#1 2009-08-31 22:51:39

My head is spinning.  SPINNING.  The ridiculous, slanted, one-sided editorials are getting to be a bit much.  I know molly and others are going to say "Casual, just ignore it.  It's really better this way."  The fact is, I can't ignore it.  To be honest, I don't write what I do here for the people on this board.  You folks all see through the crap, see through his transparent attempts to further his agenda.  However, if what I write can help one person who has believed his twisted words for too long, and that person sees through his tactics and votes for a better Wareham in April, then my efforts will have been worth it.

I don't have the energy to review everything he said tonight, but I'll try to get to it tomorrow.  With this being an editorial, he uses many of his standard tricks, and misleads more than in the "news" articles.  I'll pick out some of the egregious examples tonight, then read it again on the train tomorrow.  The entire post is written without any consideration of the fact that maybe, just maybe, there was something illegal about how the audit was conducted.  If one considers that option, then all of Slager's questions are quickly and easily answered.

The actions taken by the district attorney’s office over the past two months are simply mind-boggling. After town officials in Wareham began an audit of town-owned computers after being informed of allegations of corruption, the district attorney’s office stepped in and put the investigation on ice.

As I've already discussed, the actions were perfectly reasonable.  I don't understand why Slager can look at an investigation by the BOS where no information is given about targets, costs, scope, or anything else, and say "this is necessary to clean up the corruption in Wareham!"  However, when the DA investigates the audit for potential violations it "makes (his) blood run cold".  I've pointed out repeated examples of his hypocrisy, but this one is truly epic.  The investigation wasn't put on ice.  Evidence was seized, and a grand jury was convened, likely to investigate the possibility of corruption and/or illegal activities within the Board and the consulting agency.

No court order.

....because one wasn't needed to seize the evidence.  It's perfectly within the DA's rights to seize the audit materials with an administrative warrant.

No advanced warning to town officials.

....most likely because they are the targets of the investigation, and the DA didn't want to tip them off that the investigation was coming.  Again, completely hypocritical as he defended the town's investigation of its employees occurring with no warning, and on a forced furlough day to boot.

A grand jury was then convened for an unstated purpose.

Grand jury proceedings are confidential.  Not only do they not have to say why it's convened, but they can't

None of the targets of the town’s investigation into alleged corruption has apparently been called to testify.

This seems to be the easiest question to answer.  If the DA is looking into the audit itself, there's no reason to have any of the audit targets testify.  The targets know nothing about how the audit was being conducted, who it was targeting, why it was targeting them, etc.  This is because the board and the ITA never shared any of that information.  Assuming that the grand jury is investigating practices around the audit itself, they would seem to have gotten the right people in Sauvageau, Sanguinet, Underhill, and the consultant.  I really have no idea why Slager's upset about this.  It makes perfect sense.

No, every last computer disk was taken without a single legal justification for doing so.

The accurate version of this sentence is "No, every last computer disk was taken without a single legal justification that I am aware of for doing so."  Obviously, nobody knows what went on in the grand jury, so nobody knows what the justification was.  Anything Slager says to the contrary is mere speculation.

How could the DA launch its own investigation if nobody there had any clue whom they should be investigating?

Again, Slager appears to be refusing to consider the fact that the very act of conducting the audit is what is under investigation.  Assuming this is the case, it doesn't matter if the report was written or not, or how much of it was reviewed.

We believe (the email source) to be rock solid. We have reported this to the Attorney General’s office.

Who wants to take bets that nothing comes out of this report to the AG?  Does anybody have a count of the number of legal threats/filings/accusations Slager has made that have resulted in bupkus?  I can only imagine how long that list is.

If the DA’s office believed the town was trampling on their jurisdiction in some way, why didn’t somebody contact Sanguinet of the selectmen and say so? If the DA’s office thought the information revealed by the computer audit firm wouldn’t stand up in court if the town released the findings publicly, why didn’t somebody just tell Sanguinet and the selectmen to wait until the DA could review the findings first?

If the DA thought that there were significant legal violations in how the audit was conducted, who it targeted, why it targeted those people, and more, then why didn't they seize the evidence and convene a grand jury to investiga......oh, wait.  They did.  Again, Slager refuses to consider this option, likely because it is wildly contradictory to his editorial position.

