New Hampshire presidential primary: Andy Martin exposes Bernie Sanders election scandal

ANDY MARTIN /2016        

Republican candidate for

President of the United States       


“Make America Great Again”

National headquarters:

P. O. Box 1851

New York, NY 10150-1851

New Hampshire Headquarters:

P. O. Box 742

Manchester, NH 3105

Tel. (866) 706-2639; Cell (917) 664-9329

Fax (866) 214-3210




November 18, 2015


Ms. Kristina McNamara


Bernstein Shur

Manchester, NY

by email:


Dear Ms. McNamara:


This morning I received your law firm’s response to challenge to Bernie Sanders.


The Ballot Law Commission hearing is proceeding in a chaotic and disorganized manner and I am asking for an adjournment so we may have time to organize a properly-structured hearing.


However, in the absence of any management or leadership by the chairman, I will try to narrow the issues with your firm based on a very brief perusal of your document. Your firm’s document is over seventy (70) pages long and I have not had an opportunity to review it in detail. I do find several facial defects in the document, and also some unanswered questions.


As someone with over forty (40) years of experience in election law litigation I am surprised by the lack of professionalism and proper practice (pre-filing due diligence) manifested in the claims submitted on behalf of Senator Sanders. I would have expected a better-researched and more coherent submission on behalf of Sanders given the tens of millions of dollars at his disposal.


Also, because of the fact that I am preparing to file a court challenge to the hearing, I would like to make a record that I have made a good faith effort to narrow the legal and factual disputes before the Commission, before going to court, particularly since the court challenge will be filed momentarily.


I would appreciate it if you would turn this memo over to the attorney handing the file so we can either conference on the phone or respond to each other in writing.


Without waiving any claims or defenses as to timeliness of your client’s reply I am willing to accept an amended filing from your office later today if you care to make the changes I have requested below.


  1. Request that you withdraw claim/issue – Secretary “approval”


You claim the Secretary of State (“Secretary”) has “approved” Mr. Sanders’ filing. The Secretary in no way, shape or form approves the factual or legal substance of a candidate filing.


The Secretary merely reviews a candidate’s Declaration of Candidacy for acceptance and filing. Your apparent claim that the Secretary has somehow “approved” Sanders’ claim that he is a Democrat is therefore unprofessional (an effort to falsely attribute action to the Secretary which he has not taken) and factually and legally erroneous as a matter of New Hampshire law.


If you refuse to withdraw this claim and refuse to file an amended objection with that claim about the Secretary being withdrawn, I am going to have to ask that the Secretary be subpoenaed to testify to falsity of your argument and to establish that the Secretary has in no way shape or form “approved” the legal or factual substance of Mr. Sander’s candidacy. The Secretary has approved the form of Sander’s filing form just as he has done the same for me.


  1. Request that you withdraw claim/issue – Secretary “my registration”


One of the reasons I have accused your law firm of filing a sloppy response with the Commission is that I have been a registered voter in New Hampshire for many years. Last year I was a candidate for the United States Senate from New Hampshire. Obviously, your firm made no pre-filing inquiry as to my voter registration and merely submitted my statement of presidential candidacy advising the Federal Election Commission where to send mail. I equally obviously do not live in a post office box. Moreover, all of my mail to the Ballot Law Commission, which has been copied to your law firm, lists a “national headquarters” in New York. People do not usually live at a national headquarters.


Above in this letter I accused your law firm of professional incompetence, probably bordering on malpractice. Your claim that I am not a registered voter in New Hampshire is embarrassing to both to your firm and to Sanders. The Declaration of Candidacy I filed with the Secretary (the same form submitted by Sanders) identifies my domicile as 144 W. Webster Street, Manchester, New Hampshire. A simple call to the city clerk would have confirmed my voter registration. For your law firm to make the wild accusation I am not a registered voter in New Hampshire without even checking my own Declaration of Candidacy to see where I declared my domicile, is utterly incompetent and unprofessional.


If I had made the same mistake your firm would be highly critical of my professional competence. Attorney due diligence calls for examining the basic file in a case, not making wild and unsupported accusations without any research and, without in this case, even looking at my own Declaration of Candidacy.


I ask that you withdraw your outrageous claim I am not a voter because it only makes your attorney and your law firm look like bush league incompetents and jokers; that is not the image genuine Granite Staters want to project to the world (my family arrived in New Hampshire 100 years ago). If you refuse to amend your filing to remove your false and fraudulent claim I will have to subpoena the city clerk from Manchester to confirm my voter registration.


