Common Sense For Belmar Liberty Begins At Home

February 29, 2016

Free Bumper Stickers

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 5:58 am

I was given a few of these the other week at the New Hampshire Liberty Forum.  Email me if you want one.


Tuesday’s Agenda

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 4:48 am

Screen Shot 2016-02-29 at 4.43.15 AMScreen Shot 2016-02-29 at 4.43.27 AM

February 28, 2016

Gutting Of Pay-To-Play To Be Resisted!

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 9:41 am


Petition Committee Formed!

Members Are Democrats, Independents


Announcement released this morning:

To the people of Belmar:

The recent guilty pleas by former Birdsall executives serve as a reminder that the purchase of political influence by outside interests continues to be a problem that taxpayers must vigilantly protect themselves against. We signers of this letter (all of us are either political independents or registered Democrats) have been grateful that Belmar has enjoyed having very strict pay to play ordinances on the books that we believe have served us well and greatly reduced the likelihood of such improprieties occurring here.

Unfortunately, on February 16 the Borough Council voted to remove from our conflict of interest ordinance some of our most important protections, opening the door to pass-through contributions that conceal the identity of the actual donor, contributions from vendors and professionals who may be looking to win contracts from the Borough, contributions from contractors seeking change orders on bid contracts, and contributions from holders of liquor licenses who might like to see a more compliant Borough Council (which acts as the local ABC board.)

The revised ordinance also, very importantly, removes all donation restrictions on Belmar elected officials who may be running for another office outside of Belmar. We feel our public officials should not be accepting money from anyone with business before the Council irrespective of the office that person might be running for.

We will be circulating a petition to protest these detrimental changes to our campaign finance laws and ask all registered voters of Belmar to join our cause and sign the petition.

Please call 732-409-0138 or email and ask to sign the petition.  With your help we can restore these important protections for the taxpayers of Belmar.

Thomas Fahy
Linda Chelsen
Linda Sharkus
Katrina Clapsis
Kenneth Pringle

“I’ll Have A Lobster And Some Kool Aid”

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 9:12 am

Chefs International Coming To Brick’s Marina?



From the story:

(Brick Mayor John) Ducey hopes to lease a portion of Traders Cove to a restaurateur with plans to build an eatery. He envisions an outdoor seating area, a beer garden, and a bar overlooking the bay.

“It’s going to be outdoor,” said the mayor. “There’s going to be a beach area with palm trees and fire pits. Then there’s going to be a deck area with a large bar.”

Under the plan, in addition to leasing property, a restaurateur will also supply the costs for the building’s construction, the mayor said. The township is already in talks with Chefs International, which operates a variety of eateries, including Point Pleasant Beach’s Wharfside Patio Bar and Jack Baker’s Lobster Shanty in Point Pleasant Beach, Belmar’s 9th Avenue Pier, and Baker’s Water Street Bar & Grille in Toms River.

“Nothing is signed yet,” Ducey said.

Last Week

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 4:18 am

Screen Shot 2016-02-28 at 4.14.37 AM

February 27, 2016

Susko Case Still Ongoing

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 1:08 pm

Just to keep all of you up to speed,  I will report today on a few developments in the Susko case.  All images if clicked on will open the document in Google drive.

On January 8, Belmar filed a letter with Judge Gummer asking her to reconsider whether Belmar’s violation of the Public Trust Doctrine by the mis-use of beach fees constitutes a civil rights violation:

Belmar letterThe reason why it matters is that to the extent that the court finds the Borough’s actions were a violation under the Civil Rights Act it entitles the plaintiffs to be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees.

The Plaintiffs didn’t oppose the request because although they had addressed the civil rights issue in their trial briefs, DuPont never did.  The Plaintiffs wanted the issue fully and fairly decided by the court before any possible appeal.  Below is from a brief filed by the Plaintiffs in response to Belmar’s letter:Motion to oppose

Another issue still to be decided is  –  although they claim they were going to pay it back  –  whether the $400,000 taken from the beach utility to pay municipal expenditures in the Partners settlement constitutes a civil rights violation of beach badge buyers.  The plaintiffs see nothing to indicate that the Borough planned to pay the beach utility back and in any case they feel it doesn’t matter and that it’s still a civil rights violation.

The third issue yet to be decided is whether the Borough’s adoption of Ordinance 2015-15, which doubled parking fees on the east side of Ocean Avenue, violated the Public Trust Doctrine and Beach Fee Statute, and if so, whether the adoption of the Ordinance deprived Plaintiffs of a right protected by the New Jersey Civil Rights Act.

Here is what the Borough contends:parking-belmar

The Plaintiffs  are looking for judgments that the Public Trust Doctrine and Beach Fee statutes require the deposit of the parking fees into the Beach Utility Fund, and that only those fees that the Borough can demonstrate (through its digital parking kiosk system) related to hours of the day or days of the week the beaches were not in operation, can be deposited into the Borough’s current fund account or Parking Utility Account.  See below:parking

As with the motion to reconsider, the Partners issue and the parking issue involve arguments over whether the Borough violated the civil rights of those who bought badges or paid for parking.  The Plaintiffs’ ability to recoup attorneys’ fees will hinge on the outcomes.  If you scroll down to page 36 of the above document there are arguments made as to whether protections under the Civil Rights Act extend beyond the traditional racial and gender biases to include other groups whose “substantive” rights have been violated.

The arguments in this case were originally scheduled to be heard this past week but the judge was assigned a new, unrelated trial to be heard next week so the Susko case has been temporarily adjourned.

Will keep you all posted.

Belmar Jewelers Victim Of Swindler

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 4:54 am

From the web:

Screen Shot 2016-02-27 at 4.36.48 AM………..

Screen Shot 2016-02-27 at 4.37.24 AM………..

Screen Shot 2016-02-27 at 4.37.46 AM

February 26, 2016

Sandy Emergency Finally Over!

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 10:18 am


See, I Do Publish Happy News Sometimes

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 4:57 am

Screen Shot 2016-02-26 at 4.49.38 AM

From My Mailbox

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 4:44 am


Screen Shot 2016-02-25 at 6.18.34 PM

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress