Connect the Dots

I like Dots. Every time I go to the movies – Dots it is. The BIG Box.

Then there are the other dots. The “connect the dots.” You can't eat'em but you can relish them.

Here is a taste:

DOT # 1

I just got off the phone with Barry Silver. Barry lives in Boca Raton Florida and ran for Congress in 1999. In his Democrat primary he was up against a very aggressive opponent who “slimed” him. Barry Silver proceeded to take his opponent to court for this reprehensible act and she, his opponent, decided to just pay him $5,000.00 instead of clearing her name.

Mr. Silver, “the slimed”, was going to do the same for the campaign manager of “the slimer” but before he could act the “assistant slimer” skedaddled for parts unknown - to Barry Silver.

We in NH know the “assistant slimer” as Jesse Burchfield of State Senator Burt Cohen fame. (Burchfield who? I lost his resume.)

Jesse just survived a slight talking to on Monday by the big bad federal prosecutors who unfortunately captured him after he made off with the future of the 2004 Burt Cohen For US Senate Campaign by fudging the books by about $300,000. The FEC was vewy, vewy mad. Now he will have to serve probation. No, not that!

DOT # 2

Who is that man in the car with the South Dakota plates? Its Geoff Watrotsky! (No, that's not a typo. I like to call him Wa-trotsky since I saw he had his picture posted on the internet with a statue of Karl Marx. Such a pair.)

Watrotsky blew into our Granite State to help Mayor Bob Baines lose his election to Frank Guinta last week. Watrotsky, if you remember, was the political sign stealer who stopped by “Democrat command headquarters” with his stolen loot – Guinta for Mayor and State GOP signs. Watrotsky was bankrolled during this endeavor by our good neighbor to the south, US Senator John Kerry. That makes two losers, a crook and a... (fill in the blank with your favorite adjective.).

Dot connecting time.

What do two out of state thugs brought to NH to campaign for liberal tax and spend Democrats have in common?

1. Plausible deniability?

2. Friends in the NH press?

3. Out of state I.D.?

5. Links to higher-ups?

6. Bags full of dirty tricks?

Close!

7. They both will be spared the 8 months in prison Chuck McGee is serving for having had to do political battle on behalf of his Republican candidates against creeps like this, year, after year, after year.

Welcome to ManchPostal

Welcome to Manchester politics. The stuff you are not supposed to hear has arrived.

Enter Joe Kelly Levasseur and his attempt to mail his Manchester City Council election material through the Manchester Post Office like any other Manchester candidate would be able to do. For that matter, any candidates for office in America would be able mail their glossies out before election day wouldn't you say?

But this is Manchester, New Hampshire and it depends on who you are.

The facts:

Today, just hours after being contacted by the USPS in Manchester, Joe Kelly Levasseur received an official $975.00 check.

The check is a remuneration the Manchester USPS felt obligated to give him for NOT delivering his mailers BEFORE November 8.

Happens all the time, right? Political mailers just sit in bags off to the side at the end of the day and when the post office workers get around to it they trundle the bundles off with their little golf cart mail-mobiles.

And this must be a big story since everyone wants an unbiased, efficient post office. Who would believe it was a mistake. It was probably just an oversight.

How often then does the US Post Office pay a candidate back for NOT mailing political materials before an election? (This is the part where you hear cricket noises.)

Love him or hate him Joe is no punching bag. Let me re-phrase. This punching bag punches back!

Joe Kelly has offered a $25,000 reward to the first postal worker who comes forward to testify about what happened.

USPS punches back!

“No Mr. Kelly,” the USPS lawyer in Connecticut tells Joe, “We do not allow employees to take rewards.” (Surprise! How would this scam work if they did that?)

Does anyone think this story will make the “Manchester Paper” like the Chuck McGee scandal did? Remember Chuck? He should be home soon for the holidays after sitting in a federal prison for doing a lot less than this. Chuck will be front page again when he is released. Then the local papers will investigate “Postalgate,” right?

Not if “John DiStaso (D) Union Leader” has anything to do with it. The stolen sign story failed to make his weekly “insider” article twice after the Mayor Baines loss (popularity poll 65%) to Frank Guinta. All DiStaso managed to do was re-re-re-repeat the list of Republican scandals Governor Not Benson campaigned on. What a coincidence.

So stay tuned for more info on this story and our upcoming “Readers Contest” which is a fabulous grand prize (made of wood) for the first person who can guess how long it will be until The UL is printing LESS than 50,000 papers a day. (Hint 53,000 now). Phone in your guess at 1-800-BAD-PULP.

Born Under A Bad Sign

So if I have this story straight, Geoff Wetrosky, the campaign chair-man-child for soon to be former Manchester Mayor Bob “People love taxes” Baines was caught “liberating” Mayoral Candidate Frank Guinta signs and taking the liberated signs to his hideout at, where else, State Democrat Party Chairman Cathy Sullivan's abode.

