2013 Petitions to the New Hampshire House: The "Stand Your Ground" Petition

additional commentary by Timothy Horrigan; April 22, 2013 &: May 6, 2013 & May 28, 2013


See:

One of the oddest and most infuriating events of my first five years in the New Hampshire House has been the "Stand Your Ground" peitition. It was filed on behalf of someone named Peter Hahn and three other persons by Representatives Al Baldasaro, John Hikel and Lennette Peterson.

Basically, the 189 state representatives who voted in favor of a bill making a rather minor change to a self-defense statute have supposedly violated their oaths of office and most be removed forthwith. (I am one of the so-called "Concord 189.") The four petitioners on this version of the petition included two individuals who appear to be missing from the state's voter lists. However, I did find at least one person with same name as the first signatory, Peter Hahn. And. I can personally vouch for the existence of signatory Kevin Avard (who is a former state rep from Nashua.)

This was rather prematurely inspired by a narrow 189-185 vote in favor of HB 135, "an act relative to physical force in defense of a person and relative to the definition of non-deadly force." I say "rather prematurely" because it was filed before the Senate could even hold hearings on it. (The Senate, by the way, is not expected to vote for it.) Supposedly, the House vote was not merely questionable: it was so unconstitutional that every Representative who voted the wrong way was forfeiting their office, and even committing a crime. The petitioners do acknowledge that Article 30 of the state constitution's Bill of Rights states that the "freedom of deliberation, speech, and debate, in either house of the legislature, is so essential to the rights of the people, that it cannot be the foundation of any action, complaint, or prosecution, in any other court or place whatsoever." But, they claim that this protection does not extend to the actual votes.  The "Concord 189" are supposdly guilty of Breach of Oath of Office and Conspiracy Against Rights ("Violation of 18 USC § 241.")

State Rep. Dan Itse told the Manchester Union Leader's state house reporter Garry Rayno that he planned to bring a petition proposal before the Rules Committee in May. The committee met on May 21, and Itse failed to show up. On May 23, the Senate laid HB 135, on the table (thus killing the bill) but that doesn't necessarily mean this petition or the criminal complaints are over and done with.


Here is the text of the petition taken from a badly scanned 3rd generation photocopy. There are doubtless some typos in this text, and lots of formatting (e.g., bold facing and underlining) is missing:




  1. WE, the undersigned People of New Hampshire, bring this Part the First, Article 31 Demand for Redress against the 189 members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives who on March 27th, 2013 conspired to deprive We the People of our Rights by voting in favor of HB 135 thereby violating their Oaths of Office.

    1. Article 31 - The legislature shall assemble for the redress of public grievances and for making such laws as the public good may require.

  2. We bring our demands for Redress against these 189 New Hampshire Representatives by the authority We reserved and secured by Part the first, Articles, 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 , 10 and 12.

    1. Article l.- All men are born equally tree and independent; therefore, all government of right originates from the people, is founded in consent, and instituted forthe general good.

    2. Article 2 – All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights - among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by this state on account of race, creed, color, sex or national origin.

    3. Article 3 - When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, in order to ensure the protection of others, and without such an equivalent, that surrender is void.

    4. Article 7 - 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.

    5. Article 8 - All power residing originally in, and being derived from, the people, all the magistrates and officers of government are their substitutes and agents, and at all times accountable to them. Government, therefore, should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive. To that end, the public's right of access to governmental proceedings and records shall not be unreasonably restricted.

    6. Article 10 - Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

    7. Article 12 - Every member of the community has a right to be protected by it, in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property; he is therefore bound to contribute his share in the expense of such protection. and to yield his personal service when necessary. 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.

  3. These 189 members dervie no immunity from Article 30 of the New Hampshire Bill of Rights as this immunity only extends to "deliberation, speech and debate" and not to the votes cast in favor of laws that are clearly contrary and repugnant to the fundamental principles of the New Hampshire and United States constitutions.

