Manchester News conference Sunday: New Hampshire congressional candidate Andy Martin accuses Maura Sullivan of being illegally registered to vote in the Granite State and exposes the backstabbing and Obama-inspired dirty dealing behind Sullivan’s move to New Hampshire

New Hampshire First District congressional candidate Andy Martin holds a Manchester news conference today, Sunday, to accuse Maura Sullivan of being illegally registered to vote in New Hampshire while she is also registered to vote in Illinois. Martin also exposes the backstabbing and Obama-inspired dirty dealing behind Sullivan’s move to New Hampshire that were the basis of the effort to force Carol Shea-Porter into involuntary “retirement.” Martin accuses Sullivan and her boy friend of a political scam.

Announcement of Manchester, New Hampshire news conference today, Sunday, September 9

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Attention, New Hampshire, Washington, National daybook/assignment and Political editors

News from:
ANDY MARTIN /2018
Republican candidate for Congress
New Hampshire-
First Congressional District

http://www.AndyMartin2018.com
http://www.AndyMartin.com
http://www.FirstRespondersOnline.us
Headquarters:
E-mail:AndyNewHampshire@aol.com
P.O. Box 742
Manchester, NH 03105-0742
Tel. (603) 518-7310
Fax (866) 214-3210
Blogs:
http://www.AndyMartinforCongress.blogspot.com
http://www.AndyMartinforCongress.wordpress.com

September 9 Manchester, NH news conference details:

Who:

GOP 1st District congressional candidate Andy Martin

What:

Andy Martin accuses Obama protégé Maura Sullivan of being illegally registered to vote in New Hampshire and exposes the Obama-inspired dirty deal that brought Sullivan to New Hampshire

Where:

Front steps of Manchester City Hall (park area), One City Hall Plaza, Manchester, NH 03101

When:

Sunday, September 9, 5:00 P.M.

To become a regular subscriber to our emails please send an email to andynewhampshire@aol.com and place “SUBSCRIBE” in the subject line

Please feel free to forward and/or post this email

Please sign up for our Twitter feed with enhanced, original coverage

Andy Martin accuses Maura Sullivan of being illegally registered to vote in New Hampshire, and produces a certificate from the Cook County Clerk to document his accusation.

Someone at WMUR has “hacked” Andy Martin’s answers to the station’s web site questions; Andy is asking the station to correct its error

(Manchester, NH)(September 9, 2018) — Republican congressional candidate Andy Martin holds a news conference today, Sunday, to “drop a bomb” on the congressional campaign of Maura Sullivan and possibly change the course of the 2018 primary election.

Martin, who has been called one of the GOP’s premier political operatives by Sam Stein of the Daily Beast, scoops all of New Hampshire’s media with an explosive voter registration scandal and an expose that explains how Obama-inspired operatives schemed to stab Carol Shea-Porter in the back and replace her with Obama protégé Maura Sullivan.

“While Andy Sanborn and Eddie Edwards have been throwing mud pies in their sandbox,” Martin says, “my Bureau of Investigation has been busy investigating Maura Sullivan. We can now confirm that Sullivan is illegally registered to vote in New Hampshire. We can also confirm some of the most sordid backstabbing in Democratic Party history facilitated Sullivan’s ‘move’ to New Hampshire.

“If you want to know who Democrats are terrified of winning the Republican congressional primary, it is me.

“A congressman has many jobs. One of the principal assignments is investigation and oversight of the executive branch. I have shown I can assemble the best team in GOP politics today. I have earned the GOP nomination in the First District the old-fashioned way, with hard work, deep digging and a sense of where to deploy investigative resources. I will do the same in congress. I will help root out the corruption and maladministration by holdovers from Obama’s FBI and Justice Department appointments.”

In a double-barreled attack on Sullivan, Martin documents and exposes why Sullivan has not previously been voting. Martin says Sullivan illegally registered to vote in New Hampshire. In fact, he says, Sullivan currently can’t legally vote for herself on Tuesday because of her active voter registration in Illinois.

1. Why Sullivan is registered illegally in New Hampshire

“Maura Sullivan did not vote in Washington, DC in 2016 because she is registered to vote in Evanston, Illinois,” Martin charges. “I have a certified copy of a certificate of her registration in Evanston, Illinois. She registered fraudulently in New Hampshire when she failed to disclose her active voter registration in Evanston. You can’t legally be registered in two places.

“Sullivan was fully aware she was registered in Evanston, which is why she did not vote in DC. She decided to chance registering in New Hampshire and has now been caught. She can’t legally vote for herself on Tuesday without violating New Hampshire law.

2. Obama’s backstabbing and dirty dealing brought Sullivan to New Hampshire

“Barack Obama may have moved out of the White House but his pernicious influence is growing within the Democratic Party.

“Obama sympathizers want to create a de facto ‘parliamentary’ system in the United States, where Obama and his cronies use their fundraising prowess to choose congressional candidates and then impose them on states.

“In Britain, for example, the ‘Conservative Central Office’ in London vets candidates before local constituencies get to choose a candidate. Control is retained in London, not local areas.

“Likewise, Obama and his supporters are now trying to create a corps of congressional loyalists by promoting candidates such as Sullivan. They choose them, they fund them and they drop them into congressional districts where they can overpower the local Democrats.

