All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 29, 2023 - The Lindell Report - Mike Lindell
52:39
The Lindell Report (11-29-23)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is the Lindell Report, bringing you news combined with hope by offering practical and achievable action points to assist you in defending and preserving faith and freedoms.
And now, here is your host, Mike Lindell.
Good evening.
Glad you are with us.
Brandon House in for Mike Lindell, who is out on business tonight.
And we have breaking news out of New Hampshire.
We told you guys about two or three weeks ago that there was a case going to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
That was today, this morning to be precise, and I guess it went very, very well.
I know that the first phone call I received this morning was from Marilyn Todd, telling me just how excellent it was.
And we know that Ivan Reikland was there as well.
And then the man that presented it, Daniel Richard.
Daniel joins us and then we'll be joined by Marilyn who I guess Marilyn's going through a tunnel so we got to wait for her to get out of the tunnel to get reception and Ivan is going through security at the airport so we're waiting on both of those guys to be able to join us but in the meantime the man of the hour who I'm told did a phenomenal job, that's the word I'm looking for, phenomenal job arguing before the Supreme Court in New Hampshire on are voting machines legal?
Are they even legal in that state?
Daniel, welcome back to the broadcast.
Thank you for joining us.
Thank you so much for having me back.
It's been a long day, so please forgive me.
I'm a little wore out.
How many interviews have you done today, Daniel?
A whole bunch.
Have you lost track?
A whole bunch.
Yes, I have.
Well, good.
That's a good day.
Well, I hear you did a superb job.
Tell me, was the room packed?
You only had seating for like 70 people, right, at the Supreme Court?
That's exactly right.
There were several hundred people there, and so there was an overflow crowd, and it humbled me.
It was great to see other patriots who are concerned about the issues before the court, which is voter integrity.
So how many sit on the Supreme Court of New Hampshire?
There's a five-court panel, and today we had four Uh, because one was just, uh, retired.
He just retired because of age last month and the replacement was before a, the executive council today for, uh, uh, his, for the new replacement.
Okay.
So tell me, um, who was your opposition?
You were our, you were making your case.
Who, who represented the cause of the state?
Excuse me, the Attorney General's office represented them and it was terrible.
Did the Attorney General himself do anything?
No.
So the Attorney General of the state didn't even bother to show up?
Absolutely not.
And when you see the case, you'll see why.
Do you have a Republican as your Attorney General or a Democrat?
Republican.
I knew you were going to say that.
A Republican governor.
Everyone involved in my case is a Republican.
Yeah.
I'm a Republican.
Which is why Attorney Mark McCloskey is working in Missouri and has the model for vetting these candidates because a lot of these Uniparty people are running as Republicans who don't hold to constitutional Republican values.
But isn't that interesting?
Alright, so when will we be able to see it or hear it?
Was it filmed?
Was it live streamed?
Audio?
Video?
When will we be able to see or hear any of it?
Multiple answers to that question.
So one, there were quite a few people, I think Ivan included, who filmed it himself and other journalists filmed it as well and the court itself records it so it'll be available live stream or it was available live stream and now will be available to everyone who wants to look it up through newhampshire.gov, New Hampshire Supreme Court live stream link and they should be able to find it.
Is it there now you think?
Uh, I'm not sure.
Again, I've had a long day and I haven't even gotten that far.
Why don't you check New Hampshire Supreme Court, see if you can find any audio or video of Dan today.
That would be great B-roll footage and even play some of the audio and video.
Let me know in my earpiece if we have that, please.
I don't think that the recordings taken by Marilyn Todd or Ivan maybe turned out to be quite broadcast quality.
We'll take what we can get, but let's see what we can find, guys.
That'd be great.
All right, so tell me the arguments you are making today.
Refresh our audience on the points you were making that we talked about a few weeks ago, and then I'd love to hear what kind of questions you were getting from the members of the New Hampshire Supreme Court, and you say the Attorney General's Office did a horrible job.
The floor is yours.
Tell us all about it, Dan.
Yeah, my entire argument is predicated on the basic premise that we are a constitutional republic.
Uh, the government exercise are always delegated from the people.
And so, uh, the changes to our election laws have circumvented that process.
They have used the legislative process to change mandatory provisions.
For example, who is to count the vote, who is qualified to vote absentee and what the definition of a qualified voter is.
And so those are the basis of the, of the case.
And so, and again, the simplicity of it is that we have a beautiful, a genius system that says that if you want to change the power of government, that you simply get the consent of the voters.
And that's the basis, the entire basis of my legal argument is that all of these things have been done without the consent of the voters, just by legislative action.
