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

Such A Deal

This just crossed my mind while reading about Superior Court “Judge” Coffey
You must remember Superior Court Judge Patricia who helped create a trust to hide her husband's assets from debtors. The debtors in this case were clients defrauded by Judge Coffey’s husband.
Members of the fearsome State Judicial Conduct Committee have decided Judge Patricia Coffey, wife of suspended attorney John J. Coffey, has violated the esteemed judicial code of conduct. Now Judge Coffey may be subject to a wide array of scary punishments ranging from a private reprimand (Not that, Oh NO!) to disbarment (Code for some state job some place?).
Here is what you or I would be subject to if we did the same.
Section 642:4
642:4 Aiding Criminal Activity. – A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if he purposely aids another who has committed a crime in profiting or benefiting from the criminal activity, as by safeguarding the proceeds thereof or converting the proceeds into negotiable funds.
Source. 1971, 518:1, eff. Nov. 1, 1973.

Section 643:2
643:2 Misuse of Information. – A public servant, as defined in RSA 640:2, II, is guilty of a misdemeanor if, knowing that official action is contemplated or in reliance on information which he has acquired by virtue of his office or from another public servant, he:
I. Acquires or divests himself of a pecuniary interest in any property, transaction or enterprise which may be affected by such action or information; or
II. Speculates or wagers on the basis of such action or information; or
III. Knowingly aids another to do any of the foregoing.
Source. 1971, 518:1, eff. Nov. 1, 1973.

Forgery and Fraudulent Practices Generally
Section 638:9
638:9 Fraud on Creditors. – A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if:
I. He destroys, removes, conceals, encumbers, transfers or otherwise deals with property subject to a security interest with a purpose to hinder enforcement of that interest; or
II. Knowing that proceedings have been or are about to be instituted for the appointment of a person entitled to administer property for the benefit of creditors, he
(a) Destroys, removes, conceals, encumbers, transfers or otherwise deals with any property with a purpose to defeat or obstruct the claim of any creditor, or otherwise to obstruct the operation of any law relating to administration of property for the benefit of creditors; or
(b) Presents to any creditor or to an assignee for the benefit of creditors, orally or in writing, any statement relating to the debtor's estate, knowing that a material part of such statement is false.
Source. 1971, 518:1, eff. Nov. 1, 1973.

Well a brotherhood slap on the wrist is better than nothing I guess.

This is New Hampshire after all.


Mayor Guinta - Stay With A Winner

Maybe I'm confused.

Mayor Frank Guinta is up for re-election after serving two years as Mayor of Manchester. Easy enough to understand.

His opponent is an attorney who was on the Manchester School Board. One of his main campaign themes is a promise to make education better.

Mayor Frank is already working on that, just like he is at reducing crime - down a considerable sum, and cutting taxes - which he has done as promised in his first campaign.

Now the Mayor's opponent thinks Mayor Guinta is weak on education?

Then how, two years ago, did Mayor Guinta give such a shellacking to "Mayor For Life" Bob Baines the former school teacher? If anyone is "pro-education" you would think it was Bob Baines.

I think former Mayor Baine's idea of pro-education was simply throwing more money at it. The voters probably picked up on that as well.

So the reason Manchester voters should jump on board another tax and spend platform with Attorney Donovan is...

There isn't one.


Ready - Set - TAX!

The Coalition of NH Taxpayers helps individuals who help themselves – it works best that way. Occasionally we get lucky and find a group and an issue that expose problems taxpayers in NH have that touch on the many types of personalities involved, municipal functions, state laws, and the state buearocracy.

We have a “Tri-Fecta” in Windsor - call it a “hat trick” if you want a hockey analogy.

Windsor taxpayers contacted CNHT for some help with the clique that runs that small town. It seems some people had not paid property taxes for up to six years. You can make a ton of loyal friends by forgiving taxes if you are a selectman.

But as all Ponzi schemes surely end so has minority rule in Windsor. The powers that be are still in office but the thrones are so much more uncomfortable than in years past.

So is a certain chair in Concord. It belongs to one Sandra Burke of the glorious NH Dept. of Revenue.

Under state statute the DRA sets the tax rate for municipalities.