“The tactic has backfired in New Hampshire.

“In Sullivan’s case, the facts appear to be even more tragic. Democrats are desperate to retain the First District seat. The district leans Republican, but is a genuine ‘swing’ seat.

“Obama’s people took one look at Carol Shea-Porter and concluded ‘too old, too dowdy’ to survive the expected Republican counterattack. So they ‘elected’ to remove Shea-Porter and parachuted in Sullivan to deliver the blow if Shea-Porter resisted and refused to retire. Shea-Porter decided to go voluntarily with her dignity intact, so far.

“Shea-Porter’s lingering anger and frustration at what happened to her explains why this week, on the eve of the election, her former campaign manager Susan Mayer called Sullivan a liar and carpetbagger (please see link [1] below). The interesting question is why Mayer waited so long to expose Sullivan as a liar and fraud.

“Sullivan says she campaigned for Shea-Porter in 2006, and again in 2016. Mayer says she and Shea-Porter knew Sullivan’s 2006 claims were lies. Why did they wait until the last minute to expose Sullivan if they knew she was a liar? We can’t confirm yet if the same applies to the 2016 claims.

“It is obvious that some Democrats knew that Shea-Porter was forced out by the prior threat of a primary. She did not fortuitously decide to ‘retire.’ But who knew about the backstabbing scheme, and when did they know? We are still investigating.

“Obama’s plan to control congressional candidate selection from Washington terrified local New Hampshire Democrats. To a person they have all rejected Sullivan and endorsed Chris Pappas, with the exception of Shea-Porter who endorsed her chief of staff to replace her. That Sullivan received a unanimous cold shoulder should show you someone ‘knew’ something about the dirty dealing and backstabbing going on in Washington.

For months Democratic candidates kept quiet about “Sullivan’s Shenanigans.” Only Martin exposed Sullivan for what she is, an out of state carpetbagger and Obama stalking horse. Now, late in the day, Terence O’Rourke has started attacking too. He has posted a lengthy screed (please see link [2] below) accusing Sullivan of a premeditated move to Portsmouth.

“Sullivan says she came to New Hampshire to have her babies,” Martin asks. “Well, where are they? A year and a half later, her boy friend is still just a boy friend. It all looks like a scam and sham to me. She will be back living in Washington before Christmas if she loses the primary.”

3. Martin was the first to expose Sullivan as a fraud

Martin first attacked “Moneybags Maura” on June 11th (please see link [3] below). On June 30th Martin attacked Sullivan face-to-face at a candidates’ forum, while other D’s remained mute. On August 12th, Martin exposed Sullivan as a military fraud (please see link [4] below).

Interestingly, while other GOP candidates were focusing on each other during the primary, only Martin was directing his fire at Democrat Sullivan.

4. We believe there is more to investigate

“If Sullivan wins the primary for the Democrats on Tuesday we believe there will be more to investigate about her,” Martin continues. “We don’t want to compromise sources or methods, but our Bureau of Investigation is beavering away.”

5. WMUR flubs its own web site

WMUR solicited responses to questions from candidates, and posted them on its web site. Whose responses were fouled up? Only Martin’s. The station has been asked to expeditiously correct the matter. An apology or explanation would also be appreciated.

6. The bottom line

Andy Martin is the only GOP candidate who can win in November. It’s as simple as that. Voting for one of his opponents in the primary is voting to elect a Democrat.

If you have not yet seen the Union Leader/WMUR televised debate, here is a link:

We hope you’ll agree Martin is the only candidate who is in “sync” with First District voters.

———-

LINKS TO THIS STORY (cut and paste the entire link below and not just the underlined portion):

[1][two links]

https://nhlabornews.com/2018/09/op-ed-district-shopping-is-not-illegal-but-i-wish-it-were/

http://www.fosters.com/news/20180907/to-editor-maura-sullivan-and-chicago-money

[2][two links]

http://www.fosters.com/news/20180908/to-editor-what-we-know-about-sullivan

http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/20180902/maura-sullivans-military-service-debated-amid-congress-race

[3]

http://andymartinforcongress.blogspot.com/2018/06/new-hampshire-carpetbagger-candidate.html

[4]

https://andymartinforcongress.wordpress.com/2018/08/12/new-hampshire-congressional-candidate-andy-martin-holds-a-manchester-news-conference-to-ask-is-maura-sullivan-inflating-her-military-service-to-the-extent-of-stolen-valor/

ANDY MARTIN – A BRIEF BIO:

Andy Martin is a legendary New Hampshire-based muckraker, author, Internet columnist, talk television pioneer, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. With fifty years of background in radio and television and with five decades of intelligence, investigative and analytical experience in Washington, the USA and around the world, Andy provides insight on politics, foreign policy, military and intelligence matters. For a full bio, go to: http://www.AndyMartin.com; also see http://www.BoycottABC.com/executive_director.htm

Andy has also been a leading corruption fighter in American politics and courts for fifty years and is executive director of the National Anti-Corruption Policy Institute. See also http://www.FirstRespondersOnline.us; http://www.AmericaisReadyforReform.com.

