Which shows her strength of character in caring for a family member with mental illness and helps to make her more understanding of the issues we all face.

Also driving without a registration.

"who Brown says is mentally ill"

I wonder if that has been diagnosed by a professional or if Pam Brown determined that all by herself...

I'm not sure how I would deal with something like this either

Key words of investigation: Dismissed. Not even worth mentioning!

Maybe it should be added to the ex-cons' tab ? At the rate they are making restitution, it would only add another 200 years or so.

Maybe it should be the city Jack for not asking on the registration form for candidates: Do you have a history of felonies?

Unlikely patch has resources for this, but it seems like the Carol person does a decent job of reporting telegraph stuff here. That's too much work for you ?

Robidoux did spend time helping Jan Schmidt on researching a republican candidates contributions.

Bravo Charlie W, Bravo

Charlie W, I interviewed the Laconia reporter hours after their story ran, and then interviewed Laughton as quickly as I could get a hold of her, and ran that story, before the Telegraph, if I'm not mistaken, and followed up with the Sec of State several times. I am not sure what it is you are suggesting here. If you would like to speak to me directly, please feel free to call me (603-903-4958) and let me know what I have done to offend your sensibilities. I have continued to credit the Laconia paper for publishing the facts that they had on hand from years of coverage of Barry Laughton. After working hard for 20+ years as an award-winning journalist, I don't take lightly your comments or insinuations.

I am glad you don't take them lightly as you very well should not. Between your jaded account of someone else's account suggesting racism at a Romney event to the coverage of the Laughton's your reporting certainly seems to have a partisan slant; which in and of itself is fine, when it is depicted as such rather than put forward as an unbiased rather than positioned piece. Serious issues like racism and the letter of the law are not helped with that style of journalism, and you know that.

In defense of the Carol person, I recall this site was infested with Laughton news for weeks.

An if you recall the stories kept switching as the comments called for resignation......rather than wrap the entire issue into one story it was spread out; muddling the message and obfuscating the fact that both of the Laughton's were illegally holding office as selectmen in the first place. If you go back you will see from those articles and their comments, and maybe have a better understanding of my frustration with Carol and her reporting. That is of course if it all has not been erased. (as a side note that is a danger in our society with the advent of electronic media, it can be changed and thus history can be re-written; that was not possible with libraries and print.)

Charlie, seriously? Prove your ridiculous accusations! You have no clue what you are speaking about. No one can stop anyone from running for state rep.

@ Charlie

The old "liberal media" shtick? Really? Stop bellyaching.

This is the way the GOP "works the umpire." They howl endlessly about "liberal bias" when the story doesn't please them. For example; "They're reporting no weapons of mass destruction were ever found in Iraq??? Well whadda ya expect from the "liberal media?!?"

Conversely, when the story skewers a Democrat or a prominent progressive, they'll say "Clinton and Monica like cigars!! Even the "liberal media" can't deny THIS!!"

It's a very well-worn tactic.

The truth is, Carol is very fair. She gives plenty of time and screen space to the GOP / conservative points of view. It's not her fault that the voting public is sick of both.

Same bags of hot air that told me I was only asking for thier resignation because of her sexual identification. Same bags of hot air that told me I did not have a law degree and did not know what I was talking about. And yes the same bags of hot air that all supported the Laughton's right up to the point that it became clear someone was going to bring suit to force action.......Yup the patch is full of em Nashua and they all have each others back.............

Charlie, you realize that anyone can run, whether we like them to or not right? Just because one declares themselves a Democrat doesn't mean all Democrats will support them!

I do realize that Sonia, although I think that is also wrong. What I am most inflamed about are the actions AFTER this came to light and it is THAT which I am holding the group of zealots accountable for. Go back and read the comments on all the articles if you need a refresher; then put a sock in it and move on to your next blind effort at whatever stokes your fancy.

That is my point, they all had to be forced....there was exactly one purported democrat stood and said wait that aint right rather than wait for the AG to be forced by Stacy to declare that neither of the Laughtons should be holding public offfice; and even at that no tone of them ever admitted they were wrong in their attempts to squelch and argue back the truth and legality of the situation. The sad part is I actually believe Stacy was being cheered on privately by some of these folks and feel she in a way of all of it was actually a victim, albeit also a puppet. But alas that would be very difficult to prove and is only my opinion. (Carol see the clear distinction between what I know and what I think? That is what you need to work on)

What? What are you talking about?

I have nothing to do with Laughton or her election or her recant or her re-recant or her no-you-can't. Nothing... I wished her good luck on her original run, and then kept my opinion to myself. I was never told about her issues with the law, never asked anyone to vote for her, never contributed to her campaign....

Involving me in this discussion would be as valid as including you or Charlie.....

Charlie, Stacie lied to everyone about her past. She didn't bring it up unless she was asked about it. I hope that in the future, they switch all new candidates registration forms and ask the question : Do you have a felony on your record? That will weed out that stuff and stop wasting a lot of time and money!

@ Nuts Flash

"Isnt this a valid topic for Nashua Patch given the envolvement of Nashua Democrats in Occupy?"

The Nashua Democrats aren't "envolved" with the Occupy movement. If you'd like to know what the NDCC is about, the mission statement is here: http://www.nashuadems.com/mission

And you never once picked up the legal aspect and published the law on the matter......and you never once offered the stories as an update but rather a separate story..."journalistic discretion" to say the least. In fact the stories did not all even link to each other as related, rather convenient oversight I am sure. Your vigilance in pursuing the red herring of racism at a Romney event is only matched by your lackadaisical and even at times sympathetic and soft coverage of the laughton's. You should stick to Opinion pieces instead of editor, your not cut out for it.

Why do you continue to want to have the conversation in private?
You are not in favor of vetting done in a public fashion?
You are not in favor of vetting a news source?
You do not feel that others have a right to know?
What is it exactly?

All communications s/b public. Including yours and Jan Schmidts.

Good grief....

I would prefer to keep it on the record, so to speak Carol. I do not hold or seek office in any capacity and am registered as independent. I listen to both sides and formulate my own opion which often changes as new facts and revelations are uncovered. All too often I have found that your articles are more of a formal blog in nature rather than being of formative value when trying to take an honest look at any issue. As I said, that is actually fine, you are whole heartedly entitled to your opinion and have a right to espouse it; it is the manner of your presentation as an unbiased reporter who holds the title of editor from with which you do it that raises my ire becaus eyou are most certainly not objective. Being the cynic that I am, I lean twords the thinking that you do this intentionally given your experience.