Nathan Orr backs foul-mouthed Trenton bureaucrat

Yep, it is official.  Nathan Orr and David Atwood have joined forces with William J. "Bill" Hayden?  At a recent debate held in Morris County, the two younger candidates for the Legislature spent their time attacking Hayden's opponent.  Then they drew District 26 legislative candidate Hank Lyon into it, by endorsing him along with Hayden.   Later, they posted on Facebook asking their friends to help them distribute Hayden's lawn signs and campaign literature. 

William J. Hayden (AKA Bill Hayden, Dell Hayden, Skylands Patriot) is an 18 year public employee of the New Jersey Department of Transportation.  He works as a supervisor, based in Trenton, where he pockets a salary and extras more each year than any legislator earns -- plus full benefits and a pension.  Hayden is a member of the CWA -- one of the most liberal unions in America.

Now he thinks we should give him a second public job -- as a state legislator. 

He doesn't vote much.  He made it last November, but the last time before that was 2010.  What he does do is play on Facebook.  He spends a lot of time on Facebook posting lewd comments.  Much of it in the middle of what most of us call "the working day." 

Why would any self-respecting Republican or Republican organization lend its name to promote the antics of William J. Hayden?  True, he got a little over 100 signatures and qualified for a place on the ballot.  To do so, he got some people to switch to Republican to circulate his petitions.  That said, he is a qualified candidate, but only because the threshold for ballot access is so low.

David Duke was a qualified candidate for public office too.  So was Lyndon LaRouche.  So was the Byram cannibal, Councilman Rick Meltz.  So was murder-for-hire Freeholder candidate Chris Thieme.  They all got more than a hundred signatures too.  Nut jobs, the bunch of them. 

Our objection to W. J. "Bill" Hayden is that he is crude, pornographic, and juvenile.  His very involvement in the process brings disrepute to the process and disrespect to the people and party organizations that have anything to do with him.

Just to introduce him into the discussion is to affirm that you accept all his Facebook posted comments about "grabbing pussy" or "guns and pussy."  It is to affirm all his lewd antics -- aimed largely at Republicans and conservatives -- like photo-shopping the faces of prominent Sussex County Republicans onto vaginas. 

To acknowledge Hayden celebrates his terroristic Facebook post of an aerial view of what he thought was the house of a political opponent with the words "target acquired" underneath.  It turned out to be the wrong house and the home of an innocent family with children. 

To promote Hayden or his team in any way means that you say it is OK to post pictures of your handguns on Facebook on the same page you use to threaten people.  It is to say that it is OK to claim to have handed out Halloween candy to children from a candy bowl stuffed with automatic magazines and Glock handguns.  How does this stupid, childish behavior help the Republican Party and the conservative cause?  It does enormous damage to the cause of the Second Amendment because it makes its supporters look like cartoon characters and gives our opponents ammunition they otherwise would not have.

Unlike Donald Trump, Hayden has refused to apologize for his lewd comments about women's reproductive organs:

"...Oroho at one point reading a social media post filled with expletives and an obscene reference to a woman's anatomy and asking Hayden if he believed the author of such a comment should hold public office. Hayden acknowledged writing the comment in a tweet he sent out but did not apologize. 'I'm not going to apologize for anything I've said,' Hayden said." (NJ Herald May 16, 2017)

To promote Hayden is to say that you celebrate misogyny and hate and reject rational discussion.  But hey, if someone really, really believes that photo-shopping faces onto vaginas is the way to get things done -- then William J. "Bill" Hayden is right up your alley.

Nathan Orr gets lost, shows up at wrong debate

Nathan Orr and David Atwood are two young guys running for the State Legislature in District 24.  Well apparently their GPS wasn't working and these two young Moes ended up at the legislative candidate's debate in District 26. 

Once there, they wanted to speak anyway.  And we all know how a millennial can be when it wants its way.  They cried and acted out until they were allowed to speak.  But once started, the debate moderators couldn't shut them up and they held the floor for nearly twenty minutes.  Rude.

Their hosts finally got them to shut up and sit down, but not before they announced which one of the actual candidates in District 26 they preferred.  Of course, it was another millennial.  This one...

