DISQUS

In fact, I would go one step further, and suggest that it is actionable. The only thing that will stop Teeboom from doing this is from someone actually bringing litigation. Perhaps that will smarten him up, or remove him from office before it costs us plenty covering his big mouth.

I second that, Paul.

DC, This isn't a healthy foot blog, it is a fashion blog. You would probably like www.docmartens.com, but they aren't about fashion, they are about foot health.
I wear mephisto's in the house, and towering heels out in the world. Love both.

The point on the purple shoe that was missed by the way, it is Payless's answer to color blocking on heels this season.

Hands down the best sushi in the city. Ditto for the curry. Never a letdown, always amazing. If you don't try the salmon pop you need to have your head examined. You will be haunted not only in your dreams, but most times your tummy growls they will waft through your memory.

Softball headline Telegraph. So, not related, but was groomed. How old was the child this man allegedly aggravated feloniously sexually assaulted, then again, and again and again? Reads differently that way, doesn't it ?
I am curious why it is so down played?

Here is the actual definition, pretty scary:
632-A:2 Aggravated Felonious Sexual Assault. –
I. A person is guilty of the felony of aggravated felonious sexual assault if such person engages in sexual penetration with another person under any of the following circumstances:
(a) When the actor overcomes the victim through the actual application of physical force, physical violence or superior physical strength.
(b) When the victim is physically helpless to resist.
(c) When the actor coerces the victim to submit by threatening to use physical violence or superior physical strength on the victim, and the victim believes that the actor has the present ability to execute these threats.
(d) When the actor coerces the victim to submit by threatening to retaliate against the victim, or any other person, and the victim believes that the actor has the ability to execute these threats in the future.
(e) When the victim submits under circumstances involving false imprisonment, kidnapping or extortion.
(f) When the actor, without the prior knowledge or consent of the victim, administers or has knowledge of another person administering to the victim any intoxicating substance which mentally incapacitates the victim.
(g) When the actor provides therapy, medical treatment or examination of the victim and in the course of that therapeutic or treating relationship or within one year of termination of that therapeutic or treating relationship:
(1) Acts in a manner or for purposes which are not professionally recognized as ethical or acceptable; or
(2) Uses this position as such provider to coerce the victim to submit.
(h) When, except as between legally married spouses, the victim is mentally defective and the actor knows or has reason to know that the victim is mentally defective.
(i) When the actor through concealment or by the element of surprise is able to cause sexual penetration with the victim before the victim has an adequate chance to flee or resist.
(j) When, except as between legally married spouses, the victim is 13 years of age or older and under 16 years of age and:
(1) the actor is a member of the same household as the victim; or
(2) the actor is related by blood or affinity to the victim.
(k) When, except as between legally married spouses, the victim is 13 years of age or older and under 18 years of age and the actor is in a position of authority over the victim and uses this authority to coerce the victim to submit.
(l) When the victim is less than 13 years of age.
(m) When at the time of the sexual assault, the victim indicates by speech or conduct that there is not freely given consent to performance of the sexual act.
(n) When the actor is in a position of authority over the victim and uses this authority to coerce the victim to submit under any of the following circumstances:
(1) When the actor has direct supervisory or disciplinary authority over the victim by virtue of the victim being incarcerated in a correctional institution, the secure psychiatric unit, or juvenile detention facility where the actor is employed; or
(2) When the actor is a probation or parole officer or a juvenile probation and parole officer who has direct supervisory or disciplinary authority over the victim while the victim is on parole or probation or under juvenile probation.
Consent of the victim under any of the circumstances set forth in subparagraph (n) shall not be considered a defense.
II. A person is guilty of aggravated felonious sexual assault without penetration when he intentionally touches whether directly, through clothing, or otherwise, the genitalia of a person under the age of 13 under circumstances that can be reasonably construed as being for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification.
III. A person is guilty of aggravated felonious sexual assault when such person engages in a pattern of sexual assault against another person, not the actor's legal spouse, who is less than 16 years of age. The mental state applicable to the underlying acts of sexual assault need not be shown with respect to the element of engaging in a pattern of sexual assault.

