Letters to the Editor



Kelly Ayotte could be indicted for these crimes.....

Did she delete those emails as an act of Obsttruction of Justice?  This is real.





What If?




HB 1449


RE: House Bill 1449

July  2009 the New Hampshire Supreme Court rendered a very bad decision in Shawn Johnson.  Appears the NH Supreme Court is sensitive to Castle Doctrine and Curtilage within domicile to protect privacy.   Beyond curtilage the NH Supreme Court has stripped  people naked, from the wrath of government agents from warrantless searches in their protection of privacy on private property or private open land in [Johnson].     Very apparent the NH Supreme Court Justices cannot read, understand and apply  Article 2 and Article 19 of the State Constitution and/or the 4th. 5th.  And the 14th. Amendments of  Bill of Rights within the Constitution for the united States of America.  The Justices erred in Johnson.  I have filed HB 1449 through my Representative Edmond Gionet to legislatively correct this error by the NH Supreme Court.   There was confusion with Legislative Services in the text of my bill.  I’m not satisfy with the HB 1449 text.  I have amended HB 1449, that I will present to the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee, on Tuesday January 10, 2012 at 1:30.  In amending the bill I have included to protect people from warrantless searches on pubic property.   Do you feel people should be protected on public ways, parks, waterways etc.?   I am asking no more protection than what is already granted in our Constitutions.   Hope all people concern with their privacy and rights attend the hearing, Tuesday and support HB 1449.  There can be no exceptions to our Rights.

I have included amended version of House Bill 1449 for your convenience.

Thank  You

Harold Brown


AN ACT requiring a search warrant for searches of privately-owned property.
SPONSORS: Rep. Gionet, Graf 3
COMMITTEE: Criminal Justice and Public Safety
This bill requires a search warrant for searches of privately-owned property.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Twelve
AN ACT requiring a search warrant for searches of privately-owned property.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 New Section; Warrant Requirement for Searches of Privately-Owned Property. Amend RSA 595-A by inserting after section 1 the following new section:
595-A:1-a Search Warrant Required. A search warrant shall be required for any search of person(s) on/and privately-owned property.  A search warrant shall be required for any search of person(s),personal property, while on public property.
2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2013.


Regarding HB 514 

Greetings;  Happy New Year

Regarding HB 514

Rep. Gionet sent a copy of HB 514 for my opinion, for it was similar to my bill.  Legislation appears good until section VI and the last section,  EXEMPTIONS.  The exemptions make HB 514 illegal legislation and an outrage.   The bill invites federal, state or local law enforcement onto private property without a warrant.  This is insanity.  You can’t legislate allowing government agent(s) onto private property without a warrant.   Another exemption is to allow real estate boundary surveys onto private property.   The major battle by opponents of Northern Pass is not to allow surveyors on contagious private property of the Northern Pass Right a Way.   HB 514 is direct slap in the face to opponents of Northern Pass, matter of fact, all property owners of New Hampshire.   To legislate allowing person(s) on private property against the wishes of the property owner is a oath of office violation.   This is bad legislation, illegal-against our State Constitution, violation of the Bill of Rights within the Constitution for united  States of America.  Article 19 and the 4th.. Amendment for starters.

Whatever the good intentions of HB 514 is, in reality the consequences are bad, misguided, in violation of the law of the land.  

Attach to HB 514 was a statement by Rep Guida  Rep. Guida states, there are remedies to landowner to recover legal expenses, to fine individuals who knowingly violate this law. I find no such text in this bill, unless it is some where else in the Chapter. HB514 enclosed for your convenience.

"Hey mister, who gave you that shiner?"
"Nobody gave it to me, son – I fought for it."

The House will vote on HB 514 January 4, 2012

Live in Freedom


In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Eleven
AN ACT relative to entry on private land.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 New Chapter; Entry on Private Property. Amend RSA by inserting after chapter 7-B the following new chapter:
7-C:1 Entry on Private Property.
I. Absent a lawfully issued warrant, no person shall enter private property for data-gathering projects, including but not limited to biodiversity studies, endangered species or habitat surveys, sampling, or delineation, whether or not authorized by state or municipal agencies, boards, commissions, or any nongovernmental organization, without first giving written notice to the property owner and obtaining the prior written permission of such property owner.
II. No information gathered without permission shall be recorded, made public, or used for studies or grants.
III. Information gathered with permission may only be used for the purpose stated in the notification.
7-C:2 Notification Requirements. Notice to the landowner shall include:
I. The purpose of the data gathering.
II. The date and duration of the data gathering.
III. The land or environmental features that are being evaluated.
IV. The manner in which information or samples will be recorded and retained.
V. The method by which information or samples collected will be shared with government agencies, third parties, or the general public.
VI. A full disclosure of the potential restrictions that may be placed on such property, and on abutters, as a consequence of such information being recorded.
7-C:3 Exemption. The requirements of this chapter shall not apply to federal, state, or local law enforcement, the fish and game department, emergency services, real estate boundary surveys, emergency response to a public health threat, or animal control.
2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.


House Bill 591

What is HB 591?

House Bill 591 is AN ACT relative to the determination of parental rights based on the best interest of the child. This bill revises the standard for determining parental rights. The bill also repeals the court’s authority to award visitation to a stepparent or grandparent in a proceeding to determine parental rights and responsibilities.
Why is it so important for New Hampshire families?
 New Hampshire courts should enforce orders that provide for frequent and continuing contact between each parent and their minor child or children in a divorce proceeding jointly sharing the responsibilities of child-rearing and encouraging the love, affection between the children and the parents involved regardless of marital status.
Unless a court makes an explicit finding that such contact is not in the best interest of the child, strictly based upon circumstances such as one parent interfering with visitation time, parental kidnapping, neglect, or abuse, there should always be joint parental rights and responsibilities encouraged, as close to 50 percent parenting time for each parent as is possible given the parties availability and logistics, because it is always in the best interest of the child or children.