From Distraction to Declaration: The Motion That Reset the Rockingham Superior Court Property Tax Case

What has happened since the January 8, 2026 Hearing — And Why It Matters

Court Accepts Clarification Motion After Town Attempts to Blur Constitutional Claims

Following the January 8, 2026 Rockingham County Superior Court hearing, the Plaintiffs filed a critical clarifying motion to cut through the fog deliberately introduced by the Town’s attorney.

At the hearing, town counsel attempted to blur the issues, portraying the case as a routine tax dispute—reassessments, abatements, and rate-setting—none of which the Plaintiffs are actually seeking. That mischaracterization, if left uncorrected, risked steering the Court away from the real constitutional questions at stake.

So the Plaintiffs acted.

On the recommendation of the Natural Law Institute, a sharply focused clarification was submitted to the Court to make one thing unmistakably clear:

this case is not about recalculating taxes—it is about illegal government action.

The filing explains that the lawsuit challenges whether the Town of Hampton acted outside its lawful authority, violating mandatory constitutional duties by taxing residents using incomplete, outdated, and improperly verified property data for years. In short, the motion re-anchored the case where it belongs—on ultra vires conduct and constitutional compliance, not bureaucratic distractions.

The clarification motion explicitly states what the Plaintiffs are not asking for: no reassessments, no tax rate changes, no abatements, and no court takeover of municipal functions. Instead, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to do what courts are uniquely empowered to do—determine whether the Town crossed the legal line.

This filing was designed to ensure the judge could not be misled by rhetorical dilution or procedural smoke screens. The Court accepted the clarification yesterday.

That acceptance locks the case back onto its true rails: whether Hampton’s taxing scheme was built on lawful authority or on a foundation that violates the New Hampshire Constitution itself.

This wasn’t a delay tactic.

It wasn’t political theater.

It was a precision strike— filed to protect the record, and now formally before the Court.

And it makes clear that the real fight has only just begun.