#1 2009-06-07 17:24:05
In an e-mail opened by this writer early Thursday morning just prior to deadline, Urbon said he recorded his exchange with Sauvageau, suggesting he disagrees with Sauvageau’s description of their encounter. Sauvageau subsequently said he was unaware he was being recorded and never gave Urbon permission to do so. That would make any such recording illegal. He also said Urbon's account of their argument was completely one-sided. He said Urbon was shouting so loudly people in the Multi-Service Center could hear it. He says he has witnesses.
Sorry to disappoint, but if people in the Multi-Service center could hear it, than a recording of said exchange is legal. What do I mean?
A recording of a converstation is perfectly legal if it is in a public area such as a resturant, store, roadway, or in this case public parking lot. Wouldn't the Rodney King video be illegal by Bruce and Bob's standard? It was done without anyone's knowledge. Wouldn't the FBI recording of that Boston area politician be illegal? You know the one where she takes the bribe and stuffs it in her bra in a coffee shop.
Why is it legal? Because anyone else in the area would be able to hear/see the exchange as well. If it could be heard by others in the area it occured, there are no privacy issues.
Sorry, illegal recordings are only of private converstations, like on the telephone (in some states its legal, ask Roger Clemens). There are circumstances in this State that warrant phone recordings, but I'm talking regular converstations.
Now the above is quite true, but Bobby will deny deny deny. Just like he re-writes, re-writes, re-writes. I'm not going to do the leg work for you this time. You're just lazy (didn't Bruce go to law school).
And what I can't figure out for the life of me is, why a journalist feels he needs to defend anyone. Shouldn't news makers be defending themselves? Aren't journalists supposed to be non-biased? I know these questions have been asked before, and we all know the reasons why, but it was worth mentioning for effect.
Oh yeah, and so much for not mentioning the hate-bloggers. Weak Bobby. Weak!
Last edited by commonsense (2009-06-07 17:34:00)
Offline
#2 2009-06-07 18:00:55
THIS FUCKIN ASS HOLE SLAGER SEEMS TO BE A CERTIFIABLE NUT CASE WHO SHOULD BE CARTED OFF TO THE NUT HOUSE, HE HAS THE ADUCACITY TO SAY HE IS NOT A LIAR , THIS SHIT HEAD WOULD NOT NO THE TRUTH IF IT STARED HIM IN THE FACE, AND TO TAKE ON THE STANDARD TIMES SHOWS HE IS A LUNATIC, AND THAT HE IS SO FAR UP BRUCES ASS THAT YOU WOULD NEED A N ELEPHANT TO PULL HIM OUT OF BRUCES ASS . AND YOU DID GIVE A THOUSAND DOLLARS TO THE LIBRARY FOR SHOW ,YOU GOT IT BECAUSE YOU CHEAT ON YOUR TAXES AND YOU DO NOT TAKE CARE OF YOUR RESPOSIBILITIS SUCH AS HAVING A LEAN FILED ON YOUR CONDO,WHAT DOES BRUCE HAVE ON YOU , YOU ARE NOT AN ABJECTIVE REPORTER BUT A BIASED REPORTER AND YOU HAVE A DIRECT SOURCE TO YHE SELECTMEN, DO YOU SIT IN ON EXECUTIVE SESSTIONS. YOU ARE SUCH AN ASS HOLE AND YOUR LATEST STORY MAKES MY BLOOD BOIL, TAKE YOUR STORY AND SHOVE IT UP YOUR ASS
Offline
#3 2009-06-07 18:24:20
THE INFO ABOUT SLAGERS OWEING TAXES IS OUT THERE , THE STANDARD TIMES DID NOT MAKE IT UP, AND YES IT WAS OUT THERE BUT SLAGER DID NOT MENTION IT HE COVERED IT UP. BUT AS A NOTHER WRITER ON THIS BLOG STATED IF CHIEF JOYCE OWED THIS MONEY YOU CAN BET THAT SLAGER WOULD BRING IT UP AND I WOULD NOT BE SUPPRISED IF HE MADE UP A STORT UP ABOUT THE CHIEF , HE HAS DONE IT BEFORE AND HE WAS NOT EXONERATED BY A JURY SLAGER WAS A CHICKEN NOT TO GO BEFORE A JURY.
Offline
#4 2009-06-07 19:31:51
ALSO LIZ WAS UPSET WITH YOU MONEY FOR THE LIBRARY AT THAT TIME AND SHIT FOR LIZ , YOU DID NOT PAY YOUR HELP AND THATS WHY MOST OF THEM ARE NOT WITH YOU. ALSO GET RID OF LIZS PICTURE SHE DOES NOT WORK FOR YOU ANY MORE , SHE SITS IN HER TRASH CAN CAR ON HER FAVORIT BEACH, READING A PAPER AND SOAKING HER SENTURES IN POLIDENT ,ALSO UPDATE YOUR PICTURE IN YOUR PAPER YOUR HAIR IS WHITE AND YOU ARE BALDING,A SEX STAR YOU AINT. THATS DENTURES ASS HOLE AND NOT SENTURES, JUST PLAYING WITH YOU ASS HOLES . ALSO MAYBE SHE TAKES HER KITTIES FOR A RIDEAND THEY PROBALY SHIT ALL OVER HER CARBUT ONE WOULD NOT NO WOULD ONE AS THERE ARE HALF EATEN DONUTS FROM 10 YEARS AGO IN HER CAR, SIGNED I HATE LIZ SHE IS SURELY STILL A VERGIN ONLY HER KITTIES NO FOR SURE.
