Tag Archives: New Hampshire

Did Dennis Senibaldi violate NH election Laws as a Windham Town Employee?

joanisrekartsenibaldiDuring the recent Windham School Board elections there was a photo posted on Mike Joanis’ campaign Facebook page at the Windham Transfer Station that shows he and Jerome Rekart campaigning with a photo of Dennis Senibaldi. No big deal right?

Well it just so happens that Senibaldi is an employee of the transfer station. He may or may not have been working or he may even have been on break but he was wearing the “uniform” of a Windham Transfer Station employee.

It just so happens that town employees are not allowed to use their taxpayer-paid position to campaign for anyone. They can campaign all they want but not if it appears they are representing their employer, in this case the transfer station which is paid for with Windham taxpayer money.

New Hampshire Election Law defines this as electioneering:

659:44-a Electioneering by Public Employees. –No public employee, as defined in RSA 273-A:1, IX, shall electioneer while in the performance of his or her official duties or use government property, including, but not limited to, telephones, facsimile machines, vehicles, and computers, for electioneering. For the purposes of this section, “electioneer” means to act in any way specifically designed to influence the vote of a voter on any question or office. Any person who violates this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Source. 2003, 172:2, eff. June 18, 2003.

This photo was previously also posted on Rekart’s campaign page as well but he has since removed all campaign materials, Joanis has not as you can see in the photo above.  That happens to be a snap shot taken directly from Joanis’ campaign page today.

Looks like Senibaldi has some more explaining to do just as with his taking an email without permission.

Did Windham’s Dennis Senibaldi violate NH computer crime laws?

121355077-internet-crimesThere is new information concerning the shenanigans pulled by Windham School Boardmember Dennis Senibaldi last week during the school board meeting. On Friday theEagle Tribune wrote about the first Windham School Board meeting with new board members Tom Murray and Daniel Popovici-Muller. Apparently the faux outrage of the day was by shunned board member Dennis Senibaldi who claimed Ken Eyring (who was nominated Chairman over Senibaldi) somehow violated his oath of office by sharing a school board’s general counsel email with a Windham Town Selectman and a lawyer for further advice.

Eyring was seeking further information on whether or not the Windham School Board violated municipal law by voting through the Cenergistic contract without a vote from Windham residents. Since Adam Steel and their general counsel knew Eyring was asking for this information at the public’s request, it is obvious to assume that whatever response he provided would also be parlayed to the people requesting the information and would be shared with others.

Eyring did not make the email public although it falls within public “right-to-know” information as it is not a private document per the exemption rules under RSA 91-A:5. Apparently Senibaldi had Eyring’s email as far back as January 26th but never bothered to share it with anyone until the board meeting last week when he was running for Chair. He not only shared it but he stomped his feet and behaved like a 5 year old childhaving a tantrum. Not only did he waste the board’s time but the residents who were in attendance at the meeting as well.

The big question is – did Senibaldi violate the New Hampshire State Computer Crimes law? Senibaldi admits he saw an email in Selectman Bruce Breton’s inbox. He admitted taking the email. This was reported in the Eagle Tribune:

Senibaldi said he saw the email in the inbox of Selectman Bruce Breton, who routinely asks Senibaldi for email help.

Breton said Wednesday the email was taken from his account without permission.

Senibaldi has known about the email since Jan. 26, but he held off on notifying the superintendent and school board until after the elections. Senibaldi defended his decision to send himself the email, saying he was given the password and access to the account by Breton.

“I held off because I didn’t want to influence any election stuff going on,” Senibaldi said. “There was enough mud slinging and mud throwing. I waited as along as I could and then sought advice from counsel.”

