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

Go Fish

The latest news is the same old news about New Hampshire Fish and game being broke. So what do you think we are going to do about it?

One suggestion, besides a saltwater fishing license, kayak permit, grabbing some rooms and meals taxes, or instituting a hiking fee is to change the name of the commission.

Here is one sample of a new name: The New Hampshire Fish and Wildlife Department. I don’t know, does this sound inspiring enough to gain any momentum and rake in the big bucks?

How about doing what we did recently with another unique New Hampshire entity – the Manchester Airport. Some genius thought that re-naming the Manchester Airport the Manchester Boston Regional Airport would improve its financial situation. The same name game was done in Fitchburg Ma. We must have one big happy family of airports now.

So does the New Hampshire Boston Regional Fish and Wildlife Department moniker have a tempting, outdoorsy feel to it enough to lure into our countryside people we can tax? It doesn’t get me excited but then every time I go to the Manchester Boston Regional Airport I think what a stupid thing it was to associate Boston with New Hampshire. But then I am kind of stodgy like that.

Without new revenue sources the only thing the poor Fish and Game Dept. can do is to try is either new taxes or new and exciting names (looking at cost savings?). Fishing license sales are dropping like a non-lead sinker since they became an expense you need a payday loan for.

I quit buying hunting licenses years ago and only get a fishing license when I take some youngster out to drown a few worms.

But then maybe the people looking at rescuing Fish and Game from bankruptcy aren’t considering overpriced licenses the problem. A spanking new name might just do the trick.



Start Making Noise Taxpayers!

Here we go again.

RSA 91-A, The Right to Know Law, a result of an amendment to our NH Constitution, is under attack  from - the Right to Know Commission.

Sound strange? This is NH remember. What is common sense in the real world is just the opposite in government in Concord.

Here is the scam.

Two attorneys on the RTKC have been working feverishly from the inception of this group to subvert the intent of 91-A by allowing what is NOT ALLOWED! The ultimate object of their desire is to establish, by direct or indirect new language, an amendment to the law which would include “sequential meetings” between public officials.

Meeting sequentially by phone, email, smoke signal, OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER, one on one, without having a quorum assembled or letting the rest of the group know all at once, is the perfect way for a public body to GET THINGS DONE so much easier.

This is exactly what RSA 91-A was created to prevent. It is exactly what the RTKC has been searching for.

And who are these lawyers?

Let’s start with Attorney Peter Smith of Durham who on Thursday this week told the House Judicial Committee reviewing RSA 91-A that if we did not do something soon the COURTS would do it for us. That is a phony scare tactic. Let them. The State Supreme Court never mentioned gutting RSA 91-A when it suggested in Hawkins v. NH HHS that the law should include updated ways to store electronic data. This sequential meeting scheme is purely the creation of some lawyers on the RTKC and the NH Municipal Association.

I believe Attorney Smith is so animated as to make up this court nonsense because he may have a personal issue with sequential meetings.

A few years ago he was subject to much ridicule in the press for, along with the rest of the Durham Town Council he was on, for attempting to hire a new Durham employee by sequential emails between council members. The local papers got hold of some of the emails and printed them for everyone to see. Now he is the one trying to make this legal?

Several of the first incarnations of this commission’s tampering with 91-A actually described how sequential meetings could be held. These attempts were foiled in the State Senate. Now they are back with less specific, sneaky language. Here is how the scam works.

Sequential meetings fly in the face of public disclosure. These secret meetings are not specifically mentioned in RSA 91-A NOW because the current language in the law prevents them. This commission has new language that says "sequential meetings are not to be used to subvert the intent of the law".

In legal mumbo jumbo this clearly means that you can have sequential meetings as long as they do not subvert the law. Any lawyer can drive a truck through RSA 91-A with a willing judge and this language change. NH being NH there is about a 99% willing judge rate when it comes to bucking a school board. Sorry, that is the way it is.

If you want to prevent sequential meetings here is how you do it: “Sequential meetings shall be prohibited.” End of story.