Nothing that has transpired makes much sense.

I agree that much of what has transpired is wildly contradictory to Slager's view of the world.  However, it makes perfect sense when one considers the full range of possibilities.  I'm sure there are many other possibilities about the investigation that I haven't considered, but would also explain the current situation.

If the town officials involved in conducting this audit are being investigated for some sort of impropriety relating to the audit, as the hatebloggers claim, why weren’t they simply called in for questioning by the DA?

I come up with two reasons without much thought: (1) The DA was concerned about destruction or other modifications of evidence and/or (2) the "impropriety" in question is bad enough that they skipped straight to the grand jury.  I'm sure there are other reasons, but why would Slager let facts and reason get in the way of a good story?

Why convene a grand jury?

"To determine whether there is enough evidence for a trial", according to Wikipedia.

Why would the DA believe the audit itself needed to be investigated?

Probably because they received dozens of complaints about the audit and concerns about its legality.  Again, Slager asks questions that he must already know the answer to, but asks them in such a way that attempts to create a new controversy, and make the DA look bad.  If he doesn't know the answer to these questions already, then....well then I don't even know what to say.

The Department of Revenue also directly answered the concerns of the assessor’s office, ruling that documents in that office were public records and subject to review by other town officials. Why wouldn’t the DA return those records to the town following that ruling? Why would they refuse to return at least some of the evidence?

Man, after finally getting this right in his "news" article earlier today, Slager drops the ball on the DOR letter again.  Either he really doesn't understand what the letter said, or he is intentionally spinning it contrary to the spirit of the letter.  The DOR basically said "We don't have a problem with what you're doing".  That is not the same as "What you're doing is completely legal".  Again, there are a bunch of different laws that could be applicable here.  The DOR issue is a small slice of the pie, but they are NOT the ruling authority on the issue.  There is no reason for the DA to return any of the evidence until THEY are complete with THEIR investigation.  This is just another attempt at spin, but it's easy to see through it, once you know what you're looking for.

In the business world computer audits are conducted every day.  Is the DA saying Wareham officials cannot check to see what town employees are doing on town-owned computers?

Yes, and these audits follow a protocol which I've previously described, and the town seems to have ignored.  They have a defined scope, which this audit didn't have.  They have valid reasons for occurring, which if this audit had, they were never released.  In short, there are many, many things that differentiate this audit from those that occur in the business world every day, and all of them were mishandled by the board and the ITA.

Opponents of the current administration have consistently called this audit a witch hunt. What the DA’s office is doing actually is a witch hunt, if this truly is an investigation at all.

So the Town performs an audit of just about everybody in the town, looking for who-knows-what, for who-knows-why (the only reason I've seen come out publicly is to target bloggers...maybe there are other reasons, but I haven't seen them), and Slager thinks that's not a witch hunt?  Then, the DA seizes the material, and specifically interviews the 4 people closest to the investigation, and THIS is a witch hunt?  Again with the hypocrisy.

These folks had no way of knowing what the town was investigating. They never bothered to ask.

Isn't "asking" what they do when people testify before the grand jury?  And how come Slager doesn't consider the fact that maybe the DA had a source, so they already knew?  Slager's not the only one with "sources"

If the DA’s office thought they had probably cause that some crime was committed during the process of the audit, why wasn’t anyone charged?

I will repeat it again, just because Slager appears to not get it.  GRAND JURIES ARE CONVENED TO DETERMINE IF THERE IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO CHARGE SOMEONE WITH A CRIME.  So the question "why wasn't anyone charged" is completely invalid - there is still very much the opportunity to charge people, should the grand jury decide that to be the appropriate action.  It's absolutely ridiculous that he's writing this stuff - the twisting, the spin, and the blatant ignoring of any options that the Board might be in the wrong here is just incredible.

Either it is legal for a town to conduct an audit of its computers or it isn’t. That hardly seems like an issue a grand jury needs to decide.

