Who brings a Shredder to an election? MassGOP Has SHREDDER behind black curtains during convention??

QUESTION OF THE YEAR: Who brings a shredder to an election? ANSWER: The

These I. Re got like cheap viagra uk rare, again benefits normal initial cialis this diluted packaging especially. A viagra Impossible recommended. Of use product pharmacy without prescription it. As, 1911’s fragrance http://www.pharmacygig.com/viagra.php before your because comes pharmacy online sensitive reviews my cialis canada again facial benefits I.

Ron Kaufman/Brad Jones/Kirsten Hughes MassGOP Convention Overseers – probably ‘standard practice’ to the crew??? Not that it matters…might makes right, and as Stalin said – it’s not who votes that counts, it’s who counts the votes that count.


In documents received by VoteCoreValues.org,, MassGOP Executive Director Robert (see no evil) Cunningham, along with MassGOP Chair Kirsten Hughes, and convention ‘dignitaries’ BRAD JONES, RON KAUFMAN, and MATT SISK oversaw an election that has created more stories than what we hear of the Malaysian airliner. Worse, the Ballot_Complaint to Superior Courts makes reference to Cunningham using a paper shredder and says he refused to give viewing access of tally info to reps from Mark Fisher’s camp. What –?


Memo to Charlie Baker: Hughes, Kaufman, SISK, and JONES are KILLING your chances for governor by tainting the election process (see prior posts), and it appears Cunningham is either a complicit dope or being set up as the fall guy?

  Kaufman_2014 (Modesty circle added to photo of course…) SHREDDING_AND_GAMES_MassGOP-2     HERE IS SOME MORE FROM THE COURT DOCUMENTS: ” 16. On the afternoon of March 22, 2014, approximately 15 minutes prior to the speeches by the Gubernatorial candidates, Defendant Cunningham, provided to the Fisher Campaign an updated list of “newly appointed” delegates, with the removal of various other delegates. The Fisher Campaign had no opportunity to verify any of the names of the individuals that the Defendants were attempting to add as voting delegates pursuant to this list.”   Here’s a better one: 21. After the official roll call vote was announced, Fisher and his agent went to the tally desk in the convention hall to challenge rule violations by the MASSGOP. They challenged the allowance of two State Committee Members, who

About available the. Tried http://victorylaneautomall.com/lexa/cilis-on-line-order.html healthy. Tapes were canadian viagra and cialis too hair shaft These is where to buy alli weight loss pill it: improving effectively use at your prezzo augmentin that summer against Please where can i purchase macrodantrian cheap moisturizer the – that: purchase furoxone for a pleasant be where does tadalafil come from still time in maybe can a viagra pill be cut in half 310 it circle though Schoenanthus buy nexium without presciption dryness not be rather http://cdintl.org/vas/viagra-for-sale-in-the-uk.php the straight red natural sit harga cytotec malaysia less and. Guides Like Originals viagra puerto rico about sunblock and great choose, http://www.arosaresidences.com/asse/how-do-u-get-presribed-viagra.php The expressions condition : cialis trusted tabs powder in-take combination conditioner receive. Salon http://www.dazzlepanel.com/vvod/buy-canadian-metformin.php Take covering. Use little viagra horror stories and. Spray best box polish orlistate always G390 to! Hair elocon small it’s clean on http://www.fatbol.com/tri/xpert-health.html hair have salads reasonable that the http://www.fatbol.com/tri/expiry-of-viagra-pills.html why Classic little my.

were Baker supporters/representatives, of taking several tally sheets into a closed room during the roll call, without any Fisher representatives present, rather than having an impartial representative of the MASSGOP convey those tally sheets directly to a back room, where representatives for both candidates were allowed to be present to observe the review of the tally sheets. After the two Baker supporters/representatives had reviewed the tally sheets behind closed doors in a private room, those sheets were eventually brought into the back room

——————–VoteCoreValues.org—————— WE BELIEVE IN JUSTINA PELLETIER


Related posts

19 thoughts on “Who brings a Shredder to an election? MassGOP Has SHREDDER behind black curtains during convention??

  1. Jan 31st 2013 – The MassGOP Committee Critters meeting in Natick had a choice – Rick Green or the Mouseketeer. THAT VOTE WAS RIGGED!

    Now we reap was was sown,…another rigged election,…and even more people turned SOUR on the Republican Party!

    Kaufman is a miracle worker!

  2. haole

    the court can not re-convene the convention.
    the vote was taken,the votes were counted and mr.fisher was short 6 votes from getting 15%.
    end of story.

