¶130 of the Second Amended Complaint (A-49 of Second Circuit Case 24-147 Appendix) alleges "the  Class  IV Roads Committee scheduled a site visit to the failed culverts on [the TH26 segment renamed "Fuller Road" and literally abbreviated by Defendants as "FU"] north of Plaintiff’s driveway for the same day as Plaintiff was known to be making  oral  arguments  before  the  Second  Circuit  Court  in  New York City ... it was physically impossible to make it to both the Oral Arguments and the site visit to the central TH-26 segment Defendants intend to continue to treat differently than similarly situated Class IV roads."

The past filing of Initial Pleadings and Exhibits 7 and 8 of Demarest's Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss barely scratch the surface of First Amendment causes of action related to willful misrepresentation of speech by Underhill town officials and subsequent retaliation against Demarest which would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in protected speech on matters of public concern, for example:

• Demarest wrote, "I would also greatly appreciate the Recreation Committee's support in encouraging the Selectboard to consider the potential of properly repairing the washed out segment of New Road/Crane Brook Trail in a manner that simultaneously preserved my longstanding southerly access to my home and land AND the ability of the public at large, regardless of physical ability, to continue to enjoy that public right of way...." (Exhibit 7, A-211 of Second Circuit Case #22-956 Appendix) 
• But Mr. Demarest's vantage point was completely misrepresented and responded to in public meeting minutes as, "After meeting with abbutting [SIC] land owner Dave Demerest [SIC], It was determined he was not supportive of bridge idea and money was pulled out of the budget for a bridge on the Crane Brook Trail abutting Mr. Demerest's [SIC] property." (Exhibit 8, A-214 of Case #22-956 Appendix)

There are multiple examples of adverse treatment of Demarest intended to chill protected speech and an interruption of Mr. Demarest during the token 4 minute "Public Comment Period" a week after the filing of the 2nd Amended Complaint prevented Mr. Demarest's from simply finishing a relevant sentence the public deserved to know; "The 2002 trail ordinance did not involve a road that was a trail [only in Town discretionary naming decisions at that time, and even if it had, and even if the ordinance were ever actually enforced, the Defendants' ordinance guaranteed, at least in theory, all landowners 'compelling personal or business access' would not be taken]."

It is notable that the very same individual Municipal Defendant years prior demanded Mr. Demarest to "be more open-minded" to people trespassing on his property and the approved meeting minutes of this above October 9, 2023 meeting willfully downplayed the individual Municipal Defendant's egregious conduct to eliminate the context of, "David Demarest comments that he has never threatened her (Daphne) in any way."

Please notice the sustained improper conduct of Municipal Defendants has factual support which warrants discovery and decision of this civil rights case on the merits... 

Any other Town of Underhill Vermont residents whose protected speech is being censored, willfully misrepresented, or responded to similarly to defamation documented in this October 9, 2023 Underhill Conservation Commission Meeting video excerpt (and other videos available online) are welcome to a complementary page on this website (for civil discourse on BOTH sides of local issues, subject to modest bandwidth requirements and no hate speech or executable files).