#

The public may get to see Andy Sanborn’s cards before he’s forced to fold ’em.

The former state senator and Concord Casino owner is suing the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office, but no one knows why just yet. Nearly the entire case is sealed in Merrimack Superior Court. 

At the same time, Sanborn is under state order to sell his business by the end of the month in the wake of accusations he took $844,000 in COVID relief funds and used the money to pay himself rent and purchase sports cars.

New Hampshire Bulletin’s Annmarie Timmins filed a motion to unseal the case. On Wednesday, Merrimack Superior Court Judge John Kissinger gave attorneys for Sanborn and the state until Oct. 3 to come up with proposed redacted versions of the lawsuit and pleadings. Kissinger said the case is potentially sensitive because it deals with an open criminal investigation, according to Concord Monitor reporting. 

Attorney General John Formella said last year he planned to investigate Sanborn for the alleged COVID fraud, though no charges have yet been filed. 

Sanborn’s lawyers reportedly said Wednesday they are seeking another extension on the deadline to sell the business.

This isn’t the first time the handling of documents has created problems in Sanborn’s case.

NHJournal first reported the story that Kissinger issued an Aug. 23 order instructing prosecutors to explain how documents from Sanborn’s lawyers considered legally privileged ended up with the state’s investigative team.

Among other steps Kissinger ordered, he wants the state to provide to the court “factual affidavits on issues related to the past handling of seized documents and materials (including electronically stored information), as well as how clearly privileged documents may have been missed or not properly screened by the taint team.”

Kissinger’s order indicated there are close to 6,700 documents as part of the discovery in the ongoing investigation thus far. Some of them are in a commercial legal database program called Everlaw. It gives attorneys and law firms the ability to control and share information in large cases, and is frequently used to share discovery.

Prosecutors have been instructed to provide Kissinger with an audit of the state’s activity in the Sanborn Everlaw documents, showing which prosecutor viewed or downloaded any particular document.

Prosecutors involved in the Andy Sanborn criminal probe may have copies of potentially sensitive attorney-client communications.

Sanborn, a former Republican state senator, is at the center of a legal firestorm that began when New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella accused him of COVID-19 fraud last year. 

Sanborn filed a lawsuit in Merrimack Superior Court against Formella’s office this summer, but the pleadings in the case are almost entirely under seal. However, a recent court order from Judge John Kissinger sheds light on at least one aspect of the dispute.

Kissinger ordered prosecutors to explain how documents from Sanborn’s lawyers considered legally privileged ended up with the state’s investigative team. Among other steps Kissinger ordered, he wants the state to provide to the court “factual affidavits on issues related to the past handling of seized documents and materials (including electronically stored information), as well as how clearly privileged documents may have been missed or not properly screened by the taint team,” Kissinger wrote in an Aug. 23 order.

Interior of Andy Sanborn’s Concord Casino visible from locked entrance.

Kissinger’s order indicated there are close to 6,700 documents as part of the discovery in the ongoing investigation thus far. Some of them in a commercial legal database program called Everlaw. Everlaw gives attorneys and law firms the ability to control and share information in large cases, and is frequently used to share discovery.

The order states that a taint team was handling discovery documents before handing them to prosecutors in the investigation. Prosecutorial taint teams are typically prosecutors not connected to the case that is under investigation. The taint team is supposed to read through and examine discovery, removing information considered privileged before giving the rest to the investigating team, or case team.  

Prosecutors have been instructed to provide Kissinger an audit of the state’s activity in the Sanborn Everlaw documents, showing which prosecutor viewed or downloaded any particular document. Sanborn’s legal team is under orders to provide Kissinger legal arguments for why the information should be privileged. 

Communication between lawyers and clients is privileged, meaning it does not have to be disclosed to police or prosecutors. That protection extends to evidence that can be obtained through discovery requests, subpoenas, and even in what is said in sworn depositions. Clients may waive the privilege protection if they choose.

After accusing Sanborn of making false statements in filing for business COVID relief funds, and then spending the part of the money on luxury sports cars, Formella announced his office would instigate a criminal investigation into Sanborn and his wife, state Rep. Laurie Sanborn (R-Bedford.) Both Andy and Laurie Sanborn are owners of Win Win Win LLC/Concord Casino, the business that received $844,000 in COVID money.