And, and therefore that can't stand.
So that's the basis of my arguments.
Okay, so what kind of response did you receive from the state, and then what kind of questions did you receive, if any, from the justices?
Well, the court was fantastic.
I could not believe how much they went after the state for not having any knowledge.
I mean, it was embarrassing for the state.
Kudos to the Supreme Court.
They really understood the subject matter.
They asked a lot of really good questions, and as someone that's steeped in the knowledge of this argument, I had answers and they didn't, and it was really embarrassing for them.
So, sorry, but this is the nature of the beast, right?
So why do you think they were so ill prepared?
You bring a great question there.
I don't know.
All I can tell you is this.
And a big part of what the court brought up today was this.
The federal standard of review that's now come into the limelight is a consequence of several Supreme Court decisions.
First, the Heller decision in Washington, D.C.
over the handgun ban, right?
That was an atrocious decision, right?
A police officer in the city of Washington, D.C.
couldn't have a handgun in his home to defend himself, so he sued and won.
That gives us the Heller decision.
That Heller decision puts in place a very important principle, and that is, they argue that, hey, why should the First Amendment, Second Amendment, Third Amendment, Fourth Amendment, so on and so forth, be treated any differently than any other of the enumerated rights in the Bill of
Rights.
And of course, we know the answer is it shouldn't be.
They should all be equal.
In other words, each right that belongs to all of us belongs to all of us and must be
equally protected.
So you can't look at the First Amendment and say that those five exemptions are any more
valuable than the Second Amendment or the Third Amendment or the Fourth Amendment.
It makes no sense, right?
So that's what we get from the Heller decision.
So you move from there into the Bruin decision, and that was a year ago.
Last summer, it's more, it's 18 months now, that decision said, hey, you folks, the lower courts, in other words, didn't get the memo.
We tried to explain to you that when the rights of the people are involved, the burden of proof shifts to the government, and the burden of proof It means that whenever you, as one of the people, believe that your state or federal government has exercised an undelegated power, and that means by writing a statute.
Let's pick on a Second Amendment case.
This is just a really good example, right?
If you write a statute that says, I'm going to interfere with your right to carry, blah, blah, you have to go through this process, blah, blah.
These are all infringements because what does the Second Amendment say?
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Well, we're talking about infringements.
We're talking about the courts finally saying what an infringement is and what are the current modern rules that govern the courts when dealing with infringements on your fundamental rights.
Wow.
And that's really profound.
That's powerful.
Indeed.
Let's bring in Ivan Reikland, who's at the airport trying to fly out from being at the Supreme Court hearing.
And we did find audio and video, thanks to Marilyn Todd, and it's very, very good, very, very quality.
You might want to roll a little bit of that as B-roll footage before we actually play some of the audio, Logan, but it's very interesting to see inside the chamber and watch Dan speaking and the four justices listening.
Ivan joins us from the airport.
Ivan, I hear Dan did a marvelous job today, and I even heard that maybe a judge or two that would be kind of known for being a little liberal actually asked him really good questions.
What do you think, Ivan?
No, absolutely.
I don't know if we have the time to play the clip at the beginning there, but absolute masterful job by Dan.
As a non-lawyer, from the human perspective, he really opened up and said, I apologize to this court.
I'm not an attorney.
I'm a pro se litigant.
Advocating on my own.
So if there's any procedural issues or problems that arise, it's not because of any intentional, uh, anything intentional that he's doing.
And I think that really set the tone where they really deferred to him respectfully, uh, and trying to parse out the argument that he was making, which at the end of the day, towards the end of the oral argument, they were really intently listening to everything he had to say and the performance.
That was I don't even know if it would be considered a performance, but the absolute epic and abysmal failure by the attorneys of the state and the township of which Dan is a resident.
I mean, it was it was laughable.
It was embarrassing to listen to them.
Do you are now you're at the airport.
So do we have a few minutes with you before you have to get on the plane?
Yeah, I actually have, I can be here the full, probably hour.
Okay, perfect.
This is going the full hour.
All right, perfect.
So, let's do this then, Logan.
Let's play a little bit of Dan's opening remarks before the justices, now that we don't have to worry about Ivan having to get on a plane immediately.
Let's go right away to this audio and video from today before the New Hampshire Supreme Court on the case that they brought related to, is it legal to even have voting machines in the state of New Hampshire?
Watch and listen to Dan's performance today.
3-0-0-9-7, Daniel Richard vs. Governor, State of New Hampshire, et al.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Good morning, Mr. Richard.
I understand you reserved two minutes for rebuttal?
Yes, sir.