Breton states that the email was taken without his permission. That indeed is a violation of the computer crimes laws under RSA 638 which fall under Fraud laws in New Hampshire:

638:17 Computer Related Offenses. –
I. A person is guilty of the computer crime of unauthorized access to a computer or computer network when, knowing that the person is not authorized to do so, he or she knowingly accesses or causes to be accessed any computer or computer network without authorization. It shall be an affirmative defense to a prosecution for unauthorized access to a computer or computer network that:
(a) The person reasonably believed that the owner of the computer or computer network, or a person empowered to license access thereto, had authorized him or her to access; or
(b) The person reasonably believed that the owner of the computer or computer network, or a person empowered to license access thereto, would have authorized the person to access without payment of any consideration; or
(c) The person reasonably could not have known that his or her access was unauthorized.
II. A person is guilty of the computer crime of theft of computer services when he or she knowingly accesses or causes to be accessed or otherwise uses or causes to be used a computer or computer network with the purpose of obtaining unauthorized computer services.
III. A person is guilty of the computer crime of interruption of computer services when the person, without authorization, knowingly or recklessly disrupts or degrades or causes the disruption or degradation of computer services or denies or causes the denial of computer services to an authorized user of a computer or computer network.
IV. A person is guilty of the computer crime of misuse of computer or computer network information when:
(a) As a result of his or her accessing or causing to be accessed a computer or computer network, the person knowingly makes or causes to be made an unauthorized display, use, disclosure, or copy, in any form, of data residing in, communicated by, or produced by a computer or computer network; or

(b) The person knowingly or recklessly and without authorization:
(1) Alters, deletes, tampers with, damages, destroys, or takes data intended for use by a computer or computer network, whether residing within or external to a computer or computer network; or
(2) Intercepts or adds to data residing within a computer or computer network; or
(c) The person knowingly receives or retains data obtained in violation of subparagraph (a) or (b) of this paragraph; or
(d) The person knowingly uses or discloses any data he or she knows or believes was obtained in violation of subparagraph (a) or (b) of this paragraph.
V. A person is guilty of the computer crime of destruction of computer equipment when he or she, without authorization, knowingly or recklessly tampers with, takes, transfers, conceals, alters, damages, or destroys any equipment used in a computer or computer network, or knowingly or recklessly causes any of the foregoing to occur.
VI. A person is guilty of the computer crime of computer contamination if such person knowingly introduces, or causes to be introduced, a computer contaminant into any computer, computer program, or computer network which results in a loss of property or computer services.
Source. 1985, 139:1. 2002, 261:2, eff. Jan. 1, 2003.

It appears there are several areas in the above could apply to Senibaldi. Even if he was authorized to look at the computer (questionable) he was not authorized, per Breton, to take his email. That indeed is a violation of state law. There are actual penalties for violating this law as well which can be found inRSA 638:18.

Senibaldi actually claims that Eyring violated his Oath of Office. Clearly Senibaldi hasn’t bothered to read the Oath for Windham School Board members. Nothing Eyring did violates his Oath of Office although it’s now questionable whether Senibaldi violated his oath. Trying to get the public the information they requested is actually what a good elected official does.

Windham voters spoke loud and clear when they ousted Rekart and Joanis. A big part of that change was they were sick of the games, unaccountability and intransparency of the Windham School Board. Voters thought they’d be getting some semblance of a reasonable school board back but Senibaldi blew that away with his atrocious behavior at the meeting last week. Senibaldi may want to talk to a lawyer about his possible computer crimes.

Sadly for Windham residents it looks like they have a couple more spots on the school board to ‘clean up.’

NH Democrats vote to further victimize women


March 27, 2013 – In a despicable majority vote today on the repeal of a portion of the “Stand Your Ground” law, Democrats voted to allow women to become victimized, not once but twice in New Hampshire if they dare protect themselves from an attacker using their lawfully owned firearms. What Democrats (and 3 Republicans – will update the story later with all of their names) have decided is that women are supposed to run away from a perceived threat in any public place that is not their dwelling. This bill essentially tells women if women dare protect themselves, they will have to prove there was a valid threat.

