WarehamWater.Cruelery.Com - Wareham, MA / BOBO GOING TO BE SUED FOR NON-PAYMENT OF RENT AT OLD OFFICE

danoconnell · 2010-01-15 19:12:14

I doubt it Larry.
They've given him too much support and money already and haven't achieved any results.
I think the funding will dry up, kind of like the voters that will cast one for the Chairman of the BOS...all dried up!

Hamatron5000 · 2010-01-15 21:03:01

Has anyone had a chance to read Bobo's pathetic, phoney baloney weepy eyed mea culpa yet? No? Hike up your boots because the bullshit is going to get high and deep then.

Briefly summarized, Bobo says that when he wrote his first column about this, he was feeling very upset and emotional and basically just lashed out and he's sorry to the landlord for that.

Yes, just what every town needs - a journalist who allows himsef to be clouded by anger to the point where he ignores reason and just uses his paper as a thumping stick to wail away on whoever pisses him off at any given moment.

If you ask me, Bobo's lame attempt at an apology reads like his lawyer smacked some sense into him and said, "Dumbass! You owe the money, you have to pay it! By smearing the man, you just lose out on the chance that'll he agree to a reasonable settlement!"

Hell, if I were that landlord, and had been nice enough to give him all kinds of chances to pay, and for my trouble, I get slammed by this ungrateful bastard and accused of being a part of a "power elite conspiracy," simply for asking for back rent due,I would demand the entire amount owed immediately plus tack on a defamation claim.

Bobo is truly a scumbag.

commonsense · 2010-01-15 21:49:45

First off, he'll never admit it, this site changed his mind

Second, I thought papers were flying off the shelf?! Money should be no object!

Hamatron5000 · 2010-01-15 22:33:36

It's just amazing this egomaniacal bastard doesn't realize that the whole world doesn't revolve around him and his problems. Other people have problems too. Like his landlord, for instance, probably has to pay property taxes, upkeep, maintenance, utilities, etc just to maintain that building. With no rent coming in and a fat bagel biting Brucey Bitch squatting his fat ass on your property so you can't rent it to anyone else, this guy likely had to pay all those expenses out of pocket.

Bobo just looks at him and sees a vile rich power elitist, his brain is too childlike to grasp the expenses that come to a landlord in the business of renting property.

All Bobo sees is his little problem, so he stomped his feet and threw a hissy fit like a two year old "Why do I have to pay rent?! Why?! Why?! Why?! WAAAAAHHH!!!"

Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2010-01-15 22:36:08)

Larry McDonald · 2010-01-15 23:02:17

That is the great thing about modern technology. His first article is forever saved and has been passed on to the appropriate parties. He can't take it back and as his supporters rally and claim it is a conspiracy, people are realizing what a egomaniac he is.

The sad part is this community has suffered from his lies and fabrications. Good people have been crucified by his paper and corrupt elected officals have been given a pass.

LIZdaGNOME · 2010-01-15 23:21:07

LIZdaGNOME wrote:
ANOTHER FACTUAL INNACURACY....

"I do know this man attended Bob Brady’s "community meeting" last summer at Wareham High School."

mr i love wareham sooooo much news/edit flash since 1991 that has been the middle school...

from his new story..."Save for mistakenly typing Wareham High School as the location of Bob Brady’s community meeting instead of Wareham Middle School (I should know; I was there) the facts in the story were 100 percent correct."

wake up and welcome to planet earth if you type "middle" and it was "high" that is a LIE and not 100% correct

danoconnell · 2010-01-16 00:19:31

Welcome back Larry!
Glad to read your real feelings. You have been polite long enough. Let it loose, Francis!
I am proud of you.

danoconnell · 2010-01-16 00:35:30

Let me ask a question. The stories, the "flip flop" stories, the changes to the columns, are they strictly changed on the web site or do these articles appear in the "hard" copy paper?
I really don't know the answer, but, I would appreciate someone telling me.
Thanks.

Nora Bicki · 2010-01-16 06:21:17

I haven't read the mea culpa (someone sent me the first article--yikes! All I could think was, this guy calls himself a journalist? Write about your personal financial difficulties as news?)

But one thing that struck me about the first article: what kind of moron vilifies the opposing counsel BEFORE the case is filed??? That's a real smart move. It's like saying: judge, you're a total asshole, but I hope you will find this case in my favor!!!!

