Now comes, the Appellant Daniel Richard, pro se, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 16 (8), submits this Sur-Reply to the Appellee’s Objection to the Appellants filing of Motion for Leave to file Late Authorities in this election law case, stating as follows:

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT
No. 2023-0097
Daniel Richard v. Christopher Sununu, et al.

1. On the 3rd day of June, the Town of Auburn has objected to the Appellants filing for leave of the court to file a new late authority from the Supreme Court of the United States, claiming that its recent decision in ALEXANDER v. SOUTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP, 22-807 602 U.S.___ (2024), (Alexander) is irrelevant to this instant case, which is simply not true.

Summary

2. On the 14th day of August, the Appellant file a notice of new late authorities citing the recent decision of Moore v. Harper, 600 U.S. 1 (2023), “Harper” and the New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc., et al. v. Bruen— 20-843 (U.S. June 23, 2022), “Bruen” and the District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), as binding precedent.
3. Both the Town of Auburn and the state Appellee’s chose not to object to the Appellants filing of these new late authorities (Aug. 14 2023) (Moore, Bruen, Heller, decisions), therefore, they have waived their right to object to the evolution of those precedents as cited in the Alexander decision which cites, and reinforces the Appellant’s citation of new late authorities in recent SCOTUS decisions in Moore, Bruen, Heller, on August 14th, 2023.
4. The Town of Auburn claims as its objection on pg. 1-2, item 4, that Alexander case is not relevant because it is simply a redistricting case base “racial or partisan gerrymandering” and that did not create binding precedent about – any of the issues at play in the present case”; and on pg. 2. Item 5, that nothing in Alexander case is relevant to how this Court should interpret Part II, Article 32, of the New Hampshire Constitution.
5. Such a claims by the Town of Auburn has omitted a fact in law. The Smiley court precedent in 1932, established a detailed list of at least 12 other duties of the legislatures of the several states (see below), besides redistricting. The Smiley court (1932) Harper (2023) precedents reinforced a fact in law that a citizen, elector, and taxpayer of a State has constitutional standing under the Article I §4, cl. 1. to challenge ultra vires actions of the legislature.
6. The Smiley, Moore, and now Alexander decisions, are a line of redistricting cases going back to Smiley in 1932, which examined in great detail the Federal Elections Clause (Article I §4, cl. 1), and the duties of the legislatures of the several states when exercising their law-making powers under Article I §4, cl. 1.
7. The Appellant cited in his Memorandum of law on standing, filed on 24th day of April which stated on pg. 6, that the Smiley court (1932) examination of Article I §4, cl. 1, specifically listed twelve other important duties of the state legislatures besides redistricting. SCOTUS lists some of the state legislatures’ other duties under Article I §4, cl. 1, duties besides redistricting on pg. 21—22 of the Moore v. Harper opinion:

“By fulfilling their constitutional duty to craft the rules governing federal elections, state legislatures do not consent, ratify, or elect—they make laws. Elections are complex affairs, demanding rules that dictate everything from the date on which voters will go to the polls to the dimensions and font of individual ballots. Legislatures must “provide a complete code for congressional elections,” including regulations “relati[ng] to notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices, counting of votes, duties of inspectors and canvassers, and making and publication of election returns.” (Emphasis Added) [Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, (1932)]; (Moore v. Harper et al. (2023)).

8. On the 29th day of November at oral arguments neither the Town of Auburn, nor the state Appellee’s address any of the federal questions, and failed to object to the late authorities of August 14, 2023. Therefore, they have waived their right to object now.
9. On the 25th day of April, the state Appellee’s, responding to the courts request for supplemental brief on the issue of standing, and chose not to address any federal questions, and it failed to object to the Appellants late authorities of August 14, 2023. Therefore, they have waived their right to object now.
10. On the 25th day of April, the Town of Auburn also filed a supplemental brief on the issue of standing. The Town acknowledges a fact in law on page 9-10 of their brief, that the Federal Election Clause, Article I §4, cl. 1, is controlling, and binding on the N.H. Legislature.

“See Kibbe, 142 N.H., at CITE (“At the same time, we have long recognized that the legislature is entitled to regulate the time, place, and manner of elections in New Hampshire…” (emphasis added)); see also U.S. Const. art. 1, s 4 (“The Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections  for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof, but the Congress may at any time by law make of alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.” (emphasis added)).

11. The Plaintiff’s right to vote in State and Federal elections is protected by both the Const. N.H. Part I, art. 11 and U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 2, and the Seventeenth Amendment and the laws written pursuant thereof. As the manner in which the Federal elections are conducted is question, and now under, Smiley, Moore, Alexander, line of cases under Article I §4, cl. 1, must now be examined under the Heller, Bruen, methodology applies, as the Plaintiff’s Federal voting rights are affected. The plain text of the Plaintiff’s voting rights is satisfied as he is an inhabitant of N.H. (defined by the Const. Part I, art. 11), and the Plaintiff is one of the people under the U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 2, and the Seventeenth Amendment. Therefore, these cases are relevant and controlling in this instant case.

“Although the Elections Clause does not exempt state legislatures from the ordinary constraints imposed by state law, federal courts must not abandon their duty to exercise judicial review. This Court has an obligation to ensure that state court interpretations of state law do not evade federal law.” Moore v. Harper et al. (2023) Syllabus Pg. 5.

CERTIFICATION

I, Daniel Richard, do hereby swear that on June 7, 2024, I did e-mail a copy of this to all the named Parties via the Supreme Court web portal.

Dated: June 7, 2024

Daniel Richard

/s/ Daniel Richard

VERIFICATION

I, Daniel Richard, certify that the foregoing facts are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Dated: June 7, 2024

Daniel Richard

/s/ Daniel Richard

The post Daniel Richard v. Christopher Sununu, et al. – Sur-Reply to the Appellees Objection to the Appellants Late Authorities appeared first on Granite Grok.