Despite the public and damning allegations Formella made last year, neither Sanborn has yet been charged with a crime. Andy Sanborn’s New Hampshire Gaming License was suspended in December after an administrative hearing on Formella’s allegations.

Administrative Law hearing officer Michael King found Sanborn engaged in deception when he applied for the COVID loans, and that Sanborn spent the money inappropriately, including the purchase of a Porsche and a Ferrari. 

“The misrepresentations on the EIDL [Economic Injury Disaster Loan] application and the subsequent use of the proceeds for expenditures not allowed by that loan constitute ‘conduct by the licensee that undermines the public confidence in charitable gaming,’” King wrote in his order.

In addition to the sports cars, Sanborn allegedly paid himself $240,000 with the COVID funds by raising his own rent.

Sanborn owns the Casino through his Win Win Win LLC and he owns the Main Street building where his Concord Casino is located through an entity called The Best Revenge LLC. 

The original lease agreement between Win Win Win and The Best Revenge LLC was for $500 a month. But records showed Sanborn was making payments to himself ranging from $10,000 to $30,000 a month for rent. 

Sanborn claimed the 40-fold rent increase was due to his casino floor space increasing six and a half percent. While it was alleged Sanborn was diverting COVID money to himself through rent, King found Sanborn’s high rental payments to himself started in 2021 before he received any COVID cash.

Sanborn started making payments in November 2021, ranging from $5,000 to $22,000. Those payments were seen as “wildly excessive” by the state.

Sanborn has until the end of the month under King’s order to sell his Concord Casino or face having the license revoked. Without a license, Sanborn has no casino business to sell. 

United States District Court Judge Landya McCafferty ruled again Tuesday to prevent New Hampshire from enforcing its law keeping biological males from participating in girls sports.

The judge extended a temporary order allowing 15-year-old Parker Tirrell to play on the Plymouth High School girls soccer team. Tirrell and 14-year-old Iris Turmelle have filed a lawsuit challenging the state’s new Fairness in Women’s Sports Act.

When Gov. Chris Sununu signed the law last month, he made New Hampshire the 26th state to pass laws protecting girls sports from male athletes.

New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella and his office are defending the law, both in New Hampshire and at the national level. His attorneys are in court before Judge McCafferty, and he’s joined 25 other state attorneys general urging the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the issue.

“We remain committed to vigorously defending this new law and will determine next steps once the Court issues its order,” Formella said.

In New Hampshire, both sides have requested a bench trial, rather than a jury trial. McCafferty signaled during Tuesday’s hearing she will likely rule in favor of Tirrell and Turmelle, saying she believes the New Hampshire law violates Title IX, the law that protects women’s sports, and Title XII, the law against employment discrimination. 

If McCafferty does strike down the law, the decision to pursue an appeal will almost certainly be made by New Hampshire’s next governor. And if it is a Democrat, it’s all but certain the law will be allowed to die and girls will be competing against biological males once again.

Neither former Manchester Mayor Joyce Craig nor Executive Councilor Cinde Warmington would respond to questions about this case from NHJournal. However, they’ve both made it clear they oppose the new law.

“These bills are an attack on at-risk trans kids across New Hampshire. Our state needs leadership focused on delivering results, not division. As governor, I will always stand up for the right of our residents to live authentically, without demonization,” Craig said.

Executive Councilor Cinde Warmington, who is challenging Craig in the Democratic primary, linked banning boys from girls sports teams to violent hate crimes when the law was signed this summer.

“We’ve seen a rise in hate crimes against our LGBTQ+ community, in part because radical Republicans have villainized trans kids who’re already vulnerable & at a higher risk of suicide. When I’m governor, everyone will be free to love who they love & be who they are,” Warmington said on social media.

The two GOP candidates for governor have a very different view.

Chuck Morse, running against Kelly Ayotte in the GOP primary, says he’d fight for an appeal if elected.

“As governor, I would absolutely pursue an appeal if the court finds against the state. It is a question of fairness and protecting the rights of women to play sports on a level playing field. To me it is simple: boys should play against boys and girls should play against girls,” Morse said.

Ayotte agrees.