This bill:

I. Eliminates the provision allowing a person to use deadly force anywhere he or she has a right to be. [emphasis added]

II. Amends the definition of non-deadly force.

III. Repeals the provision granting civil immunity for the use of force in certain circumstances.

From a previous article regarding this law:

In 2010, with a Republican controlled legislature, the Stand Your Ground law was passed which allows women to defend themselves in public as well as in their homes and not be treated like criminals for doing so. Democrats said it would create a “wild west” environment (it didn’t)… Since New Hampshire already has one of the lowest gun crime rates in the country, Democrats have no reason to change the law. All it will do is turn victims into criminals and criminals into victims if a woman dares to protect herself using deadly force in public.

To be clear, this law affects both men and women but it’s a pretty well-known fact that criminals pick out victims they perceive as weaker than themselves. For a woman, a gun is an equalizer. There were no unintended consequences as Democrats and the anti-gun crowd claimed there would be. There was absolutely no reason to repeal any portion of the “Stand Your Ground” law.

Democrats are playing games with the lives of New Hampshire residents; especially women. They are turning innocent victims of crimes into criminals because they dare protect themselves and/or their family in public. With this repeal, Democrats further victimize women.

Originally posted at Examiner: http://www.examiner.com/article/nh-democrats-vote-to-further-victimize-women

Maggie Hassan isn’t happy over another ad about her record of raising taxes

The RGA (Republican Governor’s Association) has put out a new ad that hits Maggie where it hurts, taxes. Hassan lives in the Principal’s home at Phillips Exeter Academy because her husband is thePrincipal. That’s all well and good except she doesn’t have to pay property taxes on that home. The ad claims that while Hassan raised taxes throughout her stint as a New Hampshire state legislator, she didn’t feel the same pain as others who actually pay property taxes. Hassan is claiming the ad is misleading and a personal attack as reported by Ben Leubsdorf in the Concord Monitor yesterday.

Taxes are a personal matter. Everyone gets hit with them in some shape or form andMaggie Hassan loves to raise them. Taxes affect the poor, working and middle classes the most. This fact doesn’t seem to bother Hassan because it really doesn’t affect her as much as the ‘little guy’ since she pays no property tax and is part of the top ‘1%’. Hassan has a very long track record of raising taxes on New Hampshire families. It’s part of her voting record. Hassan raised taxes and fees many times as a legislator. It’s simply a fact.

While the RGA ad does not explain why Hassan does not pay property taxes, the ad is factual by saying she doesn’t and by saying she raised them. The ad is factual by saying raising taxes doesn’t affect Hassan or her family as much as it does everyone else because she doesn’t have to pay those property taxes like everyone else (even renters pay this in the form of rent because property owners work this into the price of the rent). So Hassan can whine that this ad is misleading but it’s not. Hassan can whine that it’s a personal attack but it’s not. What is a personal attack isthe fact that Hassan will raise taxes. That affects everyone in New Hampshire but it affects those who can least afford it the most.

Originally posted at Examiner.com: http://www.examiner.com/article/maggie-hassan-isn-t-happy-over-another-ad-about-her-record-of-raising-taxes

NH Democrats think women are helpless twits who need a nanny

It was bad enough Democrats paid for a fake ‘war on women’ rally a few months ago but now they are pushing their lies even further and treating women like they are completely stupid. In a column on October 15th, New Hampshire attorney and National Democratic Committee member Kathy Sullivan not only lied about issues but she actually makes women out to be helpless little sheep who need big strong ‘daddy’ government to take care of them. She also doesn’t seem to understand how insurance companies work or that Obamacare is indeed taking women’s health care decisions out of their control and putting it in the control of government. From the column:

The entire top of the ticket on the Republican side of the ballot would affect the ability of women to make their own medical decisions by allowing employers to remove contraceptive coverage from health insurance plans on religious grounds.

Apparently she doesn’t realize that even the far left Democrat Teddy Kennedy agreed that religious institutions shouldn’t be forced to provide something that is against their religion. Bill Clinton’s health care bill also included religious protections. It’s called ‘Freedom of Religion’ and one of the reasons this country was founded. Apparently Sullivan doesn’t believe in Constitutional rights.

