Saturday • July 27 • 2024
Vol.XVI • No.XXX
Manchester, N.H.
NHexit Supporters Outside the State Archives Building
Today was a big day for the New Hampshire Independence movement. Not only did Karen Sue Steele’s attempt to disqualify the “Independent Thirteen” from the ballot fail by a 5-0 vote of the Ballot Law Commission, but more importantly, the NH Attorney General’s office weighed in with their official position.
Specifically, assistant attorney general Kevin Scura who sits as an advisor on the Commission, was asked to speak to Karen’s complaint. Karen’s email to the Commission had claimed the state reps were in violation of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. The Scura made it clear that “insurrection” and “rebellion” – as cited in the 14th Amendment – involve the use of violence. This is what those of us advocating for peaceful independence have been pointing out. A ballot measure is using the democratic process to change the system, not open violence.
Karen had claimed that insurrection doesn’t necessarily involve violence and further went so far to make the laughable claim that simply speaking words against the government would qualify as “giving aid or comfort to the enemies” of the “United States”.
The commission stated clearly that they had no jurisdiction over constitutional questions, and voted 5-0 to dismiss Karen’s complaint. That’s great news, but it was also great news that dozens of NHexit supporters came out to support independence and even more importantly, the mainstream media was present. Curiously, the media was nowhere to be found when CACR 32 had its public hearing earlier this year, or when the state house voted on it, but as soon as a Karen showed up to start some drama, multiple media organizations descended. I made sure to thank Karen after the meeting for all the free publicity.
Full video coverage of the meeting and the confrontation of Karen will be posted here in the coming days. Meanwhile, here’s a quick media rundown of some of the coverage we’ve gotten within hours of the end of the meeting today. All of the media organizations below had reporters at today’s meeting:
NH Jury Rights
The motions and objections in the Crypto Six case are starting to fly back-and-forth. Recently, the defense attorneys for me and Aria DiMezzo filed a “Notice of Public Authority Defense“, saying that we had relied on a legal memo from attorney Seth Hipple that cites the New Hampshire Banking Commission stating that they don’t regulate person-to-person cryptocurrency sales. Today, the dishonest federal prosecutors filed an objection to that and a motion to exclude the evidence, arguing that the statements of the NH Banking Commission are irrelevant to the case, since the charges are federal.
Though their primary argument is that the NH Banking Commission’s opinion is irrelevant, they later admit their real fear is the jury might nullify the charges if they knew the actions are legal in New Hampshire:
Alternatively, if the evidence is relevant, it should be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, because its introduction would be unduly prejudicial to the government and invite jury nullification.
Jury Nullification is your right to judge the law itself, instead of the facts in the case. Nullification is an established right of jurors that governments across the United States, especially in federal courts, attempt to suppress. It’s no surprise that the prosecutors are worried about it here, as Aria and I certainly did no harm to any other soul and a jury who knows they are free to use their conscience to render a verdict, may very well throw out the entire case.
The next step in the trial is Thursday September 1st at 10am in federal court church in Concord, where multiple motions will get hearings, including a motion to dismiss the “money transmitter” charges and a very interesting motion arguing the government should be prevented from introducing blockchain analysis expert testimony as their methods cannot pass the scrutiny required to be admitted as evidence in a case.
WKBK‘s morning show host Dan Mitchell had me on today to discuss my run for NH State Senate, third parties, secession, guns and more! If you’re in the Keene region, you can vote for me in the Republican primary on September 13th.
Free Talk Live · WKBK's Dan Mitchell Interviews Ian FreemanKaren Sue Steele, Hates Independence, Originally from MN.
A real-life Karen is targeting the “Independent Thirteen”, the thirteen courageous state representatives who earlier this year voted against killing CACR 32, the NH Independence constitutional amendment. Karen Sue Steele of Atkinson NH has sent in a complaint to the “Ballot Law Commission” demanding the state reps be removed from office and barred from ever running again. She emailed her complaint his weekend and Secretary of State David Scanlan forwarded her email to all the state reps involved with an invitation to the upcoming commission meeting on Wednesday August 24th, 1pm at the Archives and Records Management building at 9 Ratification Way in Concord. All reps who have been identified in her complaint are allowed to speak at the meeting, which is open to the public. Pro-independence activists will rally outside the building starting at noon.
Karen’s email to the Commission says:
I would very much like to get on the agenda for this Wednesday’s meeting, August 24, at 1 pm in Concord.
It is my assertion that the following people are no longer eligible to hold office in NH and thus are unqualified to run for office as they are in violation of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, Section 3.
1) The seven (7) members of our NH House of Representatives who sponsored a bill to secede from the United States of America: 2022-2243/CACR32 – “Providing that the state peaceably declares independence from the United States and proceeds as a sovereign nation” and
2) The 13 members of the NH House of Representatives voted to not ITL (Inexpedient to Legislate) or kill the bill/NH Constitutional Amendment.
Given the overlap, there are a total of 14 individuals who should not be allowed to run for or hold office in New Hampshire.
Karen’s wrong, of course. Regarding her first-numbered point, the state reps in question did not sponsor a bill to secede from the United States of America, as anyone who actually bothered to read CACR 32 would know. The bill was a proposed constitutional amendment that, if passed by over 3/5ths of the state house and senate, would have placed a question on the ballot for the people of New Hampshire to decide on whether or not to declare peaceful independence from the US. Passing CACR 32 would merely have caused a vote of the people, and if over 2/3rds voted yes, then the constitution would have been amended to add the following to Article 7 of the NH Bill of Rights:
[Art.] 7-a. [Independent Nation.] New Hampshire peaceably declares independence from the United States and immediately proceeds as a sovereign nation. All other references to the United States in this constitution, state statutes and regulations are nullified.”