  4. On March 27th, 2013, contrary to Our constitutions, these 189 duly elected members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives who had taken an Article 84 Oath to accept the trust and bear faith and true allegiance to Our constitutions, breached the Public Trust by voting in favor of HB135 thereby violating their Oaths of Office and the following provisions of said constitutions.

  5. They breached Article 38 of the New Hampshire Bill of Rights ` which gives Us the "right to reguire of their lawgivers" ..., "an exact and constant observance of'..."the fundamental principles of the constitution"..."in the formation and execution of the laws necessary for the good administration of govenment."

  6. By their votes in favor of HB135, these 189 members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives have proven they are not qualified to hold office according to the standards We set forth it Article 38 on June 2nd, 1784.

  7. They breached Part the Second, Article 5 of the New Hampshire Constitution by voting in favor of a bill that is "repugnant and contrag to this constitution"..."for the necessary support and defense of the government thereof".

  8. They breached the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution by drastically infringing on My Right to bear arms in defense of the People of New Hampshire and of the United States of America.

  9. They breached Article 2 of the New Hampshire Bill of Rights by diminishing My Right to seek and obtain Happiness.

  10. They breached Article 2-a of the New Hampshire Bill of Rights by diminishing My Right to keep and bear arms wherever I may be.

  11. They breached Article 3 of the New Hampshire Bill of Rights by voiding any Rights I may have surrendered to secure others such as those enumerated in the Bills of Rights.

  12. They breached Article 4 of the New Hampshire Bill of Rights by diminishing My capacity to protect the People of New Hampshire according to my conscience wherever I may be.

  13. They breached Article 10 of the New Hampshire Bill of Rights by perverting the ends of govemment and endangering the public liberty and eradicating My ability to prevent the very same from coming to fruition.

  14. They breached Article 12 of the New Hampshire Bill of Rights by neutering My responsibility to contribute my personal service to protect the community whenever I may find Myself in it.

  15. They breached Article 12 of the New Hampshire Bill of Rights by indirectly stealing my intangible property and and giving it to the law enforcement community for the purpose of private development.

    1. Noah Webster 1828 - Property:

      1. #1 - A peculiar quality of any thing; that which is inherent in a subject, or naturally essential to it; called by logicians an essential mode. Thus color is a property of light; extension and figure are properties of bodies.

      2. #2 - An acquired or artificial quality; that which is given by art or bestowed by man. The poem has the properties which constitute excellence.

    2. My property includes, among the others listed herein:

      1. My Article 7 Right of self-governance

      2. My duty to protect Article 13 Conscientious Objectors

      3. My Article 12 responsibility to the community



1828 Noah Webster

http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/redress



REDRESS', v.t.



  1. To set right; to amend.
    In yonder spring of roses, find what to redress till noon.
    [In this sense, as applied to material things, rarely used.]

  2. To remedy; to repair; to relieve from, and sometimes to indemnify for; as, to redress wrongs; to redress injuries; to redress grievances.
    Sovereigns are bound to protect their subjects, and redress their grievances.

  3. To ease; to relieve; as, she labored to redress my pain.
    [We use this verb before the person or the thing. We say, to redress an injured person, or to redress the injury. The latter is most common.]



REDRESS', n.

  1. Reformation; amendment.
    For us the more necessary is a speedy redress of ourselves.
    [This sense is now unusual.]

  2. Relief; remedy; deliverance from wrong, injury or oppression; as the redress of grievances.
    We applied to government, but could obtain no redress
    There is occasion for redress when the cry is universal.

  3. Reparation; indemnification. [This sense is often directly intended or implied in redress.]

  4. One who gives relief.
    Fair majesty, the refuge and redress of those whom fate pursues and wants oppress

THEREFORE We, the undersigned People of New Hampshire demand the following redress from the New Hampshire Senate and the remaining members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives in accord with Article 31 of the New Hampshire Bill of Rights.

  1. The immediate removal from office of these 189 disqualified members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives.

