The New Hampshire Declaration of Abjuration and Reformation

(July 9, 2012)

(additional commentary by NH State Rep. Timothy Horrigan; December 15, 2012)

This is for informational purposes only: I certainly do not advocate secession from the United States of America. I am not even in favor of the re-adoption of the Articles of Confederation.

See also:

Petitioner Gus Breton led a small group (speaking as "the People of New Hampshire") who recently issued "The New Hampshire Declaration of Abjuration and Reformation" dated July 5, 2012. Petitioners David Johnson and Marie Miller are also members of this group. This document makes several references to the Breton petition and other House petitions.



As it is apparent to all that a government is constituted by a sovereign people to administer the will of the people, to defend them from oppression and violence; and whereas God did not create the people slaves to their government, to obey its commands, whether right or wrong, but rather God created a people imbued with reason, who established a government for their common benefit, protection, and security: to administer the laws and rules the people have found right and meet to establish for mutual peace and prosperity, to witness in the body politic the inexpressible love the Creator has manifested in his creation of natural law, and to defend and preserve themselves, even at the hazard of life, in support of the convictions their Creator has placed in their hearts.

Whenever the ends of government are manifestly endangered and the power delegated to the government is perverted to oppress the people in their practices and beliefs, seeking opportunities to infringe on their ancient customs and rights, exacting from them a slavish compliance, then this is no longer a government approved by God and constituted by the people, but a tyrannous mob, and the people must consider it in no other view. This condition is more particularly venomous when this usurpation is done deliberately, unauthorized by the people or by their representatives. When such a time arises in the course of human events, the people may not only disallow this authority, but lawfully put aside and abjure this government and its officers for the choice of an administration and officers more favored in the light of their own eyes. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of all humanity.

This is the only method left for people whose humble petitions and pleadings have never softened the hardened hearts of the administrators of a government, nor have dissuaded officers from the tyrannous progress of their designs. This is what the law of nature and our sovereign God dictate for the defense of liberty, which we have an obligation to pass down to our posterity, even at the hazard of our own lives.

Now, thus, we have seen numerous acts of violence and tyranny exacted by judges and officers of the courts of New Hampshire on its sovereign citizens:

Judges have allowed children to be taken from fit parents in secret hearings without recourse to the law for many years.

Judges have unlawfully removed children from the care of their fit parents, then continued to deny the familial love and interest of the children and their parents, by violating criminal laws to cover up the original unlawful removal and to fabricate evidence against the already aggrieved parents to cover up the first crimes against the families.

Judges have allowed friends of the court to claim the authority of the court without appointment, to claim fees for services never contracted, to determine court decisions without hearing, and then to threaten the abused, who refused to pay and refused these services, with indefinite incarceration merely for objecting to the court's authority to ignore the law.

Judges have violated laws of the legislature, then, refusing to recuse themselves from their criminal trials, participated as both criminal defendant and judge, exonerating themselves of wrongdoing.

Judges have created, sua sponte, a class of individuals, guardians ad litem, who have the full authority of judges to go about the people and report back to the judges alleged crimes and infractions, which the judges then act upon without trial, incarcerating citizens, threatening and denying them liberty, and taking their property without any recourse in law against said guardians and their false reports.

Judges have unlawfully removed children in secret hearings from the care of fit parents for the practice of Christian worship, prayer, Bible study, and attendance at church, for many years without recourse to a hearing.

Judges have neglected the best interests of our children by rejecting the statutes the New Hampshire General Court enacted to protect families under RSA 461-A, Parental Rights and Responsibilities.

Judges have denied parents federally protected rights of life, liberty, and property, without due process of law and without equal protection under the law.

Judges have knowingly and willfully violated their own code of Judicial Conduct in woeful disregard of impartiality and fairness, have demonstrated abject bias and prejudice against parents, have denied parents the right to be heard in court, have compelled parents to bear witness against themselves, demanded excessive bail and incarcerated parents when challenged to conform to the law that their own oaths demand they uphold.

Judges have denied parents the right to counsel, the right to be heard, and have ignored the numerous petitions to rectify these plain errors of the court, resulting in yet further abuse and injury of parents and their children.

Judges have denied the right to freedom of the press, after one of their own was documented on video and before the eyes of the world ordering a false arrest and alleging infamous and non-existent crimes against a journalist.

Judges have been invited to House of Representatives to answer for their actions and, without exception, have refused to even appear and explain their actions, indicating their signal disdain and disregard for the people and their representatives.

Judges have committed perjury, sworn and unsworn falsification, criminal violations of procedure, ruling on their own criminal prosecutions, and other criminal acts, for which they refuse to hold one another to account, but rather, through the involvement of their own cabal, have mutually protected one another in a mutual chain of deceit.

Judges have permitted the state banking departments to assert authority wrongfully over citizens and subject them to unlawful and oppressive prosecution, for which they have had to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to win acquittal in constitutionally prohibited prosecutions.