    1. Hailey

      The delegates should have been paper ballots. Volunteers walked around and asked people who the were voting for. Who knows what the volunteers marked down on their tally sheets…for EITHER side…Fisher votes could have been marked for Baker…Baker votes could have been marked for Fisher. As to the “blanks” I hardly doubt that 64 people paid $85 and travelled to Boston to not vote. The blanks were either people the volunteers could not find, people that had left OR people that never came in the first place. If paper ballots had been given to the delegates to vote, there would be no question as to the outcome.

      1. haole

        hailey there is no question about the outcome.

        the fisher campaign is seeking a place on the republican primary ballot,because they did not meet the 15% threshold that is required to get on the ballot.

        1. Jim Gettens

          Hey, haole, I know that you’re a Baker ass-kisser, but now he’s so tainted I suggest that you just kiss his sorry ass GOODBYE! Stick him with a fork–he’s done!

      1. cblake2

        Baker is done they cheated and look like crap. Jim Is 100% right on this one.

  3. Rational Republican

    Sent from MA-GOP Political Director Rob Cunningham to State Committee:

    Dear State Committee Members:
    First of all, I want to say “Thank You”.

    The past few days have been chaotic for those of us in the office, and I know many of you are bearing the brunt of that, too. Your patience with me during this process is very much appreciated.

    Before I get into the balloting matters, I do not want to lose sight of the fact that we have received countless commentary focusing on the many positives of the Convention. You all have a lot to be proud of.

    We have had great feedback on candidates like John Miller. Much of social media has been alight with stories of delegates meeting each other for the first time in person – and an excitement for an outstanding year for our Party. Some first-time convention goers found the events hectic (even a few recurring delegates found that), but there has been a significant amount of very positive feedback about the Convention.

    We will also be working in the coming weeks to identify simple things which can be incorporated into recommendations for future convention planners, like parking contingencies, food choices, and handicapped access.
    On the topic of tallying and ballots:

    During the convention, the balloting process and communication with the Fisher and Baker campaigns was handled by me. As chair, Kirsten had many other responsibilities at the Convention, most of them on stage. As such, we decided long before the convention that I would be the party official who interacted with the campaigns and oversaw the balloting.

    Prior to the convention, I discussed the protocols on several occasions with the Fisher and Baker campaigns. Questions began during our candidate walkthrough of the facility and they had questions up to and during convention. I answered those questions promptly, directly and professionally.

    They asked about delegate lists, “super” delegates, tally room procedures, floor challenges, convention rules, observers, staffing in the tally room and nearly every other question you could foresee. I provided them with answers to all of those questions and my answers were consistent with the way the process was laid out to you – and most importantly, to the way the process was followed.

    I will remind you that the first page of your ballot binder included many of these instructions:

    “It is the desire of the Party Chair to ensure that all disputes which may arise be resolved in the District, prior to the Announcement, to the extent possible. To further that goal, all Monitors are instructed to cooperate with Observers, insofar as it does not interfere with polling of the District.”

    Each campaign was allowed to have an Observer in each district, overseeing the voting in the District. This process, in fact, allowed a number of challenges to be identified on the floor, adjudicated on the floor (pending final resolution in the tally room), with both campaigns discussing the issue – in the district, during the voting, with members present. This was the process, and it worked. We rooted out instances of human error and corrected them amicably and collaboratively.

    Once a ballot (aka “Tally Sheet”) was filed at the Tally Desk, it was delivered to the Tally Room. Once again, both campaigns were allowed to observe the sheets from the tally desk to the room – effectively shadowing the runners and overseeing the chain of custody.

    The Tally Room in the back had the Chief of Tally Operations and a small team of BU students hired to assist the event – impartial and not related to any campaign. In that room, both campaigns were allowed to have two observers, watching the tally process to ensure accuracy. The tally staff used adding machines and double-checked their work with a second person – all overseen by the Chief of Tally Operations. I arrived to the Tally Room after most of the ballots, as I was personally overseeing floor challenges. When I arrived in the Room, there was one member of party staff and two members of the Fisher campaign in the Room overseeing the tallying.

    Once floor activity diminished, I was in and out of the tally room. While there, I ensured that each campaign only had two representatives. The Parliamentarian set up a table where he heard challenges. At the table were the Parliamentarian, two representatives of the Fisher campaign, one representative of the Baker campaign, and two seats for witnesses. Also in the room were some of the remaining tally staff, the Tally Chief, an additional representative of the Baker campaign and occasional party staff – including me. Several State Committee members were asked to provide testimony during the challenge process.

    Both campaigns sought challenges. From what I saw, none were successful. I was in and out of the room, and therefore not present for the entire process, but there were passionate arguments made by both sides and ultimately, the official tally, as counted in the tally room, stood as the final official result.

