Kennedy, Johnson, and Talbot won!

The majority of Holland voters voted for corruption;

Michael P. Kennedy 282; Ray Korny 231,
Brian Johnson 359; George Carling 175,
Nancy Talbot 278; Lynn Arnold 235.

I think nobody can help Holland,

Peter Frei

Posted on 7 Jun 2010, 20:23 - Category: Town Politics
Edit - Delete


Posted on 10 Jun 2010, 13:03 by concern
Town politics
Do people not see the roads! The conditions of the roads have steadily gone down hill in the past 10 years.

Posted on 11 Jun 2010, 5:55 by benefit of the doubt
You need to be careful Frie. How can you call Kennedy Corrupt. Yes Talbot and Johnson are corrupt as we all know , but you need to give Kennedy a chance to prove himself. I am not saying he is not corrupt. But give him the benefit of the doubt unless you have other info.

Posted on 11 Jun 2010, 11:44 by Peter Frei
To "benefit of the doubt:"
There is already a picture emerging, here are facts:
Kennedy participated in games played by the Johnson's and Wettlaufer's. During last year's caucus, Kennedy was nominated among others for the sole reason to keep control of the Planning Board. The Holland Blog reported in the piece, "2009 Town Caucus Report," the following:
Planning board:
1 (one) FIVE year term; nominees, incumbent Lynn Arnold, and Howard Fife.
1 (one) FOUR year term; nominees, Richard Polverari and Michael Kennedy.
1 (one) ONE year term; nominees, Scott Gendreau and Don Sanders Jr.
Kennedy, Five, and Gendreau, never signed nomination papers as reported in the piece, "2009 Town Election Results:"
Planning board:
1 (one) FIVE year term; elected, incumbent Lynn Arnold 169, 7, 29.
Howard Fife never signed nomination papers and his name was not on the ballot.
1 (one) FOUR year term; elected, Richard Polverari 160, 4, 41.
Michael Kennedy never signed nomination papers and his name was not on the ballot.
1 (one) ONE year term; elected, Don Sanders Jr 170, 3, 32.
Scott Gendreau never signed nomination papers and his name was not on the ballot.
One of the definitions of "corrupt" is:
"The act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses station or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others," Black's Law Dictionary, fourth edition, p. 414.
Kennedy was willing to break the law overtly by putting up his oversize election sign in plain view, an election sign that was about four times the allowed size as allowed in the Holland Zoning Bylaws. (Unlike Brian Johnson's sign which was even larger but within the provisions of the bylaws as it was on property zoned business, Kennedy's sign was not on property zoned business).
The most damaging aspect of Kennedy's election is the fact that James Wettlaufer was the one who nominated him.
Kennedy seems to have little interest in the future of the town (neither does he have a personal agenda for that matter, unlike Wettlaufer). According to his own account he does not have any knowledge about one of the most important issues the town faces, the proposed "truck stop." When asked whether he favors the truck stop, his answer was:

“I don’t know anything about the truck stop...”

Watch the video in the piece, "Meet the two candidates for the seat on the Board of Selectmen" to see for yourself.
Kennedy was also (among Wettlaufer, Johnson, and Petersen) in favor of building the low income housing for seniors and disabled individuals in a way that would require 16 variances or special permits, and an additional two easements; a proposal that was voted down 2:1 by the voters of Holland. Our senior citizens and disabled deserve better!
Kennedy is so much interested in what is going on in town that he does not even attend annual town meetings; last year's annual town meeting for instance he did not attend according to the record.
In my opinion, Kennedy will just be another puppet on strings pulled by Wettlaufer. I do not have anything against Kennedy, I’m sure that Kennedy is a nice person. Petersen is a nice person too. I’m just afraid that Wettlaufer has a personal reason to nominate Kennedy. I would be suspicious towards everybody nominated by Wettlaufer.
The majority of voters will probably never figure out that Kennedy is not a good choice, they never figured out Earl Johnson and his buddy Kevin Gleason either. Earl Johnson was screwing people for 30 years and got a standing ovation at the annual town meeting from the majority to show their appreciation.. Go figure...

