Until the SAG has something to say on this, this isn't a matter for the City Attorney. Besides that, if the City Attorney had been so perfect, he would have had charges up against her. I think the matter is more that you disagree with her being transgendered than it was that she was elected in the first place. So quit while you are ahead. Your lame comment isn't equivalent

I have not once referred to her as a "him" or made any other statement regarding anything to to with her self identification, ever; and I challenge you to prove otherwise. Quite frankly I don't care anything about that. I care about a criminal having any say in any legislation I am held accountable for. More over I am even more troubled that against state law she be allowed to hold office when she is clearly not done with her court ordered sentence. We are a nation of laws, ignoring them is not the way to go about changing them is you disagree with them or think they do not matter. Any assertion to the contrary is simply partisan.

"the problem was that her past did define her"
The problem was that the voters did not know her past. It should have been up to them if her past defined her. I wouldn't oppose someone with a criminal past from running for office, but would want that information to be available to the voters...

She never should have been on the ballot for rep or selectman. Who runs the candidate registration process and is it an ineffective process or were those running the registration process negligent or complicit? That is were our focus should be now.

Don't be so sure. A culinary arts certificate may be their Harvard Law Degree.

@ Seamus: I agree with you to an extent. If you did run for elected office, and had paid your debt FULLY to society, in this current day society, chances are you probably wouldn't get elected. Is what she did right? No it wasn't. However, I would say that in the case of the Patch, or for that matter any media outlet, if they did do some poking around on this, this would have come out sooner. It wouldn't have been the first time the media hasn't done it. After all...Fox News makes a living off of doing just that.

@Mike black: Sorry, but I have to disagree with you. Times have changed from when the farmers and peasants went to Concord to do the state's business. If we as a state are so beholden to that "volunteer legislature" as Rep. Gidge describes it one shouldn't be surprised that things like this will happen, due to poorly written laws. We act as if those elected were born with a silver spoon in the mouths, but we get the wooden spoon to our posterior, for their service.

Lisa do you still have restitution to pay?
A term of good behavior to follow?
Aren't those terms of your co-sentence with Stacie your Ex-Husband?

Given that those terms are not satisfied how are you legally able to continue to be a Ward 4 selectman in Nashua?

That is a crime violates RSA 607-A: Section I paragraph B.

Here is the link for you to actually read about the laws you aspire to legislate.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LIX/607-A/607-A-2.htm

Rarely am I afford the opportunity to speak directly to those I am asked to vote for. Given that we have law on the matter I do not expect to see a candidate option that is currently serving sentence. I want to know about every public official that has legislative or any other power over me. Have a cohort to give up?

So they asked everyone but you two?

Ms. Laughton: Due to the state's so-called "volunteer legislature" it isn't surprising that the NHDP, did not ask Stacie about her past. In Maine, there is a Campaign Comittee within the Democratic Party that looks at all the candidates, through phone interviews (I know this as a former Town Democratic Chair, and one who served on subcommitees within the Maine Democratic Party in the 1990's).

The people of this state expect to have people running for office to be honest. If she took the oath of office (and correct me if I am wrong, but I would think that you would have taken the same oath, or something simular to that for being a selectman), and she wasn't eligible to take the oath of office, how honest do you think that to be? That is the MOST troubling part of your argument, that has drawn Charlie W's ire, along with other Democrats like myself (even though I live in Ward 3), who feel slighted by your statements on this issue.

They do not care about serving honestly if they did they would resign, address the matter correctly, then run again. But that is exactly what they are not doing. They are doing the same old same old as their history exhibits, "take me to court to get me to do the right thing and then at that I still won't do it".

Charlie: After looking at the law, it is somewhat ambigious:

" (a) Vote in an election, but if execution of sentence is suspended with or without the defendant being placed on probation or he is paroled after commitment to imprisonment, he may vote during the period of the suspension or parole; or
(b) Become a candidate for or hold public office."

The problem with this law, it doesn't state what "Final discharge" is, and it is ambiguous in that in its current state, it almost says that "a person is eligible to run for office with a suspended sentence (subsections a & b).

Does that fully exonerate the Laughton's from public scruitny? No it doesn't. However, the law isn't very clear on whether a financial restitution currently in payment is fully discharged or not. You would think that it would have said that in the law, but that is what you get with as Ken Gidge put it "a volunteer legislature." Poorly written legislation.

Dan the two sections a and b are separate when read in law such that the statue would read

"A person sentenced for a felony, from the time of his sentence until his final discharge, may not: Become a candidate for or hold public office"

Furthermore other state law does define the what constitutes a sentence; take annulment for example

http://law.justia.com/codes/new-hampshire/2010/titlelxii/chapter651/section651-5/

Section III talks about "has completed all the terms and conditions of the sentence and has thereafter been convicted of no other crime".

This clearly defines a sentences as anything handed down by the court. There is no dispute that they finished the term of the sentence as related to NHDOC. But they have not finished the sentence terms. They have restitution and good behavior terms that are outstanding. NHDOC saying they are "done" doe snot constitute the finality of sentence as aspects of the sentence may not be administered by NHDOC. Think of an OUI sentence and the DMVs aspects of common sentencing.

