By Peter Bearse

The main appeal of the Bearse campaign to the Ballot Law Commission (BLC) was pitched at a level of quality over quantity – what author John McPhee calls “a higher level of the game.” The Ballot Law Commission ruled solely and narrowly on the numbers -- simply on the basis that we could not present 242 additionally certified petitions over the number of those claimed to be already certified by SoS staff (lower by 73 than the number we counted). Yet, the numbers in this case should have been interpreted so as to favor our appeal for ballot access. Why? – Because of:

Errors: A most serious matter, as indicated earlier. So, we asked that the Commission order a recheck of our petitions so that the signers, at least, can benefit from this exercise without their right to vote being placed in jeopardy. [Note: A number of those disqualified called by our campaign expressed anger or dismay that their petitions were disqualified or rejected. They also thanked us for the calls. But for our reaching out to them, they might have forgotten to re-register at new addresses and thus might have lost their votes in the upcoming general election.]

“Missing” petitions, plus “Counting Mistakes”: Altogether, these represent some sloppiness in the handling of our petitions. As indicated earlier, “the benefit of the doubt” should go to appellant since signatories signed in good faith and neither they nor appellant are responsible for the mistakes identified.

“Unendorsed” v and “Unable to Process”: These speak to carelessness and/or variability in application or (non)enforcement of the law. Here, too, rulings of the Commission should favor our appeal. The costs of such actions or inaction should not be borne by their victims -- the candidate, his signatories and the volunteers who contributed valuable time to help conduct the petition drive. Rather, they should be borne by those sworn to uphold the law.

With respect to the latter, the benefits of correcting failures to “conform to the law” significantly exceed the costs of so doing. These are the benefits to the Secretary of State’s Office, the Commission and, most of all, future signatories that would derive from a greater regularity in the application of deadlines, certifications, processing and handling of petitions. The greatest benefits of all? – buttressing confidence in the integrity of the electoral process and affirming citizens’ right to petition.

Meanwhile, the costs of the Commission ruling against our appeal offer no offsetting benefits. They amount to:

Dishonoring the law by appearing to credit its uneven application;.

An unqualified NO to voters who in this election, more so than in any other in recent memory, are dissatisfied with the choices confronting them, i.e., a big NO to voter choice. Presidential primary results provide support for this point: Look at the influence that independents have had in many states. As a candidate who has already met people in all parts of the 1st District (petitions were signed by voters in 64 of 80 municipalities in the CD), Dr. Bearse found most voters to be unusually receptive to an independent candidacy, while expressing dissatisfaction with the major parties, their candidates and their poor performance in Congress.

A discouraging word to volunteers (not paid signature-gatherers) who have gathered signed petitions properly, in good faith, with high hopes that their fine efforts would be honored rather than dismissed [and so dishonoring or diminishing their right to petition, as indicated earlier].

Undermining an important provision of our NH Constitution [Art.] 11 [Elections and Elective Franchises], which states that ”Every inhabitant of the state, having the proper qualifications, has equal right to be elected into office.” Note “right” is a strong word. Apart from the obvious inequality of the requirement that an independent candidate needs to submit 500 more valid signatures than a party candidate [1500 vs. 1000], the “uneven” enforcement of the elections laws may advantage some candidates and disadvantage others.

Dishonoring the public interest: Because, in this case, the public interest would be better served by the higher, broader appeal we mounted than the Commission’s dismissal of us on the basis of SoS counting – a very narrow construction of the numbers. Why?, because the public is better served by honoring the values of voter choice and volunteers’ participation in the political process.

Saying that two wrongs make a right, something that we teach our children is wrong: Our scrutiny found a variety of wrongs in the process by which petitions are counted and certified. The Commission ruling implied that their ruling in our favor would be wrong. Here, “wrong” is inability to “conform with the law.” Yet, the key question in deciding an appeal should be: Where is the balance of the scales of justice as to what action is more right? The previous paragraph offers a clear answer: The greater weight, tipping the balance in favor of our appeal, lies with the public interest.

Our petition drive should be a learning experience that provides benefits into the future. Our proceeding should not be seen as an opportunity, a la the “blame game,” to allocate blame and levy costs in the present. We have all done the best we can under trying circumstances. Now that we have reached “the bottom line”, a question still remains: What will the SoS and the BLC do to effect reforms in the petition certification and counting process, to address the problems identified by our experience in this case and to buttress confidence in the integrity of the petition process? If they do nothing; we can count them as little more than checkers in a chicken house or as chickens in a counting house -- as lacking courage to effect reforms or to do what is right. Does their behavior qualify as just lazy? Or as being more private than public in nature?