State Rep Mike Sylvia Speaks on the State House Floor about CACR 32
Second, we’ve heard her ridiculous claim that the US Constitution’s 14th amendment prohibits what the heroic NH reps did, from loyalist state rep Brodie Deshaies at the public hearing on CACR 32. However, as Mike Sylvia – CACR 32’s prime sponsor – previously argued, the 14th amendment only prohibits office-holders from “engaging in insurrection or rebellion”. Anyone who bothers to actually look up those terms in a dictionary, would see they both involve violence against the state. Obviously a proposed vote of the people on a constitutional amendment to peaceably exit the US isn’t violence in any way, so it will be interesting to see how the Ballot Law Commission rules on this at Wednesday’s meeting.
We knew the loyalists to the Empire would be making secession a major issue this election season, which is great news! The more attention independence receives, the more people in New Hampshire will consider peaceful secession for the first time. The more people on the fence will be convinced to join us. I’m grateful that Karen brought this complaint as either way the Ballot Law Commission decides will make things more exciting. If they rule to disqualify the reps from office it could lead to an appeal to the NH Supreme Court and if they rule to keep the reps in place then it’s official that the reps were indeed working within the system’s own rules by proposing the amendment, which means Karen and her ilk will be even more frustrated.
Interestingly, Karen Sue Steele is quite the busybody around Atkinson, Danville and Rockingham County, as anyone with the ability to search the internet could discover. Also, turns out that Karen’s not from New Hampshire, originally hailing from La Crescent, MN. Many of the most ardent big government supporters in New Hampshire are not natives. I wonder if Karen is willing to debate Alu Axelman about independence for NH. He has yet to be able to find any loyalists to talk publicly about their viewpoint. Alu also covered the news about Karen’s attack on the state reps in his detailed article at the Liberty Block. If you’d like Karen to debate this publicly, she helpfully included her contact information in her public complaint. Be kind if you decide to reach out:
Karen Steele
4 Pebble Brook Road
Atkinson, NH 03811
603-362-8850 – home
978-857-6048 – cell
karen.sue.steele@gmail.com
The loyalists are desperate and don’t realize what they are up against. NH Independence is already surprisingly popular amongst NH inhabitants, with nearly one in three supporting New Hampshire being an independent nation and 52% of republicans. See the details on the recent, first-ever Survey USA poll results here.
The recently-formed NH Independence PAC has called for supporters of an independent New Hampshire to gather for a rally starting at noon on Wednesday August 24th, outside the State Archives at 9 Ratification Way (formerly 71 South Fruit Street) in Concord prior to the start of the Ballot Law Commission meeting at 1pm. They will then attend the meeting in support of the brave state reps who are under fire from this literal Karen. Hope to see you there!
Karen Sue Steele, Hates Independence, Originally from MN.
A real-life Karen is targeting the “Independent Thirteen”, the thirteen courageous state representatives who earlier this year voted against killing CACR 32, the NH Independence constitutional amendment. Karen Sue Steele of Atkinson NH has sent in a complaint to the “Ballot Law Commission” demanding the state reps be removed from office and barred from ever running again. She emailed her complaint his weekend and Secretary of State David Scanlan forwarded her email to all the state reps involved with an invitation to the upcoming commission meeting on Wednesday August 24th, 1pm at the Archives and Records Management building at 9 Ratification Way in Concord. All reps who have been identified in her complaint are allowed to speak at the meeting, which is open to the public. Pro-independence activists will rally outside the building starting at noon.
Karen’s email to the Commission says:
I would very much like to get on the agenda for this Wednesday’s meeting, August 24, at 1 pm in Concord.
It is my assertion that the following people are no longer eligible to hold office in NH and thus are unqualified to run for office as they are in violation of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, Section 3.
1) The seven (7) members of our NH House of Representatives who sponsored a bill to secede from the United States of America: 2022-2243/CACR32 – “Providing that the state peaceably declares independence from the United States and proceeds as a sovereign nation” and
2) The 13 members of the NH House of Representatives voted to not ITL (Inexpedient to Legislate) or kill the bill/NH Constitutional Amendment.
Given the overlap, there are a total of 14 individuals who should not be allowed to run for or hold office in New Hampshire.
Karen’s wrong, of course. Regarding her first-numbered point, the state reps in question did not sponsor a bill to secede from the United States of America, as anyone who actually bothered to read CACR 32 would know. The bill was a proposed constitutional amendment that, if passed by over 3/5ths of the state house and senate, would have placed a question on the ballot for the people of New Hampshire to decide on whether or not to declare peaceful independence from the US. Passing CACR 32 would merely have caused a vote of the people, and if over 2/3rds voted yes, then the constitution would have been amended to add the following to Article 7 of the NH Bill of Rights:
[Art.] 7-a. [Independent Nation.] New Hampshire peaceably declares independence from the United States and immediately proceeds as a sovereign nation. All other references to the United States in this constitution, state statutes and regulations are nullified.”
State Rep Mike Sylvia Speaks on the State House Floor about CACR 32
Second, we’ve heard her ridiculous claim that the US Constitution’s 14th amendment prohibits what the heroic NH reps did, from loyalist state rep Brodie Deshaies at the public hearing on CACR 32. However, as Mike Sylvia – CACR 32’s prime sponsor – previously argued, the 14th amendment only prohibits office-holders from “engaging in insurrection or rebellion”. Anyone who bothers to actually look up those terms in a dictionary, would see they both involve violence against the state. Obviously a proposed vote of the people on a constitutional amendment to peaceably exit the US isn’t violence in any way, so it will be interesting to see how the Ballot Law Commission rules on this at Wednesday’s meeting.
