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 moreĽ

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


Posted on 18 Dec 2009, 6:12 by Truth and law
Paul Foster going to Jail for perjury
Peter you know id you read the Verified Complaint at # 10 Paul Foster swears and affirms under the pains and penalties of perjury that


.Did Chief Foster forget about Judge Feins ruling which clearly states the laws and regulations that mandate the Chief must issue permits.

I will make a motion to take the Fire Chief into custody for his actions. Judge Fein clearly stated that open burning on our land is allowed under Mass General Law Ch 111 section 142L and 310 CMR 7.07 (3) For the fire chief to swear and affirm what he did in the verified complaint is a blatent regard and disrespect for the rule of law.
These guys led by Wettlaufer think they can tell the judge facts that have no basis in reality and the Judge will believe them because they are town officials.

Well the Judge is not buying it. On 28 January there will be an evidentiary hearing where I will call Wettlaufer on the stand and the first time he tells a lie I will have him taken into custody for making false reports. The town is already being sued in Federal Court along with Wettlaufer for their lies.

The law is pasted below for review by you liars in the town hall.. Read carefully Brian, Howard, Peeeety, and Foster. I will make the motion to have you jailed each and every time you lie to the Court.


Chapter 268: Section 1. Perjury

Section 1. Whoever, being lawfully required to depose the truth in a judicial proceeding or in a proceeding in a course of justice, wilfully swears or affirms falsely in a matter material to the issue or point in question, or whoever, being required by law to take an oath or affirmation, wilfully swears or affirms falsely in a matter relative to which such oath or affirmation is required, shall be guilty of perjury.



Chapter 268: Section 4. Testimony creating presumption of perjury; commitment; recognizance; witnesses bound over; notice

Section 4. If it appears to a court of record that a party or a witness who has been legally sworn and examined, or has made an affidavit, in any proceeding in a court or course of justice has so testified as to create a reasonable presumption that he has committed perjury therein, the court may forthwith commit him or may require him to recognize with sureties for his appearance to answer to an indictment for perjury; and thereupon the witnesses to establish such perjury may, if present, be bound over to the superior court, and notice of the proceedings shall forthwith be given to the district attorney.

Jim L


Posted on 18 Dec 2009, 6:50 by Jim L
Judge Moriarty
Oh yea. We will have an evidentiary hearing on 28 January where I will demand the that the fire chief prove each and every allegation in the complaint. One of the things wettlaufer told the Court is that we are no longer farmers but residential developers. I can't wait to get him on the stand for that. Wettlaufer says Jugge Feins ruling is wrong.

Well we have already met the burden for agriculture and certainly have not proposed any development to the town. I know maybe Wettlaufer would like us to capitulate our development rights for free.

In any event I can not wait to see Judge Moriarty again. Now where did I leave those blank subpoena forms.

Posted on 22 Dec 2009, 22:25 by LM
Perjury Charge
Hi, I am not a lawyer, but I do have some experience w/ lawyers, their tactics, affidavits and those who file them. I was reading your blog, and reading about the La Mountain lawsuits and I saw something interesting. I read that Mr. laMountain is considering a perjury charge against the Chief of the fire Department, and I read the two documents submitted by him. I found it interesting. Note that in the fist instance, the document titled Verification. The chief makes a statement that seems to say something, but when carefully read means nothing legally in relation to perjury. This first document makes some general statements which may or may not be true, but in the end he states that this is what "he believes", not that it is a fact or the absolute truth. He dutifully signs that document under penalty of perjury, but that final sentence is an opened ended out and it would never be a basis for perjury. Standard practice I would say for lawyers and their approach to such things.

What was even more interesting though is the second document which is titled as an affidavit. In this document, the chief makes more specific allegations and observations. When it comes time to certify this document though, it is simply signed "affiant further sayeth not". This is not a certification under penalty of perjury. It is nothing. What it is though is a very strong indication that the lawyer who wrote it up is attempting to protect herself from an ethics conflict. I believe that MA has the same rules as other states about lawyers submitting knowingly preparing, participating in the drafting of, or submitting falsely certified documents to a court, and this non certification would be the lawyers way around that. Why else would the first document, with its escape clause of "I believe" be properly certified, and the second document with knowing falsehoods, not be properly certified.

It would be an angle that I would pursue.

Posted on 26 Dec 2009, 7:50 by Hooked on Phonix
Not So
So If you read the complaint at number 10 you will clearly see that Paul Foster swore under the pains of perjury that neither LaMountain nor Northeast qualifies for a burning permit under any relevant law or regulation. He swore under the pains of perjury from what I read.
I also read Judge Feins ruling from the housing court when Fostter sued LaMountain for burning and lost. That spells out the laws and regulations that LaMountain and Northeast qualifies for. I hope this is highlighted to the Judge in the superior court because the town already had this case and lost. I think the Judge will be mad at the town for their continues BS and sanction them.
But I am sure the Judge will be smart enough to add up the facts.

Your Comments are welcomed, add one!

(no email-sign-up or other gimmick necessary, just start blogging away... I do not plant any cookies on your hard drive either!)
(will appear on the left under "Latest Comments"
(your name if you are brave, or alias)
Comment (goes here, 3,600 characters max! Save comment with “Ctrl” “C” so you don’t lose the text if something goes wrong)
How much is 3 times 13 plus 1 divided by 2? (please enter result)
Password (make one up and make a note so you remember it next time. Your name or alias is protected this way!)