James Wettlaufer's Board of Selectmen Secretly Financed Private Lawsuit with Taxpayers Money to shut-up his Biggest Critic and lost!

Things add up and, as the saying goes, you may fool some voters some time but you can't fool every voter all the time. Fifteen years is a long time and James Wettlaufer is at the end of his rope. Too many people are no longer fooled by Wettlaufer. James-Wettlaufer-as-he-leaves-the-Court-house-in-Springfield
As another saying goes, give a dog enough rope and he will hang himself.
As I said, things add up, but I will get to that later.
The voters of Holland need to know that James Wettlaufer, chairman of the Board of Selectmen (BOS) — without notifying or asking the taxpayer — secretly financed a private lawsuit. Wettlaufer risked your money, counting on winning and getting the legal cost reimbursed by the accused, but lost. He lost big time and you the taxpayer will have to pay for it, read more»

Posted on 30 May 2014, 15:26 - Category: Ongoing And Past Litigation
Comments - Edit - Delete


Costly Appeal initiated by the Holland Selectboard under James Wettlaufer against the LaMountain’s adjudicated.

The town’s repeated attempt to deny the LaMountain’s, farmer status failed for the third time when Honorable Justice Cornelius Mortiarty II rejected the town’s request again back on April 21, 2010.
John-Adams-Court-House-in-Boston
You would think that the Board of Selectmen under James Wettlaufer got the message after the third time, but they didn’t. Wettlaufer and the rest of the selectboard appealed the ruling of Justice Mortiarty to the Appeals Court of the Commonwealth which issued its ruling in the matter on June 26, 2012,
read more»

Posted on 6 Jul 2012, 00:18 - Category: Ongoing And Past Litigation
Comments - Edit - Delete


Johnson’s “Entitlement Mentality” At Its Best.

SCARY...-the-real-BRIAN-J-JOHNSONDuring the still ongoing hearing on my request to the Palmer District Court to issue a “Criminal Harassment Prevention Order” for my protection against Brian Johnson, Brain’s “Super Liar” Tani Sapirstein failed with her request to suppress my audio-recording form going into evidence.
Together with upcoming testimony by Officer Jeffrey Forcier from the HPD, the recording will prove to the Court that Brian Johnson did not only lie to the police to stay out of trouble, he falsely accused me of having made a death threat towards him (a crime in Massachusetts)!
Just three days after honorable Justice Patricia Poehler heard the audio recording, Sapirstein filed a civil suit on behalf of Brian Johnson, claiming that Johnson suffered (unspecified) damages. In the process, Sapirstein, for the second time, tried to dupe the court and did so with an outright lie. She even wants ME to pay for her efforts. On July 15, 2011, I filed a request in Palmer District Court to have Tani Sapirstein sanctioned for violating her attorney's oath, read more»


Posted on 20 Jul 2011, 10:52 - Category: Ongoing And Past Litigation
Comments - Edit - Delete


James P. LaMountain exonerated again, this time by Justice Moriarty II.

Honorable-Justice-Cornelius-J-Moriarty-II The Selectboard, represented by Super Lawyer Tani Sapirstein, didn‘t get their way in Court.
Superior Court Justice Honorable Cornelius J. Moriarty II, denied the town‘s request for a permanent injunction to enjoin the LaMountains‘ from open burning of brush and issued his ruling the following day.
Justice Moriarty‘s ruling was again - for the third time on this question - in favor of the LaMountains‘, and once again the three men holding the highest office in our town were the ones on the wrong side of the law. What do they care, the majority doesn't seem to mind paying for it all...

The Ruling by the Superior Court is another embarrassing defeat to our “leaders.”
Read more»


Posted on 26 Apr 2010, 00:01 - Category: Ongoing And Past Litigation
Comments - Edit - Delete


Former Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly scolded Holland selectboard for by-law change restricting farm activities.

Demonstration-of-a-novelty,-the-first-steam-powered-saw.
A lot of the taxpayer’s money is spent in an attempt to prove what chairman of the Board of Selectman James Wettlaufer can’t let go of; that James LaMountain after all is just a farmer.

A letter mailed from the Attorney General’s Office sheds new light on the controversy, the former Attorney General scolded town officials for their proposed by-laws which are “inconsistent with State Law,” if necessary special permits would be denied to applicants!

What's up with that steam powered saw?

What else does the letter from the GA’s office say?

Click here and find out»


Posted on 21 Feb 2010, 18:54 - Category: Ongoing And Past Litigation
Comments - Edit - Delete


Wettlaufer’s BIG GUN pleads “Public Safety.”

