FROM MINNESOTA TO NEW HAMPSHIRE: FRAUD IS THE FEATURE

THE SAME FRAUD. THE SAME SILENCE. JUST A DIFFERENT ZIP CODE.

What’s happening in Hampton, New Hampshire is not an isolated tax dispute. It is part of the same systemic fraud now being exposed—single-handedly—by citizen journalist Nick Shirley in Minnesota, where billions of dollars have been siphoned through government-approved schemes while mainstream media and politicians said nothing. Not a whisper. Not a headline. Not any accountability.

One kid picked up a camera and pulled the thread.

And the whole sweater started to unravel.

THE SCAM, STRIPPED TO ITS CORE

In Hampton, taxpayers are being taxed on wealth they never received, income they never realized, and gains that exist only on paper. The town’s 2024 “statistical revaluation” didn’t value estates as required by the New Hampshire Constitution—it fabricated market value using speculative models and selective data, then taxed residents as if they had sold their homes.

They didn’t sell.

They didn’t profit.

They didn’t receive income.

Yet they were taxed anyway.

That is not taxation.

That is financial fiction enforced by government power.

UNREALIZED GAINS = UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAXATION

Calling it “market value” doesn’t make it real.

Under both the U.S. Constitution and the New Hampshire Constitution, taxation must be just, proportional, and based on reality—not hypothetical transactions. An “as-if” sale is not income. An assumed appreciation is not wealth. And a model-generated number is not consent.

This is the same mechanism exposed in Minnesota:

Inflate numbers

Declare them “official”

Tax the public on assumptions

Funnel the proceeds into permanent, compounding government debt

Silence dissent through process, delay, and bureaucracy

Different state. Same playbook.

WHEN INSTITUTIONS FAIL, THE PEOPLE STEP IN

In New Hampshire, citizens went to:

Local selectmen

The Governor

The Legislature

The Attorney General

They were ignored.

So, they did what the Constitution allows—and demands: They went to court.

When government refuses accountability, the judiciary becomes the last firewall between the people and institutional abuse.

THE MEDIA WON’T TOUCH IT. THE PEOPLE WILL.

Just like in Minnesota.

Nick Shirley didn’t wait for permission.

He didn’t wait for press credentials.

He didn’t wait for politicians to grow a spine.

He exposed what everyone else was too compromised—or too cowardly—to touch.

That same citizen awakening is happening here:

Nick Shirley

Regina Barnes

Even Kyle Rittenhouse

Everyday homeowners who finally recognized the scam.

Different names.

Same instinct.

Same refusal to accept lies dressed up as law.

THIS IS NOT RADICAL. THIS IS CONSTITUTIONAL.

The people are not asking for special treatment. They are demanding:

Lawful taxation

Real valuations

Constitutional limits

Accountability to sworn oaths of office.

That’s not extremism.

That’s self-government.

THE FINAL TRUTH

When the media lies by omission,

When politicians protect the system that feeds them,

And when bureaucracy is weaponized to exhaust dissent—

The people don’t riot.

They rise.

Minnesota was the spark.

New Hampshire is the echo.

And the fraud is the same everywhere.

The only difference now?

People are paying attention.

TAXPAYERS V. TOWN OF HAMPTON COURT HEARING IS SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY JANUARY 8, 2026 AT 2PM

THE ROCKINGHAM SUPERIOR COURT

LATEST SUMMARY

The Town of Hampton seeks dismissal by claiming (1) lack of jurisdiction, (2) lack of taxpayer standing, (3) insufficient factual support, and (4) violation of separation of powers.

Each argument fails as a matter of constitutional law.

Plaintiffs do not seek discretionary policy changes. They seek judicial review of unconstitutional taxation practices and declaratory and equitable relief—core functions of the Court.

Judicial review of unconstitutional taxation is not barred by statute.

“An unconstitutional Act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties.”

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 442 (1886).

The Town argues that statutory tax appeal mechanisms deprive this Court of jurisdiction.

That is incorrect. Statutes cannot supersede constitutional rights (U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2).

Courts retain inherent authority to determine constitutionality of statutes, procedures, and governmental action.

Plaintiffs allege violations of:

NH Const. Part I, Arts. 1 & 8

NH Const. Part II, Art. 6

U.S. Constitution (including Due Process and the Sixteenth Amendment).

Those claims cannot be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.

The Town’s standing argument directly contradicts the NH Bill of Rights.

Article 8 explicitly provides that any taxpayer eligible to vote has standing to challenge unlawful expenditure or taxation without showing individualized injury, unless a statutory appeal applies.

Plaintiffs exhausted all non-judicial avenues (Selectmen, Governor, Legislature, AG).

The abatement process does not permit constitutional review.

Plaintiffs challenge systemic constitutional violations, not individual assessments.

Standing is therefore expressly granted.

The 2024 Statistical Revaluation Violates the NH Constitution.

NH Const. Part II, Art. 6 requires:

“a valuation of estates… taken anew once in every five years.”

The Town’s statistical revaluation:

Relies on estimated market appreciation, not actual valuation of estates.

Uses selective two-year market samples

produces regressive results, as confirmed by the Board of Tax and Land Appeals (BTLA).

BTLA findings establish factual plausibility:

“Lower valued properties assessed at higher percentages than higher valued properties.”

That alone defeats dismissal.

“Market Value” Taxation Imposes a Tax on Unrealized Gains.

RSA 75:1 defines market value as if sold.

Plaintiffs allege:

No sale occurred

No gain was realized

Tax liability was nevertheless increased

An “as-if” sale does not create income, wealth, or realized value.

This presents a justiciable constitutional question, not a valuation dispute.

THE ABATEMENT PROCESS DOES NOT PROVIDE A CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDY

The Town’s reliance on abatement case law is misplaced.

The abatement process:

Allows appeal only of assumed market value, and

Prohibits challenge to the actual tax levied,

The process annot address:

Constitutional violations,

Ultra vires acts, or

Systemic inequity

A statutory remedy that cannot reach the injury alleged is not exclusive.

REQUESTED RELIEF DOES NOT VIOLATE SEPARATION OF POWERS

Plaintiffs seek:

Declaratory relief,

Injunctive relief, and

Nullification of unconstitutional procedures.

This is judicial review, not legislation.

Plaintiffs plausibly allege:

Constitutional violations,

Factual harm,

Standing under Article 8, and

Jurisdiction properly vested in this Court.

Dismissal would deny judicial review of unconstitutional taxation, contrary to the role of the judiciary.

https://www.globalistslut.com/post/the-age-of-lions-is-over-the-wolves-are-here