Presumably we should be doing that now, since the committee members are likely already coming under pressure to change the independence proposal. Which committee is it?
Meanwhile:
Sent this or something similar to most or all of the co-sponsors:
"Rep Torosian: Wanted to thank you for (if I heard correctly) co-sponsoring the New Hampshire Independence Amendment. Do you have any volunteer stuff I can do to help you, probably somewhat remotely? I live in the nowhere without a car. Usually what I’m best at is spreading the word on local talk radio etc., if you have any concerns or bills you would like to inform the public about.
We have a weekly electronic town hall meeting regarding this legislation… on Sundays 1pm at
drop by if you like! No login required. We try to record and broadcast each meeting on RidleyReport.com and NHexit.org, and you can go there now to see the previous meetings if you wish. NHexit.com lists basically all the places you can observe, or contribute to, the electronic discussion.
Please inform me of any interesting harassment you receive as a result of having the stones to take this stand; I can usually publicize it…the harder they hit us the more support we can achieve if we keep our calm.
Dave Ridley
(phone number)
Winchester "
Rep. Ray Howard responded and suggested that we could help him by being aware of this:
" MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR THE STATE
The Constitutional State of New Hampshire
vs.
the statutory “state” of New Hampshire
The State, the State of New Hampshire was established by the people inhabiting the territory formally called The Province of New Hampshire. This “State” was established by its early inhabitants’ creating a written document; a social compact called the Constitution of New Hampshire. The State is defined in Part II as the Form of Government, and it established, defined and delegated powers, and the obligation of the State, under the laws of the land, for the protection of Part I the Bill of Rights, to make secure the unalienable rights of the people in their pursuit of acquiring, possessing and protecting property —and in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness. The Constitutional State has been recently abolished and replaced with a new federal “state,” with no consent from, or, disclosure to the people.
The Constitutional Republican form of government, called the “State” was designed for a people who were free, self-governing and sovereign. The powers delegated to the State are few and well defined. The Constitution established that only the inhabitants (the qualified voters) of the State, who are the creators of the Laws of the Land, can amend the Constitution of New Hampshire. Under these laws, the State may only exercise those powers delegated to it. The General Court is forbidden from proposing or enacting any;
“orders, laws, statutes, ordinances, directions and instructions, either with penalties or without; so as the same be not repugnant, or contrary to this constitution,” Part II, Form of Government, Article V.
This Form of Government was instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the whole community, and not for the private interests or emolument of any one man, family or class of men;
The aforesaid Form of Government has been perverted, and public liberty has been manifestly endangered by a class of dominant men, for their private interest and emoluments, and that of the special interest they represent.
In order to change the Form of Government without the consent of the people, a new “state” was created by legislative fiat, inside of the State, by bad faith actions, and by previous State actors (members of the General Court and the Governor) who conspired to change our Form of Government. Said changes to the State have been achieved by violating the procedural due process required to achieve the current Form of Government, a federal “state”.
There has never been a proposed amendment, nor has any amendment ever been submitted to, or approved of by the inhabitants of New Hampshire to surrender the sovereignty of the people, a power which stands affirmed, unalienable and retained by the people, and protected by Part I, Bill of Rights.
Article VII. [State Sovereignty.] The people of this State have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in Congress assembled. June 2, 1784
The following are the defined and delegated powers of the “State of New Hampshire”.
PART II.
THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT.
“The people inhabiting the territory formerly called the Province of New Hampshire, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other, to form themselves into a free, sovereign, and independent Body-politic, or State, by the name of the State of New Hampshire.”
THE GENERAL COURT
THE SENATE
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
GOVERNOR
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
SECRETARY OF STATE
STATE TREASURER
ATTORNEY GENERAL
COUNTY TREASURERS
JUDICIARY POWER
CLERKS OF THE COURTS
ENCOURAGEMENT OF LITERATURE, &C.
KNOWLEDGE and learning, generally diffused through a community, being essential to the preservation of a free government, and spreading the opportunities and advantages of education through the various parts of the country, being highly conducive to promote this end; it shall be the duty of the legislators and magistrates, in all future periods of this government to cherish the interest of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries and public schools, to encourage private and public institutions, rewards and immunities for the promotion of agriculture, arts, sciences, commerce, trades, manufactures and natural history of the country; to countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and economy, honesty and punctuality, sincerity, sobriety, and all social affections, and generous sentiments among the people.
