Suddenly "DOMICILE" Means Something!

Watch the issue of “domicile” have meaning to Democrats now that they have set their teeth into a possible Republican candidate for Governor.

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/politics/1032084-476/domicile-question-clouds-candidacy.html

Our State Constitution requires a person to live in NH for seven consecutive years to be a legitimate candidate for several offices. That has never bothered the Democrats, especially the former party chair Kathy Sullivan who ran an out of state voter flophouse from her residence for vote thief Geoff Wetrosky. But let any hint of ineligibility taint the candidate for an opposing party and we have a sudden dedication to written words in statutes and the NH Constitution.

Enter one Walter Havenstein, a Republican candidate for NH Governor who is domiciled in NH but has a residence in Maryland.

Havenstien’s family lived continuously in Alton NH for the seven years duration of mandatory inhabitance in a domicile owned by Mr. Havenstein.

I assume he has had a NH driver’s license with that address on it, which was a deciding factor in the losing Democrat domicile case against Sean Mahoney in 2006 when a NH lawyer challenged his run for Congress. The Ballot law Commission said Mahoney was indeed domiciled for the required seven years. Mr. Mahoney had a NH driver’s license continuously since 1989. Do the math.

In this Nashua paper article, the writer quotes Secretary of State Bill Gardner as not taking a stand on this candidate’s eligibility. Frankly, should Bill Gardner be allowed to take any stand on anything any more after standing by for several decades and letting NH become one of the most corrupt states elections are held in?

He has had his chance and blew it long ago.

How about some simple facts to determine domicile in NH?

Mr. Havenstein has a family living here in NH and a home he used as his domicile.

For the seven years in question he was a registered NH voter.

He only voted in NH. And we know this because if he voted in another state the Democrats would have that evidence plastered all over the papers in NH, the same papers that avoid investigating real voter fraud – like the Nashua paper.

Nashua has more illegal voter nests than any other city in NH – except college dorms. They win hands down.

I have not seen Mr. Havenstein’s driver’s license, but again, the Democrats would have had that by now. It is not listed in this “news” item so I assume he has a legit NH driver’s license.

Add in bank accounts, church, social clubs, and any other activity that would tie NH to Mr. Havenstein and you have no issue of domicile which would preclude him from running for office.

Maryland may have a tax issue with Mr. Havenstein. That would be their problem.

When The Coalition of NH Taxpayers runs background checks for domicile on the low life vote thieves we catch stealing a NH vote, we use facts on which to base the domicile of the voter in question.

Since NH’s AG and NH Secretary of State could care less about out of state vote thieves who work for Organizing for America, CNHT makes the determination of who is a low life vote, stealing, scum bag and turn them into the state they are really domiciled in hoping that state will enforce their own laws and help our grass roots effort clean up NH.

Mr. Havenstein is domiciled in NH and has been for a long time as far as I can see.

Someone like Ma. and Washington DC election transient,  Geoff Wetrosky, who voted from Kathy Sullivan’s home illegally in 2005, then again at 1200 Elm St. in 2008 when he was back here working on the Obama campaign, is not a legally domiciled NH voter. But the Nashua paper could care less about him or their own Nashua vote thieves like Paolo Cozzi, Alyssa Tierney, or Sarah Rottenberg. Their interest extends to doing the Democrat Party bidding with “news” like this.

The Ballot Law Commission has, in the past, let Democrats ignore the seven year domicile requirement when their candidates were registered and voted in another state within the seven year domicile requirement.

How come the Nashua paper’s expert political reporter didn’t mention that?

(Here is a hint: The Foy Decision, year: 2000)