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
Tuesday
May192015

When There Is Some There There, I Will Write About It Here

Congressman Frank Guinta has some FEC reporting problems from 2010 which are making headlines now. The last time I remember such a situation and wrote about it was the Burt Cohen (D) 2004 Senate Campaign where Burt Cohen brought in an out of state campaign “expert” with a questionable past, sound familiar, who was the real campaign treasurer, not the named campaign treasurer.

The out of state expert, Jessie Burchfield, then filed false reports, stole money and – ready for this, generated false press releases stating Burt Cohen’s campaign was flush with cash. The false press releases were intended to scare other candidates away.

Here is the story, in brief, from the FEC report:

2004 - New Hampshire Senate campaign and campaign manager penalized for receipt of impermissible funds, diverting campaign funds to personal use and reporting violations.

In MUR 5646, the FEC entered into conciliation agreements with Jesse Burchfield, Cohen for New Hampshire, and John Buchalski in his official capacity as the committee treasurer, and Burton Cohen. The agreements state that while Mr. Burchfield was de-facto manager of Mr. Cohen's campaign for the U.S. Senate, Burchfield knowingly and willfully falsified information on the campaigns reports to the FEC and converted campaign funds to his own personal use.

In November 2005, Mr. Burchfield pled guilty in U.S. District Court to one count of filing false statements and was later sentenced to one year of probation and six months of home confinement. In the FEC matter, Burchfield agreed to pay a civil penalty of $1,500 in light of his poor financial condition and is prohibited from working or volunteering in any federal political committee in a capacity that involves fundraising or handling finances for a period of ten years.

The FEC also found that Burton Cohen worked with Jesse Burchfield to use funds raised for a state campaign to initiate the Senate campaign in violation of FECA and failed to disclose that activity.

In a separate agreement, Mr. Cohen agreed to pay a civil penalty of $9,000. Cohen for New Hampshire also violated the FECA by accepting undisclosed impermissible funds from the state campaign account and using them in the Senate campaign.

The Committee agreed to pay a civil penalty of $10,000 for failing to keep accurate records and file accurate reports of receipts and disbursements, among other violations.

Under the law, the FEC must attempt to resolve its enforcement cases, or Matters Under Review (MURs), through a confidential investigative process that may lead to a negotiated conciliation agreement between the Commission and the individual or group the Commission determines has violated the law. 

Additional information regarding MURs can be found on the FEC web site at http://www.fec.gov/em/mur.shtml.

This release contains only summary information.  For additional details, please consult publicly available documents for each case in the Enforcement Query System (EQS) on the FEC web site at http://eqs.fec.gov/eqs/searcheqs.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is an independent regulatory agency that administers and enforces federal campaign finance laws. The FEC has jurisdiction over the financing of campaigns for the U.S. House, the U.S. Senate, the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. Established in 1975, the FEC is composed of six Commissioners who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

The web site for information as to how the FEC comes to terms with willful or accidental misreporting of campaign funds is located here:

http://www.fec.gov/law/cfr/ej_compilation/2007/notice_2007-8.pdf

If you would like to visit 2005 and see what a wilfull FEC violation looks like – lucky you. I have more for you.

http://www.cnht.org/news/2005/07/11/where-is-jesse-burchfield/

Jessie Burchfield was the first out-of-state low life political scum The Coalition of NH Taxpayers started tracking. It is hard to find anything on this former up and comer campaign expert now.

So when people ask my why am I not writing about Congressman Frank Guinta and his FEC violations I have to say they are far less interesting than the ones I am used to. I leave that job to the professional NH media and RINOs.

 

 

Tuesday
May192015

RINOhampshire

What a great day to be a RINO!

Democrat NH House Speaker Shawn Jasper (RINO) and US Senator Kelly Ayotte (RINO) are asking Congressman Frank Guinta to resign from the US House of Representatives over a false FEC filing of his own family’s money used in his own campaign in 2010.

Nice opportunity for them and the Democrats.

