bad vibes

[John]

Who chose the members of the board?

I choose all 5. We were supposed to go to 7.

So, if there is any "fault" it can rest fully on me.

But why did they (individually) want to get involved with Peaceful Assembly Church?
What were (individually) their true motives - back then?
Why (individually) Peaceful Assembly Church?

Right now I'm exhausted, but soon I should talk about each of the board members' strengths, and why I choose each of them.
They are each still exhibiting those strengths, and I appreciate that.
But, I am left wondering if they really did not ever know me at all. Where they going to change me to their ways?

Did I ever really know them?

[blackie]

According to the Selectboard, they aren't "allowed" to accept anything less than full payment (but they can accept installments), and they aren't "allowed" to charge less than 18% interest.

Sure, the interest rate is set in the statues. I would think the way they can accept less than full payment is to issue an abatement. But you have to apply for those.


A good warrant article to try to pass would be one that would allow the selectmen to work with people who lose property because of a tax lien.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/V/80/80-80.htm

    80:80 Transfer of Tax Lien. –
    I. No transfer of any tax lien upon real estate acquired by a town or city as a result of the execution of the real estate tax lien by the tax collector for nonpayment of taxes thereon shall be made to any person by the municipality during the 2-year period allowed for redemption, nor shall title to any real estate taken by a town or city in default of redemption be conveyed to any person, unless the town, by majority vote at the annual meeting, or city council by vote, shall authorize the selectmen or the mayor to transfer such lien or to convey such property by deed.
    II. If the selectmen or mayor are so authorized to convey such property by deed, either a public auction shall be held, or the property may be sold by advertised sealed bids. The selectmen or mayor shall have the power to establish a minimum amount for which the property is to be sold and the terms and conditions of the sale.
    II-a. If the selectmen or mayor are authorized to transfer such liens during the 2-year redemption period, either a public auction shall be held, or the liens may be sold by advertised sealed bids. The selectmen or mayor may establish minimum bids, and may set the terms and conditions of the sale. Such liens may be sold singly or in combination, but no fractional interest in any lien shall be sold. Such transfer shall not affect the right of the owner or others with a legal interest in the land to redeem the tax lien pursuant to RSA 80:69, or make partial payments in redemption pursuant to RSA 80:71, but the transferee shall become the lienholder for purposes of RSA 80:72 and 80:76.
    III. The selectmen may, by a specific article in the town warrant, or the mayor, by ordinance, may be authorized to dispose of a lien or tax deeded property in a manner than otherwise provided in this section, as justice may require.
    IV. Such authority to transfer or to sell shall continue in effect for one year from the date of the town meeting or action by the city or town council provided, however, that the authority to transfer tax liens, or to sell real estate acquired in default of redemption, or to vary the manner of such sale or transfer as justice may require, may be granted for an indefinite period, in which case the warrant article or vote granting such authority shall use the words "indefinitely, until rescinded'' or similar language.
    V. Towns and cities may retain and hold for public uses real property the title to which has been acquired by them by tax collector's deed, upon vote of the town meeting or city council approving the same.
    VI. For purposes of this section, the authority to dispose of the property "as justice may require'' shall include the power of the selectmen or mayor to convey the property to a former owner, or to a third party for benefit of a former owner, upon such reasonable terms as may be agreed to in writing, including the authority of the municipality to retain a mortgage interest in the property, or to reimpose its tax lien, contingent upon an agreed payment schedule, which need not necessarily reflect any prior redemption amount. Any such agreement shall be recorded in the registry of deeds. This paragraph shall not be construed to obligate any municipality to make any such conveyance or agreement.

DHMC had a tax dispute with Lebanon over a decade ago, and they reached a settlement. So it seems like tax disputes can be negotiated in NH. But maybe the Grafton selectmen don't have the authority to do that, unless there is litigation.

http://thedartmouth.com/2002/01/17/dhmc-negotiates-tax-deal/

Ending four years of costly litigation, the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center and the city of Lebanon last week announced a tentative agreement that will settle their long-standing tax dispute.

The disagreement started in March 1998 when Lebanon revoked the DHMC's tax exemption and served them with a notice stating that property taxes were due immediately. The DHMC filed a court appeal and the two parties entered into four years of expensive and sometimes bitter litigation.

As part of the agreement covering the next 20 years, DHMC will contribute $26 million, adjusted for inflation, to the city through the year 2020. The DHMC will also immediately pay $3.5 million.

In return, the city will withdraw its claims for taxes on the DHMC complex in Lebanon for tax years beginning in 1997, and will refund the DHMC $13.4 million in taxes paid to date under protest, including the income earned by the city on those funds.

"One of the most difficult things about the last four years is that the two entities that should be working together were at loggerheads," DHMC spokesperson Deborah Kimbell said. "Now that we're over this hump the city and the medical center really can work in partnership, which is what makes sense. It's what we wanted."

Lebanon will grant the DHMC charitable and educational exemptions, while the DHMC will make contributions in lieu of taxes for any taxable property acquired and converted to exempt use during the term of the agreement.