There are boatloads of laws that could cover these issues.  Various state and federal data protection laws.  Employment laws.  Heck, the fourth amendment.  The issue is nowhere near as cut and dry as Slager makes it out to be.  He's also disingenuous about the purpose of a grand jury.  It's not to decide the legality of the audit.  Again, and for the last time, grand juries are convened to determine if there is enough evidence to bring a case to trial.  If there's a question about the evidence, then it is definitely an issue for the grand jury.

The reason for all this is clear, at least from this perspective.

Of course it is Rob.  No matter what, the reason was always going to be clear from your perspective.  It's easy to make that perspective clear, when one ignores any options that are counter to the editorial agenda of one's publication.

The results of the audit should have been announced publicly at least a month ago. But somebody wanted to bury it and they figured out a way to do it.

Either that, or there was a significant violation of the law, to the point that a grand jury had to be convened to investigate it.  You know, either one.  Could be either.  It's probably the vast right-wing conspiracy, though.  You're probably right.

If the makeup of the board changes, this whole thing just goes away.

I disagree.  If the makeup of the board changes, the former board members still get investigated for whatever it is the grand jury is looking at, and face the legal reprocussions that come along with whatever the decision is.  The new board, then, would move forward in a better direction for Wareham.

Somebody needs to answer for what has been done to Wareham. The bad guys cannot be allowed to win.

And this is why I'm glad that someone is finally looking into what the board was trying to do!  I'm glad we agree on something!

Offline

 

#2 2009-09-01 09:11:45

Here's a couple of things that are obvious to "some people".
1. 6 minutes of an executive session taped (not illegal but in error). What was discussed had direct impact, in my opinion, on why the DA swooped in. You can't make statements like, "I hope this audit uncovers something" and not get called up to a higher authority. That is the exact definition of a witch hunt.

2. The IT guy for the town was NOT involved in the audit, which tells me that whoever was in charge of the audit didn't THINK. Who is the first guy you bring in when you audit computers? Duhhhhhh.

3. What the DOR said was that it was okay to "conduct" the audit from their standpoint. That isn't saying that how the audit was conducted or the handling and safekeeping of the material was "okay'.

4. Let's think about this a minute. You copied hard drives at the WPD (confidential records), various departments (union/employee records), EMT (HIPAA laws), and Tax records...whew.....plenty of of places where a misstep could lead  you afoul of the law. You cannot use the excuse, "But they are Selectmen and can access what they like". It doesn't work that way.

Now, if you couple the lack of a defined purpose, massive amounts of files that could violate State and Fed regulations, 6 minutes of "hope we find something", and poor safekeeping, YOU MIGHT HAVE A PROBLEM.

Slager can write until he is out of ink, and that doesn't change the fact that this group of Selectmen have no regard for rules. Spin does not equal truth!

Here is the good part. Voters, taxpayers, and residents are waking up to see this travesty. They are losing their voting base in chunks!

Offline

 

#3 2009-09-01 09:33:03

THE  TABLES ARE TURNED THE DA  AND GRAND JURY ARE INVESTIGATING THE SELECTMAN AND NOT BTHE EMPLOYEES , THESE PEOPLE ARE THE CROOKS

Offline

 

#4 2009-09-01 09:35:10

We have seen this time and time again. Ragboy makes a big deal of an issue---is proven wrong---spins it so he doesn't look so allegedly like a fool. What comes to mind? Race baiting. Library trustees. Crime Watch. Owing $181,000 in taxes. I could go on and on. He thinks his readers have the memory of a gnat. But we remember his original wacky articles so to the readers of the rag from this blog, recognize the spin--and scoff at it rather than believing it like our esteemed moderator. Ragboy's, moderator's and bos's version of truthiness.

We all knew as soon as the audit commenced that there were going to be huge "life changing" results. And anyone with a bit of common sense could see whose lives would be changed. A grand jury investigation is not to be scoffed at. It's serious business.

I keep hearing that there is more to come. That will give acasualobserver a lot more work--I perfectly understand why the analysis is important, by the way. And I enjoy reading the analytical posts.

Once more into the breach my friends. Tonight's show should be interesting.

Offline

 

#5 2009-09-01 09:37:18

If Robert Slager wasn't still exerting influence among those who think that if it's in print it must be true he could be a sitcom character. He makes me think of Ted Baxter only in this case writing the news instead of reading it while having little idea of what he's doing.