He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law and is a former adjunct professor of law at the City University of New York (LaGuardia CC, Bronx CC).

He is the author of “Obama: The Man Behind The Mask” [www.OrangeStatePress.com] and produced the Internet film “Obama: The Hawaii’ Years” [www.BoycottHawaii.com]. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of the “Internet Powerhouse,” blogging at http://www.contrariancommentary.wordpress.com and http://www.ContrarianCommentary.com.

Andy’s family immigrated to Manchester, New Hampshire over 100 years ago; today his home overlooks the Merrimack River and he lives around the corner from where he played as a small boy. He is New Hampshire’s leading corruption fighter and Republican Party reformer.

UPDATES:

http://www.twitter.com/AndyMartinUSA
http://www.Facebook.com/AndyMartin

Andy’s opinion columns are posted at ContrarianCommentary.com, ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com and ContrarianCommentary.wordpress.com

[NOTE: We try to correct any typographical errors in our stories; find the latest version on our blogs and don’t hesitate to let us know if you find an error.]

———-

© Copyright by Andy Martin 2018 – All Rights Reserved

Advertisements

Manchester News conference Sunday: New Hampshire First District congressional candidate Andy Martin accuses the Manchester Union Leader newspaper of once again publishing “fake news” and incomplete reporting about his congressional campaign

New Hampshire First District congressional candidate Andy Martin will hold a Manchester news conference Sunday to once again expose and criticize the Union Leader newspaper for publishing “fake news” and misleading the reading public as to what actually happened in a news event. Martin has written to publisher Joe McQuaid to “man up” about the fact his reporter, Kevin Landrigan, constantly publishes misleading reports which exclude any mention of Martin, when Martin in reality is the moving partying generating the news. “Joe McQuaid and Kevin Landrigan do not have to like me to love their profession,” Martin says. “One of the hallmarks of journalism is that media should publish an accurate report of how a news event unfolded. McQuaid should ‘man up’ and publish a front-page editorial apologizing for his biased coverage of my campaign. He doesn’t owe that apology to me, he owes it to his readers. They want the facts and the truth; he hasn’t provided them, again.”

Announcement of Manchester, New Hampshire news conference today, Sunday, August 26

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Attention, New Hampshire, Washington, National daybook/assignment and Political editors

News from:
ANDY MARTIN /2018
Republican candidate for Congress
New Hampshire-
First Congressional District

http://www.AndyMartin2018.com
http://www.AndyMartin.com
http://www.FirstRespondersOnline.us
Headquarters:
E-mail:AndyNewHampshire@aol.com
P.O. Box 742
Manchester, NH 03105-0742
Tel. (603) 518-7310
Fax (866) 214-3210
Blogs:
http://www.AndyMartinforCongress.blogspot.com
http://www.AndyMartinforCongress.wordpress.com

August 26 Manchester, NH news conference details:

Who:

GOP 1st District congressional candidate Andy Martin

What:

Andy Martin conducts a Manchester news conference at 5:00 P.M. to discuss the latest example of “fake news” at the Union Leader newspaper

Where:

Front steps of Manchester City Hall (park area), One City Hall Plaza, Manchester, NH 03101

When:

Sunday, August 26, 5:00 P.M.

To become a regular subscriber to our emails please send an email to andynewhampshire@aol.com and place “SUBSCRIBE” in the subject line

Please feel free to forward and/or post this email

Please sign up for our Twitter feed with enhanced, original coverage

Andy Martin asks Union Leader Joe McQuaid for a front-page apology and retraction

(Manchester, NH)(August 26, 2018) — Republican congressional candidate Andy Martin will hold a news conference today, Sunday, to discuss the latest “fake news” in the Union Leader.

Here is Martin’s letter to Union Leader publisher Joe McQuaid (without Martin’s address). The letter will actually go in the mail on Monday but McQuaid will receive an emailed version today:

August 26, 2018

Joe McQuaid, Publisher
Union Leader
P. O. Box 9555
Manchester, NH 03108-9555

Dear Joe:

Your newspaper has once again published an incomplete and distorted version of how a serious news event has developed, and how it continues to develop.

Most respectfully I am writing to request you publish a front-page apology before the Sununu “roast” Thursday night. Your newspaper can’t survive if readers believe you are lying to them and have an agenda of eliminating “news” that doesn’t fit your personal antipathy.

On August 12th I held a Manchester news conference in which I accused Maura Sullivan of inflating her military credentials. I also sent Maura a letter and asked her to stop inflating her resume and stop misrepresenting the nature of her service in Iraq. It was and is perfectly acceptable for her to say she “served” in a combat zone in Iraq but it is not true that she “fought” in Iraq or that she “fought” in any war as she falsely claims on her web site. Here are the blog links:

https://andymartinforcongress.wordpress.com/2018/08/12/new-hampshire-congressional-candidate-andy-martin-holds-a-manchester-news-conference-to-ask-is-maura-sullivan-inflating-her-military-service-to-the-extent-of-stolen-valor/

http://andymartinforcongress.blogspot.com/2018/08/new-hampshire-congressional-candidate.html

In addition, we notified local, state national and global media.

The Union Leader received notifying emails at several addresses.

