Some group of "grudge" defense witnesses.

Earl wrote:

The following is public information,

Witnesses for the defense include:
Robert Slager
Brenda Eckstorm
Karl Baptiste
Robert Maxim

So much for protecting those sources. Hey ragman, what happened to "we will never reveal our sources?"

How is he a witness to his own defense? Is that like representing himself in court?

Last edited by flox (2009-03-13 11:11:51)

SLAGER IS A FAT TURD

Last edited by ihateliz (2009-06-10 17:16:12)

ihateliz wrote:

if slagers loses the case fatboys headline in his papper will be     global warming in wareham       if he wins  he will shoot his fat mouth  off, however i predict the chief will win and lt bliss will be back to work soon with a wonderful paid  vacation courtsey of our fine selectmen.

Hey, why haven't I been suppeona-ed.  Isn't the chief going to use the truthbloggers for his defense?  Or does he not get to have a defense? slaker and brenda are probably out celebrating tonight.  I'm hoping for truth.

Nice try ragman but these are your sources . U and I know that. Maxim I'd the one who listens to his scanner. Now go to jail for revealing your sources

he gives the names of the sources in his deposition (several months ago) and then the plaintiff subpoena's them .   very simple bob but nice play on words
wow bob clever
they are not at trial stage yet
wow bob a motion yes not a trial yet
you really do think the public is stupid dont you
all us gainfully employeed morons

you are losing your ability to even spin effectively anymore
do you know why crazy people answer yes to psych questions that you could never imagine anyone saying yes to bob ??    because they are crazy bob

bob i am going to post something about one of your stories tonight at 1 am bob .  you can just read it in the morning if you need your rest

hey if you get a chance bob can you print in your online version the name of the police chiefs lawyer  i just wanted to fax it to the reigle lady at the sentinel

AND LETS GET ONE THING STRAIGHT SLAGER. THOSE EXECUTIVE SESSION MEETING MINUTES WERE NEVER KEPT AT THE LIBRARY SO STOP LYING ABOUT IT. YES THOSE WERE EXECUTIVE SESSION MINUTES. THOSE TYPES OF MINUTES WERE NEVER STORED AT THE LIBRARY BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT PUBLIC MINUTES, THEY WERE EXECUTIVE SESSION MINUTES. THOSE WERE KEPT AT THE TOWN HALL BECAUSE OF THEIR SENSITIVITY. THE PUBLIC WOULD NEVER HAD ACCESS TO THOSE TYPES OF MINUTES AT THE LIBRARY BECAUSE THEY WERE EXECUTIVE SESSION. STOP THE LYING!!!!!!!!!! IF YOUR LOOKING WHY THEY ARE MISSING LOOK TO SEE WHO WOULD HAVE INTEREST IN THOSE MINUTES GOING MISSING. YOU GUESSED IT BRUCE!!!!!!!!!!!! AND IF YOUR GOING TO QUOTE ME IN YOUR PAPER GETTING THE FUCKING QUOTES RIGHT. ALL THOSE WERE FROM HAMATRON YOU ASS. FUCK DO YOU GET ANYTHING RIGHT????

will mary ann silva keep her 9k raise  which was given to her   for snitch pay , to do the bidding of the board of selectmen , to do anything to keep them in power ex . extend the time for selectmen canditates to hand in their pappers a week to allow jane to recrute a canidate that will vote their way so the shenagains of this board would not come to lite.(slager lies about  this says it was i day because of presidents day( he covers up for them as usual) why if he did not have blabber mouth brenda to call him every time bruce took a crap what would he do?

will any one  on the board of selectmen ask bruce to resign or step aside while the d a is ivestigating him on his   involvement in the swift beach fiasco? l say resign, i am asking this crook to step aside for the good of wareham or does he care about wareham or does he still think he will someday become the king of wareham ,the mayor of wareham.  do you know who i am (he can fix his tickets with the police dept).                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    will brocton brenda ask him to reign(i am to tired)willcronan the dirt thief ask him to resign, will little jimmey who doesnt no where he lives ask him to resign,will jane (conflict of interest with being married to the town moderator) ask him to resign  i guess i think nobodey in  this band of crooks will ask him to resign.      but i    ihateliz ask you to resign or step aside while this d a investigation is going on. will anyone on this board ask him to resign?

just saw slagers lies about bruce and swifts beach and that the executive minutes concerning the swifts beach were kept at the libary , whow god almighty what a fuckin liar he keeps repeating these lies in his papper. any bodey knows that executive sesstion minutes are not kept at  the libary for anyone to see, they are not to be made public . stop shilling for  bruce .

