Since Bobby doesn't believe in a fact checker or "real" editor.  I'm going to clean up his article a bit. 

After the recap of what appeared in OTHER NEWSPAPERS (no plagerism there since you weren't sent a press release).  Slager continues with...

Oh, where do we begin? First, let’s put aside the fact that Joyce released this statement to his favorite propaganda tool rather than to the Standard-Times or the Observer or any newspaper which might actually ask some questions.

It appeared in the Standard Times on Sunday

It’s also interesting to note that the statement was released several weeks after the fact, when Sauvageau is out of the country on vacation and unable to respond. But we’d prefer to focus on the factual inaccuracies of Joyce’s statement.

I'll bet you know where he is and where he's staying to.  However, Bruce felt to speak out the day after his arrest knowing that no one would be able to counterpoint for at least a week. Why does everything have to be immediate with you?

Joyce claims the judge at Sauvageau’s arraignment never found that there was no factual basis for the arrest. That’s interesting because shortly after the arrest the Standard-Times interviewed Joyce about the incident. The S-T reporter wrote “When asked why Mr. Sauvageau’s license was suspended, Chief Joyce said he did not know and was unable to find the information on the state Registry of Motor Vehicles’ database.”

Which in code means, I don't want to discuss this with you because it's private information.  However, Bruce has pontificated twice since his arrest, so I might as well put out the truth at this point, since Bruce doesn't want to keep it private.

When the Observer went to Wareham District Court to pick up the arrest report, there was no police incident report attached to it. No representative from the Wareham Police Department showed up at Sauvageau’s arraignment.

You obviously don't know the difference between an arrest report and an incident report.  At least you acknowleged there was an arrest report.  And how many times do we have to tell you...OFFICERS DO NOT TESTIFY AT AN ARRAIGNMENT!  Do you know how often they'd be in court if they were at the arraignment and trial?

Besides, you'd want your lawyer present when the officer testifies wouldn't you?  You don't even have one at arraignment.  That's were you pick one.

So there was no information on the RMV database, no police incident report at the courthouse, and no testimony from any Wareham police officer during Sauvageau’s arraignment. So what facts did the judge have to charge Sauvageau?

He had the arrest report.  You said it yourself!

None. That’s why the case was dismissed. Sauvageau said he decided to pay the $50 in court costs rather than hire a lawyer to fight a charge that had already been dismissed. That makes sense to us.

Pay the fee rather than fight the charge that was dismissed?  Did you read your own sentence?!  You PAY THE FEE TO HAVE THE CHARGE DISMISSED!

Sauvageau has repeatedly said he had appealed the fine that allegedly triggered the suspension of his license.

He appealed it to the clerk magistrate.  He lost that.  He then appealed that to a judge.  He lost that too.  There are no more appeals at this point.  He lost.  He didn't pay.

Such an appeal would have kept his license valid until the issue was resolved. Perhaps that’s why there was no record of a suspended license on the RMV database when you looked for it, chief.

Actually, the Chief answered that question.  Bruce went to the registry and has his license taken care of the same day as his arraignment.  So when the Chief looked into it then, yep, it wasn't there.  Now he has the certified copy.

Joyce is taking the art of spinning to a whole new level.

If that's true, he's been reading your paper

Under Massachusetts Law, the penalty for driving with a suspended licence (if found guilty, of course) is imprisonment for not more than 10 days, a fine of between $500 and $1,000, and the suspension or revocation of the license for an additional 60 days. If Sauvageau’s license had been suspended, and a District Attorney would certainly have had the means to find that out quickly, why was Sauvageau allowed to walk away only having to pay $50 in court costs?

BECAUSE YOUR FOUND GUILTY AT TRIAL NOT YOUR ARRAIGNMENT!!!!

The minimum fine for this charge is $500. It seems like a pretty black and white case. Either there was evidence that Sauvageau’s license was suspended or there wasn’t. There wasn’t.

You clearly have NO CLUE how court works, so you will most certainly have you ass handed to you in your civil case.  You think you can just go in there and do what you like.  You'll see.  Then when you lose, you'll say it was fixed or some bullshit like that.

I also found it interesting that Joyce completely side-stepped the matter of Sauvageau’s alleged 1989 warrant for larceny. If there had been a warrant for Sauvageau’s arrest, don’t you think a District Attorney would have been able to find it? Sauvageau was arrested on the warrant charge by Wareham police as well. Did that slip your mind, chief?

Where is your proof that the DA didn't find it?  Is it Bruce's words?

This continues to be a sad joke.

No Slager, The Wareham Observer & Bruce Sauvagneau continue to be a sad joke.

Joyce said Sauvageau was treated like the other 72 operators who were arrested the past year for the same offense. He failed to mention the countless others who weren’t “arrested” for the same offense.

What is your point?  Do you know the circumstances for each and every suspended license stop?

And he actually expects people to believe that half of the cruisers on duty in the entire town that night were needed to arrest a selectman.

When you have a medical at that time of night, actually, ask any of your senile readers....how many cops show up?

Oh, one last thing. If Sauvageau was in fact driving around town for 26 days with a suspended license, what are the odds that he got busted for it on a “random stop” minutes after a selectmen’s meeting in which he discussed racism on the police force?

What are the chances that if he was stopped at any time or on any day that you wouldn't tie it to something he said or did with the Police?  I can see your lead-in now....Selectmen Sauvagneau was arrested on the first day of his license suspension.  No doubt it was because he called Off. Pillsbury a gutless coward over the summer.

Here’s a piece of advice for the chief: If you plan on spinning something, it usually helps if you think it through first.

Listen to your own advice.  You know what, have Bruce put his money where his mouth is.  Take a lie detector test.  Have him pick the testing company.  I'm sure the Police would jump at it.  Then we'll see who's lying.

Slager I know you read all this.  But you are so mentally unstable that you've lost all rational. 

Even if you think we're all bitter, angry, hate-bloggers.... you'd think that if you were a rational person.... when you read something here that didn't add up in you head.... that you would actually look into it to prove it wrong.  Nah!  Why would you do that....

You might find the truth.  No rational person argues a LIE!!

Last edited by commonsense (2009-01-12 10:36:28)