Explaining that their long-term interests are closely linked, Lebanon and the DHMC also announced in their agreement to institute measures that would create a closer and more cooperative relationship between the city and its largest employer.

Among other things, the DHMC will report annually to the city on its charitable services, and will continue to notify the public of free or reduced cost care.

The parties also agreed to meet with each other at the request of either party and to attempt to resolve any disputes over the next two decades through mediation before initiating any litigation.

Both sides said the agreement was mutually beneficial and in the best interests of the residents of Lebanon, the DHMC's patients, employees and DHMC students.

"We at Dartmouth place a very high value on our relationship with the city of Lebanon, and we take great pride in the work of the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center," President James Wright said in a press release. "I am pleased that we can now move forward together and enhance our ability to serve as a resource for the community and the region in clinical care, research and teaching."

For the agreement to go into effect, it must be signed by the Lebanon's Board of Assessors and city manager, the governing boards of the DHMC constituent organizations, and the Merrimack County Superior Court.

[Jim Johnson]

Who chose the members of the board?

I choose all 5. We were supposed to go to 7.

What was your hope when you decided to give the church to a board?

[Jim Johnson]

John, it looks like you knowingly set yourself up for a fall right from the start.

[novel]

Not getting better - - - yet.


Another unannounced/surprise meeting was held here ...
I had already made other undisclosed plans for myself ...
James came in (apparently minutes (or seconds) before their meeting was to happen) to tell me a meeting was going to happen.
I help my phone up to him and said, "You see there is no message - right?" Then I showed it to my friend and said, "You see there is no massage too - right?"

... As my friend and I were getting ready to leave, I saw that other board members were on the grounds.
As we pull out of the parking lot, another board member was hastily pulling into the parking lot...
My friend and I proceeded to an undisclosed location ...


The timing of this stuff is getting stranger and it seems to be intended to put me on the spot ... 


more later?
Peace

James emailed you about the need for an emergency meeting needed ASAP on Friday. He told you he wanted the meeting "this weekend" and "ASAP". He then told you again along with everyone else at church in person on Sunday at about 12:30PM and again at about 2:30PM as he was leaving that there was the chance of a meeting at 4PM. If you could not make it at 4PM, was that a good time to say "Please re-schedule because I cannot make it at 4PM".

You could have mentioned "this weekend is a bad time for me" on Saturday, and the meeting would have then been delayed, because patching relations with you was the purpose of the meeting.

You could have mentioned "4PM is a bad time for me" Sunday at 12:30PM when James told you there may be a meeting at 4PM that day. Again, the meeting would have been delayed because the purpose of the meeting was to patch up relations with you. The meeting was not finalized until 2:30PM, which left time for you to put off the meeting, but again, when James offered to call and find out quote exact words "whether there will be a meeting at 4", you declined that opportunity.

You could have mentioned "4PM is a bad time for me" Sunday at 2:30PM when James told you, "I'm going to find out if there is a meeting at 4PM" today. At roughly that time, the board was able to finalize the meeting at 4PM. Instead you replied that James should not use the phone during that time, although you yourself had left the service for a few minutes to talk on the phone. Is that a double standard?

When James notified the others at church about the meeting in advance by saying "there may be a meeting today at 4PM", nobody there at church said, "I would stay for that" or "I wouldn't be able to make it". Do you recall that? If not, I suppose others at the service should be able to confirm that information.

The emergency meeting was finalized somewhere from 2PM to 3PM on Sunday to be held at 4PM. At that point in time, again, you had never told anyone that this weekend would be a bad time for the emergency "ASAP" meeting designed to attempt to avoid a bad situation on the 8th. Although you were emailed Friday about the meeting, and I don't think you replied.

4PM on Sunday was suggested because the afternoon of the first Sunday of the month is the most common time the PAC board holds its meetings.

Please try and be a better listener in the future.

Your version of this is a bit inaccurate, so back at you: "Please try and be a better listener in the future."
Where did you get your quotes from? Were you listening in?  Did you record? Will you share your recording?

Who are you? Why are you hiding?
BTW- I'm recalling words, from somewhere a long time ago, about not knowing someone. I recall the word "depart."

I'm thinking that anyone at our regular Sunday meeting can point out many of your inaccuracies. I invite them to do so, although I would greatly caution about getting involved where politicians and lawyers might manipulate the conversation.
I'm thinking those at our Sunday meeting probably won't hide who they are.



As far as the incoming call which I took for as very briefly as I could:
James had answered an incoming phone call. It seemed he might be answering inquiries about me, and when James said "He is right here." I said, "Can I take that?" and James handed the phone to me.
It was a very good friend from my distant past with whom there has been no contact for a very long time. I stated that we were in our regular Sunday meeting and that I'd call back.
Since the Peaceful Assembly Church phone does not have caller ID, I did take the extra time get contact info, to check that info, and to correct it.


Peace

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say there were inaccuracies regarding when you were informed about the meeting that took place on Sunday. Fair enough. People can remember things incorrectly.