Posted on 13 Jun 2010, 24:34 by Henry Abbott
I commend you for your efforts in trying to let people know of things that you feel are wrong but I have a few things to contest with this posting and several other in the past few days:
-Corruption?- How is Kennedy corrupt? By your own definition he must be creating some type of benefit for himself or someone else? Where is his gain? Who specifically gains by him being in position?
-Signage- why just know do you tell us about the sign? Why not before the election so that he would have had to take it down?
-Your picture of Brian Johnson's family- why are you taking pictures of his wife and kids? This undervalues what you are doing. This makes you look like a stalker no matter how you try to spin it. Brian Johnson is an elected official and is fair game if you don't agree with his job performance. His family has nothing to do with it
-Ray Korny- in the article "Ray Korny, Holland's New Beginning" not written by you, states not quanitifiable reasons as to why Korny was a better candidate other than he is "detail oriented". So detail oriented that his performance as dog officer lead me to see loose dogs all over Holland.

Finally, I would like to inquire as to why you don't run. Why did you not run for selectmen? You clearly feel as though you know what to do so do it. It is far easier to be a Monday Morning Quarterback than to be the one who plays on Sunday afternoons isn't it?

Posted on 14 Jun 2010, 9:40 by Peter Frei
Libel? (part 1)
I will address your last point first.
It was just a matter of time to have someone come forward with “why don’t you run?” The answer is very simple, I’m not a liar. Our politicians are a reflection of the people who elect them. People in general are not able to make good choices, hence the leadership crisis on all levels of government.
When I was running for the five year seat on the Planning Board in 2007 I went door to door and ended up talking to a neighbor of Earl Johnson. He voiced his concerns over me serving on the very Board I was suing in court. A legitimate concern you may think.
At the time the voters of Holland were told that I lost all my “frivolous” lawsuits and that I cost the town untold sums of money when in reality I had never lost a lawsuit and the one against the Planning Board was on appeal, an appeal that was decided in my favor as well.
By the way, I lost because our town attorney Vincent McCaughey lied to the Superior Court Judge. I have made this claim several times and have not been sued by him. Do you think that is libel or do you think it is true that he lied? Do you think I would make such a claim if I could not back it up?
At the same time, Earl Johnson and his clan illegally subdivided a parcel of land that was illegally conveyed to the Johnson’s without paying for it according to the D.D.111 report. And yes, the land was tax title property owned by the town of Holland.
The only selectman that I was impressed with was James Foley, he was a man that had the communities best interest at heart. A few self-serving individuals collected signatures by telling lies about him to have him recalled. After he was re-called, he was re-elected by the same community that re-called him. After he was re-elected, the community re-called him a second time, hard to believe huh?
Liars like Wettlaufer and the Johnsons’ make good politicians. That’s why they are in power, elected by our community.
I don’t have anything to gain by doing this blog other than give people like you a place to voice their opinion. If I would seek office, this claim could be questioned.
More tomorrow, I have to go now.

Posted on 15 Jun 2010, 11:10 by Peter Frei
Libel? (part 2)
Your next point I will address is your remark about Ray Korney. Ray Korney does take his time to go to the annual town meetings. He was there on May 26, 2009.
He had an opinion about the proposed truck stop.
I do believe that dog owners are responsible to keep their dogs on the leash. It is illusory to expect that a volunteer dog officer could be every where at any time.
I admit, I do not know much about Kennedy, I do not have much to go by. I do have a lot to go by if it comes to Wettlaufer, hence my emphasis on the remarks typed in bold letters in my comment above, the comment you, Henry Abbott, responded to.
Kennedy was against raising salaries of teachers at Tantasqua back in May 2009. The Holland Blog reported about the meeting in the piece "Tantasqua Teachers receive wage increase."
Kennedy proved his conservative fiscal policy by doing so; a good sign in these economic hard times. Another good sign is that he (Kennedy) seem to be aware of the fact that instead of better times, worst times lay ahead of us. A view that is not prevalent at the town hall. Howard Fife voted in favor.
More tomorrow.

