Good Day to all my fellow Patriots,
It is with profound sadness that I write this open letter to all of you.
In 2017, I began my activism by meeting with then Governor Chris Sununu’s attorney John Formella in the Governor’s conference room, along with five other men, to seek reassurances that my investigation into the changes (72a and 73a) to the state judiciary were, in fact, constitutional. Several months passed before we received a response stating that the governor appreciated our civic engagement but felt no need to address our concerns about these changes to the judiciary at that time.
My research and study of the Constitution of N.H. had shown me that I was facing systemic and generational corruption of the judicial system (a.k.a. the deep state) created by past members of the New Hampshire Supreme Court and the New Hampshire Bar Association (NHBA), and that the only remedy left in the Constitution of N.H. to correct such judicial usurpation of power, was reserved to the people in the N.H. Bill of Rights, Part One, 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, the surrender is void.” (June 2, 1784)
And 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.” (June 2, 1784)
In the spring of 2018, after much research and study, I formulated a plan to expose the judicial usurpation of power in this state and to prove that the conditions outlined in Article 10 had come to pass. I knew that I would have to attempt every method of redress provided for by the constitution before article 10 could be exercised. I knew that we the people no-longer possess any right to redress of grievances at any level of government in New Hampshire; not before the legislature, not at the ballot box, and not in the courts. I knew that were dealing with a form of government created by the people, which had subsequently been hijacked by ambitious and designing men in the form of a legal society a.k.a. the NHBA. This is exactly what the founding fathers anticipated, and they provided such a remedy in Part I, art. 3, and art. 10, because they understood human nature, “you see, when judges think they are unchallengeable they are inevitably corrupted in a moral sense. I don’t mean taking money, but I mean in a sense of arrogance imposing on the rest of us. Lord Acton warned us in the 19th Century that “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”” (Newt Gingrich)… Now our state is run by a legal society (NHBA) with the NH Supreme Court as its head, which has become nothing more than racket for the profit and emolument of its members, (RICO for revenue); you are no longer a citizen, but a customer. At every level of government, from the towns, the cities, the counties and state government there now sits a member of the NHBA to protect the system, a direct violation of the “Monopoly Clause” of the Constitution of New Hampshire, art. 83 which prohibits the formation of any monopolies in the state.
That July (2018), I filed my first attempt to litigate the issue in Merrimack County Superior Court. The Governor’s office (Atty. John Formella) and the Attorney General Gordon MacDonald defaulted and refused to answer my complaint within the 30 days as required by the Rules of Civil Procedure. After the state defaulted, I filed a motion for summary judgment seven days later, and on that same day don’t you know, the AG’s office mysteriously appears seven days late and files a motion to dismiss out of sequence, without gaining permission from the court to file a late motion. Ultimately, Judge Kissinger did what they all do, showed favor onto its fellow members of the Bar in order to protect the state and its institution, by dismissing the case and allowing the state to avoid answering any questions.
On March 20, 2019, I filed a remonstrance (a written protest) under the NH Bill of Rights, Part I, Article 32, with the legislature by submitting it to the clerk of the House and the clerk of the Senate. It detailed serious defects and unconstitutional changes to our election laws and unconstitutional changes to the judiciary, which amounted to ongoing voter fraud in New Hampshire. The Democratic leadership at the time (Speaker of the House Steve Shurtleff and Senate President Donna Soucy) concealed my remonstrance from the legislature itself, deciding for themselves what petitions or remonstrances the legislature should hear, thereby depriving the people’s elected representatives of the ability to decide what to do about its substance. I followed up with legal counsel for the House of Representatives, Atty. Jim Cianci, which led to a meeting in the speaker’s conference room. This resulted in plenty of double-talk as to why they deprived me of my fundamental right to petition the legislature for redress of grievances. They claimed that I had filed it too late and therefore they could conceal it from the legislature as a whole. Not satisfied, I filed an ethics complaint against both Speaker Shurtleff and President Soucy right before the outbreak of the COVID-19 crisis. The ethics committee, under the cover of COVID, met in secret and dismissed my complaint for concealing said remonstrance. This was a complete conflict of interest, as the members of the ethics committee were selected by the very people they were sitting in judgment of.
I then proceeded to file a lawsuit in Merrimack County Superior Court under Judge Kissinger. Atty. Cianci and Atty. Lehmann argued that the people’s right to redress their grievances has “fallen out of favor.” Judge Kissinger ultimately granted their motion to dismiss, which I then appealed to the state Supreme Court. (See: https://vimeo.com/1000555105?share=copy)
The attorneys for the legislature, paid for by your tax dollars, again argued that the peoples fundamental right to redress their grievances before the legislature has “fallen out of favor.” Talk about gaslighting?