We knew the loyalists to the Empire would be making secession a major issue this election season, which is great news! The more attention independence receives, the more people in New Hampshire will consider peaceful secession for the first time. The more people on the fence will be convinced to join us. I’m grateful that Karen brought this complaint as either way the Ballot Law Commission decides will make things more exciting. If they rule to disqualify the reps from office it could lead to an appeal to the NH Supreme Court and if they rule to keep the reps in place then it’s official that the reps were indeed working within the system’s own rules by proposing the amendment, which means Karen and her ilk will be even more frustrated.
Interestingly, Karen Sue Steele is quite the busybody around Atkinson, Danville and Rockingham County, as anyone with the ability to search the internet could discover. Also, turns out that Karen’s not from New Hampshire, originally hailing from La Crescent, MN. Many of the most ardent big government supporters in New Hampshire are not natives. I wonder if Karen is willing to debate Alu Axelman about independence for NH. He has yet to be able to find any loyalists to talk publicly about their viewpoint. Alu also covered the news about Karen’s attack on the state reps in his detailed article at the Liberty Block. If you’d like Karen to debate this publicly, she helpfully included her contact information in her public complaint. Be kind if you decide to reach out:
Karen Steele
4 Pebble Brook Road
Atkinson, NH 03811
603-362-8850 – home
978-857-6048 – cell
karen.sue.steele@gmail.com
The loyalists are desperate and don’t realize what they are up against. NH Independence is already surprisingly popular amongst NH inhabitants, with nearly one in three supporting New Hampshire being an independent nation and 52% of republicans. See the details on the recent, first-ever Survey USA poll results here.
The recently-formed NH Independence PAC has called for supporters of an independent New Hampshire to gather for a rally starting at noon on Wednesday August 24th, outside the State Archives at 9 Ratification Way (formerly 71 South Fruit Street) in Concord prior to the start of the Ballot Law Commission meeting at 1pm. They will then attend the meeting in support of the brave state reps who are under fire from this literal Karen. Hope to see you there!
The initial list of endorsed candidates for the 2022 state elections has been posted. This list may be updated as additional candidates are identified.
The post 2022 Candidate Endorsements are live appeared first on NH Liberty Alliance.
I was honored to be able to speak in front of an audience of over 130 freedom-loving people from across New Hampshire this Friday evening at the “We the People NH” event focusing on more liberty-friendly candidates. Since I am a candidate for NH Senate District 10, organizer Terese Grinnell invited me to speak and my focus was to discuss NH Independence. I told the crowd about the exciting poll results that came out recently showing nearly 1 in 3 NH people already support NH being its own country – and 52% of Republicans.
You can get all the details on the poll from this article at NHexit.US where the full results from Survey USA are linked.
I wasn’t sure what the audience’s response would be but I got a lot of applause and nearly everyone to whom I offered a Foundation for NH Independence flyer during the breaks, accepted it. The event was a major success. There is wide interest in independence for New Hampshire from the evil Federal Gang. Here’s the full speech and organizer Terese Grinnell’s comments afterward:
Nobody
In a recent post here at Free Keene, Chris Waid presented his notes from the sentencing hearing for Nobody as a, “Big win for Mr. Nobody“. This is ridiculous spin. For those who didn’t hear the news, my co-defendant Nobody was recently sentenced to “time served” of approximately six months in jail as well as $2,100 in fines and fees, a forfeiture of $10,000, and two years’ probation. He had taken a plea to one count of “wire fraud”, despite not having defrauded anyone. Like the other Crypto Six defendants, he was intimidated into a plea deal by the threat of further charges.
Whether or not he took the plea and even if he went to trial and “won” on every count – as Aria and I are hoping to do – it would not be a “win”. As Mark Stevens put it in his book, “Adventures in Legal Land“, whenever you are targeted by the state, it is a loss. Even if you “win” and defeat the charges, you still lose your time. You still lose your ability to focus on things that are actually important to you instead of focusing on a criminal trial and the stress of bail conditions and the government’s axe hanging over your head. Basically, when they bring charges against you, you are going to lose – the only question is how much?
In Nobody’s case, he went through a horribly and unnecessarily violent pre-dawn raid on his home, spent several months behind bars, most of a year on restrictive bail conditions, and now is having his personal finances decimated. He has nearly nothing left after paying their extractions, is now a federal felon for life, and is still under multiple probation restrictions for two years. All of this damage has been brought upon him simply because, as he described it, he was convicted of, “contempt of bank”. It’s great that he doesn’t have to go back to prison, but this is not a win.
In other Crypto Six news, the remaining two defendants, Aria DiMezzo and me, have had motions filed by our defense attorneys, including a motion to dismiss the “money transmitter” charges, a motion to block the prosecution from using blockchain analysis experts, and a notice of a “public authority defense”. The hearing on these motions is set for September 1st at 9:30am at Concord Federal District Court Church.
Interesting Study from the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology
SEE .PDF File below
"Researchers and community agencies need to explore the needs of this forgotten population, especially as the country grapples with the loneliness associated with COVID-19 and various levels of quarantine. Individuals impacted by the incarceration of a loved one already have limited access to their loved ones behind bars. COVID-19 has dramatically decreased the amount and types of communication available to these individuals. Family members and friends, outside of prison walls, are also major sources of support for incarcerated individuals as they are released from prison (Sirois,2019). More than two million people are incarcerated in various facilities throughout the United States (Sawyer & Wagner, 2020; The Sentencing Project, 2020). Think about the number of individuals impacted by the incarceration of a loved one. Each of those incarcerated individuals have mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, children, aunts, uncles, cousins, and others. There are millions more impacted by incarceration, not accounted for in the two million incarcerated throughout the United States. The secondary prisonization of family members and friends, outside of prison walls, needs to be more fully explored, so that their needs are being met, which might enable them to continue providing invaluable support to individuals who cycle through our prison system."
