N.H. man files suit against Sununu

A Manchester man has filed two briefs in New Hampshire Federal District Court; one suit against Governor Chris Sununu personally, and secondly, a remonstrance, stating that the current nh.gov website does not permit changes to election law as they currently exist.

Daniel Richard, has filed suit stating the “Right to Vote,” as it exists with House Bill 64, is unconstitutional because it grants “resident aliens,” in other words, citizens from other U.S. states, the right to vote in New Hampshire, where they do not have the legal right to vote here in the Granite state.

Richard conducted a five-year investigation into the changes in our government.

“I studied the federal constitution to know the basics,” he said. “I also came to the knowledge that I have a confession: I swore an oath to the constitution twice and didn’t understand what it said and what it meant.”

Richard was naturalized – his parents moved here in the ’60s from Canada. And when they relocated to Manchester and became eligible for naturalization, Richard’s mother put him through the process, and he became a citizen of the state.

“That process put in my first oath of allegiance,” he said. “The second one, I had already been recruited by the military. My ASVAB score so high that they took me- I only had a G.E.D. which I got when I was 16. I didn’t fit in the traditional school system. I had an advanced capacity and back then it was one size fits all.”

Richard did his due diligence and he came to know that New Hampshire’s state constitution came first – New Hampshire’s constitution was ratified on October 31, 1783, a full five years before they went to Philadelphia in 1788.

“So, I started studying that,” he continued. “One of my favorite founding fathers is Patrick Henry, who foretold that our country would ultimately become not the republic that they created but a national, central democracy. He saw the consolidating tendencies and that there were insufficient quantities of prohibitions – that leads to the Bill of Rights as we know them today at the federal level.”

He then headed to nh.gov.

“It’s there today,” said Richard. “Article 97, where the founders said that everything they do to this document, they have to time stamp. So, if we take a wrong turn, we can go back and know where those wrong changes happened. That’s where my research started opening Pandora’s Box.”

What began as just a basic hobby turned into what Richard called, “a full-blown criminal investigation,” once he understood all of the unconstitutional changes.

“In other words, the amendment process is very clear,” he said. “Only by a ballot proposed to the people can they amend the state constitution. So, the state legislature can convene a constitutional convention which it has done many times, propose amendments, but they are always submitted to the people just like the original document was.”

“When you study the federal constitution, you discover that the only thing fundamentally that is in the federal constitution that binds to you is article 4 section 2, the privileges and immunities clause,” Richard stated. “It grants the right to come and go, the right of ingress and regress, from any other state in the union, the right to go there and to trade, the right to go there and to commerce. This has been reaffirmed by U.S. Supreme court. Other than that, people overlook the seventh article in the federal constitution all the time and it’s bound on the states to conduct, as James Madison said, four things: to wage war, to negotiate peace, international treaties and international commerce. It’s to do those things for the external matters of the state.”


“Our first constitution was written January 5, 1776. This is before the Declaration of Independence,” said Richard. “You know Wentworth by the Sea? That’s Governor Wentworth’s old mansion. He was the colonial governor. He was in big trouble because the conflict between the king and colonists put him in the middle. So, he took off and went to New Brunswick and took all his wealth with him. And left the state void of any government.”

Richard said there was no way for the merchants to seek remedy in courts for conflicts of business transactions.

“So, they wrote a preliminary constitution,” he continued. “But it was kind of a transitionary document because they really hadn’t gotten to the point had declared independence yet. They were hoping that they could remedy the issues with the king. Then on June 5, they wrote their first declaration of independence. The state wrote its own version almost three weeks before the federal one.”

Richard produced a copy of the current Constitution of the State of New Hampshire in print and the one that is on the website.

“What’s important about it is there are two parts,” he said. “Part one, and this is what’s so concerning to me, is the Bill of Rights. The original had 38, it has 39 now. But the eight Bill of Rights that we reference in the federal side, are all encompassed in this instrument five years earlier plus thirty others. And there’s the fact that we as a society do not even know what they are.”

“Part two is designed to protect those 38 rights. That is the whole purpose of the form of government. We should all be united over the principles of life, liberty and property.”

From there, Richard went to the archives and learned what he called a “two-fold instrument.”