What does Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom have in common with Islam? Aside from the movie being a fantasy both are about murder/terror cults. Oh yes it is, kidnapping and slavery alive and well in the Muslim world to this day and feminists should be going crazy that in Islam a woman is worth 1/4th that of a man (Read a Koran).

Any poor woman raped in the muslim word must have four muslim men testify in her behalf or she can be put to death (Islamic law)- Read a Koran.

Did you know Muhammed married a 9 year old girl, yes he did, (Read a Koran) and to this day a Muslim father can sell or give away a 9 yo daughter.

Ever hear of “honor killing”? Muslim fathers can kill wives or daughters for offending Muslim traditions or disobediences to his commands. yes they can (Read a Koran).

And don’t get me starter on “The Religion of Peace.” Go on your computer for “the religion of peace” if you are lazy and don’t want to get a Koran.

Religion of Peace? The Koran has 109 verses dedicated to war with nonbelievers and very few dedicated to tolerance and peace. All Muslims must engage in this war directly or indirectly or they’ll be condemned to hell.

This has been the ideology for 1400 years. It’s a bad ideology.

Since 9-11 there has been 45,293 terrorist attacks world wide. In the past 30 days, 98 attacks. In 2023 there were 1,784 attacks that killed 11,424 people and injured 12,999. In 2022 there were 1,198 attacks killing 9,025 people and injuring 6,815. In 2021 there were 2,281 attacks, 11,831 dead 9,599 injured.

The list goes on and on like this for more than a thousand years of wars of conquest, slavery and terror.

Not so very peaceful really.

The post Night Cap: Read a Koran appeared first on Granite Grok.

The world is so weird that the judge in the Trump case (34 felony convictions) just notified all parties that a Facebook post was discovered announcing the verdict before the verdict was announced.

BREAKING: Judge Merchan sends letter to parties in NY Trump case notifying them that this comment was left on their Facebook page before the verdict:

“My cousin is a juror and says Trump is getting convicted & Thank you folks for all your hard work!!!!.” pic.twitter.com/u5SBuNQs6y

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) June 7, 2024

Here is the official NY Court System PDF.

People v DJT 6-7-24 Letter to Parties

It all seems legitimate, but so did the justice system.

All things being equal (and just), this is likely grounds for a mistrial and the 34 felony counts being vacated pending a retrial. Or something. The lawyers can help me out with this. I don’t have much more to add than this excellent response to the original.

According to 51 former intelligence officials, that Facebook comment is Russian disinformation.

— AdamInHTownTX (Not a Neurologist) (@AdamInHTownTX) June 7, 2024

I know he’s joking, but seriously. Jurors are forbidden from discussing the case with anyone, including each other, outside the deliberation room. This is a huge breach, but given the railroading we’ve already witnessed, can we expect anything approaching typical procedure in this circumstance?

Closing thought: What if the leak was deliberate as an escape valve for what was a very poorly handled and badly executed political persecution? It’s kind of like Biden’s sudden rebound on the border, except what Biden did was meaningless. This. This would be something.

The post Mistrial? – Trump Verdict Announced in Facebook Post a Day Before the Actual Verdict (Ruh Roh!) appeared first on Granite Grok.

Back in 2019, Hasbro released a woke feminist version of one of its more historically popular board games, as Monopoly. Ms. Monopoly “recognizes inventions that women created or contributed to and gives bonuses to female players.”

That’s the sanitized Wikipedia description. What they mean by bonuses is that “Women get $1,900 at the start of the game and receive $240 salary when passing “Go,” whereas men start with $1,500 and receive a $200 salary.”

I’m not sure who made those choices, but my first thought was how insulting it is to women. In the regular version, everyone starts out the same, and sex is irrelevant. Gameplay and a bit of luck decide who wins. An observation shared across the political spectrum.

Reception towards Ms. Monopoly was mostly negative upon its announcement. Eric Thurm, the author of “Avidly Reads: Board Games”, said the game created a “surface-level fantasy world” where women succeed simply because of their gender. Madeleine Kearns of National Review called it “patronizing pointlessness”. Queens College‘s philosophy department head Christine Sypnowich said it was “unhelpful to portray women as needing special advantages.” Jennifer Borda, an associate professor specializing in feminist studies at the University of New Hampshire, suggested that it would be more suitable if male players instead faced challenges women face in the workplace.

I’m not sure what those challenges are. I know they exist, but I am not a woman, so I can’t possibly see that work through their eyes. I can say that even back in the 70s, I had female superiors. Bosses. Managers. No more or less competent than their male equivalents. They either knew and did their job, or they didn’t. Sex was irrelevant. I understand that’s not true everywhere, certainly not then and to some extent now, but these days, women graduate college at higher rates and make decent money, not that it matters in this economy.

There will always be glass ceilings and hurdles. Women haven’t made any sort of an inroad into men’s professional sports (for obvious reasons), and there aren’t very many female undersea welders or oil rig workers. I could list dozens of high-paying, dangerous jobs women don’t want, and there is an equally long list of things women don’t want in many other jobs that make them less of an asset and that likely affect pay.

Men and women are different in many ways, including how they view work, location, willingness to travel, hours, commitment, and job choices.

Ms. Monopoly does us a disservice by making assumptions that even women find insulting.

Maybe Monopoly needs a Trans Ms. Monopoly. A world where men pretending to be women have more rights and opportunities than actual women.

We’ll be waiting.

The post Not Sure How I Missed This Ridiculous Thing – “Ms. Monopoly” appeared first on Granite Grok.