Last Thursday, January 28, 2010, the three members of the Board of Selectmen, James Wettlaufer, Earl Johnson, and Christian Petersen, did what they do best; wasting money by litigating void cases.
Bully Wettlaufer hired “Big Gun” Super Lawyer Tani Sapirstein to replace Super Lawyer Nancy Pelletier. Super Lawyer Nancy Pelletier lost her last case for the town of Holland in the Appeals Court of the Commonwealth. Super Lawyers have typically an hourly rate of $350.00- to $650.00. What happened to our town counsel Vincent McCaughey? Not good enough? The showdown against the LaMountain family and Northeast Concepts Inc. will continue in Superior Court today, Monday February 1, 2010. Read more»

Posted on 1 Feb 2010, 00:01 - Category: Ongoing And Past Litigation
Comments - Edit - Delete


Wettlaufer, Johnson, and Foster defeated again; when will they stop wasting money?

Several town officials and town employees together with DEP officials spent the last two days in Palmer District Court and Hampden Superior Court. Super lawyer Tani Sapirstein was also present in Superior Court, all paid for by the taxpayers of Holland.
The DEP officials had nothing, absolutely nothing to substantiate their allegations of criminal missconduct! Another case against LaMountain was dismissed without LaMountain having to rebut any allegations or calling any of his own witnesses! Read more»

Posted on 17 Dec 2009, 00:01 - Category: Ongoing And Past Litigation
Comments - Edit - Delete


James LaMountain filed his next lawsuit.

On the heels of Superior Court Judge Ford's $150,000.00 fine due to a default judgment, LaMountain filed his next lawsuit in Federal Court alleging violations of his civil rights. James Wettlaufer and two DEP officials are named as defendants. Read more»

Posted on 10 Dec 2009, 00:34 - Category: Ongoing And Past Litigation
Comments - Edit - Delete


What really happened...

Farmer-with-one-legged-milking-stool
One of Mark Twain's most remembered aphorisms is,
“If you don’t read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed.”
It takes time to research a story, and it takes time to read a story and not just the headlines.
The Holland Blog offers you the real story and backs up its claims with original documents and photographs.
A newspaper can’t offer you links to original documents to back up a story.
If you take a few minutes, you will learn what really happened and who the real bad guys are. Don’t believe headlines, see for yourself and trust Mark Twain... read more»

Posted on 29 Nov 2009, 11:06 - Category: Ongoing And Past Litigation
Comments - Edit - Delete


He is too a farmer

Peter-

I was doing some research and I stumbled upon this “DEFINITION OF A FARMER” from our own Massachusetts General Laws. I thought you should post it on your blog.

DEFINITION OF FARMER

M.G.L. Chapter 90 §1:

“Farmer”, a person substantially engaged in the occupation of farming which shall include, but not be limited to, farming in all its branches, the cultivation and tillage of the soil, dairying, the production, cultivation, growing and harvesting of any agricultural, aquacultural, floricultural or horticultural commodities, the growing and harvesting of forest products upon forest land, the raising of livestock including horses, the keeping of horses as a commercial enterprise, the keeping and raising of poultry, swine, cattle and other domesticated animals used for food purposes, bees, fur-bearing animals, and any forestry or lumbering operations, performed by a farmer engaged in agriculture or farming as herein defined, or on a farm as an incident to or in conjunction with such farming operations including, but not limited to, preparations for market, delivery to storage or to market or to carriers for transportation to market.

So… forestry is considered a farming activity! Why do certain members of the Select Board think (in error) that it is not? Why do they try to insist that Mr. LaMountain is not a farmer? Unless you are a moron, you can clearly see by this definition that James LaMountain does indeed meet the definition of a farmer. If it LOOKS like farming… if it SMELLS like farming…by Gosh…it MUST BE FARMING!!

The LaMountains sell cord wood, they raise chickens, pigs and cows, they also sell organic meat ( I assume the chickens pigs and cows they raise….) The LaMountain’s raise these animals while maintaining healthy living environments for them. This is not how the meat you buy at the grocery store gets treated before being wrapped in plastic with a freshness CO2 absorber to keep the meat looking red and fresh. Those farmers are guilty of overcrowding and frequent e-coli contamination.

I will say it again, with emphasis: If it looks like farming…. If it smells like farming… it doesn’t matter if it is large scale (overcrowding and e-coli contamination) or small scale (self sufficient, organic, open space and healthy to the animals) IT IS STILL FARMING!

S.D. (name withheld by the Holland Blog)

Posted on 17 Nov 2009, 21:06 - Category: Ongoing And Past Litigation
Comments - Edit - Delete


Record Keeping at the Planning Board

Draft-of-the-Planning-Board-meeting-of-October-13-2009
M.G.L., c.39, s.23B provides in part: “A governmental body shall maintain accurate records of its meetings, setting forth the date, time, place, members present or absent and action taken at each meeting, including executive sessions.” c.66, s.5A further prescribes the Board’s obligation to keep records of meetings. The picture on the left shows an image of the actual draft of the minutes to the Planning Board meeting held on the 13th of October. The Draft does not mention any actions taken besides the approval of the minutes of the previous meeting. What is going on with the Planning Board and how did I end up with this draft?
Read more to find out»


Posted on 4 Nov 2009, 00:01 - Category: Ongoing And Past Litigation
Comments - Edit - Delete


Pages: [1] [2] [3]