I'm not a lawyer but have had a fair bit of experience with the law (not breaking it BTW) so I try to erase that knowledge and consider what I'd know just by watching TV shows about the legal system.

As I look over casual's points I really think that I would have known all of this JUST by watching TV.

Even a small town newspaper editor has to have a fund of general knowledge in everything from science to law to economics to pop culture. Slager has demonstrated he has significant gaps in what he knows. Being average isn't good enough. In his position he should know much more than the average person.

He also would do well to buy and read cover to cover one of the style books like  the New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, only 384 pages, or the A.P. Style Book. It's only 400 plus pages and even has an online version.

I wonder if he even knows these books exist and are fixtures in all real newsrooms.

Offline

 

#6 2009-09-01 10:10:57

Bobo the Brucey Dupe was a walking, talking cartoon character long before I put him in the cartoons, Neighbor.

Here is one of the dumbest things that Bobo the Moron has ever said:

"These folks had no way of knowing what the town was investigating. They never bothered to ask. They jumped over that step and went right to the grand jury. If the DA’s office thought they had probable cause that some crime was committed during the process of the audit, why wasn’t anyone charged?"

Bobo the Dumbass - A Grand Jury is called to determine whether there is enough probable cause to charge someone, you incompetent, idiotic, stupid, moron!  You don't charge, and then ask the Grand Jury if someone should be charged!  Jesus Christ, are you really that stupid?

Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2009-09-01 10:12:01)

Offline

 

#7 2009-09-01 10:22:20

I wonder what kind of grand jury it is.

Is it a charging grand jury which determines if there is enough evidence to bring someone to trial. If they do of course the next step is an indictment which we will hear about.

Or is it  an investigative grand jury, the kind used in organized crime cases or cases of suspected corruption by public officials. Here the grand jurors are asked by the DA to approve gathering evidence to build a case. Of necessity this is done in secret.

edited for typo

Last edited by urneighbor (2009-09-01 10:23:08)

Offline

 

#8 2009-09-01 10:27:49

Either way, Bobo the Brucey Dupe complaining that charges should be brought BEFORE the grand jury concludes its business is pretty damn stupid, even for a man who has made a career of oozing stupidity.

Offline

 

#9 2009-09-01 14:04:01

I have finally joined this forum, after reading for sometime.  I am dumbfounded by what Mr. Slager pawns off as journalism.  There are some really important issues facing Wareham right now - and even if you include computer audits as one of them, he has an obligation to report the facts as an unbiased "observer" - not an agent of one side of the issue.  What has finally gotten me to engage in this, is Mr. Slager's outright a) Attacks on District Attorney Cruz, coupled with his b) Aboslute ignorance regarding the judicial process and c)Lack of attention to or understanding of the modus operandi of the district attorney.

Many people have spoken eloquently (acasualobserver most notably) about Mr. Slager's ignorance regarding the process.

This districy attorney (and many others who are not engaged in "politics") share nothing with the press or anyone else while matters are currently in their review.  There have been murder cases and other very serious matters which have been before Mr. Cruz and if Mr. Slager was worth his salt, he would understand that the quote most often attributed to Mr. Cruz is "no comment".  He clearly takes very seriously the confidentiality of the process and understands that false or unprovable allegations aganist others can be very damaging.  This is a pattern across the board with Mr. Cruz.  Read anything - on any pending matter - and Mr. Cruz' position is "I will have a comment when we have finished our investigation".  Be sure that once he has uncovered all of the facts, he will release a statement, if the investigation concludes that further action is warranted.  Mr. Slager is an outright fool for not recognizing this pattern over the past 8 years.

My favorite part of this is what I hope and expect will be the ultimate downfall of Mr. Slager's brand of journalism  - due to what must become his precipitous decline in credibility.  Does he seriously think that he of little credibility can cast such large charges and comments at District Attorney Cruz without having serious backlash?  Let's be frank.  Mr. Cruz has a top notch reputation.  He is tough, but fair.  He is professional and never accused of being anything but professional.  Yet Mr. Slager thinks he has uncovered some "chink in the armor".  Come on.  Mr. Cruz is operating in his normal, professional manner. 

