Letter Submission

To submit a letter to the editor, please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Letters must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published. We do not run anonymous letters. Local issues get priority, as do local writers. We encourage writers to keep letters to no more than 400 words, but will accept longer letters to be run on a space-available basis. Letters may be edited for spelling, grammar, punctuation and legal concerns.


I seems to be the non-religious who protest the longest & loudest

To The Daily Sun,

Mr. Siden finding it ludicrous that I consider the Founding Fathers to be conservatives isn't surprising, that he might have thought about what I'd wrote and found himself agreeable to it would have been quite surprising.

Stanford.edu has an article on liberalism; one may assign to it as they wish. The liberals, or more correctly, libertarians, of 1776 were for limited government, especially of the national government; it is why the U.S. Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights, is seen as limiting the federal government. I am quite aware of the torturous path over the last 100-plus years taken to re-left history to apply the modern liberal ideology. Mr. Siden says that they were extremely liberal as if to say they were liberal isn't accurate enough, then lumps in progressive to cinch the accuracy of his claim. As if needing additional foundation added 'that it is pretty well settled history'.

Liberals today are not the "liberals" of 1787, who founded a limited republican government; not even Mr. Siden can claim we have a limited government today.

As to Mr. Siden saying, ". . . why must we disenfranchise other faiths by falsely claiming to be a "Christian nation?" It was (and still may be to some extent) that people of other nations come here for the freedom we have. I believe they have well enjoyed just that. It has seemed to be the non-religious who have protested the loudest and longest, stripping religious reference from everything (the money must burn in their hands). Those of Christian faith seeking to retain and preserve their rights are also aiding those of other religions, religions even more stringent and those such as the ACLU will one day be arguing against, that is if they remain honest to their agenda.

James Madison also wrote (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s23.html) "...Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right." Perhaps the liberals of the 21st century might promote the citizen's right of conscience (Article 4 – NH Constitution) rather than coddle to those who live for the moment's whim and hold others responsible and deny their right of conscience. Should I live to see the day — doubt it!

G.W. Brooks


  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 170

Lawyers only ones who got income from city pushing W-9

To The Daily Sun,

The Laconia Daily Sun reported in an article by Michael Kitch titled, "City spent more than $3,500 on challenge to 2013 election in Ward 5." The article starts by saying, "At a separate hearing in Belknap County Superior Court, at which the city was not represented, Justice Larry Smukler awarded Gammon's costs, amounting to $280.76." The hearing on costs was in Merrimack County Superior Court on Nov. 19, 2013 and the court ruled, "The defendant failed to appear after due notice. Based on the failure to appear, the plaintiff's request for an award of costs is granted."

The city filed a motion for reconsideration claiming the City Attorney Laura Spector-Morgan did not receive notice of the November 19 hearing. The court keeps records of who "prepares, date sent, receiving party and receiving address." In a note, a Belknap clerk writes, "Judge Smukler, This is just an FYI to show that a notice of hearing was sent to Mitchell Municipal Group." It is listed twice as being sent to the Mitchell Group, it was not returned to the court as not delivered.

The reporter makes the following statement, "The city requires a W-9 form of all individuals to whom it makes payments of any amount as part of its record keeping and internal control processes. The form has no bearing on whether or not a payment represents taxable income." This is the reporter's opinion in support of the City of Laconia's losing position. The Supreme Court ruled on Oct. 10, 2014, "Regardless of whether the city's internal control; policy requires that payees of court-ordered costs provide W-9 forms, nothing in Rule 45 purports to obligate a prevailing party to comply with a defendant's internal accounting policies in order to be entitled to an award of costs." "Because Rule 45 generally entitles a prevailing party to certain costs as a matter of right, we conclude that the trial court erred by conditioning its award of costs to the petitioner upon his providing a W-9 form."

The IRS W-9 Form which state under, "purpose of form, Is for reporting income paid to you." Court costs are not income. Nothing in Laconia's Internal Control Policy has to do with court costs.

Reporter Kitch makes this statement, "Altogether Gammon was awarded $816.49 in legal costs, the original $280.76 plus added costs incurred during the appeal to the Supreme Court, while the city spent $2,727.38 in attorney's fees, a significant share of which was incurred contesting his claim that he should not be required to submit a W-9 Form."

The N.H. Supreme Court Ruled that I'm not required to submit a W-9 Form. The city's attorney fees were $1,747.95 for Superior Court and $979.43 for Supreme Court, plus the cost of a "Partial Objection To Petitioner's Request For Reimbursement", the cost of which has not been reported.

In that objection the city correctly quotes, "Supreme Court Rule 23 provides the following costs accrued at the Supreme Court shall be awarded to the prevailing party: the entry fee, the actual cost of reproducing and binding the notice of appeal and any appendix, the actual cost of reproducing and binding the brief and any appendix, and cost of transcript." After quoting Rule 23 the city objected to, the actual cost of reproducing and binding the brief and the reply brief for $233.48. The Supreme Court Clerk of Court on Nov. 19, 2014, issued the an order granting the $233.48 for binding the brief and reply brief, the entry fee of $250 and the transcript for $52.25, for a total of $535.73.

Laura Spector-Morgan and the Mitchell Group are the only ones who have any income from this court case. They are required by the City of Laconia's Internal Control Policy to complete a W-9 Form.

David Gammon

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 554