Posted on 16 Jun 2010, 1:05 by Henry Abbott
Altering my post
I would like to point out that both my and your post were altered by someone.
"In my opinion, Kennedy will just be another puppet on strings pulled by Wettlaufer. I do not have anything against Kennedy, I’m sure that Kennedy is a nice person. Petersen is a nice person too. I’m just afraid that Wettlaufer has a personal reason to nominate Kennedy. I would be suspicious towards everybody nominated by Wettlaufer"
This section is not the original text of your post. I cannot however prove this since I do not run the site but I find it odd that you were challenged on something and did not reply, retract or apologize for your remarks, someone just covered them up. So I ask is that the honesty that you preach or is your site now just as "corrupt" as the local official as you claim. Or could it be that you have nothing better to do then make malicious remarks about people who are actually providing a service to their community.
I again challenge you to explain the corruption claim. Do not use the excuse that Wettlaufer nominated him. From the nonsense I have read here you haven't even proven he has anything to gain from this. Please correct me if I am wrong. Or could this be because Wettlaufer does not vote in a way in which you agree. This is what seems to be happening and this is not corruption but a simple disagreement on policy. These are very different things.
Your tone about Kennedy has also changed. Instead of being corrupt, he is now fiscally responsible?!?! Wouldn't this be something you would encourage and since Wettlaufer nominated him wouldn't this be something that Wettlaufer should be commended for not using it as a condemnation on Kennedy. The editing that has been done to your post and mine make you arguements and reasoning seems convoluted and disjointed.
Lastly, the comments I made about Korny were in regards to his civil service. I agree to both points that the owner is responsible for leasing their pet and that he cannot be everywhere at once but i would think if even volunteering he did something or made some attempt to control this issue the problem would have lessened rather than worsened. If your volunteer fire department's reponse times kept getting slower and slower you would think they did a poor job, no? So why would this be different. Or maybe we should just call it like it is and being the dog officer is not really public service and is an unnecessary position and this should not be considered a qualification for this position.
Part of the problem with politics as a whole is there is a thought that serving in some previous way makes you a better candidate. A better candidate has better ideas. Better ideas don't come from attendance. Just showing up to a meeting doesn't mean you'll do a good job it just means you showed up. Stop using this as your argument you do realise these town meetings are televised and that attendance is not necessary to be informed.

