New Hampshire congressional candidate Andy Martin exposes a “plague of Fake News” in New Hampshire from Liar Kevin Landrigan to Dissembler John DiStaso

In his latest letter to New Hampshire citizens, congressional candidate Andy Martin explains how biased and incomplete news reporting is adversely affecting democracy both nationally and in local communities such as New Hampshire. Andy criticizes “Liar Landrigan” and “Dissembler DiStaso” for reporting “Fake News” that is distorting the electoral process. “President Trump is telling the truth when he says the media cannot be trusted,” Martin says.

News from:

ANDY MARTIN /2018        

Republican candidate for Congress

New Hampshire-

First Congressional District

           

www.AndyMartin2018.com

www.AndyMartin.com

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:

www.AndyMartinforCongress.blogspot.com

www.AndyMartinforCongress.wordpress.com

-----

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

-----

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

This letter is one of New Hampshire First District congressional candidate Andy Martin’s continuing reports to the citizens of his district

Today Martin explains why Fake News is undermining New Hampshire’s democracy and why the “Fake News media” are writing their own obituaries by deliberately deceiving their viewers and readers.

(MANCHESTER, NH)(September 6, 2018)

Dear New Hampshire Citizen:

This is my fourteenth letter to you from the congressional campaign trial. Today I explain how local media are undermining your democracy and in the process destroying the backbone of a free press. And, today the Union leader furnishes the ultimate example of Fake News.

When President Trump first started attacking the “Fake News media” people thought he was exaggerating. He was not. Biased news and selective reporting are a growing cancer on the First Amendment.

In the colonial period and thereafter, 1750-1850, media were utterly biased, which is why Congress adopted the First Amendment to protect free speech by all. Almost anyone could start a newspaper then by scraping together the cash for a small printing press.

Today the costs of creating new media range from prohibitively expensive (a new newspaper) to impossible (government regulation and control of the airwaves). So we rely on the limited number of legacy media to present news reasonably fairly and accurately. They do not.

In New Hampshire we have a scandal because of the epidemic of Fake News by the Union Leader and WMUR. Today I will collect some of the recent Fake News and explain why it matters and why it undermines democracy. If, as is the case, the media won’t even report who is running, how can you know who is running? If actions by a candidate are also falsely credited or outright stolen by reporters, how can you gain an appreciation of whether a candidate is qualified or running an effective campaign? You can’t.

Let’s start with the ultimate in Fake News, a false story by the Union Leader today. In an earlier email I mentioned the debate being held this evening. I even predicted the Union Leader would attempt to deceive readers. How right I was! The debate is sponsored by WMUR, the Union Leader and the NHIOP at St Anselm’s. Kevin Landrigan, who may be the “dirtiest” journalist in New Hampshire, wrote a story about the debate (please see link [1] below) and didn’t even mention everyone who is participating. Landrigan falsely portrayed the debate as being between only two candidates. What are his readers going to think if they tune in and numerous candidates pop up? Lying about your own news event has to be the grandest example of Fake News I have ever seen. Hats off to Liar Landrigan.

During this primary campaign I have totally thrown over the tables of the media frauds and the toxic distortions of the local political class. Using my knowledge of the “Right to Know law,” usually called “freedom of information,’ and judicial procedure, I have negotiated the disclosure of thousands of pages of documents involving Andy Sanborn and Eddie Edwards and thrown their campaigns into disarray.

I was also the first to attack Maura Sullivan for falsely claiming in her advertising and speeches that she had “fought” in Iraq when she had been a supply officer. Maura -- shall we call her the “Wonder Woman of the Marine Corps” -- is an embarrassment to real warriors.

In sum and substance, I have waged a devastating primary campaign against my opponents but you would never know that because the Fake News media have suppressed virtually all mention of my efforts.

Let’s take a look:

1. Fake News by WMUR

     A. The Andy Sanborn files

          In June, I negotiated the release of what became over a thousand pages of documents concerning Andy Sanborn. Before me, others such as (I believe) Susan Olsen and Robert Clegg, had failed to obtain the release of the Sanborn documents (please see link #2] below, where Ethan Dewitt has done some excellent Sanborn analysis but also fails to mention my name). In fact, I believe (not 100% sure) that even John DiStaso had tried and failed to obtain the release of Sanborn materials.

I announced in an email I had negotiated an agreement with the Attorney General to release the Sanborn documents. What did DiStaso do? The moment he learned of my agreement he cut-and-pasted his own RTK request using my original. Then, when the materials were released in July, he claimed, falsely, that “WMUR had obtained” the documents without mentioning he was piggybacking on my successful negotiation.

All summer “Dissembler DiStaso” has continued to lie to viewers and readers by falsely claiming he secured release of the Sanborn files, when he had failed to do so.

Why is the fact that I obtained the release significant? For two reasons. First, when others try and fail to accomplish a task, the identity of the person who actually succeeds is obviously part of the story. Second, using my legal and political expertise, I was and am still running an effective campaign, though you would never know that from DiStaso’s false claims he is securing release of the Sanborn files. In other words, DiStaso is literally extinguishing my campaign and its effectiveness, to falsely portray himself as a successful document digger, when that is not the case.

