Letters to the Editor



Open Letter to Steve Vaillancourt 

Some people, including you, have claimed that I'm “not libertarian” because I called for the censure of a State Representative who stated that she wishes to restrict freedoms in an attempt to target a specific group of people. You called this “witch hunt to deny free speech to a duly elected representative.”You don't specify how a censure denies anyone's free speech. Censure is defined as, to “express severe disapproval of (someone or something), typically in a formal statement.” When a legislative body censures someone, they are formally expressing disapproval of a statement or action of an elected official. There is no removal of that person's freedom of speech, simply a formal statement that the body disapproves of what was said. Impeachment is “a formal document charging a public official with misconduct in office.” Again, nothing about removing free speech in that definition either! [NH RSA's do not define either term, so I am using the definitions from Google]


There are now three unanswered questions:

1) Since no action was taken on the petition against Cynthia Chase, am I to believe the official position of the New Hampshire General Court is that “Free Staters” are not welcome in New Hampshire and that laws must be passed that make us leave or not move here to begin with?2) Since the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to uphold the ruling of the Speaker of the House that a petition for redress can not be heard absent a legislative sponsor filing said petition during a small window in November and December, am I to believe that the people have no right to have their petitions heard outside of a small window in November & December?

3) How does that decision fit with Part 1 Article 32 of the NH constitution which recognizes the right of the people to “give instructions to their representatives… by way of petition…” AND Part 1 Article 31 states, “The legislature shall assemble for the redress of public grievances…”?


[I am sending this open letter to NHInsider.com & Rep. Vaillancourt before making it publicly available on FreeKeene.com]


In Peace, Freedom, Love & Liberty,
Darryl W. Perry

Darryl W. Perry is an activist, author, poet & statesman. Darryl is a regular contributor to The Bulverde StandardThe Canyon Lake Week and The Comal Beacon and writes a monthly article for The Sovereign. He hosts the weekly news podcasts Freedom Minute and Police Accountability Report and hosts the weekly radio show Peace, Love, Liberty Radio on the Liberty Radio Network.
Darryl is a co-founder and co-chair of the NH Liberty Party.
Darryl is the Owner/Managing Editor of Free Press Publications.

Town of Londonderry vs Private Property Owner

Dear Concerned Citizen,
The Town of Londonderry used Fraud Upon the Court to gain possession of a piece of property and built a fire station on it using Federal money.  Here is the timeline of events:
  1. 1995 – 2001. The Tax Collector would not tender tax money from the years of 1995 through 2001, which amounts to more than $27,000 in bank checks. This is in complete violation of NH RSA 80:71.

    Question: Since when does a Tax Collector refuse tax money from a tax payer?

  2. May of 1999. The same Tax Collector, Joan Savina, tax deeded the property to the Town in complete violation of NH R.S.A. 80:76. Look at paragraphs IIa & III. This was done in complete defiance of the Board of Selectmen. All property deeds need an informed grantee. This never happened in May of 1999.

  3. July 1, 2002. The Town of Londonderry won a restraining order against me, claiming I was a trespasser on their property.

  4. August 1, 2002. The Town sent me a Notice to Quit.

  5. August 19, 2002. The Town of Londonderry’s Lawyer, Barton Mayer, changed his mind about who really owned the property. In his answer to the same Court he told in July that the Town did own the property to obtain a restraining order, he backtracked and stated in his letter that the Town did not actually have ownership of the property. The Town also violated NH 80:91.

  6. August 19, 2002. The same day, the Town hired a junk dealer (S&S Metals) who showed up with an army of Londonderry Policemen that held me at bay and spent a number of days stealing my equipment: trucks, bulldozers, cranes, backhoes, cars, welding machines, and thousands of dollars in hand tools.

  7. New Hampshire Law states unambiguously in RSA 80:91 that the Town has a three-year window from the date of the Tax deed to be in compliance with RSA 80:91.

    Do the math: The three-year window was over in May of 2002. That is assuming the Town of Londonderry had a legal deed in the first place.

  8. September 5, 2002. After having me arrested for Criminal Trespass on my own property, the Town (through their lawyer, Barton Mayer) offered me a bribe if I would sign over a Quit Claim deed to the Town of Londonderry, he would drop the Criminal Trespass charges. As a result of not signing a Quit Claim deed, I was put in jail for 17 days without bail.

  9. December 2002. The Town of Londonderry’s lawyer (knowing full well that the Town didn't own the property) gave the case to the Londonderry Prosecutor, Kevin Coyle, who signed an affidavit swearing that the Town owned the property.