It may look a bit odd for NH Democrats to ask Congressman Guinta to resign from office for over spending his own money on his own campaign while the standard bearer for the NH Democrats in the NH Presidential Primary is Hillary Clinton who has amassed, so far, unexplained millions from “independent journalists” and foreign contractors in a fund that is used and abused for Clinton family perks.  

So as usual, the RINOs in NH will do the Democrats work for them and give the “journalists” in NH and the rest of the country fodder for their news stories.

As I suspect, Ayotte and Jasper have all the documentation from the Guinta scandal and have reviewed it carefully before making such serious demands. That probably took some time from their staff but it is well worth the effort.

Now if they can just find a RINO replacement for Guinta all will be in RINO balance in NH.

Tuesday
Apr282015

Baltimore or Less

A question for the illustrious Mayor of Baltimore:

If you have taken as a public policy and effort to give rioters a place to destroy property, doesn’t that void any insurance policy in the city?

If I had an insurance company writing policies in Baltimore that would be on my mind.

Where is the due diligence to protect property.

Let her office pay for the destruction she promoted.

Monday
Apr272015

Hannah Rivers Has Second Thoughts?

Hannah Rivers Revisited - 2015

The case before the NH State Supreme Court May 22, 2015 is about an offensive, to non-resident voters, legislative addition to our NH Election law, RSA 654:7, that informs a registering voter that they must follow all NH statutes when declaring NH their domicile to vote. Domicile is the requirement of our State Constitution for any newly registering inhabitant the age of 18, Part I Article II, second sentence.

The case is now titled Annemarie Guare v. State of NH because it seems Hannah Rivers is no longer listed as a litigant.

Here is how Hannah Rivers is described in the original case of “mobile domiciled” college voters:

“PARTIES”

“10. Petitioner Hannah Rivers lives at 83 Main Street, GSS Box 12764, Durham, New Hampshire . She is 19 years of age and is a citizen of the United States. In August 2011, she came from 585 West Waverly Road , Raymond , Nebraska , to New Hampshire , in order to attend school at the University of New Hampshire . She expects to finish school in May of 2015 and currently intends to leave New Hampshire after graduation. She is licensed to drive in Nebraska.”

May approaches and Hannah Rivers will graduate from UNH after attempting, with the help of the NH ACLU, NH League of Women Voters, and former Superior Court activist Judge Lewis, to water down the rights of domiciled NH citizen’s votes by staying a Nebraska citizen but voting here in NH where she goes to college.

About that NH vote Hannah Rivers “cherishes” so much.

As of today, April 27, 2015, Hannah Rivers is not a registered NH voter!

Here is Hannah Rivers LinkedIn page:

https://www.linkedin.com/pub/hannah-rivers/90/a3b/622

So it looks like the phony mobile domicile case had a phony lead petitioner.

How appropriate.

 

Wednesday
Apr222015

A Case Of "Let's Pretend"

Today I went to the embarrassment that is the NH State Supreme Court today and watched the NH Attorney General’s Office representative, in the most recent incarnation of the “Mobile Domicile” case, stutter and hem and haw his way to its illogical end. This NH AG lawyer, a Mr. Labonte, stood there as Justice Hughes said all it takes to be a voter in NH is to be an inhabitant and 18 years of age. Labonte never flinched.

The quote from the Supreme Court Justice missed the mark a bit but Mr. Labonte let him get away with it.

Here is what the NH Constitution says in regards to the qualifications of voters in NH. You will find the meat of it is in the first two sentences of Part I Article 11:

[Art.] 11. [Elections and Elective Franchises.] All elections are to be free, and every inhabitant of the state of 18 years of age and upwards shall have an equal right to vote in any election. Every person shall be considered an inhabitant for the purposes of voting in the town, ward, or unincorporated place where he has his domicile.

