The idea that somehow or other that I created this mess by my prior actions, some as far back as 1999, is ludicrous and preposterous.

The town had 16 years to file any claim against me for my actions from April 1999 until March of 2013 yet failed to do so. They failed to file any action against me save an ill-gotten funding of a case that was immediately thrown out as being lacking in substance and four disorderly conduct arrests. At best, for the Trial Court’s Ruling to have been correct, a Civil Rights action or some action by the Appellees (the Town, Helen, Pam and Tracy) against Appellants (Karin and I) must have been litigated. It never was.

My reading of the Trial Court’s ruling suggests that it was my fault, my actions pre 2004, that the town attacked my Civil Rights in 2014 and 2015. Such an idea is not supported by any law or case law that I can find. A Private Citizen or even a couple of Private Citizens cannot, by sheer common sense, attack a town’s Civil Rights. If we had done any crime, broke any law, the town would have had a basis to fie against us.

First off the town has no civil rights; the town’s job is to enforce Civil Rights. Second the other appellees (Town and its sycophants) have no civil rights when they operate in their public capacities. They, like us, must bring legal action to uphold what rights they have. They have not sought such legal rights nor have they ever claimed any such rights.

The town had ample time to claim a First Amendment or other claim against me; four arrests, 19 pro se legal actions and three Baker Act involuntary confinements. Yet they failed to do so in any way, shape or form. Without a FORMAL claim against me the Trial Court’s ruling becomes suspect, I believe.

The Trial Court apparently found that my prior pre 2005 actions, some of which were blatantly misstated by the Trial Court, constituted harassment by me of the Town and its co-Appellees.

At best it could be said that both parties (Appellants and Appellees) harassed each other although Appellees chose to do so out of the Sunshine with no public discussion. They just did it using taxpayer funds and their cloak of legitimacy.

But a harassment charge in this case has been found insufficient according to the State’s Attorney finding.

While Freedom of Speech and Freedom to redress a government for grievances is not harassment, trying to silence such is a Constitutional violation, I believe. The attempts to silence me from “complaining about the town and its officers and agents”, is the violation.

I am sorry to say, their attempts to silence me were fruitful. I buckled under their pressure to silence me. Likewise Karin was very distraught at the actions of the town to “get us” often crying and shaking uncontrollably. She was placed on medication by her physician.

The White Springs Journal utilized both Free Speech and Freedom to Redress as its founding premises. Again, if such were a violation of the Town and its co-Appellee’s rights, the Town and Helen, Pam and Tracy had the financial wherewithal and the free legal representation to call such a violation into question.

Yet they did not so move in 16 years. They brought no case against me or Karin to silence us, instead they used the threat of being thrown in Prison, not jail but prison, to silence the blog, stifle my Part One Section 24 Rights of the Florida Constitution and keep me from redressing my government for grievances.

And they did so using their public office and authority and TAXPAYER MONEY. I don’t believe a citizen can harass a government body without somehow or other of breaking the law. Yet no CRIMINAL OR CIVIL charge was forthcoming even though they had a Police Department willing to claim such a charge. The town often “jumped through hoops” including a $10,000 bounty to find me in violation of some, or any, law.

We know now that the actions of Appellees (the Town) to bring a charge of Cyber-stalking against Karin or I was ruled not viable by the State’s Attorney Office. We also know that the “harassing the witnesses” complaint in the State Criminal suit carried no weight with the State Attorney because the PTI was deemed completed shortly after the events in question.

We committed no crime and violated no constitutional provision that I know of. To complain about corruption of Appellees during their public duties is what it means to be an American. And I used that knowledge that I was committing no crime as a proof source for my actions, my completely and very legal actions.

Whether they had limited immunity or not is a case to be argued by legal minds. Whether I broke a law, whether Karin broke a law, is clearly demonstrative: We broke none.

Two police agencies, the Town and the Sherriff’s office both, tried to prove we broke a law. The State’s Attorney, no friend of ours, so found twice in no uncertain terms that we did not. Yet the trial court, at the request of the Appellees, found that our supposed harassment of the town by doing our completely legal actions to be viewed as a crime as it allowed a “tit for tat” mitigation of this Civil Rights action.

What is our right, to complain about the town and its actions and to publish such and act on such, is not criminal. It did not call for our rights to be taken so cavalierly or at all by the Government which allegedly serves us. It seems to me that they serve themselves and not the citizens.

The Trial Judge said that the History of the conflict with the Town and its agents made it okay, or mitigated if you will, in our case, “They have the right to respond” according to this trial judge. I don’t believe the government has such a right outside of a filed court case.