And for the record, on the appellee's side, I understand Attorney Connolly, you'll be going first for ten minutes and two minutes for Attorney Tierney.
Is that correct?
All right, Mr. Richard, please proceed.
Thank you.
May it please the court, my name is Daniel Richard.
I'm representing myself in this matter.
I'm not an attorney.
I'm a pro se litigant and who's not trained in the practice of law.
I'd also like to extend my apologies in advance for any procedural errors I may have made or that I may make before you here today.
I request of this court to reserve approximately two minutes for rebuttal.
I believe I was wrongly denied by the trial court a hearing on the merits of my case.
Including but not limited to the benefit of discovery and opportunity to present expert witnesses.
Respectfully, I'm seeking from the court the following relief.
However, in the alternative, I would ask for the court to reverse the lower court's ruling and remand my case back to the lower court for a trial by jury, so a jury can decide whether the defendants either misunderstood or simply violated New Hampshire's law.
Can you tell us, if you weren't granted a trial, what kind of evidence you would present to the jury?
Yes, I would present my rights.
The body of my rights enumerated in my briefs, and under the new standard of review, I believe that we'd have a different outcome.
And so under the recent cases that I cited in the late authorities, what we have is a shifting of the burden.
The burden of proof is no longer upon me, it's now upon the state to prove that its statutory scheme would have been applicable at the time my rights were enumerated.
In the lower court, none of that was an opportunity, so we had an emergency hearing based on the the safety concerns that I had raised and that was the
extent of it where my expert witness was in fact denied the right to
testify and we had no proceeding on the merits of the arguments, but that's my answer to what I would say.
Along the same lines as Justice Donovan's question, what discovery
would you have sought and how would it have related to your claims?
news.
Well, specifically the state, the Secretary of State's office.
There's conflict in the law, so there was no ability for me to question them.
We have a conflict with the affidavit issue, which is the evidence that the state isn't following the process.
Right?
The absentee voting requires section 659 colon B requires that the moderator of every town examine the absentee, excuse me, the absentee envelope and make sure that the affidavit was properly executed.
That's not happening.
We have a big problem that hasn't happened since 1979.
And the reason it hasn't happened is that in 79, the state legislature decided they would give us religious liberty.
And what they did is they created by statute, they created a statutory right that authorized an exemption for a religious exemption.
At the same time, that same legislature omitted the notary certificate that had been in effect Since 1941, when absentee voting became a constitutional right.
And the big difference is, the Constitution provides in Part 2, Article 32, that the moderator is supposed to sort and count the votes, not a machine.
I don't know if I answered that question, ma'am.
Mr. Richard, the state spends the first part of its brief raising the issue that the issues that you actually brief were not in your notice of appeal.
And you don't respond to that in your reply brief.
Can you respond now, please?
Yes, absolutely.
In all due respect, yes.
I failed as a pro se litigant to understand the process, and I thought that I would be given that opportunity during the legal process itself of actually having a hearing and preparing all my evidence for that hearing, but that didn't happen.
And why is it inappropriate for the trial court to have analyzed and made a decision in regard to question 8 of the 1976 amendments?
It seems to me that...
It had all the information that it needed to make the decision it made.
With all due respect to the lower court, they were absolutely wrong on every fact and every position they took in that brief.
Let's go over to 1976.
There are five yes or no questions put to the voters in 76.
The court has already struck down question B, the domicile question, and question D, which is the change in the time of Who notifies the winner of the election in the month in which it happens?
So, these things have already been struck down by this court.
The Fisher v. Governor struck down the domicile question.
So why it still remains, I don't know.
But question A, the voting age, was moot.
It was already law.
It had been passed in an affirmative manner two years earlier in 1974.
Why is it the lead question when it's moot?
If you look at the bottom of the voting guide, it tells the voters that question A is already law.
Well, how can the voters say yes or no when you have five substantive questions relating from age, Domicile, voting in unincorporated places, changing who and how elections are notified, and E, absentee voting.
Absentee voting had been law since 1942 and then in 56 when they amended the Constitution a second time.
So, how that is not, and here's the killer.
Gerber v. King was already settled law in 1967.
Article 100 of the state constitution is clear.
You cannot change the definition... I'm sorry.
I lost my train of thought.
Please help.
Well, let me just ask, so is your argument in regard to Question 8 that it was premature and the trial court should have had a trial on that?
Or that the trial court was wrong?
Thank you, sir.
My point was going to be that the Article 100 is clear.
You have to ask a single yes or no question.
You can't put five yes or no questions, give the voters one choice, and call it good.
So that's exactly where that's at, and that's what Gerber v. King struck down.