It’s unfortunate that the Commission could not see what was at stake with their negative ruling. Fortunately, it’s easy for voters to write-in names of alternative candidates on NH ballots if they don’t care to vote for people whose names they see.

Released by Supporters of Peter Bearse for Congress, October 9, 2008

By Peter Bearse

Now the only recourse is a write-in campaign. Notwithstanding a strong protest and powerful appeal, the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission has ruled that the Peter Bearse for Congress Campaign did not submit enough [at least 1500] “valid” signatures to qualify Peter for placement on the ballot. Our protest was grounded on evidence of significant flaws in the process of handling, checking, counting and otherwise certifying petitions. The evidence, drawn from careful examination of all the 405 petitions disqualified, revealed five categories of problems. Altogether, these open the process to serious question and its integrity to doubt. The five types are:

(1) ERRORS: In the determination of whether a petition is qualified to be counted as “valid” [signed by a person who is registered to vote].

(2) FAILURES TO ENDORSE: Lack of an adequate sign-off certifying that a petition is indeed qualified, or not, according to law.

(3) COUNTING MISTAKES: Significant discrepancies in the numbers of qualified and disqualified petitions counted.

(4) MISSING PETITIONS: The likelihood that some petitions may be missing in light of the above.

(5) UNABLE TO PROCESS PROBLEMS: These appeared as petitions…

Reprinted on the Ø wrong-size paper;
Misfiled; Ø
Delivered late; and Ø
That were Ø duplicates.

Under (1) ERRORS: We found more than 18% of a small sample of those disqualified have been rejected mistakenly. That very fact discredits the petition-counting process. How many more would have been found in error if we had continued to search? Since we found 13 in a sample of 70 (18.6%), one can estimate that 75 may have been disqualified in error overall (18.6% of 405).

RSA passages from the New Hampshire Election Laws are quoted on each petition form,. One is pertinent to (2) “FAILURES TO ENDORSE”:

“RSA 655:41 I….a majority of the supervisors shall certify whether or not the signer is a registered voter in said town or ward….The city clerk may certify that the signer is a registered voter, if in a city.”

Thus, in this context, “failures…” means that, for towns, some petitions were not signed by majorities of the Supervisors of the Checklist(s) and that, for cities, one could not even find one signature, that of the city clerk. According to our count, there were 125 such petitions that, though unendorsed, were rejected by Supervisors or City Clerks in 16 municipalities.

The Secretary of State’s (SoS) office counted and rejected 122 petitions that lacked not only endorsement signatures but also even a check in the box next to the disqualifying statement: “The signer of this paper is NOT a registered voter in this town or ward.” If the total number in this category, 247 (=125+122), were counted as valid rather than unjustifiably rejected, then, on this basis alone, we would have surpassed the minimum needed to qualify for the ballot by five (5). Because as the SoS concluded in its “Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Law…” presented by NH Assistant Attorney General James W. Kennedy: “Peter Bearse was 242 nominations papers short of the 1500 required to have his name placed on the ballot.”

Even after repeated efforts of counting, checking and cross-checking, we could not reconcile our numbers with those from the SoS office. We do not even agree on the total number of petitions delivered to and received by the SoS. The SoS’ office puts the total at 1696, 16 more than the campaign. Major differences appear with respect to the major components of the total(s). We counted 350 invalid petitions, or 55 less than the SoS. The major sub-totals include those considered “Unable to Process”—122 by the SoS; only 22 according to our count. 122% of the difference of 55 is due to the 122 “”rejected” by Ass’t Secretary of State Karen Ladd as not meeting the statutory requirements set forth under RSA 655:40.” 283 were not “regarded as valid” per RSA 655:44.

The “General Provisions” of RSA 655:40 provides no language sufficient to justify the Ass’t Secretary’s unilateral rejection of 122 additional petitions. On page 59 of the New Hampshire Election Laws, the statute states:

“Such papers shall contain the name and the domicile of the candidate, the office for which the candidate is nominated and the political organization or principles the candidate represents. Nomination papers shall be signed by such persons only as are registered to vote at the state general election.”

None of this content was lacking, and lack of any of those items cited above was not mentioned by Ms. Ladd as a reason for her rejections. Thus, her reference to the statute cited as providing a basis for the rejections is without merit.