Dan there is no gray area. The only gray area is what to do about it and it most certainly is easier for the AG to wait for the resignation as charging either of them may in fact violate the term of good behavior and complicate things further.

Looking at it as a lawyer would (a) and (b) are actually Prima facie, and as such the fact that (a) specifically mentions incarceration and parole while (b) does not speaks to the intent of the law. Which is exactly what would be argued when they are charged; what should have already happened.

You can't simply ignore any aspect of a sentence handed down by the court if it was not under the NHDOC's control; that is preposterous to even consider. Not only does that limit the courts power but it expands that of the DOC. Which is another aspect for the AG's pause in charging. A poorly handled case or ruling could do just that and open a can of worms where by giving grounds for any and all sentence terms not specifically remanded to the NHDOC are null and void. It could set that kind of precedence. Quite a comical case actually that could have a real impact. I actually don't want them to resign as ward 4 selectmen, I want to see them charged and then get ring side seats at the court to be honest. Given their record and a lack punishment guidelines for the election law in this area it is likely that official removal is all that would be done.

Charge em I say and let the court sort it out.

Charlie: Considering both posts of yours, and were the better of the two posts, I have to agree with you on this matter. I think that where the ambiguity of this came when Jeff Lyons, Media Director for NHDOC, had stated that their clarification was that once released from jail, Ms. Laughton had completed her sentence, yet the law says otherwise. That would also add up to the fact that when Ms. Laughton first stated that she would resign, that attorneys she talked to that she stated that "the case was not in her favor."

Could someone please tell me what on earth a Selectman is in Nashua? I went through the Nashua City Charter, and found only vague reference to it's importance..

Lyons is not a lawyer and I am sure he thinks he is the center of the universe when it comes to criminal matters; but he is not, the court is. He did this situation and the Laughton's no favors what so ever. Given his statement and his position within NHDOC one would think he was authoritative and correct. This is precisely why we have laws; lest before you know it someone thinks they are king and like lemmings we all just agree. The only gray area is what to do about it........they both should resign and take care of this matter by either completing their sentences or petitioning the court of sentencing to modify their sentence. Then once in compliance of the law, by all means have at it and run again if they would like. At that point it is their legal right to do so. Which is the problem, they are not legally able to hold office as of now; any public office.

Charlie: I agree with your argument on the Selectperson role. What I think is galling is the grossly overstatement of importance as being Ward Selectpersons, because they help out during the elections, HOWEVER as one who used to pick people in my former residence in Maine to be election clerks and counters for the Democratic side of my town, had I known of their past, they wouldn't set foot into the polling place. I am surprised that this never came up in the first place. This isn't a Democrat/Republican issue folks, this is STATE LAW, and it is TEXT BOOK ETHICS.

That is my feeling exactly Dan; and they still have not resigned Ward 4 selectman and not a peep from the Nashua Dem establishment save yourself. This is an excellent example of partisanship getting in the way of fair and ethical government; Neither side is really interested in anything but party agenda, sad very sad.

Stacie do you still have restitution to pay?
A term of good behavior to follow?
Aren't those terms of your sentence?

Given that those terms are not satisfied how are you legally able to continue to be a Ward 4 selectman in Nashua?

That is a crime violates RSA 607-A: Section I paragraph B.

Here is the link for you to actually read about the laws you aspire to legislate.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LIX/607-A/607-A-2.htm

RESIGN

And the fine?

So how about getting the court that sentenced you two to clarify the matter and say you are done with your sentence? (because the fine is not paid?)

I have read the law have you?

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LIX/607-A/607-A-2.htm

Oh, so the part of your sentence that talks about a fine is completely null and void then huh? That part just magically doesn't matter, yea I get it. FINISH YOUR SENTENCE OR GET IT REMOVED, THEN RUN FOR OFFICE; UNTIL THEN RESIGN!

State v. Patterson, 145 N.H. 462, 463 (2000) "A sentence has not been completed until the suspension period has expired, signifying that the sentence can no longer be brought forward."

We already have law on what constitutes a completed sentence........

RESIGN NOW as Ward 4 selectmen and do not hold office until your sentence is complete.

Shift focus, deny any fault and take no responsibility for your actions and refuse to finish your sentence; yup you bet I am angry that those traits have any business in public office. You have not finished your sentence, at the very least you still have a fine; the law is clear you should not be holding office. But like other laws you really do not care about breaking what ever law to get what you want.

RESIGN AS WARD 4 SELCTMAN NOW.

You have zero respect for following the law. You have not completed your sentence as you still have a fine. You are illegally hold public office.

RESIGN FROM WARD 4 SELECTMAN NOW!

I am not bashing anyone, and I have not "bashed" you. I am simp[ly asking that you comply with the law, which you are not. I am simply asking for you to be a law abiding citizen in good standing BEFORE holding public office which is exactly what citizens have a right to expect.

I do not hold public office, have not held public office nor do I have plans to do so; so my past is exactly that, my past, and of complete irrelevance here. (Nice shift of focus though). If you do not like the public scrutiny that comes with holding office, and holding illegally at that, I would suggest YOU RESIGN AS WARD 4 SELECTMAN as sson as possible. Who know if you oversee another polling place maybe there is legal grounds to vacate that vote due to your standing. Ever consider that your doing your constituancy more harm than good? Or is you the only thing you think about?