So when the state cites Gerber v. King, they cherry-picked one section of it that fit the narrative,
but it doesn't address the underlying legal issue that five or yes or no questions is inappropriate under Gerber v.
King.
Background.
I'd like to get into the recent late authorities that I brought into the case that I was unaware of when I filed my brief.
Under that new standard, I don't call it a new standard review, I call it a corrected standard of review.
In the Second Amendment cases at the federal level, we had a corrective decision in Bruin last year.
And that was that Heller, the lower courts, didn't get what the Supreme Court was trying to say in Heller.
What they did In that case, in Bruin, they brought up the fact that all the courts now must follow this process.
And that is that when you look at the Bill of Rights, you must look at the plain text and analyze the plain text.
And even New Hampshire's case law, I think I cited the most recent version of the same standard of review for this court.
And that was that when you look at the plain text, under this new precedent on this corrective precedent you now left with
You're now left with the burden shifting to the state.
So it's no longer my burden to prove that the statutory scheme, and that's radical, that's a- But we aren't bound by Bruin, aren't we?
We are now because of Heller, excuse me, because of the Moore v. Harper case.
Because under the seventh, excuse me, under Article 1, Section 4 of the U.S.
Constitution, Moore v. Harper was the redistricting case, and that case outlined these issues.
It outlined that now, because it's a federally protected right, It has to.
The federal standard of review applies.
So on that premise, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, the federal constitution contains no provision allowing state legislatures to enact laws in any manner other than that prescribed by the state constitution.
That was referenced in the election law, which is central to my case here.
These contentions are supported by, again, the recent case, and the cases I just cited, and the defendants didn't object.
So they didn't object to the corrected standard of review.
And that's what these cases have put in place.
When you look at Heller leads to Bruin, Bruin puts in place the corrective action, and it applies.
They take the Second Amendment case and apply it to all of the Bill of Rights.
And so, with voting... Who is they?
I'm sorry, the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court in the Heller-Bruin decisions put in place that now the courts must look at the Bill of Rights, all of them must be treated equally, and the same standard of review now applies.
So when the Moore v. Harper case comes down this year over election law, The two are now tied together because we're because the state and the federal constitution have concurrent jurisdiction over.
You still have two minutes.
You have time.
And over the, they have concurrent jurisdiction over the election process that the standard,
the federal standard of review now applies.
And had it not been for the recent decisions that that wouldn't apply.
And so that's, I think, a major shift in the debate.
So the standard wouldn't apply in a solely state election.
Correct.
Correct.
And so what's happened now under this new, under this corrected measure, or this corrected standard of review is that they've said very clearly that they, because both constitutions apply, that they must be held to this standard.
I'll reserve the rest of my time.
Let's hold right there.
Very well done.
I think we're also now joined not only by Dan, who you just heard presenting the case, but Ivan and Marilyn Todd.
Let's go to Marilyn.
Marilyn, are you with us?
I am.
Can you hear me?
I can hear you.
He did a splendid job, didn't he?
Oh my gosh, he did amazing.
It was one of my favorite days in the last three years, that's for sure.
And why is that, Marilyn?
I just like how he pretty much owned the, you know, the state's lawyers.
He pretty much owned the state's lawyers.
All you heard was them is doing is going, uh, uh, uh.
And, um, also like my, one of my favorite parts was when Daniel brought up the fact that If you want machines in New Hampshire, fine, but do it legally, right?
You have to ask the people, and you have to get two-thirds of the vote from the people to change the Constitution, just like Massachusetts did, and the judges didn't know what to say when Daniel said that.
It was literally like a mic drop.
It was so funny, and they were taking notes, like, okay, so basically, And Daniel's absolutely right.
They didn't get permission to change our Constitution to use machines.
And do you think the judges, by their comments or questions, get that big point?
Oh yes, they had to have. They absolutely had to have.
Were you shocked, Marilyn, at some of the questions?
And knowing some of the judges and their background, were there any of the judges that maybe leaned to the left or are far to the left that were actually making good points or asking good questions?
Yeah, Gordon McDonald, who used to be the Attorney General with the whole Wyndham anomaly, who ignored it, I was actually really, really, really shocked by.
He was asking Dan a lot of good questions.
There was one that was my favorite.
Daniel, do you remember the question that I brought up to you that I thought was really good that Gordon McDonald asked, that I was just so surprised by?
Do you remember that, Daniel?
It was a bunch of them, and I was quite impressed with the entire court.
The entire court wasn't buying the state's narrative.
We haven't bothered to show the audience We can show some of that and I'd like to, Logan, if you want to queue it up to where the state gets up there and starts making their points.