All I can say is he lucked out by getting Margaret Ishihara. I've worked with her on several occasions and I know she will be above his lawyer-baiting/insulting act. She's a true professional. But still, if I was she, I'd always be a little pissed in the back of my head. I'm only human after all and I imagine most lawyers might feel the same. Good move on the tacky tabloid writer's part.

Oh, and I know I said I'd ignore him but this one was just too good to ignore. I promise, though, I'll try. I fell off the wagon, but I'm trying to get back on. (It's just that it's the winter doldrums and I really can use the entertainment! When I think of P-Span's "downsized toilet/outhouse, I can't stop laughing!!)

Hamatron5000 · 2010-01-16 07:19:06

danoconnell wrote:
Let me ask a question. The stories, the "flip flop" stories, the changes to the columns, are they strictly changed on the web site or do these articles appear in the "hard" copy paper?
I really don't know the answer, but, I would appreciate someone telling me.
Thanks.

Real newspapers do real reporting and allow only accurate confirmed facts to enter their papers. If they learn later that they make a mistake, they cop to it in a corrections section, explain the error and apologize.

Bobo on the other hand constantly changes his story as people sniff out his bullshit. He constantly changes his stories, hundreds of times over, without offering any explanation. He just denies ever doing it.

To answer your question, if he says something damaging to himself, he'll change it on the online version. If he can change it in time for the paper copy, he does. If it is too late and the paper copy goes out with the statements that are damaging to him in it, then he'll just deny ever writing it and call you a liar even if you hold the paper right in your hand.

Worst journalist in the history of the printed word.

danoconnell · 2010-01-16 08:50:22

Thanks Ham.
I kind of figured that. Hopefully, the article he wrote (the first one) about the Landlord hit the hard copy of the paper.
If so, does he write a retraction or as noted a mea culpa for the next hard copy?
It is kind of fascinating to watch someone slip into insanity in front of one's eyes.
Kind of like people driving slowly by a bad car accident, craning their necks to see, then get disgusted and sick from the scene.
Like I used to say when I was a cop, "Move along folks...nothing to see here!"

Hamatron5000 · 2010-01-16 08:58:24

He definitely has multiple personalities, severe mood swings, maybe even might be a manic depressive, he goes from one column saying it's all the landlord's fault to another saying it's all his fault.

Bobo, guess what - IT'S YOUR FAULT! PAY THE RENT, DEADBEAT!!!

Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2010-01-16 09:00:44)

godhelpwareham · 2010-01-16 12:35:36

He could have a lot more trouble coming his way real soon from the new slap amendments concerning journalist and their protection.

Will the Massachusetts Anti-SLAPP Law Protect Journalists?
Thu, 11/05/2009 - 10:03 — Samantha
The Massachusetts legislature recognized the problem of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) when it enacted its anti-SLAPP legislation, Section 59H of chapter 231 of the General Laws, “An Act Protecting the Public's Right to Petition Government” in 1994. The legislature acted after a developer sued fifteen citizens of Rehoboth who had signed a petition against a permit for the construction of six single-family residences. The suit was eventually dismissed, but not before the fifteen citizens had incurred thousands of dollars in legal fees defending against the action. (See Northern Provinces, Inc. v. Feldman, No. 91-2260 (Mass. Sup. 1992); See also an excellent history of the Massachusetts anti-SLAPP law at the Massachusetts Trial Court Law LibraryAnti-SLAPP page).

Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 231 § 59H (1994) provides for a special motion to dismiss in any civil case where a party asserts that the claims against it are "based on said party's exercise of its right of petition" under the federal or state constitutions. The right of petition includes written statements submitted to a governmental entity in connection with issues under review by the entity, as well as any statement "reasonably likely to encourage consideration or review" by the government and any statement "reasonably likely to enlist public participation."

However, the Massachusetts courts had narrowly interpreted the law to apply only to activity undertaken "solely" to petition, excluding any speech made in whole or in part for commercial gain, and that speech must be undertaken on one's "own behalf as a citizen." (See, e.g., Kobrin v.Gastfriend, 443 Mass. 327 (2005)). These two limitations have worked to exclude nearly all paid broadcasters, publishers and members of the press from the law's protections.

