Updated December 27, 2018
January 1, 2019
James Ferraro PH.D., MBA - I am an adulterer who happens to be a licensed clinician and willing to tell you the truth about why I was unfaithful to my wife.
January 1, 2019
James Ferraro PH.D., MBA - I am an adulterer who happens to be a licensed clinician and willing to tell you the truth about why I was unfaithful to my wife.
I could speak from decades of experience about love and relationship but that would lack integrity. Instead, I choose to speak from a pure, albeit difficult place in hopes that it will offer something more meaningful - the truth about why many men, and this one, have affairs. I will speak to you from the shame of failing miserably at marriage through my choice to have sex with someone other than my wife, not for the purpose of being an exhibitionist, but rather to change the conversation about betrayal and why it happens.
New York Governor, Elliot Spitzer, was just stepping to the podium as we sat down in front of the TV and listened as he announced his resignation. After acknowledging his assignations with a high dollar escort, he expressed regret for his poor judgment, and apologized to his family and constituents. It was scripted and predictable leaving many questions and saying nothing to help people understand.
Listening to his confession was like picking a scab and I experienced my own shame all over again so I shut it off in an act of empty defiance. I tried to focus on something else but I couldn't. Try as I might I couldn't get the picture of Tilda Spitzer out of my mind. When he made his announcement, she had been standing to one side, a little behind him, her face clearly visible and it was full of pain. It was a look I knew well. I had seen the same look in Julie's eyes - a combination of disbelief and betrayal.
Getting to my feet I began to pace the room, agitation overcoming my exhaustion. I couldn't help thinking that infidelity was pandemic and the fallout was toxic.
"Someone has got to tell the truth about infidelity," I muttered under my breath, as my agitated pacing took me from one end of the room to the other. Thinking out loud I continued, "It has to be someone who can speak from experience, someone who will tell the absolute truth no matter the consequences."
Turning on my heel, I caught sight of my reflection in the mirror and froze. Staring at the man who looked back at me, I had an epiphany. In that moment I realized that if someone was going to tell the truth about adultery it would have to be me. My life experiences, as well as my training, had uniquely prepared me. "Damn it!" I exclaimed as my new reality settled in. I am that man.
While I never aspired in grad school to be the poster child for infidelity, life never turns out as it should but as it does. If it helps one couple or spares a single child the agony of an unnecessary divorce it's worth it. I chose to have an affair that was devastating to my wife and family, resulted in a divorce, landed me in a jail cell, damaged many important relationships and almost cost me my life. That's the bad part. I also chose to grow up, take responsibility for the brokenness that propelled me to the choices I made.
As I suspect is true with many affairs, the anatomy of mine was found in those parts of me that I had for many years denied, refused to take responsibility for, or run from being honest about. In lying to myself and others about those parts, I severed them from my life. Once dissociated, they remained unknown to me, leaving me in a dangerous and intolerable state in a world replete with opportunity for escape and threats to deep intimacy.
Ironically, my ignorance about my own brokenness rendered any smarts I acquired in getting a PhD in clinical psychology useless. What is invisible to us often controls us. My broken condition allowed me to fail in taking responsibility for those severed parts-something that true love requires of us all.
If you've asked yourself, "How could he do this?" Here I will attempt to offer you an answer. I do so, not as an excuse to justify my actions, but rather to provide insight into how someone who took his marriage vows seriously and intended to live by his values could fail everyone he loved so profoundly.
Following are the six reasons I chose to have an affair:
1. I believed that the rules didn't apply to me.
2. I confused significance and self-worth with certainty and success.
3. I made up a story that my wife was the cause of my unhappiness and disappointment in our marriage.
4. I was an accomplished liar.
5. I confused sexual attraction and fantasy for love.
6. I didn't take responsibility for my mental health.
CNBC - Sheila Hageman, 43, a married writer and mother of three from Stratford, Connecticut, says years of multiple love affairs destroyed her first marriage.
"As a woman, I didn't have to put any money out, but still, the cost to me was incalculable," she recalled. "All the lying, the guilt, knowing I hurt someone I really loved—and still do love—I have to live with that the rest of my life."
Thomas Galiano, a social worker and self-help author who now counsels couples on infidelity, said he was able to repair his marriage after a five-year affair but that he and his wife still bear residual emotional scars.
"You destroy the trust in your marriage," said Gagliano.
"Your children learn to keep secrets. They learn a distorted and warped idea of intimacy. At some level, the shame will always eat away at you."
According to a survey, the average affair lasts six months and costs $444 a month, or $2,664 in total. The survey, conducted by a U.K. retail company researching American spending habits, broke down the expenses incurred in a typical fling, such as hotel bills ($123), dinner and drinks ($162), gifts ($54), and date activities (movie tickets, $69, and "other," $36.)
But these estimates may only be the tip of the iceberg. Experts say the cost of an affair is way higher—in fact, the sky's the limit.
New York Governor, Elliot Spitzer, was just stepping to the podium as we sat down in front of the TV and listened as he announced his resignation. After acknowledging his assignations with a high dollar escort, he expressed regret for his poor judgment, and apologized to his family and constituents. It was scripted and predictable leaving many questions and saying nothing to help people understand.
Listening to his confession was like picking a scab and I experienced my own shame all over again so I shut it off in an act of empty defiance. I tried to focus on something else but I couldn't. Try as I might I couldn't get the picture of Tilda Spitzer out of my mind. When he made his announcement, she had been standing to one side, a little behind him, her face clearly visible and it was full of pain. It was a look I knew well. I had seen the same look in Julie's eyes - a combination of disbelief and betrayal.
Getting to my feet I began to pace the room, agitation overcoming my exhaustion. I couldn't help thinking that infidelity was pandemic and the fallout was toxic.
"Someone has got to tell the truth about infidelity," I muttered under my breath, as my agitated pacing took me from one end of the room to the other. Thinking out loud I continued, "It has to be someone who can speak from experience, someone who will tell the absolute truth no matter the consequences."
While I never aspired in grad school to be the poster child for infidelity, life never turns out as it should but as it does. If it helps one couple or spares a single child the agony of an unnecessary divorce it's worth it. I chose to have an affair that was devastating to my wife and family, resulted in a divorce, landed me in a jail cell, damaged many important relationships and almost cost me my life. That's the bad part. I also chose to grow up, take responsibility for the brokenness that propelled me to the choices I made.
As I suspect is true with many affairs, the anatomy of mine was found in those parts of me that I had for many years denied, refused to take responsibility for, or run from being honest about. In lying to myself and others about those parts, I severed them from my life. Once dissociated, they remained unknown to me, leaving me in a dangerous and intolerable state in a world replete with opportunity for escape and threats to deep intimacy.
Ironically, my ignorance about my own brokenness rendered any smarts I acquired in getting a PhD in clinical psychology useless. What is invisible to us often controls us. My broken condition allowed me to fail in taking responsibility for those severed parts-something that true love requires of us all.
If you've asked yourself, "How could he do this?" Here I will attempt to offer you an answer. I do so, not as an excuse to justify my actions, but rather to provide insight into how someone who took his marriage vows seriously and intended to live by his values could fail everyone he loved so profoundly.
Following are the six reasons I chose to have an affair:
1. I believed that the rules didn't apply to me.
2. I confused significance and self-worth with certainty and success.
3. I made up a story that my wife was the cause of my unhappiness and disappointment in our marriage.
4. I was an accomplished liar.
5. I confused sexual attraction and fantasy for love.
6. I didn't take responsibility for my mental health.
CNBC - Sheila Hageman, 43, a married writer and mother of three from Stratford, Connecticut, says years of multiple love affairs destroyed her first marriage.
"As a woman, I didn't have to put any money out, but still, the cost to me was incalculable," she recalled. "All the lying, the guilt, knowing I hurt someone I really loved—and still do love—I have to live with that the rest of my life."
