I'll have to get a paper copy of the paper. This one's a keeper.

The article focused mostly on the Wareham Crime Watch and not in a good way. It was difficult keeping this a secret since Coleman and the people Jennifer Levitz interviewed already knew. Of course they didn't know it would be a front page article.

I suggest when people read it they copy and save it, because if you click on it a few times you'll go to the subscription page and won't be able to see it.

If you can't see it now PM me.

Last edited by urneighbor (2009-09-08 07:50:02)

AMAZING.. i just wished it was more about our beaches, pizza shops or maple park campground.. this negative press should and could be positive and generating revenue for our town instead it is keep tourists at bay..this is yet another reason why we all need to

TAKE BACK WAREHAM...

You know that the bad publicity George Coleman got, including on this website, is what got the reporter's attention and led to him and Wareham Crime Watch being the main focus of the article.

He must have been (or should have been if not in denial) sitting on pins and needles waiting for this article to comes out, and probably hoping it would be buried where nobody would notice if it cast him in a negative light.

I wonder if certain not to be discussed this week "reporters" will cover this.

People, please get yourselves a paper copy.  The Internet version is ok, but there's just something about picking up a national newspaper and seeing a drawing of that fat gremlin face staring back at you on the front page that just makes you want to keel over laughing.

I love this headline - "Wareham, Mass., Rakes in Parking Fines -- And Complaints; Mr. Coleman's Bumper Crop"

Ha ha ha - "bumper crop," get it?  Because he hit a lady with his bumper then called her a retard?

Is that even beating the system?  You're supposed to keep the parking spots open so other people can use them, right?  What's he supposed to do if he has a business he has to be at all day?  So he parks in one space, then opens that space up and moves to another.  What's he supposed to do, parachute in from a helicopter every day?

just a side note sept 10 is george colemans court date here in wareham..

What a way for Wareham to make the FRONT PAGE of the Wall Street Journal, not only online but in print as well.

I wonder if Director Coleman sent a copy of this to his family? It's not every day Dad gets his picture on the front page of the second largest paper in the country ( 2 million paid circulation).



Is anybody planning to go to court on Sept. 10th?

Auto-edited on 2020-08-11 to update URLs

I don't know if I'm going either. For those of us who don't know each other don't forget the secret recognition signal.

next week i will be wearing my

TAKE BACK WAREHAM tshirt

Check


PShooter

foil and duct tape dammmnnn hes cool..

i dont think you can get thru the metal detectors with foil how about chewing gum wrappers??

Auto-edited on 2020-08-11 to update URLs

Case against Wareham Crime Watch head continued

WAREHAM - George Coleman’s day in court has been continued to March 30.

This news was handed down to the head of Crime Watch Tuesday, Jan. 5, when he and his counsel, Wareham attorney Leonard Bello, went before a judge at Wareham District Court Tuesday, Jan. 5.

According to Bello, the decision came at the request of the commonwealth.

http://takebackwareham86bos.blogspot.co … 70709.html

P-SPAN
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
April 6, 2010

Last edited by P-SPAN (2010-01-05 18:53:11)

Well...after seeing that piece, first congratulations to Steve Holmes for being so erudite in his questioning and calm with the bullshit he was being served by obviously someone who has no concept of the law, liability laws, continuous liability laws, agent law, responsibility of the Town putting untrained, doddering old men in uniform out on the street with marked patrol cars and expecting that they signed a "waiver" so the Town is protected from their actions.
Find  the Law School this idiot is attending and remember to tell your children NEVER to attend it, or at the very least, look to see if he actually DOES attend it.
If he does, he is either the dumbest SOB in the class, or his instructors and professors have received their law degrees from a Caribbean School and someone took their Bar exams for them.
If Steve wasn't so polite, he could have lit that Chairman of the BOS up like a Christmas Tree and embarrass him with his lack of knowledge.
Truth is now obvious: April 6, 2010 can't come fast enough.
Good work, Steve!!

I have actually given Mr Slager credit for the following statement in the past.

A memorandum of understanding between the Wareham Police Department and the Crime Watch Program, signed on June 20, 2009 by Lt. Irving Wallace, Coleman and then interim town administrator John Sanquinet, states the volunteers of Crime Watch are "indemnified, defended and held harmless for all claims by any person arising out of the performance of their duties of parking enforcement and shall be named insured to a certificate of liability insurance maintained by the Town of Wareham covering its employees in connection with their official duties."


Unless Mr Slager is incorrect, each one of those Selectmen that spoke in the video as well as the ITA,  were lying through their teeth. I appeared before them about 18 days after this was supposedly signed. And NONE of them have a memory of that document.

I will head down to Town Hall and request the document to see which version of the story is correct.