On Thursday July 28th judge Joseph N. Laplante concluded the sentencing hearing for Crypto6’s Mr Nobody with a ruling to the maximum degree possible in his favor, and below is a run down of the defenses, prosecutors, and judges thoughts and arguments.
For more detail of what happened and a bit of a backstory on the sentencing check out Freedom Decrypted episode 170 where we covered the pre-sentencing motions that went into the variance granted (or in other words the request to reduce the sentence below that typically authorized by the sentencing guidelines).
The notes from the sentencing hearing are as follows:
– Mr Nobody is pleading guilty to a single count of wire fraud
Judge opens with a speech on the sentencing guidelines being the guiding force behind determining the sentence, but are not a hard rule to be followed, and he can sentence Mr Nobody outside of the guidelines.
There is a sealed pre-sentencing report that was created by the court of which came to 26 pages in length. Unfortunately due to certain information contained within it is sealed, but this is for Mr Nobody’s benefit and it may be that this report can be released by him and/or released by him with appropriate sections redacted. While this may not be relevant to Mr Nobody’s sentencing report the type of information that can be included includes information such as histories of mental illness that would be inappropriate to release to the public. Our opportunity as the public therefore to be outraged by the malicious, manipulative, or outright lies contained in it must therefore be reserved till a later date.
Possible outcome based on sentencing guidelines and guilty plea:
The guidelines recommend:
– 10 to 16 months imprisonment
– 2 to 5 years of supervised release
– A fine of $2,000 to $1 million dollars
The judge noted that there was no request by the defendant for a departure from the guidelines. However the defence requested a variance from the guidelines which is a little different. At this point Nobody’s lawyer Anessa Allen Santos requested the guidelines be dropped.
Anessa Allen Santos’s argument as to why the guidelines should be dropped:
– the regulatory framework for crypto is evolving and this speaks to the nature of the offence
– there are more than 4 different agencies providing differing and conflicting sets of rules and decisions
– there is confusion amongst federal agencies as to whether crypto is a security or a commodity
– it has shifted from being a medium of exchange to a commodity and now to a currency
– bitcoin is now being called a currency by federal regulators
– Mr. Nobody took extra steps to be compliant with the law including getting legal opinions from regulators and lawyers
– While Nobody may have lied to a bank he was under the impression that the bank was asking about his business for its personal benefit in order to stamp out the competition that is bitcoin and he believed they had no right to inquire
– Simply put there was never any malice in any actions for which he is accused
– The federal framework differs from the state
– Mr Nobody obeyed pre-trail release conditions in spite of the governments claims that he was a violent threat to law enforcement
– 3 points in regard to prior convictions
1. His prior convictions revolve around weed
2. The laws on weed have dramatically changed
3. The totality of the circumstances
Basically if he was sentenced today the outcome would be different and this means there is justification for reducing the points in the sentencing guidelines by 3. This would reduce the time he should serve by 2 to 6 months.
Judge Responds
The judge at this point says Mr Nobody’s conduct does not evidence a lack of respect for the law and he clearly took measures to be legally compliant.
The judge asks questions to determine whether or not Mr Nobody would be harmed by further cage time and wants to know how his client is living.
The defendent isn’t quite following the nature of the question however and responds with:
– He’s a computer programmer
– He gets by off donations
– He would be harmed if he couldn’t work, and he can’t program if dead
– The nature of his work is open source
The judge responds clarifying whether or not cage time would be disruptive to livelihood:
– Mr Nobody clarifies that he was a well renowned programmer who had previously worked for citi bank, and his current efforts are in some respect necessary to show that after a decade of activism he’s still a capable programmer
The judge asks about his sources of income and the defence responds with:
– cell411
– p2p crypto
The judge returns with: The question he really wants to know is can Mr Nobody support himself.
The answer to this is that pulling him out of the marketplace would make it more difficult for him to support himself. Currently he has a community upon which he has relied to get him through these trying times, and should he be sentenced to further jail time he would likely lose that and face further hardships.
Prosecutor responds and makes the following point:
– This is a strict liability law implying whether he intended to break the law or not is irrelevant
The prosecutor goes on to defend the law and it’s reason for existing for which he has plead guilty and claims without any evidence that they “advertised to scammers”.
The prosecutor goes on to talk about the proffer. A proffer is a mechanism to offer or present evidence at trial for immediate acceptance or rejection.
Basically what the prosecutor is saying is that when Nobody was presented with the evidence of scammers utilizing the purchased crypto he was not OK with that.
At this point the judge starts talking about the amounts of money that went through “Ian’s business” completely leaving out it was the Shire Free Church’s business. None the less he says that of the 23 million 2 million of this was through Mr Nobody’s bank account(s).
In regard to the money judgement
The defence responds to arguments pertaining to prior motions filed by the prosecutor concerning sentencing where the prosecution falsely claimed that the “business” was charging excessive fees at “ATMs” and this is somehow evidence of malice.
In fact Anessa Allen Santos’s states this is a malicious attempt at confusing the court as the fees were in line with equivalent vending machines and neither ripped off customers nor were a premium of any kind. Online exchanges don’t have the same costs as vending machine operators who must rent space and provide a different kind of service.
Nobody speaks about his intent:
Nobody says he worked inside of the banking system and from his first hand experience saw how it was setup to create two classes of people. The reason he got into selling crypto was because he saw how it could free people from the need to seek permission of government. No longer would you need a million dollars in order to get in on the market. There is something called a “qualified investor” and unless you are a qualified investor you can’t partake in the market. Nobody was trying to protect those who he sees as being robbed by the dollar’s decline in value. By comparison the wealthy classes were able to float on their investments and assets that went up with inflation whereas everyone else lost out.
