Honoring your Oath? Others seem to believe your oath to the Constitution is not mere words. Here’s another one: Accountability

Accountability – a most hated word in politics.  Oh sure, whoever the Political Class doesn’t like will be held to such (after all, they wield the power).  But they never like it when the masses play the “turnabout fair play” game (or journalists, from what I seem, but I repeat myself as many in journalism are now card carrying members of the Political Class).  Oh to be sure, we hear the high minded platitudes about “elections are when voters hold us accountable”  – but some don’t like it when we do.  However, what to do during the “in-between” times when recalls are not an option and you think that someone has violated their promise to voters?  Hmm, this seems to be novel (reformatted, emphasis mine):

Verified Complaint of Breach of Oath of Office and Conspiracy against Rights

Emergency Verified Complaint

Against

1) Stephen Shurtleff – (see Exhibit “A” – HB135)
2) 12 members of the New Hampshire House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee
3) 189 members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives (see Exhibit “B” – March 27th, 2013 Yea Votes)

For

Breach of Oath of Office

and
Violation of 18 USC § 241 – Conspiracy against Rights

“I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves: and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion.” Thomas Jefferson 1820

I, ________________________ one of the People of New Hampshire, come forward to complain against Stephen Shurtleff and 188 other members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives for Breaching their Oaths of Office and Conspiring against My Rights. I hereby present facts known and unknown to you in support of this complaint.

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.

More of the document after the jump.  So, why SHOULDN’T we hold our elected and appointed officials accountable for the words they utter as the first action of their terms, and to use those solemn words against which to measure their future actions?  Shouldn’t they ALWAYS be mindful of what they have promised?

I received the following from Jack Kimball:

For all of the years that I have known Jack, and during his time in politics, there is always one sure thing about him: his unwavering faith that once taking his Oath to protect the Constitution when he entered the Navy, that Oath was forever binding upon him.   It did not expire just because his hitch was over (after all, how would one renounce it without renouncing one’s Citizenship?).  He is far from alone in believing that and when folks like Jack (and we Groksters) hear about people like Debra DeSimone, (R – Rockingham 14) that Grokster Steve posted about:

“House quote of the day “the constitution is a guideline” not a requirement. – and yes she said “I swore to uphold the guideline” if it is just a guideline, how will it’s protections actually defend you…”

we get mad!  When the Left talks about the so-called ‘social contract’, I just wanna scream “REALLY!  Show it to me!”; and they can’t.  Nobody has written down anything close to a “Social Compact” to which we all agree to – heck, I’ve never seen such a document titled “Social Compact’.  I have, however, seen two REAL Social Compacts that are existent and in force – but using other titles.  They are, of course, the US Constitution and the NH Constitution, which should be held inviolate by all of us and ESPECIALLY by those elected to create new law.

Question: if it turns out that an Oath to the Constitution is of no consequence if brought to Court, will that be yet another step down that slippery slope of no longer caring about the Law of the Land – our Constitutions?

But I digress.  Here is the rest of the Breach of Oath of Office Complaint – warning, it IS long.  If you’d rather, you can download it here.

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.

a. 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.

b. 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;

a. “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.

a. Noah Webster 1828 – militia – n.

i. [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.]

ii. 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.

iii. 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.

a. Noah Webster 1828 – Property:

i. #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.

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

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

i. “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.

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

i. My Article 7 Right of self-governance

ii. My duty to protect Article 13 Conscientious Objectors

iii. 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.

a. Conspiracy against rights. 18 USC § 241

i. “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 …”

ii. “… … … …”

iii. “They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; …”

b. New Hampshire RSA 629:3

i. 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.

ii. 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.

iii. “… … …”

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

c. New Hampshire RSA 637:2 Definitions

i. 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

ii. 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…

iii. V. “Value” means the highest amount determined by any reasonable standard of property or services.

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.

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

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

e. RSA 637:11 Penalties

i. Theft constitutes a class A felony if:

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

22. The following Maxims of Law1 are examples of the fundamental principles of our constitutions.

a. “Acting and consenting parties are liable to the same punishment” 5 Coke, 80

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

c. “No man can forfeit another’s right” Fleta, lib. 1, c.28, s. 11

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

e. “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.

I am domiciled in the ___________________ County, New Hampshire and I may be contacted by phone at _____________.

Sign ____________________________

Inscribed before me/us on this _____Day of________ 2013

My commission expires ______________________

Notary signature __________________________

Seal of Notary or Justice of the Peace —>>>

This Verified Complaint must be witnessed by a notary above  – or – two People below.

Witness #1 ______________________________        Phone _________________

Witness #2 ______________________________        Phone _________________

Exhibit “A”

___________________________________________________________

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, Merrimack 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

135 – AS AMENDED BY THE HOUSE

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 627:1 4, III to read as follows:
2               III. A person is not justified in using deadly force on another to defend himself or herself or a
3     third person from deadly force by the other if he or she knows that he or she and the third person
4     can, with complete safety:
5               (a) Retreat from the encounter, except that he or she is not required to retreat if he or
6     she is within his or her dwelling[,] or its curtilage, [or anywhere he or she has a right to be,] and was
7     not the initial aggressor; or
8               (b) Surrender property to a person asserting a claim of right thereto; or
9               (c) Comply with a demand that he or she abstain from performing an act which he or she
10     is not obliged to perform; nor is the use of deadly force justifiable when, with the purpose of causing
11     death or serious bodily harm, the person has provoked the use of force against himself or herself in
12     the same encounter; or
13             (d) If he or she is a law enforcement officer or a private person assisting the officer at the
14     officer’s direction and was acting pursuant to RSA 627:5, the person need not retreat.
15         2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.

Exhibit “B”

____________________________________________________________

189 Yea Votes on HB135