  2. The immediate nullification of any of the votes these 189 members have cast during their current term in office.

  3. The scheduling of a special election as soon as possible to replace these 189 members with people qualified to be those seats.

Ironically, or maybe not so ironically, this petition is totally unconstitutional. Only the legislature can remove members for wrongdoing, and they cannot be prosecuted simply for voting the wrong way. The proponents of this bill propose to try the rogue legislators using a procedure which is found nowhere in the state or federal constitutions: i.e., a self-selected body (consisting of exactly 25 sovereign citizens) called a "Quo Warranto? Board of Review" would appoint a "Quo Warranto? Jury." (Or, something along those lines.)

This procedure is apparently derived from Article 61 of the Magna Carta:

  • 61. Cum autem pro Deo, et ad emendacionem regni nostri, et ad melius sopiendum discordiam inter nos et barones nostros ortam, hec omnia predicta concesserimus, volentes ea integra et firma stabilitate in perpetuum gaudere, facimus et concedimus eis securitatem subscriptam; videlicet quod barones eligant viginti quinque barones de regno quos voluerint, qui debeant pro totis viribus suis observare, tenere, et facere observari, pacem et libertates quas eis concessimus, et hac presenti carta nostra confirmavimus; ita scilicet quod, si nos, vel justiciarius noster, vel ballivi nostri, vel aliquis de ministris nostris, in aliquo erga aliquem deliquerimus, vel aliquem articulorum pacis aut securitatis transgressi fuerimus, et delictum ostensum fuerit quatuor baronibus de predictis viginti quinque baronibus, illi quatuor barones accedant ad nos vel ad justiciarium nostrum, si fuerimus extra regnum, proponentes nobis excessum; petent ut excessum illum sine dilacione faciamus emendari. Et si nos excessum non emendaverimus, vel, si fuerimus extra regnum, justiciarius noster non emendaverit infra tempus quadraginta dierum computandum a tempore quo monstratum fuerit nobis vel justiciario nostro, si extra regnum fuerimus, predicti quatuor barones referant causam illam ad residuos de illis viginti quinque baronibus, et illi viginti quinque barones cum communia tocius terre distringent et gravabunt nos modis omnibus quibus poterunt, scilicet per capcionem castrorum, terrarum, possessionum, et aliis modis quibus poterunt, donec fuerit emendatum secundum arbitrium eorum, salva persona nostra et regine nostre et liberorum nostrorum; et cum fuerit emendatum intendent nobis sicut prius fecerunt. Et quicumque voluerit de terra juret quod ad predicta omnia exequenda parebit mandatis predictorum viginti quinque baronum, et quod gravabit nos pro posse suo cum ipsis, et nos publice et libere damus licenciam jurandi cuilibet qui jurare voluerit, et nulli umquam jurare prohibebimus. Omnes autem illos de terra qui per se et sponte sua noluerint jurare viginti quinque baronibus de distringendo et gravando nos cum eis, faciemus jurare eosdem de mandato nostro sicut predictum est. Et si aliquis de viginti quinque baronibus decesserit, vel a terra recesserit, vel aliquo alio modo impeditus fuerit, quominus ista predicta possent exequi, qui residui fuerint de predictis viginti quinque baronibus eligant alium loco ipsius, pro arbitrio suo, qui simili modo erit juratus quo et ceteri. In omnibus autem que istis viginti quinque baronibus committuntur exequenda, si forte ipsi viginti quinque presentes fuerint, et inter se super re aliqua discordaverint, vel aliqui ex eis summoniti nolint vel nequeant interesse, ratum habeatur et firmum quod major pars eorum qui presentes fuerint providerit, vel preceperit ac si omnes viginti quinque in hoc consensissent; et predicti viginti quinque jurent quod omnia antedicta fideliter observabunt, et pro toto posse suo facient observari. Et nos nichil impetrabimus ab aliquo, per nos nec per alium, per quod aliqua istarum concessionum et libertatum revocetur vel minuatur; et, si aliquid tale impetratum fuerit, irritum sit et inane et numquam eo utemur per nos nec per alium