Let’s take two cases of the “HISTORY” highlighted by the trial judge.

In 1999 the town’s agent, Mrs. Shirley Heath, filed an injunction, a restraining order, against me. This is the famous “stick a fork in you; you’re done” letter. The local Circuit Court judge threw the restraining order out summarily for lack of basis. The town, meaning the taxpayers, paid for the prosecution.

In another case cited by the Federal Trial Judge that it was apparently not kosher to visit a series of houses to distribute a flyer. This was in 2002. How was a citizen to know that Mr. McKire’s wife was ill at the time? And I never went to his door but simply “left the flyer in his gate.” There are no witnesses that have or can say otherwise either in 2002 or today. Yet the Trial Judge deemed the erstwhile visit to the gate vitally important. The trial judge mentioned no laws that I or Karin broke or misapplied yet found the History to be determinative.

I believe the case falls directly in the sphere of Bennett v. Hendrix, 423 F.3d 1247, 1255 (11th Cir. 2005). The trial court barely looked at that case.
1. We stated a claim of retaliation by the town of our right to complain. Our speech is protected by the Constitution but apparently not from the town or the lower court.
2. Appellee’s retaliatory actions directly and positively impacted our Free Speech rights.
3. And, there was a causality of their actions and our silencing the Blog.

As to the second, (response of retaliatory actions) we clearly state that a person of “ordinary firmness”, us, Karin and I, were intimidated and cowered by Appellee’s actions of retaliation trying to arrest us for exercising our Free Speech and our right to Redress our government for grievances.

Karin and I are somewhat impervious to most town actions to subvert the law. 16 years of dealing with the corruption that is White Springs clearly shows that. BUT we didn’t want to go to Prison which is what the town wanted. Only the State Attorney, again no friend of ours, kept us out of Prison. It didn’t keep us from having to silence the Blog however or from allowing us to Petitioning our government for a redress of grievances.

We, Karin and I, did no legal wrong yet the Trial Judge said in listing of our alleged misdeeds, completely legal deeds, that the deeds were unacceptable actions and required a “tit for tat” response by the court to indemnify the “put upon Town and its officers and agents.”

I strongly disagree.

Suwannee Hardware Teamed up with SunSations – Get your Sweetheart Valentine Goodies at Suwannee Hardware


Suwannee Hardware & Feed

Suwannee Hardware & Feed
We are Proud to announce that we have teamed up with SunSations of Jasper to bring a new adventure to White Springs. Starting off with goodies for him or her for Valentines. Stop in and take a look. More coming soon.

SunSations of Jasper
386-792-3538 Suwannee

Wouldn’t we like these questions answered

Moderator: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Let’s start any one of the following questions for you Mrs. Clinton. Take your pick:

“When you left the White House after your husband’s last term as president, why did you steal $200,000.00 worth of furniture, china, and artwork that you were forced to return?

Mrs. Clinton, when you were Secretary of State, why did you solicit contributions from foreign governments for the Clinton foundation after you promised President Obama you would not?

Mrs. Clinton, why do you and your husband  claim to contribute millions of dollars to charity for a tax write off when it goes to your family foundation that gives out less than 15% of the funds you collect and you use the balance to support yourself tax free?

Mrs. Clinton, why are you unable to account for $6 billion of State department  funds that seem to have disappeared while you were Secretary of State?

Mrs. Clinton why did you say you were broke when you left the White House, but you purchased a $2 million home, built an addition for the secret service, and charge the tax payers of the United States rent in an amount to  the entire mortgage?

Mrs. Clinton why did you lie to the American people about the terrorist attack in Benghazi but managed to tell the truth to your daughter the same night it happened?

Mrs. Clinton why did you lose your law license? Why did your husband lose his?

Mrs. Clinton, what really happened to Ron Brown when he was about to testify against you and your husband?

Mrs. Clinton what really happened to Vince Foster ?

You have 2 minutes to respond Mrs. Clinton.



‘Worry looks around, Sorry looks back, Faith looks up.’

´¯`·.¸. ><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·…¸><((((º>
·´¯`·.¸. , . .·´¯`·.. ><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·…¸><((((º>

“The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil,but by those who watch and do nothing”  – Albert Einstein

A nation of sheep breeds a government of wolves!

Corruption may get easier for Governments which should please Miller and Koberlein alot

This is a sad situation indeed that consideration is being made in the Sunshine Laws  to change “shall” to “may” relating to the repayment of filing a sunshine law suit against a governmental entity.