“One if from the legal side,” he said, “the common law rule of construction requires that when you read old text or documents, you must construe them based on the time when they were written, and their original intent and meaning. But also, from the biblical perspective. The principle that I learned is that scripture is not subject to individual interpretation. There’s the constant cross-reference. And that’s what I was able to put together, once I tied the state constitution to the federal constitution. You’ll see one directly effects the other.”

Richard said there’s not one question about the state constitution on the bar exam.

“I called the UNH Law School and asked if the even teach the state constitution,” he declared. “They don’t.”

“So, if you look at having legal counsel for the governor, the house, the senate, and all other branches of state government completely devoid of this instrument,” said Richard. “So, what are they doing? They’re operating under a case precedent. There’s enough case precedent established by the English common law so when they converted our courts in 1966 from common law courts to administrative tribunals, they have been functioning under that and continue to get further and further from the constitutions themselves. And they work under statute law.”

Richard went onto to discuss Article 5 and Article 12.

“In the very directive, under article 5, of part 2 form of government, the power that grants the legislature to make laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, is also the caveat twice,” he said. “‘Shall not be repugnant or contrary to this constitution.’ Article 12 in our Bill of Rights, says ‘nor shall the inhabitants be controllable by any other laws which they or their representative body, the voters, consent to.’ So, what the framers gave us, is that the delegated powers are enumerated.”

“The ‘Right to Know’ law is derivative of Article 8,” he added. “That is a lawful execution of government power. But once you start letting one party assume a power, then it has a cascading effect. So, when you switch between the democrats and republicans, and you go back and forth, you continue to expand the regulatory state to where it’s out of control. I don’t see good things down the road for us because look at how divided we are as a nation right now. It continues to go on. The public officials are not entitled to go there and vote the lobbyist agenda. The very first thing the founders of New Hampshire told their state legislature to do, was to preserve knowledge and education. That’s its first job assignment. It’s utterly failed. They don’t even teach it anymore.”


The two fundamental issues start with, according to Richard, Article 30.

“Article 30, or inhabitant defined, says, ‘and every person qualified as the constitution provides, shall be considered an inhabitant for the purpose of electing, or being elected, into any office in this state, where he dwelleth and has his home,'” stated Richard. “Dwell is synonymous with reside; home is synonymous with domicile. The word ‘domicile’ exists from the 15th century; it’s not that it didn’t exist when they wrote the instrument. They simply used it because it has a different legal definition. Reside, resident and domicile all mean the same thing, except for the duration of time. Reside means temporary, resident means for the foreseeable future, and domicile means you intent to stay there for the permanent indefinite future. But what they don’t confer is state citizenship.”

And then Richard is back to “and every person qualified as the constitution provides,” which according to his research, “it’s not the legislature, not the executive, nor the judicial branch.”

“What they did in 1973, which is in my motion, is they proposed they we remove the descriptive language, that only state citizens could vote in our elections leaving only, ‘citizens of the United States,'” he said. “But citizens of the United States, as determined by the 14th amendment, is the application of federal jurisdiction over federal civil rights for the freed African slaves. It does not confer that there’s a federal citizenship. Remember, Washington D.C. is not a state. It’s a city. And the federal government is as it’s defined by section 28 of the federal code, under federal debt collection, is a corporation. James Madison said twice in the summer of 1778, that, ‘the United States is now, and forever hereafter shall be, a body corporate and a body politic.'”

“New Hampshire on the other hand, has never been amended,” he clarified. “Article 2, section 1, the preamble, has never been amended to say that the state government is anything other than a body politic. Not a body corporate. Yet if you got to nh.gov today, you have by a rough estimate, not including duplications of services, almost 250 corporate entities providing corporate services for the people of the state. All achieved with no amendment process. So that’s a problem.”

“They removed the descriptive language,” he said. “And once they did that, they were then left to determine which Americans citizens which we will know determine are eligible to vote in state elections. Now you run into the conflict. Once they started tinkering with things, they caused things to come unglued.”

The federal qualification clause as to whom can be elected to the house, the senate, vice president and president of the U.S., still say the same thing as they did in 1789 when it was ratified, according to Richard’s research.