“As the only candidate for governor who has actually argued before the Supreme Court, I will do whatever it takes to defend our state. As the proud mom of a three-sport state champion female athlete, I believe protecting women’s sports is a matter of fairness. Women fought for decades to achieve that fairness through Title IX. When I am governor, New Hampshire’s female athletes will have a champion in the Corner Office,” Ayotte said.

Polls show Granite Staters overwhelmingly support allowing girls to compete in girls-only sports, rather than forcing them to compete against biological males who identify as female. It’s not just theory, either. A biological male took first place in the girls high jump competition earlier this year, beating every female in the New Hampshire Interscholastic Athletic Association (NHIAA) indoor track and field championship.

At the global level, the top two boxers in women’s Olympic boxing both had male chromosomes.

Lawyers for Tirrell and Turmelle want to block the law from taking effect throughout the state, arguing that stopping transgender girls from playing girls sports is discriminatory.

“This law was designed to prevent trans girls from playing sports with other girls … The only difference is their sex assigned at birth. Girls not assigned female at birth are being excluded,” said Chris Erchull, an attorney with GLAD, the GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders organization which is representing Tirrell and Turmelle.

Assistant Attorney General Micheal DeGrandis argued legal precedent allows public institutions, like schools, to make distinctions between boys and girls. The New Hampshire law makes that distinction in an objective, equitable manner by requiring every student to play on sports teams that correspond to their biological sex at birth.

“We’re not trying to define ‘sex’ at all, we’re just saying ‘What does it say on your birth certificate,’” DeGrandis explained.

While the law might mean students like Tirrell and Turmelle are required to play coed sports instead, that does not make the law unconstitutional. The law was crafted as a way to protect competitive fairness in girls sports, and to keep biological girls safe from possible injury, DeGrandis said.

“There was no discriminatory intent or animus. This was an attempt to solve legitimate problems, even if people disagree with the best way to do it,” DeGrandis said.

The appropriate remedy for those opposed to the law should not be in court, DeGrandis said, but in the democratic political process, who noted there is an election happening in a few months.

“The Court should not be making decisions for the legislature,”  he said.

McCafferty extended the temporary restraining order that allows Tirrell to practice and play soccer with the girls team for another two weeks. McCafferty could rule on an injunction the teens are seeking against the law during that time. That injunction would likely be in place through any trial.

Former Strafford County Sheriff Mark Brave’s criminal case is in limbo as prosecutors push back the trial that was set to start in the coming days, possibly sparing more charges against the lothario lawman.

Brave, once a rising star in the New Hampshire Democratic Party, is accused of stealing close to $20,000 in taxpayer money to fund multiple extra-marital affairs, and then lying about the money and affairs when called to testify before a grand jury.

With jury selection scheduled to start this week, prosecutors had warned Brave they would seek new charges if Rockingham Superior Court Judge Andrew Schulman did not push back the proceedings.

“During prior hearings in this matter, the State informed the Court and counsel for the Defendant that in the event a plea agreement was not reached in this matter, the State would consider superseding the Strafford County indictments currently pending in this matter, as well as potentially seeking additional indictments in Rockingham County for conduct that has occurred during the litigation of the Strafford County indictments,” Assistant New Hampshire Attorney General Joe Fincham wrote in a June motion.

Schulman has now agreed to the delay, setting the next court date in the case as a status conference. That conference is not yet scheduled.

Brave’s attorney, Leif Becker, told Foster’s Daily Democrat there’s always the chance Brave will finally get a plea deal he likes, and avoid the trial altogether.

“There is still the opportunity for a case to be resolved at any point prior to a trial,” Becker said. “Here, because a trial would involve many witnesses and much testimony the state wants to look at the court scheduling and possibly make adjustments considering the timing of a trial.”

Brave’s been playing hard to get when it comes to a plea deal. He turned down a proposal the state offered earlier this year, and prosecutors were not impressed with his counter. The two sides ended up in mediation and the impartial mediation judge crafted a new plea deal. Brave refused to sign onto the mediated offer, sending the case to the scheduled August trial.

Brave’s been competing in Olympic-scale legal jeopardy for more than a year. Though not exactly winning, he’s managed to stay out of jail. But, Brave’s post-arrest alleged shenanigans are the subject of the possible new indictments Fincham warned about if forced to go to trial this month.