He went on to say the poor are victims of the federal reserve banking system.
Judge asks what changed your mind about the crypto sales:
He said that the thing that changed his heart (in regard to the proffer) were that some people were hurt by third parties.
Nobody goes on to say that “our side” or that he and his co-defendants would never have knowingly taken proceeds from victims who were being defrauded.
He also pointed out that he didn’t do customer service and wouldn’t have known if someone was being defrauded in the first place. He simply couldn’t have known what was going on even if Ian had been taking proceeds of victims of fraud.
The judge asks some questions about how Mr Nobody came to be a computer programmer:
Nobody responds that he was self taught, but also got certifications in college.
The judge also wants to know how he ended up in New Hampshire. To which Mr Nobody responds that he moved for the Free State Project which is a migration of libertarians to the state of New Hampshire to further the cause of liberty in our life time.
Judges Ruling:
Judge says he’s going to sentence Mr Nobody to time served.
The judge believes that 5 ½ months is not a small thing and is the “right sentence”.
The judge gives an opinion that the “record overstates danger” of Mr Nobody and he does not want to cause problems for Mr Nobody due to a tough economy. He thinks Mr Nobody can support himself and if he didn’t do this there would be a risk of Mr Nobody getting COVID. Undermining Mr. Nobody’s ability to feed and house himself and the combination of the circumstances lead him to believe it would not be in the public’s interest to sentence him to further cage time. However a couple of years of supervised release is appropriate alongside some conditions.
The judge also said his only real request is that Mr Nobody not test the permissible bounds of his conditional release which will include:
– 2 Years of supervised release
– Report to probation today
Conditions:
– No lawbreaking
– No illegal substances
– 3 drug tests
– Provide a DNA sample
– Submit to substance abuse treatment
– Pay for cost of testing should he be so able
– Provide access to financial info
– Not open any credit lines without approval from probation
– Submit to search by probation (if suspicion of violation occurs)
– $100 (court costs?)
– Pay a $2,000 fine
The prosecutor then asks the court to grant a forfeiture.
Note: There is also a forfeiture order of ~$10k not mentioned which appears to have been agreed to by the defendant. Which is a bit alarming given the millions of dollars spent by the government to prosecute an individual the government and courts knew full well and was concerned of being indigent (or in other words lacking even the most minimal financial resources to sustain themselves).
29% agree, “I would prefer New Hampshire to govern itself as an independent country.”
Thanks to the folks at the Foundation for New Hampshire Independence, we now have the results (PDF, web) of their first-ever scientific poll of the people of NH on various questions related to NH independence from the United States! Conducted by SurveyUSA, 625 adults in New Hampshire were asked 27 questions, so there’s a lot of data to go through, but here are some important takeaways.
First, 29% of all respondents either said they strongly agree or somewhat agree that they “would prefer New Hampshire to govern itself as an independent country.” This alone is tremendous news! Nearly one in three already onboard is an excellent starting point to begin persuading the rest of the population. Given only 2/3rds are needed to pass a constitutional amendment, we’re almost halfway there! Another 14% said they were “not sure”, so those people are already on the fence on the issue.
Someone may claim this is a fluke poll, but it’s actually in line with another secession poll conducted in 2021 by Bright Line Watch which asked people across the country if they “support seceding from the US to form a new regional union”. It’s not as good of a question for our purposes, as we don’t want to be in a union with the rest of New England, but it does give some insight into regional interest in independence. In that poll, 34% of New Englanders said they support seceding for joining a regional union! That result is right in line with the SurveyUSA numbers targeting only NH respondents.
63% agree, “I trust my state government more than I trust the federal government.”
An even more interesting takeaway from the NH poll is that 52% of republicans say they strongly agree or somewhat agree that they “would prefer New Hampshire to govern itself as an independent country.” Plus, 11% said they were “not sure”. When the historic, proposed constitutional amendment to peacefully secede came up this year in the state house, despite having several republican sponsors, the establishment republicans spoke firmly against it. Others quietly told us they agreed with the bill, but were too afraid they’d lose their re-election if they supported it. Ultimately only thirteen voted against the establishment motion to table the bill. Now that we have the encouraging results of this poll showing majority republican support for secession, perhaps some of the state reps will find a spine. Hopefully the newly established NH Independence PAC will be able to use this data to try to persuade them to stand up in favor of independence for New Hampshire.
As the Foundation for NH Independence pointed out in their announcement of the poll numbers, over time people’s opinions can shift on an issue once considered impossible, like shall-issue gun permits. They say in 1990 that shall-issue permits were less popular than secession is today, but opinions changed and now the supermajority of states have them. Let’s look at some reasons why the numbers are going to shift in favor of independence for NH:
We already have roughly 2/3rds of people in NH who are frustrated with the federal government. As the feds continue to get worse, more and more will let go of their indoctrinated, nationalistic love of the United States and join the side of NH independence.
Interestingly, only 39% of respondents agreed that, “If New Hampshire were not already part of the United States, it would be beneficial for the state to join, and be governed by DC.” Showing that even though some in NH aren’t ready to leave just yet, they sure wouldn’t want to join this terrible union! Further, 42% said that the question of secession should be put to New Hampshire voters, and 12% said “not sure”.
Will NH’s state reps be persuaded by these numbers?
Whenever one speaks to people about declaring independence from the United States, the number one objection is the fear that the military will be used to attack the state that is seceding. This is an understandable fear, given what happened in the 1800s. However, this poll shows it has no basis in reality, as across all eight states that were polled, an average of only 6% would support military intervention if a state secedes. While 37% would support some form of “economic sanctions”, the majority – 57% – say the state should simply be allowed to leave. Americans don’t want to kill their own families and friends just because they want to leave the union and if the federal government gets violent with a seceding state, it will only undermine their legitimacy even further.