Do you think, Daniel, that they were seeing this as you presented and have presented, which is, you're not coming at this as a Trump supporter, a Republican.
You're just coming at this as a citizen of your state saying it doesn't matter what the party is.
We should all have the confidence that the votes are counted and the legitimate person wins and Republicans can have their election stolen just as well as Democrats.
Or you could have a uniparty stealing it from Republicans and Democrats.
Maybe there's a third player here, a uniparty, that picks which Republicans they want, picks which Democrats they want, picks which independents they want.
Do you think that they understand is As judges, that this is not a political issue, that everyone is at risk of being cheated?
Well, I'm not sure, and I can't speak on their behalf, but what I will say is that I'm a lifelong Republican.
I'll never vote Democrat, even from the grave.
Chuck, Chuck, Chuck.
But, putting that aside, everyone involved in this lawsuit is a Republican, not a Democrat.
So there's a uniparty going on here in New Hampshire.
But what about your judges?
Are your judges political?
And again, I'm not going to even speak to that because I would just defer to the great job they did today, right?
In other words, I can't prejudge.
I think you just answered my question, which was the judges are not coming at this in a partisan way from their questions and interest in this case, correct?
Correct.
Correct.
And I'm not coming at it from a partisan perspective either.
I would argue that everything is about the fundamental law.
It takes a two-thirds majority to get the consent of the voters to change how our state government works.
And that's the bigger, bigger picture.
It applies to the entire nation.
Let's get a response from Ivan, and then let's see how the state did.
Ivan?
Yes.
There's a lot to unravel here and unpackage, but bottom line is that the state was unprepared to really answer any of the questions by the judges.
Now, the judges, most of them, I believe, I haven't looked at the details, Dan can answer this, were appointed by the current governor, Chris Sununu, particularly the chief justice, who, I mean, I won't disparage anybody, but I don't believe he has ever been a judge prior to this case.
He was the attorney general.
But having said that, based on sitting in that second row, and observing the colloquy being done.
I mean, I would, if you were to score it as a game, a professional sports game,
I would basically rate it as maybe 99 to zero.
And the reason why it wasn't 100 on Dan's side is because there was a slight misstatement that he made,
but it was still a shutout.
I mean, it was still basically a perfect game.
So do you, when is the ruling gonna happen by the court?
Don't know.
I'm not sure.
Yeah, we don't know.
I mean, they take every judge and every court takes their time based on their time frame and their timeline.
But I will tell you this, that the increased court of public opinion pressure and that started in the courtroom as the judges started to make their way out.
I'm not sure if you had an opportunity to go into that component of it, but hopefully we have the time to do that.
The amount of fervor and support in that courtroom, 100% of those that were sitting there in the gallery, And outside in the vestibule during the, in the security check-in area.
And then beyond that, outside of the building of the court, it was 100% those that were in support of Dan Richard and his, I mean, uh, his argument.
Does that show up in the recording?
We're going to have to factor that in.
Are you, are you saying that shows up in the recording?
In the Supreme Court recording of it, you do not see that because they, they close it at the end of walking out.
But I happen to have, I sent you via text, Brennan.
A clip.
I posted it on Getter.
The video quality is not great, but it does capture the standing ovation of over a minute that was given to Dan for his yeoman's work.
I mean, this is just not the 15-30 minutes in the courtroom that he's put into this.
We're talking about a decade of work, tens of thousands of hours probably.
Okay, I want to play that.
I just sent that over to Logan.
Logan, you want to grab that?
Let's play it while we're waiting for that to get queued up.
Let's go ahead and play a little bit of the state's response.
Ivan Reikland joins us.
He's in New Hampshire waiting to get on a plane.
Dan Richards?
Boston Logan Airport.
Oh, you're in the Boston Logan Airport.
Okay, I've been in that airport before.
Lucky you.
Yeah, lucky you.
Dan is in New Hampshire and he argued today.
Marilyn Todd, where are you at, Marilyn?
I just dropped Ivan off.
Oh, you just dropped off Ivan.
All right.
Well, let's let everybody promote their websites.
Ivan, you have a show every day on my channel, worldviewtube.com.
worldviewtube.com.
Yeah, Dan was actually on that show today, and yesterday we had another great New Hampshire resident who's also in this fight, which is Tom Murray.
Okay, and you can go watch those.
Yeah, you can watch that.
Tom Murray's involved in the fight, Marilyn, and Ken Eyring, I would say, are the Fantastic Four of New Hampshire.
Along with the hundreds that were out there supporting him.
Excellent.
Now your substack is Ivanrakeland.substack.com, right?