When I held my news conference, not a single Democratic candidate had had the gumption to question Sullivan on her false military claims. So, to goad the frightened little puppies in the Democratic congressional primary, I also sent each of their campaigns, including Mr. O’Rourke’s campaign, a copy of my story. The little puppies have been unwilling to take on Maura by name, only referring to her elliptically in their comments.

It was only after my attack on Sullivan that O’Rourke began to challenge Sullivan.

Two weeks later, here is what Kevin Landrigan wrote:

“Terrence O’Rourke of Alton lit the first fuse…” Sullivan, of course, responded with her usual blather that anyone questioning her fraudulent résumé is sexist.

Accuracy is important not only because it informs your readers who really “lit the fuse,” exposing the Democrats for their timidity, but also because it allows readers to see which candidates actually pursue the issue in the future.

In case Mr. Landrigan suffers from amnesia, I also criticized Sullivan Friday night as Landrigan was preparing his fake news reporting:

http://andymartinforcongress.blogspot.com/2018/08/nh-young-republicans-will-get-taste-of.html

There is a massive distinction between being in a combat zone, as virtually everyone was in Iraq, and claiming you “fought” in Iraq as Sullivan falsely says.

An accurate report on the controversy, which is not going away and which will be one of the major issues if I am nominated, would have been to say “Republican Andy Martin first raised the issue of Sullivan’s inflating her military resume in early August. Democrat Terrence O’Rourke followed up with his own barrage of criticism…”

The issue is straightforward; Sullivan received a ribbon for serving in Iraq. Did she also receive the Combat Action Ribbon for being in a combat situation? To date, Sullivan has not disclosed any accounting of her decorations. How does this sound: “Show us the ribbons, Maura.” If she won’t disclose, she is a fraud and should be rejected by Democrats as a Chicago-in-New-Hampshire disaster.

We can agree no one “owns” the “news.” But we both have a proprietary interest in truthful, factual and accurate reporting. If the Union Leader breaks a story, you want to be credited for that, not erased from the coverage by some other media.

If this was just the first time Landrigan had erased my presence in the primary I would be more gentle with my criticism. But as you know I have had to sue the Union Leader because of your extensive and blatant pattern of “fake news” and false reporting where I am concerned.

In Russia, they used to erase people that fell out of favor. You seem to be following the same approach. For whatever reason you or someone at your paper doesn’t like me. So the paper is trying to pretend I don’t exist. Is that a grown-up way to deal with reality? All kinds of people don’t like me, and I accept their right to do as they please. But not liking someone is not a license to lie about their existence or about their activity as a candidate in a congressional election.

I hope we can agree that lawsuits are not the way journalists want to cover a race, and readers would prefer facts and fair reporting to combat in the courtroom. But your refusal to act in an honorable and responsible manner as publisher of the Union Leader left me no option but to call into question your integrity in a court of law.

Why not admit you and Landrigan have made many mistakes and publish an apology and retraction on the front page so we can end our battling?

The reality is that with regard to disclosures about Sanborn and Edwards, I have driven the news coverage through my Right to Know agreements with the Attorney General. I basically created almost all of the controversy and conflict in the Republican primary. In the case of Sullivan, I have pursued her because I have more love and respect for the Marine Corps than she does.

Sullivan, moreover, has a serious psychological problem with the truth. The fake claim she “fought” in Iraq is only part of a relentless pattern of fabrication in her career claims. Everything about her is exaggerated and distorted, except her work for the Frito Lay/Pepsico company, which she never mentions.

We can fight lawsuits over the truth, or we can provide facts and accurate reporting to your readers. Which do you prefer?

Sincerely yours,

Andy

———-

LINKS TO THIS STORY (cut and paste the entire link below and not just the underlined portion):

[1]

http://www.unionleader.com/Congressional-candidates-military-service-records-under-attack

ANDY MARTIN – A BRIEF BIO:

Andy Martin is a legendary New Hampshire-based muckraker, author, Internet columnist, talk television pioneer, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. With fifty years of background in radio and television and with five decades of intelligence, investigative and analytical experience in Washington, the USA and around the world, Andy provides insight on politics, foreign policy, military and intelligence matters. For a full bio, go to: http://www.AndyMartin.com; also see http://www.BoycottABC.com/executive_director.htm

Andy has also been a leading corruption fighter in American politics and courts for fifty years and is executive director of the National Anti-Corruption Policy Institute. See also http://www.FirstRespondersOnline.us; http://www.AmericaisReadyforReform.com.

He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law and is a former adjunct professor of law at the City University of New York (LaGuardia CC, Bronx CC).

He is the author of “Obama: The Man Behind The Mask” [www.OrangeStatePress.com] and produced the Internet film “Obama: The Hawaii’ Years” [www.BoycottHawaii.com]. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of the “Internet Powerhouse,” blogging at http://www.contrariancommentary.wordpress.com and http://www.ContrarianCommentary.com.

Andy’s family immigrated to Manchester, New Hampshire over 100 years ago; today his home overlooks the Merrimack River and he lives around the corner from where he played as a small boy. He is New Hampshire’s leading corruption fighter and Republican Party reformer.