  • (translated into Modern English):
    61. Since, moreover, for God and the amendment of our kingdom and for the better allaying of the quarrel that has arisen between us and our barons, we have granted all these concessions, desirous that they should enjoy them incomplete and firm endurance for ever, we give and grant to them the underwritten security, namely, that the barons choose five-and-twenty barons of the kingdom, whomsoever they will, who shall be bound with all their might, to observe and hold, and cause to be observed, the peace and liberties we have granted and confirmed to them by this our present Charter, so that if we, or our justiciar, or our bailiffs or any one of our officers, shall in anything beat fault toward any one, or shall have broken any one of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offense be notified to four barons of the foresaid five-and-twenty, the said four barons shall repair to us (or our justiciar, if we are out of the realm) and, laying the transgression before us, petition to have that transgression redressed without delay. And if we shall not have corrected the transgression (or, in the event of our being out of the realm, if our justiciar shall not have corrected it) within forty days, reckoning from the time it has been intimated to us (or to our justiciar, if we should be out of the realm), the four barons aforesaid shall refer that matter to the rest of the five-and-twenty barons, and those five-and-twenty barons shall, together with the community of the whole land, distrain and distress us in all possible ways, namely, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other way they can, until redress has been obtained as they deem fit, saving harmless our own person, and the persons of our queen and children; and when redress has been obtained, they shall resume their old relations toward us. And let whoever in the country desires it, swear to obey the orders of the said five-and-twenty barons for the execution of all the aforesaid matters, and along with them, to molest us to the utmost of his power; and we publicly and freely grant leave to every one who wishes to swear, and we shall never forbid any one to swear. All those, moreover, in the land who of themselves and of their own accord are unwilling to swear to the twenty-five to help them in constraining and molesting us, we shall by our command compel the same to swear to the effect aforesaid. And if any one of the five-and-twenty barons shall have died or departed from the land, or be incapacitated in any other manner which would prevent the foresaid provisions being carried out, those of the said twenty-five barons who are left shall choose another in his place according to their own judgment, and he shall be sworn in the same way as the others. Further, in all matters, the execution of which is intrusted to these twenty-five barons, if perchance these twenty-five are present, that which the majority of those present ordain or command shall be held as fixed and established, exactly as if the whole twenty-five had concurred in this; and the said twenty-five shall swear that they will faithfully observe all that is aforesaid, and cause it to be observed with all their might. And we shall procure nothing from any one, directly or indirectly, whereby any part of these concessions and liberties might be revoked or diminished; and if any such thing has been procured, let it be void and null, and we shall never use it personally or by another.


All this fuss is over a bill which makes an extremely minor change to the law on self defense. In fact, it would merely put the law back the way it has been since 1971. In 2011, the socalled "castle doctrine" was extended from your home to anyplace you have the right to be. The castle doctrine creates a rebuttable presumption that you were acting in self-defense whenever you use deadly force against another person in your home (and/or anyplace else you have a right to be)— but regardless of where you are, the use of deadly force is only legal when you are acting in self-defense.

There has been a heated debate which has little or nothing to do with anything which the bill actually says. Moreover, no one seems to know of any criminal cases which have actually been effected by the 2011 legislation— although there was the Ward Bird case back in 2006 (before the law was changed.)  That involved a man who may or may not have pulled a gun on a woman who  took a wrong turn in the woods and mistakenly drove up to his trailer.

Here is the bill as passed by the "Concord 189":

HB 135 – AS AMENDED BY THE HOUSE

27Mar2013… 0341h

2013 SESSION

13-0281
04/09

HOUSE BILL 135

AN ACT relative to physical force in defense of a person and relative to the definition of non-deadly force.

SPONSORS: Rep. Shurtleff, Merr 11
COMMITTEE: Criminal Justice and Public Safety

AMENDED ANALYSIS

This bill eliminates the provision allowing a person to use deadly force anywhere he or she has a right to be.



Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.

Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]

Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.