Lawyer seeks $162,000 from Morris County Freeholder Hank Lyon

Morris County Freeholder William “Hank” Lyon has been accused of owing his former lawyer $162,000 in unpaid legal bills while Lyon also is battling with the state over alleged campaign violations.

“What a worm,”  said attorney Sean Connelly about his former client, Lyon. “We never expected to be in this position. We won precisely how we said we would win.”

Lyon, a Montville resident, did not return several calls for comment and an email to his freeholder address.

Connelly and the law firm of Barry, McTiernan and Wedinger of Edison represented Lyon during a nine-month court battle that ended up with Lyon winning the freeholder seat.

Lyon had won the 2011 Republican primary by four votes over Freeholder Margaret Nordstrom of Washington Township.  Nordstrom sued and won, gaining her seat back.

Lyon appealed the ruling and a state appeals court ruled in his favor in February 2012 and removed Nordstrom from the position. Lyon later won the freeholder post at a special election in November 2012.

Connelly said that after Lyon refused mediation and other offers to settle, the firm finally filed the suit  on June 13 in Superior Court in Middlesex County against Lyon and his father, Robert A. Lyon, both of Montville, and their organization, “Lyon for Conservative Freeholder.” Connelly said Lyon has asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit.

Connelly said that before the court action, he had told Lyon that the lawsuit would be very costly.

“They said they were going to fund this to the end,” Connelly said.

The legal effort included  extensive court representations and $18,000 for transcripts.

“We filed motions upon motions upon motions,” Connelly said. “It tied up my practice for six months.”

Connelly said his firm has offered several discounts on the outstanding legal bills.  “They kept ignoring us,” Connelly said. “We offered them great terms to pay over time.”

Connelly also said he filed the lawsuit in Middlesex County in an effort to limit publicity in Morris County.

“I don’t want to embarrass him,” he said. “I want to get paid.”

Connelly said the freeholder avoided being served with the lawsuit summons, forcing him to hire a professional to  serve him at Lyon’s freeholder office.

Connelly said he also named Lyon’s father, Robert, in the lawsuit because the elder Lyon initially had agreed to pay the legal bills.

Connelly said he believes Lyon and his family have significant assets, including real estate holdings and restaurants.

Lyon’s income includes $24,375 a year as a freeholder. He also works with his father in the family’s business, which owns four restaurants, including Qdoba Mexican Grill restaurants and Maggie Moo’s ice cream parlors.

Election Violations

The N.J. Election Law Enforcement Commission also has accused Lyon of four violations of campaign finance laws during the 2011 Republican primary. Each violation could result in a maximum $6,800 fine.

The same alleged violations were cited by Superior Court Assignment Judge Thomas Weisenbeck when he ruled against Lyon and in favor of Nordstrom.

The commission names Lyon and his father who was the campaign treasurer.

One alleged violation involves a $16,000 loan made to the campaign a week before the primary but not reported until July 8. The state says that because the contribution was more than $1,200, it should have been reported within 48 hours.

Another alleged violation occurred when Lyon and his father certified the information on the loan and campaign report was correct but that they changed it in a subsequent report. Initially, Lyons reported that he had made the loan but it was later changed to identify Robert Lyon as the contributor, the state said.

Additionally, the state claims the information about the contribution was submitted after the June 27 deadline.

Further, the complaint says that $16,795 in expenditures were listed on July 8 but were due on June 27.

(Editor Phil Garber, December 11, 2013, newjerseyhills.com)

Better keep that GPS in working order.  This crew couldn't find their backsides in a snow storm.

Nathan Orr & David Atwood issue a put-down to voters

Recently, the Far-Left, America-hating, George Soros-backed Daily Kos website has been trashing the hill country of Northwest New Jersey, specifically Sussex County and Sussex County's own Parker Space. 

We all know Parker Space.  We know his family.  Parker is a farmer.  Of hay and livestock and manure.  Parker's hands speak of a lifetime of hard work.  In cold weather and hot humidity.  Beasts must be fed, must be cared for, no matter. 

Parker is the kind of man who can birth a lamb, deal with a rattlesnake, balance a budget, grow a business, maintain employees, and watch a community grow. 

