Liberal Forum

Huey » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

4 minutes ago

Here is another excellent article that will explain this to you:

https://patch.com/new-hampshire/concord ... ire-voting

Do you understand the meaning of the first of the two quotes?
 

Huey » 13 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

13 minutes ago

The verdict is null and void.  Your words:

That is a lie.  

Again:

Rosen, 87, was found guilty of a class B felony in 2024 for allegedly voting in the 2016 general election in both New Hampshire and Massachusetts. But, the Supreme Court ruled Grafton Superior Court Judge Lawrence MacLeod erred by not allowing jurors to know that Rosen’s Massachusetts groundskeeper, Billy Botelho, confessed to investigators that he had voted in Rosen’s name.“Botelho’s statements either impliedly or expressly constitute confessions to voting in the defendant’s name during the November 2016 election — the same election for which the defendant was charged with double voting,” Associate Justice Patrick Donovan wrote in the unanimous decision.

You cannot read..

Were it "null and void" the Court would not give Grafton another "bite at the apple".

The perp is negotiating, HAVING GONE ON RECORD AS NOT DISPUTING THE ALLEGED ACTS, because he sees the risk of loss in a second trial as too great.

Nod.
 
 
 

Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

7 minutes ago

Do you understand the meaning of the first of the two quotes?

Do you understand that the source you quoted made a liar out of you?

RebelGator » 2 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

2 minutes ago

Do you 

I know you don't. 

Blackvegetable » 3 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

3 minutes ago

You cannot read..

Were it "null and void" the Court would not give Grafton another "bite at the apple".

The perp is negotiating, HAVING GONE ON RECORD AS NOT DISPUTING THE ALLEGED ACTS, because he sees the risk of loss in a second trial as too great.

Nod.
 
 
 

 

AI Overview
When a state supreme court overturns a conviction, it means the state's highest court has canceled or invalidated the original guilty verdict because it found a major legal or constitutional error during the trial
Go with those words instead, if it makes you feel better. 

Blackvegetable » 8 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

8 minutes ago

You cannot read..

Were it "null and void" the Court would not give Grafton another "bite at the apple".

The perp is negotiating, HAVING GONE ON RECORD AS NOT DISPUTING THE ALLEGED ACTS, because he sees the risk of loss in a second trial as too great.

Nod.
 
 
 

 

Ooops, forgot this part:

What Happens Next

• The Verdict is Voided: The defendant is no longer legally considered convicted of that crime, wiping away the immediate judgment. [1]

• The Case is Usually Remanded: Most of the time, the supreme court sends the case back ("remands" it) to the lower trial court for further proceedings. [1, 2]

• Possibility of a New Trial: The local prosecutor can often choose to hold a brand-new trial, fix the original errors, or drop the charges entirely.

 

Blackvegetable » 16 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

16 minutes ago

Now that you understand that the appeal was preceded by an admission to the charged conduct, as well as the matter being remanded back to the inferior court, would you like to revise your comment?

Before you bleed out.

 

Ooops:

What Happens Next

• The Verdict is Voided: The defendant is no longer legally considered convicted of that crime, wiping away the immediate judgment. [1]

• The Case is Usually Remanded: Most of the time, the supreme court sends the case back ("remands" it) to the lower trial court for further proceedings. [1, 2]

• Possibility of a New Trial: The local prosecutor can often choose to hold a brand-new trial, fix the original errors, or drop the charges entirely.

You certainly are losing a lot of blood.  

You should stop.  I would say quit while your ahead, but you were never ahead.

 

Huey » 8 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

8 minutes ago

Ooops:

What Happens Next

• The Verdict is Voided: The defendant is no longer legally considered convicted of that crime, wiping away the immediate judgment. [1]

• The Case is Usually Remanded: Most of the time, the supreme court sends the case back ("remands" it) to the lower trial court for further proceedings. [1, 2]

• Possibility of a New Trial: The local prosecutor can often choose to hold a brand-new trial, fix the original errors, or drop the charges entirely.

You certainly are losing a lot of blood.  

You should stop.  I would say quit while your ahead, but you were never ahead.

He has admitted to the conduct in question.

The Superior court does not retry the case, it merely determines whether there is a procedural error.

He requested mail in ballots from NH...they were returned.

Then voted, in person, in Ma.

Grafton's case is sufficiently strong that he is negotiating rather than going to trial.

It makes no difference whatsoever if you don't understand..

You cannot talk to Democrats. Everything they say is a lie. They will lie, cheat and steal to win at all cost. They are power hungry and corrupt.

Blackvegetable » 11 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

11 minutes ago

He has admitted to the conduct in question.

The Superior court does not retry the case, it merely determines whether there is a procedural error.

He requested mail in ballots from NH...they were returned.

Then voted, in person, in Ma.

Grafton's case is sufficiently strong that he is negotiating rather than going to trial.

It makes no difference whatsoever if you don't understand..

The black face is no longer acceptable in today's social climate...wipe yourself and get some distance from your disgraceful groveling.    

Blackvegetable » 16 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

16 minutes ago

He has admitted to the conduct in question.

The Superior court does not retry the case, it merely determines whether there is a procedural error.

He requested mail in ballots from NH...they were returned.

Then voted, in person, in Ma.

Grafton's case is sufficiently strong that he is negotiating rather than going to trial.

It makes no difference whatsoever if you don't understand..

 

Where did he admit he did it?  And he is legally blind.  How in the world did he do all of this?  