After he was indicted last year, Brave’s case was moved to Rockingham County to avoid a conflict of interest. It’s in Rockingham County where Brave is accused of lying to court officials about his income and his place of residence. 

Brave was assigned a free, public defense attorney last year when he claimed he was essentially broke following his divorce. However, it came to light Brave was, in fact, flush with cash after the sale of his marital home in Dover. He had enough money to buy a 1968 Porsche and pay a year’s lease on an apartment in Massachusetts, according to court records.

On top of hiding the money from the court, Brave was also under an order from Schulman to remain living in Massachusetts pending trial. Brave got around that order by telling the court he was living in a Dover apartment while he was really living in Massachusetts. 

At the time Brave’s lies were discovered, Fincham threatened to have him charged with theft for taking his New Hampshire sheriff’s salary while living out of state, and have his personal recognizance bail revoked. As an elected official, Brave is required to live in New Hampshire, according to Fincham. Brave had been collecting his salary while out on paid administrative leave.

Brave got out of that jam by resigning his position in December in exchange for not going to jail right away.

Disgraced former Democratic leader Jeff Woodburn is out of appeals, but he’s still trying to avoid jail time on two counts of criminal mischief, the only surviving convictions from the seven-year-old domestic violence legal saga that ended his career.

Woodburn’s attorney, Mark Sisti, is asking the court to suspend the two 30-day sentences against his client, allowing the former Senate Minority Leader to essentially go free. Sisti told NHJournal on Monday it makes no sense to jail Woodburn. But the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office continues to pursue the punishment.

“I can assure you, no one in the state of New Hampshire is serving jail time for similar convictions,” Sisti said. “We’re talking about someone with absolutely no criminal record.”

Woodburn was contacted by NHJournal, but he referred questions to Sisti.

While the state Democratic Party has been silent on Woodburn’s case, he has the public backing of at least one former Democratic lawmaker, his current girlfriend Patty Dwyer.

“Jeff is a wonderful man who is honest, intelligent, funny, and thoughtful,” Dwyer wrote to Coos Superior Court Judge Peter Bornstein. 

Woodburn first met Dwyer when they both served as Democratic state representatives. Dwyer, a party volunteer and former teacher from Manchester, has long been a controversial Woodburn booster. Dwyer took to social media in 2021 to attack the victim after Woodburn’s first trial ended in convictions on simple assault, domestic violence, and the two criminal mischief counts. 

“The ‘lady’ is a huge liar and a thief, not to mention a SOCIOPATH!” Dwyer posted on social media. “She is an affront to woman who actually do experience domestic violence! Botton line; its the age old story of a woman scorned!” [All typos in the original.]

Dwyer’s comments attacking a domestic abuse victim did not prevent the Manchester Democratic Party from giving her the C. Arthur and Lillian Soucy Award in 2021 for her leadership in the party. The award is named for the parents of current Senate Minority Leader Donna Soucy (D-Manchester.) Soucy did not respond to a request for comment on Monday.

NHJournal reached out to North Country Democrats running in this year’s election about whether it’s time for Woodburn to simply serve his sentence after losing his appeals. None would agree to comment on the record.

In his motion opposing jail time for his client, Sisti argues Woodburn is being unfairly punished because he was in a high profile elected office. Sisti is asking for the sentence to be suspended for two years, during which Woodburn will remain on good behavior.

“He should not be disproportionately punished because of his notoriety or the media attention to this matter. He should stand on equal footing with all other N.H. citizens in a similar situation with a similar background. A sentence involving actual incarceration would be excessive and would serve no logical purpose,” Sisti wrote.

The New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office did not offer a comment other than the court motion filed in opposition to Sisti’s request for no jail time.

“The defendant’s objection should be summarily denied, as the defendant has waived any and all rights to appeal or request modification of the previously imposed sentence. Furthermore, the defendant has offered no valid basis upon which this court could grant his request,” Senior Assistant Attorney General Joshua Speicher wrote.

Sisti said the state is trying to save face in its pursuit of Woodburn after major setbacks to the prosecution ended up gutting the case.

“What have they got left after everything? After seven years, they have two minor misdemeanor convictions, and nobody got hurt on either of them,” Sisti said.