In addition, gubernatorial candidate Ovide Lamontagne wants to defund Planned Parenthood. Mitt Romney has said he wants to get rid of Planned Parenthood. Defunding Planned Parenthood would make it more difficult for low-income women to access contraception, and also remove a source of preventive care for services such as cancer screenings.

Planned Parenthood doesn’t need the money. They make millions of dollars every year from insurance companies and through abortion services they provide. Planned Parenthood has almost$1 billion in assets alone with over $737 million in revenue. Romney simply wants to stop funding programs that don’t need the money as do the majority of Americans. There are many other clinics available to women that provide low-income women the same services other than abortion. Sullivan clearly thinks women are too stupid to know this. Why she wants to continue funding a program that victimizes young girls is reprehensible. For a party that is supposed to be ‘for women’, they certainly don’t show that with their support of Planned Parenthood. Of course, the lie about providing breast cancer screenings is just that, a lie.

Access to birth control benefits taxpayers and reduces abortions. According to an article by Reuters, unintended pregnancies lead to one million births each year, at a cost to taxpayers of $11 billion. In other words, not only are Guinta, Bass, Lamontagne and Romney promoting policies that allow employers to interfere with the right of the individual to make her own religious and moral decisions, they also are imposing an economic burden on taxpayers.

Interesting that Sullivan talks about women making their own decisions yet she is whining about how they need the government to make decisions for them. Employers have been choosing health coverage for years and still did up until Obamacare. Now employers are forced to purchase plans for which both they and their employees pay a much higher price. Government is making health care decisions for women. Remember when Obama’s Administration said that women under 50 didn’t need mammograms every year? Insurance companies and doctors told them to piss off. Women’s lives are saved thanks to mammograms yet Sullivan’s beloved Obama Administration is making health care decisions that will kill them.

Sullivan goes on to whine in the article that women need access to birth control and lies that Republicans want to stop access to it. Funny thing, women have access to birth control 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at most major stores and even small convenience stores across New Hampshire and the country. Women even have that silly option of not having sex if they don’t want to get pregnant. To Democrats, women seem to be little sheep incapable of taking care of themselves or actually making responsible decisions. While Sullivan talks about women making their own decisions, she’s pushing for government to make decisions for them, rather than discuss how much Obama’s economic policies have failed women.

How bad have Obama’s policies hurt women?

If more women had jobs, as they will under Romney, they’d be able to afford the birth control that Sullivan and Democrats feel is so much more important than the economy.

Women should be angry that Democrats believe they are so completely ignorant and helpless that they cannot be held personally responsible for their own sexual reproduction. Women should be angry that Democrats are pushing birth control as the most important issue when the economy is crumbling and it is affecting women the most. Democrats should be ashamed of themselves that they treat women so disrespectfully. Women have worked for years to become independent and have earned equality. Democrats seek to destroy those gains by telling women they need to be dependent on the government. Democrats seek to hurt women’s equality by putting legislation into place like the Paycheck Fairness Act that would kill even more jobs for women. Women are not incapable little twits who need a Nanny (Maggie Hassan, Carol Shea-Porter or Anne Kuster) to make their decisions. It is 2012, women have ‘come a long way baby’ despite the efforts of Democrats to destroy their economic freedom with Obama’s failed economy.

Originally posted here:  http://www.examiner.com/article/nh-democrats-think-women-are-helpless-twits-who-need-a-nanny

Maggie Hassan’s ‘Vision’ for New Hampshire Doesn’t Make Any Sense

Last night WBIN hosted the first of its series of debates this week with the gubernatorial candidates for New Hampshire – Maggie Hassan (Democrat) and Ovide Lamontagne(Republican). With a great moderator and panel, it offered more insight as to what the candidates see as their view for the future of New Hampshire. Much different than just going to the candidates’ websites, the debate offered a stark contrast between how Hassan and Lamontagne differ on their vision. It was clear that Maggie Hassan has the same vision for New Hampshire that she did while she was a State Senator – to grow government and raise taxes.