Thomas Galiano, a social worker and self-help author who now counsels couples on infidelity, said he was able to repair his marriage after a five-year affair but that he and his wife still bear residual emotional scars.
"You destroy the trust in your marriage," said Gagliano.
"Your children learn to keep secrets. They learn a distorted and warped idea of intimacy. At some level, the shame will always eat away at you."
According to a survey, the average affair lasts six months and costs $444 a month, or $2,664 in total. The survey, conducted by a U.K. retail company researching American spending habits, broke down the expenses incurred in a typical fling, such as hotel bills ($123), dinner and drinks ($162), gifts ($54), and date activities (movie tickets, $69, and "other," $36.)
But these estimates may only be the tip of the iceberg. Experts say the cost of an affair is way higher—in fact, the sky's the limit.
Durvasula believes smartphones and social media have helped contribute to what she says is a shocking rise in marital infidelity.
"We've created the ultimate cheating tools," she said. "Social media is an accelerant. It's like giving children matches to play with. When you think about it, it's downright quaint these days to imagine a mistress calling a man's home and hanging up when his wife answers. Right? Now people can literally cheat on their spouses while lying right next to them in bed."
Durvasula says changes in the rhythm of a relationship—like a spouse who suddenly seems absent or detached, or even overly involved—can be a clue that one partner is straying.
"It's not that hard to tell," she insists. "You don't have to be freakin' Magnum PI."
"We've created the ultimate cheating tools," she said. "Social media is an accelerant. It's like giving children matches to play with. When you think about it, it's downright quaint these days to imagine a mistress calling a man's home and hanging up when his wife answers. Right? Now people can literally cheat on their spouses while lying right next to them in bed."
Durvasula says changes in the rhythm of a relationship—like a spouse who suddenly seems absent or detached, or even overly involved—can be a clue that one partner is straying.
"It's not that hard to tell," she insists. "You don't have to be freakin' Magnum PI."
"The betrayal of trust is the largest cost of having an affair," maintains Durvasula. "The guilt, the loss of self-esteem, the loss of self-worth—good luck putting dollars and cents on that."
Many psychologist have been explaining for years that there is no literal blame that can be placed other than on the adulterers themselves for choosing to commit adultery before filing for a divorce. Yet governments like New Hampshire, insist on only making family laws excusing all forms of adultery by claiming that all and any faults made by an adulterer's spouse is the cause and equivalent to committing adultery itself, according to court records.
If unhappy in a marriage, there are simply no hypocritical "main causes" in place to justify anyone who commits adultery before filing for a divorce, other than the adultery itself.
Once adultery occurs in a marriage, all bets are off the table and it becomes a non equivalent divorce that is the "main cause" that becomes the only final truth that caused the divorce. The idea of still going through past issues in the marriage before a divorce is filed with the courts when any adultery occurs, should clearly become obsolete. People need to take responsibility and have accountability, and that includes the government.
Trying to claim adultery is equivalent to justified "Irreconcilable Differences" is literally claiming that the taking of a life, truly is of no great concern to the government and/or the average American family court.
NH legalized adultery in 2o15 because NH judges are still illegally opposing to follow any laws produced by legislative construction that was voted and past by NH legislators, then NH senators, and then even signed off and approved by a NH governor; and will only continue to still do so.
A clear example was the NH Supreme Court ruling in the 2003 Adultery case, Blanchflower v Blanchflower. This case simply but very clearly proved the wife committed adultery with a women. NH had an adultery law clearly defined by legislative construction. that was in place at the time that this case was heard. It was a law even re-voted on to still re-pass into law for over 200 years. The NH adultery law that once was continually acceptable on multiple accounts for over 2 centuries, clearly simply expressed a "plain and ordinary meaning."
NH Adultery Law until 2015 -- “ A person is guilty of a class B misdemeanor if, being a married person, he engages in sexual intercourse with another not his spouse or, being unmarried, engages in sexual intercourse with another known by him to be married.” RSA 645:3 (1996).
A., The "definition of adultery was contained in that statute" by using one very clear important WORD. It defined the law in plain English by stating adultery was, "Engages in sexual intercourse with another", and not with the opposite gender. The word "Another" is clearly defined in the English dictionary (had they even bothered to look that word up too) as, "someone or something different and in addition to."
B. Therefore, any homosexual or even an emotional affair were both simply clearly defined in the NH adultery law, as simply "someone or something different that is in addition to" sexual intercourse at the time the law was in effect. Otherwise why wouldn't they simply have stated, "only with the opposite gender/sex", if that was the only original true intent of the law.
C. Therefore, the legislative construction of a NH Adultery law once thoroughly and very clearly did constituted homosexual affairs as adultery, because the terms were literally "defined within the meaning of the law." It also was very thoroughly and clearly, "expressed in the words of a statue considered as a whole", had the NH Supreme Court even bothered to look up, each and every word, that is used to construct each and every law for it's final definition, when they only refer to a Webster Dictionary instead of the actual state law, for a court ruling in the first place. This in itself speaks volumes of divided government branches just within the same state, let alone throughout the entire country.
However, according to the NH Supreme Court in the case of Blanchflower v Blanchflower:
The NH Supreme Court is very openly hypocritical when thoroughly contradicting laws by stating, "This court is the final arbiter of the intent of the legislature as expressed in the words of a statute considered as a whole.” Wegner v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 148 N.H. 107, 108, 803 A.2d 598 (2002) (quotation omitted). We first look to the language of the statute itself and, where terms are not defined therein, “we ascribe to them their plain and ordinary meanings.” Id.
Many psychologist have been explaining for years that there is no literal blame that can be placed other than on the adulterers themselves for choosing to commit adultery before filing for a divorce. Yet governments like New Hampshire, insist on only making family laws excusing all forms of adultery by claiming that all and any faults made by an adulterer's spouse is the cause and equivalent to committing adultery itself, according to court records.
If unhappy in a marriage, there are simply no hypocritical "main causes" in place to justify anyone who commits adultery before filing for a divorce, other than the adultery itself.
Once adultery occurs in a marriage, all bets are off the table and it becomes a non equivalent divorce that is the "main cause" that becomes the only final truth that caused the divorce. The idea of still going through past issues in the marriage before a divorce is filed with the courts when any adultery occurs, should clearly become obsolete. People need to take responsibility and have accountability, and that includes the government.
Trying to claim adultery is equivalent to justified "Irreconcilable Differences" is literally claiming that the taking of a life, truly is of no great concern to the government and/or the average American family court.
NH legalized adultery in 2o15 because NH judges are still illegally opposing to follow any laws produced by legislative construction that was voted and past by NH legislators, then NH senators, and then even signed off and approved by a NH governor; and will only continue to still do so.
A clear example was the NH Supreme Court ruling in the 2003 Adultery case, Blanchflower v Blanchflower. This case simply but very clearly proved the wife committed adultery with a women. NH had an adultery law clearly defined by legislative construction. that was in place at the time that this case was heard. It was a law even re-voted on to still re-pass into law for over 200 years. The NH adultery law that once was continually acceptable on multiple accounts for over 2 centuries, clearly simply expressed a "plain and ordinary meaning."
NH Adultery Law until 2015 -- “ A person is guilty of a class B misdemeanor if, being a married person, he engages in sexual intercourse with another not his spouse or, being unmarried, engages in sexual intercourse with another known by him to be married.” RSA 645:3 (1996).
A., The "definition of adultery was contained in that statute" by using one very clear important WORD. It defined the law in plain English by stating adultery was, "Engages in sexual intercourse with another", and not with the opposite gender. The word "Another" is clearly defined in the English dictionary (had they even bothered to look that word up too) as, "someone or something different and in addition to."
B. Therefore, any homosexual or even an emotional affair were both simply clearly defined in the NH adultery law, as simply "someone or something different that is in addition to" sexual intercourse at the time the law was in effect. Otherwise why wouldn't they simply have stated, "only with the opposite gender/sex", if that was the only original true intent of the law.