Many members of the Massachusetts media and first amendment communities sought to have the law protect journalistic statements. In January of 2009, Massachusetts State Senator Creem introduced an amendment to the law that explicitly states its provisions apply to journalists.

While the bill was pending in the Massachusetts legislature, for the first time in April 2009, a Massachusetts court dismissed a suit brought by Wareham Police Chief Thomas Joyce against local newspaper the Observer and its owner, Robert Slager. The Observer moved to dismiss the suit under Section 59H, and the court granted the motion, holding for the first time that the anti-SLAPP law applied equally to commercial corporations and individual speakers and that, “[i]f a statement has the potential or intent to redress a grievance, or directly or indirectly to influence, inform, or bring about governmental consideration of the issue, it can qualify for protection as petitioning activity.” (See the Joyce v. Slager, No. 08-01240-B decision, courtesy of RCFP, here, as well as RCFP's report on that decision.)

FASP welcomed the Joyce decision as a victory for citizen participation and a healthy press. But a few months later, a Massachusetts appeals court issued a contrary ruling in the case Fustolo v. Hollander.

In 2006, Fredda Hollander wrote five articles for the Regional Review, a free community newspaper serving the North End neighborhood of Boston. These articles reported on the activities and projects of developer Steven Fustolo, including meetings of community groups at which these activities were discussed.

Fustolo, claiming that the articles had caused "widespread opposition" to his development plans and, ultimately, had caused him to withdraw a zoning matter that had been pending before the Boston Zoning Board of Appeal, sued Hollander. Hollander filed a special motion to dismiss pursuant to Massachusetts’ anti-SLAPP law. On October 3, 2008, the Superior Court denied the motion, holding that Hollander’s financial compensation from the paper was a private reason for her reporting activity, which therefore could not be considered “solely” petitioning activity for purposes of the anti-SLAPP law. (See Fustolo v. Hollander, No. 06-3595, slip op. at 5 (Mass. Super. Ct. Oct. 3, 2008)).

The appellate court affirmed the reasoning. On appeal to the Massachusetts Superior Court, the Citizen Media Law Project, Harvard Cyberlaw Clinic, ACLU of Massachusetts and Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law of the Boston Bar Association jointly submitted an amicus curiae brief in favor of extending the protections of the Massachusetts law to journalists.

At oral argument on November 2nd, the Superior Court Justices expressed concerns that too broad an interpretation of the statute would eviscerate defamation law, while too narrow an interpretation would nullify much of the anti-SLAPP law's protections. You can see a webcast of the oral arguments in the Suffolk Law School's digital arhive, and see analysis at Of and Concerning and CMLP. Access available briefs at the Massachusetts Appellate Courts page.

A decision is expected in January, 2010, and FASP will monitor any developments. You can also see a summary of Massachusetts anti-SLAPP history at our Free Speech State-by-State page.

P-SPAN · 2010-01-16 15:02:19

Nora Bicki wrote:
I haven't read the mea culpa (someone sent me the first article--yikes! All I could think was, this guy calls himself a journalist? Write about your personal financial difficulties as news?)

That's what I was thinking as I read it. His Mea Culpa included more details of his (version) of his personal/business financial problems. Like Larry often points out, Bobo makes himself the news. Bobo, your insignificant, give it a break.

godhelpwareham, great post..do you have the link to this?

Bobo wrote:
If the Observer had recouped all its legal legal fees and court costs due from Joyce for violating the state’s Anti-SLAPP statute with his bogus lawsuit I wouldn't be writing this column right now.

I don't believe Joyce "violated the state's Anti-SLAPP statue" at all. Joyce brought a case against Bobo, and Bobo used anti-SLAPP as a defense. Once it was found that Bobo was protected because his written "comments" about Joyce were about a public official, the onus "flipped" to Joyce:

To win an anti-SLAPP motion, the defendant must first show that the lawsuit is based on constitutionally protected activity. Then, the burden shifts to the plaintiff, to affirmatively present evidence to show that they have a reasonable probability of prevailing on the action. The filing of an anti-SLAPP motion stays all discovery. This feature acts to greatly reduce the cost of litigation to the anti-SLAPP defendant, and can make beating the motion extremely difficult for the plaintiff, because they effectively must prove their case without the benefit of discovery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_ … ticipation