Well you should all read that statement again. As I read it says "covering its employees in connection with their official duties."
Now as I understand the charges against Coleman they are criminal charges brought by the Wareham Police department for using his automobile as a weapon against a defenseless lady. So I ask you since when is it within any town employee's official duties to act as a criminal? Coleman is not being charged for writing a parking ticket. He is charged as a criminal for trying to run over a woman with a child nearby.
So if any other town employee decided to rob a bank, or run over anyone while on the clock, would the town be so quick to pay for his or her legal defense?
The language quoted above is common in contracts to protect employees against civil actions brought about due to their actions within their official duties. In other words if Coleman wrote a ticket, placed it on a windshield and broke the wiper blade, then he would be protected by the town for whatever the cost to fix the situation. Regardless of whether the damage was just the wiper or if he got sued for it, the town would and should cover this example because he was acting within his job responsibilities. If Coleman deliberately hit a woman with his automobile or pulled out a gun and shot her for parking where she did not belong, he is then acting outside of his official capacity. No town documentation give Coleman the authority to use his vehicle as a weapon if he does not like where a woman parks her car.
The fact that this town is now defending its employees/ agents for criminal actions is a very dangerous precedent to start.
This is another example of an extremely poor decision by the BOS to support their friends at the expense of the town. 
Your tax dollars at work.
Focus April 6, 2010

Dan, she was told by the D.A.'s office not to speak to anyone about this case.

I might see her tomorrow.  She will probably still have the same answer.

Hear, hear Bornof...re: WPD
Regarding the Coleman situation, it is interesting that she has been told not to speak about the case. Told by whom? Why?
Looks like you will be cutting a big check again real soon.

Well, I have no doubt that their children will be going to college, and now knowing what I do, I know they are not in it for the money.
However, it seems unusual for anyone in the DA's Office to ask them not to discuss the case when it has already been spread literally throughout the whole Country.
My instincts tell me what I have posted earlier.
I may be wrong. I recently found out how wrong I was about one poster in this site, so, I won't be shocked if I am wrong about this situation.
Bottom line: Wareham pays for stupidity generated out of the BOS office.
Plain and simple.

searay240 wrote:

I have actually given Mr Slager credit for the following statement in the past.

A memorandum of understanding between the Wareham Police Department and the Crime Watch Program, signed on June 20, 2009 by Lt. Irving Wallace, Coleman and then interim town administrator John Sanquinet, states the volunteers of Crime Watch are "indemnified, defended and held harmless for all claims by any person arising out of the performance of their duties of parking enforcement and shall be named insured to a certificate of liability insurance maintained by the Town of Wareham covering its employees in connection with their official duties."

---

I have discovered that Mr. Slager is a very unreliable source of information.  I suggest that the debate on this site will improved if other sources are used.

rukidding wrote:

Well you should all read that statement again. As I read it says "covering its employees in connection with their official duties."
Now as I understand the charges against Coleman they are criminal charges brought by the Wareham Police department for using his automobile as a weapon against a defenseless lady. So I ask you since when is it within any town employee's official duties to act as a criminal? Coleman is not being charged for writing a parking ticket. He is charged as a criminal for trying to run over a woman with a child nearby.
So if any other town employee decided to rob a bank, or run over anyone while on the clock, would the town be so quick to pay for his or her legal defense?

The assumption being made by rukidding is that Mr. Coleman is guilty.  If he is innocent, then the charges are incidental to his "official" duties.  Unfortunately, he needs a lawyer before his guilt or innocence is decided.

Justice is best served if witnesses wait until the trial  concludes before they discuss the incident in public.  Is anyone really surprised that this was explained to the witnesses?

It shouldn't be that hard to obtain all the documents signed by Crime Watch and their volunteers.  We should also be able to determine if the town pays for Coleman's lawyer.... eventually.

Mr Onset, I am not making the assumption that Coleman is guilty. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty. I am saying that while the language in Lt Wallace and butt monkey's agreement with Coleman is typical language in employee contracts, there is no criminal charge that is "incidental to his official duties". For example that language does not protect a tax collector from "allegedly" assaulting this woman for not paying her taxes. That language does not protect a police officer from "allegedly" running down this woman for j walking. Coleman should be on his own for putting himself in a position of being criminally accused.
The fact that the BOS lied to the town when they said very clearly that crimewatch was separate from the town is a completely different issue. 
Focus April 6, 2010

Hey Biff: In order to be an employee he must be paid and/or appointed  as Parking Enforcement Officer by the BOS. There is no record of such when I went before the BOS, so his group had no right to write parking tickets. I do not care what agreement was made with the upper crust of the PD or the BOS.

capt c wrote:

Hey Biff: In order to be an employee he must be paid and/or appointed  as Parking Enforcement Officer by the BOS. There is no record of such when I went before the BOS, so his group had no right to write parking tickets. I do not care what agreement was made with the upper crust of the PD or the BOS.