Amended 1903 permitting the general court to regulate trusts and monopolies restraining free trade.
Free and fair competition in the trades and industries is an inherent and essential right of the people and should be protected against all monopolies and conspiracies which tend to hinder or destroy it. The size and functions of all corporations should be so limited and regulated as to prohibit fictitious capitalization and, provision should be made for the supervision and government thereof. Therefore, all just power possessed by the state is hereby granted to the general court to enact laws to prevent the operations within the state of all persons and associations, and all trusts and corporations, foreign or domestic, and the officers thereof, who endeavor to raise the price of any article of commerce, or, to destroy free and fair competition in the trades and industries through combination, conspiracy, monopoly, or any other unfair means; to control and regulate the acts of all such persons, associations, corporations, trusts, and officials doing business within the state; to prevent fictitious capitalization; and to authorize civil and criminal proceedings in respect to all the wrongs herein declared against.
The aforesaid are the powers delegated by the People in the Constitution of New Hampshire to the Form of Government, they are part of the Laws of the Land, and those delegated powers begin with, and end with “the consent of the people”;
Part I. Article I,
All men are born equally free and independent; therefore, all government of right originates from the people, is founded in consent, and instituted for the general good.
Note: — “An examination of state constitutions shows that they contain a statement of the rights and privileges of individuals which must not be usurped by officials. Its importance as a part of the fundamental law of a state may be seen in the position it occupies. It is by covenant, a contractual guarantee of those essential rights of individuals subject to that constitution. This idea has come down to us from our early English ancestors, and has been preserved to us through centuries of constant struggle and warfare of the common people against their rulers. It is to be noted that many states hesitated to ratify the constitution of the United States, because it contained no bill of rights, and that ratification was secured in several states only by a pledge that amendments covering the separation of church and state, the rights of personal liberty, of free speech, and of a free press, would be agreed to. This led to the adoption of the first ten amendments to that document, which are now often referred to as our national bill of rights. The idea embodied in the Bills of Rights which are a part of all state constitutions, dates back to 1215, when the English people wrung from King John at Runnymede …a formal acknowledgment of certain rights, privileges and immunities of individuals, enumerated in a document known as the “Magna Charta.” In the Petition of Right, King Charles was compelled to reaffirm these rights of individuals, with certain additions. Some of the articles of the New Hampshire Bill of Rights are traceable directly, even to the form of expression used, to these two documents.”
And the end of Part II. Form of Government;
“…; provided that no alteration shall be made in this constitution before the same shall be laid before the towns and unincorporated places, and approved by two thirds of the qualified voters present, and voting upon the question.” June 4, 1784
The State Constitution precludes the General Court from amending the Laws of the Land, the Constitution, without the consent and approval of the representative body of the people, the “Qualified Inhabitants” of the State by a (2/3) two thirds majority of the voters, in the bi-annual elections.
During the 1960s, New Hampshire Gov. John King violated his oath of Office numerous times throughout his periods in public office, and, as such he committed Treason on the people repeatedly. One of his many acts was signing into law legislative fiat, multiple amendments to the New Hampshire Constitution. In the 1966 November Election voters were submitted eight (8) Ballot questions in the voters’ guide of Nov, 5 1966, and said questions were subversive, intentionally misleading and confusing to voters. These ballot questions were affected and designed to achieve a predetermined outcome by the creation of statutory courts of general jurisdiction, at once abetting and initiating the granting of powers of the governor over the new statutory “state” in direct violation multiple articles of the Constitution of New Hampshire, including Part I, Article VII; State Sovereignty;
Question 8 of the 1966 Ballot was subsequently overturned by the New Hampshire Supreme Court, Re: The N.H. Supreme Court;
“we likewise continue to be governed by the principle that the clearly expressed intent of the voters must prevail over any undisclosed purpose.”
…as is cited in 1967 THOMAS W. GERBER v. JOHN W. KING & a., (Concrete Co. v. Rheaume Builders, 101 N. H. 59, 61; Opinion of the Justices, 101 N. H. 541, 542; Penrod v. Crowley, 82 Idaho 511).