Every year, thousands of people are sued for participating in government or for speaking out on public issues. SLAPP targets have been sued for engaging in a wide variety of protected speech and protected expression activities, including:

writing a letter to the editor
circulating petitions
calling a public official
reporting police misconduct
erecting a sign or displaying a banner on their property
complaining to school officials about teacher misconduct or unsafe conditions in the school
speaking at a public meeting
reporting unlawful activities
testifying before Congress or state legislatures
speaking as an officer of an active public interest group
filing a public interest lawsuit

Assuming this is what Bobo's defense was based on, was "misconduct" ever proven?

http://www.thefirstamendment.org/antisl … enter.html

http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/subject/about/slapp.html

Any way you cut it...what does Joyce, the "hateblogger's", or anything else have to do with the fact that he didn't pay his rent to a man who bent over backwards to work with his "problems"..I'm sure he had NO IDEA, the extent of those. Pay your bills, Bobo!

P-SPAN
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
April 6, 2010

Last edited by P-SPAN (2010-01-16 15:11:53)

danoconnell · 2010-01-16 16:09:26

Who in the hell came up with this so called "SLAPP" law?
Try it in Florida.
They'll laugh their ass off at you starting at the Clerk of Court's office all the way through the Judiciary.
I thought Mass. was progressive.
Sounds like it is regressive.
I'd love someone to sue me under the SLAPP law...I call it the CRAP law.
Sue me!

Hamatron5000 · 2010-01-18 09:21:13

BREAKING NEWS: More on Bobo the Deadbeat's rent fiasco, as last night's tin hat chat reveals (at least according to Bobo anyway) that the potential lawsuit against Bobo may include claims that Bobo engaged in unfair and deceptive business practices!!!

"Unfair" and "Deceptive" - two words that always come to mind when thinking of Bobo the Dirtbag.

Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2010-01-18 09:21:49)

IHATESLAGER · 2010-01-18 09:23:15

OH GOD MOST OF HIS CHAT WAS NOTHING BUT HIM BITCHING ABOUT HIM OWING RENT. JUST PAY THE RENT DEADBEAT

rukidding · 2010-01-18 10:51:23

Do you think the landlord expected to be paid before Bobo kept 6 grand for himself?

ihateliz · 2010-01-18 11:05:44

lisand ten you crazy dibetic bastard pay the bill and then get out of town you are a certifiable nut and wack job and you are liar , a new newspaper is coming to town and its free not free someplaces and 75 cents other places like yours , and guess what they will tell the truth and not make up stories.

P-SPAN · 2010-01-18 19:02:35

From last night's hatchat:

By: robertslager on 1/17/10
I don't want to belabor a subject I addressed in previous columns, but I wanted to let you folks know that while I still haven't been officially served with the law suit, a source has told me the plaintiff is claiming the Observer engaged in an unfair and deceptive business practice. Apparently the plaintiff claims he would not have let the Observer stay rent free for eight months had he known he wouldn't get paid from the Joyce award. The problem with that position is that we had already moved out of the office before Joyce appealed the verdict. During the eight months were were there rent free there was no way to know Joyce would appeal and that the judgment could be delayed at least a year. Joyce's appeal can be proven through court records. It occured in August. We moved out in July. I didn't decieve anyone because there was no way of knowing Joyce would appeal the verdict.
That's not to say the plaintiff doesn't deserve the outstanding balance. The Observer will do everything possible to make sure he gets it. But it does show to me that Margaret Ishihara is trying to twist the truth in her client's complaint. That's what frustrates me. To claim the Observer engaged in a deceptive business practice is a smear and can be proven false through court documents.

By: mike9f on 1/17/10
Ahh, now I see, Robert. The unfair and deceptive practice claim would fall under MGL93A. The plaintif might seek treble damages. Sorry to say that...

By: robertslager on 1/17/10
I have researched that as well. But it will be simple to disprove. I had no way of knowing that Joyce would appeal the verdict. That was completely beyond my control. The verdict wasn't even rendered until April, when the former landlord had already allowed us to stay for four months. There was no way I could have known for certain what the verdict would be (although I was confident we would prevail). But to claim that I somehow decieved my former landlord into letting us stay for eight months when the case hadn't even been resolved will never stand up in court. Court records show the progression of the case every step of the way. I wrote about it in the paper.