C. Therefore, the legislative construction of a NH Adultery law once thoroughly and very clearly did constituted homosexual affairs as adultery, because the terms were literally "defined within the meaning of the law." It also was very thoroughly and clearly, "expressed in the words of a statue considered as a whole", had the NH Supreme Court even bothered to look up, each and every word, that is used to construct each and every law for it's final definition, when they only refer to a Webster Dictionary instead of the actual state law, for a court ruling in the first place. This in itself speaks volumes of divided government branches just within the same state, let alone throughout the entire country.
However, according to the NH Supreme Court in the case of Blanchflower v Blanchflower:
The NH Supreme Court is very openly hypocritical when thoroughly contradicting laws by stating, "This court is the final arbiter of the intent of the legislature as expressed in the words of a statute considered as a whole.” Wegner v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 148 N.H. 107, 108, 803 A.2d 598 (2002) (quotation omitted). We first look to the language of the statute itself and, where terms are not defined therein, “we ascribe to them their plain and ordinary meanings.” Id.
This case truly shows how illiterate their illegal and false interpretation of all laws truly are:
"The plain and ordinary meaning of adultery is “voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband.” Webster's Third New International Dictionary 30 (unabridged ed.1961). Although the definition does not specifically state that the “someone” with whom one commits adultery must be of the opposite gender, it does require sexual intercourse." Said the NH Supreme Court.
1. Stating both that adultery requires intercourse is clearly false according to the actual legislative construction used "in the words of a statue considered as a whole" defining the NH Adultery law that was in place at the time, already explained above.
"The plain and ordinary meaning of sexual intercourse is “sexual connection esp. between humans: COITUS, COPULATION.” Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2082. Coitus is defined to require “insertion of the penis in the vagina[ ],” Webster's Third New International Dictionary 441, which clearly can only take place between persons of the opposite gender" , said the NH Supreme Court
2. Again both the case and the law both already pertain to a homosexual affair and had nothing to do with a heterosexual affair, “sexual connection esp. between humans: COITUS, COPULATION.”
"We also note that “[a] law means what it meant to its framers and its mere repassage does not alter that meaning.” Appeal of Naswa Motor Inn, 144 N.H. 89, 91, 738 A.2d 349 (1999) (quotation omitted). The statutory compilation in which the provision now codified as RSA 458:7 first appeared is the Revised Statutes of 1842. See RS 148:3 (1842). No definition of adultery was contained in that statute. (FALSE) See id. Our cases from that approximate time period, however, support the inference that adultery meant intercourse. (FALSE) See Adams v. Adams, 20 N.H. 299, 301 (1850); Burns v. Burns, 68 N.H. 33, 34, 44 A. 76 (1894)." , said the NH Supreme Court.
3. Stating "Our cases from that approximate time period, however, support the inference that adultery meant intercourse;" (IS FASLE) again, simply makes no sense and contradicts "the intent of the legislature as expressed in the words of a statute considered as a whole." That was already very clearly defined for them even through the Webster Dictionary that they constantly referred to instead of the actual state law.
4. Again, When actually attempting "to note that [a] law means what it meant to its framers and its mere repassage does not alter that meaning” , then SHOULD THEY NOT by any means be altering any part of it's meaning? Especially if the courts are the true " final arbiter of the intent of the legislature as expressed in the words of a statute considered as a whole”, while clearly hypocritically only actually disagreeing.
Therefore, According to the NH courts, who apparently only have the illegal final say on law, having sexual intercourse with others, just simply never was any real cause to divorce your spouse in NH. Thus, that is until the so-called now impeccable proof of the adultery committed also now becomes impeccable proof that it is the actual unquestionable "main cause", that is also beyond the impeccable proof of any reasonable doubt, that it actually truly is the supporting evidence of the impeccable proof of the actual adultery committed. S0 just try and say that 3 times fast and your IQ will now be as low with the equivalency of all NH judges' train of thought.
Here is another example of a nightmare on Elm Street performed by NH's judicial branch of government that is now recklessly enforced daily since 2010. The NH Supreme Court designed a family court Rule 1.25A that claims that all debts, medical coverages and life insurance coverages, retirements, pensions, 401Ks, savings and checking accounts, held both jointly and separately, are now all required to be submitted to the court within 45 days of filing with the NH family court. BUT, and yes people, the NH judges always have to have a major HPYPOCRITICAL BUT to even excuse their own actual rules, like stating, that it is also ONLY IF A NH JUDGE bothers to even request this specific evidence and not all the evidence they actually listed in the first.
THEN, AND YES THERES EVEN MORE TO RULE 1.25A, they went further on to clarify in this rule just how thorough the actual evidence has to truly be. By clarifying that the actual evidences can be hidden from view before submitting it to the court by stating that, "2. The parties may redact all but the last four (4) digits of any account numbers and social security numbers that appear on any statements or documents."
Now not only does this sentence defeat the entire purpose of all and any entire purpose of having evidence to begin with, it now most certainly breaks even more than just one NH legislative constructed state law, along with the United States Codes for the entire country. You just have to wonder how long does it actually really take for them to actually come up with so much illegal BS, let alone actually get away with enforcing it.
641:7 Tampering With Public Records or Information. – A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if he:
I. Knowingly makes a false entry in or false alteration of any thing belonging to, received, or kept by the government for information or record, or required by law to be kept for information of the government; or
II. Presents or uses any thing knowing it to be false, and with a purpose that it be taken as a genuine part of information or records referred to in paragraph I; or
III. Purposely and unlawfully destroys, conceals, removes or otherwise impairs the verity or availability of any such thing.
Source. 1971, 518:1, eff. Nov. 1, 1973.
FACT: NH Title LXII - CRIMINAL CODE
Chapter 638 - FRAUD
Section 638:2 - Fraudulent Handling of Recordable Writings.
638:2 Fraudulent Handling of Recordable Writings. – A person is guilty of a class B felony if, with a purpose to deceive or injure anyone, he falsifies, destroys, removes or conceals any will, deed, mortgage, security instrument or other writing for which the law provides public recording.
Source. 1971, 518:1, eff. Nov. 1, 1973.
This is why the very first United States judge to ever be impeached throughout the entire country 214 years ago was only from NH, for being mentally unstable and a drunk behind the bench, even as far back then too. So now here we are 214 years later in the 21st century, and you can still very clearly see that not a hell of allot has nor ever will clearly change, when it comes to actually having a real judicial justice system requiring any real IQ by any real NH judge.
The fact that NH voted to even once have a Grievance Committee in 2010 proves that they were already well aware of how bad the NH judicial Branch of government is truly "mucking" with the law.
The fact that NH one year later, suddenly votes to immediately dismantle that committee, only proves even more so, how badly the NH government cannot stop it, and it will only continue to be ignored. History clearly continues to still speak many volumes of only the truth in more ways then one!
In 2012, many people started a resistance to vote NO against the constitutional amendment, CACR 26 which would have given legislators direct control and accountability over NH'S judiciary. It would have given the Legislature direct control over all operations of the Judicial Branch and rightfully so. But people were actually trying to claim that NH legislators alone were and still are the only problem which is not true, by saying things such as,
"Think about that for a minute.
It would be the fox guarding the hen house.
Except in this case, New Hampshire citizens would be the hens. Do we really want to trust the Legislature to protect us from laws that trample on our constitutional rights?"
As long as there remains even one judge, refusing to rule based on actual evidence and still illegally "mucking" with all actual laws, then the final problem still remains with the actual NH judicial branch of justice "mucking" with laws.
"There is no limit to the different ways the Legislature could muck up New Hampshire’s court system, if we give them that power through CACR 26."
SERIOUSLY? Well how about all the decades of evidence repeatedly proven in case after case, after case, showing the NH judicial system when it comes to only just consistently "mucking" with the laws.