I had to stumble across this story on my own as it seems not to be news to most outlets in NH. But is set me to wonder.[See http://www.nhgop.org/bob_baines.htm]

This Geoff Wetrosky has been paid since April as far as I can tell by none other than former presidential candidate John Kerry. Kerry has all kinds of former campaign helpers just like Geoff scattered all over the country working on local races.

Let me take a page out of the Sullivan play-book for a minute.

If Wetrosky stole signs, he would be committing a misdemeanor. Then by taking them to his boss from the Democrat Party she would then be receiving stolen goods, at least. But since Wetrosky is working for Democrat Senator John Kerry - that is who makes his check possible – he must have known his employee was involved in stealing signs. So he would be guilty of conspiracy. (I'm on a roll)

The sooner we get to the bottom of this the better. A crime was committed and somebody lied. We need statements under oath from the whole bunch to compare against each other.

I can see it now. I will bet the farm Kerry will deny he knew anything about this. That would PROVE he was lying. (Suddenly I feel like a liberal)

You never know. This just may be the next Watergate.

Ed Naile, Chair, CNHT
www.nhtaxpayerradio.com

New Cable Access TV Show For 2006

“School Board Survivor - New Hampshire” or...

The Right To Know Commission About To Gut RSA 91-A With HB 626

If there is one thing liberal tax and spenders hate it is RSA 91-A, “The Right To Know Law.” If you are a taxpayer and regular NH citizen you will find access to public documents the single best way to track government activities. Without 91-A you might as well stop going to meetings or voting. It really is that simple.

So along comes a thinly veiled attempt by the usual suspects, lawyers and other NH Municipal Association toadies to address “problems” with the law.

The reason we are visiting the 91-A issue:
In 2001, the New Hampshire Supreme Court issued its decision in the case of Cassandra Hawkins v. New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services.1 Hawkins involved a request under the Right-to-Know Law for computer records of individual Medicaid recipient’s dental bills showing services, charges and payments.

The court's response and directive:

After deciding the issues presented, the court said:
The issues in this case foreshadow the serious problems that requests for public records will engender in the future as a result of computer technology. Unless the legislature addresses the nature of computerized information and the extent to which the public will be provided access to stored data, we will be called upon to establish accessibility on a case-by-case basis. It is our hope that the legislature will promptly examine the Right-to-Know Law in the context of advancing computer technology.2

The major change in 91-A proposed by the Commission:

II. Any communications outside a meeting, in whatever form, among a quorum of the membership of such a body which bear upon such matters shall be disclosed fully at the next meeting of the body before any decision may be made, including a decision not to act. If such communications are in writing, copies or printouts shall be made a part of the minutes. Communications among less than a quorum of members need not be disclosed. Sequential communications on the same matter shall be disclosed if the total number of members participating would constitute a quorum if meeting contemporaneously. Disclosure shall be made by those who know, or should know, that the number of participating individuals constitutes a quorum.

So here we are right at the very heart of public participation on government. As a proponent of the publics right to know since I won my first case in Superior Court in 1991. I will explain what this new paragraph is designed to do. Let's break it down.

Sentence 1.

“Any communications outside a meeting, in whatever form, among a quorum of the membership of such a body which bear upon such matters shall be disclosed fully at the next meeting of the body before any decision may be made, including a decision not to act.”
a. This sentence creates legal quorum-sized meetings outside of public meetings because that is what “communications” are.
b. Keeping written minutes of the new “outside communication meetings” (OCM) is no longer necessary as it will be disclosed from memory at the “next meeting of the body.”
c. If the next meeting is another “OCM” the possibilities are endless for a board to create policy, make plans, or create schedules for future “OCM's.”

Sentence 2.

“If such communications are in writing, copies or printouts shall be made a part of the minutes.”
a. “If such communications are in writing” proves my first point. Under current law all communications are to be in writing.

b. “copies or printouts shall be made a part of the minutes.” ? Which meeting. Are you afraid to say, subsequent meeting, as it would limit the number of OCM's?

Sentences 3 – 4

“Communications among less than a quorum of members need not be disclosed. Sequential communications on the same matter shall be disclosed if the total number of members participating would constitute a quorum if meeting contemporaneously.”
a. The possibilities are endless with this scenario but I will keep it simple. If you are a member of a five person board you may NEVER be invited to an OCM and therefore not ever be able to know what will occur at a public meeting. The chair need only contact one person at a time or a two person group could have a member contact one of the second two person group. This is illegal now and is done all the time. With a 15 member board several members could be left out of all deliberations not held at a public meeting. Picture a “School Board Survivor” TV show.