UPDATES:

http://www.twitter.com/AndyMartinUSA
http://www.Facebook.com/AndyMartin

Andy’s opinion columns are posted at ContrarianCommentary.com, ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com and ContrarianCommentary.wordpress.com

[NOTE: We try to correct any typographical errors in our stories; find the latest version on our blogs and don’t hesitate to let us know if you find an error.]

———-

© Copyright by Andy Martin 2018 – All Rights Reserved

Andy Martin v. St. Anselm College, Neil Levesque, University of New Hampshire, Andrew Smith, New Hampshire Republican State Committee, Wayne McDonald, Alan Glassman, Rob Kasper, Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions, James Dozier, iHeart Media, Jack Heath, Joe McQuaid, Kevin Landrigan, Union Leader Corp., John DiStaso, Hearst Properties, Inc.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPERIOR COURT

MERRIMACK, SS

Docket Number: 217-2018-CV-00474

Andy Martin

v.

St. Anselm College,
Neil Levesque,
University of New Hampshire,
Andrew Smith,
New Hampshire Republican State Committee,
Wayne McDonald,
Alan Glassman,
Rob Kasper,
Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions,
James Dozier,
iHeart Media,
Jack Heath,
Joe McQuaid,
Kevin Landrigan,
Union Leader Corp.,
John DiStaso,
Hearst Properties, Inc.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT,
MONEY DAMAGES AND OTHER INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Introduction

1. Over sixty years ago the novel “Peyton Place” scandalized New Hampshire as a state driven by bigotry, ignorance, pettiness, corruption and backstabbing. Granite State residents were scandalized, embarrassed and took a dislike to having the truth of their squalid social behavior shoved in their faces.
2. This lawsuit explains why New Hampshire has become the Peyton Place of American politics, and how the arrogance, corruption, bigotry, ignorance, bias and malignancy of the media establishment rotten leadership in the Republican party have essentially enslaved Republican voters and made them into permanent losers. The lawsuit is documented with their public statements and prior history of the defendants themselves; they cannot escape judgment by expressing surprise or outage at the plaintiff’s disclosures for all of them are factually based.

COUNT ONE

[Polling fraud – New Hampshire Common law claims –
declaratory judgment and common law fraud]

I.
Limitations

Although the factual allegations against all defendants are presented in this Count, the substantive legal accusations are limited primarily to defendants University of New Hampshire and St. Anselm College. Many of the other defendants, however, have exploited the fraudulent polling activity of UNH and STA, particularly the Union Leader and WMUR.

II.

Jurisdiction and venue

1. The Court has general common law jurisdiction to hear all of the claims presented in this civil action under the New Hampshire Constitution and Statutes. New Hampshire political parties are subject to extensive supervision and regulation by the state, see e.g. Title 63 NH Stat., Sumner v. NHSOS, 136 A.3d 101, 104 (N.H. 2016).
2. Venue is proper in Merrimack County due to the presence of a defendant which is headquartered in Merrimack County.
3. Plaintiff demands a jury trial.

II.

Factual allegations

Note: Although New Hampshire is a “notice pleading jurisdiction,” Porter v. Manchester, 151 N.H. 30, 43, 849 A.2d 103 (N.H. 2004), Plaintiff provides considerable factual detail because he is seeking emergency injunctive relief.

1. The Plaintiff
A. Plaintiff is a legally qualified candidate for U.S. Representative from New Hampshire, District 1. Plaintiff has decades of extensive public and political experience (www.AndyMartin.com, http://www.AndyMartin2018.com). As required by federal law, Plaintiff has registered with the Federal Election Commission and filed with the New Hampshire Secretary of State for the September, 2018 primary election.
B. Plaintiff has been featured on a segment on the CBS Television Network. He appeared in what many political observers considered the most controversial cable TV program of the 2008 presidential election, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgjQhnDEGSk.
He has repeatedly “debated” in the nation’s third largest television market on the ABC affiliate, WLS-TV.
At the peak of the 2008 presidential election, Plaintiff was featured on the front page of the New York Times as one of the world’s most important stories in the world during that period, see: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/nyregion/02rooms.html.
C. Plaintiff’s seriousness as a political actor and his national experience and presence cannot seriously be questioned. The defendants’ relentless efforts to denigrate and literally erase Plaintiff’s political status are an embarrassment to the citizens of New Hampshire, who are stuck squarely within the parameters of being manipulated and controlled by what President Trump calls “fake news” media.
D. Plaintiff learned of a “debate” being conducted by the Republican State Committee defendants on or about August 6. Plaintiff has not been invited to participate, see Group Exhibit A. In an email to Plaintiff, Exhibit A, defendant Wayne McDonald claims the debate is directed at the “good people of New Hampshire,” so there is no denying a general public event is being orchestrated using the assets and resources of the Republican State Committee and its “partners” in fraud to deceive the New Hampshire public.
E. Plaintiff contacted Wayne McDonald, Exhibit B, who as of the early afternoon of August 10 has refused to reply. McDonald, Exhibit A, promised “qualifications” by August 8th but as of the early afternoon of August 10 when this Complaint was prepared none have appeared.