Like Newspapers, for years the Town Attorneys’ enforced their statements that Joe Griffin would be arrested if going to meetings. There was no other option than to request information by 119 requests.   With the shall in place, most of the suits…at least 17 of 19 related to skullduggery by our local government officials.  They just didn’t feel they had to obey the law.  From threats of arrest, we had police intimidation and so on so we would not show up.  The only time we were able to contribute was when Rhett Bullard became mayor.   Prior to that former Mayor Miller would do everything she could in her conniving way along with Walter McKenzie, to show us that the law did not matter in White Springs and should you question what the officials do, the authority of the law will be against you.

In White Springs, however, there was always, except in the case against  Shirley Heath, that any suits made by Joe Griffin pro see were followed with a motion to dismiss and a judgment for thousands of dollars of attorney costs and fees.

Because most towns are run by wanna bees who did not succeed in their prior careers, some people took advantage of the law, which was unfair to the rest of us.  Yet former mayor Miller and her sidekick Koberlein did write to the Florida League of Cities complaining about Joe Griffin’s e-mails requests.  Yet the majority of these requests either pertained to things the Town did to us or numerous follow-ups for the same paperwork which would not be seen for months.

These bills which the Lake City Reporter will also affect newspapers because there will be no recourse against a corrupt government such as White Springs has been for the past fifteen years.  The only good thing is that Shirley Heath the  number one violator has retired and Robert Townsend the “he may be a pedophile but he is our pedophile” is no longer working for the town.  Yet we still have Pam Tomlinson who does not have a lot of expertise in really anything except trouble making.   It may be that the two ladies only had a GED and not a lot of training and as for Townsend, he I believe graduated from high school but did not have the expertise to run government even with the “some college” of Walter McKenzie.  The Town charter requires at least a bachelor’s degree and now we finally have a manager with the right degree.  The only thing I fear is that since our new Town manager has found so much had been done incorrectly throughout the years, in order to prove herself, she spends more time in paperwork than cleaning up Town Hall.   That constitutes her nose to the grindstone, only jumping to the Town officials without making certain that the correct things are done for the Citizens who she really serves.

What is sad is that I really believe those of the officials who are ignorant, really believe their lies.


Karin for the blog






Sunday, January 14, 2014



”Florida has a great reputation for governmental transparency.   Our Sunshine Laws are among the best in the nation for making sure state and local leaders don’t skulk around in the dark during who knows what on the taxpayers’ dime.


Problem is, these laws aren’t so easy to enforce.

Should a government agency refuse to follow the law, you just can’t call the cops.  You have to take them to court.  Since suing the government is always a daunting prospect state law balances things out by requiring the government to pay your legal fees should you win the right to see what they’re hiding.  That way you can at least break even.


It’s not a perfect system but it works.  In Florida the average citizen really can fight city hall.

But now — by swapping out a single word in state law —lawmakers are looking to effectively dismantle the entire system.

Companion bills in the Florida House and Senate would alter the provision that courts “shall” order an offending government agency to pay a citizen’s legal fees to “may” order them to do so.   

In other words, the right to public information in the Sunshine State may soon hang on the whim of a judge.

Bill Sponsors cite unscrupulous folks who game the system in hopes of reaping a windfall in court.

This in fact, a growing problem, but there are other ways to solve it.


Eviscerating the rights of everyone in wholesale fashion just isn’t the answer.


Our Sunshine laws are eroded, ever so slightly, just about every time the Florida Legislature meets.


This time it is different:

The current legislation —House Bill 1021 and Senate Bill 1220 – — would effectively end a citizen’s right in government in the Sunshine.  All the old laws would remain in place but a law with no way to enforce it isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.


This ill-conceived legislation has set off a firestorm in Florida among citizens sick and tired of skullduggery on the part of those claiming to have their best interests at heart.


We can only hope the folks we sent to Tallahassee to represent us – – – Sen. Charlie Dean and Rep. Elizabeth Porter – – – realize what a grave threat this is to our right to know.


We will follow this important matter with care.”



A. Employee to the General Public:
Every employee of the Town of White Springs should realize that the Town exists to serve its citizens. Every citizen is entitled to fair and courteous service.


Service includes following the laws of the State of Florida including Florida Statute 119 Requests and Responses, such as they are.