Posted on 16 Jun 2010, 10:34 by Peter Frei
Libel? (part 3)
To Henry Abbott,
You wrote, that your and other "posts were altered by someone."
Any inappropriate comments are removed in part or in its entirety, regardless who posted them, including myself. Under no circumstance will comments be altered to change their content.
In response to my claim that Kennedy failed to attend the annual town meeting in 2009, you wrote, "you do realise these town meetings are televised and that attendance is not necessary to be informed."
No, I do not realize that. Your argument is misconceived, or simply put, YOU ARE WRONG!
While annual town meetings are videotaped, they are not televised, neither live, nor later, and NEVER SHOWN TO THE PUBLIC. Surrounding towns do that, not so in the town of Holland.
I do not have the need to have the last word, I will only comment on your repeated challenge to my claim that Kennedy is corrupt.
As I pointed out, Kennedy engaged in the game so well played by Johnson and Wettlaufer, a game that undermines democracy. I laid it out in my previous comment.
These guys make a mockery out of elections. In-between elections they disseminate false information and lies about certain individuals, and at the caucus they nominate two people among themselves and only one of them files nomination papers, hence they have total control over who is elected. Kennedy participated in these "games" as outlined in my comment "Unfair?"
Disobeying laws is another form of corruption. Whether his two election signs were about 200% to 300% too large may not be a big issue to you and others. Applying laws or bylaws arbitrarily is a form of corruption.
You also claim that I have not proven that Kennedy has to gain something by being one of the selectmen.
The question may be different. The Question may be what the community has to lose with Kennedy on the Board of Selectmen.
Kennedy may turn out to be a nice bystander like Petersen is. Petersen and Kennedy are not bullies like Wettlaufer and Johnson. The Board's dynamics may change for the better. Wettlaufer is motivated as he seems to be the only one who has a strong "personal agenda" which stems from the needs of his close friend Anthony Grossi. Unfortunately, what Grossi needs and Wettlaufer promotes are not what is best for the community of Holland.
I see the danger that Wettlaufer is able to bully two bystanders. We will see if he is giving up his chair to Petersen. It would be about time!
Look at Earl Johnson, his care for his off-springs comes in form of illegally conveying town owned property and corrupting an entire town, starting with the two other selectmen who signed the deal conveying town owned property he never paid for (according to the D.D.111 report) to his family, then attempting to corrupt the building inspector Jack Keough, then corrupting the Zoning Board of appeals (one of the members was selectman Christian Petersen), corrupting the Planning Board, corrupting the Board of Assessors, and finally corrupting the Holland Police Department by repeatedly appointing Kevin Gleason. Interested readers just need to click on Johnson LandGate to the upper left on this blog. To this day, Johnson denies any wrong doing.
The corruption in this town is like a cancer, it far exceeds what is "normal" for little towns throughout New England.
More tomorrow..

Posted on 17 Jun 2010, 12:17 by Tired of Narcissus
Time for new BOS Chairman
Yes, I agree it's about time for Mr. Petersen to serve as BOS chairman. And no matter what excuse/reason(s) the other BOS may provide why Petersen shouldn't/can't be chairman - wouldn't be true because I have personally spoken to Mr. Petersen about the issue in the past - and he clearly agreed he would serve in the position - if asked to/voted to be chairman. So it's time for Mr. Wettlaufer to give up his ego hungry control and vote Mr. Petersen chairman. At least now we don't have to worry about Mr. Johnson's interference anymore. And this would definitely show where Mr. Kennedy stands - if he's a Wettlaufer puppet (as suggested) or an honest individual......

Posted on 19 Jul 2010, 22:11 by Peter Frei
Libel? (Part 4)
Sorry for not continuing with my response to Henry Abbott's comment earlier, I didn't have the time. The following criticism was included in his comment and I have not addressed it yet:
“-Your picture of Brian Johnson's family- why are you taking pictures of his wife and kids? This undervalues what you are doing. This makes you look like a stalker no matter how you try to spin it. Brian Johnson is an elected official and is fair game if you don't agree with his job performance. His family has nothing to do with it.”
A Stalker is one who stalks; the verb “to stalk” is defined as, “to pursue (a person) in a persistent, harassing, obsessive way.” Webster's Dictionary and Thesaurus.
I took the picture while I was part of the Memorial Day parade; I was not in pursuit of anybody I was walking with other members of the community from the Memorial to the Cemetery to honor the men who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country.
Brian was posing for everybody to see in front of his oversized campaign sign; it is fair to assume that it had all to do with the upcoming elections and nothing with patriotism or gratitude for our service men. Brian and his family did not walk up to the memorial and did not participate in the ceremony; I assume there was no interest by the Johnson's to do so.
All of the pictures of any members of the Johnson clan posted on this blog are pictures taken along my normal moving pattern. I did not deviate one inch from the path the parade was following. Does that look like I was in pursuit of Brian or any of his clan? Does this look like an obsessed persistent pursuit to harass members of the Johnson clan or more like an awkward situation Brian put himself into, as always? Do you think that Brian and his entourage were standing there to see the parade? Like people do for instance to see Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade in New York City?
Do you think that Brian wanted to see the fire engines of the Holland Fire Department?
Brian just knows how to create photo-ops; no pursuing is needed! I just carry my i-phone (witch has a built-in camera) while pursuing my normal life.
As far as Brian's wife goes, she made A CONSCIENCE CHOICE to involve herself by making FALSE, UNJUSTIFIED and UNSUBSTANTIATED accusations against my person in an attempt to criminalize me.
As there isn't anything she could accuse me of (other than exposing the wrongs perpetrated by her kin), she tried to declare me guilty by association.
Back in 2008, the Palmer District Court issued a restraining order against James LaMountain that forbid him to go near any of the family members of Brian Johnson's family as Brian claimed that James LaMountain made threats to harm his two children. My name is Peter Frei and not James LaMountain and I was not even near the place when LaMountain allegedly made those treats. I wrote about this feud in the piece Johnson's failed attempt to jail LaMountain.
In a sworn statement in connection with this feud between James LaMountain and the Johnsons', Brian's wife Kristen claimed:

1 James Lamountain has driven numerous times “slowly” by our house in an intimidating way (September 2008).
2 Michael Lamountain (son of James Lamountain) while out for a walk with my two children, Michael drove back and forth by myself and children to the point I was fearful for our safety, and retreated to my home.
2 Peter Frei (known friend and acquaintance of James Lamountain was found parked at the end of my personal driveway taking pictures of myself, house and property.
I can not stress enough the impact that this has had on the quality of my life and my children's life. I no longer take my children outside in my own yard to play for fear that James Lamountain or one of his friends or family could cause harm to us. I have become a prisoner in my own home, always double locking doors and windows routinely checking numerous times daily. I no longer frequent town business's for fear that I will be faced with a confrontation with any of the named above offenders. This has been an ongoing issue for months and months, I am begging the Court System to finally put an end to this so that I may resume a fear free life as the upstanding citizen that I am, and be able to rebuild a better quality of life for myself and my children.

The above written statement is written to the best of my ability and all statements are true and factual to the best of my knowledge.
Signed and dated by
Kristen L. Johnson January 28, 2009

To read Brian’s wife's entire sworn statement, click here!

Note that Brian's wife used the plural form “offenders.” There are just three individuals mentioned in her sworn statement, James and Michael LaMountain and myself.
Even so I have the right to take pictures of any house, she declares this act of taking pictures as an “offense!” As a matter of fact, I didn't even take any pictures at the time. I was there because Brian's property listing had two residences listed on one piece of property on the website. I was there to just check it out and no pictures were taken at the time. There was also nobody outside at the time other than Brian's neighbor to the right of Brian's driveway who harassed me like a Pit Bull.
Brian's wife also claimed that, I “was found parked at the end of my [Brian's wife's] personal driveway.”
According to, “Parking is the act of stopping a vehicle and leaving it unoccupied for more than a brief time.”
Her false sworn statement implies that I had exited my car and left it unoccupied at the end of her driveway. I never left the public way Stafford Road or got out of my car, I was not even close to her drive way. I did not even shutoff my engine. I just pulled over for a moment.
It is sad that the majority of voters don't see through the lies and deceit of the Johnson's. It is obvious that something permeated from Earl to Brian. That “something” is called “CORRUPTION.” I judge Brian not only for his job performance or the lack thereof; I also expose his character or lack thereof, and also the character of his kin.
Henry Abbott, back to your claim, “His family has nothing to do with it.”
As you and the reader can see now, it is not the way you think. Brian's wife made a choice to get involved and participate actively in spreading lies and making baseless false accusations to discredit me and the claims I make, to cover up the wrongdoings of the Johnson clan of which she is a part. As the old saying goes, “birds of the same feather flock together.”
Here an update about Kennedy; I do have now confirmation that Michael Kennedy not only failed to attend last year's annual town meeting, he was also not attending this years annual town meeting that took place on May 25, 2010.
Also, when asked during the candidates night whether he is in favor of call-in sessions at the end of selectboard meetings, he answered in the affirmative. He has yet to make a motion to re-instate call-in sessions at the end of selectboard meetings.
What are you waiting for Mr. selectman Kennedy?