The most fundamental right we have has simply fallen out of favor? The Supreme Court protected bad-faith state actors in the legislature by ruling that my remonstrance alleging unconstitutional election laws was a “political question” and therefore the court lacked jurisdiction to uphold my constitutional rights. Think about that, the very people responsible to protect the rights of the people chose not to.
It should be noted that the newly appointed Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald recused himself in this first appeal. Remember Gordon McDonald prior to his nomination to be New Hampshire’s chief judge in 2021, had never served in the capacity of a judge. Governor Sununu overlooked all the other judges in the state that had experience as a judge to promote his guy. The fact is MacDonald gave Sununu cover for the Covid crisis, which included the 2020 election, and for that he was promoted to become the chief judge. His conflict-of-interest in all of this stems from the fact that when he was the Attorney General he failed to uphold his oath of office, by acting as the governor’s personal lawyer in defending unconstitutional emergency powers and federal covid funds. Never mind that he was personally responsible for the 2020 election results. Gordon MacDonald authorized out-of-state college students to mail in their ballots and to vote from home, and he sanctioned the expansion of absentee voting statutes which created mail in voters under the cover of COVID. Remember the Windham incident? (see https://granitegrok.com/?s=Windham+incident ), All of these fraudulent election practices were detailed in my lawsuit. The 2020 election saw the state dilute the outcome of election by illegally count 260,217 unverified and uncertified absentee ballots; 32% of the total vote was absentee ballots that were unverified (affidavits not properly executed). This would become an even bigger issue as we move forward. Sununu personal lawyer John Formella was also promoted to replace the outgoing Gordon MacDonald in order to insulate himself from prosecution of any wrongdoing during Covid, remember the noble 9 (wrongfully arrested by Sununu)? This is why Sununu had to have his guy as chief judge on the Supreme Court. Can you say conflict of interest?
My next move was to file a lawsuit in August 2022 over all the election law violations I had uncovered at the time of filing my complaint. An emergency hearing was scheduled in Rockingham County Superior Court. On the date of the hearing, the judge assigned to the case was replaced by Judge Ruoff the hit man for the state. My expert witness had ongoing litigation with the City of Nashua over the mask mandate still in effect there. As we entered the courtroom, we were instructed by sheriff’s deputies who tried to muzzle me, stating that we would all have to wear a mask, including my expert witness, who could not do so for health reasons. I refused to where a mask and presented my public safety issues relating the voting machines, without my expert witness. In the end, Judge Ruoff dismissed my complaint without a hearing on the merits, by declaring that I failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted (this is what they tell pro se litigants when they have no intention of granting the relief that you seek). This led to my second appeal to the state Supreme Court. Unfortunately, this time, the highly conflicted Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald refused to recuse himself. (See: https://vimeo.com/1000562113?share=copy , with a special focus from minute 14:33 to 21:09 of the video, with the back and forth between the Supreme Court justices and the AG’s office.
On April 5, 2024, the NH Supreme Court did something it had never done before: It reopened the case after oral arguments and sought amicus briefs from both parties on standing (the legal right to sue) to give the state a second bite of the apple since the AG failed to brief standing. Atty. Conley lied to the Court and got away with it. I thought that lawyers are bound by their oath to never to commit a falsehood before the court? In the states brief, the AG reaffirm my arguments by citing the Supreme Court’s previous opinions on absentee voting in which the court concluded that the legislature has no authority to establish absentee voting by statute. Watch the video, you be the judge.
The NH Supreme Court, 10 months after oral arguments, rendered its opinion on September 12, 2024. In that opinion, they found that I had standing to argue the deprivation of the right to vote and that the election laws were not being applied in an equal manner under the state and federal laws. They ruled that I lacked standing to challenge counts 3, 4, 5, 6, and issued a remand order to the trial court on my equal protection claims in count 2.
The court struck down the unconstitutional mail-in voting statutes as permissible legislative judgment in spite of Gordon MacDonald’s direct involvement and oversight of the 2020 election where he approved such practices. Now he claims that I (or you) lack the legal right (standing) to challenge the legislatures over reach, the depravation of constitutional right to free and fair elections by passing statutes that expand absentee voting beyond what Part I, article 11 provides. Remember the state Supreme Court had already ruled in 1873 in 1921 that the legislature has no constitutional authority to create absentee voting by statute. Such constitutional restriction under Part I, art. 11, would lead to the 1942 amendments to article 11 to authorize absentee voting for only two reasons, 1. For qualified voters who are absent from their voting district on election day, 2. Qualified voters who are unable to vote in person because of physical disability. The legislature without the consent of the people, has created mail in voting by allowing the following exemptions for people who are neither absent or physically disabled. I’ll be working on election day; I’ll be caring for children or informed adult; the weather service has issued a winter storm warning; or blizzard warning or ice storm warning; or because the observance of religious commitment; or I’m confined to a penal institution for a misdemeanor or while awaiting trial. None of these exemptions are permissible under Part I, art. 11. of the state constitution. All of these statutory exemptions to vote absentee are the creation of mail in voting scheme, never authorized by the people. The real danger here is that under such usurpation of power, the legislature can now do whatever it wants. If it can change the constitution without your consent, and it can take away any of your other rights because it is convenient which is exactly the type of thing forbidden in a constitutional republic. Under such twisted legal logic, your state legislature and our courts believe that where the constitution is silent, they get to fill in the blanks. The constitutional principle of enumerated powers is clear the state legislature cannot enact any statute without some authority derive from the state constitution. Such judicial usurpation is contrary and repugnant to our Republican form of government. This is exactly what happen in the 1993 Claremont decision and its progeny. Remember Gordon MacDonald was personally responsible for permitting such Ultra Veres actions by the legislature during the Covid-19 event and a major reason why he should’ve never been involved in this case from the beginning.