STANDARD OF REVIEW: This Court reviews an order granting

summary judgment de novo, applying the same legal standards that bound the district court. See, Alves v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Georgia,
804 F.3d 1149, 1159 (11th Cir. 2015).
This case falls squarely within the rule of law established by this Court in Bennett v. Hendrix, 423 F.3d 1247, 1255 (11th Cir. 2005) (“This
Court and the Supreme Court have long held that state officials may not retaliate against private citizens because of the exercise of their First Amendment rights.”); See, also, Larosa v. City of Sweetwater, 2014 WL
4793001 at *3 (S.D. Fla. 2014) (“[L]aw enforcement officers may not retaliate against citizens for exercising their Free Speech rights.”); Smith v.
Gilchrist, 749 F.3d 302, 308 (4th Cir. 2014), quoting Suarez Corp. Indus. v.

McGraw, 202 F.3d 676, 685 (4th Cir. 2000) (“Not only does the First

Amendment protect freedom of speech, it also protects ‘the right to be free from retaliation by a public official for the exercise of that right.’”). The record solidly backs up Appellants’ claims that the Town and its officials retaliated against them for the harsh criticism published on their political blog (The White Springs Journal) and because of their frequent public records requests inquiring into Town affairs. The retaliation took the form of a police investigation, including an interrogation at the Appellants’ home. That investigation was accompanied by an organized campaign to have the Appellants arrested and to have Mr. Griffin’s pretrial intervention agreement (in an unrelated matter) revoked. That campaign included direct lobbying of the State Attorney, pressure on the investigating officer to arrest the Appellants, and repeated inquiries to the prosecutor’s office, all of which eventually led to the revocation of the PTI agreement. The record shows that the Town’s officials used these instruments of power for the specific – even admitted purpose – of censoring the Appellants’ speech. Not surprisingly, the Appellants were cowed by this government pressure: Mr. Griffin resigned as editor of The White Springs Journal, the editorials in that publication were “toned down” and the Appellants discontinued their public records requests.
Bennett tells us what is necessary in order to state a claim for

retaliation in violation of First Amendment rights:

To state a retaliation claim, the commonly accepted formulation requires that a plaintiff must establish first, that his speech or act was constitutionally protected; second, that the defendant’s retaliatory conduct adversely affected the protected speech; and third, that there is a causal connection between the retaliatory actions and the adverse effect on speech.

Id. at 1250. The core of the Bennett decision is its discussion of the standard

which must be met in order to prove the second element of the test – that the retaliatory conduct actually affected speech rights. Bennett adopted the
“reasonable firmness” test which had already been implemented by almost all of the Federal Courts which had considered that question:
[T]oday we expressly adopt the following standard: A plaintiff suffers adverse action if the defendant’s allegedly retaliatory conduct would likely deter a person of ordinary firmness from the exercise of First Amendment rights.
Id. at 1254. This well-developed record shows that Appellants’ complaint

fell squarely within the Bennett standards and that the undisputed facts

supported their claim.

The District Court never even cited to Bennett when it concluded that

Appellants’ First Amendment rights had not been violated. (See, Doc. 48, generally). The trial Judge reached the wrong result because he confused the ends with the means. There is nothing in Bennett to suggest that the
particular means by which the constitutional violation is effected has any


significance to the cause of action. If the government and its officials intend to censor speech, and they take action which has that actual effect, Bennett
would sustain a First Amendment claim for retaliation. After all, government is endlessly creative and has numerous levers of power; it can come up with many ways to convince citizens to abandon their political advocacy. Coercion can be accomplished through arrest and prosecution citizen- activists without probable cause,6 through illicit pressure against third parties who do business with the speaker,7 or even the retaliatory denial of an ordinary building permit.8
When we examine the Bennett decision, we see that it is the end result

of the illicit government action which is most important, not the means
6 See, e.g., Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (Plaintiff stated a claim that a special prosecutor violated the First Amendment by investigating and arresting him in retaliation for publishing articles criticizing public officials).

7 See, e.g.,, LLC v. Dart, 807 F.3d 229 (7th Cir. 2015) (Appellate court directed an injunction against a county sheriff for imposing an informal prior restraint on speech by sending letters to credit card companies requesting that they stop processing payments to a classified advertising website).

8 See, e.g., Nestor Colon Medina & Sucesores, Inc. v. Custodio, 964 F.2d
32 (1st Cir. 1992) (Litigant stated a First Amendment claim where government denied a permit for waste disposal facilities in retaliation for his political views, including criticism of government’s stance toward environmental protection).


chosen to reach those ends. We also see that facts and context are all- important and must control over any pre-conceived limits on liability:
The defendants contend that “something more than the mere retaliatory act is necessary to give rise to an actionable claim.” Appellants’ Brief at 12. They are correct, but as we have explained, the “something more” is an adverse effect, and “adverse effect” depends on context. Specifically, private citizens must establish that the retaliatory acts would deter a person of ordinary firmness from exercising his or her First Amendment rights.