When a judge is faced with “shall be prohibited” and a recent change by the Legislature to ADD that language, taxpayers are protected. Change the law to include even a mention of sequential meetings without a prohibition and you have a neat little loop-hole just like this commission wants.

For the three years the RTKC has been fooling with this law they have shown that the last thing they want to see is the inclusion of prohibitive language.

No State Representative, State Senator, or Governor should vote for this bill’s change until it includes this language.

There are more problems with the bill I will detail in my next article.

CNHT will suggest some real improvements to RSA 91-A if that is the intent of this commission and the legislature. Until then we will oppose any weakening of the Right to Know Law.


Be Prepared

From what I can figure, today, January 17, is the date in 1998 that Matt Drudge went public with the Monica Lewinsky story the major news media tried so hard to cover up.

Thanks Matt.

So on the ten year anniversary of one of the most stunning achievements of the made for television dysfunctional situation tragedy known as the “Clinton Clan” I submit this:

New from RONCO, the William Jefferson Clinton Commemorative Condom Collection!

Just in time to re-live a second Clinton “shot” at the White House, you too can own a set of these latex collector’s items packaged in a quick draw Velcro dispenser which can easily and discreetly be attached to your belt – if you’re wearing pants.

Imagine how handy the quick draw dispenser will be should a thong wearing fat girl bearing a pizza wander into YOUR office! Or if a sobbing underling shows up unexpectedly looking for a pay check, you won’t be fumbling for a dose of presidential protection.

And talk about protection. Each one of these Clinton Commemorative Condoms comes with its own unique “distinguishing characteristic” blended right into our amazing product. No more worrying if some trailer park babe can “identify” the Presidential Unit. She and her lawyers will be the laughing stock of the tabloids this time – not you.

DNA on blue dresses, cigars, Oval Office furniture, White House pages, starlets, limos or foreign dignitaries will be a thing of the past with the Clinton Commemorative Condoms.

Get yours now, each bearing the Presidential Seal of Approval.

And if you order an economy sized box of these amazing, four inch, heavy duty Clinton Commemorative Condoms in the quick draw dispenser RONCO will make this special offer.

Shipped along with the Clinton Condoms will be a personalized “Flying Ashtray Protective Hat,” a $75 dollar value, yours free just for trying our Clinton Commemorative Condoms. This Flying Ashtray Protective Hat may look like any ordinary hard hat but look again! Inside is a set of earplugs designed to cut shrill and annoying voices by 80%!

And if at any time you are unsatisfied with our Clinton Commemorative Condoms – just keep them.

To get your own Clinton Commemorative Condoms and the free Flying Ashtray Protective Hat, a $75 dollar value, just send your Visa or Master Card to 1600 Hollywood Boulevard, Hollywood, California 02190 : attention Rodger.


Show Me The Money Show Trial

In order to have a kinder and gentler Democrat Presidential Primary, a federal Judge has delayed the trial of NH Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter’s old pal from Louisiana, Congressman Dollar Bill Jefferson. Unfortunately for the Democrats who just re-elected him, knowing he was a crook – but THEIR crook, they have to put up with all this legal mumbo jumbo and unfair wheel spinning. Dollar Bill was to go on trial January 16, 2008. Now it will be February 25, 200…, about the time Guam has its primary.

Imagine having a criminal bribery and fraud trial for a prominent long-serving respected Democrat in the respected US Congress during a Democrat Primary already filled with racial tension between the first serious female (?) Democrat candidate and the first serious black Democrat for President. (I thought the first black President was husband of this first serious female, Democrat candidate ?) This is so confusing it could turn voters off.

Let it not happen! Let us not chance any news outlet dwelling on who is already serving in “the most ethical Congress in US history” as they like to be called. This could only damage our Democracy. (“Democracy” is the Democrat/Liberal term for Constitutional Republic, which is the form of government we actually have.

