Part 2: NH State Rep Jan Schmidt – about that blatant lie you told about GraniteGrok? That really serious one? - Granite Grok

Part 2: NH State Rep Jan Schmidt – about that blatant lie you told about GraniteGrok? That really serious one?

Police officer police protection

You see, you lied about GraniteGrok. You gave the impression that we are bullies.  No, that’s not quite right – you think that we threaten violence upon others.  That even if we are bloggers / citizen journalists / opinion speakers / influence makers, that we would have the temerity, the anger, the stupidness of the Left, you gave the impression to 10s, 100s, or even 1000s, that we put people at risk in a “designated public forum” in the Facebook group called Nashua Politics.  Remember this conversation, NH State Rep Jan Schmidt?

It is a blog used to attach anyone not of the far right, several Reps from Merrimack now has [sic] police protection because of the hate grog has whipped up – for absolutely no reason.

That’s what I wrote here. So for absolutely no reason other than for hatred, NH State Rep Jan Schmidt lied to NH about GraniteGrok. How do we know that? As Steve reported, totally unwarranted and completely baseless (reformatted, emphasis mine):

Well, a Grokster asked the police chief in Merrimack who these folks might be and got a reply. The result of that 91a request was, noneNot a one. None of them, if it wasn’t clear, has or had police protection. As far as we can tell, no one requested it or has reported any situation that might warrant it.

Here’s that RSA 91:A (Right To Know) demand:

Dear Chief Roy,

This request is made pursuant to Part 1, Article 8 of the New Hampshire Constitution and New Hampshire’s Right to Know Law codified at RSA 91-A et seq. Please provide me with access to the following described governmental records in the possession and or control of the Merrimack, NH police department and or its respective staff:

1. All government records, including but not limited to meeting minutes, agendas, e-mails, electronic data, letters, internal communications, external communications, proposals, agreements, and or duty assignments, of any kind or with any regard to or referencing the number of Merrimack police department protection duty assignments have been made to or on behalf of any or all of the Town of Merrimack’s General Court delegation for or during the years 2015 through May 31, 2019.
2. All government records, including but not limited to meeting minutes, agendas, e-mails, electronic data, letters, internal communications, external communications, proposals, agreements, and or duty assignments, of any kind or with any regard to or referencing the manner in which and or all Merrimack police department protection duty assignments have been made to or on behalf of any or all of the Town of Merrimack’s General Court delegation for or during the years 2015 through May 31, 2019 were paid.

If you deny any portion of this request, please cite the specific exemption used to justify the denial to make each record, or part thereof, available for inspection.

Unless other mutually satisfactory arrangements can be made, I will come to your offices to inspect and make copies of the foregoing records during normal business hours on Friday, June 7, 2019 in the afternoon. Please let me know if you would prefer to e-mail me copies of the requested documents.

And the resulting “responsive” record (er, answer)? Emphasis mine:

From: Brian Levesque <blevesque@merrimacknh.gov>
Date: Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:15 AM
Subject: Right to Know Request

<redacted>,

I am responding to your right to know request seeking the number of Merrimack’s General Court members (listed below) who have been assigned police protection.

Representatives for Merrimack – District 21

Richard W. Barry:  12 Kyle Road  Merrimack,  NH  03054-4528
Richard W. Hinch:  14 Ichabod Drive  Merrimack,  NH  03054-6226
Robert J. L’Heureux:  94 Back River Road  Merrimack,  NH  03054-2690
Nancy A. Murphy:  20 Brenda Lane  Merrimack,  NH  03054-2508
Jeanine M. Notter:  19 Whittier Road  Merrimack,  NH  03054-4755
Rosemarie Rung:  21 Ministerial Drive  Merrimack,  NH  03054-3321
Kathryn Stack:  7 Knollwood Drive  Merrimack,  NH  03054-3257
Wendy E.N. Thomas:    Merrimack,  NH  03054-4017

State Senator for Merrimack – District 11

Senator Chandley:  State House – Room 105-A  107 North Main Street Concord  NH  03301

So there’s the population of elected officials that were covered by this RSA 91:A demand.  And the answer of WHO received police protection (remember, NH State Rep Jan Schmidt SAID it was provided):

None of these members have been assigned police protection from the Merrimack Police Department from the year 2015 through May 31, 2019. There have been zero Merrimack Police Department protection duty assignments.

Regards,

Brian

Deputy Chief Brian Levesque
Merrimack Police Department
31 Baboosic Lake Rd.
Merrimack, N.H. 03054
603-424-3774
603-420-1854 direct
blevesque@merrimacknh.gov

Zero, nada, nein, zilch.  Not a single Rep had police protection. So why did NH State Rep Jan Schmidt tell everyone they did – for absolutely no reason?  And why did she blame GraniteGrok for (wink, wink) for those Representatives not having protection? Actually, she did accuse us – out of thin air with no proof. And now we know she lied.  Or is she now going to accuse the Merrimack Police Dept of lying or a cover up in a CYA move to cover her own butt?

To silence us via a threat of legal action.

So GraniteGrok just proved her wrong.  But let’s get to the heart of the matter – she deliberately lied to just accuse us of hateful decorum. Of inciting violence (a crime). Yet, who is the one that just spread a hateful lie? That we whipped up “hate” to the point that these Reps (only the Democrat ones, I presume) were in immediate physical harm. And it was all made up.

Let’s get even more more serious – the First Amendment has no definition for “hate speech” – none at all.  It has been ruled, however, that its Free Speech clause does not protect speech that incites immediate violence. That’s what NH State Rep Jan Schmidt claimed – that we incited violence upon others to the point of needing law enforcement.  That is unprotected speech – and therefore, actionable in a legal process. This, it seems, was the outcome she wanted to happen and putting us at risk.  She easily and in a public forum said that others HAD to have police protection because GraniteGrok calls others to commit physical violence.

Without a shred of evidence to back up that assertion.

She voluntarily, willingly, and in my mind, maliciously, made the impression that we are, as the Left oft claims, hate mongers. That we voluntarily and actively incite violence. She deliberately issued an unfounded smear against us in order to ruin our reputation in the political arena here in NH.  Sure, we get snarky – a lot of the time. But we make sure that everything that is written is based solidly on facts and our standard of measure are the US and NH Constitutions as well as Conservative precepts. We do apologize when we’re wrong and I have pulled posts down from GrantieGrok that are factually incorrect in the past.

We don’t care who you are – cross those and we will talk about you.  Sometimes a lot.  It seems that Progressives can’t stand the kind of criticism we bring – especially when it is spotlighting Progressive NH State Rep voting records. We on the right call this projection – accusing us on the Right of what they are actually doing. Apparently, this is what Jan Schmidt did – she accuses us of lying but she just told a WHOPPER of a false statement.

It is an attempt to silence us.  Nice try – well, not really.  You see, I’m already talking to lawyers to see if this is actionable – a deliberate lie to ruin a reputation. To involve a police department in the lie.

I’ve already intimated that she ought to start consulting a lawyer – we certainly are.

So, Nashua residents, is this who you want as a NH State Representative? Someone who now MIGHT be intimately involved with a perp walk?

And for those that have already attacked us for reporting on this – are you feeling foolish for being “had” by Schmidt?  Or are you of the “fake but accurate” crowd that will absolve her of any wrongdoing simply because PROGRESSIVE! ?