2. The defendants

A. Polling fraud
a. Plaintiff has been active in Republican politics for almost a decade. In 2016, the UNH “Granite State Poll,” which on information and belief is partially funded by media, published ambiguous reports on Plaintiff’s polling status in a congressional primary. The Survey Center’s 2018 results, however have no such opacity.
b. Exhibit C is clear that while UNH polled on nine (9) Democratic candidates, they polled on only two (2) Republican candidates and eliminated Plaintiff’s name entirely.
c. It would be impossible to claim that all of the nine Democrats were more serious or substantial candidates than Plaintiff but, Soviet-era style, Plaintiff was simply “erased” and rendered nonexistent in the Republican candidate polling.
d. The gross imbalance between Democrats polled, and the Republicans, shows that UNH was clearly interested in promoting the Democratic Party, not achieving balance in a state that is almost evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. UNH is a public, taxpayer-supported institution but it has become known and despised as a fulcrum of extreme left-wing activity; the latest biased polling activity confirms doubts about the academic ingenuity of UNH.
e. St. Anselm’s, which claims to operate an “Institute of Politics,” may be motivated more by Chicago values of corruption and fraud, than New Hampshire values of public integrity and fairness. STA polled on eight (8) Democrats and two (2) Republicans, also erasing Plaintiff’s candidacy.
f. STA is not taxpayer supported, but it is a tax-exempt, taxpayer encouraged institution and it rapidly catching up to UNH in arrogance and corruption with its own biased polling methodology.

B. Debate fraud by iHeart Media, WMUR and Union Leader
a. iHeart Media, Jack Heath and New England College have a long history of debate fraud, bogus “qualifications” exclusions and other fraudulent devices intended to defraud both the New Hampshire listening public and the Federal Communications Commission.
b. In 2016, WMUR and the Union leader engaged in blatant debate fraud. To defeat Plaintiff by erasing his candidacy, WMUR/UL promoted a “fake candidate,” Jim Lawrence.
c. Lawrence claimed to be a “small businessman,” but his business had been dissolved by the State of New Hampshire. Lawrence claimed to be a “government contractor,” but a published opinion had barred him from competing for most government contracts. Lawrence was too inconvenienced to pay his real estate taxes, while chanting a political mantra from the 1970’s. Plaintiff distributed in June, 2016 damaging facts about Lawrence but WMUR/UL continued to use Lawrence as a decoy in dummy debates.
d. After Lawrence was successfully used to rig the 2016 primary, WMUR and the Union Leader disclosed that Lawrence was a fraud and defeated him in the general election.
e. WMUR and UL have now announced they are apparently planning a reprise of their 2016 debate fraud, with a new round of “debates.”
f. The only candidate who has had a significant impact on the 2018 primary has been Plaintiff. After the media/defendants did nothing, Plaintiff successfully negotiated with the New Hampshire Attorney General a Right to Know (“RTK”) release of damaging documents involving candidate Andy Sanborn (those fact-based damaging disclosures from the Attorney General are still continuing). WMUR jumped on Plaintiff’s RTK agreement and claimed that release of the RTK documents was WMUR’s own accomplishment, refusing to credit plaintiff for proceeding where the media had embarrassingly failed to investigate. The Sanborn disclosures created a major storm and are still reverberating with new document releases planned before August 17.
g. Likewise, WMUR and UL have been promoting Eddie Edwards as a legitimate candidate, and doing nothing to investigate Edwards’ background. Once again, Plaintiff began an investigation and again using the RTK law obtained the release of documents disclosing that Edwards had profited from bogus claims of racial discrimination. Once again WMUR claimed the RTK release was its own effort, when that was contrary to the facts.
h. It is bizarre that while WMUR and UL refuse to acknowledge that Plaintiff is a candidate, they have no hesitation to steal Plaintiff’s work product and claim it as their own. Defendant John DiStaso desperately tries to employ subterfuges such as “major candidates” to exclude Plaintiff. But DiStaso’s “major candidates” have major deficiencies and are slowly destroying each other. One “major candidate” simply quit.
i. Plaintiff continues to investigate, and will be collecting tens of thousands of pages of documents on Edwards, which WMUR and the UL will no doubt appropriate and claim as their own if they find anything of value in Plaintiff’s prospecting.