Woodburn was first charged in 2018 for allegedly abusing his then girlfriend. He was convicted in May 2021 on counts of domestic violence, simple assault, and criminal mischief after his first trial in 2021, but a later Supreme Court ruling overturned the domestic violence and simple assault charges, sending them back for a second trial. That second trial ended with a hung jury earlier this year, and New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella opted to drop the case rather than go for a third trial. 

According to court records, Woodburn bit the woman during a December 2017 argument as she was driving him back from a party. An intoxicated Woodburn demanded to be let out of the car, and planned to call a friend for a ride. When the woman reached to take his phone, he allegedly bit her hand, according to the allegations.

Woodburn argued in this year’s second trial that he was acting in self-defense when he bit the woman. 

Why is state Supreme Court Justice Barbara Hantz Marconi is on administrative leave — a drastic action rarely taken by a sitting jurist? New Hampshire officials won’t say.

Is it related to the grand jury now reportedly convened to consider criminal charges against husband, Geno Marconi? Again, no word.

“This must shake the faith that citizens should expect to have in their public institutions and those who work for them as well as those who have oversight for them,” the New Hampshire Union-Leader editorialized this weekend.

Without information from the Sununu administration or the judiciary, speculation has turned to Geno Marconi and his troubled past.

Geno Marconi was placed on leave as the Director for the New Hampshire Division of Ports and Harbors in April. The reasons for the action have not been made clear, but it has been known for weeks that he is being investigated by the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office.

NHPR reports witnesses are being called to testify before a grand jury. Grand jury proceedings are secret and officials will not comment unless and until indictments are handed up.

Marconi’s colorful past includes 2006 allegations he misused public resources for his own benefit, that he took improper gifts like lobsters and liquor in his role as ports director, and he used racist slurs about a ship captain trying to do business with the state.

The troubling aftermath of the 2006 complaints against Marconi include a drive-by shooting at the home of one of the witnesses and alleged other threats. No one was ever charged for shooting or other threats, and Marconi has denied involvement.

Last week, the public learned for the first time that Justice Hantz Marconi has been recusing herself from cases involving the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office. Though she has sat in on oral arguments in cases involving the state’s top law enforcement agency, Hantz Marconi has reportedly not taken part in deliberations or decisions in those cases. 

Geno Marconi kept his job after apologizing in 2006 for reportedly calling a ship captain of Middle Eastern descent a “sand n*gger” a “camel jockey,” and a “towel head.” He was also accused of calling someone else a “New York Jew with the chink wife.” 

Geno Marconi told investigators that while he likely did use the term “sand n*gger” it was not about that particular captain. He also denied making the other remarks. He was required to undergo sensitivity training as a result of the investigation.

There were also complaints about his management practices. According to a New Hampshire Attorney General’s supplemental report, Marconi took advantage of his position in several ways: he used his state-issued truck for personal errands like picking up sheetrock; he used a state forklift to drop private boat moorings; stored his private boat as a state dock; and took gifts like lobsters, pheasant, and a bottle of ouzo from ship captains and fishermen who did business with the Port of New Hampshire.

Portsmouth Development Authority Officials would tell investigators that while Marconi operated within the rules in those instances, reforms would be considered going forward. 

A year later, Bill Roach, one of the longshoremen who complained about Marconi’s behavior, reported someone shot at his Rye home. Soon after that, a fake headstone with Roach’s initials and the initials RIP was found at the port. A short time later, a cage of dead rats was left outside Roach’s home. 

Despite three separate police investigations, no charges were ever brought for the threats against Roach. Marconi denied any involvement. Roach was president of the International Longshoremen’s Association and at the time he and several other longshoremen filed a whistleblower lawsuit against the state and the port. The lawsuit claimed Marconi took away their port jobs after they made their complaints about his alleged slurs.

The lawsuit ended up being dismissed when the New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled the longshoremen were contractors and not state employees. As such, they did not qualify for whistleblower protection. 

Hatz Marconi built a career as a private lawyer, becoming a shareholder at the law firm of Sheehan, Phinney, Bass and Green. Gov. Chris Sununu nominated Hantz Marconi to be Associate Supreme Court Justice in 2017. 

Now she’s on mandatory leave and, for the moment, Granite Staters continue to be left in the dark.

Neo-Nazi leader Christopher Hood failed to respond to a civil rights lawsuit alleging he broke the law when he orchestrated his NSC-131 gang to violently protest a Drag Queen Story Hours event at the Teatotaler Cafe in Concord.

