Note beer truck heading to Umass: Today is commencement for undergrads
College St (Rt 9) Amherst College graduates tomorrow but functions happen today. Note school colors on railroad underpass just shy of side entrance to college
Earthquake Relief aid for China station set up in front of Amherst Chinese (Main St)
No respect for Umass property but hey at least they are flying an American flag.
One mile east of Town Center
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Friday, May 23, 2008
Oh what a tangled web we weave
Click to enlarge: Awad letter on left although I have one over on the right
Okay, so as of close of business Friday they have not "removed the homestead declaration" on their new South Hadley home that is twice as big and twice as expensive as the Amherst condo they are trying to sell.
Gotta love the line "We are confident that we are doing the right thing. The propriety of our actions had been confirmed by the town manager, Mr. Shaffer..." Yeah, like he’s renowned for being a bastion of “propriety”.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Under the rainbow
So last night as I headed to Town Meeting at 7:35 PM (five minutes late) a rainbow seemed to emanated from the Middle School location of Amherst’s legislative body.
Silly Irish me, but I considered it a good omen--hoping the first thing Town Meeting would hear is that Anne Awad had resigned, hopped on her broom and rode off into the sunset (rainbow and all).
No such luck.
Pride, indeed, goith before the fall.
Yesterday’s Gazette lead (click photo in yesterday’s post to enlarge) clearly stated the couple “have reversed course, declaring their Amherst home their primary residence.”
So what did they do, shout it from the doorstep of their new home in South Hadley? Because according the landrecords.com the official Registry of Deeds website that is almost instantly updated daily they have not rescinded their Homestead declaration on the South Hadley home or taken out yet another redeclaring Amherst as such.
In their Letter to the Editor coming out later this morning they claim “Our decisions about moving to South Hadley will be guided by our commitment to the community of Amherst.”
Well, it you had any commitment to Amherst you would not be moving in the first place.
And does anybody actually believe they would put their Amherst condo up for sale and buy a $310,000 home in a nearby community without intending to live there? If things were reversed—they had purchased a $165,000 (768 sq ft) condo in South Hadley while living in a $310,000 home in Amherst you could easily shrug it off as an investment, summer vacation home, or escape house to get away from demented bloggers.
So let’s start a fund to raise the money to buy their Amherst condo. And then they will be out of alibis. We can turn it into a monument to the Eighth Deadly Sin: Arrogance!
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
The noose tightens...
Frequent contributors to the Bully Commentary Page know the deadline is Monday morning 9:00 AM (even for Big Shot public officials). Thus, the whiny Letter that will appear in tomorrow’s Bulletin was written before the beleaguered couple realized folks (well… bloggers anyway) were on to the Mortgage scam.
And notice in today’s Gazette article they hide behind “no comment”--as in none of your damn business--when questioned about the mortgage agreement with Florence Savings Bank that stipulates both of them take up “primary residence” at 4 Jewett Lane, South Hadley by June 10.
As I said yesterday, they are either lying to the voters of Amherst or they lied to Florence Savings Bank on April 10 when they signed a legal document swearing they would both use the home in South Hadley as a “principal residence” by June 10.
Of course Florence Savings Bank is a federally insured bank. And it is a Federal crime to lie on a mortgage application to a bank insured through the FDIC. The Amherst Town Government act also forbids anyone convicted of a Federal crime to serve in public office.
Soooo…. we will be rid of Awad and Hubley soon enough—one way or the other!
“I/we fully understand that it is a Federal crime punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, to knowingly make any false statements concerning any of the above facts as applicable under the provisions of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001, et seq.”
As was said to disgraced British Prime Minister Nevel Chamberlain on the day he resigned: "You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go."
And notice in today’s Gazette article they hide behind “no comment”--as in none of your damn business--when questioned about the mortgage agreement with Florence Savings Bank that stipulates both of them take up “primary residence” at 4 Jewett Lane, South Hadley by June 10.
As I said yesterday, they are either lying to the voters of Amherst or they lied to Florence Savings Bank on April 10 when they signed a legal document swearing they would both use the home in South Hadley as a “principal residence” by June 10.
Of course Florence Savings Bank is a federally insured bank. And it is a Federal crime to lie on a mortgage application to a bank insured through the FDIC. The Amherst Town Government act also forbids anyone convicted of a Federal crime to serve in public office.
Soooo…. we will be rid of Awad and Hubley soon enough—one way or the other!