Dollar Bill’s criminal sentence, should he be convicted of these trumped up charges of stealing $10,000.00 of the $100,000.00 bribe money he took from the FBI on video tape, along with all the other trumped up charges, could garner him 235 years in prison. Wow, his sentence is almost as inflated as our US dollar bill – a coincidence you say?

Now back to our honest court system, Congress, and Presidential Primary. (Don’t you wish they had a poll on how many people think Dollar Bill is innocent? They could break it down by race and party affiliation.)

In the mean time, no pun intended, we voters will just have to be content to watch Hillary go after Obama’s self admitted drug problems through her willing surrogates such as Hillary co-chair Bill Shaheen, our former “First Hunk.” So much for the other issues, they will have to wait.

After the primary we can then settle down to the nightly news endlessly reporting the upcoming US financial collapse, historical rates of homelessness, contaminated food and water, evil Republicans who are secretly gay, unaffordable everything the government can buy you, and how much the rest of the world hates us. You know, the standard liberal issues.

I will be most interested in the new list of “Republicans for whoever the Democrat candidate is” full page ads in the Union Leader. That should occur about three days before the November election. I keep the old ones to match up with the most current list. All you need to is print over the “Republicans for Shaheen” which was plastered over with “Republicans for Lynch” which can easily be plastered over with “Republicans for Obama.”

Just kidding, it will be “Republicans for Hillary” because if Obama actually wins the primary the Democrat Super Delegates will hold a brokered convention and slip in the socialist moonbat they have groomed for 30 years.

This is my favorite part of the process.


Pro Se ick

Ten days ago I represented myself, unless that is a debatable point as well, in Hillsborough Superior Court in Manchester, NH in a Motion to Dismiss my appeal of a property tax abatement request denial for 2006. It gets weirder.

The corrupt town I live in, Deering, the one that taught me that in fact you can find something under a rock every time you look, denied my simple property tax appeal on two grounds, one, that it was late, two, that I am not the owner.

We had Judge Abramson. I am happy with that.

The Town’s attorney, from Mitchell and Bates in Laconia, put the town Administrative Assistant, Robin Buchanan, on the stand so she could retract the sworn statement she made to get this case started. It stated I handed her my appeal on Friday, March 2, a day late. I did not bother to cross examine her.

The town attorney obviously found it may be too difficult to prove I came in on Friday because the Town Hall is closed in Fridays. In my Objection to their case I simply stated I was not IN Deering on March 2, 2007 during the hours the town hall is open on the days they are open. Since I put in no further details they got scared and had to retract the sworn affidavit for fear I had evidence I was not in town – which I was not.

One false affidavit out of the way, on to - ownership.

The Town of Deering also claimed that I was not due any abatement because I am not the owner of the property. That is partly true. I do not own the property. It is in my wife’s name. We are married and have lived there for 30 years. I have been in a pitched political battle with these people for about twenty of those years.

The proper statute I submitted my appeal under only references “taxpayer” and “aggrieved party,” as being a person who can appeal, ownership is not to be found anywhere in the statute. It was stricken from the law in 1978 from what I can tell. It would stand to reason the Town would be asked by the Court to prove I am at least not an “aggrieved party” but, hey this is New Hampshire, that did not happen.

I do not know how Judge Abramson will rule. It was to my advantage to have the Town pull a stunt like this. It is the third Superior Court case I have had to endure to conduct simple town business.

In 1991 I won a case against them for holding documents from me for four months and again in 2004 I beat them in another case involving specific public documents required by law to be available they held them for four months as well. Here we are in 2008 and the Town needs to make up an affidavit and a flimsy case to try to stop me from getting a simple abatement, one in which they have made what appears to be a technical error.

While I was arguing my case I had the opportunity to enter into the record that this most recent action by the Town is certainly a pattern and looks malicious. The first case brought in 1991 led to the arrest of the three selectmen and road agent. In 2004 they opened the town hall on Columbus Day to make me the assessing manual I asked for in writing four months before so to have complied with RSA91-A, the Right to Know Law, for the next days court hearing. Now this new board wants in on the legal game of cat and mouse.

The must be having more fun than I am I guess.