27Mar2013… 0341h
13-0281
04/09

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Thirteen

AN ACT relative to physical force in defense of a person and relative to the definition of non-deadly force.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 Physical Force in Defense of a Person. Amend RSA 627:4, III to read as follows:

III. A person is not justified in using deadly force on another to defend himself or herself or a third person from deadly force by the other if he or she knows that he or she and the third person can, with complete safety:

(a) Retreat from the encounter, except that he or she is not required to retreat if he or she is within his or her dwelling[,] or its curtilage, [or anywhere he or she has a right to be,] and was not the initial aggressor; or

(b) Surrender property to a person asserting a claim of right thereto; or

(c) Comply with a demand that he or she abstain from performing an act which he or she is not obliged to perform; nor is the use of deadly force justifiable when, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, the person has provoked the use of force against himself or herself in the same encounter; or

(d) If he or she is a law enforcement officer or a private person assisting the officer at the officer's direction and was acting pursuant to RSA 627:5, the person need not retreat.

2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.


The petition appears to have been written by the same people who wrote Gus Breton's July 2012 "New Hampshire Declaration of Abjuration and Reformation." The seemingly gratuitous references in the petition to Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary are actually very significant. Petitioners Gus Breton and David Johnson lead a small band of secessionists who have declared that this dictionary is "our only language; to the exclusion of all other words and definitions from any source whatever".

It is unclear what parliamentary action could result from this petition. It was filed on April 9, 2013, but the Speaker and House Clerk have refused to put it in the weekly calendar. Even if a motion to refer this petition to a committee is in order, it would presumably fail. Another possibility is that the petition sponsors and other representatives associated with this effort could be censured.

In addition to this petition, criminal complaints are being filed in various counties. I would be one of the 189 targets of these complaints but I have not been arrested or even summonsed yet. The only such document I have seen is the Rep. John Hikel's "Emergency Verified Complaint" filed in Hillsborough County on April 11th. Like the petition, it reads as if it was written by the same people who write Gus Breton's stuff. (Gus Breton actually does most of his own writing, I am sure.)

Here is the text of the main section of the criminal complaint (as taken from a document released on April 22, 2013, intended for use by those who want to follow in Hikel et al.'s footsteps.):

  1. Stephen Shurtleff, a member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, for the purpose of "accepting the trust" according to Article 84 of the New Hampshire Constitution, has sworn or affirmed the following Oaths.

    1. I, Stephen Shurtleff, do solemnly swear, that I will bear faith and true allegiance to the United States of America and the state of New Hampshire, and will support the constitution thereof. So help me God.

    2. I, Stephen Shurtleff, do solemnly and sincerely swear and affirm that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all duties incumbent on me as Representative according to the best of my abilities, agreeably to the rules and regulations of this constitution and laws of the state of New Hampshire. So help me God.

  2. The members of the New Hampshire House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee, hereinafter "the Committee," have also sworn their own proper Oaths of Office for the purpose of "accepting the trust" as have the 189 members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives who voted in favor of House Bill 135 on March 27th, 2013.

  3. Having been duly elected and having sworn or affirmed their oaths of office, Stephen Shurtleff, as well as all other New Hampshire House of Representatives members mentioned herein were lawfully seated as the lawgivers mentioned in Part the First, Article 38 of the New-Hampshire Bill of Rights, hereinafter Article 38.

  4. According to Article 38, The People of New Hampshire have a "right to require of their lawgivers" …, "an exact and constant observance of"..."the fundamental principles of the constitution"..."in the formation and execution of the laws necessary for the good administration of government."

  5. Stephen Shurtleff willfully violated his Oath of Office and Article 38 of the New Hampshire Bill of Rights by submiting a bill, hereinafter HB135, that was clearly contrary to the fundamental principles of the New Hampshire Constitution.

  6. During the Committees executive session, twelve members of the Committee voted in favor of HB135 and thereby violated their Oaths of Office and the Rights of the People secured by Article 38.