But Mr. Labonte either wasn’t smart enough or inclined to point that out to Justice Hughes. No, he was stuck on keeping a wide gap in the meaning of “residence” for voting purposes, and the word “domicile’ which is a legal term for “legal residence.” Everyone knows that but because all the parties seem bent on finding a way to allow non-resident college students to vote in NH, we pretend words don’t mean what they mean in Black’s Law Dictionary, countless election law cases, 49 other states, and federal elections.

Here is the Guare v. NH case:

http://www.courts.state.nh.us/caseinfo/pdf/civil/07252014gardner-order.pdf

Funny thing about the meaning of “residence” for voting in New Hampshire and the lead plaintiff in this fiasco, though.

The lead plaintiff this time is one Annemarie Guare of Bangor, Maine. She has, according to Mr. Labonte, stated that the term “resident” in our election laws was confusing and that is why the NH ACLU and NH League of Women Voters is challenging a part of the law that says that upon becoming a voter in NH you have to obey all NH laws, such as registering a car and getting a NH driver’s license.

In Maine, Election Laws come under Title 21-A where Maine voters have certain familiar requirements.

See if this makes sense.

Annemarie is a Maine voter, and driver, who does not understand NH Election Laws and feels disenfranchised.

Here is the Maine requirement to be a registered voter:

§111. General qualifications

A person who meets the following requirements may vote in any election in a municipality, including a biennial municipal caucus held pursuant to section 311. [2005, c. 387, §1 (AMD).]

1. Citizenship.  The person must be a citizen of the United States.

[ 2005, c. 387, §1 (AMD) .]

2. Age.  The person must be at least 18 years of age, except that, to vote in a political party's primary election or municipal caucus, the person must be at least 18 years of age as of the date of the next general election.

[ 2005, c. 387, §1 (AMD) .]

3. Residence.  The person must have established and maintain a voting residence in that municipality.

[ 2005, c. 387, §1 (AMD) .]

Apparently this college student knows that she had to give a legal address for a “residence” in Maine to vote there and to get a Maine driver’s license, but she comes to NH and pays out-of-state tuition to UNH. That must be a brain teaser.

Annemarie Guare also wants to vote here in NH but stay a Maine “resident.” No wonder she might be confused. But it isn’t NH’s fault.

Here is another Maine Election Law:

§112. Residence for voting purposes

1. Residence.  The residence of a person is that place where the person has established a fixed and principal home to which the person, whenever temporarily absent, intends to return.

A. The following factors may be offered by an applicant and considered by a registrar in determining a person's residence under this section. The registrar need not find all of these factors to be present in order to conclude that an applicant qualifies to register to vote in the municipality:

(1) A direct statement of intention by the person pursuant to section 121, subsection 1;

(2) The location of any dwelling currently occupied by the person;

(6) The place where any motor vehicle owned by the person is registered;

(8) The residence address, not a post office box, shown on a current income tax return;

(9) The residence address, not a post office box, at which the person's mail is received;

(10) The residence address, not a post office box, shown on any current resident hunting or fishing licenses held by the person;

(12) The residence address, not a post office box, shown on any motor vehicle operator's license held by the person;

(14) The receipt of any public benefit conditioned upon residency, defined substantially as provided in this subsection; or

(16) Any other objective facts tending to indicate a person's place of residence. [2009, c. 253, §10 (AMD).]

In Maine, the term “residence” for voting means “legal residence” or for a more correct description, “domicile” as our NH Founding Fathers used in our Constitution.

Somehow, Annemarie Guare managed to cope with that linguistic treachery in Maine where she found a way to get a driver’s license and register to vote. Her complaint is nothing more than attempt to steal a vote from a qualified NH voter through our court system. Annemarie Guare is in no way disenfranchised by our election laws or by the State of Maine. But she is, as the other litigants were before her, a pawn in a cynical attempt to flood NH with out-of-state voters.

One thing I noticed during today’s hearing. No one referenced Black’s Law Dictionary to find the meaning of the words that were so important to the case?

Watch this stupid case drag on beyond 2016.