C. Republican Party debate fraud/violation of bylaws
a. The Republican State Committee bylaws contain provisions prohibiting preferential treatment for candidates and a non-endorsement policy in primary elections, see https://www.nh.gop/bylaws.
b. On or about August 6 the Republican Party announced that it was sponsoring a “debate” with “partners.” Although “qualifications” were promised by August 8, as of the afternoon of August 10 when this Complaint was prepared, less than one week before the event, none have been promulgated.
c. It is apodictic that being excluded from a party-sponsored debate is highly injurious to a candidate.
d. Plaintiff has relied on the Defendants’ neutrality bylaws as a basis to support the party, most recently by purchasing $250 of tickets to a State Party-sponsored event (Spring to Victory Dinner).
e. Common sense suggests that supporters of plaintiff’s primary opponents are using and misusing the State Committee’s assets and resources to damage Plaintiff’s candidacy and to endorse and support the candidacy of their own candidates, all in violation of the state party’s bylaws.
f. The defendant State Committee’s bylaws are intended to be binding on the defendants and to hold out the State Party as a rules-based organization which deals with all GOP candidates on a fair, neutral and non-discriminatory basis.
Bylaws must be respected and enforced, both by organizations themselves and, if necessary, by courts, see e.g. Wesson v. Nashua Police, 103 N.H. 104, 165 A.2d 585, 586-587 (N.H. 1960).
g. The State Committee defendants take an oath to serve as officers of the state party, and to obey and uphold the bylaws of the party barring preferential treatment for some candidates in contested primary elections.
h. That the GOP defendants’ behavior is tawdry and corrupt can be seen from the identical congressional primary activity in the Democratic Party. The Democrats have eleven (11) candidates running in the same congressional primary and treat all of them with respect. The Democrats have conducted approximately thirty opportunities for their candidates, without charging admission fees or demanding payments, see https://www.concordmonitor.com/First-district-democrats-debate-in-Laconia-19375274?
i. Republicans are left with five (5) candidates but are seeking to promote only two candidates, while erasing the remaining candidates from party-sponsored activities and public consciousness.
j. Therefore, in establishing the “reasonableness” or “unreasonableness” of the defendants’ behavior to satisfy various standards, there is a clear dichotomy between the conduct of the Democratic Party and the scandalous corruption and abuse of power by the Republican Party leadership which the Court can consider and juxtapose as relevant.
k. The Republicans have now recruited iHeart Media, Jack Heath, a local entertainer, and Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions to help provide cover for and aid and abet in their latest debate fraud.

IV.

Legal Claim

1. The Defendants are violating Plaintiff’s statutory and New Hampshire constitutional rights and conducting sham proceedings to damage his candidacy.

V.

Demand for judgment

Plaintiff prays that the Court award the following
relief:
1. Emergency injunctive relief including a TRO barring the defendants from (i) conducting rigged polls or (ii) using the GOP’s State Committee’s money or auspices/endorsement to orchestrate unlawful debates in violation of party bylaws and from which legitimate candidates are excluded.
2. Damages from each defendant in the amount of $50,000.
3. Reservation of jurisdiction to award additional relief if the defendants violate the Court’s rulings and/or persist with their unlawful and defamatory course of conduct.
4. For such other relief as may be necessary and proper to do complete justice to Plaintiff, including additional money damages.

COUNT TWO

[Defamation by implication under New Hampshire law]
[All defendants]

I.
Limitations
This count is directed at all defendants.

II-III.
Plaintiff repeats and realleges II-III of Count One and further pleads:

IV.
Legal Claim
1. New Hampshire law recognizes defamation by implication.
2. By deliberately and consciously excluding Plaintiff from their purported “debates,” and pretending Plaintiff does not exist as a candidate, defendants intend to and have defamed Plaintiff by implication, by suggesting he is not a legally-qualified or recognized Republican candidate who should be participating in a party-sponsored or media-sponsored debates.
3. Defendants are constitutionally entitled to their own opinions, on their editorial pages or broadcast comments (or poll commentary). But they are not entitled to their own “facts,” erasing legitimate candidates to deceive the voting public through the use of bogus “polls” and “news” reports which erase Plaintiff as a candidate for office. Defendant Landrigan, apparently on the orders of Defendant McQuaid, refuses to acknowledge Plaintiff’s status as a congressional candidate although he publishes “fluff” pieces about candidates for lesser office (e.g. Cormier, August 8).

V.
Demand for Judgment
Plaintiff prays for the same relief as in Count One.

COUNT THREE

[Violation of Consumer Protection Act (CPA), RSA ch. 358-A]
[All defendants]

I.
Limitations
This count is directed at all defendants.

II-III.
Plaintiff repeats and realleges II-III of Count One and further pleads:

IV.
Legal Claim
1. Numerous defendants are engaged in commercial, profit-making activity. Others, such as UNH and St Anselm, seek to attract paying students to the “Survey Center” and “Institute of Politics” without alerting potential students to the blatant fraud in their operations. Money is at the root of what they do. Politics is big business in New Hampshire. It is also part of a massive nationwide political industry which services candidates and allows individuals to leverage profit-making opportunities from election cycle to election cycle.
2. Because the Republican Party defendants control political activity within the party, they are adjuncts to and potential financial beneficiaries of their own decisions. For example, one of the primary candidates in Plaintiff’s election is a saloonkeeper who receives regular patronage from party functions.
3. The Republican Party defendants hold themselves out as impartial in primary elections and feature bylaws on their web site to manifest their self-imposed restriction on their own political powers and discretion, see https://www.nh.gop/bylaws
4. While the Republican Party defendants are apparently under no statutory mandate to restrict their endorsement authority, they have voluntarily chosen to do so because it is “good business.” The appearance of primary neutrality promotes party fundraising. Contributors are led to believe they are giving to an organization that does not favor or endorse one primary candidate over another and is merely fighting the opposing political party.
5. All of the defendants’ actual behavior is extremely deceptive and meets the “rascality” test of New Hampshire’s Consumer Protection Act. In any honest poll of candidates, or public perception of the disconnect between the limitations on the defendants by their self-imposed by the bylaws or their self-laudatory claims to “media independence and integrity,” and the defendants’ actual actions demeaning and seeking to destroy Plaintiff’s candidacy, almost any “reasonable person” would believe the defendants are bald-faced liars and phonies. The defendants’ behavior is therefore unlawful under the rascality test, ACAS v. Hobert, 155 N.H. 381, 923 A.2d 1076, 1094 (N.H. 2007).