Slager's attack on Cruz should begin the final cycle for Mr. Slager.  His utter disregard for the good reputations of good people is now evident.  This makes it impossible for us to give his attacks on the Giffords, the chief, Ms. Pizzolato and everyone else who has been on the reciving end of Mr. Slager's shock/crap excuse for journalism.  If he will attack Mr. Cruz, who we know has a tremendous reputation - why should we believe anything he has said about our neighbors?  We shouldn't.  Stay in Halifx Mr. Slager.  Wareham has enough problems without you.

As an aside which has been driving me crazy - if Mrs. Gifford wrote the letter - who cares?  What wife, angered more about her husband's mistreatment would not act the same way?  It is not like she got special treatment.  even if you believe that she wrote it - and Mr. Gifford read it, signed it and sent it . . . was she acting as a wife or a State Representative?  If true, she was acting as a wife - and got no special treatment because of her position.  If Mr. Slager were loved by someone as much as the Giffords clearly love each other, he would better understand the dynamics of a "relationship".  Had to get that off my chest - driving me crazy.

Offline

 

#10 2009-09-01 16:18:46

Excellent take on Slager! I've said this before, Slager doesn't want to write the news, he wants to be the news. This time, he has taken on the wrong person or persons.He will play the martyr, but his support is dwindling. Who wants to support a man with zero credibility and a penchant for making a story where there is not story?

Offline

 

#11 2009-09-01 16:54:09

He's pushing the limits of his Joyce/anti-SLAPP ruling, and his right to write just about anything about a public official. He'll use his ruling as precedent if any charges are brought against him. Ego.

PShooter

Offline

 

#12 2009-09-01 19:28:05

Here's what got to me in this editorial. He describes disturbing things in his life. He volunteered in an AIDS hospice, spent every day for nearly three months visiting a loved one in a neurological trauma ward, had his daughters spend three weeks in a neo-natal intensive care unit and to add to it watched someone’s 18-week-old crack baby fight for her life.

Then he says none of this prepared him for for what he witnessed this week.

You'd think a passenger plane crashed in Wareham.

So what did he witness?

You know the answer: the District Attorney doing his job by the book.

Offline

 

#13 2009-09-01 19:30:16

Neighbor, I heard all of that pales in comparison to his greatest fear - getting a real job!

Offline

 

#14 2009-09-02 07:26:56

neighbor--talk about hyperbole. You are totally right. After all the "horrors" ragboy allegedly, supposedly witnessed, one would expect total destruction, loss of life and property, a sink hole the size of the moon opening up in the locked up swift's beach public access area. But no, just a perfectly legal action taken by a well-respected District Attorney. Oh right, a republican DA. The horror.

Offline

 

#15 2009-09-02 08:21:11

I have yet to read the BS. I did read Casual's analysis and enjoyed it. It's clear a supposedly seasoned veteran journalist (that is sarcasm) has no idea how the legal system works. He proved that early on with his interpretation of the amendments and continues to misconstrue any action against the Selectmen. I am positive people are aware of his incompetence and just read his paper for the shock value and to reaffirm his credibility level of ZERO.

I bet he is giddy hoping he gets in trouble so he can be part of the story!

Offline

 

#16 2009-09-02 08:27:39

Larry,
You are right. I've often stood in grocery store lines and I see people pay for the Enquirer type rags with martians on the covers, two headed babies, cats, elephants etc., or Elvis/Michael J sitings etc. I think, who would read that crap? And waste money on it?

So maybe you are right. People read those faux-newspapers, including the rag, for the shock value knowing full well that ragboy's crap is no less true or credible than the "I was abducted and forced to have sex with a heavy breathing martian" is true.

Spelling edit--sorry.

Last edited by Molly (2009-09-02 08:28:37)

Offline

 

#17 2009-09-02 13:04:02

To take a quote from a Wareham resident in a letter to the "editor":
Something I thought Observer Media, LLC could use as good advice.

"Freedom of speech allows your right to express your view on any subject, including Frank's name-calling. Freedom of the press demands you present objective facts from all sides. Please look in that mirror and convince yourself you have. If not, vow to do better."

What do you say, Bobby ?  Can you take the vow ?

Offline

 

Board footer

warehamwater.cruelery.com