Posted on 22 Jul 2010, 2:20 by Get a life
The fact that you responded to this guy a month later just shows you need to have the last word in things. You are acting like a child. Someone disagrees with you and fight and find foolish reasons to defend yourself. Did you really site wikipedia? If I was trying to defend myself intellegently, wikipedia is the last place I turn.

I would say that stalking describes what you do following people around taking pictures of them. OBSESSIVELY talking about them. No one said you did something illegal just creepy.

Oh by the way the LEGAL definition of parking as it pertains to you is "Parking typically is defined as "the stopping or standing of a vehicle whether occupied or not". Unless you were rolling by, which you weren't by your own admission, Kristen is correct you were parked outside her house with no real reason to be there other than to scope out info on her residence.

Keep up the good work!

Posted on 22 Jul 2010, 7:45 by Peter Frei
get a life?
I could just push the delete button and get rid of your stupid comment.
Believe me I would be just fine without the BS from the Johnsons', Wettlaufers', Lynn Arnold', Nancy Talbot, etc, etc.
If I don't expose them, nobody would.
Your "LEGAL" definition of parking, where did you get it? Out of Grimms Brothers fairy tales"?
If you do want to be taken seriously, you need to reveal your source.
I doubt that you have a copy of "Black's Law Dictionary," the most widely used source in legal matters. On page 1271 in the Fourth Edition, you would find as definition for the verb "park":
Voluntarily and temporarily to leave an automobile, especially on a street or highway, when not in use. Kastler v. Tures, 191 Wis. 120, 210 N.W. 415, 417 (Other citations omitted).
"Get a life," did you notice that the definition includes the verb "to leave?"
You also wrote, "Kristen is correct you were parked outside her house with no real reason to be there other than to scope out info on her residence."
To report about any matter, you need to observe first. That's what reporting is all about. However, It is clear that this is no real reason for Kristen and her kin. No surprise there!
It will surprise you that using the highways freely is a constitutional right for everybody; IMAGINE! Making false claims in a sworn statement is a crime..
"Get a life," signing your comment with your name also helps giving it more credibility.

Posted on 22 Jul 2010, 20:44 by get a life
Nothing said there was stupid, just not to your liking. It's clear the only real problem you have is when people don't agree with you. That's truly scary. Your not exposing anybody just trying to stir up trouble. It's sad. Is your life that unfulfilled?

And this is the actual legal term for parking as cited in Illinois law:
Example of a State Statute ( Illinois) defining the term parking

625 ILCS 5/1-156 Park or Parking

Sec. 1-156. Park or Parking. Means the standing of a vehicle, whether occupied or not, otherwise than when temporarily and actually engaged in loading or unloading merchandise or passengers.

There are exceptions to this, none of which apply to you: you were not obstructed, you were not entering or exiting a gateway and you were not directed to do so by a police officer.

Were you loading or unloading something or was your car moving. Again you are wrong you just can't admit it.

This info can be found at

Black's law can be argued that leave in this scenario leave can be interpretted as left in once place. The verb leave has multiple definitions the 5th which is "to let stay or be as specified" in this case your car was left in a state of being stopped or parked as pertains to the above definition.

But remember you didn't cite black's cited wikipedia.

Signing your comment with a name does not give it validity. Did a guy using the term "Deep Throat" to reveal Watergate make his information any less valuable. It's nonsense and you know it you just don't like being called out on things.

Lastly, I believe Henry Abbott stated that his comments and your were altered for some reason, you claim that inappropriate comments will be removed in part or in its entirety and then you threaten to delete my comments because they disagree with you and actually offer information, just information that shows the fallacy in your logic. You then call me stupid. You are a class act. Delete your own comments.