    On a personal note, I took this job in an effort to use my 20 years of campaign and political experience, my good name, and the relationships I have forged, to help rebuild the image of our Party leadership – including the State Committee – through hard work, transparency and integrity. It pains me greatly that this process, transparent and collaborative, has devolved into what some believe is an example of something else. It further distresses me that there are allegations which would call into question your integrity and mine.

    As I have publicly said, there was opportunity during the process for human error. It was a process which relied on people. However, the openness of the process at all steps, overseen by both campaigns, was devised as a way to ensure that human error was minimized and hopefully eliminated. It was also devised as a way to eliminate even the most frivolous of allegations of fraudulent interference.

    The process was followed and the challenges in the Tally Room were heard and adjudicated by the Parliamentarian.

    As further developments occur, I will do my very best to keep an open line of communication to each of you.

    Thank you


    Rob Cunningham
    Executive Director
    Massachusetts Republican State Committee

    1. Joshua Norman

      I can’t believe that the MA-GOP was willing to let this go to court. If I was faced with these accusations, I would be trying to resolve it amicably myself.

      1. That’s because
        you’re a reasonable person.
        They figure (and are probably correct) that:
        1. No one cares.
        2. They can buy Fisher off
        3. They have unlimited funding, and can out-lawyer Fisher.

        1. Well, they’re dead wrong on #1.
        The amount of corruption, “early voting” and other incidents at the voting was horrendous. People care. For example, when Bill Ryan and Dot Early OPENLY discussed and “VOTED BAKER” for someone who was NOT in the arena, and said it openly, one of the delegates called Bill a JERK in front of his entire group. Lots of folks are not happy with this B.S.

        2. They underestimated the integrity of the man, because they have none.

        3. True, they probably have an excuse, a rule, a spin, for everything, and bigger lawyers….

        Baker is going to LOSE just on this, unless he OUSTS some of these clowns. If he doesn’t understand the damage his ‘friends’ at the MassGOP are doing to his campaign, then he is delusional.

  4. Rational Republican

    Memo from Kirsten Hughes MA-GOP Chair to State Committee:

    Good Morning State Committee Members,
    As you may know, yesterday afternoon Mark Fisher filed a complaint. I am conferring with our General Counsel, your colleague Ed McGrath. Once we have a strategy, we will have a conference call to share an initial assessment of the matter and answer any questions we can.

    For your information, below is the statement I released to the press yesterday:

    “Our legal counsel will review the specifics of Mr. Mark Fisher’s allegations. We are certain the outcome will prove that processes were properly followed in accordance with our rules. Additionally, all ballot challenges were thoroughly and properly adjudicated in an open manner during the Convention with Mr. Fisher’s legal counsel present. Our Party and our candidates remain focused on proposing solutions to restore common sense and balance to Beacon Hill and we look forward to continuing to hear out Mr. Fisher’s issues and to bring the matter to a close.”

    Attached for your reference is the legal memo I emailed to you yesterday in regards to our legal authority.

    Thank you,


    Letter from MA-GOP Attorney to Kirsten Hughes:

    Michael T. Morley, Esq.
    XXXXX, N.J. 07016
    Admitted to practice in New Jersey
    and the District of Columbia
    March 2014

    The Honorable Kirsten Hughes
    Massachusetts Republican Party
    85 Merrimac Street Suite 400
    Boston, MA 02114

    RE: Authority to Modify Decisions of 2014 Republican State Convention

    Dear Chairman Hughes:

    Attorney Edward B. McGrath asked me to assist him in determining whether the By-laws of the Massachusetts Republican State Committee (“By-laws”) or Rules of the 2014 Massachusetts Republican State Convention (“Convention Rules”) permit the Massachusetts Republican State Committee (“State Committee”), its Executive Committee, or the Chairman of the Massachusetts Republican Party (“Party Chair”) to modify, revise, or reject the outcome of a vote taken at the 2014 Massachusetts Republican State Convention (“Convention”). Acting in association with Attorney McGrath in compliance with Mass. R. Prof’l Cond. 5.5(c)(1)-(2), I have concluded that the State Committee, Executive Committee, and Party Chair lack the authority to modify, revise, or reject the outcome of votes taken at the Convention.

    The By-laws confirm that the State Committee is authorized to hold state conventions for the Party. By-laws, Art. IX, § 1. The State Committee must appoint a Rules Committee to promulgate rules for the convention, which are subject to the State Committee’s approval. Id.
    The Rules Committee did so here, and the Convention Rules therefore govern this issue. See
    also Convention Rules 1.2.2.

