Ed Naile, CNHT

Hear Ed Naile every Wednesday morning on WLMW 90.7 FM on the Girard at Large radio show or listen to the archives at Voter Fraud Radio
Wednesday
Feb102016

For Every Out-of-State Vote, A NH Citizen Loses Theirs

Some of you may have seen the Project Veritas video released this morning showing their investigator journalists, who were posing as out-of-state campaign workers, being coached and offered information on how to vote illegally in NH.

Remember, this is a Federal Election, not a town meeting or state election. Federal law prohibits interstate voting – no matter what NH election officials, the NH AG, or Secretary of State say.

www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1973aa-1

Pay close attention to the phrase “duly qualified resident.” It is the same requirement imposed by every significant domicile court case.

If you don’t think Federal Laws pre-empt NH statutes or “interpretations” of NH Statutes then look at the NH AG’s attempted prosecution of Charlie Bass for robo-calls in 2010. FEC regulations supersede NH statutes in Federal elections. That is just the way it is. But even after being shot down by a NH Superior Court the AG went ahead and appealed to the NH Supra to try and charge Bass with robo-call violations.

As Project Veritas releases more video you will hear from elected officials, party activists and campaign workers that it is “perfectly legal” for-out-of state campaign workers and students to vote in NH.

Not so.

If NH continues to allow, promote, and encourage out-of-state voters in our election is in conflict wit Federal Laws and the laws of the states the out-of-state voter is bound by in his lawful domicile.

NH can not keep doing this and keep its presidential primary.

Wednesday
Feb102016

It's So Easy A Cave Man Could Do It

For about a week I have been working with Project Veritas on a new video they were doing on NH voter fraud.

https://www.facebook.com/ProjectVeritas/

It should be viral by now.

Here is a radio interview I did this morning regarding this moste recent sting.

http://www.girardatlarge.com/2016/02/voter-fraud-eds-big-sting/

If you are a real NH voter - enjoy.

 

Wednesday
Jan272016

The No Voter Fraud Illusion - And Its Enablers

A Report On The Report

Recent Interest in NH voter fraud investigations shows some interesting inconsistencies between what the NH Secretary of State published on his web site, what the NH ACLU was given, and what the NH AG’s Office claims to be doing with their investigations.

I have selected the first paragraph of the NH ACLU 6/11/15 Reports and the annotations from page #2. Read the whole thing yourself and see if you can find any 2012 or 2014 investigations of the thousands of voters who brought no ID to the polls and lived at addresses with undeliverable mail.

NH ACLU REPORT

Documents From NH Secretary of State's Office Show No Evidence of Out-of-State Drive-By Voter Fraud,

June 11, 2015

http://aclu-nh.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ACLU-Report-Final.pdf

In April 2015, the ACLU requested from the Office of the Secretary of State, among other things, all documents—including emails and communications—concerning incidents of actual or potential voting fraud consisting of an individual voting in a NH municipality where he or she is not domiciled from January 1, 2000 to the present.

(in part - page #2 annotation)

 

“During the 2012 general election cycle, the Secretary of State claims that it sent 13,939 letters to those who filled out domicile affidavits in the registration form, with 1,193 coming back as undeliverable.

 

During that election, that Office claims that it also sent letters to 5,609 individuals who filled out challenged voter affidavits to vote in the general election, with (i) 374 coming back as undeliverable and (ii) 1,698 declining to return a postcard in response to the letters.

 

That Office claims that it also sent letters to 2,629 individuals who filled out qualified voter affidavits during the 2012 primary and general election itself, with (i) 210 coming back as undeliverable and (ii) 1,270 declining to return a postcard in response to the letters.

See: Shawne Wickham, "Checking voter residence affidavits a slog for New Hampshire investigators," Union Leader, Oct. 25, 2014, available at htto://www.unionleader.com/article/20141026/NEWS06/141029247/0/SEARCH .