If your house catches fire, Parker Space and his son show up to put the fire out.  It used to be Parker Space and his dad showed up -- and before that, his dad and grandad -- you get the picture.  If someone in the community is going through a rough patch, it is Parker who shows up with a turkey at Thanksgiving -- no government program necessary.  And after all this, he still found time to serve as a local mayor, a county freeholder, and now, a member of the state legislature.

The Far-Left fashionistas at the millionaire-owned Daily Kos look down on the hard work that people in Sussex County do.  Unfortunately, two candidates for public office -- Nathan Orr and David Atwood -- have joined the Daily Kos in their putdowns of Sussex County.  The two candidates piled on by sending out a Facebook post that mocked the education levels of Sussex County leaders. 

The fact that they did this the day after the liberal billionaire-owned Advance Media put out an attack on Sussex County and Parker Space for wanting to get tough on drug traffickers , was thoughtless.  One bigoted liberal commenting on the Advance Media story actually wrote this:

"Space needs to go the way of Scott Garrett!! Send him back to the pig farm! Idiot Republican traitors and dictators."

Another, apparently radical Leftist, demanded action that is, frankly, illegal:

"We need to get him out of office. Close polling places in areas that go heavily for Space. Whatever it takes."

So now the Left wants to take away your right to vote!

Nathan Orr and David Atwood have made common cause with these leftists.  Why?

Perhaps they feel they are better than most who live in Sussex County?  Let's hope these two straighten up and in a hurry.

Orr & Atwood don't know what they are talking about

Sure, Nathan Orr is going to school in the hope of graduating one day, then maybe passing the bar, then maybe getting to be a lawyer.  But it is just a little arrogant to say you know more about the law than do seasoned prosecutors who have spent decades putting violent criminals behind bars. 

If Nathan Orr had to spend ten minutes with some of these people, he'd wet himself.  Forget about him putting a case together to put them behind bars.

Orr & Atwood talk about the new bail reform system as if they knew something about prosecuting criminals.  They don't.

Bail Reform was placed on the ballot as a Public Question and passed by the voters of New Jersey.  Sussex County voted for it, Warren County voted for it, Morris County voted for it.

Here is what career prosecutors New Jersey Attorney General Christopher S. Porrino and Elie Honig, Director of the Division of Criminal Justice had to say about it (October 13, 2016):

Attorney General Issues Directive to Guide Prosecutors and Police in Implementing Historic Bail Reform That Will Keep Dangerous Criminals in Jail and Eliminate Unfair Monetary-Based Bail System