Last edited by ihateliz (2009-03-19 20:39:51)

thanks....we will be waiting....and hoping for justice.

Just give him his day in court, the Ragman said, and he'd blow the Chief out of the water by proving his stories to be true.  So, why is Ragman fooling around with technicalities?

Desperation, thy name is Ragman.

Actually Jeb, I think you have it backwards. The people here can point to dozens of instances where the slobserver has said that the "truth" bloggers do not have the right to say what they post here. The supposed boycott campaign was an attempt at censorship according to the ragman and the actions were criminal, don't those people have a right to say what they like? The defendant in this case believes he gets to draw a line at what others say, but he is allowed to say anything he likes. I believe that's where the "slapp" comes in, should the defendant lose an anti-slapp motion he is, as such, getting slapped.
I agree that the freedom of speech issue is significant, I know I, as well as some of the posters here are weighing this case on the hypocrisy issue. The real threat to freedom of speech is in fact the slobserver through bullying and harassment. Look at the letters to the editor, no one is allowed to voice their opinion without immediately being followed by ridicule, it's sad really.

Mixie wrote:

I think the issue is that slager is printing untruths about the chief and now slager is trying to stop the chief's lawsuit saying that the chief wants slager to stop criticizing him, but the truth as I understand it, is that the Chief wants slager to stop telling false stories.
Anyone have access to what happened today?

What is the truth will be decided by someone at a higher paygrade than us. We should have heard something by now unless it's under advisement.
   Even if this is dismissed, I bet Mr. Slager will come away with a renewed respect toward others speech that he dosen't care for ( like this sites).

If slager loses he will find a way to blame it on the power elite.  He will say the chief did not tell the truth and the judge fell for the uniform (will he go in uniform)or some such nonsense...but then again, he will probably spin the story making it look as if he won.

come on ragman...don't keep us hanging.

Wow, did anyone else hear what happened!

The judge was so irate at the situation that he said Chief Joyce had to pay slager $100,000 in damages and to publicly apologize at town meeting!

Nah, just kidding, it is April first after all.

The update from the court is that the hearing did take place, both sides stated their opinion on the motion and the matter has been "taken under advisement".

This means that the judge has to chew on all the information for a while, check the references and such and will then, at a later date, issue a ruling.

So basically, no new news. The suspense must be killing the ragman.

“They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security” B.F.

This fits well here.

All of you here should celebrate this Court ruling. It protected YOUR
1st amendment rights as well.

Jeb wrote:

All of you here should celebrate this Court ruling. It protected YOUR
1st amendment rights as well.

I have a question for Jeb. Do you believe that all Americans have the right to state anything they want without any repercussions?

Hey Jeb,
I've noticed you've visited since this post, but you may have missed the question.

I have a question for Jeb. Do you believe that all Americans have the right to state anything they want without any repercussions?

Jeb wrote:

Let me guess, you want a very simple, strict yes or no answer.

    Sorry to let you down...The way you pose this without any context is too vague or leading for a yes or no answer.

    Just about everything a person does, says, writes, etc..... can ellicit repercussions, warranted or not.  Thoughts seem to be safe for the time being.

Hope your wait was worth it.

Sorry if it was worded like a set-up, I was trying to get a read on our position. Your earlier posts seemed very "free speech at any cost" like and I was interested in seeing if that was the case or if I was reading something into your post.

If you were interested in putting some context to the issue, how about the current context, observer v joyce. I'm guessing that you feel that what the observer wrote was free speech. My question would be, outside of what was printed  how much do you know about joyce's side of the case?

If first amendment rights need context as you said, that would mean to me there are situations when free speech should be restricted, and to restrict those rights someone needs to decide who is right and who is wrong as in this case joyce asked a jury to decide but only got as far as a judge.

So if free speech does not protect yelling "fire" in a movie theatre as bill used s an example earlier, but does protect making unsubstantiated comments about public officials, then there is some middle ground that is well disputed.

Anyway, I find this whole thing interesting. Should anyone else want to jump in please do this isn't meant to be a private debate or discussion or a set-up. Most likely this would be like trying to get people to agree on row v. wade.

Lastly, I have to disagree with the comments that have been posted about the ragman going to a jury trial if he was so sure he was right. The real goal in any case is to stop paying the lawyers as soon as one can.

flox wrote:

Sorry if it was worded like a set-up, I was trying to get a read on our position. Your earlier posts seemed very "free speech at any cost" like and I was interested in seeing if that was the case or if I was reading something into your post.