But don’t tell his donors. Hood’s already raised more than $17,000 for his legal defense through crowdfunding donation sites even after he was found in default on May 10.

Hood, a Massachusetts resident, allegedly led his masked supporters to be an intimidating and threatening presence at Teatotaler’s last summer. The hate group members shouted threatening white-power slogans and pounded on windows in an attempt to stop drag performer Juicy Garland from reading a children’s book, according to court records.

With Hood in default, he now faces the prospect of going straight to the judgment phase of the case without a trial on the evidence. The case is complicated by the fact NSC-131 as an entity was dismissed as a defendant in the case earlier this month as well.

Court records filed in Merrimack Superior Court indicate the group was not properly served with the lawsuit in the given timeframe, and dropped as a defendant. Michael Garrity, spokesman for the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office, said lawyers with the Civil Rights Unit plan to appeal that decision.

“The Civil Rights Unit plans to ask the court to reconsider this order because NSC-131 was properly served as required by state law and served on time as required by the court,” Garrity said. “In that motion, the unit will ask the Court to reconsider the order, reinstate NSC-131 as party, and enter a notice of default against NSC-131 for failure to respond to the complaint as required by the court.”

Once NSC-131 is added back to the case, Garrity said the state will move to get the gang found in default just like Hood. The case can then go straight to judgment, and Garrity said the Attorney General’s Office will seek “appropriate penalties, restraining orders, and damages as provided for under state law.”

Hood’s online fundraising pitch asks for $100,000 for a legal defense that has multiple cases. NSC-131 is facing sanctions in Massachusetts and another New Hampshire case that’s gone to the state Supreme Court. 

Formella’s team brought civil rights charges against Hood and NSC-131 over its 2022 “white power” demonstration in Portsmouth. That case was dismissed last year on First Amendment grounds, but Formella is appealing to the state Supreme Court.

Hood has had difficulty in the past obtaining the services of a lawyer, but he may not have to try too hard this time. The NH-ACLU recently filed a brief in support of the neo-Nazis’ free-speech rights in the Portsmouth case.

“Simply because speech is harmful – and it undoubtedly is here – does not mean that it can be prohibited because of its viewpoint,” ACLU lawyers wrote.

Formella called the ACLU’s decision to weigh in on behalf of Hood and NSC-131 “disappointing.”

“Hate has no place in New Hampshire, and we will not sit idly by while organized hate groups like NSC-131 commit illegal acts for the purpose of harassing and even terrorizing our citizens,” Formella said. “As my office articulated in its opening brief to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, the right to engage in speech does not permit people to commit unlawful acts, such as the trespass that NSC-131 has been accused of committing.”

A new plea offer is on the table for former Strafford County Sheriff Mark Brave, the lawman charged with stealing taxpayer money to fund his love life.

Brave, who was forced to resign last year after getting caught lying to the court, rejected the original plea agreement dangled by prosecutors in March. His counter proposal was then rejected by the state. But instead of heading to trial, Brave and lawyers with the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office agreed to enter into mediation. 

Mediator Peter Fauver met with both sides this week and issued an order on Wednesday. Fauver’s order is currently sealed. Michael Garrity, spokesman for the New Hampshire Department of Justice, told NHJournal the clock is now ticking.

“The parties were given until May 24 to resolve the matter by plea or the case will return to the trial track,” Garrity said.

Criminal mediation, also known as a felony settlement conference, typically involves a judge not connected to the case working with both sides to reach a consensus. According to New Hampshire Judicial Branch Policy, cases suitable for felony settlement conferences involve defendants who admit wrongdoing. The conferences include input from the alleged crime victims as the judge guides all parties to a deal.

Brave’s saga started last year when county officials became suspicious of his spending habits with the county credit card. According to the investigative report, Brave was using his county card to buy plane tickets, hotel rooms, and meals for his extramarital affairs. While he was under investigation, Brave refused to step down and instead lashed out in the press, claiming he  was the victim of political bullying and accused County Commissioner George Maglaras of racism.

When he was charged last summer on theft and perjury counts, Brave initially refused to go on paid administrative leave, but finally bowed out under pressure from county commissioners.