TRENTON – Attorney General Christopher S. Porrino today issued a new directive that provides detailed guidance to prosecutors and police in implementing the historic bail reform law and related amendment to the New Jersey Constitution, which for the first time in state history will permit dangerous criminals charged with non-capital crimes to be held without bail after arrest.  The far-reaching criminal justice reforms also mandate speedy trials and, in most cases, eliminate monetary bail, which has had a discriminatory impact on poorer defendants who have remained in jail on minor charges under the old system due to inability to pay even modest amounts of bail. The bail reform law, which was signed by Governor Christie in August 2014, replaces the current monetary bail system with a risk-based approach, requiring courts to assess the likelihood that a defendant will flee, commit new criminal activity, or obstruct justice by intimidating victims and other witnesses.  In addition to establishing clear standards and criteria to guide the way police and prosecutors exercise their discretion in deciding when to seek pretrial detention, the new directive from the Attorney General establishes procedural safeguards to ensure consistency in implementing these major criminal justice reforms in New Jersey.  Although the new law focuses on the pretrial release decision, its provisions ultimately will affect how cases are handled at every stage of the criminal justice process, from the moment police make an arrest to the time when a defendant is tried or pleads guilty.  The directive was drafted to promote fairness, uniformity and cost efficiency in implementing the new law. “New Jersey’s bail reform law puts safety first, eliminating a monetary bail system that allowed dangerous criminals to pay their way out of jail, often with proceeds of their crimes, while others charged with nonviolent offenses languished in jail because they were poor,” said Attorney General Porrino.  “Our directive provides detailed guidance to prosecutors and police on how to use this new risk-based system to best protect the people of New Jersey, while treating defendants fairly.” “This new law gives prosecutors powerful new tools to detain and monitor dangerous criminals pending trial,” said Director Elie Honig of the Division of Criminal Justice.  “Our goal with this directive is to enable prosecutors to use those tools effectively and judiciously to protect the community, recognizing that defendants who are unlikely to flee or commit new crimes should not be jailed at taxpayer expense.” The bail reform law creates a general presumption against preventive detention after arrest – meaning extended pretrial custody in jail – except where a defendant is charged with murder or is facing an ordinary or extended term of life imprisonment.  While that specific exception encompasses only a very small number of the most serious crimes, the law permits prosecutors within their discretion to apply for pretrial detention and seek to rebut the presumption in other cases, including (1) cases involving certain other serious crimes, including primarily violent first- and second-degree offenses enumerated under the No Early Release Act, crimes involving a firearm under the Graves Act, and crimes involving domestic violence, and (2) more generally, any case where the prosecutor believes there is a serious risk that the defendant will flee, will pose a danger to specific persons or the community, or will attempt to obstruct justice or threaten, injure or intimidate a victim, witness or juror. The process begins with a decision by police and prosecutors regarding whether to charge by complaint-warrant or complaint-summons.  If authorities want to seek pretrial detention of a defendant or, in the alternative, want the court to impose any conditions of release to mitigate risks posed by a defendant, they must charge the defendant by complaint-warrant.  When a warrant is issued by the court, a defendant must be taken to a county jail, where he or she will be held for up to 48 hours.  Within 48 hours, the defendant will have a first appearance in court, where, if the state has filed a motion to detain, the judge will decide whether to detain the defendant or release the defendant, and what conditions should be imposed if the defendant is released.  In all of those cases where the prosecutor is permitted to apply for preventive detention, the law’s presumption of pretrial release can be overcome only if the state can establish by clear and convincing evidence that no release conditions will reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance in court, the protection of the safety of any other person or the community, or that the defendant will not attempt to obstruct the criminal justice process. In order to assist law enforcement and judges in making decisions about a defendant, the Administrative Office of the Courts developed a computer-based automated risk assessment, known as the Public Safety Assessment (PSA), which accounts for the general nature and seriousness of the crime charged, as well as certain electronically stored criminal case and court history data documenting the defendant’s adult criminal and court-appearance history.  The PSA provides three pretrial risk indicators: (1) a six-point “failure-to-appear” scale gauging the likelihood the defendant will fail to appear in court; (2) a six-point “new criminal activity” scale gauging the likelihood the defendant will engage in new crimes if released; and (3) a “new violent criminal activity” flag, which flags defendants who are likely to engage in violent crimes if released. Police and prosecutors will be able to access the PSA at the time charges are filed and will use the PSA to inform their decision-making with regard to whether to charge by warrant or summons.  A new violent criminal activity flag automatically triggers a presumption that law enforcement will apply for a warrant and the prosecutor will seek pretrial detention.  The other scores become factors that are considered by law enforcement and judges in making decisions.  If a warrant is issued so the defendant is jailed, the Judiciary’s pre-trial services program will produce a full pretrial risk assessment that incorporates the PSA but also accounts for other circumstances and factors.  That report – which includes recommendations about whether to release and release conditions – will be completed by the courts before a defendant’s first appearance. The new directive issued today by Attorney General Porrino provides comprehensive guidance to police and prosecutors with regard to how they should handle the many cases where they are given discretion to apply for pretrial detention or release conditions for a defendant.  The directive sets forth presumptions that generally are more detailed, comprehensive and precise than the presumptions established by the law and court rules.  At the same time, the directive affords police and prosecutors the flexibility to consider all relevant facts and circumstances, including those not accounted for by the PSA. Highlights of the Attorney General’s Criminal Justice Reform Directive include: The directive emphasizes that, in implementing the reforms, police and prosecutors must ensure that they safeguard the rights of victims, including their state constitutional and statutory right to participate in the criminal justice process and have meaningful input in prosecutorial decisions affecting their interests.  The directive establishes special considerations, notifications and procedures to protect victims in domestic violence and sexual assault cases. All decisions regarding whether to charge by warrant or summons must be approved by an assistant prosecutor, deputy attorney general, or designated police supervisor.  The directive sets up a system for such personnel to be available 24/7 to offer real-time legal advice and charging approvals. By allowing prosecutors to designate a supervisory police officer, rather than an assistant prosecutor, to make initial screening decisions after hours, the directive provides for cost savings. When a defendant is detained before trial, the new law requires generally that the case be indicted within 90 days and brought to trial within 180 days of indictment, subject to provisions for extension.  However, those speedy trial rules do not apply in cases without pretrial detention. In cases where the defendant remains free, he or she may have little incentive to accept responsibility and plead guilty in a timely fashion.  To address this concern, the Attorney General’s directive requires all prosecutors to adopt a graduated plea policy under which plea offers grow tougher over time, not more lenient, so as to encourage guilty offenders to plead guilty, thereby conserving law enforcement and judicial resources and facilitating potential cooperation in ongoing cases. The Division of Criminal Justice, in cooperation with the County Prosecutors Association of New Jersey, the State Police and the New Jersey Association of Chiefs of Police, is directed to develop an online training program for police officers to explain the requirements of the new law and the directive.  It also will prepare an instruction card for police summarizing key aspects of the directive.  The Division will work with the Prosecutors Association and the Attorney General’s Advocacy Institute to develop continuing legal education courses for prosecutors dealing with the new law. The directive calls for formation of a Criminal Justice Reform Advisory Group to meet regularly to review implementation of the new law and the directive, to address legal and practical issues that arise, and to develop uniform positions and legal materials to assist prosecutors handling pretrial detention hearings, motions and appeals under the new law. The directive contemplates an ongoing dialogue where best practices are developed locally, shared and replicated in other jurisdictions. The Division of Criminal Justice, in cooperation with the County Prosecutors Association of New Jersey and the Attorney General’s Office of Law Enforcement Professional Standards, will study the implementation and impact of the new law and the directive and will prepare two reports for the Attorney General, one by June 30, 2017, and the second by June 30, 2018. Attorney General Porrino thanked Assistant Attorney General Ron Susswein and Assistant Attorney General Geoffrey Soriano for drafting the directive, under the supervision of Director Honig.  Attorney General Porrino also thanked the County Prosecutors Association of New Jersey for their valuable assistance.