Yes, sir.
You've got it memorized at this point.
Yeah, I've got it memorized.
Ivanrakeland.substack.com.
What's your website, Dan?
I don't have one, so I'll have to get one pretty quick.
Yeah, I think you should.
Do you have any social media or anything?
Nothing, zero.
ON five
in a cheap voter integrity dot org all right great yeah all right
uh... let me mention real quick folks if you appreciate what's going on here mike
is on business tonight you can support the work of michael and ellen his work
to try to you know bring these machine issues front and center as he has done
and get many of these groups to go to paper And if you appreciate his fight, you can fund him and help him.
Not for his legal bills, but for the cause, he says.
And that's what he makes very clear to people.
That is LyndellPlan.com if you'd like to make a donation.
LyndellPlan.com You can also support him and the employees at MyPillow by going to MyPillow.com forward slash E-8-8-8 and you'll get free shipping.
Sheets, towels, blankets, pet beds, slippers, sandals, mattresses, mattress toppers, robes, and more.
MyPillow.com forward slash E-8-8-8.
I got that right.
Right, Logan?
MyPillow.com forward slash E888.
There we go.
Or you can call 1-800-544-8939.
But I do have it right.
MyPillow.com forward slash E888.
And then you... Yeah.
Or you can use the code L77.
I think that'll work too for free shipping.
1-800-544-8939 is the number.
All right, let's go to a little bit of the arguments by the state, their presentation, see how that was, and then we'll get that footage from Ivan played, where Dan got a standing ovation from those involved in the listening portion of the gallery.
Let's go to this video from the state.
So first, there was no legislative overreach.
Counts 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the plaintiff's complaint can be treated as improper legislative uses of power in terms of defining words, in terms of improper delegation of power.
There is nothing that's been pled before this court to indicate an improper use of the legislature's power.
Point number one.
Point number two, there was no constitutional repugnance, so relating to the plaintiff's count number six, amending the Constitution without the consent of a governed or otherwise placing in language that was repugnant to the remainder of the Constitution.
I believe that the Superior Court's opinion lays out very well how the questions that were presented to voters in 1976 are reflected in the language that is currently
in the Constitution of this state.
So there is no repugnance or failure to obtain the consent of a governed.
And finally, an underpinning of all the complaints that are before this court is that there
is no injury that has been presented before this court.
The defendant was, or I'm, excuse me, I used to be a prosecutor, so I apologize for that.
The plaintiff has presented no evidence that he has a cognizable injury in facts or in the law that is connected to anything that happened in 2020.
Who would have standing to raise such a claim?
So it must be legally cognizable.
Somebody must be able to do it.
And why not, Mr. Richard?
The only... I think the only thing we see that approaches a cognizable claim in what has been presented to this court is there are brief references to voter dilution.
There are a couple problems with that.
The first being that that argument was not developed for this court at all.
There are no facts to rely on.
There's no development of a legal argument there.
Further, there was a pretty short process for development of argument.
So yes, but there were pleadings, there were briefs before we got to the point of having
a hearing in this process, Your Honor, that these things could have easily
been more researched and more fleshed out more so that the trial court could have an opportunity
to speak on them more.
Returning to your question, Justice Bassett, this is, There is some speculation on my part here because again we the state was put in the position of responding to a number of complaints and perhaps not going into as much depth as we would have liked on each but typically in from what we've seen where a dilution claim arises you're looking at more traditional gerrymandering cases as
But you have a really brief standing.
cases that's where a where a claim that a group of people have been disadvantaged
and there's there's real evidence to show that is where vote dilution enters
enters the equation I don't know that there's been any showing of that here
you're driven really brief standing in brief standing so not before this court
So that really is waived.
I mean, it seems like, why would we reach this standing issue?
So, because that is an issue that can be raised at any time, Your Honor.
So you're raising it now?
So, Your Honor, we did raise that in the lower court.
Why didn't you brief it?
It was not briefed because what we were doing was we were answering what, or I'm sorry, we were addressing what the Superior Court put into its brief.
The Superior Court deferred standing.
Correct.
It assumed without deciding that there was standing.
In any event, I would like to address some of the substantive arguments.
And what is the state's position on beginning with Part 2, Article 100?
I mean, the plain text of that amendment refers to each constitutional amendment.
And there were, in 1976, five.
1976-5.
How do we reconcile that?
So, Your Honor, what I would point out in that case is there have been a number of rounds
of constitutional amendments that have been passed in that way.
There's the 1960s.
I apologize.
I don't recall the exact year amendments for the Gerber case.