Why, then, did Ms. Ladd take it upon herself to reject 122 petitions in violation of another statutory provision, RSA 655:44? For this part goes on to state, with regard to “Objections”:

“Nomination papers made in according with this chapter shall be regarded as valid…unless objection thereto is made in writing no later than the Monday following the last day for the filing of such papers.”

Yet, Ms. Ladd’s “rejection” of the 122 petitions in question occurred sometime just before the BLC hearing, after the Sept. 8th deadline, and her “objections” to counting the petitions as valid were not made in writing, nor were such objections made known to the campaign-as-plaintiff in advance of the BLC hearing or while we were together before the BLC in a “quasi-judicial” proceeding. Thus, Ms. Ladd’s objections are not only without merit; they are also without legal standing.

The only missing petitions represent small numbers from a few towns. The considerable work we have had to do to try to reconcile our counts with the SoS owes to the casual handling, careless counting, belated tabulations and inadequate accounting by SoS staff of the petitions received by the SoS.

19 of 21 rejected because they were deemed "Unable to Process” should have been accepted from the first 3 of the 4 categories below.

1. Use of wrong-sized form: [Six(6) voters signed at a meeting of the Londonderry Taxpayers Association (LTA)].

2. Misdirected: Five(5) Petitions were found to have been mistakenly filed with the wrong town. Nevertheless, five conscientious Supervisors of the Checklist were able to find that the misfiled petitions were signed by people who were registered elsewhere.

3. Lateness: Eight(8) petitions were rejected out of hand because they were delivered to Belmont after hours. The fact they were not certified, however, reflects inconsistent or non-enforcement of the law. Several other towns accepted delivery of petitions after hours of the deadline day. The petitions so delivered were checked and certified. There is also a remarkable variation in the times when city or town clerks’ offices are open, and in the days of the week when they tend to be open quite late.

4. Duplicates: Two duplicates were properly rejected.

Our careful checking, rechecking, counting and recounting brings us to a bottom line:

# Errors of Misclassification = 13 (at least; if the SoS were to investigate the whole set of those petitions rejected, they would find many more, as indicated earlier.

# Unendorsed.................. = 247
# Missing Petitions ........ = 13
# Counting Mistakes ...... = 11
# Unable to Process ....... = 19
Total = 303
The total of 303 is 61 more than needed to meet the threshold of 1500 required to qualify for ballot access.

Thus, the Commission and SoS could have found adequate justification for placing Dr. Bearse on the ballot if they were willing to take some responsibility for errors, omissions and sloppy handling of petitions rather than placing the entire burden of discovery and proof on the appellant. They were not so willing, even though responsibility for the process of administering the election laws falls to the SoS, with oversight of the BLC. The Commission is called upon to adjudicate “Filing Disputes” according to RSA 665:7 – to “determine…whether nomination papers or declarations of candidacy conform with the law.” Our analysis of the available evidence showed that many do not, for reasons that were not the responsibility of the candidate or his campaign. So, now you have the basis of our protest. Look for the crux of our appeal in a companion piece.

Released by Supporters of Peter Bearse for Congress, October 9, 2008

By Bob DeMaura, NHInsider Owner/Operator

The Democrats claim the disastrous Bush Policies of the past 8 years are responsible for today’s economic downturn.

The Bush economy survived when the Clinton/Gore DotCom economy imploded with thousands of companies failing. The Clinton ‘Projected’ Budget Surplus disappeared overnight.

The Bush economy survived and prosecuted the Enron, Arthur Anderson, Worldcom, and Adelphia stock manipulation schemes of the Clinton/Gore years.

The Bush economy survived the attacks of 9/11 and the complete shutdown of the countries transportation systems.

The Bush economy survived and grew through the War against Muslim Extremists on two fronts. Afghanistan and Iraq

However in 2006 the Country and NH, tired of the wars, Voted for Change. The Democrats took over the US House, US Senate and the NH House and Senate.

Governor Lynch squandered an $87 Million dollar surplus left by Gov Benson and is now facing a deficit of over $200 Million dollars. The Democrats defined an adequate education (only union member taught is adequate) but they postponed setting the amount the State should pay (about $1Billion) towards education until after the November elections.

The Federal Democrats rammed a huge increase to the minimum wage through. This put extreme inflationary pressure on all wage and income levels. Companies cut back, but they don’t cut at the minimum wage level, they look for mid-level people who have been getting regular raises and benefit increases even though they have not improved their value to the company.

