THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
CASE NO. 2018-0267
Request for an Opinion of the Justices (Amending Definition of Resident and Residency)
MEMORANDUM OF ED MOSCA
IN SUPPORT OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF HOUSE BILL 1264
I. INTRODUCTION – A COURT OF LAW OR A WOKE COURT?
In Guare v. State, 117 A.3d 731 (2015), this Court ruled that the act of declaring a voting domicile in New Hampshire did not establish residency in New Hampshire because the statutory definitions of the terms differed:
The State Constitution says that you must be domiciled in New Hampshire to vote here.
The legal definition of domicile is your residence. By law you can only have one of these.
But Judge Lewis allowed the ACLU’s “love the one you are with” definition of domicile to supersede the common law definition. Anyone can claim to live here to vote without having to so for any other purpose. Until that is resolved there is nothing ‘technically’ illegal about it; this ruling is, as I have said before, legalizing the theft of elections for the purpose of indefinite one-party rule.
It is, for all intents and purposes, the tyranny of factionalism we were long ago warned about. It is a sanctioned left wing mob complete with the potential for a perennial lynching at the ballot box.