How hard did you try to ensure the meeting took place with your input, on where and when the meeting should take place, after you were informed that a meeting was wanted? For example, could you have replied saying: "Any day but Sunday is fine".

[Friday]

On the other hand, Ross is honest and ethical.  A rare thing for a lawyer.  Rudeness is definitely an issue, but given the choice between a polite crook and rude but honest, I'll take rude but honest.

I haven't read this whole thread, so excuse me if someone else has already commented on this, but for those who aren't aware: three or four years ago, Seth H. publicly accused Ross of embezzling money from his law firm while they were sharing an office space in Concord.  They were close friends at the time.  As far as I know, Seth never pursued the matter legally, but he has bank documentation (which he showed me) and a detailed story to support his claim. Several of his friends believe him and have shunned Ross ever since.  Ross disputed the claim briefly, but never bothered to share his side of the story and/or come to terms with Seth over it.

[MaineShark]

On the other hand, Ross is honest and ethical.  A rare thing for a lawyer.  Rudeness is definitely an issue, but given the choice between a polite crook and rude but honest, I'll take rude but honest.

I haven't read this whole thread, so excuse me if someone else has already commented on this, but for those who aren't aware: three or four years ago, Seth H. publicly accused Ross of embezzling money from his law firm while they were sharing an office space in Concord.  They were close friends at the time.  As far as I know, Seth never pursued the matter legally, but he has bank documentation (which he showed me) and a detailed story to support his claim. Several of his friends believe him and have shunned Ross ever since.  Ross disputed the claim briefly, but never bothered to share his side of the story and/or come to terms with Seth over it.

An accusation by Hipple is less than worthless.  He's the sort who makes other lawyers look bad.

[Friday]

Here's something that Seth H's former fiancee posted on Facebook a couple of weeks ago (reposted with her consent):

Who among you are still friends with Brandon Ross for reasons other than recon? He's a liar, sociopath, and has embezzled thousands of dollars, caused unnecessary pain and suffering, the loss of hours of valuable work time due to tracking his movements, etc. There is a ream's worth of documents to back this up, so before you claim that I'm starting drama, check yourself. I'm sick of people who claim to be my friends still seeking out this man's advice. He does not get to be redeemed by "helping further the cause of liberty", while still having never publicly apologized to Seth and Steve, or at least writing them a god damned check.
He knows he's in the wrong. He avoids events that we will be at. He's trying to lay low, so that new movers won't know, and it'll all just disappear. Well, it won't. Until restitution is made, I won't let it.
"But he never did that to me", is such bullshit. If that's the kind of sheisty community you want to build, please let me know who you are so I can unfriend you now.

[MaineShark]

Unimpressed.  And avoiding Hipple is not exactly an admission of guilt.  I usually avoid scumbags, when practical.

Ross is certainly no saint, but that's usually because he errs too strongly on the side of "obeying the rules" than others in the liberty movement would care for.  As anyone who's been around for a while knows, he and I have had several "knock-down, drag-out" arguments on the FSP forum (at one point, he even tried to get the administrators to silence me for pointing out that governmental licensing of professions - like law - is a form of racketeering).

But, it's an imperfect world, and there are no perfect lawyers.  Accusing Ross of dishonesty is ludicrous, given that his faults lie in too-great adherence to rules.

[Jim Johnson]

lawyer and dishonest... but I repeat myself

[MaineShark]

lawyer and dishonest... but I repeat myself

There are plenty of honest lawyers.

Honesty is morally-neutral, albeit ethically-valuable.  For example, if someone says, "if you don't hand me your wallet, I'll stab you" and then, when you don't hand him your wallet, does in fact stab you, we would not laud him for his honesty.

Many prosecutors, for another example, are actually honest in their enforcement of evil laws.  While there are certainly ones who frame innocents and such, many more do not.  But they are still accomplishing evil, because they are enforcing evil, and the fact that they do so in an honest manner doesn't change that.

Of course, then there are the ones who are both evil and dishonest.  They're the bottom of the barrel.

[Free libertarian]

  Q.  What do lawyers do after they die?

  A.   They lie still.

[Becky Thatcher]

  Q.  What do lawyers do after they die?

  A.   They lie still.

[Jim Johnson]

lawyer and dishonest... but I repeat myself

There are plenty of honest lawyers.

Honesty is morally-neutral, albeit ethically-valuable.  For example, if someone says, "if you don't hand me your wallet, I'll stab you" and then, when you don't hand him your wallet, does in fact stab you, we would not laud him for his honesty.

Many prosecutors, for another example, are actually honest in their enforcement of evil laws.  While there are certainly ones who frame innocents and such, many more do not.  But they are still accomplishing evil, because they are enforcing evil, and the fact that they do so in an honest manner doesn't change that.

Of course, then there are the ones who are both evil and dishonest.  They're the bottom of the barrel.

Excellent 

Now argue that the sky is not up.

[MaineShark]

Excellent 

Now argue that the sky is not up.

Why?  That would be counter-factual.