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1999 lowered Fannie and Freddie capital requirements, and lowered the standards Banks use to qualify people for home mortgages. With the Democrats in control of Banking and Finance, Franks(D-MA) in the House and Dodds(D-CT) in the Senate, no reforms of CRA were allowed.

The Democrat Energy policies sent signals to the world’s oil producers that the USA was not serious about providing their own energy causing oil prices to skyrocket.

The Ethanol mandates in the Farm Bills, that every American must buy ethanol in the flawed Food for Fuel Program, managed to raise the cost of Fuel up 50% and the cost of Food up 40% all in one program.

If you are better off today than you were two years ago then by all means vote for the Democrats this election. If not then you should vote the Republicans back into power.

How has the Vote for Change of 2006 worked out for you so far?

By Orion Daley

Dear Ms. Ifill:

Thank you for moderating the debate. I aways enjoy watching your PBS newshour show, and believe that a major milestone, thanks to you, was accomplished last night.

But I ask for your patience in the following as having some comments. I thank you also in advance for reading this sometime in the future when given the opportunity.

These comments are in terms of what I saw in the absence of candor. I am not referring to personality, but in regards to the substance of the responses; and in fact some of the questions. In terms of personalities, 'Amendment I' does imply the right of free expression, so will not ask for your time about this.

About the Economy: I question sincerely the lack of creative thinking in these candidates, as well as the sitting president and Congress. That is besides Paulson. Any financial firm pays taxes. I question as why was it not proposed to allow such i nstitutions to borrow against this in order to shore up their liquidity? In this manner, private enterprise can clean up its own mess with limited exposure to taxpayers.

In terms of the taxpayer, then government then can put competent focus on: layoffs and unemployment, loss of consumer credit, loss of retirement savings and value, increased foreclosures, and loss of home equity.

Consider further about credit practices in the United States and how the government affects commercial lending, and how this propels predatory lending practices such as sub prime mortgages..

As the IRS can set penalties and interest, as well as late fees, which all compound on each other, so do banks and credit lenders who follow this lead. Loan sharks follow the lead of predatory credit practices within a realm of even less regulation.

If the IRS served the U.S. Citizen in management of only taxes that were constitutional, made interest and payment plans which would be workable with the everyday U.S. Citizen, the U.S. Government can then place similar regulation on commercial lending practices. They could no longer be predatory.

The way I see it, fundamental change must to be from the top down by whom we have entrusted with leadership.

About Socially Divisive Issues. Upon taking office, executive management is to swear to protect the Constitution. This also includes of course Amendment I where that 'Right of Free Expression ' comes from.

When dealing with issues such as gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, they are not part of the job description for the U.S. President or Vice President. Further, in the sincere leadership for our nation that consists of such great diversity, the president cannot ignore, nor use these issues but deal with them in the most honest, sincere , and truthful manner or they can split or unite our nation.

Per Articles I and II: What is legislated into law must reflect the true representation of the people. Then it should be signed by the president.

I do see that the president is obligated though to contest decisions of the other two branches of government when and if signing a Bill would violate that oath to the Constitution.

Consider this In actual practice: Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution states 'that there is to be no 'Religious Contest' for the Presidency'. Further, in Amendment I includes ' That Congress shall make no law about religion'.

Consider the persecution of the Mormons due to having the practice of multiple wives. Decisions of this nature are where the branches of government are to truly serve the people in their representation only.

Law cannot be decided by personal view or bias from the leadership of government. That is regardless who is at the helm. In other words, I might not agree with a religious practice, but when taking the oath of office, it must be upheld.

Foreign Policy and Iran: I have sent a letter regarding this already to Mr. Lehrer, but do wish to emphasize here the following considerations:

I welcome correction on this, but to my knowledge, Iran has not demonstrated out right aggression on other nations in the past 200 years of the history of the United States. My intent is not to compare this to the United States such as in the Spanish American War, Vietnam, or Iraq, but to put concern about Iran in a more accurate context.

I would further not question that they reach to other middle eastern nations, which I see as understandable, being that Muslims will reach out to Muslims as Christians to Christians, etc, but believe that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is to shrewed of a man to make an out right threat to Israel. I welcome correction on this also, if in fact a video/news, or youtube link is sent where he actually states in his own words what others claim he says. At that point, I would be obliged to see him as just another character who accuses others as being evil doers'

Foreign Policy and Iraq: I have heard much about getting off of Foreign Oil, and little about " Production-Sharing Agreements Deal " that the US is trying to push on to the Iraqi government on behalf of the large oil companies.