Ok Flox,
   I am what people would call a Constitutionalist and an early American history buff. (and bad speller)
   Our 1st Amendment "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" is not just important but paramont. It also has it's responsabilities ( fire in a theater) so it is not 100% absolute

If you were interested in putting some context to the issue, how about the current context, observer v joyce. I'm guessing that you feel that what the observer wrote was free speech. My question would be, outside of what was printed  how much do you know about joyce's side of the case?

I feel it was free speech and petition on the observer's part. On Joyces, he claims Defamation and seeks redress for damage. Is there something else tangable besides these and what has already been written?

If first amendment rights need context as you said, that would mean to me there are situations when free speech should be restricted, and to restrict those rights someone needs to decide who is right and who is wrong as in this case joyce asked a jury to decide but only got as far as a judge.

If protected free speech is 'restricted' is it still free speech or controlled, and by whom??
  As far as wanting this to go to trial, please ask any Lawyer if they actually want to go ALL the way to a trial.
  It would take far to long for me to explain this. To summerise, the Judge saw that there was no proof given that Joyce would prevail in a trial and ruled Joyces suit as a SLAPP (meaning intent was other than a trial for redress).

So if free speech does not protect yelling "fire" in a movie theatre as bill used s an example earlier, but does protect making unsubstantiated comments about public officials, then there is some middle ground that is well disputed.

Now you are sumizing with your use of "unsubstantiated comments about public officials" are you not.

Anyway, I find this whole thing interesting. Should anyone else want to jump in please do this isn't meant to be a private debate or discussion or a set-up. Most likely this would be like trying to get people to agree on row v. wade.

Agreed :)

Lastly, I have to disagree with the comments that have been posted about the ragman going to a jury trial if he was so sure he was right. The real goal in any case is to stop paying the lawyers as soon as one can.

This case would be far clearer for those here to undertand if they put aside their passion and biases towards the parties involved.

example: Place Joyce as the publisher and Bruce as the Chief without changing any of the other circustances and see if you come to the same conclusions, arguments and beliefs.

That's all I got for tonight.

Jeb wrote:

If protected free speech is 'restricted' is it still free speech or controlled, and by whom??
  As far as wanting this to go to trial, please ask any Lawyer if they actually want to go ALL the way to a trial.
  It would take far to long for me to explain this. To summerise, the Judge saw that there was no proof given that Joyce would prevail in a trial and ruled Joyces suit as a SLAPP (meaning intent was other than a trial for redress).

I guess the real question then would be "did Joyce get his day in court?" Again I think this would come down to a pointless debate as most some here would say he did not and the observer side would say he did, as a judge did go over the information.

I'm not sure if you were saying that any Lawyer would or would not want to go all the way to trial. My basic impression is that they would like to go all the way up to a trial for, but not to go through with a trial. Although a small percentage of lawyers I have know actually enjoy trials. I wouldn't want to speak in absolutes though as who wants to invite a lawsuit.

billw wrote:

Jeb wrote:

Place Joyce as the publisher and Bruce as the Chief without changing any of the other circustances and see if you come to the same conclusions, arguments and beliefs.

Apples and oranges, divine law and old testament justice vs the letter of our civil liberties, which the last two presidential administrations judiciously gutted and Obama won't change.

And never mind what the Bill of Rights has to say about free speech. It's never much troubled our courts, which have ruled time and again unfettered speech, and our other promised freedoms, are revocable privileges, depending on the whim of the moment.

Myself, I'm firm believer in jihad, hold the virgin and martyrdom shtick.

I find the 'switch places' approach to be an interesting one. I'd guess at the very least that would get weeks of jeers and tirade as most comments anti-slager are greeted with. I have a video of one Marion selectmen's meeting where a speaker was attempting to make a point and slager keeps yelling "stop slandering me" while not letting the person finish the statement.

Judging the facts for myself, I would have said the chief had a weak case, but did have a case. If you put that case in front of twelve people rather than one could you convince them as such, who knows. One statement in particular regarding an innuendo that the chief would delete items from the police log to save friends embarrassment and thus gain power over that person is a very  damaging statement to someone in his position. Follow this with an affidavit from the chairman of the BOS who said that statement made the board start an investigation into having the chief fired and you show damages, better damages should the chief get fired. Oddly enough, the only statement that backs up that claim is someone with a grudge against the police department, no dates, times, etc. just a yes, I know that has happened.

And yes bill, you are right about civil rights, but if you go back to the 60s I think people would be saying the same thing. DId we ever regain those rights? Holy war, I hadn't thought of that, but then I would have to choose a religion and I'm really lazy.

And no, I haven't decided on row v wade yet, I'm waiting to be appointed as a Chief Justice before I make up my mind.