There were the amendments to Part 1, Article 11 and other provisions contained in the 1976 amendments.
There were also amendments passed in the 1980s where this has been a method through which... Has anybody challenged that method before Mr. Richard?
Your Honor, I don't believe that was something that we very well developed.
What has been challenged is when there is dissonance between the implemented language in the state constitution and the language that was voted on.
But that's a different question.
Correct.
No, you're absolutely right, Your Honor.
But what I was expressing is that I'm not sure that there has been a lot of case law exploring the question that has been specifically raised here.
I was just offering a contrast there.
Then on the Part 2, Article 32 issue, the absentee ballot issue.
Mr. Speaker, please.
I'm not understanding your argument, frankly.
I mean, the text of the Constitution refers to... I'm sorry.
I said Part 2, Article 32.
I meant Part 1 or Article 11 refers to a voter being absent or unable to vote by reason of physical disability.
And your brief talks about The various legislative amendments since the National Weather Service amendment, the religious amendment, among others, as being a permissible legislative judgment.
I don't understand what that term means.
How is a permissible legislative judgment permissible if it exceeds the authority of the Constitution?
I think that's a great question, Your Honor.
So, to be clear, the state's position is that The grants of authority that are seen in statute do not exceed the directives that are contained in Part 1, Article 11.
So there are, we submit there are some specific delineations of instances where absentee voting is permitted.
Absence from the city, town, or ward.
But not exclusive is your position.
Those aren't exclusive.
That is where I was going, Your Honor.
I apologize, I didn't mean to speak over you.
In reading with the remainder of Part 1, Article 11, where there is a directive granted to the state legislature, I'm sorry, directive of the state legislature, that voting places are to be accessible to all, including elderly and disabled.
We do not read those pieces of the Constitution as contradictory.
One of them does not, they do not clash.
One does not swallow the other.
Those are two provisions in Part 1, Article 11 that are meant to be read.
So why would there be specific reference to physical disability and absence?
I'm sorry, Your Honor?
Why would, under that reading of Part 1, Article 11, why would there be specific reference to absence and physical disability?
Wouldn't that be superfluous?
I'm speculating, Your Honor, but I would imagine that those are probably two of the most ready examples of instances where a person would be unable to gain access to the polling place.
But when read with the remainder of Part 1, Article 11, in that directive for access to the polling place for all, there is There is a directive to maybe contemplate a little bit more what that means.
So, in looking specifically at the National Weather Service exception, or Prussian rather, if somebody is fully intending to vote on election day, we've all lived in New Hampshire for some time.
I think it's a fair statement that everyone here understands how bad our winters can get.
Does a person still have access to the pole if suddenly there is a severe storm that has made roads unsafe, that for many people who don't have access to snow clearing services, Uh, they don't have the ability to even get on the road.
Do those people in that scenario have access to the polling place?
And the legislature saw fit to answer that question.
They said, no, those people don't have access to the polling place as the Constitution.
So the solution is voting absentee.
In that circumstance, yes.
So the legislature's created the ballot law commission.
So there's an issue about whether that's a proper delegation to an administrative authority.
And we've said that that's okay if there are prescribed standards for administrative action.
What are the constitutionally sufficient guidance, guideposts for the ballot commission?
Why is that constitutional?
So one moment, your honor.
Thank you.
I apologize.
I have a lot in front of me.
So, Your Honor, looking at the guideposts for what constitutes permissible authority from the Valid Law Commission, it can be seen in looking at the rules outlining when and where The legislature can delegate its authority.
So in looking at, this isn't new, this is all contained in the briefs, Opinion of the Justices, 143 NH 429, 1999, that there are two broad rules of law that apply for determining when such authority can be delegated.
The first is that the legislature is prohibited from abdicating its legislative power.
That is not what has happened with the creation of the Ballot Law Commission.
There is a specific directive that there is a body that has been created to oversee certain aspects of election law with the primary directive being overseeing how ballot counting devices are implemented within the system.
Um, wow.
He, he, I don't know.
He's really not making much of a case, is he guys?
Uh, you go first, Ivan.
No.
Yeah.
So just real quick, I mean, I have probably four points to make.
One, he's calling, uh, Dan a defendant.
First grave mistake.
Has no clue what he's doing procedurally, even as an attorney, right?
In that courtroom.
Then he goes into using more filler words such as, um, then probably sentences that were incorporated in that argument.
And then there was so much air gaps in time, just completely clueless.
Dan ran circles around him at the speed of Superman as he was trying to basically reverse the course of time flying around the world.
I mean, this was just, this was somebody with a PhD level understanding of the New Hampshire constitution and its statutes compared to a preschooler.