21-J:35 Setting of Tax Rates by Commissioner. –
I. The commissioner of revenue administration shall compute and establish the tax rate of each town, city, or unincorporated place. Any assessments report issued by the commissioner pursuant to RSA 21-J:11-a shall not delay or otherwise affect the setting of the tax rate for that municipality.
II. To compute and establish the tax rates of towns, cities and unincorporated places under paragraph I, the commissioner shall examine the reports required under RSA 21-J:34 to ensure that:
(a) All appropriations have been made in a manner which is consistent with procedural requirements established by statute.
(b) No appropriations have been made which are prohibited by statute.
© All revenues have been estimated accurately and in a manner which is not prohibited by statute.
(d) All calculations are correct.
III. If the commissioner finds that appropriations were made in a manner which is inconsistent with statute he shall delete the appropriation or that portion in question.
IV. If the commissioner finds that the estimated revenues included are inaccurate or inappropriate he shall adjust the estimates in question.
V. The commissioner shall notify in writing the governing body of each city or town of the rate he has established. This notification shall include a detailed explanation of all changes made in the appropriations or revenue estimates submitted by the municipality or district in question.
VI. Any town, city, or unincorporated place which is dissatisfied with the tax rate set under this section may, within 10 days of notification, request an oral hearing on this matter before the commissioner of revenue administration. If such a request is made, the commissioner shall promptly schedule and conduct a hearing pursuant to rules he shall adopt under RSA 541-A. After hearing, the decision of the commissioner shall be final.
Source. 1987, 285:4, eff. July 1, 1987. 2001, 158:57, eff. Sept. 3, 2001. 2003, 307:9, eff. July 1, 2003.

So the DRA is in charge of Windsor’s tax rate – sort of.

All Windsor has to do is supply things like records as in RSA 21-J:34 which says in part:

V. A financial report for each city, town, school district, village district, or county shall be filed showing the summary of receipts and expenditures, according to uniform classifications, during the preceding fiscal year, and a balance sheet showing assets and liabilities at the close of the year. This report shall be submitted on or before April 1 if the municipality keeps its accounts on a calendar year basis, or on or before September 1 if the municipality keeps its accounts on an optional fiscal year basis pursuant to RSA 31:94-a. School districts shall submit financial reports on or before September 1 of each year.

But The Coalition of Windsor Taxpayers has letters from the DRA going back ten years or so that show the town fathers do not submit everything they are supposed to. For instance this year the Town Treasurer did not submit a Treasurer’s Report - the straw that broke the camel’s hat trick so to speak.

So if the DRA sets the tax rate but the Windsor Clique does not give them data……..?

Are we just making up tax rates for towns now? That is what it looks like.

Since September 21, 2007 the taxpayer group in Windsor has been trying to open a dialogue with their DRA representative, Sandra Rourke, to no avail. A simple little town with 250 residents and the DRA can’t do its job.

What gives? Could it be that the DRA is a toothless paper tiger or an incompetent hackarama?

And they are the ones the tax and spenders want in charge of a broad based tax?



Just A Technicality

For thirty years I have lived in one of the most corrupt towns in the state, Deering. There is nothing here to speak of but it has, like most towns, a small, dedicated clique of oddballs who insist on running it. I have to thank them for teaching me all about NH political activism. I owe everything I know about crooks and town government to them.

Deering used to be run by an odd mix of sometimes self-ordained, other times phony ministers, along with public employees, and the usual busybodies etc. Currently, Deering it is going through its leftwing flatlander selectman stage which has taken the yearly TOWN budget from $700,000.00 where I left it when I was last a selectman in 1999 to $1.7 million now. With just about nothing to show for it.

Time has in the last twenty years I have been involved with politics here brought me many different boards of selectmen. One of those boards was arrested, along with the little road agent, because of some public document tampering involved with the bid rigging that came to light after a successful Right to Know suit I brought against them.

We are now on the third law firm I know of, Mitchell and Bates, out of Laconia. I wish them luck.

Yesterday they sent me a Motion to Dismiss my request for an appeal of a denial of property taxes I handed the administrative assistant between 3:00 and 4:00 pm on March 1, 2007 - the deadline to file with the town.

I am appealing an $80,000.00 “view” assessment they levied against my 10 foot by 20 foot sheep shed. We already have a $90,000.00 “view” assessment on the house.

In the Motion to Dismiss the Town of Deering states that I filed my appeal with them on March 2, 2007 NOT March 1, 2007. They claim, and the administrative assistant has signed, a statement attesting to the fact that I handed her the abatement appeal on March 2, 2007—a day late.

Here is the part that is soooo Deering.

The Town Hall is closed on Fridays - has been for years. Check the Deering web site.

March 2, 2007 was a Friday.

I gave the abatement request to the Deering Administrative Assistant on Thursday on my way to the CNHT Radio Program in Amherst. I did not go to the Town Hall on a Friday. It is closed.

This is New Hampshire and I am under no illusions about my soon to be filed Objection To the Motion to Dismiss. I could very easily lose this case.

But then that is what the other board, the one that was arrested, thought about my Right to Know case in 1991.


Too Bad Mr. Gore

Just think.

Al Gore missed the oportunity to win himself a Nobel Prize in 1972 by warning us then about the coming Ice Age.


If only he had not been so wrapped up in inventing the internet. 


Think of the possibilities. He would be the only former US V.P. with an Oscar, an Emmy, and TWO Nobel Prizes.


Run, Al,  Run. If you get in I'll drop Kucinich and vote for you in the primary.