"As John Broderick, the former Chief Justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court, who was had to be reprimanded himself, for being incapable of following even the Judicial branch's own current rules, never mind the actual laws themselves, told the Union Leader,
If you’re a Democrat, imagine that the Republicans would be deciding Court Rules.
If you’re a Republican, imagine that the Democrats would be deciding Court Rules.
Either way, it’s probably not a very comfortable picture – especially if you end up looking to the court system for justice or to protect your rights."
So now this falsely implies another problem, now claiming that NH bills are not even actually legally voted into law simultaneously by both parties that is one representative branch of over 400 votes.
Well let's just take a good hard look at the actual NH court system "muck with protecting your rights" without any oversight of the NH judiciary, Shall we?
SO DRUM ROLL IF YOU PLEASE...AND THE EVIDENCE BEGINS WITH?
12 cases were brought to the committee by the Dept. of Safety and were dismissed. DeVries refused to accept plea deals negotiated by a state police prosecutor, describing them as a "Global Resolution" on Drugs. The JCC found DeVries failed to make reasonable efforts to allow the prosecutor to be "fairly heard."
In one case the JCC found DeVries made an "offense charging decision", for which "should be left to the prosecutor."
"Once the prosecutor objected to the reduction of the offense from a misdemeanor to a violation, the case should have been allowed to proceed to trial." According to the JCC.
NH Superior Criminal Court Judge William Groff
FACT: Judge Groff, is only one of many NH judges like the entire NH Supreme Court, who continually proved to be incapable of their duty pertaining to actually being knowledgeable in the states legislative laws.
"French kissing doesn't amount to sexual contact under New Hampshire law, according to Hillsborough County Superior Criminal Court Judge William Groff. Judge Groff dismissed a felony sexual assault charge against a city teen-ager, finding that sexual assault laws don't cover kissing with the tongue. The young man faced a charge of felonious sexual assault, involving a 6-year-old girl.
State law defines sexual contact as intentional touching of sexual or intimate parts. The tongue, Judge Groff ruled, is neither sexual nor intimate. He reasoned that the tongue is neither sexual nor intimate and wrote, "A tongue is not related to sexual relations, nor is it private. A tongue is displayed daily by the average person in speech and other conduct."
"To accept the state's definition of tongue as an 'intimate part," Groff wrote, "would result in a person potentially committing a felonious sexual assault by touching a person's tongue with a finger."
The judge further reasoned that French kissing (a 6 year old girl mind you!) can't be considered sexual contact under state law "even if done without consent and even if done for the purpose of sexual gratification."
FACT: "In 1989, Groff also overturned a convictions of a Lowell, Mass., man, who was found guilty of sexually assaulting a young boy in Nashua because the boy simply used the word “bum” rather than “anus” in his testimony. Because of the potential ambiguity of the word “bum,” Groff found that the boy’s testimony wasn’t enough to prove sexual penetration. Months later, that same man plead guilty to sexual assault charges involving the same boy, but only now it was in Massachusetts."
FACT: In 1991, even the NH Supreme Court actually still upheld Judge Groff's decision to overturn this same conviction of a Lowell, Mass man, who was already now found guilty of sexually assaulting the same young boy in Nashua and again now in Massachusetts. All because the boy used the word "bum" rather than "anus" in his testimony. Groff found that the boy's testimony wasn't enough to prove sexual penetration and the NH Supreme Court agreed even after he was charged again in massachusetts.
Judge William Groff is famously well known for court ordering a permanent brain injury upon me within a RECORD BREAKING 15 minute relief hearing, without so much as even looking at the evidence he requested. I was forced to live out of my car without any funds for shelter, food or required medications preventing heart attacks and strokes, just so my husband of 21 years can continue to afford his co-workers mistress already divorced twice with 4 children she already had by 3 different other men, while committing welfare fraud.
Massachusetts isn't the only state now having to use their resouces to protect and save NH residents along with their own. And they are also not too happy about spending their time and resources to continually clean up crime that is only produced out of NH.
"That committee's final report included two anecdotes of out-of-state residents arrested in Massachusetts with large hauls of New Hampshire-purchased booze. One of those arrests included 1,676 bottles of Hennessy, bought at multiple locations. The driver was charged with possessing untaxed liquor and unlawfully transporting liquor.
Liquor enforcement officials in Vermont have made two arrests, one involving an estimated $40,000 worth of New Hampshire-purchased liquor in the back of an SUV, the other with an estimated $28,000 worth. Both suspects were charged with crossing state lines in possession of more than 9 liters of alcohol, Vermont's current legal limit."
"The product that was the most prominent in both of these cases was Hennessy cognac," says Patrick Delaney, Vermont's commissioner of liquor control, who backs increasing the financial penalties for those caught illegally importing large quantities of liquor. He adds that "by using cash, there is obviously no paper trail, if an authority were to investigate it, The activity itself is basically tax evasion."
“From our perspective, this is organized criminal activity,” says Gary Kessler, deputy commissioner at the Vermont Department of Liquor Control."
FACT: Albee was investigated by the JCC only after the State Supreme Court issued their opinion finding "Irreversable Error" (in the September 11, 2015 case involving Tammy Rokowski and Shane Rokowski. Albee entered and agreement to avoid facing formal discipline by the State Supreme Court.
(The taking of a life is what is irreversible. However simple blazon lazy stupidity is not!!!)
The agreement said she had multiple cases on the overdue orders list in 2013 and 2014. The list is kept by administrators in order to make sure circuit court orders are completed within 30 days. According to records Albee had anywhere between 7 - 21 delinquent cases per month.
"Delays in rendering a judicial decision have negative consequences not only for the parties but for the overall administration of justice and must be avoided in the future." The committee said.
Albee was also found to be using independent online sites like Zillow to research her decision-making in marital cases instead of using the actual evidence submitted that only actually applies to the case.
"The Judicial Conduct Committee made a finding that Albee violated Canon 2, Rule 2.9C of the Code of Judicial Conduct for using evidence outside of the record, but said this was not serious enough to warrant formal discipline by the Supreme Court. Instead, only with the consent of Albee first, “the Committee issues this Reprimand”, and immediately placed Albee behind the bench to continue."
(This has to be the icing on the cake. If the NH Judicial conduct Committee has to kindly first request the guilty as charged, to stipulate and even consent to resolution of their code's provision, are they truly that clueless as to what the real purpose of having a conduct committee even is?)
"The committee urges that judge Albee refrain from concluding factual investigations outside the evidentiary record of the hearing or utilizing that information in her decision making process." The committee said.
"The committee determines that a clear violation of Canon 2, Rule 25A is not found but that the judge acted in a manner which requires attention and Judge Albee stipulates and consents to resolution of that code provision by it's dismissal with the issuance in the future."
Timothy Rioux believes the conduct committee should have investigated all of Albee’s cases. He didn’t receive due process as a result of her actions, he said. The people whose cases were on the overdue orders list were cheated of their rights as well, Rioux said.
“They didn’t get a timely hearing. I suggested that the JCC investigate further,” Rioux said.
Rioux, an outspoken critic of the court system, said “These people need to be held accountable. There is no system of accountability for judges. The system protects them,”
“The more digging you do, the more you realize it is corrupt at the core.” said Rioux
Albee sustained serious injury from a fall in June of 2015 and had been on medical leave. She did not return to work fulltime, but did finally clear her overdue orders, the agreement said.
The Head Of Circuit Court, Judge Edwin Kelly, had this to say. "She served really ably in Carroll County and rarely was on the overdue list."
7 - 21 overdue cases per month is not considered as being rarely on the list! Someone should know both his job and employees better.
"The Judiciary Conduct Committee said that Lewis at least gave the appearance of being bias against women therefore he violated the code of conduct."
THE NH SUPREME COURT - Ross v Ross
FACT: Another adultery case to be famously known now in NH is Ross v Ross. That went before the NH State Supreme Court in 2016. Kysa Crusco, a NH Family Law Attorney and Guardian Ad Litem out of Bedford NH, clearly summarized this case in a nutshell through a blog.