Did candidates improperly obtain OPRA request record?

Last week, the campaign of Nathan Orr & David Atwood posted the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request of a citizen and resident of Sussex County.  The actual open records  request is a public record, but it must be obtained through the OPRA process.  It cannot be accessed due to a "tip-off" from a records custodian or another public official.  That is against the law.

Sussex County is notorious for its abuse of the open records process.  In the past, news of an OPRA request has made the rounds in the county even before the requester was notified that the request had been received.  This is against the law.

The reason it is against the law is to prevent those who have cause to want their records covered up from using the details from the records request to pressure or intimidate the requester into altering or withdrawing the request.  In the past, campaign staff and or consultants to campaigns have been threatened with tortious interference as an inducement to have either their client or them withdraw their legal right to open public records through the OPRA process.

Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when one person intentionally damages someone else's contractual or business relationships with a third party causing economic harm.  Wikipedia provides this example:  "Someone could use blackmail to induce a contractor into breaking a contract or they could obstruct someone's ability to honor a contract with a client by deliberately refusing to deliver necessary goods."

At the root of this controversy is the fact that David Atwood, the running mate of Nathan Orr, voted using the wrong name at last November's presidential election.

On October 16, 2012, David Wygonski -- a native of Illinois -- registered to vote in Sussex County, New Jersey.  He did not register as a Republican.  He voted in the November presidential election that year, but missed every opportunity to vote again until the presidential election of November 2016.

By then, he was no longer David Wygonski, having changed his name to David Atwood by court order on May 2, 2014.

But that didn't stop David Atwood from voting under his former name in a federal election on November 8, 2016. 