Maggie Hassan doesn’t seem to understand that you cannot continue to raise taxes and fees on New Hampshire residents who are still hurting from the effects of Obama’s economy, yet that is her vision. When most states are trying to get their fiscal houses in order, Hassan continues to talk about growing the size of government, which will necessarily cause an increase in fees or taxes or the state debt. No matter how Hassan decides to pay for her growth in the size of New Hampshire’s state government, it is the taxpayers who will suffer the consequences. At a time when residents can barely afford the outrageous gas prices and continually rising food prices, Maggie Hassan will hit them with even more rising fees and taxes.

Since Hassan has a record of hiking taxes and fees, it’s clear that she will continue in her quest to extract as much money as possible out of New Hampshire to pay for her big government vision (her taxes and fees affect the poor, working and middle classes the most). Not only is this the opposite of what the majority of people in the Granite State believe (Live Free or Die isn’t just a motto, it’s a way of life), but it just doesn’t make sense. Below are just a few of the things from Hassan’s record as a state legislature (she was voted out in 2010):

She voted for Cap & Trade or RGGI which is a Wall Street scam that cost residents more and does absolutely nothing for the environment.

Voted to raise taxes and fees by hundreds of millions of dollars (she hasn’t met a fee or tax increase she doesn’t love but will continually claim to be against raising sales tax and income tax).

She voted against New Hampshire residents’ protecting themselves.

Hassan is against worker freedom and is for forced unionism. She believes that workers should be forced to pay union fees even if they don’t want anything to do with the union. She is adamantly against Right-to-Work. She even lied about Right-to-Work states in the debate last night. Forced union states have higher overall taxes, more debt and less spending power per worker. Of course, since Hassan’s election is being bought by unions, it’s no surprise she feels this way.

It was quite clear from the debate that Hassan’s vision for New Hampshire is not what the majority of residents see as the ‘New Hampshire Way’. In a time when the state legislature has reigned in the debt that Hassan helped to ring up under Democratic Governor John Lynch, Hassan would come into office and turn back the clock to the big government, higher fees and taxes ways that have hurt New Hampshire. The Granite State can’t afford another Democratic free-for-all with their tax dollars. It just doesn’t make sense. Hassan appears to be yet another Massachusetts Liberal who wants to change New Hampshire into Mini-Massachusetts, to hell with ‘Live Free or Die’.

Maggie Hassan WILL raise Taxes and thinks Voters will LIKE it


Maggie Hassan, Democratic candidate for Governor has a slight problem – her record. Hassan was a New Hampshire State Senator for several years before being voted out in 2010. One of the reasons was due to her ‘taxing’ problem. While Hassan may like to claim she won’t raise income or sales taxes, she certainly loves raising all kinds of other fees and taxes that necessarily hurt the working and middle classes in New Hampshire. She has specifically said she will raise taxes and fees and actually believes the voters will like it. From the Portsmouth Herald:

Hassan said before anyone can talk specifics about taxes, the state needs to evaluate its revenue and determine its funding priorities, but she did say there are multiple tax cuts that could be reversed.

“There were a lot of back-of-the-budget tax cuts that the Republicans put into this last budget that we’re going to have to review and look at,” she said. “When you look at some of the back-of-the-budget tax cuts and other tax cuts the Republicans made the last two years, I think there are some things that most taxpayers of New Hampshire would agree that we could restore.”

Unfortunately Hassan is serious. She actually believes that taxes should be raised on New Hampshire residents even during this abysmal recession that her dear leader Obama has kept this country in for almost 4 years. Hassan was booted out of the State Senate in 2010, in all likelihood due to her love for raising fees and taxes. New Hampshire residents enjoy the freedom of a small government and paying less in overall taxes than their neighboring states. Apparently Hassan hasn’t gotten the message.