The New Hampshire Independence movement is just getting started and I’m excited that so many people are already supportive. If you love liberty and want to secede, you should be here in NH. Come help us make this a reality sooner rather than later. Time is of the essence. You can start by signing the petition!
You can see the full results including crosstabs (PDF, web) for yourself, so feel free to dig through the data yourself!
A recent poll conducted by SurveyUSA on behalf of the Foundation for New Hampshire Independence (FNHI) shows that while the peaceful separation of New Hampshire from the federal government has low support among politicians, it has significant support among registered voters.
According to an overwhelming number of respondents, the people of the United States are getting more and more divided over important issues like LGBT rights, guns, abortion, election integrity, race relations, involvement in foreign wars, climate change, immigration, and so on (91%). Nearly as many fear that if this trend continues, it will lead to increases in political violence (89%).
Large majorities of respondents agreed that the federal government doesn’t have their best interests in mind (67%); that it violates their rights more than it protects those rights (65%); that it produces laws, regulations, and court rulings that are incompatible with New Hampshire’s culture of freedom (63%); and that its financial decisions and economic regulations hurt our livelihoods, and could lead to inflation and bankruptcy (77%).
In short, 63% of respondents feel that their state can be trusted more than the federal government.
One possible way forward would be for New Hampshire to begin ignoring federal laws and regulations regarding matters reserved to the States by the 10th Amendment. Fewer than half of respondents believe that the federal government should be able to force New Hampshire to follow federal mandates and laws regarding cannabis (27%), medicine (37%), public health (42%), education (41%), welfare (42%, firearms (42%), businesses (38%), and abortion (33%).
This approach, also referred to as ‘nullification’ is common, currently being utilized by dozens of states, and is consistent with the recent enactment of New Hampshire HB 1178, ‘prohibiting the state from enforcing any federal statute, regulation, or Presidential Executive Order that restricts or regulates the right of the people to keep and bear arms’.
However, a more comprehensive way forward would be for New Hampshire to reclaim its sovereignty, peacefully separating from the federal government to govern itself as an independent country, an idea that was supported by 29% of respondents and 52% of Republicans. Only 58% of respondents do not support immediate and full secession from the federal government today. More than 2/5 of respondents agreed that the state should be able to do this without securing permission from the federal government (43%). And only 3% of respondents would support the use of military force by the federal government to interfere with such a separation.
Again, while politicians declined to put the question to the people, more than 2/5 of respondents support the idea of placing independence on the ballot (42%) while only 47% currently oppose it.
History is filled with proposals that seemed at first to be politically impossible, but after serious discussion and evolving circumstances, proved to be politically inevitable. To take just one example, shall-issue laws for concealed carry licenses, once viewed as extreme, are now the law in nearly every state. As the results of this poll show, peaceful separation already has more support now than shall-issue laws had in 1990. Today, not only is shall-issue the norm, but 25 states allow their residents to carry concealed guns without even requiring a permit. If New Hampshire independence follows a similar path, it may only be a few short years away from broad adoption.
The survey also found strong support for independence and extreme discontent with DC politicians among all 8 states polled. In Texas, 90% of Republicans recently endorsed putting secession on the ballot, officially placing the position in their platform. California progressives have a strong independence movement of their own, and surveys show that around half of Californians support or are open to independence from the union. Progressives in Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington also support independence. States like South Carolina, Florida, and many other states have new independence movements that are rapidly growing, as well.
The post New Hampshire Survey Shows Disdain For DC, Support For Independence appeared first on Foundation for New Hampshire Independence.
The #1 thing that state reps said they wanted to hear before they’d vote yes on independence was that their constituents actually wanted independence. We know that the people of New Hampshire want independence thanks to a Union Leader poll that evidenced 70-78% of New Hampshire voters supported the idea. However that isn’t good enough for many state reps so now we have to go a step further. We created bumper stickers & t-shirts to ensure that on the next go around they can’t so easily excuse away not voting yes on independence! Pick up a NHexit.US bumper sticker and/or t-shirt and let everyone know how you feel about New Hampshire independence.
This year’s sold-out Liberty Forum featured an excellent and well-attended panel on New Hampshire secession featuring Alu Axelman of the Foundation for New Hampshire Independence, Steven Axelman of YES California, and Daniel Miller of the Texas Nationalist Movement. Moderated by Carla Gericke of the Free State Project, it was an entertaining and enlightening panel, featuring plenty of questions from the audience. Don’t miss it:
State Rep Mike Sylvia Committing Civil Disobedience in 2014
State representative Mike Sylvia of Belmont – the main sponsor of CACR 32, the historic NH Exit constitutional amendment – has spoken out via his blog on the subject of New Hampshire Independence. Written just days prior to the full house vote, Sylvia’s excellent piece is titled, “Sovereign State Or Branch Office of D.C. Inc.” In it, he demolishes the arguments against secession. You can read it here on his blog, but I have also pasted the text below to ensure it is not taken down if his site goes away at some point:
Sovereign State Or Branch Office of D.C. Inc.In 1784 the people of New Hampshire formed a government, founded upon the sovereignty of the people. The people shared with that government a limited portion of their own sovereignty which was detailed in Part II of the New Hampshire constitution. Notably, the people retained to themselves rights which could not be infringed upon nor delegated to others. This is known as our New Hampshire Bill of Rights which make up Part I of our constitution.
The people of New Hampshire declared our State to be forever a sovereign state.
[Art.] 7. [State Sovereignty.] 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.