Like I said, the verdict was voided.  There is nothing in the news about the trial court retrying the case of negotiating.  
 

Huey » 3 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

3 minutes ago

Where did he admit he did it?  And he is legally blind.  How in the world did he do all of this?  

Like I said, the verdict was voided.  There is nothing in the news about the trial court retrying the case of negotiating.

You were even asked if you understood it.


“We’re not here to dispute the charged conduct or conviction,” Connolly began, saying its seriousness was accepted.

Blackvegetable » 10 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

10 minutes ago

You were even asked if you understood it.


“We’re not here to dispute the charged conduct or conviction,” Connolly began, saying its seriousness was accepted.

 

I don't give a **** what I was asked.  You lied and got busted.  You said the court did not discuss the confessions.  The entire case was based on the suppression of that evidence.  The verdict was voided.  He is innocent.  And just because it was sent back does not mean they are going to try him again.

You urge to play gotcha **** you in the ***. 


 

Huey » 17 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

17 minutes ago

I don't give a **** what I was asked.  You lied and got busted.  You said the court did not discuss the confessions.  The entire case was based on the suppression of that evidence.  The verdict was voided.  He is innocent.  And just because it was sent back does not mean they are going to try him again.

You urge to play gotcha **** you in the ***.

You're a **** *******...

That was his attorney's statement at his trial.


https://www.nhbr.com/rosen-sentenced-fi ... ter-fraud/

The entire case was based on the suppression of that evidence.

Obviously not.

Blackvegetable » 9 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

9 minutes ago

You're a **** *******...

That was his attorney's statement at his trial.


https://www.nhbr.com/rosen-sentenced-fi ... ter-fraud/


Obviously not.

 

Hey, *******, you need to spend less time deleting and reading the information provided.

“Botelho’s statements either impliedly or expressly constitute confessions to voting in the defendant’s name during the November 2016 election — the same election for which the defendant was charged with double voting,” Associate Justice Patrick Donovan wrote in the unanimous decision.

https://indepthnh.org/2026/04/09/north- ... verturned/

His defense lawyer was on the NH supreme court?  Your a **** idiot. 

**** Brick.
 

Huey » 3 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

3 minutes ago

Hey, *******, you need to spend less time deleting and reading the information provided.

“
His defense lawyer was on the NH supreme court?  

This statement,  you **** *******.


“We’re not here to dispute the charged conduct or conviction,” Connolly began, saying its seriousness was accepted

Blackvegetable » 20 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

20 minutes ago

This statement,  you **** *******.


“We’re not here to dispute the charged conduct or conviction,” Connolly began, saying its seriousness was accepted

 

*******, it doesn't matter.  The verdict was voided.  Oh, that was another lie.  

And here is where you said the court didn't say anything about the confessions.  Another lie.  Asshole, you are full of lies today.

The Court didn't make any statement about the alleged confession.

viewtopic.php?p=2927544#p2927544

 

Huey » 17 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

17 minutes ago

*******, it doesn't matter.   today.


 

Of course it does, you **** idiot.

 

Blackvegetable » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

4 minutes ago

Of course it does, you **** idiot.

 

 

I don't give a **** what his defense attorney said.  I give a **** what the State Justice said.  I also note you deleted another of your lies:

*******, it doesn't matter.  The verdict was voided.  Oh, that was another lie.  

And here is where you said the court didn't say anything about the confessions.  Another lie.  Asshole, you are full of lies today.

The Court didn't make any statement about the alleged confession.

viewtopic.php?p=2927544#p2927544

“Botelho’s statements either impliedly or expressly constitute confessions to voting in the defendant’s name during the November 2016 election — the same election for which the defendant was charged with double voting,” Associate Justice Patrick Donovan wrote in the unanimous decision.

https://indepthnh.org/2026/04/09/north- ... verturned/

Did you intentionally leave this out, Asshole?  


 

Blackvegetable » Today, 10:27 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 10:27 am

Now, the Department of the Interior has awarded a $2.7 million contract to clean the pool to a Massachusetts-based company whose chief executive is being prosecuted for election fraud, according to CNN. 

Renewable energy company American Ag Energy will repair and maintain the pool’s sewage and purification systems, according to the official contract description.

The one-year contract could be extended for another five years and grow to up to $8.8 million, CNN reported.

The company’s CEO, Richard Rosen, was convicted last year of voter fraud for casting ballots in the 2016 election in both Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-gr ... -turn-yet/

In their determination of Rosen’s guilt of voter fraud, Bornstein at the sentencing hearing said the jury found Rosen “knowingly” voted twice in November 2016. Rosen requested an absentee ballot from the Holderness town clerk/tax collector at the time, Ellen King. 

Rosen then voted at the public library in Belmont, Mass., where that town holds its elections. 

Matteson said Rosen’s voting twice in the 2016 general election, which featured a presidential race, gave him an extra voice in the voting process. Rosen, Matteson said, blamed a former business colleague or partner and a handyman at his home in Massachusetts for casting ballots under his name in the Bay State. 

Matteson cited the lack of values behind double voting to Rosen which allowed him to “have your voice overrepresented to get more than your fair share.” 

“This was a crime of dishonesty and fraud,” Matteson said, and that Rosen had “engaged in double voting on seven instances over a decade.”

https://www.nhbr.com/rosen-sentenced-fi ... ter-fraud/

"Rosen"...

Huh.