I wasn’t sure I was going to comment on the 3-ring-circus that is the Charlestown Town Council but I simply cannot resist. And my comment is as follows:
Ishmael’s Rule of Good Governance #1: As a public offical, you are never allowed to lay your hands on any member of the public, their property or their video camera.
If you would like to call them nasty names, fine. It’s immature and childish and will probably damage your credibility, but fine. If you must sink to name calling, go ahead. It violates Ishmael’s Rule of Good Governance #11, however, it’s not a cardinal rule, so to speak. But as the saying goes, hands off the merchandise. This is America. The government cannot impinge upon free speech, squash dissent or obscure the public record. Or knock a camera out of a guys hand at a public meeting. At least not in my America. Or Willy Mason’s.
If you would like the details, the Westerly Sun has it in full page color. And if you would like to see the video, it is on Google:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3253976446657449942&hl=en
I cannot say I am sorry to see Mageau’s career (presumedly) up in smoke. The whole lot of Councilors in Charlestown should be cleared out and replaced. But Mageau is a special case, he has to go. Shame on you Councilor Mageau. Your behavior is simply disgraceful and all your pontificating and self righteousness will not convince us that you should be allowed to continue to represent Charlestown.
July 18, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Now I will say this I am a camera person and the rules are clear you do not block anyones path , youdo not hunt them down and shove the camera in their face. You should not! Especially Cliff when your married to another board member in the same town who is odds with Mageau .Cliff is prejudiced against Mageau and biased. Thus holding the camera he goes into full swing,attack mode. He is also an affiliate of the CCA group in town which openly denounces and persues Mageau . One would have to be turning a bling eye or
absolutely be part of the whole plan to one way or the other get rid of Mageau. That wrong whether one likes or dislikes the person ,it’s wrong.
It will be interesting when all the facts come out some people might find the shoe on the other foot. Dan well a restraining order should of been sought after initial incident where he mouthed of ,causing him to get fired , then went outside after Mageau pursuing him. So dan who knows cliff had his own agenda by being their to upset Mageau. Cliff and dan are savoring the moment with others bent on their course of destruction of yes Mageau.
Anyone could be their victim!
See you at youtube : msheldon22
some comments on a couple of videos require signing in.
July 18, 2008 at 6:54 pm
It is entirely possible that putting the camera in front of Mageau was designed to provoke him. But that is not illegal. He took the bait and he broke the law. There were 3 cops in the video. If Vanover was blocking Mageau, he could have asked Sergeant Dussault to intervene. But that is not what happened. Mageau saw Vanover with a camera, walked up to him (unprovoked) and knocked it away. Then he started ranting about people putting cameras in his face. And we all saw the video, there was no camera in his face until he walked into it. Vanover was completely stationary the whole time.
In retaliation for taping the meeting, Mageau and Picard refused to participate in the meeting and quorum was not achieved. Their behavior reminds me of a bad tempered 5 year old.
Mageau has sown the seeds of his own destruction. He is ill equipped to serve as a public official and has demonstrated it repeatedly. If Davidson and Vanover have teamed up to “destroy” Mageau, that is also perfectly legal. It is up to Mageau to use legal tactics to neutralize them. But you cannot hit someone or their camera unless they are presently beating you with said camera.
July 18, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Wait one minute! Cliff Vanover didn’t hunt Mageau down at all, that’s a blatant lie. Marilyn, you really do need to stop altering what really happened. If anyone watches the video, you’re not even around the area so how do you know what happened then?
August 10, 2008 at 6:18 pm
I have to assume Marilyn Sheldon is joking – because anyone who saw the video saw that the guy holding the camera wasn’t even interested in getting video of Mageau. He was trying to document an ongoing conversation that was taken out of the council chambers.
Then, as he’s standing there chatting with the town police no less, Mageau just happens to come around the corner. The cameraman is just standing there with the camera – Mageau comes right after him and tries to swat the camera to the ground.
So this Marilyn person is either joking or she’s outright fabricating her own version of what happened, even though she wasn’t there and what was captured on camera doesn’t support her version of events.
I hope she’s joking because if not she has no credibility whatsovever.
I don’t know if the Cameraman or anyone else have a bias against Mr. Mageau – but if they don’t they should. He’s a bully and a sociopath and sends hate mail to residents that handwriting experts have confirmed is his writing, and he’s filed false police charges against residents and likes to bully 80 year old town residents at council meetings. If he weren’t intent on bringing a casino to Charlestown and causing so much damage he’d be a pitiful human being.
August 10, 2008 at 7:48 pm
What you are missing is the backstory. Davidson has actively harassed Sheldon for years. Davidson was even arrested for cyberstalking Sheldon. So there is no love lost between them. The reason this comes into play is the old proverb, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Davidson is apparently now at war with Mageau. As a result of Sheldon’s prior and continuing conflict with Davidson, she has therefore chosen Mageau’s side in the current hub-bub. It’s not a wise choice. Davidson and Mageau are both unseemly, to put it mildly. If they want to go after each other, that’s great. Unfortunately, other Charlestown Councilors have apparently thrown their lot in with Davidson in opposing Mageau. This is extremely stupid on their part. Davidson was: 1. arrested on charges of cyberstalking and 2. arrested on charges of child pornography. I don’t remember how things turned out in either case, I think he plead them both out and never got any jail time.
Anyone in their right mind would stay as far away from Davidson as possible. Trying to use him as a wedge against Mageau will not only blow up in their face but completely destroy their credibility. It looks to me like weak minded people acting in desperation. And Sheldon is so angry at Davidson she side with anyone who is against him. Like I said, it’s very unwise.
As far as your comments about the hate mail to residents, I was aghast when I read that in the paper. It was vile.
August 11, 2008 at 9:44 am
From what I can recall, Mr. Davidson took what’s called an Alford plea on the cybetstalking charges, basically saying the state had enough evidence to convict him of the charges. As far as I know, nothing has come of the child porn charges yet. Good job of explaining the background story and why Ms Sheldon appears to be supporting Mr. Mageau.
August 13, 2008 at 3:54 am
Jack {John Scuncio} ? Jack be nimble, Jack be quick or Jack will be caught on the candlestick !
September 23, 2008 at 12:11 pm
People, Why do you go on talking shit about me? don’t you realize what your doing? I have know Idea who you people are but yet you talk about me as if though you know me… I don’t need my friends emailing me saying they saw people talking shit about me on some Hopkinton Blog, I don’t even live in Hopkinton! I just can’t believe people would spend there time with this crap.
iamishmael, You seem to have quite the opinion against me? Why did I ever do anything to you? I don’t even know you! Thats not fair. The things you write have little truth behind them, If you really cared about Hopkinton news, I think you would just write about hopkinton.
Please Libel is not cool, don’t go In that direction
September 27, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Mr. Davidson,
I am happy to remove or retract anything that appears libelous. However, I cannot find anything that meets the standard of libel in the above material. Please explain your position further.