  1. Request that you withdraw claim/issue – Secretary “standing”


Now that we have established that your law firm (and apparently paralegals as well) did not even check my own Declaration of Candidacy on file with the Secretary in Concord, we can move to the next incompetent argument you make, one that is undermined by claims made by one of parties whose documents you submit.


You claim I do not have standing because I am not a Democrat. Under New Hampshire law that is another outrageously incompetent and unprofessional argument.


First, because under New Hampshire law an unaffiliated voter can choose to vote in either primary, the list of candidates in one primary can directly affect the voter turnout in the other party’s primary. This reality has been written about and remarked about in the media for decades and decades.


Second, I am not aware that in many years of candidate challenges the New Hampshire Supreme Court has ever claimed that only the voter of the same party can challenge false filings by a candidate in that party. Uniform practice in New Hampshire history shows the contrary. If you have case law to support your claim, please provide it. Otherwise, as Bernie would say, “Stop with the nonsense!”


Third, and perhaps most embarrassingly for your law firm and client, the New Hampshire Democratic Party routinely challenges Republicans. Obviously, the very same people who are participating in and supporting your client’s sham candidacy in New Hampshire as a Democrat take a contrary view of the law in their own conduct. Take a look at the following link and see if I am right:


The New Hampshire Democratic Party challenged a Republican just two years ago. Were they Republicans? Obviously not. That makes your contrary argument that only a Democrat can challenge Sanders incompetent and unprofessional. I therefore urge you to withdraw your unprofessional and legally humiliating claim that only members of a party (I am a registered Republican) can challenge filings of their own party with the Secretary, and file an amended response to my objection. The link above conclusively shows that your argument is absurd and makes both your law firm and candidate look desperate for a defense. I urge your law firm not to insult the intelligence of either the voters of New Hampshire or the New Hampshire courts.


  1. What is the only issue?


I would urge counsel to stipulate with me that the only issue is whether Sanders is a bona fide Democrat and legally qualified to claim he is a Democrat when he simultaneously claims to the contrary in his own official publications. Ironically, that is my only claim, and that is the only claim your response did not respond to! Why don’t we strip away all of your distracting nonsense (which is perhaps why you are filing all of this extraneous drivel in the first place) and cut to the core, so we do not waste time? I have a legitimate argument and if you respect that fact you will gain respect from the Commission. If you embarrass the Commission by making stupid arguments you will only make your law firm look incompetent and unprofessional and make me look good, which is clearly not your objective.


  1. My unopposed motions


I have filed several motions with the Commission, seeking to recuse the chairman and seeking an adjournment or renewed hearing date for the grounds stated therein, to the week of November 30th. Although I did not know your firm was representing Sanders until yesterday, I have been serving the firm because I erroneously believed a member of the firm was a member of the Commission, so your firm has had notice of everything I have filed. Most respectfully I would ask that counsel promptly advise me, so that I can advise the court, whether your office opposes those motions or not, including the motion seeking the issuance of a subpoena for your client. If I o not hear from you promptly, I will also have to move for subpoenas for the Manchester City Clerk (voter registration) register as well as the Secretary himself (claim of “approval”).


With counsel’s response to the foregoing inquiries and requests, we can start to narrow the factual and legal issues and attempt to conduct a rational proceeding narrowly focused on the single substantial issue, instead of your firm’s filing a hodgepodge  of ridiculous claims and attempting a scatter shot defense that will make a hearing unnecessarily long and embarrassing to the state and Commission.


If the Commission will not try to conduct a rational and properly structured hearing with adequate opportunity to prepare, at least the lawyers can attempt to do so. I am doing so with this letter.


Please feel free to have counsel call my national toll-free number that will reach me anywhere in the nation and is forwarded to my cell phone for immediate response.


Respectfully submitted,


Andy Martin, J.D.

Adjunct Professor of Law


About Andy Martin

Andy Martin resides in Manchester, New Hampshire, where he is the state's leading corruption fighter (details: He is the Executive Editor and publisher of E-mail: Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Andy is America’s most respected independent foreign policy, military and intelligence analyst. He is a Middle East expert who is Executive Director of the Revolutionary War Research Center. He has spent over 45 years in and out of Asia and the Middle East and during much of 2003 lived in Baghdad. Andy created the anti-Obama movement in 2004 and is the author of the bestselling book "Obama: The Man Behind The Mask." Andy has continued to be a leading critic of President Barack Obama.© Copyright by Andy Martin 2016
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s