  10. January 31, 2003. This case somehow made its way to Rockingham County Superior Court as a structuring conference with a Docket number of 02-C-1074 (Town of Londonderry VS. Robert Saulnier).

  11. February 24, 2003. Barton Mayer, the first lawyer for the Town of Londonderry, filed a motion for entry of judgment that was granted by the Court. As a result, I was found in default by the Court.

  12. April 18, 2003. Back in the Derry Municipal Court, the judge signed a notice of judgment against me for not paying $5,889.14 in back rent.

  13. April 24, 2003. I filed an appeal in the Derry District Court, pursuant to NH RSA 540:20.

  14. May 9, 2003. I was evicted from property, in complete violation of NH 540:20, which says I had 30 days to complete the appeal.
Pursuant to article 358-A:10 regarding Private Actions, the Town could be liable for up to $3,000 per day that my family and I have been wrongly removed from our home. 
I have all of the paperwork to prove my case.
The Town of Londonderry, New Hampshire is running a criminal operation. More importantly, the Town has committed Fraud Upon the Court, which has no statute of limitations.
One might ask why the Town would go through all of this fraud. The answer is a Federal grant of $1.6 million to build a fire station on this property (the current North West Fire Station at 22 Grenier Field Road in Londonderry.
Follow the money and you come up with the answer.

Robert O. Saulnier
22 Highland Green
Merrimack, NH 03054

How the Obama Administration Defies Federal Law on Immigration and Welfare

How the Obama Administration Defies Federal Law on Immigration and Welfare

Immigration is in the news, and legislation is being proposed that relies on the Obama administration to execute, in good faith, the nation’s laws. But the Obama administration doesn’t do that. Instead, the administration arrogantly ignores laws it doesn’t like, in violation of Barack Obama’s constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” This is most notoriously the case with respect to immigration and welfare. We have written about this on several occasions; Jeff Sessions, ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee, sums up the administration’s sorry history in a press release titled: “Immigration And The Welfare State: How The Obama Administration Defies Federal Law.”

It is an explicit and unambiguous tenet in federal law that those granted entry into the U.S. must be able to support themselves financially. But the Obama Administration has aggressively defied this strict federal statute.­ What are new promises worth when existing law is unilaterally waived?

Last year, the Ranking Members of Budget, Finance, Judiciary, and Agriculture Committees wrote an oversight letter to Secretaries Napolitano and Clinton that said in part:

The [Immigration and Nationality Act] specifically states: “An alien who…is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible.” … We were thus shocked to discover that both the State Department and DHS exclude reliance on almost all governmental welfare programs when evaluating whether an alien is likely to become a public charge….Under your interpretation, an able-bodied immigrant of working age could receive the bulk of his or her income in the form of federal welfare and still not be deemed a “public charge.”

DHS even has a website, WelcomeToUSA.gov, that features a page promoting welfare benefits to newly arrived immigrants. (Some of these benefits, under law, should automatically disqualify the applicants from entry into the U.S. The page is also being updated to promote free coverage under the President’s health law.) Yet DHS has completely stonewalled the Committees’ oversight efforts—not replying to a single inquiry. Initial data from the State Department shows that just 0.068 percent of visa applications were denied in 2011 on the grounds of being a welfare risk. (The rate is even less—0.003 percent—when one takes into account those who are able to overcome public-charge denials in subsequent years.) In other words: Despite laws to the contrary, virtually no one is being turned away from the United States for being welfare-reliant.

Relatedly, USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack has stopped complying with efforts to learn more about his Department’s efforts to enroll immigrants and non-citizens on 15 USDA-administered welfare programs. The Department has even produced and broadcast soap opera-like “radio novelas” featuring individuals who were pressured into accepting benefits despite insisting that government assistance was not needed. USDA has also entered into a partnership with Mexico to boost welfare enrollment among non-citizens. Thanks in part to such controversial tactics, food stamp usage among immigrants has quadrupled since 2001. Vilsack missed deadlines in October and December to answer questions about USDA’s activities.

Against this backdrop, it should come as no surprise that a recent Center for Immigration Services study found that 36 percent of immigrant-headed households received at least one welfare benefit in 2010 (including public housing). The Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector offered this mathematical analysis in 2007: “On average, low-skill immigrant families receive $30,160 per year in government benefits and services while paying $10,573 in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of $19,587 that has to be paid by higher-income taxpayers… It takes the entire net tax payments (taxes paid minus benefits received) of one college-educated family to pay for the net benefits received by one low-skill immigrant family.”