Oh please, how long has Lori worked for the orphanage, what a big set up for greener pastures? She has been here, gone, and now she is back. The whole time, at the Orphanage. Or the housing athority. Yes, she is looking for an angle, she is soooo obvious *scarcasm*. Go smear someone else, you are barking up the wrong tree here.

The number doesn't count to most, until it is your house. Thanks for saving mine NFD!

Yes, and some folks say something else, they say that the Nashua Taxpayers Association is now run by a few well known slumlords, such as president and number one letter to the editor writer David Gleneck. The rest are scared seniors who Teeboom and Gleneck told are going to lose their homes, like David Peirce, who do the grunt work, but do not contribute financially. Or small contributors like Lucille Lapinskas, who Dan Richardson would tell that they were going to up her taxes until she couldn't keep their home. Rather good cover for those who like to contribute more than legally allowed. Nashua doesn't take a home from a senior, they will put a lien, up 85%. These guys don't tell them about that, or about reverse mortgages, or zero interest HUD loans for upkeep, instead, they scare them.
If this is a REAL organization, why can't any Nashua Taxpayer join? Look into that, Telegraph. There is your dirty money story, elders played by the slumlords.

You completely miss the point. Do you understand the gravity of the remarks of the Nashua Taxpayers Association? Do you know who is on it? No, because it is secret. However, a couple of folks have outed themselves. Such as the slumlord, David Gleneck, who speaks at nearly every meeting. He is the man who had Bernie Streeter lean on Code Enforcement when cease and desist signs were posted on his illegal apartments. You read about it here, because the paper covered it. Nelson Ortega has to jump through the hoops that the bought by the Nashau Taxpayers Association (read: slumlords interested in ZERO investment in our community) tell him/her to do. Remember when Teeboom said "I spent money on xyz for the campaign, I mean, the Nashua Taxpayers Association spent money on...ha ha ha..." Yeah, wink, wink, nod, nod. Teebom loves to gloat that it is untraceable PAC money. Secret membership means that it can get around the law, of limits by an individual, and that is scary that he thinks it is great. But Mr. Gleneck and Mr. Teeboom had a huge problem that Lori Wilshire would have a vested interested in her conflict of interest for the special groups she is affliated with. What group you ask? Oh right, the Orphanage. That one blew up when folks could name the "unnamed" ominously alluded to "interest"

Whatever a politician accuses another of doing is something they are doing themselves in my experience with some Nashua Pols. Remember the "debate" for Alderman at Large? And when the woman who refused to go on was told her signs, paid for by Teeboom via the Nashua Taxpayers Association would promptly be reposessed, she caved. He did this in the auditorium, at the door, loud enough for most to hear. And yes, the paper covered that too. Or Dan Richardson, (who lied about making a Master Plan in the letter HE wrote to the editor), who's sole campaign money last election was from, shocker, the Nashua Taxpayer Association, who financed his website, and an Anti-McCarthy piece for the paper.
At least the union members are public information. What does David Gleneck get for his money? Illegal apartments forgiven, Code immunity aside. Seriously, someone needs to dig here.

You ever want to fire someone, go straight to the expense reports with a fine tooth comb. In the private sector, a nickel mistake is stealing, and grounds for dismissal. This would NEVER fly in private business. Heck, I would still be in a flying around the country job if the company would have paid for my kids to come with me.

And don't forget the Needless Markup shopping trips, and the expensive outfits. Ah, I want a job like that.

I put a lot of stock in your opinion. Thank you for sharing that.

Does anyone remember why this man was sent back 4 times? What he was initially arrested for each time? Or this time? I seem to remember a gang, and a stabbing. Why aren't those details included? They generally DON"T send folks back in NH.

Liamos only had one touchdown. you put that he had two in the title in the paper