While Hassan was in the State Legislature, she raised taxes and fees over 33 times. Those are 33 reasons alone not to vote for her as Governor. Those were 33 reasons alone she was voted out of office. From an ad paid for by the Live Free PAC:

“Two years ago, voters rejected Maggie Hassan’s tax record – voting her out of office,” a female narrator says. “As Senate Majority Leader, Hassan pushed a budget with over $300 million in higher taxes and fees, 33 tax and fee increases, a controversial new tax on small businesses, higher taxes on rooms and meals [and] increased fees for vehicle registration. Even a new tax on camping! Maggie Hassan believes in high taxes. New Hampshire doesn’t.”

Continue Reading here:  http://www.examiner.com/article/maggie-hassan-will-raise-taxes-and-thinks-voters-will-like-it?cid=db_articles

The hypocrisy of NH State Rep Chris Serlin

Recently there was a big brouhaha over Speaker O’Brien not allowing a couple of Concord Monitor reporters into a press conference due to the Monitor’s printing of a cartoon depicting O’Brien as a Nazi.  The event was an “invite only” one in which only those with invitations were welcome to the proceedings.  Democrats ripped O’Brien for “punishing” the reporters.  Apparently some representatives were conversing back and forth via email that they should rally around O’Brien’s decision.  Then an interesting thing happened, as reported in the miscellanyblue blog – Democrat Representative Chris Serlin added his two cents, chiding the representatives (you can see his full email here):

It’s incredible to watch this train wreck unfold. So many of you calling for the wagons to be circled around the Speaker for the Press has DARED to paint him in an unfavorable light in a cartoon. The HORROR!

If the Press “behaves” then they are afforded access. Oh how rich! As if the people and the Press work for us – or are our peers. What is this — a Banana Republic, where the politicians tell the press what they should and should not do?

We work for the people of New Hampshire, which includes the Press. There is nothing that the press or the citizens of NH owe us. We owe THEM. We owe it to them all to be just a wee bit less sensitive to any who may insult us. A cartoon — from May — really? How ridiculous.

Why is this interesting and completely hypocritical on Representative Serlin’s part?  For two reasons:  #1 – back April during the public lynching of George Zimmerman, Rep Serlin tried and convicted Zimmerman on Twitter.  Not very adult behavior and not very professional behavior for a New Hampshire Representative.  #2 – After this author published the article alerting the public to Serlin’s outrageous behavior; she was blocked by him on Twitter.  Yes the very same Representative who is chiding his colleagues in the above email also blocked a member of the Press and a citizen of NH over his own egregious behavior.

Continue Reading here:  http://www.examiner.com/article/the-hypocrisy-of-nh-state-rep-chris-serlin

Are NH State Senators for ‘Green Street’ or their constituents – their vote will tell

The New Hampshire Senate will be back in session on Wednesday with a slew of various issues on their plate. One issue that is extremely important to the people of New Hampshire is a bill to repeal membership in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (HB519). The House voted with an overwhelming majority to repeal New Hampshire’s membership. It’s now up to the Senate to vote in order to make the bill a veto-proof majority (Governor Lynch, who got New Hampshire into this Initiative, has said he will veto its repeal). There has been no actual benefit to New Hampshire for participating in this Initiative other than raking in millions to hand out to special interests in the name of ‘green energy’.

It’s really quite simple, utilities use energy to provide the state of New Hampshire energy, therefore creating Carbon Dioxide or CO2 emissions, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative forces energy producers to purchase ‘credits’ for the amount of CO2 they emit or expect to emit. The State has a cap on the amount; however, more can always be purchased on the ‘market’ – think ‘Green Street’ rather than Wall Street, only the same ‘green’ dollars are being made by companies like World Energy Solutions who are trading the ‘carbon credits’ for the RGGI. From the NJ Watchdog.org:

The bidders at RGGI auctions include Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, JPMorgan Chase and other Wall Street heavyweights. They hope to make big money by speculating on the price of permits, called allowances. Electric power plants are required to obtain an allowance for each ton of CO-2 they emit.

Read more at Examiner