Your Choice for the Most Unethical and Disgusting Elected Official in Medford, Election 2021
1)Richard F. Caraviello
---filed false charges on a constituent with the police. Caraviello was a jackass testifying in criminal court, admitted to being one of the Top 10 SOB's in front of Judge and Jury. Looked like a damn fool. If it walks like a duck... Utterly incompetent, irrelevant, illogical and immaterial
2)Zac Bears
Live from mommy and daddy's basement...next to Ed Finn - disgraced ex city clerk - Isaac Bears must be the most unemployable person in Medford. Looked like he was in his pajamaz ! (Z intentional) prior to being "sworn in." And the fact that an out-of-his-depth councilor was "sworn in" at all is the biggest swear word in Medford.
3)Jenny Graham. Who is this person? The invisible woman? Notorious Graham gained instant infamy hitching her wagon to some ex convict in the Columbus School fiasco.
4)Madame Knight, City Councilor
Union boy Adam Knight is a walking disgrace. He paired up with reprobate Matthew Paige Lieberman who threw a punch at an access TV producer outside of Alden Chambers landing on the front page of the Medford Transcript in 2010 and being removed from the disgraced access TV station's unethical and allegedly racist board of directors
If you are known by the company you keep, and Knight decides to allegedly create hate videos with Paige-Lieberman in 2015 against a politician Knight isn't fit to kiss the bare feet of, then you do the math for this upcoming election. Sleazy doesn't even begin to describe Adam Knight.
And what kind of loser doesn't beg forgiveness and say he's sorry for badgering senior members of the public he harasses at the council? He gets branded Madame Knight and doesn't do a damn thing to try to negotiate with his victims to stop the hilarious branding. Want to know Madame Knight's IQ? Just throw a pair of dice, whatever comes up is it.
5)Paul Ruseau alias Paul Comeau Jr.
He changed his name...turns out he's a convicted felon...Medford's Most Notorious Ex Con!
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
v.
PAUL COMEAU, JR.
June 19, 1997
Steven M. Houran, acting attorney general (John P. Kacavas, assistant attorney general, on the brief), for the State.
Paul Comeau, Jr., pro se, filed no brief.
https://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/1997/comeau.htm
HORTON, J. This interlocutory transfer without ruling, see Sup. Ct. R. 9, from the Superior Court (Mangones, J.) concerns 1994 amendments, see Laws 1994, ch. 224, to the statute governing petitions for annulment of criminal records. See RSA 651:5 (Supp. 1991) (the prior statute); RSA 651:5 (1996) (the new statute). Two questions have been transferred: (1) whether the plain language of the 1994 amendments demonstrates the legislature's intent to have the new statute apply to all petitions for annulment brought after January 1, 1995; and (2) whether application of the new statute to the petitions brought by the defendant would offend the prohibition against ex post facto laws of either part I, article 23 of the New Hampshire Constitution or article I, section 10 of the Federal Constitution. We hold that the new statute applies to petitions for annulment of felony convictions brought after January 1, 1995, and that application of the new statute to the defendant's petitions would not violate the ex post facto provisions of either the State or Federal Constitutions.
The defendant, Paul Comeau, Jr., was convicted and sentenced on May 29, 1991, for burglary, a class B felony, and theft by unauthorized taking, a class A felony. The defendant was under twenty-one years of age at the time he committed the offenses. The defendant's sentences included a term of imprisonment, from which he was released on July 8, 1991. The sentences in connection with both convictions were completed on July 27, 1994.
At the time of the defendant's offenses, as well as at the time of conviction and sentencing, the prior annulment statute provided in part:
If a person under 21 years of age at the time of his criminal act is sentenced to imprisonment and in any 3-year period following his release has been convicted of no other offense except a traffic offense, he may, at any time after such 3-year period, apply to the court in which the original sentence was entered for an order to annul the record of conviction and sentence.
Around 7 pm April 2, 2021 Friday
0 comments:
Post a Comment