Sentence 5
“Disclosure shall be made by those who know, or should know, that the number of participating individuals constitutes a quorum.”

a. The phrase “or should know” is too stupid to even comment on as it begs for endless litigation at taxpayers expense on both sides. Just what lawyers like. Anyone responsible for this wording should be removed from the commission.

This has been Part I of a series that will appear on 91-A, or the Right To Know Law.

Ed Naile, Chair, CNHT
www.nhtaxpayerradio.com

Want A Real “Investment” From Your Legislature

How about some good old fashioned politics – New Hampshire style.

Let's face it, after last Tuesday's elections anyone not recognizing a taxpayer revolt, however unorganized, hasn't been paying close attention. So while we are at it and the while the iron is still good and hot why not make a phone call to your State Representatives and Senator and demand they do one commendable thing – vote for House Bill 541.

Read slowly and enjoy:

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Five

AN ACT relative to repealing the incorporation of the New Hampshire Bar Association.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 New Hampshire Bar Association; Repeal of Incorporation. Pursuant to the power reserved by the general court in the laws of 1873, chapter CXV, section 6, “An act to incorporate the Bar Association of the state of New Hampshire,” that the legislature may at any time alter, amend, or repeal the act incorporating the bar association, the general court hereby repeals the corporate status of the bar association of the state of New Hampshire. Upon dissolution, all remaining assets of the New Hampshire Bar Association shall escheat to the state.

2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.

Bye, Bye, Bar Flies!

I particularly like the part about “all remaining assets of the New Hampshire Bar Association escheat to the state.” Why then we would have more money “for the children.”

Its not like we would be “cheating” the Bar Association, we would only be “escheating” them, and that is an entirely different thing.

Thank you representatives Dick Marple and Lars Christiansen for putting this bill together. Below are Rep. Marple's sound, logical reasons for drafting this proposed legislation.

THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT clearly states the practice of Law CAN NOT be licensed by any state! (See) State Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 U.S. 238, 239

The practice of Law is AN OCCUPATION OF COMMON RIGHT!; (See) Sims v. Aherns, 271 S.W. 720 (1925)

The "CERTIFICATE" from the State Supreme Court ONLY authorizes the practice of Law "IN COURTS" as a member of the JUDICIAL BRANCH of GOVERNMENT and can ONLY represent WARDS OF THE COURT, INFANTS, PERSONS OF
UNSOUND MIND. ( SEE CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM, VOLUME 7, SECTION 4.)

A "CERTIFICATE" IS NOT A LICENSE to practice Law AS AN OCCUPATION; Nor to DO BUSINESS AS A LAW FIRM!

The "STATE BAR" CARD, (if any) IS NOT A LICENSE! It is a "UNION DUES CARD" of a closed shop, one unlawfully created by the New Hampshire supreme court when it "Unified the Bar" and compelled those practicing law in this state" to pay annual fees to the private New Hampshire BAR Association.

The BAR" is a "PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION." like the Actors Union, Painters Union, Realtors, Electricians, Plumbers, etc, except the fees do NOT go to the state but instead go to the private tax exempt corporation now holding a multi million dollar fund which can not be audited under the states "Right to know Laws" !

No other association, EVEN DOCTORS, issue their own license. Their fees are PAID to the STATE for the LICENSES ISSUED BY THE STATE. The State of New Hampshire does not issue attorney licenses!

The N.H. BAR is a NON-GOVERNMENTAL PRIVATE ASSOCIATION, an Unconstitutional Monopoly, violating Article 83, Part II New Hampshire constitution. An Unlawful ENTERPRISE, operating as an private corporation that pays NO TAXES and Violates Article 37 Separation of Powers clause of the New Hampshire Bill of Rights.

There is NO DELEGATED POWER OR AUTHORITY to the supreme court for breech of the separation of powers enumerated in Article 37. The SUPREME COURT OF New Hampshire has established by use of the fraudlent Article 73-a, "a conflict of interest" in advocating BAR members to participate in Legislative, Judicial, and Executive offices!

ALL N.H. ATTORNEYS ARE CURRENTLY COMPELLED TO BE MEMBERS OF THE MONOPOLISTIC BAR! This is violation of the RIGHT TO WORK LAWS of many states and suggests that the New Hampshire legislature should contemplate enactment of "Right-to-Work" laws. Consider well the need for the passage of the pending HB 541 which will, if passed, return a level playing field to the practice of law in this state. Write letters to the Editor in support of HB 541, talk to your neighbors and local officials. Call local radio talk shows to expose this fraud upon our people. Stop the "churning" of taxpayers money subsidizing the unaccountable MONOPOLY that now exists!.

DICK MARPLE, REPRESENTATIVE MERRIMACK DIST. #9, Tele/fax 627-1837

Ed Naile, Chair, CNHT
www.nhtaxpayerradio.com