Loading...

Saturday, January 31, 2015

Beach Weddings Guide By Mary Mazzullo Buy Today

Express Mart Purse Snatching Salisbury Blvd

Suspect 1 below







Suspect 2





Fight On Glen Avenue

Apartments across from WiHi Parking lot

White female and black male fighting.



Comment Worthy A Post On Turbines

Okay, I get the message that there are those that don't want wind energy in Somerset County. Fine. The county is declining - a local realtor recently told me that assessed values had dropped over 30%. If you don't want to work in government, your options for working in this county are limited. McCready Hospital is struggling, Rubberset is hanging on but is much smaller than it was in years past, Sysco has been cutting jobs and the list goes on. I understand that some people don't want prisons, don't want wind farms etc - so what does the county do to survive?

Manufacturing in the United States has been on the decline; locating in a remote area like Somerset isn't cost effective (remember, businesses are in existence to make a profit). Poultry farming and the seafood industry, once mainstays of this county are declining, in part, due to the regulatory environment in MD. People love to retire here, but aren't interested in increased tax rates on their properties to support infrastructure, education, and police protection. People say tourism is the solution, but be realistic - who is going to drive 3+hours to golf at Great Hope, ride a bike trail to Crisfield and then eat local seafood and then turn around to go home. Maybe day trips, but if people are going to the beach for vacation, they aren't going to take an extended bypass and ride down through Somerset County. So that leaves us with locals supporting the area. So do you support local businesses?

I see those opponents (whether members of SFS or not) as people who are likely affluent and not worried about putting money into education because they can afford to send their children to Holly Grove. I see opponents as more worried about a land owner obstructing their "view" than worried about that land owner making a return on their investment. It's easy to be "against" but harder to think of something that would be economically viable in this county.

Maybe wind isn't the "save all" but it is a start. Revenues generated for the county could begin the process of reducing tax rates for residents and put some money into the schools that need so much maintenance. Maybe better pay scales would entice better candidates for law enforcement and education. To continue to do nothing is a travesty.



Women Of The Moose Ladies' Night out


TRAFFIC ALERT... The draw bridge into Ocean City along US Route50 in West Ocean City is stuck open...crews are working to repair; please be alert and be aware of possible delays.


April Dawn Arnett located SAFE!!





Friday, January 30, 2015

Does Anyone Remember What Was In The Building Before Sobos Took It Over On Eastern Shore Drive?





Super Bowl Predictions?





Roger Christian A Perfect Example Of An Albero Follower







He called me up and asked me to call him back, I did and he proceeded to yell and I hung up . He then sends me this which states he broke the law recording our conversation .

Md. COURTS AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS Code Ann. § 10-402 (2014)

§ 10-402. Interception of communications generally; divulging contents of communications; violations of subtitle


(a) Unlawful acts. -- Except as otherwise specifically provided in this subtitle it is unlawful for any person to:

(1) Willfully intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;

(2) Willfully disclose, or endeavor to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subtitle; or

(3) Willfully use, or endeavor to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subtitle.

(b) Penalty. -- Any person who violates subsection (a) of this section is guilty of a felony and is subject to imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $ 10,000, or both.

(c) Lawful acts. --

(1) (i) It is lawful under this subtitle for an operator of a switchboard, or an officer, employee, or agent of a provider of wire or electronic communication service, whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire or electronic communication to intercept, disclose, or use that communication in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service, except that a provider of wire communications service to the public may not utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks.

(ii) 1. It is lawful under this subtitle for a provider of wire or electronic communication service, its officers, employees, and agents, landlords, custodians or other persons to provide information, facilities, or technical assistance to persons authorized by federal or State law to intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications or to conduct electronic surveillance, if the provider, its officers, employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified person has been provided with a court order signed by the authorizing judge directing the provision of information, facilities, or technical assistance.

2. The order shall set forth the period of time during which the provision of the information, facilities, or technical assistance is authorized and specify the information, facilities, or technical assistance required. A provider of wire or electronic communication service, its officers, employees, or agents, or landlord, custodian, or other specified person may not disclose the existence of any interception or surveillance or the device used to accomplish the interception or surveillance with respect to which the person has been furnished an order under this subparagraph, except as may otherwise be required by legal process and then only after prior notification to the judge who granted the order, if appropriate, or the State's Attorney of the county where the device was used. Any such disclosure shall render the person liable for compensatory damages. No cause of action shall lie in any court against any provider of wire or electronic communication service, its officers, employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified person for providing information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with the terms of a court order under this subtitle.

(2) (i) This paragraph applies to an interception in which:

1. The investigative or law enforcement officer or other person is a party to the communication; or

2. One of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception.

(ii) It is lawful under this subtitle for an investigative or law enforcement officer acting in a criminal investigation or any other person acting at the prior direction and under the supervision of an investigative or law enforcement officer to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication in order to provide evidence:

1. Of the commission of:

A. Murder;

B. Kidnapping;

C. Rape;

D. A sexual offense in the first or second degree;

E. Child abuse in the first or second degree;

F. Child pornography under § 11-207, § 11-208, or § 11-208.1 of the Criminal Law Article;

G. Gambling;

H. Robbery under § 3-402 or § 3-403 of the Criminal Law Article;

I. A felony under Title 6, Subtitle 1 of the Criminal Law Article;

J. Bribery;

K. Extortion;

L. Dealing in a controlled dangerous substance, including a violation of § 5-617 or § 5-619 of the Criminal Law Article;

M. A fraudulent insurance act, as defined in Title 27, Subtitle 4 of the Insurance Article;

N. An offense relating to destructive devices under § 4-503 of the Criminal Law Article;

O. A human trafficking offense under § 11-303 of the Criminal Law Article;

P. Sexual solicitation of a minor under § 3-324 of the Criminal Law Article;

Q. An offense relating to obstructing justice under § 9-302, § 9-303, or § 9-305 of the Criminal Law Article;

R. Sexual abuse of a minor under § 3-602 of the Criminal Law Article;

S. A theft scheme or continuing course of conduct under § 7-103(f) of the Criminal Law Article involving an aggregate value of property or services of at least $ 10,000;

T. Abuse or neglect of a vulnerable adult under § 3-604 or § 3-605 of the Criminal Law Article;

U. An offense relating to Medicaid fraud under §§ 8-509 through 8-515 of the Criminal Law Article; or

V. A conspiracy or solicitation to commit an offense listed in items A through U of this item; or

2. If:

A. A person has created a barricade situation; and

B. Probable cause exists for the investigative or law enforcement officer to believe a hostage or hostages may be involved.

(3) It is lawful under this subtitle for a person to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where the person is a party to the communication and where all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent to the interception unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of this State.

(4) (i) It is lawful under this subtitle for a law enforcement officer in the course of the officer's regular duty to intercept an oral communication if:

1. The law enforcement officer initially lawfully detained a vehicle during a criminal investigation or for a traffic violation;

2. The law enforcement officer is a party to the oral communication;

3. The law enforcement officer has been identified as a law enforcement officer to the other parties to the oral communication prior to any interception;

4. The law enforcement officer informs all other parties to the communication of the interception at the beginning of the communication; and

5. The oral interception is being made as part of a video tape recording.

(ii) If all of the requirements of subparagraph (i) of this paragraph are met, an interception is lawful even if a person becomes a party to the communication following:

1. The identification required under subparagraph (i)3 of this paragraph; or

2. The informing of the parties required under subparagraph (i)4 of this paragraph.

(5) It is lawful under this subtitle for an officer, employee, or agent of a governmental emergency communications center to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where the officer, agent, or employee is a party to a conversation concerning an emergency.

(6) (i) It is lawful under this subtitle for law enforcement personnel to utilize body wires to intercept oral communications in the course of a criminal investigation if there is reasonable cause to believe that a law enforcement officer's safety may be in jeopardy.

(ii) Communications intercepted under this paragraph may not be recorded, and may not be used against the defendant in a criminal proceeding.

(7) It is lawful under this subtitle for a person:

(i) To intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that the electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;

(ii) To intercept any radio communication that is transmitted:

1. By any station for the use of the general public, or that relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress;

2. By any governmental, law enforcement, civil defense, private land mobile, or public safety communications system, including police and fire, readily accessible to the general public;

3. By a station operating on an authorized frequency within the bands allocated to the amateur, citizens band, or general mobile radio services; or

4. By any marine or aeronautical communications system;

(iii) To intercept any wire or electronic communication the transmission of which is causing harmful interference to any lawfully operating station or consumer electronic equipment, to the extent necessary to identify the source of the interference; or

(iv) For other users of the same frequency to intercept any radio communication made through a system that utilizes frequencies monitored by individuals engaged in the provision or the use of the system, if the communication is not scrambled or encrypted.

(8) It is lawful under this subtitle:

(i) To use a pen register or trap and trace device as defined under § 10-4B-01 of this title; or

(ii) For a provider of electronic communication service to record the fact that a wire or electronic communication was initiated or completed in order to protect the provider, another provider furnishing service toward the completion of the wire or electronic communication, or a user of that service, from fraudulent, unlawful, or abusive use of the service.

(9) It is lawful under this subtitle for a person to intercept a wire or electronic communication in the course of a law enforcement investigation of possible telephone solicitation theft if:

(i) The person is an investigative or law enforcement officer or is acting under the direction of an investigative or law enforcement officer; and

(ii) The person is a party to the communication and participates in the communication through the use of a telephone instrument.

(10) It is lawful under this subtitle for a person to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication in the course of a law enforcement investigation in order to provide evidence of the commission of vehicle theft if:

(i) The person is an investigative or law enforcement officer or is acting under the direction of an investigative or law enforcement officer; and

(ii) The device through which the interception is made has been placed within a vehicle by or at the direction of law enforcement personnel under circumstances in which it is thought that vehicle theft may occur.

(d) Divulging contents of communications. --

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, a person or entity providing an electronic communication service to the public may not intentionally divulge the contents of any communication (other than one to the person or entity providing the service, or an agent of the person or entity) while in transmission on that service to any person or entity other than an addressee or intended recipient of the communication or an agent of the addressee or intended recipient.

(2) A person or entity providing electronic communication service to the public may divulge the contents of a communication:

(i) As otherwise authorized by federal or State law;

(ii) To a person employed or authorized, or whose facilities are used, to forward the communication to its destination; or

(iii) That were inadvertently obtained by the service provider and that appear to pertain to the commission of a crime, if the divulgence is made to a law enforcement agency.

(e) Violations of subsection (d). --

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection or in subsection (f) of this section, a person who violates subsection (d) of this section is subject to a fine of not more than $ 10,000 or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both.

(2) If an offense is a first offense under paragraph (1) of this subsection and is not for a tortious or illegal purpose or for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private commercial gain, and the wire or electronic communication with respect to which the offense occurred is a radio communication that is not scrambled or encrypted, and:

(i) The communication is not the radio portion of a cellular telephone communication, a public land mobile radio service communication, or a paging service communication, the offender is subject to a fine of not more than $ 1,000 or imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or both; or

(ii) The communication is the radio portion of a cellular telephone communication, a public land mobile radio service communication, or a paging service communication, the offender is subject to a fine of not more than $ 500.

(3) Unless the conduct is for the purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain, conduct which would otherwise be an offense under this subsection is not an offense under this subsection if the conduct consists of or relates to the interception of a satellite transmission that is not encrypted or scrambled and that is transmitted:

(i) To a broadcasting station for purposes of retransmission to the general public; or

(ii) As an audio subcarrier intended for redistribution to facilities open to the public, but not including data transmissions or telephone calls.

(f) Violations of subtitle. --

(1) A person who engages in conduct in violation of this subtitle is subject to suit by the federal government or by the State in a court of competent jurisdiction, if the communication is:

(i) A private satellite video communication that is not scrambled or encrypted and the conduct in violation of this subtitle is the private viewing of that communication, and is not for a tortious or illegal purpose, or for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage, or private commercial gain; or

(ii) A radio communication that is transmitted on frequencies allocated under Subpart D of Part 74 of the Rules of the Federal Communications Commission that is not scrambled or encrypted and the conduct in violation of this subtitle is not for a tortious or illegal purpose or for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private commercial gain.

(2) (i) The State is entitled to appropriate injunctive relief in an action under this subsection if the violation is the person's first offense under subsection (e)(1) of this section and the person has not been found liable in a prior civil action under § 10-410 of this subtitle.

(ii) In an action under this subsection, if the violation is a second or subsequent offense under subsection (e)(1) of this section or if the person has been found liable in a prior civil action under § 10-410 of this subtitle, the person is subject to a mandatory civil fine of not less than $ 500.

(3) The court may use any means within its authority to enforce an injunction issued under paragraph (2)(i) of this subsection, and shall impose a civil fine of not less than $ 500 for each violation of an injunction issued under paragraph (2)(i) of this subsection.



Roger Christian Spending His Morning Leaving Dumb Comments On My Site


as you can see someone has some issues  UPDATED BELOW


Overnight Car Chase Turned Foot Chase Leads To Suspect Being Struck By A Vehicle

Lot of action overnight in the church street Carroll street area in Salisbury as police chased a car that led to the suspects bailing out and one getting hit by a car. This happened around 3 this morning so will get more details



Thursday, January 29, 2015

American Eagle New Orleans Docked In Crisfield


Theft, Marijuana, Over-Occupancy; Mayor Says Neighborhoods Need City Council to Pass Stronger Laws

Theft, Marijuana, Over-Occupancy; Mayor Says Neighborhoods
Need City Council to Pass Stronger Laws

Salisbury - Mayor James Ireton, Jr. today reiterated his commitment to solving the issue of over-occupancy in Salisbury neighborhoods after it was discovered that EIGHT (8) non-related tenants were living in a rental home at 429 Druid Hill Avenue.

On Thursday morning, January 29th, Salisbury Police, in response to information which indicated a possible CDS marijuana sales situation, served a search warrant at 429 Druid Hill Avenue. Upon entering the residence, officers determined that there were EIGHT (8) tenants living in the structure. Further investigation led to the location and recovery of twelve (12) stolen road signs, and a small quantity of marijuana. Charges are being pursued against seven (7) of the eight tenants.

The residence, which is a rental owned by Wilson E. Davis, has drawn repeated complaints from neighbors for noise, suspicious activity, and evidence of over-occupancy.

Since November, 2012 Salisbury Police Department data shows calls for service for:

CDS - 5
Prowler - 2
Loud Party - 6
Suspicious Vehicle - 1

The property is a designated legal non-conforming use, which means it was granted an exemption in 2006 to allow up to four (4) non-related occupants. Under current law, that exemption will now be forfeited. A $500 citation has been issued for violation of the occupancy provisions of the Salisbury Municipal Code, and an order to reduce occupancy has been served.

Proposed legislation currently under consideration by the Salisbury City Council would allow for the suspension of the landlord’s unit registration and/or rental license for a period of 3 months for the first offense, 6 months for the second offense, and a full year for the third offense.

Mayor Ireton urged City Council members to act decisively to pass the legislation, and to consider further measures aimed at fixing Salisbury’s housing codes.

“I encourage our citizens to voice their support of legislation that will penalize these properties to the fullest,” said Mayor Ireton. “This on-going battle is now 35 years old, and the remaining homeowners that we have must be given relief from the continued onslaught of properties that do not lend to increasing values in our neighborhoods. With this blatant case and the 44 others that preceded it this year, Salisbury is in a position to truly change the face our neighborhoods with the right tools. There are tools in front of the city council for consideration, yet I believe they are not enough.

“Additionally, I will ask the Council President to place a discussion on the table regarding making the University zoned areas of our city the only place that college rentals like this would be legal. We have the capacity to place all our student rentals in an area where they can more easily be provided services from SU and from City agencies.

“429 Druid Hill Avenue is a classic example of the fact that Salisbury has still not gotten its housing codes right, and that single-family neighborhoods continue to be degraded by those who make millions
of dollars a year off of rental properties.”

The City Council will discuss the legislation at its February 17th work session, at 1:30 p.m. in Council Chambers, third floor of the Government Office Building, downtown.

Following the discussion on the 17th, a second reading of the legislation will occur on Monday, February 23rd, at 6 p.m., in Council chambers. The Mayor encourages citizens to attend.



Roger Christian Shut The %#~{ Up Already

Good lord man a piece of machinery starting after 8am on a Saturday gets your panties in a twist , why don't you let the City Council have time to address this in a legal way so that everyone gets the benefits later if it arises. Instead you tattle like a School girl to a drop out reject who has no life running a trash website.

Have some self respect



Popeyes South Salisbury Remodeling





SPD Help Motorist Change Tire













Chief Duncan, Col. Meienschein and Pfc Caton changing a tire for a disabled motorist

SPD RECOVER STOLEN SIGNS





New Concerns Warrant Wind Project Delay, Local Group Says. Safety, Ethics and National Defense Cited


PRINCESS ANNE - At a press conference held today, the local group Safe For Somerset called on Somerset County Commissioners to delay plans for a Somerset County wind project because of new health and safety concerns, threats to national security, and new evidence of possible ethics violations by elected officials who are considering approval of the project.


Named “Great Bay Wind” by wind project developer Pioneer Green, the project would erect 29 wind turbines 400’-700’ tall near the communities of Marion Station and Westover in Somerset County with plans for additional turbine installations in later project stages.


Regarding health and safety, Harvey Kagan, the group’s spokesperson cited medical literature which documents sicknesses linked to wind turbines.  These health claims were recently given new credence when the Brown County, Wisconsin Board of Health declared their industrial wind turbines a public health hazard, he said.

Kagan referred to reports of blade failure, ice throw, tower collapse and fire resulting from turbine mechanical failure. Although relatively infrequent, the risk and severity of these accidents increases with turbine height, according to Kagan.  The 400’-700’ turbines proposed by Pioneer Green would be among the tallest in the nation.

Kagan referred to a decision last August by Pioneer Green to withdraw plans for projects in Alabama because the company could not meet minimum requirements for health and safety established there. “If Pioneer Green’s safety standards are unacceptable in Alabama, why are the same standards acceptable here?” Kagan asked.

Regarding “setbacks” or distances deemed safe between turbines and human activity, he said, “During the deliberations about this project, voices on the Commission that rose to increase setbacks to scientifically-established safe distances were publicly ridiculed, and eventually silenced.  Distance from turbines was decided in favor of the developer,”  Kagan said. “Our officials have cast a blind eye and dismissed the risks, placing in harm’s way the citizens they represent.”

Ethical standards of the County Commission were also called into question. According to Kagan, the commissioners were found to have completed the wrong financial disclosure forms and were found not in compliance with the County Ethics Ordinance or State Ethics Laws. Although they were notified of these violations last December, proper financial disclosure still has not been provided by the commission, according to Kagan.  He said that Pioneer Green has actively solicited elected leaders without required disclosure of fees, expenses or registration of their lobbyists.

Direct conflicts of interest by county commissioners may also exist, according to Kagan.  He said that the group has identified several county officials who have made or will be making critical legislative decisions on this project who have close family or business ties with holders of wind turbine leases. He said that the group submitted those concerns to the Ethics Commission last November and again in early January, 2015, but the Ethics Commission has not made a determination. A flow-chart displaying possible relationships between lease holders, and public officials was displayed.
Kagan also criticized commissioners’ lack of openness and transparency in consideration of the project, claiming that the commissioners have intentionally kept residents uninformed, particularly about the proximity of the turbines to homes.  “This has purposely been done to make residents believe the construction will not affect them,”  Kagan said as he displayed new maps prepared by the group showing wind turbine leases and locations of proposed wind turbines.  “These maps show the locations of properties that will be within 1 mile of proposed wind turbines.  The County Commissioners should have made such maps available to the public.”

Kagan reviewed what his group deems as serious problems with the poor economics of wind power, the project’s marginal economic benefits, and its cost to electricity users and tax payers. As evidence, he cited production data from a wind turbine at the campus of Chesapeake College which shows that the turbine has operated at only 16 percent of its rated capacity at a cost of 30 cents per kilowatt hour, which he stated is approximately 3 times the Maryland’s average residential and commercial rate.
“If Great Bay Wind is built,” Kagan said, “Somerset County residents will be forced to subsidize wind’s high cost and poor efficiency through their taxes and their electricity bills,” He cited U.S. Energy Administration data showing disproportionate subsidies for wind power compared to other energy sources. “Subsidies and mandates are the only reason to build them,” he said, quoting investor Warren Buffett.

With respect to jobs, he said that only a few non-specialized jobs would be available for residents of the county during the construction phase and that only a few caretaker jobs would remain after the project was complete.

The environment, landscape and the cultural heritage of Somerset County are also endangered by the project, according to Kagan. “Turbines ranging from 440’ to 700’ tall will dominate our beautiful landscapes of field and marsh, transforming them for the next generation and possibly forever,” he said.

Relating to national defense concerns, Kagan cited a recent report by the Department of Defense that the project will impair or degrade radar operations at Patuxent River Naval Air Station and “create an unacceptable risk to national security,” quoting the report. The report also says that mitigation strategies to reduce or eliminate the project’s impact on the Navy are being researched by Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the results of the report will not be available before December 2015.

“The title of the report says it all”, said Kagan, “There is a determination of “unacceptable risk to the national defense.” Will our elected leaders proceed with consideration of a project which threatens our national security?”  Changes in the Navy’s defense operations to mitigate these risks should also be questioned, according to Kagan. “Multi-million dollar mitigation strategies will be at taxpayer expense and represent another subsidy to Pioneer Green,” he said.

According to Kagan a delegation of southern Maryland lawmakers will be reintroducing a bill to put a moratorium on the project until completion of the MIT study. A similar bill, HB 1168,  was passed in 2014 but was vetoed by Governor O’Malley. “We are calling on all members of the Maryland General Assembly representing Somerset County and the entire Eastern Shore to support this legislation.  We are calling on our new governor, Larry Hogan to sign it when it reaches his desk,” he said.

“We respectfully ask that the Somerset County Board of Commissioners not proceed with consideration of this project until these issues are resolved.”

EASTON POLICE DEPARTMENT PRESS RELEASE

PRESS RELEASE
January 29, 2015
On January 28, 2015 Olympia Wilson, 41, of Easton, MD was charged with failing to obey a reasonable and lawful order. Officers responded to the Elizabeth Street area for a report of someone stopping cars and asking for money and someone going door to door asking for money. Wilson was located in the area and was identified as the suspect. Wilson had been issued a civil citation on January 24, 2015 for aggressive solicitation and was told to stop asking people for money, therefore was taken into custody. Wilson was held on $4,500.00 bond by the court commissioner.

Discontinuation of Water Service


For Immediate Release
January 29, 2015

Discontinuation of Water Service

On Thursday, January 29, 2015, as part of the City of Salisbury’s efforts to improve water service, the Department of Public Works will be discontinuing a water service at 210 Center Street. Center Street from Newton Street to Mitchell Street will be non-passable to emergency vehicles while work is underway. Work will be performed starting at 9:00 a.m. and is expected to conclude by 3:00 p.m.

www.downtownsalisbury.orgAll locators and Central Alarm will be notified of this event. We appreciate your patience and consideration. Please contact the Public Works Water & Sewer Branch at 410-548-3105 for more information



Daily Times Crosses Line Once Again With Stephen Decatur Story

The Daily Times really crossed the line with showing the video of the Stephen Decatur fight without blocking the faces of the kids, and Vanessa Junkin making the story into a race war between white and black kids at the School.

Kids fight and to sensationalize the story into a race war to sell papers is why the place is going out of business


Big Power Outage In Salisbury

From Fruitland to snow hill road vicinity

Over 6000 people without power

Power should be back on by 9 area




Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Worcester County Sheriff's Office wants to remind you to always drive attentive

The Sheriffs Office wants to remind you to always drive attentive. The attached video was captured from one of our patrol vehicles on normal patrol. It is important to note how fast things can change in front of you. Fortunately, our deputy was, and those involved were not seriously injured. Todays drivers including our deputies have many distractions in our vehicles. This is a great example that you should always pay attention and focus on driving.

go to my facebook page for video

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Lower-Eastern-Shore-News/265806916773423

Jim Ireton To Blame For Dew Tour Leaving?

Of course not, but the way people are these days placing blame I thought it would be humorous to make the topic. This area is so full of negativity it is ridiculous. Jim Ireton didn't drink enough MT Dew blame him.

Susie Stiltner Missing












96 Thousand People Tune In For Mall Fight Updates


I have been challenged a zillion times about visitors and so on, and I have never cared about numbers. However I wanted to share that over 96 thousand people visited to see what was happening at the mall Saturday night.

I may tick people off but I do get a ton of visitors so if you want to reach a large LOCAL audience then contact me for advertising. Most traffic and best rate. I will beat another site by asking 90 per month with more traffic than they get.

410-422-2948
lowereasternshorenews@gmail.com