Posted on 22 Jul 2010, 21:30 by Peter Frei
"get a live", the definition of "park" I quoted out of Black's Law Dictionary" is THE DEFINITION! Any legislature of any state can deviate from the common definition or common understanding. As such, terms that deviate need to be defined in statutes as the one you quoted. We do not live in Illinois, we are in Massachusetts.
It is irrelevant anyway, you are entitled to find a car that is pulled over as creepy; I find making false statements in a signed, written statement addressed to a court of law - as Brian's wife Kristen made - creepy.
Putting labels on things and events does not change reality; you are not entitled to your own facts or truth, the truth does not take sides! Not even in Holland, the Johnsons', Wettlaufers', and others struggle with this concept..

Posted on 23 Jul 2010, 8:02 by Peter Frei
excuse me..
"get a live," you wrote in a previous comment:
"Did you really site wikipedia? If I was trying to defend myself intellegently, wikipedia is the last place I turn."
Defend myself? Why would I defend myself? I'm just telling you how it is.
The fact that you put yourself above Wikipedia is telling and may explains that you struggle with the Holland Blog.
("get a live," you couldn't even spell "intelligently" right, you are cracking me up!).

Posted on 25 Jul 2010, 21:56 by Get a life
don't throw stones
FYI...Wikipedia is a website where anyone can post information as fact. It may be true or may not until the editors get a hold of the page. The website even warns that the information inside can be misleading. So how am I putting myself above Wikipedia? If anything you would want to put yourself above wikipedia.

I struggle with the Holland Blog not because some of the information is true or not it's because you so vehemently cannot accept any type of criticism and refuse to see anything but your own perception. And that it what this is a perception. Instead of understanding why people could perceive your actions in a certain way you went on to define parking and criticize a mother for worrying about her family. You got into a pissing match with me over the term park, which I admit I probably shouldn't have started but the wikipedia thing blows my mind. My final thought on that, was your car's transmission in "park". I'm sure you'll say it wasn't. I'm sure you had your foot on the brake. You can't concede you were wrong about the Town Meetings being shown. When pushed to run, you say "I am not a liar" then run based on "truth". You said you don't have to defend youself but this is all you are doing. You post something someone disagrees and then you within hours are posting why they are wrong. Your trying to present yourself in a journalistic fashion only acting in an editorial way.

It's this unrelenting, unwavering stubbornness is the reason that people can't talk about anything substantial. I'm sure you have many a great discussions with people who see your way but from the way you act in this forum I can only imagine that the subject has to be quickly changed when someone has a varying opinion because you will state the it is not the truth! And then prove them wrong with semantics. I feel sorry for those around you.

Oh and by the way if you want to poke at me misspelling something why don't you go over your own post more carefully. This is just from your last post "Excuse me": It's "get a life" not "get a live" and "The fact that you put yourself above Wikipedia is telling and may explains that you struggle with the Holland Blog." "May explains"??? What conjugation is that?

(Are you cracking yourself up too?)

Posted on 26 Jul 2010, 8:01 by Peter Frei
who are you trying to foul?
"Get a life," this is what Wettlaufer and the Johnson's (and I suspect you are one of them or very close to them) do best; attempting to dilute issues with banal comments.
The issue here was and still is that the voters of Holland voted for a man, Michael Kennedy, who does not seem to have an interest in the ongoings of Holland, and not whether I had my transmission in park.
The facts are that Michael Kennedy had no clue (and admitted it with his statement during the candidates night) about issues like the truck stop.
I can not see in his head to figure out what he is all about. Therefore I look at his record. Individuals who care about Holland attend annual town meetings as it is the place where the future direction of the town is being decided.
If an individual did not attend the last two annual town meetings and does not know anything about the most important issues, it raises legitimate questions about his intentions.
"Get a Life," you claim: "You can't concede you were wrong about the Town Meetings being shown. "
There are "selectboard meetings" which are broadcast over cable and then there are "annual town meetings," and "special town meetings" which are never shown to the public, neither live nor later (another fact, not an opinion). My claim in my comment was and still is pertaining to Kennedy's failure to attend "annual town meetings" and not "town meetings."
You are trying to misconstrue the facts as stated here claiming that I have a problem with other people's opinions. You can have all your opinions and I even provide you this blog so you can voice them as banal as they may be. Your opinions however do not change the facts stated in my comment with the title "unfair?".