  7. On March 27th, 2013, contrary to the clear language of Article 38, Stephen Shurtleff as well as 188 other members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives again violated their Oaths of Office by voting in favor of HB135 and thereby Breaching the Public Trust of the People of New Hampshire mentioned in #2 above.

  8. Contrary to 18 USC § 241, Stephen Shurtleff , the 12 Committee Members and the 188 House members, hereinafter "the accused," thus conspired to deprive Me, one of the People of New Hampshire, of My Rights by voting in favor of HB135.

  9. The accused have thus breached Part the Second, Article 5 of the New Hampshire Constitution by voting in favor of a bill which is "repugnant and contrary to this constitution"..."for the necessary support and defense of the government thereof."

  10. The accused derive no immunity from Article 30 of the New Hampshire Bill of Rights as this immunity only extends to deliberation, speech and debate and not to the formation of laws which are clearly repugnant and contrary to the fundamental principles of the New Hampshire Constitution.

  11. The accused derive no immunity from Article 30 of the New Hampshire Bill of Rights as this immunity only extends to deliberation, speech and debate and not to casting votes in favor of laws which are clearly repugnant and contrary to the fundamental principles of the New Hampshire Constitution.

  12. Contrary to Article 38, the accused, by their actions, have disqualified themselves and are thus ineligible to hold office as lawgivers in the New Hampshire General Court because their actions prove they have failed to meet the requirements set by the People in Article 38;

    1. "A frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of the constitution, and a constant adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, industry, frugality, and all the social virtues, are indispensably necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty and good government; the people ought, therefore, to have a particular regard to all those principles in the choice of their officers and representatives, and they have a right to require of their lawgivers and magistrates, an exact and constant observance of them, in the formation and execution of the laws necessary for the good administration of government." June 2, 1784

  13. In breach of the 2nd Amendment to the United States constitution and Article 24 of the New Hampshire Bill of Rights, the accused threaten, via HB 135, to drastically infringe and diminish My Right to bear arms in defense of My State.

    1. a. Noah Webster 1828 – militia - n.

      1. [L. from miles, a soldier; Gr. war, to fight, combat, contention. The primary sense of fighting is to strive, struggle, drive, or to strike, to beat, Eng. moil, L. molior; Heb. to labor or toil.]

      2. The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service.

      3. The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations.

  14. In breach of Article 2 of the New Hampshire Bill of Rights, the accused threaten, via HB 135, to diminish My Right to, "in a word" seek and obtain Happiness.

  15. In breach of Article 2-a of the New Hampshire Bill of Rights, the accused threaten, via HB 135, to diminish My Right to keep and bear arms in defense of Myself, My family, My property and the state wherever I may be.

  16. In breach of Article 3 of the New Hampshire Bill of Rights, the accused threaten, via HB 135, to void any Rights I may have surrendered to secure others enumerated in the Bills of Rights.

  17. In breach of Article 4 of the New Hampshire Bill of Rights, the accused threaten, via HB 135, to violate My conscience by diminishing My capacity to protect the People of New Hampshire wherever I may be.

  18. In breach of Article 10 of the New Hampshire Bill of Rights, the accused threaten, via HB 135, to pervert the ends of government and to endanger the public liberty, by eradicating My ability to prevent the very same from happening.

  19. In breach of Article 12 of the New Hampshire Bill of Rights, the accused threaten, via HB 135, to neuter My responsibility to contribute My personal service to protect the community whenever I may be in it.

  20. In breach of Article 12-a of the New Hampshire Bill of Rights, the accused threaten, via HB 135, to indirectly steal My intangible property and give it to another person for the purpose of private development.

    1. Noah Webster 1828 - Property:

      1. #1 - A peculiar quality of any thing; that which is inherent in a subject, or naturally essential to it; called by logicians an essential mode. Thus color is a property of light; extension and figure are properties of bodies.

      2. #2 - An acquired or artificial quality; that which is given by art or bestowed by man. The poem has the properties which constitute excellence.