Id. at 1252 (emphasis added).

Instead of following the fact-sensitive analysis required by Bennett,

the trial Court took a narrow and formulaic approach to Appellants’ claims. The Judge concluded that a police investigation can never provide the basis for a civil rights suit based on violation of the First Amendment even if that investigation is based on false information and conducted with the intent to squelch the speech rights of citizens. The heart of the trial Court’s rationale appears in these few lines:
The Court was not persuaded that the investigation, even if the defendants knowingly tainted it through the inclusions of inaccurate information, rose to the level of a First Amendment violation. [Referring to Rehberg v. Paulk, 611 F.3d 828 (11th Cir. 2010)]. The fact that the defendants also tried to use the investigation to persuade the State Attorney to prosecute one of the plaintiffs did nothing to change the court’s conclusion. Id. at 857.

This case presents a similar situation to Thompson, as the

Griffins allege that Defendants presented false information to Deputy Fouraker, who then conducted a criminal investigation, which resulted in a request from Deputy Fouraker and Chief Rodriquenz to the State Attorney for the Griffins’ prosecution. The Griffins point out that the investigation was prompted by Defendants’ distaste for the Griffin’s public record requests and blog entries. Even assuming that as true, Defendants’ motivation, however impure it may have been, does not alter the state of the law that a criminal investigation is not a violation of Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. As a criminal investigation is not a violation of Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights, Defendants’ criminal investigation did not violate Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights.

(Doc. 48 at 15-16)

In staking out this extreme position, the trial Court erred in two respects. First, there is no principled reason why a retaliatory police investigation could not lead to a conclusion that First Amendment rights have been infringed. See, e.g., Anderson v. Davila, 125 F.3d 148 (3d Cir.
1997) (discussed at length, infra). Using the police as an instrument of intimidation is merely a tactic. The Court should also have inquired about the government’s censorial purpose and the actual result of that misuse of government authority.
Second, the trial Court did not recognize that the actions complained of here went far beyond a simple police investigation and included, inter alia, the active lobbying of the State Attorney with the aim of forcing a
revocation of a pretrial intervention agreement. That lobbying effort was not 18

haphazard but was admittedly calculated to lead to Mr. Griffin’s incarceration. The PTI agreement was in fact revoked and Mr. Griffin came perilously close to being imprisoned on felony charges.

home schooled

Most of our generation 50+ was HOME SCHOOLED in many ways.
1. My mother taught me TO APPRECIATE A JOB WELL DONE 
“If you’re going to kill each other, do it outside.  I just finished cleaning.”
2. My mother taught me RELIGION.
“You better pray that will come out of the carpet.”
3. My father taught me about TIME TRAVEL.
If you don’t straighten up, I’m going to knock You into the middle of next week!”
4. My father taught me LOGIC.
” Because I said so, that’s why.”
5. My mother taught me MORE LOGIC .
If you fall out of that swing and break your neck, You’re not going to the store with me.”
6. My mother taught me FORESIGHT.
“Make sure you wear clean underwear, in case You’re in an accident.”
7. My father taught me IRONY.
“Keep crying, And I’ll give you something to cry about.”
8. My mother taught me about the science of OSMOSIS .
“Shut your mouth and eat your supper.”
9. My mother taught me about CONTORTIONISM.
“Just you look at that dirt on the back of your neck?
10. My mother taught me about STAMINA.
“You’ll sit there until all that spinach is gone.”
11. My mother taught me about WEATHER.
“This room of yours looks as if a tornado went through it.”
12. My mother taught me about HYPOCRISY.
“If I told you once, I’ve told you a million times. Don’t exaggerate!”
13. My father taught me the CIRCLE OF LIFE.
“I brought you into this world, and I can take you out…”
14. My mother taught me about BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION .
“Stop acting like your father!”
15. My mother taught me about ENVY.
“There are millions of less fortunate children in this world who don’t have wonderful parents like you do.”
16. My mother taught me about ANTICIPATION.
“Just wait until we get home.”
17. My mother taught me about RECEIVING.
“You are going to get it from your father when you get home!
18. My mother taught me MEDICAL SCIENCE.
“If you don’t stop crossing your eyes, they are going to get stuck that way.”
19. My mother taught me ESP.
“Put your sweater on; don’t you think I know when you are cold?”
20. My father taught me HUMOR.
“When that lawn mower cuts off your toes, don’t come running to me.”
21. My mother taught me HOW TO BECOME AN ADULT .
“If you don’t eat your vegetables, you’ll never grow up.”
22. My mother taught me GENETICS.
“You’re just like your father.”
23. My mother taught me about my ROOTS.
“Shut that door behind you. Do you think you were born in a barn?”
24. My mother taught me WISDOM.
“When you get to be my age, you’ll understand.
25. My father taught me about JUSTICE .
“One day you’ll have kids, And I hope they turn out just like you!”
This was only sent to the older crowd because the younger ones would not believe we truly were told these “EXACT” words by our parents