The General Court has in its history, never possessed any such authority to surrender or abolish the sovereignty of the people, as it was created by the people and established in the Constitutional State of New Hampshire, nor did the General Court have the requisite, or, the consensual authority to prescribe, surrender or abolish our sovereignty to the body-corporate styled as the United States government, thereby subjecting the Citizens/Inhabitants of the State to a new federal jurisdiction and control. The effects of such counterfeit actions was intended for the citizens/inhabitants of New Hampshire to become paramount in allegiance to United States, as U.S. citizens; at once attempting intentionally to divest the New Hampshire inhabitants of sovereignty, rights and status without the knowledge or consent of the original Body Politic, whom prior to these subversive actions were lawfully known as the “Citizens” and “Inhabitants” of New Hampshire.
A Statutory “state” was created by the General Court and not by the people. The creation of a new “state,” a federal “state” by the legislature is treasonous, as was the exercise of powers not delegated to them. Such actions are repugnant and contrary to the New Hampshire Constitution, as only the people, the inhabitants (qualified voters) can amend the Constitution of New Hampshire.
This new statutory “state” is redefined as a possession, a territory of the United States. This subversively established a federal jurisdiction and a new compact between the people of the New Hampshire, one intended to be paramount in fidelity to the federal government; with no disclosure or consent from the people. The following case by the Supreme Court of the United States established a test to determine if State sovereignty has been violated by the federal government;
National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833 (1976), subsequently overruled, the national interest in including the states under the regulation was balanced against the intrusion on state sovereignty. Three conditions were used in determining if state sovereignty was violated:
(a) “States as states” (Direct regulation of state or its agencies);
(b) “Traditional state functions”;
(c) Impairment of state ability “to structure integral operations
in areas of traditional functions”.
CHAPTER 21
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
NH RSA, 21:4 State; United States. – The word “state,” when applied to different parts of the United States, may extend to and include the District of Columbia and the several territories, so called; and the words “United States” shall include said district and territories.
This statute assumes a power to the General Court of N.H. not delegated to it. The power to amend the Constitution is reserved to the people. Any use of this statutory construction to enact statutes under the color of law is clearly constructive fraud. A statute cannot be used to change or amend the definition of State (a proper noun), or to change the State of New Hampshire to a federal state (a common noun), the “state” (state, territory or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia). The original text and definition of State in the Constitution of New Hampshire has been replaced in the current Constitution of N.H. version, online, in ninety-six (96) places with no disclosure or consent, and therefore it is in direct violation of the amendment process of the Constitution of New Hampshire. The Constitution for the United States of America defines the members of the Union of the thirteen (13) original States as “States” or “State” and not “state”.
This counterfeit statutory construction has been used to form and erect a “state” within the State of New Hampshire which is repugnant and contrary to the Constitutions; this was conducted in direct violation of Article IV. section 3;
1: “New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.”
An Example of such usurpation of power is the creation of “state” statutes for the unconstitutional agency, the “N.H. Division of Motor Vehicles” which is not a delegated power in the Constitution of New Hampshire, to the State. This clearly is a different “state” by its definition, and was used to establish a jurisdiction foreign to the Constitution of New Hampshire.
CHAPTER 263
DRIVERS’ LICENSES
Driver License Compact
Article II. Definitions
As used in this Compact;
(a) “State” means a state, territory or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
As defined by this statute, the “state” is a territory and possession of the United States, therefore the Citizens/Inhabitants of this State were unwittingly coerced, and by conversion subjected into federal jurisdiction with no disclosure or consent. The people (Citizens of the State) are then subjected to the following edicts;
Article IV. Section 3,
“The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”
It also abolishes the prohibition of the federal government as defined in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution for the United States of America.
9th amendment
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” And;
10th amendment
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
No amendment has ever been submitted to the inhabitants of New Hampshire intending to affect, or to achieve the aforesaid changes. No bill or amendment has ever been submitted to the United States of America in Congress assembled for the creation of a “state” …within the State of New Hampshire.
Part I. Bill of Rights, Article 12;
“But no part of a man’s property shall be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people. Nor are the inhabitants of this State controllable by any other laws than those to which they, or their representative body, have given their consent.”
To you, the reader, this bears asking the following question: “Were the above actions of our N.H. General Court, both of the recent past and present, to be considered as treasonous?”
You decide…
A Citizen and Inhabitant, dwelling in the State of New Hampshire,
Daniel Richard "