In 1787 the Constitution for the United States was created. In 1791 the Bill of Rights was amended to the constitution. This included the 9th amendment;
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
And the 10th;
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Note how well those amendments fit with the preexisting NH Constitution Part I, Article 7, [State Sovereignty.] 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.
In the majority report recommending that CACR32 be inexpedient to legislate three ill-conceived reasons are relied upon.
First, “Nowhere in our US Constitution does it allow the federal government to permit any state to secede.” If one reads and understands the 10th amendment to the US Constitution, one can clearly see that lacking the explicit delegation of the power to prevent secession means that secession is retained to the states or the people. The majority report is self-defeating and lacks any logic.
Second, the majority claims that the ‘perpetual union’ was then ‘perfected’ under the US Constitution therefore it must continue for eternity. An honest look at the historical facts will reveal that we no longer hold to the Articles of Confederation; clearly that union was not perpetual. In fact, one can consider the formation of a new government under the US Constitution to have been an act of revolution.
Lastly, the Civil War settled the question. This argument is the very simple and brutal ‘might makes right.’ This is a bit odd when balanced with the concept of a contract between states. If force is that which holds the union together then there is no state sovereignty. If sovereignty is held by D.C. Inc. one might be forced to consider whence that sovereignty came.
It is quite sad but predictable that a committee named State Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs would be so subservient to the powers of the National government which regards its founding document with such little concern.
With such weak arguements against the proposed amendment to our constitution, the author of the majority report felt the need to move beyond reporting on the bill into the realm of questioning the character of the sponsors. He demands that D.C. Inc. punish those whom question authoritarian rule from the swamp. He even goes as far as threatening those whom might dare to vote for such a proposal.
Still straying from the content of the amendment the writer implies that the General Court should punish those whom follow the State constitution and view the State as the sovereign state that it is.
Insecure in his failed reasoning, he resorts to threatening charges of rebellion for those whom might dare vote to send a constitutional amendment to the people of the state. He further implies that the NH House remove voting rights for presumed rebellion.
REBELLION: Deliberate, organized resistance, by force and arms, to the laws or operations of the government, committed by a subject.
I’m almost disappointed that he didn’t whip out the big one:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Let me end with one more jewel from our Bill of Rights:
[Art.] 30. [Freedom of Speech.] 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.
The authors of our founding documents knew tyranny all too well, if we open our eyes today, we can see it coming back around.
Open your eyes.
(The “Majority Report” from committee member Brodie Deshaies appears below:)
CACR 32, relating to independence. Providing that the state peaceably declares independence from the United States and proceeds as a sovereign nation. INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.
Rep. Brodie Deshaies for State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs. The committee believes that articles of secession are unconstitutional and therefore impossible. Any attempt to make NH a “sovereign nation” only purports to do so and is illegitimate. There are three main arguments the committee heard. The first legal argument why states cannot secede from the union is reasonably understandable. The federal government is the only legitimate power to admit new states and to extend or retract territorial boundaries. Nowhere in our US Constitution does it allow the federal government to permit any state to secede, let alone for any state to decide unilaterally. Our constitution is quite clear on this issue (see Article IV, Section 3). No state constitution has ever suggested that states hold this power. Constitutions are implicit contracts with citizens that grant governments specific powers. With no power explicitly given allowing secession, no state can ever secede. Another argument lies in the US Supreme Court decision in Texas v. White (1869). In the court’s majority decision, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase explained that the union began during the Revolutionary War amongst the colonies. In his decision, he writes, the union “was confirmed and strengthened… and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation… [and] by these, the Union was solemnly declared to be perpetual.” Justice Chase then says that our current Constitution was “ordained to form a more perfect Union,” which intended to convey the idea of indissoluble unity….” Therefore, the union can never be dissolved. Our form of government and Constitution is predicated upon the union’s “perpetual” existence. Without this “perpetual” existence, we would be throwing away the union, and with it, the US Constitution. The last constitutional argument is straightforward. It does not matter whether or not secession is illegal. What matters is that the union beat the confederacy in the Civil War. Once this happened, the illegality of unilateral secession was de facto established. The legality of secession was answered at Appomattox Court House in 1865 with the conclusion of the Civil War. It also means the repercussions for attempting unilateral secession have been decided too. The federal government must punish states and their leaders who try to secede. Which leads us to another question: can state leaders introduce or vote for articles of secession? This is currently an open question and the NH General Court would decide the answer. Nonetheless, the 14th Amendment, Article III, is very clear: “No State Legislator shall engage in rebellion against the Constitution.” Voting for NH’s proposed articles of secession could be determined by the NH House as rebellion against the US Constitution. It could be casting a vote to rebel against the union and, therefore, the same constitution establishing the perpetual union. Voting for CACR32 is not voting for a referendum. NH does not have referendum. We encourage fellow lawmakers to reject NH’s articles of secession and protect constitutional government. Not only is CACR32 logistically and constitutionally impossible, but NH’s articles of secession may require enforcement of the 14th Amendment by the NH House.
It was a historic day as New Hampshire was the first state since the “Civil War” to have a house floor discussion about secession. As reported on this blog previously, CACR 32 – the constitutional amendment that would have allowed NH voters to decide the question of declaring peaceful independence from the United States – was voted down 323-13 on Thursday. Now you can watch video of the full discussion from the floor of Rep’s Hall:
Don’t miss this post at Free Keene which gathers together seventeen hysterical posts from SHOCKED democrats in response to the heroic thirteen state reps who voted to try to stop CACR 32 from being killed.
We’re just getting started promoting independence for New Hampshire. CACR 32 was just the beginning to get the conversation going. Stay tuned here to NHexit.US for more. Meanwhile, be sure to sign the petition and join the community via the links in the top menu and help us do even more!