THE NH SUPREME COURT WROTE Article 73A
FACT: In 1978 The NH Supreme Court also wrote Article 73A which was voted in by both NH's politicians and NH voters. This is what was written as article 73A on the ballot in 1978.
"The plain and ordinary meaning of adultery is “voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband.” Webster's Third New International Dictionary 30 (unabridged ed.1961). Although the definition does not specifically state that the “someone” with whom one commits adultery must be of the opposite gender, it does require sexual intercourse." Said the NH Supreme Court.
1. Stating both that adultery requires intercourse is clearly false according to the actual legislative construction used "in the words of a statue considered as a whole" defining the NH Adultery law that was in place at the time, already explained above.
"The plain and ordinary meaning of sexual intercourse is “sexual connection esp. between humans: COITUS, COPULATION.” Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2082. Coitus is defined to require “insertion of the penis in the vagina[ ],” Webster's Third New International Dictionary 441, which clearly can only take place between persons of the opposite gender" , said the NH Supreme Court
2. Again both the case and the law both already pertain to a homosexual affair and had nothing to do with a heterosexual affair, “sexual connection esp. between humans: COITUS, COPULATION.”
"We also note that “[a] law means what it meant to its framers and its mere repassage does not alter that meaning.” Appeal of Naswa Motor Inn, 144 N.H. 89, 91, 738 A.2d 349 (1999) (quotation omitted). The statutory compilation in which the provision now codified as RSA 458:7 first appeared is the Revised Statutes of 1842. See RS 148:3 (1842). No definition of adultery was contained in that statute. (FALSE) See id. Our cases from that approximate time period, however, support the inference that adultery meant intercourse. (FALSE) See Adams v. Adams, 20 N.H. 299, 301 (1850); Burns v. Burns, 68 N.H. 33, 34, 44 A. 76 (1894)." , said the NH Supreme Court.
3. Stating "Our cases from that approximate time period, however, support the inference that adultery meant intercourse;" (IS FASLE) again, simply makes no sense and contradicts "the intent of the legislature as expressed in the words of a statute considered as a whole." That was already very clearly defined for them even through the Webster Dictionary that they constantly referred to instead of the actual state law.
4. Again, When actually attempting "to note that [a] law means what it meant to its framers and its mere repassage does not alter that meaning” , then SHOULD THEY NOT by any means be altering any part of it's meaning? Especially if the courts are the true " final arbiter of the intent of the legislature as expressed in the words of a statute considered as a whole”, while clearly hypocritically only actually disagreeing.
Therefore, According to the NH courts, who apparently only have the illegal final say on law, having sexual intercourse with others, just simply never was any real cause to divorce your spouse in NH. Thus, that is until the so-called now impeccable proof of the adultery committed also now becomes impeccable proof that it is the actual unquestionable "main cause", that is also beyond the impeccable proof of any reasonable doubt, that it actually truly is the supporting evidence of the impeccable proof of the actual adultery committed. S0 just try and say that 3 times fast and your IQ will now be as low with the equivalency of all NH judges' train of thought.
Here is another example of a nightmare on Elm Street performed by NH's judicial branch of government that is now recklessly enforced daily since 2010. The NH Supreme Court designed a family court Rule 1.25A that claims that all debts, medical coverages and life insurance coverages, retirements, pensions, 401Ks, savings and checking accounts, held both jointly and separately, are now all required to be submitted to the court within 45 days of filing with the NH family court. BUT, and yes people, the NH judges always have to have a major HPYPOCRITICAL BUT to even excuse their own actual rules, like stating, that it is also ONLY IF A NH JUDGE bothers to even request this specific evidence and not all the evidence they actually listed in the first.
THEN, AND YES THERES EVEN MORE TO RULE 1.25A, they went further on to clarify in this rule just how thorough the actual evidence has to truly be. By clarifying that the actual evidences can be hidden from view before submitting it to the court by stating that, "2. The parties may redact all but the last four (4) digits of any account numbers and social security numbers that appear on any statements or documents."
Now not only does this sentence defeat the entire purpose of all and any entire purpose of having evidence to begin with, it now most certainly breaks even more than just one NH legislative constructed state law, along with the United States Codes for the entire country. You just have to wonder how long does it actually really take for them to actually come up with so much illegal BS, let alone actually get away with enforcing it.
FACT: NH Title LXII - CRIMINAL CODE
Chapter 641 - FALSIFICATION IN OFFICIAL MATTERS
Section 641:7 - Tampering With Public Records or Information.
Chapter 641 - FALSIFICATION IN OFFICIAL MATTERS
Section 641:7 - Tampering With Public Records or Information.
Universal Citation: NH Rev Stat § 641:7 (2015)
641:7 Tampering With Public Records or Information. – A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if he:
I. Knowingly makes a false entry in or false alteration of any thing belonging to, received, or kept by the government for information or record, or required by law to be kept for information of the government; or
II. Presents or uses any thing knowing it to be false, and with a purpose that it be taken as a genuine part of information or records referred to in paragraph I; or
III. Purposely and unlawfully destroys, conceals, removes or otherwise impairs the verity or availability of any such thing.
Source. 1971, 518:1, eff. Nov. 1, 1973.
FACT: NH Title LXII - CRIMINAL CODE
Chapter 638 - FRAUD
Section 638:2 - Fraudulent Handling of Recordable Writings.
Universal Citation: NH Rev Stat § 638:2 (2015)
638:2 Fraudulent Handling of Recordable Writings. – A person is guilty of a class B felony if, with a purpose to deceive or injure anyone, he falsifies, destroys, removes or conceals any will, deed, mortgage, security instrument or other writing for which the law provides public recording.
Source. 1971, 518:1, eff. Nov. 1, 1973.
FACT: 18 U.S.C. § 1505 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 1505. Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress--Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331 ), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.
NOTHING LIKE TELLING AN ENTIRE STATE SCREW BOTH YOU AND THE LAW. SO APPARENTLY ALL NH JUDGES VERY CLEARLY CAN AND WILL VERY CLEARLY SCREW WITH ALL, AND ANY NH LAWS, THAT ARE LEAGALLY CONSTRUCTED BY ACTUAL NH LEGISLATIVE CONSTRUCTION, THAT WAS ACTUALLY EVEN VOTED ON, THEN PASSED BY LEGISLATORS, SENATORS, AND THEN EVEN SIGNED OFF AND APPROVED BY A NH GOVERNOR.This is why the very first United States judge to ever be impeached throughout the entire country 214 years ago was only from NH, for being mentally unstable and a drunk behind the bench, even as far back then too. So now here we are 214 years later in the 21st century, and you can still very clearly see that not a hell of allot has nor ever will clearly change, when it comes to actually having a real judicial justice system requiring any real IQ by any real NH judge.
The fact that NH voted to even once have a Grievance Committee in 2010 proves that they were already well aware of how bad the NH judicial Branch of government is truly "mucking" with the law.
The fact that NH one year later, suddenly votes to immediately dismantle that committee, only proves even more so, how badly the NH government cannot stop it, and it will only continue to be ignored. History clearly continues to still speak many volumes of only the truth in more ways then one!
In 2012, many people started a resistance to vote NO against the constitutional amendment, CACR 26 which would have given legislators direct control and accountability over NH'S judiciary. It would have given the Legislature direct control over all operations of the Judicial Branch and rightfully so. But people were actually trying to claim that NH legislators alone were and still are the only problem which is not true, by saying things such as,
"Think about that for a minute.
- Do we want the Legislature deciding what to tell juries about the burden of proof, and what constitutes “reasonable doubt”?
- Do we want the Legislature to decide Rules of Evidence such as whether the jury can rely on hearsay; whether the jury can hear testimony that is irrelevant but prejudicial; whether a lawyer, spouse or ordained minister can be compelled to testify?