 

During the 2014 general election, the Secretary of State claims that it sent 2,983 letters to those who filled out domicile affidavits in the registration form, with 154 coming back as undeliverable. 3 See Shawne Wickham, "Checking voter residence affidavits a slog for New Hampshire investigators," Union Leader, Oct. 25, 2014

(Attorney General's Office noting that some of those who did not return postcards have told investigators they were protesting the state's new Voter ID laws" as "many of those folks intentionally did not bring their IDs to vote."), available at http://www.unionleader.com/artic le/20141026/N EWS06/141029247/0/SEARCH. 4 191 individuals who registered and voted "same day" without proper identification returned the identification letters sent by the Secretary of State's Office.”

We are led to believe that in 15 years only four cases of voter fraud have been documented by the NH AG? With thousands of returned mail still being investigated?

Where in the NH ACLU response to its April 2015 request for all documents regarding voter fraud investigations are the years 2012 and 2014?

Another small detail: How much would it cost the state to investigate every instance of a person refusing to supply proof of identification?

 

 654:7 Voter Registration; Voter Registration Form. – 
    I. Any person registering to vote shall be: 
       (a) At least 18 years of age on the day of the election; and 
       (b) A United States citizen; and 
       (c) Domiciled in the town or city in which the applicant is registering to vote and not otherwise disqualified to vote.    

II. The applicant shall be required to produce appropriate proof of qualifications as provided in RSA 654:12 and fill out the form as prescribed in paragraph IV. 
    III. If an applicant is unable to provide the proof of qualifications as required in RSA 654:12, he or she may register by completing the necessary affidavits, pursuant to RSA 654:12, and completing the form in subparagraph IV(b), unless the person is registering at the polling place on the date of a state general election. If an applicant is registering at the polling place on the date of a state general election and is unable to provide the proof of qualifications as required in RSA 654:12, he or she may register by completing the form in subparagraph IV(c) under oath,…

 

So it is legal to refuse to supply documents you have in your possession because you oppose Photo ID? That is what the AG seems to be saying – or ignoring.

Another step in the wrong direction for NH’s crooked election system.

Don’t expect the new idea of photographing non-resident voters to have any effect if we do not prosecute offenders.

Wednesday
Jan272016

Fox News Reports On Voter Fraud In NH? 

In 2010 The NH AG Investigated a report of double voting in a town election. See if you notice anything strange about this investigation – except it is like other NH voter fraud investigations - not much investigation.

Jon R. Deacon

Re: Violation of RSA 659:34, I

January 12, 2011

Jon R. Deacon

Re: Violation of RSA 659:34,1

Dear Mr. Deacon:

On March 25, 2010, the New Hampshire Attorney General's Office received a complaint that you voted twice in the town elections held on March 9, 2010. As a result of this complaint, this Office conducted an investigation.

During the investigation, this Office confirmed, from information received from the Checklist Supervisors in Litchfield and Hudson, New Hampshire, that you voted in elections held in both of these towns OD March 9, 2010.

On April 6, 2010 Richard Valenti, an investigator with our office, spoke with you regarding this matter. You informed him that you did in fact vote in both Litchfield and

Hudson on March 9, 2010.

During the course of the April 6, 2010 conversation, you explained that on the

Election Day in question you went to vote in the town of your current domicile, Hudson.

You stated that you were told by an election official in Hudson that you were not registered to vote and that you had to go to your previous domicile, Litchfield, in order to vote. Upon arriving in Litchfield, you claim to have told an election official that you are a resident of Hudson, but that you were told to go to Litchfield to vote. According to your account, you were given a ballot and you voted. After depositing your ballot in the box and telling another election official that you live in Hudson, you allege that this election official instructed you to go to Hudson to register. Upon arriving back in

Hudson, you state that you told the same election official from earlier that you had voted in Litchfield, but that you were instructed to return to Hudson. The election official sent you to another table, where you informed yet another official that you needed to register to vote. You stated that you gave your completed registration form to another election official who gave you some ballots. You acknowledged that you took the ballots and voted.

In May of 2010, you provided Investigator Valenti with a signed type statement, which substantially comports with the statement you provided to him over the phone.

