, almost choked on that one.

So, bobbie now says, the only reason I'm being sued is to put me out of business and to shut me up and I have a right to be heard. And I imagine the chief's attorney says, no, you are being sued because you libeled my client by printing slanderous remarks in print.

The skinny on the Anti-SLAPPP is that it is most commonly used for private citizens, which the rag man is not, who speak out against wrong doing of public officials. Say someone who writes a letter to the editor about a public official's wrong doing and then the public official sues to put financial pressure on that individual to keep them for saying anything else.

So, what are the odds and who might win?
Well, first off commonsense hit the nail on the head, the ragman's first defense and new defense are quite different, and the ragman outlined his first defense IN PRINT, yes, admissible in court and I'm sure it will be brought to court. Second, bobbie is not a private citizen, he is the president of slobserver media which published the wareham slobserer and many other fine publications, his words again in print. And this lawsuit can probably be proven to have increased the rag's exposure which means anti-SLAPPP does not apply as it has furthered the initial cause of the original statements published.

As anyone who has spent any time in court can verify, the courts are a fickle place and the ragman might walk out a winner, but the odds are not good..

-A majority of anti-SLAPPP cases fail in court, which is fine in most cases because they are mainly brought to relieve the pressure on the individual, which they do when they are a private citizen, not in this case.
-The ragman pretty much dug his grave when he printed his post-lawsuit tirade as he outlined his entire thought process and nailed himself to the wall.
-Without a direct correlation between the ragman shutting up and the chief's lawsuit I do see where it applies here, but maybe a judge would, if he missed his bran muffin that morning.
-The ragman's attorney was paid prior to the hearing, yeah I'd get my money up front too, a common practice, but not a good thing for bobbie.

A few last things; the ragman talks about this as if it is the Hail Mary pass, it isn't. Even if for some planet aligning moment the court finds in his favor, we must not forget about appeals. The opportunity for an appeal is already present as the anti-SLAPP motion is not a direct reply to the original claim. So the appeal means that the chief does not have to pay anything until the appeal, and the appeal of the appeal are exhausted, so much for the last minute pay off to save the slobserver.

I'd like to close by pointing out that there are a lot of references in the slobserver opinion column this week that are huge neon signs that someone should be paying attention to, that is if anyone cares, after all babbie is still a human being I think, maybe.
Putting things like these in print:
-push me over the edge
-stood on the edge of the precipice
-took a few steps back
Are a psychological cry for help and usually things that people look back on and say, "I guess there were signs this guy was mentally unstable." I'm not a psychologist but he is either seriously egocentric and has a deep need for being the center of attention or he has some seriously squirrly thoughts going on in his head. Maybe we should all chip in and but oneear a bullet proof vest.

Offline

 

#6 2009-02-22 09:55:54

Hamatron5000 wrote:

Will you be leaving the light on for MacLeod too, Ragman?

HA HA HA...the only reason MacLeod would run for office would be to join the tyrants.  As soon as Brucie is voted out of office, she would find some feeble excuse to resign.  She was a disgrace to this community before and after she was elected to the BOS.  She tortured JM all because he could see right through her and hired a more qualified person, DC,  to run the council on aging.  Why is it that Robert Slager supports all of these angry losers?

Offline

 

#7 2009-02-22 10:36:11

because  he president of the losers club  print up a t shirt hire a loser anyone

Offline

 

#8 2009-02-22 10:55:45

Thank you flox.  Your explanation was clear and informative.  It is possible that Robert Slager is both mentally deranged and egocentric?
I always wondered why his attorney didn't tell him not to mention anything about the Chief until after the case is heard.  That would have been excellent advice for Rober Slager to follow. 1) it would not give the Chief more information to support for his case and 2) if he had shut up, it would have supported his slapping thing.  Wouldn't it be ironic if Robert Slager's rise to fame and his defeat was all because he couldn't keep his mouth shut and the information in his rag factual.

Offline

 

#9 2009-02-22 11:51:26

Mixie In His First Article After The Lawsuit Came Forward Bobbie Said "my Attorney Has Advised Me Not To Discuss The Suit But I Cannot Let This Go" He Then Continues To Bash The Chief And Rant And Rave About The Lawsuit. What An Idiot!

Offline

 

#10 2009-02-22 12:19:39

OMG...gives a whole new meaning to the adage, The Lawyer Has a Fool for a Client.  Guess it doesn't matter whether he has the best attorney or not....You're right, 'WHAT AN IDIOT".   So if Robert Slager loses, does he need to pay the chief's attorney fees?

Offline

 

#11 2009-02-22 16:46:14

Mixie wrote:

I always wondered why his attorney didn't tell him not to mention anything about the Chief until after the case is heard.  That would have been excellent advice for Rober Slager to follow. 1

You're welcome.
As others posted he was told, but then again his lawyer is getting paid in advance, he does not care if the ragman loses I imagine. I'm guessing bobbie is paid up through the first motion and if it fails there is going to be another bill to pay to cover expenses in discovery which could be very expensive as you pretty much pay by the question no matter who asks them.

Offline

 

#12 2009-02-22 17:16:32

Maybe, Ragman is suicidal.  He choses no to listen to his lawyer.  If the Chief wins, won't ragman need to pay damages?  I wonder if he has insurance to cover being stupid.

Offline

 

#13 2009-02-22 17:33:25

QUOTH BRUCEY - “Our job as a government is to provide services to the people who pay for them,” Sauvageau said, “and does it matter if the ambulance says “Wareham” or “Harvard Pilgrim”? What does it matter as long as I'M GOING TO GET IN THE AMBULANCE'S WAY ANYWAY???"


http://www.wickedlocal.com/wareham/town … -this-week

Offline

 

#14 2009-02-22 19:22:36

Mixie wrote:

Maybe, Ragman is suicidal.  He choses no to listen to his lawyer.  If the Chief wins, won't ragman need to pay damages?  I wonder if he has insurance to cover being stupid.

Yes, if the chief wins there would be damages. Money is pretty much the only thing that courts can require unless there is an injunction to get something to stop or be done, but there does not appear to be anything like that in this case. I wonder if the ragman's lawyer has asked the chief how much it would cost to have this go away. It's pretty much a standard practice. Perhaps the chief is just looking to be vindicated and does not care about the money.

I doubt that bobbie has insurance to cover this as he probably would have mentioned it and insurance to protect newspapers against libel suits is very expensive.

Offline

 

#15 2009-02-22 20:04:11

Imagine if ragman's sentence were, as our parents used to say, "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all".  Ragman would be mortified and be continuously in contempt - cuz he has no will power over his emotional outbursts.  Hmmm...before he labels the man in Onset a wife beater, maybe he should ask himself which is worse, an emotional abuser or a physical abuser. 
Geeze, ragman, get your act together

Offline

 

Board footer

warehamwater.cruelery.com