- Do we want the Legislature involved in the process of setting bail?
- Do we want the Legislature telling courts how to treat victims of child abuse?"
Well isn't it already the legislators who already are the ones who construct each and every actual bill, that is actually signed into an actual law, by an actual state governor. So exactly what is the problem with them constructing the actual court rules to match what the judicial branch is already suppose to be enforcing anyway, laws constructed by legislators? Each government needs to accept a legal chain of command or or NH will continue to remain without proper legal justice.
It was also falsely reported that, "CACR 26 would take New Hampshire on a voyage to a strange new world, where the Legislature has direct control of the Judiciary. Where Court Rules would likely change every two years, depending on who is elected House Speaker and Senate President, and who gets named to the Judiciary Committee. Where the branch of government that is supposed to protect our rights – supposed to protect us from Legislative excesses – would be run by the very politicians that we need to be protected against.
It would be the fox guarding the hen house.
Except in this case, New Hampshire citizens would be the hens. Do we really want to trust the Legislature to protect us from laws that trample on our constitutional rights?"
As long as there remains even one judge, refusing to rule based on actual evidence and still illegally "mucking" with all actual laws, then the final problem still remains with the actual NH judicial branch of justice "mucking" with laws.
"There is no limit to the different ways the Legislature could muck up New Hampshire’s court system, if we give them that power through CACR 26."
SERIOUSLY? Well how about all the decades of evidence repeatedly proven in case after case, after case, showing the NH judicial system when it comes to only just consistently "mucking" with the laws.
"As John Broderick, the former Chief Justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court, who was had to be reprimanded himself, for being incapable of following even the Judicial branch's own current rules, never mind the actual laws themselves, told the Union Leader,
[the original framers of the Constitution] sought to protect the separation of governmental powers because they had lived under regimes that respected no dividing lines, when the Legislature could invade the province of the judiciary for purely partisan reasons or, perhaps, without any reason at all.
[J]udicial independence is not just about keeping the Legislature in check, as important as that is. It is also about fulfilling the constitutional guarantee to each citizen that the courts will act impartially and free from the influence of political interests.
And we then also have the former Governor Steve Merrill and former New Hampshire Supreme Court Justice Joseph Nadeau who told the NH Bar Association,
And we then also have the former Governor Steve Merrill and former New Hampshire Supreme Court Justice Joseph Nadeau who told the NH Bar Association,
"oversight of [Court] rules is oversight of administrative activities. And there is no place in a constitutional democracy for legislative intervention of the judicial branch. Political oversight of courts existed in dictatorships of Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, and the former Russian Republics before they embraced democracy. We all know that resulted in judicial systems without independence, and without equal access or impartial justice."
If you’re a Republican, imagine that the Democrats would be deciding Court Rules.
Either way, it’s probably not a very comfortable picture – especially if you end up looking to the court system for justice or to protect your rights."
So now this falsely implies another problem, now claiming that NH bills are not even actually legally voted into law simultaneously by both parties that is one representative branch of over 400 votes.
Well let's just take a good hard look at the actual NH court system "muck with protecting your rights" without any oversight of the NH judiciary, Shall we?
SO DRUM ROLL IF YOU PLEASE...AND THE EVIDENCE BEGINS WITH?
NH DISTRICT COURT JUDGE MICHEAL JONES
FACT: Jones was a part-time Special Justice investigated by the Judiciary Conduct Committee when police Chief Paul Donovan filed a grievance asking the committee to review 8 cases.
After hearing a direct examination of the defendant's spouse and victim in a domestic assault giving testimony, Jones said that he, "was more like a marriage counselor than a judge." Then after Jones had listened to the defendants testimony, who was a Caribbean man charged with marijuana possession, and worked on a catamaran sailboat, Jones' only response was, "The state doesn't get this, but this is all part of your culture, this stuff." the committee said that furthermore, Jones proceeded to then begin to tell a story of another case he presided over where the suspect is from Jamaica who was also charged with marijuana possession."
Jones' conduct was also called into question when he accused prosecutor Grosky of undermining his authority when Grosky only simply asked to move forward with the trial. Jones suddenly told Grosky to "Be quiet, be quiet, ok? Hey, when you sit up here you can decide. All right?" Jones furthermore accused Grosky of even "stepping over the line" and threatened "One more time and I'm going to have these folks take you out of here."
According to documents with the JCC, Jones also allowed a reputed member of the Hells Angels to be given a concealed handgun permit over chief Donovan's objections. He overruled the chief's authority and within months later that member threatened a Londonderry couple driving along interstate 93 by pointing a handgun at them. That member was then arrested and found guilty of reckless conduct and threatening behavior and served roughly 2 years in the state prison.
After hearing a direct examination of the defendant's spouse and victim in a domestic assault giving testimony, Jones said that he, "was more like a marriage counselor than a judge." Then after Jones had listened to the defendants testimony, who was a Caribbean man charged with marijuana possession, and worked on a catamaran sailboat, Jones' only response was, "The state doesn't get this, but this is all part of your culture, this stuff." the committee said that furthermore, Jones proceeded to then begin to tell a story of another case he presided over where the suspect is from Jamaica who was also charged with marijuana possession."
Jones' conduct was also called into question when he accused prosecutor Grosky of undermining his authority when Grosky only simply asked to move forward with the trial. Jones suddenly told Grosky to "Be quiet, be quiet, ok? Hey, when you sit up here you can decide. All right?" Jones furthermore accused Grosky of even "stepping over the line" and threatened "One more time and I'm going to have these folks take you out of here."
According to documents with the JCC, Jones also allowed a reputed member of the Hells Angels to be given a concealed handgun permit over chief Donovan's objections. He overruled the chief's authority and within months later that member threatened a Londonderry couple driving along interstate 93 by pointing a handgun at them. That member was then arrested and found guilty of reckless conduct and threatening behavior and served roughly 2 years in the state prison.
NH CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE WILLIAM LYONS
FACT: Lyons was suspended for 60 days without pay after an angry outburst towards a Deputy Sheriff. The JCC found that Lyons lost his temper when the deputy refused to remove restraints from a suicidal 48 year old woman who became the focus of the emergency room Involuntary Commitment petition.
Lyons suddenly just dismissed the case without it ever being heard, possibly causing potential harm to the woman who was already in danger of hurting herself. Dismissing the petition was enormous, according to the JCC Referee, Paul Fauver, and according to a petition from a mental health worker handling the woman's case. The commitment hearing was held May 31, 2013.
When Deputy Sheriff Matthew Poulicakos refused to remove the woman's wrist and leg restraints, he cited security reasons and department policy. The JCC Referee Fauver determined that Lyons "continued his impatient, discourteous, demeaning behavior" towards Deputy Sheriff Poulicakos in the courtroom and also in his orders written days later.
When Deputy Sheriff Matthew Poulicakos refused to remove the woman's wrist and leg restraints, he cited security reasons and department policy. The JCC Referee Fauver determined that Lyons "continued his impatient, discourteous, demeaning behavior" towards Deputy Sheriff Poulicakos in the courtroom and also in his orders written days later.
Lyons argued that the woman and her lawyer had no right to be heard, "because the hearing could not be conducted in a lawful manner given the refusal of the deputy to remove the restraints."
The Supreme Court orders affirmed what the committee had found. That Lyons violated the code of judicial conduct by not controlling his temper.
The Supreme Court orders affirmed what the committee had found. That Lyons violated the code of judicial conduct by not controlling his temper.
NH CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE SHARON DEVRIES
FACT: DeVries was reprimanded by the JCC based on the complaints made by the state police pertaining to her manner for which she presides over a series of criminal cases. The case was initiated and brought to the committee by Kevin O'Brien, former Assistant Commissioner of the NH Dept. of Safety. Complaints and Resolution were outlined in a 15 page decision, with a 25 page addendum attached by the JCC.