By: jojan2 on 1/17/10
Ishihara sounds like an untrustworthy attorney, not being able to seek the truth or print the truth but instead twist the truth. It amazes me that when someone like that files a claim against a person that prove her false statement, that a judge can't just slap on some kind of extra fine beyond the court charges. Maybe that would make a lawyer think twice about taking such a case. I hope justice will prevail for you. You do have the truth on your side.

By: mike9f on 1/17/10
Robert in all liklihood you will go before the judge, show proof of your intent to pay and that will be the end of it. You'll pay and be on your way.

By: robertslager on 1/17/10
I had every intention of paying the overdue amount as soon as the Observer received its portion of the judgment. If I didn't settle after Joyce appealed, the judgment would have been delayed at least a year (assuming we won the appeal). The agreement I thought I had with my former landlord would have assured him of getting the overdue balance in full well before an appeal would have been heard. Again, that's another source of frustration. I tried to create a path that would allow the landlord to get his money as quickly as possible. I never attempted in any way, shape or form to decieve anyone. There is no way Ishihara can get past the fact that Joyce appealed after I had already moved out. She will have to argue that I somehow knew Joyce would appeal and that I lied to my landlord about it in order to stay at the office. That's crazy. Again, Joyce didn't appeal the verdict until we had already moved out. I can prove that with court documents.

By: fogcutter on 1/17/10
Rrobert, about the thing with your former landlord, I think the bottom line is that it will all come down to whatever was agreed by you and he in writing.

By: robertslager on 1/17/10
Fogcutter, if that's the case than this is very simple. I had no lease with him. I agreed in writing to pay off the debt in installments. I have always been willing to do so. That's why I don't understand the point of this lawsuit. By the time this even goes before a judge the payments will have already begun.

By: jojan2 on 1/17/10
Rob, is there some type of legal action that can force Joyce to make weekly or monthly payments to you? Years ago, juvenile court forced kids to make payment within a certain time frame. Does that still hold true today and if not, WHY??

By: robertslager on 1/17/10
Jojan, Joyce and I finally settled and the case was closed. He paid me a portion of what he owed me. I took the only path I could see to keep the Observer going. It's very unfortunate, but that's the way it went.

By: jojan2 on 1/17/10
How unfair and sad that you ended up on the short end of the stick and he was in the wrong. You suffered because he is an A--. The justice system needs to change. Life is not fair!

By: robertslager on 1/17/10
One last word on this and I'll move on. I filed a formal complaint against Ishihara with the Massachusetts Bar Association. Last year she sent me a signed letter threatening me with ligitation when I said I thought her serving as deputy moderator while representing A.D. Makepeace in negotiations with the town was a conflict of interest. The statute of limitations on her threat has not yet expired. So she has a pending threat of litigation against me and she accepted to represent a client in litigation against my company. I believe that is a conflict of interest on her part. The MBA is looking into it.

P-SPAN
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
April 6, 2010

commonsense · 2010-01-18 19:12:39

The statute of limitations on her threat has not yet expired. So she has a pending threat of litigation against me and she accepted to represent a client in litigation against my company. I believe that is a conflict of interest on her part. The MBA is looking into it.

The statute of limitations on a "threat to sue?" WTF is that Bobo? Never heard of it. For Christ's sake, does anyone actually believe that?!

Uh-oh, I said Christ... looks like I'll be on the anti-Christian watch list.

Larry McDonald · 2010-01-18 19:41:14

That's okay Commonsense, according to Bobo, everytime I open my mouth an angel dies. can you believe any god-fearing person would ever say such a thing?

LIZdaGNOME · 2010-01-18 20:30:30

this weeks crystal ball quote
"Every time Francis opens his mouth an angel will die in heaven ..."

while he states..
"..but please be civil. We will not allow personal attacks or any of the nastiness and defamation..."

Mixie · 2010-01-18 20:55:11

I thought the parties involved disclose any potential conflict of interest to each other, i.e, Ishihara would disclose to the client that she once wrote a letter to the editor of the sloppy tabloid --- I don't remember her threatening to sue--- people with intregity don't threaten, they do! So once again BoBo is incorrectly reporting and twisting information so that he can look like a pathetic victim...mumma..wawa...

danoconnell · 2010-01-18 21:09:55

The question is: what was the threat? Sue for what?
Common pointed out quite correctly that there is no Statute of limitations regarding a threatened law suit.
The concept is preposterous.
Maybe his friend that allegedly attends law school told him that.