Brave got in trouble again soon, this time for violating his bail conditions, lying about where he lived, and hiding money in order to qualify for a free defense attorney, according to court records. 

Brave was not supposed to stay living in New Hampshire under the bail order set by the court, an order he ignored when he paid a year’s lease on an apartment in Massachusetts and bought himself a sports car. At the same time, Brave claimed he did not have enough money to pay for a lawyer.

When prosecutors discovered he did not live at the Dover address he used in court, they sought to have his bail revoked. They also accused him of additional theft for taking his sheriff’s salary while living in another state. Brave got out of that jam by agreeing to resign from his position. 

It remains to be seen if the mediated agreement also lets him stay out of jail.

Brave made headlines in 2020 when he became New Hampshire’s first elected Black sheriff. The new Democratic star ran a Black Lives Matter-friendly platform, agreeing to reform police. One of his campaign promises was to end the practice of having cops in schools, a promise he broke when he signed a contract with the Farmington School District for his office to provide a school resource officer. Such contracts bring in needed revenue to the department. 

Windham’s streak of questionable election conduct continues. On Tuesday, officials held a vote reconciliation without informing the New Hampshire secretary of state or the public to double-check the totals from the March 12 town elections.

Town residents began contacting NHJournal Tuesday morning when a posting appeared claiming to be a “legal notice” that the town of Windham “will perform an election reconciliation [sic] the March 12, 2024 Election.”

“The public is encouraged to observe this process,” the notice added. To do that, several residents groused, they would have to know about it in advance.

Windham’s municipal elections were already under stress after both the Town Clerk Nicole Merrill and Deputy Town Clerk Hannah Davis announced two weeks before they were vacating their posts as of Election Day, March 12. Merrill cited health concerns for her departure, and Davis blamed pressure and a lack of support from superiors as driving her exit.

NHJournal contacted the town clerk’s office Tuesday and was told the decision to hold the reconciliation was made the night before. A source in the Secretary of State’s office, which oversees the state’s election, said they were unaware a reconciliation was being conducted.

The last election official left in town, Town Moderator Peter Griffin, did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Vote reconciliations are typically conducted immediately after election polls close, votes are counted, and official results are reported. Officials compare votes, voters, and ballots cast to ensure accurate totals are reported.

Tom Murray, co-founder of the far-right Government Integrity Project, says there are concerns about Windham’s handling of the election. He says the results reported on election night were inaccurate, for example.

“The school moderator, Betty Dunn, who was on the ballot seeking reelection, was handling ballots that she appears on as a candidate during election night,” Murray said. He also claimed Dunn “has been involved in multiple unofficial recount/reconciliation efforts outside of the public.” Plus, he pointed out that the town’s notice for the reconciliation “did not meet the 24-hour requirement.”

And, Murray said, he will be asking for a recount of the March 12 election.

Murray told NHJournal that nobody is arguing that any election’s outcome will be changed. Instead, he said, it’s time for the town to finally admit—after five troubled election cycles in a row—that there’s a fundamental problem with its elections.

“It’s just incompetence,” Murray said. “They don’t know what they’re doing.”

Perhaps unrelated, Windham’s Board of Selectmen is meeting Wednesday evening in a non-public session. The board’s meeting notice cites RSA 91-A:3 II (a) as the legal justification for the non-public meeting. That section of the state’s Right to Know law allows public bodies to meet behind closed doors to discuss “the dismissal, promotion, or compensation of any public employee or the disciplining of such employee, or the investigation of any charges against him or her.”

Windham is no stranger to election issues. Unusual results in the 2020 election fed into national election conspiracies, and the state issued multiple warnings, including a rebuke for sloppy practices in the 2022 state primary.

When Windham became part of former President Donald Trump’s false claims about the 2020 election being stolen, an expansive and controversial audit of the Windham ballots found human error to blame. The 2020 audit report stated several hundred absentee ballots had been machine-folded as part of the mailing process. “That folding machine, leased by the town for other purposes, did not fold ballots along the score lines between vote targets, where the ballots were designed to be folded,” according to the audit. “Instead, it often folded ballots through vote targets in the state representative contest, which the scanners interpreted as vote attempts a substantial fraction of the time.”

Windham got in trouble again after the 2022 September state-wide primary when numerous errors by election day officials and corner-cutting on standard election procedure meant the primary election totals could not be reconciled on the night of the election, according to a letter from the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office.