The illusion of due process continues. Upon remand, Judge Ruoff would deny me a trial by jury by ignoring the Supreme Court’s remand order which was all part of the plan, and he instructed the Attorney General’s office to file new motions to dismiss, even though that part of the legal proceeding had come and gone, and I had already prevailed before the Supreme Court. Judge Ruoff denied me a hearing on the merits, or the ability to re-brief my arguments as Ruoff had allowed the Attorney General’s office to do. Judge Ruoff dismissed my case while not addressing any of the federal issues raised in my complaint or the equal protection violations detailed in my pleadings before the Supreme Court.
This led to my third appeal to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, filed last summer. The very same court that affirmed that I had standing looked the other way, fabricated incoherent legal gibberish, and dismissed my case altogether on January 13, 2026, led by none other than Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald. You see, ladies and gentlemen, I was never going to win; the game was rigged. I knew it was rigged, and they acted just the way they do when any of you appear in the courts of this state without an Attorney (member of the NH Bar association). Despite the Supreme Court of the United States decision in the Bruen (2022) which said the following “we then concluded: “A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all”, your constitutional rights under the NH Constitution no longer apply and now your other rights have also fallen out of favor. See the pattern?
My plan achieved its goal, to prove that the deep state in NH exists. The Court thinks that they have successfully protected their own, but I argue they’ve simply destroyed all of their credibility and public trust and confidence in the state judiciary.
The NH Supreme Court’s conduct and decisions have reaffirmed my belief, that the deep state of New Hampshire does, in fact, exist, and it continues to destroy the lives, safety, and well-being of the people of this state. (See my continuing multi-part series of articles on the evolution of the judiciary of New Hampshire in Granite Grok: https://granitegrok.com/new-england/nh/2025/11/richard-the-claremont-decisions-have-broken-the-new-hampshire-constitution ).
History will now record, that on 13th of January 2026 the constitutional republic of New Hampshire died, destroyed by an out-of-control judiciary and its co-conspirators, the New Hampshire Bar Association who have triggered Part I, Article 10, which states clearly that:
“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.“
These conditions have now been met. What is the solution, the Constitution of New Hampshire provides the people three primary ways to resolve their differences when government violates the social compact: The first is to petition your legislature for redress of grievances; if that doesn’t work, we have the election process to remove elected officials who violate their oath of office at the ballot box; if petitioning the legislature doesn’t work; and finally, when none of that works, the courts are the last available step to resolve problems between the people and their government. I’m sad to say that all of those options no-longer work, and we’ve reached the end of the line. History has proven over and over again that when you deny the people the fundamental right to correct government usurpations of power, it always leads to a revolution.
My efforts have proven that none of these avenues are available to the people any longer. We now have the illusion of choice via the ballot box. We no longer have elections; we have selections, and the voting process is simply there to get the people to consent to two more years of unconstitutional government, with no ability to change anything, as the agenda of the deep state is now in full control.
In closing, what does this decision mean to all of you? The Supreme Court by their decisions and conduct, now endorse mail-in voting, voting machines, and the counting of unverified and uncertified absentee ballots, and election interference from the Secretary of State and the AG’s office are permissible which allow them to redefine election laws with their Election Procedure Manual, all of which are unconstitutional. The NH Supreme court has now decided that the Constitution of New Hampshire no longer applies even though Part I, art. 8 is clear that “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.” The deep state is now in control and they get to decide for the people what’s good for them, whether they like it or not. Have you noticed that after every election nothing ever changes and drip by drip, we have lost are Constitutional Republic. The status quo (the legislature and the two-party system) wants to bury their head in the sand and continue to offer the illusion of a choice with continued Band-Aids of statutory enactments in order to pacify the people, while never fixing the problems.
Please join me in pushing back, as it is now time to have the public discourse of starting anew by exercising our right of revolution under Part I, Article 10 to reform the old or to establish a new government.