Hamatron5000 · 2010-01-18 22:07:21

Oh please, that fat bastard has pissed so many people off that if no one could sue him because they thought about suing him previously, then no one would ever be able to sue the douchebag.

Shit Bobo, you smear your landlord, you smear your landlord's lawyer, just be a man for Christ's sakes and pay your rent you scumbucket.

bornofwareham · 2010-01-18 22:50:32

The above hatchat was very interesting. Everyone agrees with Slager. How nice. Has anyone ever seen the movie "Sybil"? Reading the above, I could picture Mr. Slager having this conversation with himself. One person.

Hamatron5000 · 2010-01-19 07:02:53

Good ole two-face Bobo, apologizes to the landlord in a mea culpa column, then turns around and trashes him again in tin hat chat, thinking it's ok because he won't see it. No wonder he wants tin hat chat to stay private.

Nora Bicki · 2010-01-19 10:21:45

From this week's TFHC Sunday night chat:

"By: robertslager on 1/17/10
To claim the Observer engaged in a deceptive business practice is a smear and can be proven false through court documents."

How does it feel to be "smeared" by someone whom you claim has no proof or evidence even when YOU have the proof and evidence??

How do you think the family of Mary Jane Pillsbury feels about her being "smeared" by a tacky tabloid writer for an embezzlement/money laundering/loan sharking/copy machine/used book sale scheme when there isn't a shred of evidence produced by the "smearer"???

How do you think the former Trustees of the Wareham Fee Library feel about being "smeared" by a tacky tabloid writer for an embezzlement/money laundering/loan sharking/copy machine/used book sale scheme when there isn't a shred of evidence produced by the "smearer"??

How do you think the Friends of the Wareham Free Library feel about being "smeared" by a tacky tabloid writer for an embezzlement/money laundering/loan sharking/copy machine/used book sale scheme when there isn't a shred of evidence produced by the "smearer"??

I guess the smearer in the embezzlement/money laundering/loan sharking/copy machine/used book sale scheme doesn't like being smeared himself too much if you go by his constant rantings in his tabloid and the tin foil hat chat. And while he admits his guilt in not paying his rent, the library parties have always denied any participation in the alleged embezzlement/money laundering/loan sharking/copy machine/used book sale scheme. Big difference, but still, it doesn't feel too good being on the receiving end.

As my mother always said, you reap what you sow. I like what goes around, comes around. I especially like it, because just like the tacky tabloid writer claims he has proof, we also have proof and evidence that the entire scheme is a hoax. Let's see who wins this round!!!

Larry McDonald · 2010-01-19 10:49:37

Nora,
My mother always told me what goes around comes around. This is just the beginning of his "payback".

danoconnell · 2010-01-19 11:40:28

We love Nora Bicki....

#66 2010-01-15 19:12:14

#67 2010-01-15 21:03:01

#68 2010-01-15 21:49:45

#69 2010-01-15 22:33:36

#70 2010-01-15 23:02:17

#71 2010-01-15 23:21:07

LIZdaGNOME wrote:

#72 2010-01-16 00:19:31

#73 2010-01-16 00:35:30

#74 2010-01-16 06:21:17

#75 2010-01-16 07:19:06

danoconnell wrote:

#76 2010-01-16 08:50:22

#77 2010-01-16 08:58:24

#78 2010-01-16 12:35:36

#79 2010-01-16 15:02:19

Nora Bicki wrote:

Bobo wrote:

#80 2010-01-16 16:09:26

#81 2010-01-18 09:21:13

#82 2010-01-18 09:23:15

#83 2010-01-18 10:51:23

#84 2010-01-18 11:05:44

#85 2010-01-18 19:02:35

#86 2010-01-18 19:12:39

#87 2010-01-18 19:41:14

#88 2010-01-18 20:30:30

#89 2010-01-18 20:55:11

#90 2010-01-18 21:09:55

#91 2010-01-18 22:07:21

#92 2010-01-18 22:50:32

#93 2010-01-19 07:02:53

#94 2010-01-19 10:21:45

#95 2010-01-19 10:49:37

#96 2010-01-19 11:40:28

Wareham Street Signs

Board footer