V.
Demand for judgment
Plaintiff prays for the same relief as in Count One.

COUNT FOUR

[Civil conspiracy]
[All defendants]

I.
Limitations
This Count is directed at all defendants.

II-III.
Plaintiff repeats and realleges II-III of Count One and further pleads:

IV.
Legal Claim
1. New Hampshire recognizes the law of civil conspiracies, e.g. Appeal of Armaganian, see e.g. 147 N.H. 158, 784 A.2d 1185 (N.H. 2001). This lawsuit arises in response to a series of civil conspiracies, all motivated by an intent to rig the 2018 primary election and damage Plaintiff’s candidacy.
2. Having taken an oath to use their party offices to remain neutral in primary elections, the Republican Party defendants have come together in a civil conspiracy to benefit some candidates, by spending party funds to showcase them in a “debate” and other activity, while seeking to demean other candidates such as Plaintiff by refusing to permit them to participate in a party-sponsored activity.
3. The media defendants are conducting sham “debates” using bogus, unelectable Republican candidates as Manchurian Candidates to defraud Republican primary voters into supporting unelectable candidates and, after the primary election, reelecting Democrats to office in 2018.
4. The university and college are doing what UNH has always done and what STA has started doing, conducting bogus biased “polls” which favor the Democratic Party and seek to erase Plaintiff as a legitimate candidate in the Republican primary. With Soviet era contempt for reality, both polls simply erased Plaintiff’s presence from their polls. Whether this was done at the behest of paying clients or simply out of their own internal arrogance and corruption will be ascertained through discovery.
5. Plaintiff has been and is being damaged by the civil conspiracies organized and orchestrated by the defendants, which is only one in a continuing series of concerted efforts by the defendants and other coconspirators to violate their responsibilities to their voters, contributors, viewers, listeners and New Hampshire citizens.

V.
Demand for judgment
Plaintiff prays for the same relief as in Count One.

COUNT FIVE

[Breach of Fiduciary Duty]
[Only NH GOP defendants, iHeart Media and
Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions]

I.
Limitations
This Count is directed at the Republican Party-affiliated defendants as well as their “partners,” iHeart Media, Jack Heath and Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions who are aiding and abetting in the civil conspiracy and fraud of the GOP officials.

II-III.
Plaintiff repeats and realleges II-III of Count One and further pleads:

IV.
Legal Claim
1. The GOP defendants assumed a fiduciary duty to the New Hampshire Republican State Committee and undertook to serve honorably and with fidelity to their own bylaws.
2. While seeking to promote party probity in public, the defendants have been scheming in private to violate their oaths of office and to violate their fiduciary duties under their organization’s bylaws not to endorse or favor candidates in primary elections.
3. Candidates are induced to participate in party primaries, and to spend substantial sums on party events, on the basis that the party under its bylaws will remain neutral and not favor one candidate over another in primary elections.
4. The defendants, by their open and notorious behavior to expend party funds through GOP Treasurer Rob Kasper, and by advertising and promoting bogus “debates” on their web site on behalf of some primary candidates, while preventing other candidates from participating on an equal basis with their opponents in those party-sponsored events, egregiously violated their fiduciary duties to their party organizations.
5. While a French king is reputed to have said, “L’etat, c’est moi,” (I am the state), the defendants are not the party and are merely temporary holders of party offices who must serve in conformity with their obligations to the ongoing political organization whose finances are closely supervised by New Hampshire law and public officials, see generally RSA Ch. 664, Sumner, supra.
6. The defendants are not “free agents” who may do as they choose; they are fiduciaries of their party organization and party finances and may not violate their duties to their party organization as set forth in detail in party bylaws by sponsoring a debate or other activity for some but not all of the candidates.
7. Although the GOP defendants announced a week ago that they would announce “qualifications” on August 8, as of the afternoon of August 10 when this Complaint was prepared, no “qualifications” had been posted as promised.
8. iHeart Media, Jack Heath, Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions and James Dozier have acted, combined and conspired in a civil conspiracy with the State Committee defendants, in violation of the GOP defendants’ fiduciary duties, to conduct a fraudulent “debate” from which plaintiff is apparently being excluded.

V.
Demand for judgment
Plaintiff prays for the same relief as in Count One.

DATED: August 10, 2018

Respectfully submitted
ANDY MARTIN, J.D.,
Adjunct Professor of Law
Pro Se

Principal address for service of Pleadings:

Andy Martin
National Litigation Center
P. O. Box 750426
Forest Hills, NY 11375-0426
Tel. (603) 518-7310
Fax (866) 214-3210

E-mail: AndyMart20@aol.com (text only)

SERVICE OF NOTICES IS RESPECTFULLY
REQUESTED BY FAX OR E-MAIL

Local address for service of additional
courtesy copies (but not primary service)
(if desired, not required):

P.O. Box 742
Manchester, NH 03105-0742