_fw.png)
DANIEL RICHARD V. THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE AND THE TOWN OF AUBURN UPDATE - PART II
- NH Muckraker
- Apr 10
- 3 min read
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPERIOR COURT ROCKINGHAM, SS.
Daniel Richard, Plaintiff
v.
Governor Christopher Sununu, et al.,Defendants
Docket No. 218-2022-CV-00676
MOTION TO RECONSIDER
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Daniel Richard, and respectfully moves this Honorable Court to reconsider and reverse its Order dated March 31, 2025, granting the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. This Motion is submitted pursuant to Rule 1.30(A) of the New Hampshire Rules of Civil Procedure and in accordance with the binding Remand Order issued by the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
I. INTRODUCTION
The Plaintiff contends that this Court's dismissal is in direct contradiction to the binding Remand Order of the New Hampshire Supreme Court, which found that Plaintiff had demonstrated standing to proceed with his Equal Protection claim under both State and Federal law.
The Plaintiff respectfully asserts that this Court’s actions, whether by mistake or design, circumvent the directives of the Supreme Court, violate the principles of due process and equal protection, and amount to a denial of the Plaintiff’s right to be heard on the merits.
II. BACKGROUND
The Supreme Court found that Plaintiff had standing to bring his equal protection claims concerning the vote dilution caused by New Hampshire’s absentee ballot counting methods. See Avery, 173 N.H. at 736-37; Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 205-06 (1962).
The Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its decision. Importantly, it did not authorize renewed dispositive motions on issues already addressed or rejected.
III. ERRORS IN THE TRIAL COURT'S ORDER
A. Procedural Defect in Allowing Supplemental Motion to Dismiss
The Court improperly invited a second motion to dismiss rather than proceeding to discovery, mediation, and trial, as mandated by the Supreme Court’s Remand Order.
The original motion to dismiss failed to address Plaintiff’s Equal Protection claims. As such, these claims were uncontested and deemed admitted under Supreme Court Rule 9.
B. Violation of Due Process and Equal Protection
The Plaintiff was not afforded a hearing on the merits of his claims, nor was he allowed to respond meaningfully to the newly filed Motion to Dismiss.
The unequal treatment of a pro se litigant, by soliciting and permitting a second dispositive motion without adhering to procedural safeguards, constitutes a denial of due process and equal protection under both State and Federal Constitutions.
C. Substantive Errors in Dismissal
The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims while addressing only one of the six specific Equal Protection grounds identified by the Supreme Court.
Ignoring issues (a), (c), (d), (e), and (f) renders the ruling incomplete, legally flawed, and biased toward the State.
D. Misapplication of Legal Standards
The Court erred in relying on LeClair v. LeClair, a family law case inapplicable to constitutional election claims.
The Court failed to consider binding federal authority including 52 U.S.C. §§ 10101 and 20511, and recent SCOTUS precedent such as Moore v. Harper, 600 U.S. __ (2023), which reaffirm that state courts must not interpret state law in a way that circumvents federal constitutional guarantees.
IV. FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
The Plaintiff has raised substantial federal questions under the 14th Amendment regarding vote dilution and unequal treatment in ballot counting methods.
These claims are directly implicated in federal elections, as state and federal races appear on the same ballots in New Hampshire.
Under the Supremacy Clause (U.S. Const. Art. VI), this Court must enforce federal constitutional protections and may not limit the Plaintiff's claims to State constitutional analysis.
V. RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:
A. Vacate its March 31, 2025, Order granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Proceed with pre-trial proceedings, including discovery, mediation, and trial scheduling in accordance with the New Hampshire Supreme Court’s Remand Order. Consider replacement of the presiding judge, if necessary, due to demonstrated bias, procedural irregularity, or failure to follow binding higher court directives; and. Grant such other and further relief as is just and proper.
Respectfully submitted, Daniel Richard Plaintiff, pro se
Dated: April 8, 2025
4.10.25 UPDATE FROM DNI DIRECTOR TULSI GABBARD
留言