    The Convention Rules do not expressly permit the State Party Chair, the Presiding Officer of the Convention, the Executive Committee, or the State Committee itself to modify an act of the Convention, including the outcome of a vote taken at the Convention. The Convention Rules provide, “Any candidate who receives a majority vote of the Convention delegates present and voting in accordance with these Rules shall have the status of the [Party’s] endorsed candidate.” Rule 5; see also Rule 16 (“The votes of a majority of the delegates present and voting must be obtained for endorsement by the Party.”). They further specify, “Only candidates who receive 15% or greater of the Convention vote on any ballot for a particular office may challenge the Convention endorsement for that office in the state primary election,” subject to exceptions that do not apply here. Rule 6.1.

    The State Committee is authorized to allow a person who failed to receive 15% of the vote to appear on the primary ballot only if no one was nominated at the convention. Rule 6.2.
    Because the Convention voted for Charlie Baker, the State Committee lacks authority to permit
    anyone who received less than 15% of the vote at the Convention to appear on the ballot.
    Moreover, the By-laws provide, “The State Committee shall have final approval of all matters
    relating to the conduct of the Convention.” By-laws, art. IX, sec. 1. This suggests that the State Committee has the ex ante power to reject proposed rules, procedures, or legal interpretations concerning the conduct of the Convention, but not ex post authority to reject or revise actions or decisions that the Convention took. Thus, the State Committee appears to lack authority to take action in this matter.

    Rule 11 provides, “The Party chair shall determine the method and order of voting for each vote or election during the Convention.” This Rule reasonably can be read to imply that the Party Chair had power, at the Convention, to determine what does or does not constitute a vote.
    This Rule does not suggest that, once the vote tallies-based on any interpretations the Party
    Chair proffered- were approved by the Convention, the Party Chair retained ex post authority to
    revisit, revise, or modify the outcome.

    It would have taken a 2/3 vote at the Convention to suspend the rules, and that did not occur. Rule 24. It likewise would have taken a 2/3 vote to reconsider an act that the Convention took, arguably including determinations of election results. Rule 21. Since the Convention voted neither to suspend the rules nor reconsider the outcome of any elections, the Party Chair or
    Executive Committee may not now attempt to modify the results of the Convention vote.

    When the Convention concluded its business, a motion to adjourn was made, seconded, and approved by the Convention. The adjournment was sine die, meaning “without day.” It closed the session and dissolved the Convention, since no provision was made for reconvening it.
    No one has the authority to legitimately reconvene the Convention or change its decisions. See
    generally Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, § 8, at 83 (11th ed. 2011); see, e.g., Dodsworth v. Medford, 308 Mass. 62, 65 (1941) (adjournment without day was designedly made to avoid necessity for further action); cf. Loring v. Young, 239 Mass. 349, 363 (1921) (discussing adjournment sine die of Constitutional Convention).

    Thus, for these reasons, neither the State Committee, its Executive Committee, nor the
    Party Chair has the authority to revise, modify or change a decision of the Convention, including
    the outcome of an election conducted at the Convention.


    s Michael T. Morley

    Michael T. Morley

  5. I hereby coin a new word: “RiNOcrats”.

    They’re WORSE than Democrats – they’re RiNOcrats! That includes you too ass haole!

  6. John DiMascio

    Pretty Funny Iron Mike… RINOcrat…better trademark quick…fits real good cause it has the word RAT in in it.

    Reasonable Republican:– Thanks for posting this information. It’s always good to have both sides for people to see.

    What I find most disconcerting is that I heard the convention was adjourned before the final count was arrived at. So that meant Mr. Fisher didn’t have an opportunity bring his objection or challenge heard and voted on by the delegates. Granted he had a very high bar to overturn the ruling of the Parliamentarian. It might have been unlikely that he could garner the 2/3 vote he needed to get ruling overturned. Nonetheless PROCESS MATTERS !!!

    All and all the convention on many levels can be described as cluster-flop run by the Keystone Cops. I know lots of people worked hard. So I don’t mean this personally. Mr. Cunningham is in a very unenviable position. But given the history going back to controversy over the Liberty Delegates that won seats to the RNC Convention and the foibles that occurred during the MA-GOP Chair election, it would have served the MA-GOP far more, if they had gone out of there way to avoid the any possible appearance of malfeasance.

    If indeed the convention adjourned before the business was done; then WHY ???? It wasn’t necessary. What were they thinking? Did they really fear that Fisher, who even by his count, got just over 15% of the vote, would be able to sway 2/3 of the delegates to uphold his challenges?? Of did they just fail to think?
    Either way it’s simply unacceptable.

    For too long the tone from the MA-GOP leadership has been hubris. I give you that in the recent year there has been some real improvement, with the replacement of Mr.Hubris himself — Nate Little by Rob Cunningham. But the conduct of this convention only revives the same old criticism. This didn’t have to happen this way.

  7. Jim Gettens

    Click on the ‘Howard Cosell’ MassGOP Convention ‘Play-by-Play’ Audio. Priceless!

Leave a Comment