    2. New Hampshire RSA 637:2 Definitions. The following definitions are applicable to this chapter:

      1. "Property'' means anything of value, including real estate, tangible and intangible personal property, captured or domestic animals and birds, written instruments or other writings representing or embodying rights concerning real or personal property, labor, services, or otherwise containing any thing of value to the owner, commodities of a public utility nature such as telecommunications, gas, electricity, steam, or water, and trade secrets, meaning the whole or any portion of any scientific or technical information, design, process, procedure, formula or invention which the owner thereof intends to be available only to persons selected by him.

    3. My property includes, among the others listed herein:

      1. My Article 7 Right of self-governance

      2. My duty to protect Article 13 Conscientious Objectors

      3. My Article 12 responsibility to the community

  21. Whereas, due to the similar efforts of many of these same usurpers of justice, demands/petitions for Article 31 redress have proven to be unattainable through the General Court, I, one of the People of New Hampshire, have no option but to seek redress through this agency by filing this criminal complaint against the accused for conspiring against My Rights in violation of the Public Trust and their Oaths of Office.

    1. Conspiracy against rights. 18 USC § 241

      1. "If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his ..."

      2. "... ... ... ..."

      3. "They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; ..."

    2. New Hampshire RSA 629:3

      1. A person is guilty of conspiracy if, with a purpose that a crime defined by statute be committed, he agrees with one or more persons to commit or cause the commission of such crime, and an overt act is committed by one of the conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy.

      2. For purposes of paragraph I, "one or more persons'' includes, but is not limited to, persons who are immune from criminal liability by virtue of irresponsibility, incapacity or exemption.

      3. "... ... ..."

      4. The penalty for conspiracy is the same as that authorized for the crime that was the object of the conspiracy, except...

    3. New Hampshire RSA 637:2 Definitions

      1. III. "Purpose to deprive'' means to have the conscious object:

        1. (a) To withhold property permanently or for so extended a period or to use under such circumstances that a substantial portion of its economic value, or of the use and benefit thereof, would be lost; or

        2. (b) To restore the property only upon payment of a reward or other compensation; or

        3. (c) To dispose of the property under circumstances that make it unlikely that the owner will recover it; or

      2. IV. "Property of another'' includes property in which any person other than the actor has an interest which the actor is not privileged to infringe, regardless of the fact that the actor also has an interest in the property...

        1. iii. V. "Value'' means the highest amount determined by any reasonable standard of property or services.

          1. 1. (a) Amounts involved in thefts committed pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct, whether from the same person or several persons, may be aggregated in determining the grade of the offense.

    4. RSA 637:3 Theft by Unauthorized Taking or Transfer.

      1. I. A person commits theft if he obtains or exercises unauthorized control over the property of another with a purpose to deprive him thereof.

    5. RSA 637:11 Penalties

      1. Theft constitutes a class A felony if:

  22. The following Maxims of Law are examples of the fundamental principles of our constitutions.

        1. 1. (a) The value of the property or services exceeds $1,500

    1. "Acting and consenting parties are liable to the same punishment" 5 Coke, 80

    2. "That does not truly belong to one which can be taken from him upon occasion" Dig. 50, 17, 159, 1

    3. "No man can forfeit another's right" Fleta, lib. 1, c.28, s. 11

    4. "Ignorance of those things which one is bound to know excuses not" Hale, P.C. 42; Broom, Max 267; 4Bl. Comm.27

    5. "If one has the power to prohibit or prevent a thing but does not, it is as though he did the thing himself" 2 Inst. 146; 3 Inst. 158



I am of lawful age to make this verified complaint.

I am of sound mind and not under the guardianship of another.

In Witness Whereof, knowing the law of bearing false witness before God and men, I solemnly affirm that the above-stated facts in this complaint I've made against Steven Shurtleff, the 12 Committee Members and the 189 house members, are to the best of my knowledge, true, correct and complete.




See Also:


Home

The Forgotten Liars

Other Works

Random Stuff

Obama!

Contact Info


Email