FACT: DeVries was reprimanded by the JCC based on the complaints made by the state police pertaining to her manner for which she presides over a series of criminal cases. The case was initiated and brought to the committee by Kevin O'Brien, former Assistant Commissioner of the NH Dept. of Safety. Complaints and Resolution were outlined in a 15 page decision, with a 25 page addendum attached by the JCC.
12 cases were brought to the committee by the Dept. of Safety and were dismissed. DeVries refused to accept plea deals negotiated by a state police prosecutor, describing them as a "Global Resolution" on Drugs. The JCC found DeVries failed to make reasonable efforts to allow the prosecutor to be "fairly heard."
In one case the JCC found DeVries made an "offense charging decision", for which "should be left to the prosecutor."
"Once the prosecutor objected to the reduction of the offense from a misdemeanor to a violation, the case should have been allowed to proceed to trial." According to the JCC.
In another case, she reported giving a defendant the benefit of the doubt because she knew a court clerk was under investigation for taking court fines that had later found to be totaling around $147,000 for personal use.
In another case, she refused to order a defendant to obtain an interlock for driving while intoxicated conviction because it was not mandated. The state police argued that the DWI was reduced from an aggravated DWI for which the device is mandatory for.
Another case involved DeVries dismissing a domestic violence charge because the plea was made by state police prosecutor who sent a trooper to see it through. In this case the JCC found that it was common practice to have police surrogates appear when cases are previously negotiated, and the victim was deprived of having the defendant even attend an anger management program.
Another case, DeVries was cautioned about hearing a case with someone without legal representation, who negotiated a plea deal for charges of Driving After Suspension and Marijuana Possesion. DeVries denied the deal because she thought the fine was too high, and the state complained.
DeVries was also reprimanded in 2009 for making an after hours call to a superior court judge to ask that a juvenile be held at a youth detention center, according to the reprimand order. Because she became concerned for the juvenile, his family and community.
In another case, she refused to order a defendant to obtain an interlock for driving while intoxicated conviction because it was not mandated. The state police argued that the DWI was reduced from an aggravated DWI for which the device is mandatory for.
Another case involved DeVries dismissing a domestic violence charge because the plea was made by state police prosecutor who sent a trooper to see it through. In this case the JCC found that it was common practice to have police surrogates appear when cases are previously negotiated, and the victim was deprived of having the defendant even attend an anger management program.
Another case, DeVries was cautioned about hearing a case with someone without legal representation, who negotiated a plea deal for charges of Driving After Suspension and Marijuana Possesion. DeVries denied the deal because she thought the fine was too high, and the state complained.
DeVries was also reprimanded in 2009 for making an after hours call to a superior court judge to ask that a juvenile be held at a youth detention center, according to the reprimand order. Because she became concerned for the juvenile, his family and community.
NH Superior Criminal Court Judge William Groff
FACT: Judge Groff, is only one of many NH judges like the entire NH Supreme Court, who continually proved to be incapable of their duty pertaining to actually being knowledgeable in the states legislative laws.
"French kissing doesn't amount to sexual contact under New Hampshire law, according to Hillsborough County Superior Criminal Court Judge William Groff. Judge Groff dismissed a felony sexual assault charge against a city teen-ager, finding that sexual assault laws don't cover kissing with the tongue. The young man faced a charge of felonious sexual assault, involving a 6-year-old girl.
State law defines sexual contact as intentional touching of sexual or intimate parts. The tongue, Judge Groff ruled, is neither sexual nor intimate. He reasoned that the tongue is neither sexual nor intimate and wrote, "A tongue is not related to sexual relations, nor is it private. A tongue is displayed daily by the average person in speech and other conduct."
"To accept the state's definition of tongue as an 'intimate part," Groff wrote, "would result in a person potentially committing a felonious sexual assault by touching a person's tongue with a finger."
The judge further reasoned that French kissing (a 6 year old girl mind you!) can't be considered sexual contact under state law "even if done without consent and even if done for the purpose of sexual gratification."
FACT: "In 1989, Groff also overturned a convictions of a Lowell, Mass., man, who was found guilty of sexually assaulting a young boy in Nashua because the boy simply used the word “bum” rather than “anus” in his testimony. Because of the potential ambiguity of the word “bum,” Groff found that the boy’s testimony wasn’t enough to prove sexual penetration. Months later, that same man plead guilty to sexual assault charges involving the same boy, but only now it was in Massachusetts."
FACT: In 1991, even the NH Supreme Court actually still upheld Judge Groff's decision to overturn this same conviction of a Lowell, Mass man, who was already now found guilty of sexually assaulting the same young boy in Nashua and again now in Massachusetts. All because the boy used the word "bum" rather than "anus" in his testimony. Groff found that the boy's testimony wasn't enough to prove sexual penetration and the NH Supreme Court agreed even after he was charged again in massachusetts.
Judge William Groff is famously well known for court ordering a permanent brain injury upon me within a RECORD BREAKING 15 minute relief hearing, without so much as even looking at the evidence he requested. I was forced to live out of my car without any funds for shelter, food or required medications preventing heart attacks and strokes, just so my husband of 21 years can continue to afford his co-workers mistress already divorced twice with 4 children she already had by 3 different other men, while committing welfare fraud.
Massachusetts isn't the only state now having to use their resouces to protect and save NH residents along with their own. And they are also not too happy about spending their time and resources to continually clean up crime that is only produced out of NH.
FACT: "In fact, in 2012, it was a top GOP lawmaker who called for a special House committee to investigate potential wrongdoing within the NH Liquor Commission, including how it handles large cash purchases.
"That committee's final report included two anecdotes of out-of-state residents arrested in Massachusetts with large hauls of New Hampshire-purchased booze. One of those arrests included 1,676 bottles of Hennessy, bought at multiple locations. The driver was charged with possessing untaxed liquor and unlawfully transporting liquor.
Liquor enforcement officials in Vermont have made two arrests, one involving an estimated $40,000 worth of New Hampshire-purchased liquor in the back of an SUV, the other with an estimated $28,000 worth. Both suspects were charged with crossing state lines in possession of more than 9 liters of alcohol, Vermont's current legal limit."
"The product that was the most prominent in both of these cases was Hennessy cognac," says Patrick Delaney, Vermont's commissioner of liquor control, who backs increasing the financial penalties for those caught illegally importing large quantities of liquor. He adds that "by using cash, there is obviously no paper trail, if an authority were to investigate it, The activity itself is basically tax evasion."
“From our perspective, this is organized criminal activity,” says Gary Kessler, deputy commissioner at the Vermont Department of Liquor Control."
"Along with New York, court records show Kessler’s agency has also sent investigators to stake out New Hampshire liquor store parking lots in recent months, including in Peterborough and Keene. When the customers crossed back into Vermont with trucks full of booze, they were arrested for violating that state’s liquor laws.
“Clearly, these guys aren’t just randomly deciding that they are going to come up and buy some cases of alcohol,” Kessler says. “They are coming up here with shopping lists, these guys had a notebook, they have the money and the gift cards.”
"These operations by other states are happening without the assistance or knowledge of New Hampshire officials. The New Hampshire Liquor Commission, which oversees 79 retail stores statewide, says it wasn't notified. Neither was the attorney general’s office or New Hampshire State Police." The NH Attorney General's office finally got around to warranting an investigation 6 years later in 2018."
NH CIRCUIT (Circus) COURT JUDGE PAMELA ALBEE
Americas Only Zillow Ruling Judge...WE CAN ONLY HOPE!
FACT: Albee was investigated by the JCC only after the State Supreme Court issued their opinion finding "Irreversable Error" (in the September 11, 2015 case involving Tammy Rokowski and Shane Rokowski. Albee entered and agreement to avoid facing formal discipline by the State Supreme Court.
(The taking of a life is what is irreversible. However simple blazon lazy stupidity is not!!!)