     B. The Eddie Edwards files

          Once again, DiStaso is exposed as incompetent and lazy. The Edwards Settlement Agreement was negotiated in 2013. Edwards became a candidate in 2017. DiStaso, once again, did nothing about the Settlement until I announced I was seeking a copy in 2018.

Here is what DiStaso said: (please see link [2] below)

“WMUR received the settlement agreement from the attorney general's office in July of this year, after filing a right-to-know request with the human rights commission.” In so far as I am aware, the Human Rights Commission was never involved. But, once again, DiStaso had done nothing for five (5) years. He didn’t take any action until I announced I was going after the Settlement Agreement and only then asked the Attorney General for a copy. Once again, DiStaso erased my instigation of the release, trying to falsely portray himself as having obtained the materials on his own. Once again, the effectiveness of my research and analysis in the campaign was not credited.

I could go on, but you get the picture. DiStaso seeks to claim credit for my work without a single mention of who obtained release of the materials he is using. His behavior is crass, inconsistent with journalistic ethics and designed to destroy my campaign by pretending I do not exist. Political bias? Personal bias? Who knows?

2. Fake News by the Union Leader

     A. The Andy Sanborn files

          When the original Sanborn files story broke, Liar Landrigan was away and the story was covered by another reporter who mentioned my name. By the time the final documents were released I had been erased and replaced by “many media,” all of whom piggybacked on my original agreement. The fact that I succeeded after others unsuccessfully tried to obtain the same material was left unmentioned (as it was in Ethan Dewitt’s report in the Concord Monitor).

Of course, if you were looking to your “local newspaper” to inform you what the candidates were doing, the reporters pretend there are only two candidates running. No wonder voters are confused and losing interest in voting.

     B. The Eddie Edwards files

          Remember that the Settlement with Edwards was signed five (5) years ago. No one reported on the document until I filed a Right to Know request and sought disclosure. What did Liar Landrigan write: “Edwards offered new details … following a Right to Know Law inquiry made by the New Hampshire Union Leader and other media outlets.” No mention that it was my RTK request that secured release of the Settlement. (I am going to court Friday to seek more disclosures about both Sanborn and Edwards.)

Reading the Union Leader you would think I did not exist all summer, when in reality my campaign activity was turning the campaigns of my opponents upside down and creating massive disruptions for them. Liar Landrigan takes his readers for dopes who will accept whatever drivel he pushes out as “news.” Thanks to the Internet, Landrigan has been exposed as a habitual liar, who no doubt lies at the direction of his employer Joe McQuaid.

The Union leader is an embarrassment to journalism, and I will have more to say about that after the primary. I ain’t finished by a long shot.

     c. The Maura Sullivan fake “fighting a war” claims

          Liar Landrigan did a front-page story on Maura Sullivan’s false claims she had “fought in Iraq.” Sullivan was using her ridiculous claim in both TV advertising and speeches. I was the first person to challenge Sullivan’s fraud, held a news conference and sent Sullivan a letter demanding she cease and desist. Landrigan credited the claims to another congressional candidate and did not mention my activity.

     d. The Balsams cover-up

          Several months ago the Union Leader reported state officials were ready to approve a $28 million “guarantee” for redevelopment of The Balsams report in the North Country. Last month, the application for a state handout was withdrawn. What happened? I battled the developers, and state officials ultimately had to agree that The Balsams paperwork was nothing but a taxpayer giveaway with no hope of repayment. “Andy Martin blocks $28 taxpayer giveaway?” Big news? No news. Not one word of my successful participation has ever appeared in the Union Leader.

Once again, how would you know I am succeeding as a candidate, if local media completely erase my efforts from their reporting? Once again, Fake News, intended to mislead readers as to who is doing what.

Of course, the ultimate humiliation for the Union leader comes today, when the newspaper is sponsoring a debate where I am appearing, and Landrigan fails to list the names of the participating candidates, trying to pretend the debate is only between two candidates excluding me. Fake News. What a disgrace to journalism.

By depriving you of information about who is running and what the candidates are accomplishing during the campaign, the media are lying to you and undermining our democracy, which is based on the theory of an informed electorate.

WMUR has interviewed numerous candidates in the Second Congressional District, and my opponents in the First, but excluded me. Fair or unbalanced? The blatant bias speaks for itself. (My exclusion was apparently the work of Adam Sexton, not DiStaso.)

My late Uncle William Vasiliou, who was a proud UNH graduate, used to say he was a “”facts and figures man.” I succeeded to his mantle. I deal in facts and figures (see links below), and that is why I succeed where others do not. But the future looks depressing for New Hampshire. How can our democracy function in darkness? One again, President Trump’s criticism of Fake News at the national level has its counterpart in our local communities. Is it any wonder Americans are disgusted?

Internet news anyone? 

Respectfully,

Andy Martin

----------

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

[1]

http://www.unionleader.com/article/20180906/NEWS0602/180909687

[2]

https://www.concordmonitor.com/Capital-Beat-2018-state-primaries-to-watch-19822902

[3]

www.unionleader.com/Eddie-Edwards-details-past-racial-bias-allegations-at-state-liquor-agency

New citations after emailing:

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: www.AndyMartin.com; also see 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 www.FirstRespondersOnline.us; 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 www.contrariancommentary.wordpress.com and 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:

www.twitter.com/AndyMartinUSA
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, 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