I do not see it as a question of some arbitrary time line, or fight till we win ( what ever that is supposed to mean ) , or that there is any white flag that should be proposed. What I do see is that we should come up with the cost of American blood for Iraqi Oil as a metric.

About the Iraqi Government itself, if not all three nations of Iraq are to participate, I see that the Rice strategy of 'over take, control and restore' can only work with US military presence. About lessons learned, as much as Rumsfeld was out of his domain in having the Dept of Defense impose political policy for forming an Iraqi government, The State Dept is as well in conducting military operations.

With this in mind, I can only see that our leadership in the executive and legislative branches are disingenuous when saying dig in the US as it offers a smoke screen to the US Citizen while providing further business opportunity for the oil companies.

Foreign Policy and Afghanistan: When the US Congress declares war, it can only be when a mission statement and exit strategy are clearly defined by the Executive Branch.

This is necessary, as Congress in compliance with Article I in the US Constitution, is to be solely responsible for raising and supporting our military.

In this manner, the government has a basis for asking for the ultimate sacrifice from American families. It can not be a panacea, it cannot be protected from our news system, it cannot hide the costs. It must call for the commitment of our people who must be fully informed of the mission statement and the exit strategy.

I view that the Mission Statement and Exit Strategy are to be brought to the UN after the formal declaration of War as in assuming that working through the UN on options for peace were exhausted. The UN may, or may not join American forces. Regardless, our commitment is to remain when making a formal declaration of war.

In the event that a viable government cannot be established, or until, through the will of a surrendered people who have waged war on the United States, they are to become annexed. It then becomes our responsibility at what ever is the cost. This is what the American people must know a priori when we speak are actually speaking of manifest destiny.

Thanks again for reading this,

Presidential Candidate for 2008
for the Strategic Future of our nation
Author - The New Deal ISBN: 1419670948
Balanced Party http://unity2008.org
New York, NY, USA -

By Orion Daley

Dear Mr. Lehrer:

There was a question presented in the presidential debate on 09/26./08 , between the Dems and Repubs, about Foreign Policy with respect to Iran and what conditions if any to meet. There seemed to be contempt from McCain, and stuttering from Obama.

Please consider the letter sent to "President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad" ( a year ago, on 09/25/07 via info@alalam.ir and other indirect destinations ') .

Dear President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

I commend you for wanting to talk. This is the first step in building bridges regardless of the reception. It is not important to me that you question the holocaust, or the rights of Israel at the moment. If I have a say, I would look for Israel to be the biggest banking community in the Middle East, where all nations that surround it, can obtain financing and assistance for building agricultural economies. Please consider, that one nation does not have to be the friend of another in order to have it as its ally.

I think Israel's purpose in fate is to be a financial economy in order to serve your area of the world. In your position you can help make this realized. Further, it would be a great place to obtain financing for a second refinery. It also speaks in great measure of your actions as a world leader in peace.

I sent something before,( Iran Policy ) that I hope you will have a chance to look at. Perhaps on the plane home or before hand to share with your UN counterparts.

Peace can be achieved in finding economic solutions where it is currently easier to find excuses to hate others. Waging Peace through strategic economic solutions is detailed in the Foreign Policy section of a book I wrote. Some reviews are included below.

Keep Reaching out, as it calls for others to as well no matter how proud we tell others that we are.

Sincerely Yours,

Orion Karl Daley

About conditions: The above letter sent to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who in my opinion is quite shrewed, should convey ' That if you can not build a bridge with Israel ,( given even a financial incentive to do so ) which is the USA's most favored nation in the Mid East, then how could you ( Mahmoud) build a bridge with the USA ?

Another condition of course is to permit the USA and the UN be of significant help in building the Iranian Nuclear Facility that they claim is needed. I am sure that we can all be helpful with this ! At this point , I think that we can all discuss mutual interests in Iraq openly.

The above is based on my 5th Principle - Foreign Policy : to demonstrate a standard in respecting other nations that we expect from them.

If interested in the 5 principles, please enjoy http://unity2008.org/Page0.html -

Respectfully,

Orion Karl Daley
Presidential Candidate for 2008
for the Strategic Future of our nation
Author - The New Deal ISBN: 1419670948
Balanced Party http://unity2008.org