Offline
#5 2009-06-07 21:38:54
So now RagMan is citing this: Chapter 272: Section 99. Interception of wire and oral communications.
Did you even read it? NO! Was Bruce involved in organized crime during his encounter with Urborn?
It's in the first sentence for Christ's sake: http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/272-99.htm
That law pertains to organized crime such as drug dealers and the like. If you read it, you'd now. It's against the law to intercept communications of ORGANIZED CRIME WITHOUT the proper court orders.
That's the problem with you and Brenda, you find the laws that pertain to what you're talking about, even if its just a tiny part, but you don't bother to research properly and see how it is used, what the criteria is for it to be used, or if its truly proper and just to cite it.
I say again, PATHETIC!
Last edited by commonsense (2009-06-07 21:44:45)
Offline
#6 2009-06-07 21:48:09
commonsense wrote:
Was Bruce involved in organized crime during his encounter with Urborn?
I shouldn't even joke like that because it takes away from what the law is actually about; the procedures law enforcement needs to follow in order to record conversations of known organized criminals and their criminal activities.
And ANYONE can draw that conclusion by READING IT!
Last edited by commonsense (2009-06-07 21:48:59)
Offline
#7 2009-06-07 21:50:17
#1 the BOS and boobie do infact have many of the traits listed for organized crime.
#2 the law pertains to law enforcement; not journalist nor wanta be journalists.
Offline
#8 2009-06-07 21:57:50
I'm sure he'll change it again because...well, it makes him look bad. And that's routine for him. I'm starting to think that he's not really a liar, but that he might just be stupid and lazy.
Last edited by commonsense (2009-06-07 22:03:58)
Offline
#9 2009-06-08 09:46:41
Commensense, what happened to your common sense? You can be all three at once--a liar, stupid and lazy!
I think he is on to us. He'd rather leave all his mistakes in the rag than change them which would be an admission that he reads this blog like he reads the BOS bible--that is 24/7.
When you do half-a**ed research, you print a half-a**ed paper. When you live in fear of the facts, you will never write a fair and balanced article. When your "sources" are so evil and hateful and power hungry that they haven't spoken the truth in years, you get what you ask for. Of course, that's just my opinion.
Offline
#10 2009-06-08 17:48:47
First we are talking a news reporter here, not a law enforcement officer. To follow Mr. Savegeau's logic .. That would mean that in order for any reporter to tape, photograph, or put on TV any interview they would first have to get signed express permission from the person being interviewed. Talk about trying to contol the media.
I am not positive but I would think many reporters record their interviews so that they may write a better story.
Offline
#11 2009-06-08 18:40:26
The funny thing is that if sauvegeau was telling the truth and not urbon why not have the tape played . No instead he claims the recording was illegal. He does the spin because he knows that is how Bruce talks to people.
Offline
#12 2009-06-08 19:03:01
Do you mean Mr. Slager I would agree he does spin things way out of what could even close to being considered truthful.
I have no doubt that Mr. Savegeau made the statement about taping but claming it is Illegal when anyone with half a brain knows that can't be true is just rediculous.
Mr. Slager should stop insulting peoples intelligence it just makes them angry but mabey that is what he is trying to do becuase most times when someone comes from a place of anger they lose their objectivity.
If the disenfranchised of Wareham just keep picking apart the pathetic arguments put forward by this board when trying to justify their actions I believe more and more people will wake up and see this board for what they truely are. I believe it is happening already. It may be subtle at times but it is happening.
Offline
#13 2009-06-09 06:55:50
IF THERE IS A TAPE WHY ISNT BRUCE ENCOURAGING ITS RELEASE? HE COULD BE PROVEN RIGHT AND THE REPORTER WRONG. WHY GO THE ILLEGAL TAPE ROUTE? BECAUSE BRUCE LIED ABOUT THE INCIDENT AND IS NOW USING HIS BITCH SLAGER TO SPIN LIKE A TOP ABOUT THE INCIDENT. AND WHY HASNT SLAGER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THE ALLEGATIONS OF AN OPEN MEETING VIOLATION? COULD IT BE THAT THE SPINMEISTER CANT EVEN SPIN OUT OF THIS ONE? BOBBY IF YOU DONT TALK ABOUT IT, IT NEVER HAPPENED? NOT RELEVANT ANYMORE. HOW DOES IT FEEL TO BE USED BY A BULLY? I KNOW YOUR VERY MEEK IN PERSON AND HAVE TO HAVE THIS MACHO PERSONA BEHIND THE TYPEWRITER BUT STAND UP TO BRUCE SLAGER. ITS OK. I KNOW ITS TOUGH FOR YOU BUT TRY TO BE A MAN AND STAND UP TO HIM AND NOT BE HIS WHORE ALL YOUR LIFE.
Offline
#14 2009-06-09 13:56:43
“Every single person who has lost their job in town government did so because they weren’t doing their jobs,” Sauvageau said.
This is a direct quote from THE wareham observer article discussing the hit list.
The first thing I ask is who is making the decision on job performance? IF it is Bruce, then I think there needs to be a second opinion. In fact, If any of the BOS are the determining party, I would question their judgement. As we have seen, any time this BOS has terminated an employee, there is a lawsuit and the town ends up paying.
If Slager is reporting the news, why is he not retracting statements made in error? Why is he not demanding public apologies from the quoted accusations made by Cronan and Sava(however you spell it)who? Is it okay to spin and accuse, but not suffer the recourse?
Perhaps all the advertisers that support his bias blather should pressure him into actually reporting the news?
Offline