“You have to be a qualified inhabitant from the state, not a resident; a qualified inhabitant and a citizen of that state; not a citizen of the United States,” he said. “Because legal franchise, is only a power that the state can exercise, because only the states send delegates to represent their matters.”

“So, whenever you see the language and the federal government and the federal law is completely in line and in harmony with this,” said Richard. “Every time the federal government wishes to speak of state jurisdiction, it uses the words, ‘state citizen.’ When it wishes to explain that we’re talking about federal jurisdiction, which is the federal civil rights, it uses the words, ‘citizen of the United States.’ Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, is the delegated power of naturalization, which was given to the federal government, because the 13 original colonies didn’t want an unfair influx of immigrants; they wanted them to be the same, so the rules were the same, whether they were going to New Hampshire or to North Carolina. It would be the same. There would be no competitive advantage. This act in ’73, House Bill 363, causes this conflict. It’s something the state cannot do.”

“Furthermore,” he explained, “Article 30, says that the legislature has no power to grant a resident, and this is what House Bill 1264 is, it amends statute 21:6 and 21:6:A, which are the comingling of two different definitions which are not synonymous,” he said. “They have done by statute that which the constitutions do not provide. They have granted resident aliens the same rights to votes as inhabitants. You can’t do it. And they did. And no one called them on it.”

Richard then produced a copy of the amendment of Question 8 in 1976, which is one question containing five confusing boxes to answer a yes or no, when Question 8 in itself is simple a yes or no question with five boxes in it, plus a sixth to answer yes or no to it as a whole.

“This is a misleading question,” he said of Question 8. “Girber vs. King [1967] said this is illegal. You can’t put five questions and give me a yes or no question. It deprives the voters of saying yes to part of the question, and no to other parts of the question.”

“It was settled law and it’s been left to stand,” Richard continued. “Last year, when House Bill 1264 was submitted by Sununu, no one has gone to court to challenge it.”

Richard said although he leans conservatively, he is going after what he said is “criminal behavior.”

“I filed a 15-page report on Sept 30, two years ago,” Richard said. “I took my state rep and six other men with me to the meeting with Sununu. He refused to address any of my questions. We wanted a follow-up meeting and he kicked the can down the road.”

Richard called it a matter of it being “the good old boy club is not going to undo their monopoly power – which is by the way, a complete violation of Article 83, “the exercise of a monopoly power of the bar association over the judicial branch.”

“Sununu didn’t want to answer, and he defaulted last year,” said Richard. “I filed suit on July 3 last year. Bear in mind, the state statutes that govern any public official to use state resources of the attorney general’s office to defend them against any litigation, under 99D, they have to report the suit to the AG’s office within seven days.”

“How is a man with a lawyer in his office to make sure that he lawfully executes his duties of office, now going to ignore that he’s being sued in his private capacity?” said Richard. “I didn’t serve the governor. I served Chris Sununu.”

Richard said Sununu had no sovereign immunity.

“Thirty-seven days later,” said Richard, “the AG’s office shows up. The AG’s office couldn’t possibly have had enough time to fact check my motion for default judgement. On the same day I filed, they showed up with a motion to dismiss. They did it backwards. They should have filed a motion for late entry.”

The judge went along with it and has allowed Richard’s two briefs.

“The other thing is that the suit did not encompass the 15-page report in the state lawsuit. How did the AG know about it? That’s an abuse of power. Shame on him.”

Richard said he has better things to do with his life than this.

“Why wouldn’t Sununu just answer my questions?” asked Richard. “No one wants to address the facts. I want them to fact check my research.”

Now that Richard has received a partial victory in the Federal District Court – the judge said that the arguments that he presented in his briefs are far broader in scope than the limited nature of the argument brought before the ACLU.

“If it had no standing, it would have been thrown out by the judge,” said Richard of Judge Joseph LaPlante.

“Ignorance of the law is no excuse, especially when you’re dealing with lawyers who should know better” said Richard. “It doesn’t work for you or me, does it.”

Richard said his first, fifth and tenth amendment rights have been violated.

“They violated my right to petition my government for redress of grievances, my right to due process, and by submitting me to laws that the state and fed constitution do not allow for.”

Richard, who has trained K-9s, said that tracking is in his blood.

“It’s part of my makeup,” he said.