I mean, this is like pre-K he's dealing with and the judge really called him out on What about standing?
You're now just raising standing?
You pretty much agree to this case having standing, so you can't really argue it.
And the attorney's trying to defend himself for that.
I'll pause there.
Dan?
I was just sitting there calmly, quietly, thinking to myself, just keep talking.
Just keep talking.
The gift that keeps on giving, baby.
Just keep talking.
That's what I was thinking.
Were either of you, Marilyn, any of you picking up on the judge's faces while he was talking?
No, everybody was really quiet because we wanted to respect... We were there to respect Dan more than the entire court or the government there, because he has garnered our respect.
And so we were just listening closely and intently.
And then, as I said before, Every single absentee ballot is defective.
out here when you get an opportunity to play the end.
Yeah, let's go to the end and see all the crowd.
All right, let's go to the video of how the crowd responded at the end of that.
So, legal care was devoted absolutely, and look, here's another one.
Every single absentee ballot has been defective since 1979.
Why?
Because there's no affidavit.
We have an affidavit statute in place, right?
And no one's confined to it.
So that's obviously a huge problem.
The ballot law commission.
The ballot law commission is an appropriate institution when there are four at the state level and the corrective actions are being done.
What it means to get to a proposed voting system is the amendment process.
and it hasn't been followed.
And that's why the argument we've been told is that if they want voting machines,
they can have them.
Yeah, go to the end where they start applauding if you can.
It's still in the midst of it.
Yeah.
Thank you.
Thank you all for your awesome speeches.
Be quiet.
Be quiet.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Wow, that is very, very historic.
It's powerful.
It's so historic.
I mean, we're talking about, it doesn't seem like there's a lot of people there that are in the courtroom.
There's about 90 seats, I believe is what they told us.
What you don't see is there's the hallway in the middle there, and that vestibule area is completely packed with more individuals.
That's why the sound is more grandiose than the number of people in the actual courtroom.
And then beyond that, you have individuals still lined up outside the courtroom Clamoring to be as close as they can because they happen to have some sort of a maintenance to do in the overflow area for you know Randomly on on today's date, right?
Wow, but nonetheless the people spoke Dan Richards spoke on behalf of the residents of New Hampshire And I think with the amount of visibility that this case is having by you platforming Dan by now he was also on Steve Bannon show earlier today who's also on Lindell TV here and And I believe there's going to be some other folks that are going to be pushing this case out.
I think that Dan is in the strongest position, New Hampshire is in the strongest position, to let the Supreme Court know that we're not just going to let this one slide without us noticing what happens.
Now, if it doesn't go the way it should go, where do you go from here, Dan?
Fast track to the U.S.
Supreme Court because of Moore v. Harper.
That's what I wanted to hear!
That's what I wanted to hear!
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
Look, with all due respect to this court today, they did a fantastic job.
I cannot tell you how impressed I was with the court.
Again, three of the four members of the court are Sununu appointees, so I expected that I might face some bias.
But by their conduct today, I could not tell you how they did their job.
Wow.
Now, whether they rule that way, I don't know.
And that is yet to be determined.
But here's the wonderful part.
Because of Morvey Harper, they can rule as they please.
And it's their prerogative to do so.
But on a fast track to the Supreme Court, we already know what that outcome will be.
Wow.
Do we need to say goodbye to you, Ivan?
Yeah, I think so.
I think I have to board.
I'm the last guy here.
All right, let you go board.
So I'll say thank you, and thank you, Dan, and thank Marilyn.
Absolutely.
You guys take it from here.
Yeah, thank you.
Ivan Reikland.
Checking in is substackivanreikland.substack.com.
His daily show at worldviewtube.com.
We got one minute left.
Marilyn, jump in here.
What are your thoughts on everything we've been saying?
Wrap it up for us.
I just want to say, Brandon, I really appreciate you and everything that you put out there, because you have no clue how many of your supporters and my supporters said, we just caught this on Frank Speech, and we just came here today.
And we couldn't have really got the word out unless you helped us.
And we appreciate you.
And good job, Dan.
And we're just so proud.
I'm proud to be from New Hampshire right now.
Amen.
Give your website again, Marilyn.
NH what?
nhvoterintegrity.org.
nhvoterintegrity.org.
And Marilyn and Dan, please keep us posted.
As soon as this ruling comes down, this decision by the court comes down, we want to hear about it immediately.
This has been one of the biggest and best shows as far as positive news in a long time.
Thank you so much, guys.
That's the Lindell Report.
I'm Brandon Houston for Mike Lindell.
Take care.
▲
Export Selection