Skip to content

Also On That Day

Christie wishes everyone would forget this:Gov. Chris Christie Marks Second Anniversary Of Hurricane Sandy


But at least we all seem to have forgotten this:

Doherty letter

Any word on that $6.1 million?  Just asking.


  1. Everyone's for sale wrote:

    HaHa, district 4 got snookered by Matt Doherty and Mark Fitzgerald. Next I have water front property in Arizona if anyone in district 4 is interested. I guarantee it doesn’t flood!

    Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 12:44 pm | Permalink
  2. admin wrote:

    Does that mean we’re getting the $6.1 mil…or most of it?

    Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 3:05 pm | Permalink
  3. admin wrote:

    Dissent, even in the form of ridicule is not hate speech. It is political speech and exactly the kind of speech the First Amendment was written to protect.

    BTW, if sending a comment under a recognizable name of someone in town, please include your email so I know it’s really that person.

    Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 3:46 pm | Permalink
  4. Anonymous wrote:

    The $$ is a good thing, hopefully it will be used in a responsible manner NOT like the “Pavilions”!!!

    Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 4:05 pm | Permalink
  5. admin wrote:

    I have discussed the blog with a lawyer who is a regular reader and was told what I do here is well within my rights. There is nothing here that would even come close to defamation.

    Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 4:29 pm | Permalink
  6. Bill Straus wrote:

    Mark I agree about using my real name and have berated Dishonest Dave, and others for the same thing. I would hope good dialogue and debate could be had between us and if it ever comes to that you will know who I am.

    Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 5:54 pm | Permalink
  7. Mark Fitzgerald wrote:

    Often comes close to libel and when you or a poster cross that line, you will end up in court regardless of what your lawyer reader says. Please remove my posts on this thread. You do not allow the feature for a commenter to edit or remove a prior post so it must be done by you as the administrator. Thank you.

    Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 5:57 pm | Permalink
  8. admin wrote:

    It’s WordPress

    Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 6:04 pm | Permalink
  9. Bill Straus wrote:

    Mark, teddy ehmann ended up in court on a bogus harassment charge for using his name. And now again on the same bogus charge, so you can see Jim’s point, if you are fair you will see it if not I suggest the other Belmar blog is for you.

    Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 8:04 pm | Permalink
  10. Tom Dilberger wrote:

    #7 – “often comes close to libel”
    Try this one on for size fella “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers. Shakespeare, “King Henry VI”
    Maybe we could get Shakespeare on hate speech charges. I think I could find a lawyer to take the case. It wouldn’t bother a lawyer much that Shakespeare is somewhat dead.
    I love guys like you always running around whining carrying on like a hysterical six year old afraid of the dark. Get ahold of yourself.
    I mean all that only in the best way of course.

    Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 8:47 pm | Permalink
  11. sweetiepieface wrote:

    Everytime I see that photohoax it reminds me that set ups are not only in the movies. Talk about staging.

    Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 10:05 pm | Permalink
  12. Anonymous wrote:

    Jim and others don’t worry about the comments they cant justify the unethical antics that they promote, shame on them!!!

    Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 8:47 am | Permalink
  13. Claire Deicke wrote:

    Anonymous-what’s unethical about being truthful? what antics? don’t I have a right to speak my mind when my name is constantly mentioned? My sense is that you think people can post whatever they wish, and I don’t have a right to respond….

    Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 9:13 am | Permalink
  14. Anonymous wrote:

    #15 I was not referring to the unethical antics on this site I was referring to the council’s actions, if you need specifics you are really blinded by your ideology. I never said anything about speaking opinions and never said you did not have a right to speak.

    Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 9:28 am | Permalink
  15. Michael D Druz wrote:

    #1 There is not any waterfront property in Arizona that is guaranteed not to flood. If so please advise me.
    To others who constantly raise the issue of unethical behavior by various elected members of the governing body of Belmar, other than your disagreement with what those members have done, show me the proof and/or agreement by a judicial body of any unethical behavior!

    Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 1:17 pm | Permalink
  16. New to the Conversat wrote:

    I am seriously trying to understand the comments back and forth. I figured out that on another post Jim Bean, candidate 2014 for mayor criticized Claire Deicke, the campaign manager for the other candidate for allowing a mailer to go out stating something blatantly false. Basically hardball negative campaign technique. Claire changed the subject and used her comments to prove her being a good neighbor to the Beans. Is that it?
    Mark Fitzgerald wrote a response, no longer on the site and now is threatening libel suits. Is that it?
    Mark is an appointed official on the Board of Adj. if anyone has a bone to pick they should contact him and resolve it. If Claire had nothing to do with the political attack, she should state so and refrain from changing the subject and putting Jim and Tracy on the defensive. Jim needs to stop giving poor advice and wearing his heart on his sleeve.

    Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 1:46 pm | Permalink
  17. Anonymous wrote:

    if you need proof, just look at what a conflict of interest is otherwise keep drinking the coolaid.

    Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 1:47 pm | Permalink
  18. Just Passing Through wrote:

    #15 You are very smart, astute, and correct.

    Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 2:11 pm | Permalink
  19. Just Passing Through wrote:

    #18 You are very smart, astute, and correct. not #15 too many comment to keep track

    Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 2:12 pm | Permalink
  20. admin wrote:

    It has been requested that I remove any comments that refer to the Bean children and I have abided by that request. If I missed any please let me know.

    Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 3:40 pm | Permalink
  21. Anonymous wrote:

    Its a shame that the real children are not the Beans’! Seems to be very partisan and typical of Democrats unfortunately, can’t understand why they can’t respect an opposite point of view maybe they are very insecure?

    Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 4:22 pm | Permalink
  22. admin wrote:

    To be fair, what I put up here goes beyond simply a different point of view, I make public evidence of where I believe they fall short of best practices and transparency. But I don’t really like it to get personal, and I would prefer the folks on both sides just stick to the actual issues.

    Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 4:38 pm | Permalink
  23. Claire Deicke wrote:

    Thanks to everyone for your advice-#21-wasn’t another point of view I responded to… was an incorrect assessment-for all who posted- I did answer what was needed to be answered in an earlier response, on another subject/ post..didn’t hedge-go back and check-as always, Thanks, Dave, for posting my answers to questions asked of me on this could have easily not posted my thoughts..I don’t like it to get personal, either-but, unfortunately, from the beginning, the initial post regarding these issues didn’t begin with me-as you well know..

    Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 5:02 pm | Permalink
  24. admin wrote:

    OK please let’s make this the end of it.

    Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 5:55 pm | Permalink
  25. Claire Deicke wrote:

    Happy to do so…..

    Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 6:11 pm | Permalink
  26. Claire Deicke wrote:

    I request that my name never appear on this post again-due to the recent remarks by a former council member-please honor this request- or I’ll continue to answer as I see fit…

    Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 6:18 pm | Permalink
  27. Anonymous wrote:

    In my opinion, Belmar acting as a charitable organization and then disbursing those collected funds as they see fit is unethical. Here’s a gift card…please vote for this guy. What a joke.

    Friday, April 10, 2015 at 11:12 pm | Permalink
  28. admin wrote:

    In NJ, anything that doesn’t result in a conviction is ethical.

    Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 6:19 am | Permalink
  29. Anonymous wrote:

    Its bad enough that we have children running the country, we have children running Belmar. God help us!!

    Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 8:30 am | Permalink

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.