Be advised that RSA 659:34, I, provides. in pertinent part that "[a] person is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000 if such person:

(a) When registering to vote; when obtaining an official ballot; or when casting a vote by official ballot, makes a false material statement regarding his or her qualifications as a voter to an election officer or submits a voter registration form, an election day registration affidavit, a citizenship affidavit, a domicile affidavit, or an absentee registration affidavit containing false material information regarding his or her qualifications as a voter;

(5) ;

(c)

(d) Applies for a ballot in his or her own name after he or she has voted once;

(e) Votes for any office or measure at an election if such person is not qualified to vote as provided in

RSA 654; RSA 659:34, I, (a), (d) and (e).

You have admitted in your communications to Investigator Valenti that you voted twice in the town elections held on March 9, 2010. As such, this Office has determined that you violated RSA 659:34,

1. We find that by registering to vote in the town of Hudson on March 9, 2010, after you had already voted in the town of Litchfield, you made a false material statement on the Hudson voter registration form in violation of RSA 659:34. I (a). Specifically, in completing the voter registration form in the town of Hudson, you executed the following oath (emphasis added), which states in pertinent part: acknowledge that I have read and understand the above qualifications for voting and do hereby swear, under the penalties for voting fraud set forth below, that I am qualified to vote in the above stated city or town on this date, and if registering on election day, that I have not voted and will not vote at any other place in this election.

Jon R. Deacon

Re: Violation of RSA 659:34, I

January 12, 2011

We also find that you violated RSA 659:34, 1 (d) when you applied for a ballot in Hudson after voting in Litchfield. Additionally, we conclude that you violated RSA

659:34 I (e) because you knowingly voted at the Litchfield polling place when you were not qualified to vote there as provided in RSA 654 in that your domicile at the time was

Hudson.

RSA 659:34, III, authorizes the Attorney General to impose civil penalties for violations of RSA 659:34 1. However, the statute also states that the Attorney General "shall have the exclusive power to compromise, mitigate, or remit such civil penalties."

RSA 659 . 34 V.

This letter serves as official written notice that this Office is hereby imposing a civil penalty of $2,000.00 against you pursuant to RSA 659:34,111, because you violated

RSA 659:34, I (a), (d) and (e) on March 9, 2010.

However, due to the circumstances surrounding your double voting, including possible confusion, all $2.000.00 of the civil penalty shall be suspended for a period of two (2) years from the date of this letter.

This suspended penalty shall become immediately due and payable to the New

Hampshire Secretary of State within thirty (30) days of you being notified in the future by this Office that you are once again in violation of RSA 659:34, I.

Be advised that any future violation of RSA 659:34,1, may also result in a prosecution in New Hampshire superior court pursuant to RSA 659:34,11, which states

"A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if, at any election, such person purposefully or knowingly commits any of the other acts listed in paragaph I." RSA 659:34._11.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Should you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,                                           

Matthew G. Mavrogeorge

Attorney

Civil Bureau

(603) 271-3650

cc: William M. Gardner, Secretary of State

David M. Scanlan, Deputy Secretary of State

530251

Another thing about this election law violation of double voting is that it is NOT on the NH Secretary of State website under “2010 Investigations”

file:///C:/Users/ed/Downloads/Voting%20Fraud%20Report%202010%20by%20AG%20(3).pdf

I wonder why that is?

 

 

 

Saturday
Jan232016

Several US Senators Past And Present Make The Best Ted Cruz Commercial

Oh, happy damn day!

US Senators warn of open revolt if US Senator Ted Cruz wins the Republican Primary nomination.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/politics/ted-cruz-senate-revolt/

It’s a Republican Revolt!

And there is very little more revolting than some of the 100 biggest hypocrites on the face of the Earth, US Senators past and present, showing what they are really made of.

If some US Senators are going to excoriate another US Senator who takes their capitulation to the left wing, unconstitutional agenda of a socialist president as an insult to voters who put them in the Senate - then by all means step right up. Now is the time to show your colors.

Some Washington insiders are going to put their careers on the line in a last ditch effort to keep any candidate except one sanctioned by the correct lobbyists and donors off the ballot.

This battle has been brewing for decades. I congratulate the Republican surrender monkeys for publicly entering the fray, and not to mention having the courage to take on Ted Cruz but not Obama.