Cowardly State Reps Return to Reps Hall
Today was the big day, the first time ever that a bill relating to New Hampshire independence was heard by the full state house. With over 330 of 400 reps in attendance, the historic proposed constitutional amendment was sadly shot down 323-13. We didn’t expect to win the first time out, of course. The point of CACR 32 was to get the conversation started.
No thanks however to multiple so-called “liberty reps” who put fear-based political concerns over principle and refused to back up the brave reps who sponsored this bill. I was there greeting the reps this morning as they entered Reps’ Hall and I heard various excuses. Free Stater rep Jess Edwards said it shouldn’t go to voters unless reps support the idea, and he doesn’t. This is literally the same thing some of the democrats told me as they were entering the chamber, expressing that they were against democracy as they see themselves as “gatekeepers”. One Democrat, rep Tim Egan, even admitted in an email to me, “legislators can absolutely not trust voters with this decision”. The state reps don’t trust you to decide, whether they be Republican or Democrat.
Representative Tom Ploszaj used the excuse that no one from his constituency had reached out to him in support of CACR 32. Of course the bill got very little attention in the media, so it’s likely few people were even aware of it. Ploszaj and other “liberty reps” seem very concerned with what voters would think if they voted in support of CACR 32. Ploszaj said in an email, “My personal opinion and stance on the CACR is irreverent [SIC] since I was elected to represent my district and uphold the Constitutions not to make decisions based on my own agendas.” This is a strange statement as we all know that no one can truly “represent” a diverse group of people. If Ploszaj ran a campaign and was honest about supporting liberty, then that is presumably why he was elected, not to do anything a handful of people who call him up suggest. If a few people called Ploszaj to request he sponsor some Communist legislation, I suspect he would say no, even though some constituents wanted it.
Jason Osborne, Free Stater and the current House Majority Leader said that he supports California seceding, but doesn’t think the people of New Hampshire want independence. He told me instead NH should lead the way for America. Another Free Stater, five-term rep Brian Seaworth expressed that he didn’t want to support the bill because he didn’t think it would pass and he felt that voting for it would put him in jeopardy of losing the next election. Melissa Blasek, state rep and executive director of Rebuild NH said that while she likes the idea, she’s worried the democrats will use it against her in her reelection campaign.
I guess we’ll see if the thirteen heroes who voted for this bill will be defeated in their re-election attempts later this year. What if they are re-elected? Will the “liberty reps” who refused to stand on principle develop a spine? Don’t get your hopes up.
Perhaps they’ll be prosecuted for treason or rebellion as statist rep Brodie Deshaies suggested in his attempts to intimidate the reps into opposing CACR 32. I’d bet against any reps being prosecuted. Despite the claims to the contrary, this was an attempt at peaceful secession. No violence was ever suggested. Secession is legal and constitutional, as rep Matt Santonastaso explained in his speech on the house floor today. Article one, section ten of the US Constitution outlines the specific things that states are not allowed to do. Leaving is not one of those prohibited things. In fact, secession isn’t talked about at all in the US Constitution. Therefore, it’s a right left to the states under the tenth amendment of the Bill of Rights. We CAN do this. Some state is going to be first to go. Whether it’s Texas, California, New Hampshire, or elsewhere, the only question is when.
NHexit.US
The next big step for the NH Exit constitutional amendment, CACR 32, is this Thursday March 10th, when it will come to the full state house for a vote. Supporters of New Hampshire independence should immediately call or email their state representatives and ask them to support CACR 32. Please remind them that voting on CACR 32 is NOT a vote on state secession. Their vote is on whether or not to put the question on the ballot for the people to decide.
Many reps are confused and believe that if they vote to pass CACR 32 that they are supporting independence for NH and that is not true. Voting to kill CACR 32 means they are anti-democratic and do not want to allow the people of New Hampshire to vote on the matter. Please be kind to the confused reps and try to help them understand rather than getting upset.
Here’s a handy tool you can use to discover your local state reps and get their contact information. While you can contact more than just your area’s reps, reps outside your area may not consider your comments as seriously as your local reps. So, if your time is limited, keep your state rep outreach to your area’s reps only.
Second, if you have free time this Thursday March 10th, please show up at the state house in Concord at 107 N Main St for their full house session where CACR 32 will be heard. We do not know the exact time CACR 32 will come up, but it is expected to happen at some point. The session begins at 9am but some NH Independence activists will be arriving much earlier, some as early as 7:30am, for a rally outside the state house. Feel free to bring signs or shirts promoting independence for New Hampshire. Be sure to also connect with our chat rooms on Matrix or Telegram to help coordinate. Both chat rooms are linked together, so if you join one, you needn’t join the other.
Earlier this winter, the committee hearing the bill voted it “Inexpedient to Legislate” 21-0, however there are 400 state reps in New Hampshire and because it’s a constitutional amendment any vote of the full house must be a “roll call” vote. Roll call means that each representative’s vote is recorded so we know how each state rep voted. We need to be present on Thursday to show them there is support for CACR 32 and that we are watching to see how they vote. See you Thursday morning at the state house in Concord!
Over the past few weeks, a group of pro-freedom activists in New Hampshire has been holding informal meetings to brainstorm how to best promote independence in the next legislative session. Predictably, progressive authoritarians have already begun to attack the concepts of independence and liberty. A few conservatives cling to hope that they can fix DC and all 50 states, convince all Democrats to embrace conservative liberty values, and ‘save America’.
I have written dozens of articles, published three books, and produced hundreds of videos making the case for a national divorce from the authoritarians. Here are just 100 reasons why every New Hampshire citizen who supports freedom should support a bill and a ballot referendum on independence from DC.
The post Top 100 Reasons New Hampshire Should Be Independent appeared first on Foundation for New Hampshire Independence.