As Ranking Member Sessions has explained, “Encouraging self-sufficiency must be a bedrock for our immigration policy, with the goal of reducing poverty, strengthening the family, and promoting our economic values. But Administration officials and their policies are working actively against this goal.

The Obama administration actively conspires to violate existing immigration laws. So why would anyone vote for a new statute that relies on a lawless administration to enforce the law?



LessGovernment - Real Immigration Reform: A Financial Means Test for Every Applicant

by  Seton Motley

We will have today an “immigration reform” proposal announced by a bipartisan eight Senator bloc.  And tomorrow we will endure President Barack Obama’s “immigration reform” speech.  


“Immigration reform” as proposed by both sides nearly always includes some sort of amnesty “path to citizenship” for illegal aliens.  And no real reform of the way we decide who gets to come here and who does not.  Not to mention the wide-open borders we make but a feigned attempt to enforce.  


All of which will lead to increased taxes on us, and increased debt on our children.  Because immigrants are on government programs far more frequently than native born Americans.


  • ·         In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.


  • ·         (H)ouseholds with children comprised entirely of immigrants (no U.S.-born children)...had a welfare use rate of 56 percent in 2009.


  • ·         Illegal immigrant households with children primarily use food assistance and Medicaid, making almost no use of cash or housing assistance. In contrast, legal immigrant households tend to have relatively high use rates for every type of program.


(Emphasis ours.)


Clearly the answer is not to make illegal aliens legal.  Because that actually increases their use of government programs.  Which makes sense - once “out of the shadows” they are then free to get in the sunshine-washed government money lines.


Nearly everything anyone is proposing as “immigration reform” should be preempted by something simple and rational - a financial means test.  


If you are going to be on one or more government programs when you get here - you don’t get here.  And if you are already here and on one or more programs - you can’t advance your residency status.


Applying to be a guest worker?  A resident alien?  A citizen?  Illegally here and want a path to citizenship?  Means tests all round.  


Some pro-amnesty folks will respond:


“That’s an argument for welfare reform, not opposition to ‘immigration reform.’”


To which we respond:


“Fine - go first reform welfare, and then get back to us on your definition of ‘immigration reform.’”


We simply cannot afford to continue being the blank check to the planet.  


Seton Motley is the founder and president of Less Government.  He is a writer, television and radio commentator, political and policy strategist, lecturer, debater, and activist. 

Please feel free to follow him on Twitter and Facebook - it’s his kind of stalking.



Fred Leonard - Your Bluehampshire comments, A response From Rep Chase

interesting response from Rep Chase

-------- Original Message --------

Subject: Re: Your Bluehampshire comments
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 21:40:40 -0500
From: Cynthia Chase <cyndychase25@gmail.com>
To: <fleonard@metrocast.net>

Dear Mr Leonard.  Just where did you get the idea that I was planning on introducing legislation that would make people "feel unwelcome."  You might want to reread my post.  What I want to do is to make NH the best state possible by insuring a free quality public education for every NH student that wants one.  Schools are hurting and local taxpayers are hurting because of what we did last session.  What I did was to put quotation marks around the word "freedom."  That was to indicate that I was not referring to the Bill of Rights or Constitutional freedoms.  I was referring to the "freedom" to have public funds diverted to private or religious schools, the "freedom" to drive on unsafe roads and red lined bridges because we are too cheap to raise tax payer funds to care for our infrastructure,  the "freedom" of our students to not go to college because the UNH system is the most expensive in the country and they can not afford it, the "freedom" to have companies pollute our air with greenhouse gasses which increase respiratory illnesses for seniors and asthma in our children, the "freedom" of the poor who can't get insurance to die sooner because of a lack of timely medical care.  I won't even talk about the CHINS program or community mental health!  I want to tighten up the systems that support a robust economy and a healthy and a happy citizenry and for that Sir, I make no apology.  Rep Cynthia Chase


On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Fred Leonard <fleonard@metrocast.net> wrote:
Dear Representative Chase,

I wanted to let you know that I was greatly disappointed with the remarks you made about certain people moving to NH to pursue more freedoms...planning to waste time filing legislation to make people feel unwanted is mean spirited behavior and you should offer an immediate apology to the people you have certainly insulted...I've lived in NH for over 20 years now and if there's been a change in the NH way of life, I can tell you it's not come from conservatives or libertarians...

I hope you take the time to reflect on your comments and come to the realization that they were unacceptable in a free society as well as counter-productive in the effort to bring civility back the state house...


Fred Leonard
Former State Rep
Rochester, NH