“I/we fully understand that it is a Federal crime punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, to knowingly make any false statements concerning any of the above facts as applicable under the provisions of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001, et seq.”
As was said to disgraced British Prime Minister Nevel Chamberlain on the day he resigned: "You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go."
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Above the law?
UPDATE: 2:30 PM Now my sources are telling me that they switched back their Homestead to Amherst after this matter became public last week. Hmmm...But they still have to explain the matter of the mortgage with Florence Savings Bank that clearly states they will reside in the home in South Hadley by June 10. Or maybe the will remortgage by then.
Request to remove Amherst Town Official for residency violation
To: ago@state.ma.us
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley
One Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108
May 20, 2008
Dear Attorney General Coakley,
According to the Amherst Town Government Act,
“A town meeting member ex officio or elected town meeting member who removes from the town shall cease to be a town meeting member.”
On April 10’Th, after winning election to Amherst Town Meeting on April 1’st, Robie Hubley signed a Declaration of Homestead on a house located at 4 Jewett Lane, South Hadley.
The notarized legal document clearly states: “I own and am possessed and occupy said premises as a residence and homestead under Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 188.”
According to the Secretary of State’s office: “A Homestead can be declared only on an applicant’s ‘principal residence’. A person can have more than one residence but the statute only allows the protection on one’s legal domicile.”
On Monday, May 12 a Town Meeting member made a “point of order” over this residency issue and after a very brief discussion Moderator Harrison Gregg squelched debate with the terse statement “That’s all we’ll deal with that at this meeting.”
Last night (May 19’th) Mr. Hubley again attended Amherst Town Meeting, sat in the member’s section and participated in a Tally Vote on a Warrant Article.
Please consider this a formal application for the Office of the Attorney General to initiate a ‘quo warranto procedure’ to remove Mr. Hubley from Amherst public office due to this residency violation.
Amherst voters in Precinct Nine have been and continue to be deprived of a representative who resides in their own District, one who shares the same experiences and possess a vested interest in that neighborhood.
The public interest requires a prompt resolution of this matter.
Sincerely Yours,
Larry Kelley
460 West St
Amherst, Ma 01002
Amherst Town Meeting Precinct 5
Amherst Redevelopment Authority
Request to remove Amherst Town Official for residency violation
To: ago@state.ma.us
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley
One Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108
May 20, 2008
Dear Attorney General Coakley,
According to the Amherst Town Government Act,
“A town meeting member ex officio or elected town meeting member who removes from the town shall cease to be a town meeting member.”
On April 10’Th, after winning election to Amherst Town Meeting on April 1’st, Robie Hubley signed a Declaration of Homestead on a house located at 4 Jewett Lane, South Hadley.
The notarized legal document clearly states: “I own and am possessed and occupy said premises as a residence and homestead under Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 188.”
According to the Secretary of State’s office: “A Homestead can be declared only on an applicant’s ‘principal residence’. A person can have more than one residence but the statute only allows the protection on one’s legal domicile.”
On Monday, May 12 a Town Meeting member made a “point of order” over this residency issue and after a very brief discussion Moderator Harrison Gregg squelched debate with the terse statement “That’s all we’ll deal with that at this meeting.”
Last night (May 19’th) Mr. Hubley again attended Amherst Town Meeting, sat in the member’s section and participated in a Tally Vote on a Warrant Article.
Please consider this a formal application for the Office of the Attorney General to initiate a ‘quo warranto procedure’ to remove Mr. Hubley from Amherst public office due to this residency violation.
Amherst voters in Precinct Nine have been and continue to be deprived of a representative who resides in their own District, one who shares the same experiences and possess a vested interest in that neighborhood.
The public interest requires a prompt resolution of this matter.
Sincerely Yours,
Larry Kelley
460 West St
Amherst, Ma 01002
Amherst Town Meeting Precinct 5
Amherst Redevelopment Authority
A matter of respect
You may not want to click to enlarge
Child pornography laws strictly forbid the publishing of sexual explicit photos (or even suggestions thereof) but it’s perfectly fine for the Daily Hampshire Gazette to publish this stark Front Page photo showing the remains of a child who suffered a violent death?
There were other--less shocking--ways to illustrate this terrible tragedy in China.
Child pornography laws strictly forbid the publishing of sexual explicit photos (or even suggestions thereof) but it’s perfectly fine for the Daily Hampshire Gazette to publish this stark Front Page photo showing the remains of a child who suffered a violent death?
There were other--less shocking--ways to illustrate this terrible tragedy in China.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)