And in January, Windham was required to conduct the First in the Nation presidential primary in the town under the watchful eye of two outside observers, per instructions from the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office and the Secretary of State’s Office.

“It was the second time we had to have an observer for our elections,” Murray sighed. “We’re on our way to a third.”

The Democratic political consultant behind the robocalls featuring the AI-generated voice of President Joe Biden during the First in the Nation presidential primary campaign got hit with a federal lawsuit Thursday. It was brought by New Hampshire’s League of Women Voters.

“These deceptive robocalls attempted to cause widespread confusion among New Hampshire voters,” said Liz Tentarelli, president of the League of Women Voters of New Hampshire. “As a nonpartisan organization, the League of Women Voters works to ensure that all voters, regardless of their party affiliation, have the most accurate election information to make their voices heard. We will continue to advocate for New Hampshire voters and fight against malicious schemes to suppress the vote.” 

The lawsuit names as defendants Steve Kramer, a consultant working for former Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.), as well as the two Texas companies he used to push out the call, Life Corporation and Lingo Telecom.

Kramer’s fake Biden called thousands of New Hampshire voters two days before the primary, telling them to stay home and “save your vote” for November. The stunt amounted to illegal voter suppression, according to Courtney Hostetler, Senior Counsel at Free Speech For People, which serves as co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs.

“Fraudulently made robocalls have the potential to devastate voter turnout by flooding thousands of voters with intimidating, threatening, or coercive messages in a matter of hours,” Hostetler said. “No one should abuse technology to make lawful voters think that they should not, or cannot safely, vote in the primaries or in any election. It is an honor to represent the League of Women Voters and the other plaintiffs in this important case to protect the right to vote.”

Kramer has a history of engaging in questionable campaign activity, including past robocalls using an AI-generated voice, according to the lawsuit. Kramer pulled off a robocall poll in South Carolina using the computer-generated voice of Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham, the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit states, “Kramer has since claimed that the deepfake robocalls achieved a response rate four times higher than robocalls using a generic automated voice because Sen. Graham’s voice was familiar to South Carolina voters.”

Kramer was sued in 2021 by a candidate for New York City mayor for allegedly faking the signatures he was hired to collect on behalf of the candidate. Kramer was paid $80,000 for the signature drive, according to the lawsuit.

The Phillips campaign paid Kramer’s firm, Get Out The Vote, more than $250,000 to produce robocalls. When Kramer was linked to the calls, the Phillips campaign publicly distanced itself from him.

According to the lawsuit, while with the Phillips campaign, Kramer’s penchant for robocalls was being encouraged.

“Kramer began receiving requests from unspecified consultants, corporations, political action committees (‘PACs’), and Super PACs requesting that Kramer use AI-generated robocalls in connection with unspecified campaigns,” the lawsuit states.

In the fall of 2023, Kramer met with a transient magician, Paul Carpenter, who also did web design and digital marketing. According to the lawsuit, Kramer paid Carpenter $150 to produce the AI-Biden recording.

Kramer then used Life Corporation and Lingo to send thousands of calls to New Hampshire voters. Kramer spoofed the calls so that they would appear to people as coming from the phone of Kathy Sullivan, former chair of the New Hampshire Democratic Party. 

Kramer would later release a statement claiming he engaged in the robocall stunt in order to “raise awareness” about the dangers of AI technology. But, the lawsuit notes he hid payments to Carpenter using a Venmo account associated with his father. 

He also reportedly instructed Carpenter to delete emails connected to the calls. When New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella promised to prosecute those behind them, Kramer told Carpenter to keep quiet, according to the lawsuit.

“On Monday, January 22, 2024, following an NBC News report on the New Hampshire robocalls, Kramer texted Carpenter a link to the story and the message, ‘Shhhhhhh.’ Carpenter responded, ‘Gtfooh’ an acronym for ‘Get the f*** out of here.’ Carpenter subsequently spoke with Kramer over the telephone.

“On the call, Kramer admitted to Carpenter that he had spoofed the New Hampshire robocalls or deliberately falsified the information transmitted via caller ID display to disguise their identity. Kramer also directed Carpenter to delete his emails concerning the robocalls, the lawsuit states.”