That's right, this week it was confirmed by a voter registration officer, an officer of the court, and a citizen witness, that David Atwood wrote the signature of "David Wygonski" in order to gain access to vote in the federal election held on November 8, 2016.  Atwood did this while presumably aware that the signature he made and the voter name he attested to had not been his legal name in over two years. The Court did not give grant him permission to use TWO names.  The Court granted him permission to legally change his name.

David Atwood did not register to vote under his LEGAL name until December 21, 2016.  He has never voted as David Atwood.

David Atwood did not register to vote as a Republican until January 11, 2017.  He has never voted as a Republican.

In February, David Atwood became an Assembly candidate.  At the time he told a group of Republican voters that he was a "new voice for the Republican Party."  Yes, very new.

In fact, even after changing his name to David Atwood, he continued to be registered at his former address in Sussex County as David Wygonski.  In effect, he was counted twice on the voter rolls under two different names, at two different addresses.

No kidding.  As of February 10, 2017, he was an "active" voter at two different addresses under two different names (see below):

 

 

Recently, candidate David Atwood has been wailing like a baby with a wet nappy.  The cause of all this pissing and moaning was an action taken by the elected Warren County Republican Chairman, Doug Steinhardt.  Chairman Steinhardt noticed that Atwood was actively registered to vote TWICE -- and had the good sense to challenge Atwood's candidate petition in order to get to the bottom of it.  Ever since, David Atwood has been crying like a badly chafed toddler in need of a powder and some kind words from mother. 

We know some on the Left (fewer now, than before) claim there are no problems with the voter rolls, but then you come across a story like this, from just last month:

LANSDALE, Penn. -- The feds say a Pennsylvania man has been using a dead boy’s identity for more than 21 years, CBS Philly reports. 

Authorities got involved after a relative of the deceased used Ancestry.com to put her family tree together.

A woman was getting information on Ancestry last year and her nephew Nathan Laskoski popped up. She saw that he got married and he moved around the country -- from Texas to Mississippi to Tennessee and eventually to Pennsylvania. 

But the problem is Laskoski died in 1972 when he was two months old.

Authorities say 44-year-old Jon Vincent escaped back in 1996 from a halfway house in Texas, and went to a cemetery to find someone born around the same time that he was.

Prosecutors say he picked Laskoski and found his birth certificate, which he used to get a social security number.

Authorities say that started 20-plus years of jobs, bank accounts, loans, marriage and divorce as Nathan Laskoski.

(CBS News, April 12, 2017)

David Atwood and his running mates, Nathan Orr and Bill Hayden, claim that the Warren County Republican Chairman was making a fuss over nothing.  But when you look at all the recent examples of voter fraud -- under-reported by the media but real court cases nonetheless -- you begin to appreciate Chairman Steinhardt's vigilance:

- San Pedro, California: 83 absentee ballots were sent to different registered voters who all supposedly lived in the same small, two-bedroom apartment. If it wasn’t for an observant neighbor, this case would never have been discovered.

- Pennsylvania: Democrat organization FieldWorks LLC was raided by Pennsylvania State Police for fraudulently filling out registration forms for thousands of voters.

- Indiana: State police “believe there could be hundreds of fraudulent voter registration records with different combinations of made up names and addresses with people’s real information.“

- Chicago, Illinois: An investigation by CBS Channel 2 in Chicago found people who had been registered to vote after their death, and a total of 119 dead people who had voted 229 times.

- Examination of just eight out of Virginia’s 133 counties and independent cities: After being unwilling to sign a form that they were US citizens, 1,046 illegal aliens were discovered to already be registered voters.

- In an undercover video, even Democrats were recently caught complaining about the amount of voter fraud created by NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio’s decision to give out ID cards without checking recipients’ identities.

- In North Carolina’s closely contested gubernatorial election, massive fraud may have altered the outcome of that race. The North Carolina Democrat Party-funded political action committee apparently paid individuals to fill out and witness hundreds of fraudulent absentee ballots. At least 35,750 people with the same names and birthdates voted in North Carolina and another state in the last presidential election. Other clear cases involved deceased individuals voting after their death. (Research courtesy of John Lott)

Atwood, Orr, and Hayden owe Chairman Doug Steinhardt an apology.