Amen, Capt c.  The only problem that may be is - did you ask to see any written agreement, because others in town have asked to see public records, which this would be, and they were denied or ignored.  I have a "feeling" that the agreement between Mr. Coleman and the town was already written up and Lt. Wallace was summonsed to town hall to "sign it".  My opinion is that if there is an agreement signed, it won't hold water.   The main problem here is that we have been blatently lied to.  We should know everything about crimewatch and it's duties, if the town pays for their fuel, the cars, the insurance, the registratons, how much money they get from the parking tickets, are they independently insured or bonded, why are they a private corporation with Coleman & his wife as Pres, V.P., Sect. & Treas.?  We ask if there is liability insurance to cover them in case there is a problem and all you could hear from Jane is "they signed a waiver".  Just what does that mean?  Crimewatch being put under an umbrella policy of insurance is most likely for injury on the job.   Paul - you know everyone, go find out the truth.  You say you're in Wareham every day.  Pay us back for those 30 years you thanked us for.  I know you have connections.  Thanks.

Last edited by bornofwareham (2010-01-07 23:53:32)

Mr. Onset.  Please, go to the TA and ask for copies of all the paperwork to do with Crime Watch.  I'm not being a smart ass, either.  They will ignore you.  They will tell you that they don't have any.  They will tell you to come back another day.  They will tell you anything to get you to leave.  If you don't, they will call the police.

If we could get our hands on anything from the BOS or TA about crimewatch, believe me, it would have been posted for everyone to see.  Please, seriously, go to the town hall and try to get this information.  If you are able to, you will be a hero.   Even the minutes aren't clear.

This is getting more interesting by the minute.
Who determines negligence in this case?
Obviously the Police thought that he was negligent, because they arrested him. The DA thought he was negligent because they are prosecuting him.
So...who is paying the bills?
Who represents this guy?
As always: who determines if he is a public employee?
Glad to read Paul's comments.

bornofwareham wrote:

Mr. Onset.  Please, go to the TA and ask for copies of all the paperwork to do with Crime Watch.  I'm not being a smart ass, either.  They will ignore you.  They will tell you that they don't have any.  They will tell you to come back another day.  They will tell you anything to get you to leave.  If you don't, they will call the police.

If we could get our hands on anything from the BOS or TA about crimewatch, believe me, it would have been posted for everyone to see.  Please, seriously, go to the town hall and try to get this information.  If you are able to, you will be a hero.   Even the minutes aren't clear.

I can't figure out how to ask for this information and post it without compromising my blog identity.  That is more important to me than being viewed as a hero.  However, we don't have to depend upon the town providing information about the waiver signed by Crime Watch volunteers.  All we need is one volunteer to post the waiver they signed (deleting their signature if they like).

Maturevoter wrote:

If Crime Watch was organized as a 501-C-3 non profit organization, which it should be if they raised and spent money, they would have to file with the Secretary of State listing the officers and the Board of Directors and the address from which it legally operates.
On an annual basis Crime Watch would have to file the annual report as well as any changes made to the officers or Board; and/ or any changes made to the location of operation. (Didn't they move out of the Onset building?)
Perhaps one of you who has the computer expertise can go to the State web site and find the information. It would at least tell you who the members of the Board of Directors are. If anyone knows anyone who is listed, you could personally start asking some questions and if they have nothing to hide, they may share how, when , why, they got organized and how they are covered or not covered by the town.
I think there was a posting in additon to one from Capt C that said that unless they were officially appointed as Parking Attendants under the proper state statute, that by law they should not have been issuing parking citations. And that may play a large role in this case. If they were not legally able to write tickets, then the town has itself in a huge mess.
I understand that Chief Joyce did not want them to be able to write tickets, knowing that they were not legally entitled to do so, but was "told" by the  acting TA that he should allow it or face a consequence.

here it is..
http://corp.sec.state.ma.us/corp/corpse … ftype=.pdf

This is what I found -- It appears they are a 501c(3)

Nonprofit Report:ONSET COMMUNITY CRIME WATCH INC
Contact Information:
ONSET COMMUNITY CRIME WATCH INC Also Known As:Physical Address:4 Union Ave
% George H Coleman
Onset, MA 02558

Unable to access any 990's

Last edited by spideratc (2010-01-08 18:03:45)

Maybe someone with more expertise can get the whole pdf file from Commonwealth document web site I referenced in above post to insert instead of just this last page of the May 2006 amended filing for Onset Crime Watch to become a 503-c.


go to
   http://corp.sec.state.ma.us/corp/corpse … =201628467

   then at bottom select All Filings item and then click View Filings

from the list on right side of panel, click on link to  http://corp.sec.state.ma.us/corp/corpse … 7060_1.pdf


The last of 3 pages is all I can get to copy/paste here:
   

MA SOC Filing Number: 200650067060 Date: 06/08/2006 3:32 PM

THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
I hereby certify that, upon examination of this document, duly submitted to me, it appears
that the provisions of the General Laws relative to corporations have been complied with,
and I hereby approve said articles; and the filing fee having been paid, said articles are
deemed to have been filed with me on:
WILLIAM FRANCIS GALVIN
Secretary of the Commonwealth
MA SOC Filing Number: 200650067060 Date: 06/08/2006 3:32 PM
June 08, 2006 3:32 PM
178403-1-0.

What in the hell is going on???
Maybe the DA has a little more information about Crime Watch, it's Directors, and possibly some elected officials that have made a little side business at the expense of the people of Wareham.
I can't wait to see where this one is going.