I’m 73 and I’m Tired       

This should be required reading for every man, woman
and child in the UK , in the U.S.A, Canada ,
Australia and New Zealand

  Robert A. Hall

I’m 73

Except for one
semester in college when jobs were scarce and a
six-month period when I was between jobs, but
job-hunting every day, I’ve worked,
hard,  since I was 18.
Despite some health challenges, I still put in
50-hour weeks, and haven’t called in sick in
seven or eight years. I make a good salary, but
I didn’t inherit my job or my income, and I
worked to get where I am. Given the economy,
there’s no retirement in sight, and I’m tired.
Very tired.

I’m tired
  of being told
that I have to “spread the wealth” to people who
don’t have my work ethic. I’m tired of being
told the government will take the money I
earned, by force if necessary, and give it to
people too lazy to earn it.

I’m tired
   of being told
that Islam is a “Religion of Peace,” when every
day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men
killing their sisters, wives and daughters for
their family “honor”; of Muslims rioting over
some slight offense; of Muslims murdering
Christian and Jews because they aren’t
“believers;” of Muslims burning schools for
girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims
to death for “adultery;” of Muslims mutilating
the genitals of little girls; all in the name of
Allah, because the Qur’an and Shari???a law tells them to.

I’m tired
   of being told
that, out of “tolerance for other cultures,” we
must let Saudi Arabia use our oil money to fund
mosques and madrassa Islamic schools to preach
hate in America and Canada, while no American
nor Canadian group is allowed to fund a church,
synagogue or religious school in Saudi Arabia to
teach love and tolerance..

I’m tired
   of being told I
must lower my living standard to fight global
warming, which no one is allowed to debate. 

I’m tired   of being told
that drug addicts have a disease, and I must
help support and treat them, and pay for the
damage they do. Did a giant germ rush out of a
dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder up
their noses while they tried to fight it off?

I’m tired
   of hearing
wealthy athletes, entertainers and politicians
of both parties talking about innocent mistakes,
stupid mistakes or youthful mistakes, when we
all know they think their only mistake was
getting caught. I’m tired of people with a sense
of entitlement, rich or poor.

I’m real tired
   of people who
don’t take responsibility for their lives and
actions. I’m tired of hearing them blame the
government, or discrimination or big-whatever
for their problems.

Yes, I’m damn tired
. But I’m also glad to
be 73.. Because, mostly, I’m not going to have
to see the world these people are making. I’m
just sorry for my granddaughters and grandsons.

Robert A. Hall is a Marine Vietnam veteran who served
five terms in the Massachusetts State Senate.

There is no way this will be widely publicized, unless
each of us sends it on!
This is your chance to make a difference.
“I’m 73 and I’m tired.” If you don’t forward this you

are part of the problem.





One of the things Stacy promised us is that she would keep the Council informed on the progress of the budget. In mid December, five weeks ago, I sought a copy of the latest budget summary ending at the end of December. So far the document has not been forthcoming. That’s almost three weeks.

One would think that the time to advise the Council and the citizens about the budget summary would be in the Council’s Briefing Packets sent out to selected citizens prior to each council meeting. But such is not the case.

One wonders who is teaching whom. Is Stacy teaching the corrupt Pam how to do things right or is Pam teaching Stacy how to hide information from the Council and the citizens?

We’ve sung the praises of Stacy loud and hard over the four months she has been here but now documents requested are not forthcoming, just like the bad old days before she got here. I hope she hasn’t gone over to THE DARK SIDE and come to the conclusion that the citizens are not allowed to know what is happening with their government.

It is no secret that I believe the town is CORRUPT AS CAN BE. Stacy’s lack of actions in providing full disclosure to the citizens leads me to believe that perhaps she has gone over, protecting the town at the expense of the citizen’s right to know.