Posted on 26 Jul 2010, 9:45 by RS
fact or opinion?
I followed this dialog. Funny how comments posted by get a life attempt to divert attention away from the facts and then accuse Peter of being stubborn.
Get a life, you are entitled to your opinions; to find that Kennedy did not feel the need to attend the last two annual town meetings as irrelevant is an opinion. This does not change the fact that he was not there. Peter has a different opinion and so do I. I wish that Peter would have informed the voters about Kennedy's record ahead of the elections.
Peter, keep up the good work!

Posted on 26 Jul 2010, 20:39 by Just wondering
Road easement
How come Boone has mentioned how Kennedy violates the law everyday but erecting a split rail fence and mulch beds in the road easements? I guess if your a selectman in Holland you can ignore the law and build your fence on town property. I guess it pays to be wetflowers friend seeings he was handpucked by wetflower, after all he is the one who nominated him??? Just wondering.

Posted on 28 Jul 2010, 22:44 by Moejo
Kennedy is a fake!
I have to say I am in agreement w/Peter on this one. We went ahead and elected a man who from what I have come to see during the past few Select Board Meeting as little knowledge of town matters or how to handle them. Consistently using the term “ I am new to this” as an excuse and has continued to look unprepared to deal with matters set forth. Kennedy on more than one occasion made a nescience of himself at School Board Meetings and now is in a position were he will be making decisions that will have a huge impact on our town for years to come. I am aware for accusations made about Kennedy being corrupt and his election to the select board being nothing more but a way for Wettlaufer to continue to fuel his own agenda. I agree and I am personally aware that deals were made to ensure a victory for Kennedy’s nomination. Kennedy’s is believed to be nothing more than a ignorant, inexperience blockhead by those close to him. He should stay focus on issues closer to home (ex: his son) than impose his perspective on others or this town. He is a mockery and will make this town out to nothing more than a laughingstock to the surrounding communities. I can say with uncertainty that Kennedy has his own hidden agenda and it has nothing to do with this town or bettering it in anyway. I would strongly suggest you watch the up coming board meeting and seeing just how much Kennedy truly brings to the table, so far I have seen nothing that has impressed me! Kennedy really should remain focused on a son who for lack of a better term is nothing more than a drunk and has continued to be nescience to Holland and the surrounding communities. On more than one occasion it has been noted that there have been unruly parties with drinking and disobiedence at the residence were Kennedy himself resides. One of which was no more than a month ago (2 weeks after the election) were party goers were noticed heading to the lake at ungodly hours of the night and drinking what can only be assumed to be alcohol in Kennedy’s driveway.
Kennedy has no business being involved in town politics when he doesn’t have control of his own family. Kennedy’s agenda will come to light soon enough and everyone will see him for who he really is, nothing more than a conspirator.


Posted on 29 Jul 2010, 19:03 by HMMMM?
Need more info

What do you know about a deal being made? What is his hidden agenda? Let us know if you have any info

Your Comments are welcomed, add one!

(no email-sign-up or other gimmick necessary, just start blogging away... I do not plant any cookies on your hard drive either!)
(will appear on the left under "Latest Comments"
(your name if you are brave, or alias)
Comment (goes here, 3,600 characters max! Save comment with “Ctrl” “C” so you don’t lose the text if something goes wrong)
How much is 3 times 13 plus 1 divided by 2? (please enter result)
Password (make one up and make a note so you remember it next time. Your name or alias is protected this way!)