Former extortionist Dan Hynes is running for NH State Senate District 11 (Republican) - Granite Grok

Former extortionist Dan Hynes is running for NH State Senate District 11 (Republican)

Here I’ve been, preaching Consistency (as in “Consistency breeds Trust yields Votes”) – so I must do the same as what I did here as I posted about felon Stacie / Barry Laughton (Democrat) running for the NH House with the key line:

This is about consequences of making deliberate actions – accused of a crime, found guilty of a crime, and now being a felon.  Caught, the action was to double down and hide the evidence.  Yes, Stacie / Barry can vote and run for office once the sentence is fulfilled.  The law speaks to being out of prison – but does not cover probation or suspension.  That will be the question to be answered.  But voters will have to answer the question: with such judgment, showing such a propensity, is this attitude worthy of my vote?

Once again, I must ask the same question but on the Republican side of Dan Hynes; from DiStaso (emphasis mine, reformatted):

 Attorney Dan Hynes of Merrimack says he’s learned his lesson, has paid a price for his crime and hopes the voters of state Senate District 11 can forgive him. That remains to be seen.

…But seven years ago, Dan Hynes was convicted of extortion for what he says now was a misguided effort to address gender-based discrimination. He said Monday that the Hillsborough County North Superior Court granted his request for an annulment – also just last week.   Hynes, now 33, paid a fine, provided restitution to the victim, received a suspended 12-month jail term and had his license to practice law in New Hampshire and Massachusetts suspended for a year.

Despite all of that, he said, he knows he has explaining to do to the voters of District 11.  Hynes broke the law when he focused his crusade against discrimination on hair salons, of all things.  He had an issue with the fact that salons would charge women more than men for what he viewed as the same hair-cutting services. He wrote letters to 19 salons threatening legal action if they did not cease and desist. But Hynes went further.  He threatened to bring complaints against the salon owners to the state Human Rights Commission if they did not pay him $1,000. He did this on his own, never claiming to be representing a client.  According to the state Supreme Court’s March 2009 ruling upholding his conviction, the owners of a salon in Concord, after receiving a letter from Hynes, went to the Attorney General’s office, which sent an undercover agent to witness an agreed-upon payment to Hynes of $500 to settle the matter.  When that payment was made, “the defendant was arrested and charged with theft by extortion.”

So there was no “harm” to anyone – but he still threatened to sue folks who just were engaging in lawful business.  But not only did he threaten their businesses, he then added a kicker as in “pay me off and I’ll go away”.  In effect, he used the judicial system in a manner that I think is similar to that of an armed robbery – the end result is for YOU to give ME money that I have not legitimately earned, but I’m claiming what’s your’s to be mine anyways.

Hynes argued not only that he was innocent, but that the law in question was unconstitutional. The state’s highest court upheld the conviction on in a 2-1 decision, with only three justices sitting on the case. In the meantime, the court approved the state Professional Conduct Committee’s recommendation that he lose his license to practice law for two years, with one year stayed because the committee believed Hynes acted with “the mistaken belief that he could pursue legal claims against the various salons.”  His license to practice law in Massachusetts was also suspended for the same period of time. He said he could have been disbarred, but said the Supreme Court recognized his “remorse and inexperience.”

“Remorse and inexperience.”?  Certainly inexperience, but would the “remorse” part have kicked in after extracting an undeserved financial gain from others – and getting caught?  We can’t know because he never had the chance to contemplate that (being that he was caught red handed).  But neither remorse of inexperience have anything to do with this except for the legal aspect.  Running for a high State elected position requires a different standard.

Like with Laughton, I question the judgment ability – or lack thereof.  Both made attempts to take from others, one with a piece of plastic and one with paper and pen.  Even though I can vote for neither, I do question whether or not they would pass the “Character is what you exhibit when no one is looking” test.  Both thought they could get away with a “taking” – else why make the try?  I do wonder that when associated with bunches of people (er, Laughton probably would fit in well here with his/her fellow Democrats) who have a singular desire to take from one group to give to another for a specific reason….and unfortunately, Hynes claims that reason for himself:

Today, Hynes’ campaign web site makes a veiled reference to the episode.  Under a section entitled, “Values,” Hynes writes: “Integrity – Dan Hynes is willing to fight hard for important causes. As a civil rights crusader, Dan is willing to push the envelope to help people achieve equality, fairness, and justice, even when this advocacy harms his career.”

Yeah.  Equality.  I’m so freaking tired of listening that I and other Conservatives don’t want ‘equality’ (and being denigrated that my sense of it is “equality before the law’).  Fairness, too; Those two terms have been repurposed for Socialist / Progressive  purposes, meaning FAR different things than what I grew up with and I see no nuance used here to give me any sense otherwise. Now it means that everyone must be exactly the same – and that the force of Government MUST be used to make everyone equal in every way possible – which necessarily means a totalitarian government trampling on freedoms and Rights to force equality of outcome, material being, and thought [control].

In an interview, Hynes said that although the conviction and license suspension occurred six-to-seven years ago, “I understand that it is on the front of many people’s minds.  “I made a mistake,” he said. “I thought I could bring those types of lawsuits and I couldn’t. It wasn’t about the money. I wanted equality and I feel strongly about all kinds of discrimination.

It sure WAS about the money!  You bet you made a mistake – but equivocating about it now doesn’t help.  But it WAS about the money – the money you said that had to be paid to have you take a walk.  That’s not “equality”, that’s not “fairness” – that’s enriching yourself.

…Hynes still denies that he was trying to “steal money. I thought I could bring those lawsuits. It was a mistake and I let my professional judgment be impaired by my feelings regarding discrimination. I hope the voters can see that I’ve worked to build up my law practice and that I fight against injustice.”  Shortly after being interviewed by the New Hampshire Journal, Hynes emailed the Journal this statement:

 “Seven years ago when I was first admitted to the bar and starting out as a lawyer, I let my personal convictions against discrimination impair my professional judgment as a new lawyer. I threatened a lawsuit I should not have, but that I thought, at the time, would right gender based economic discrimination.

The lawsuit was only the stupid and wrong part.  The part that was evil was “pay to walk” bit.  Pay me less so I don’t cost you more legally.  Your mark turned you in.  It will be harder, much harder to see if that kind of thought makes it into legislation.  I can’t vote for you, but I hope that folks that can will review this (and no, I’m not going to link over to some Lefty sites – this WILL be a huge campaign issue because the Democrats will make it one and not one I think you can get past.

“The N.H. Supreme Court, in a split decision, determined the lawsuit would have been baseless. I deeply regret my mistake, and the Supreme Court recognized my remorse, inexperience, and cooperation with the case in sentencing and determining disbarment was not appropriate. “Needless to say, if I had known it was a crime to threaten such a lawsuit, I would not have done so. I was not seeking financial gain, but sought to end discrimination and advancing equality. I should have never asked for money. The conviction has been annulled by the Superior Court. Since completing all of the Court’s conditions, I have built a successful law practice by fighting for justice and defending those who cannot defend themselves, qualities and values I hope to bring to Concord as District 11?s next State Senator.”

From my standpoint, I see a lot pixels spent on “woe is me for being stupid” and trying to explain away.  I’d be more apt to only have a raised eyebrow if Hynes had left it at “ I should have never asked for money“.

>