Judges have subjected citizens to wrongful incarceration without the required speedy trial, without proper bail, without choice of counsel, and without access to any resources to prepare a defense, thereby attempting to ensure conviction by imposition of a structural bar.

DCYF has made materially false statements about parents, failed to disclose sexual assaults of minors in their care, allowed its own nurses to determine medical care for a minor against the orders of a practicing physician, slandered parents to school staff in order to frustrate parental care, and refused to comply with court orders for family visits frustrating family contact.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated petitions have been answered by repeated injury only. A government whose every act is thus marked by the above-cited injuries and abuses is unfit to administer the will of a free and sovereign people. It is essential to the preservation of the rights of every individual, his life, liberty, property, and character, that there be an impartial interpretation of the laws, and administration of justice. It is, therefore, not only the best policy, but for the security of the rights of the people, that the judges of the courts should hold their offices so long as they behave well.

So, despairing of any hope from the courts and finding no other remedy, we have, agreeable to the law of nature and to our own sovereign liberty in our own defense and for maintaining the rights, privileges and liberties of our fellow citizens and our future posterity from being enslaved by the courts, do hereby abjure and renounce the authority of the courts and pursue such methods as appear to us most likely to secure our ancient liberties and rights. Being reduced to the last extremity, as witnessed by the foul acts above, we have unanimously and deliberately declared that the courts of New Hampshire have forfeited, ipso jure, all authority over the people of this State, and we also are determined henceforward not to acknowledge the courts' authority or jurisdiction, but rather to dissolve their existence from across the breadth and width of the land.

We, therefore, the People of the State of New Hampshire, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do solemnly publish and declare the following acts of abjuration and reformation of the courts:

  • Pass CACR 26.

  • Rededicate Cheshire Superior Court as Thomas Ball Memorial Court of Cheshire County.

  • Convene a Constitutional Convention July 1, 2013, in Concord to reform and re-establish the Courts of the State, according to the will of the people and their representatives.

Notes from Rep. Horrigan about the three proposed acts of abjuration and reformation:

  • Constitutional Amendment Question No. 2 (taking away the judiciary's authority to set and enforce its own rules) failed to get even a simple majority on November 6, 2012. It got 49%, falling far short of the needed two-thirds.

  • Constitutional Amendment Question No. 3 (calling for a Constitutional Convention) only needed a simple majority on November 6, 2012. But, it got just 36% of the vote. Even if Question 3 had passed, the "ConCon" would been held long after July 1, 2013. The default date for electing the delegates would have been the next general election, November 4, 2014, although the legislature could have called for an earlier election. The ConCon would not necessarily be obligated to meet at Concord.

  • Thomas Ball was a troubled man who in June 2011 set himself on fire in front of a courthouse in Keene, NH after writing an extremely disturbing "last statement." He was involved in a conflicted divorce/child custody case.

This group seems to believe that New Hampshire legally already has seceded from the United States, thanks to the formation of the socalled "Union States People on New Hampshire." The "New Hampshire Assembly" is part of a nationwide network of very small secessionist (or "recessionist") groups, whose longterm aim evidently is to replace the current Constitution of the United States with the Articles of Confederation more than to dissolve the union altogether. The original 13 colonies are "Union States" while other states are "territory states." Vermont is (apparently) not recognized as a Union State, even though it was recognized by the 13 former colonies from 1777 to 1791 as an independent American republic. It is unclear what distinction is made between those territory states (between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi) which were part of the United States of America in 1776, and those from areas to the west and south annexed at various times between 1803 and 1898. It is also unclear if Maine and West Virginia have a different status from the other territory states. Those two were formed from areas which were for many years an integral part of their parent states, Massachusetts and Virginia respectively. The various states between the Appalachians and Mississippi were formed from land which formerly belonged to eastern states only because bureaucrats drew lines on a map (although Kentucky was Kentucky County, Virginia for a few years.)

For more info see:

Gus's group recognizes the 1560 Geneva Bible as their law, supplemented by the 1776 Declaration of Independence, the 1777 Articles of Confederation and the 1784 New Hampshire Constitution (except of course as they may be repugnant to the 1560 Geneva Bible.) Although they don't recognize the 1791 United State Constitution, they do recognize the "Missing 13th Amendment" which was ratified by 12 states in the early 1810s, which even then was not a sufficient number of states. It would now need to be ratified by 26 more states before it could take effect. That (proposed) amendment reads:

It basically adds a rather severe punishment to what was (and still is) stipulated by the final paragraph of Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution:

The importance of the missing 13th amendment is related to the (rather dubious) theory that lawyers who call themselves "Esquire" (e.g., Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.) (and/or who belong to the American Bar Association) hold an office from the Queen of England. It is unclear whether Gus and cohorts would allow any of the lawyers or judges involved in his case to become citizens of the newly independent State of New Hampshire.

Just in case you are wondering, the first paragraph of Article VI of the Articles of Confederation reads much the same as the Constitution sans Missing Amendment XIII:

See Also:


The Forgotten Liars

2013 Session