The agreement said she had multiple cases on the overdue orders list in 2013 and 2014. The list is kept by administrators in order to make sure circuit court orders are completed within 30 days. According to records Albee had anywhere between 7 - 21 delinquent cases per month.
"Delays in rendering a judicial decision have negative consequences not only for the parties but for the overall administration of justice and must be avoided in the future." The committee said.
Albee was also found to be using independent online sites like Zillow to research her decision-making in marital cases instead of using the actual evidence submitted that only actually applies to the case.
"The Judicial Conduct Committee made a finding that Albee violated Canon 2, Rule 2.9C of the Code of Judicial Conduct for using evidence outside of the record, but said this was not serious enough to warrant formal discipline by the Supreme Court. Instead, only with the consent of Albee first, “the Committee issues this Reprimand”, and immediately placed Albee behind the bench to continue."
(This has to be the icing on the cake. If the NH Judicial conduct Committee has to kindly first request the guilty as charged, to stipulate and even consent to resolution of their code's provision, are they truly that clueless as to what the real purpose of having a conduct committee even is?)
"The committee urges that judge Albee refrain from concluding factual investigations outside the evidentiary record of the hearing or utilizing that information in her decision making process." The committee said.
"The committee determines that a clear violation of Canon 2, Rule 25A is not found but that the judge acted in a manner which requires attention and Judge Albee stipulates and consents to resolution of that code provision by it's dismissal with the issuance in the future."
Timothy Rioux believes the conduct committee should have investigated all of Albee’s cases. He didn’t receive due process as a result of her actions, he said. The people whose cases were on the overdue orders list were cheated of their rights as well, Rioux said.
“They didn’t get a timely hearing. I suggested that the JCC investigate further,” Rioux said.
Rioux, an outspoken critic of the court system, said “These people need to be held accountable. There is no system of accountability for judges. The system protects them,”
“The more digging you do, the more you realize it is corrupt at the core.” said Rioux
Albee sustained serious injury from a fall in June of 2015 and had been on medical leave. She did not return to work fulltime, but did finally clear her overdue orders, the agreement said.
The Head Of Circuit Court, Judge Edwin Kelly, had this to say. "She served really ably in Carroll County and rarely was on the overdue list."
7 - 21 overdue cases per month is not considered as being rarely on the list! Someone should know both his job and employees better.
EX - NH CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE PAUL MOORE
FACT: In October 2017, Moore was suddenly quietly place on paid leave of absence. Then in March 2018, the Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Conduct, came to a conclusion and filed formal charges against Moore stating, "The committee is persuaded that the probable exists to believe that Judge Moore abused the prestige of his judicial office to advance his personal or economic interests."
Only after authorities became suspicious of Moore's perfect scores on his job evaluations, that are submitted supposedly by only the public and lawyers, Moore suddenly resigned. His scores were way above all other judges.
In January 2018, Moore applied for disability benefits and claimed his health had been deteriorating for the past 15 months. Yet nine months earlier he submitted his application to be considered for a supreme court appointment with no mention of poor health.
(NOW THIS TRULY EXPLAINS ALLOT OF WHAT THE ENTIRE NH SUPREME COURT IS TRULY MADE UP OF.)
Moore was charged with 1 count of fraud "For making false statement'(s) in an attempt to defraud the NH Judicial Retirement Plan," and plead guilty to attempt to secure a disability pension. He will not face any criminal charges as a result of fraudulent evaluations that were submitted. He also was only sentence to a suspended 12 month prison term. He now walks free as a known felon with a pension paid by the state!
If Moore had succeeded he would of stolen over a million dollars in his lifetime from NH taxpayers hard earned paid tax dollars, and yet he walks a free man with no jail time and a pension to boot again paid by NH taxpayers.
NH SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE JOHN M. LEWIS RETIRES DURING JCC INVESTIGATION
Only after authorities became suspicious of Moore's perfect scores on his job evaluations, that are submitted supposedly by only the public and lawyers, Moore suddenly resigned. His scores were way above all other judges.
In January 2018, Moore applied for disability benefits and claimed his health had been deteriorating for the past 15 months. Yet nine months earlier he submitted his application to be considered for a supreme court appointment with no mention of poor health.
(NOW THIS TRULY EXPLAINS ALLOT OF WHAT THE ENTIRE NH SUPREME COURT IS TRULY MADE UP OF.)
Moore was charged with 1 count of fraud "For making false statement'(s) in an attempt to defraud the NH Judicial Retirement Plan," and plead guilty to attempt to secure a disability pension. He will not face any criminal charges as a result of fraudulent evaluations that were submitted. He also was only sentence to a suspended 12 month prison term. He now walks free as a known felon with a pension paid by the state!
If Moore had succeeded he would of stolen over a million dollars in his lifetime from NH taxpayers hard earned paid tax dollars, and yet he walks a free man with no jail time and a pension to boot again paid by NH taxpayers.
NH SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE JOHN M. LEWIS RETIRES DURING JCC INVESTIGATION
FACT: While in a meeting with the county attorney's office and the public defenders office, Lewis made sexist remarks saying people are loosing respect for the legal profession because so many women are becoming lawyers. It's hurting the teaching profession. Another alleged comment made by Lewis was mentioned. He allegedly said there is more respect in the business world because it is dominated by men.
He was place on a paid administrative leave, then suddenly submitted his retirement letter within the following 2 weeks. He was also accused of not being sympathetic enough to crime victims and allegedly had said that the aggressive product of child sexual assault may do more harm than good to the families and communities.
He was place on a paid administrative leave, then suddenly submitted his retirement letter within the following 2 weeks. He was also accused of not being sympathetic enough to crime victims and allegedly had said that the aggressive product of child sexual assault may do more harm than good to the families and communities.
"The Judiciary Conduct Committee said that Lewis at least gave the appearance of being bias against women therefore he violated the code of conduct."
THE NH SUPREME COURT - Ross v Ross
FACT: Another adultery case to be famously known now in NH is Ross v Ross. That went before the NH State Supreme Court in 2016. Kysa Crusco, a NH Family Law Attorney and Guardian Ad Litem out of Bedford NH, clearly summarized this case in a nutshell through a blog.
The Facts
Husband and wife met in dental school and later married. Husband, who had his own endodontist practice, helped his wife open and build her orthodontist practice. Considerable money was put into the venture. The couple separated the day that husband discovered wife was having an affair with another dentist. Wife filed for divorce 5 days after the parties separated alleging both fault and irreconcilable differences as grounds. Husband cross-petitioned for divorce on fault-based grounds, due to the wife’s alleged adultery and irreconcilable differences. The parties had been married for 9 years at the time they filed for divorce.
Approximately 11 months after the divorce was file, husband began a sexual relationship with the ex-wife of the dentist that the wife was dating. Wife filed a motion to dismiss the adultery grounds pled against her. She argued the defense of recrimination, or in other words that the husband was no longer an “innocent spouse” because of his own adultery. The trial court agreed with wife and dismissed the husband’s fault grounds. The trial court issued a decree of divorce based on irreconcilable differences that divided the property with an intent to split it equally.
The Appeal
Husband appealed the dismissal of the fault-based ground in his cross-petition for divorce, arguing that his sexual relationship, which occurred eleven months after the parties’ separation, could not be used as a basis for the defense of recrimination. Husband asserted that such a holding would require parties to remain celibate during years of litigation in a contentious divorce. Wife argued the trial court did not err in granting the motion to dismiss because the respondent was not an “innocent party” within the meaning of the statute. RSA 458:7 (2004).
The Court examined RSA 458:7, which states that a divorce “shall be decreed in favor of the innocent party.” The statute requires that one be an “innocent party” at the time of the decree. The statute makes no exception for fault based grounds that arise prior to the final decree, regardless of whether they arise before or after the filing of the divorce petition. Therefore, the trial court correctly considered Husband’s post-petition conduct when deciding the motion to dismiss.
The Court further stated the fact that Husband’s adultery did not lead to the breakdown of the marriage does not bar recrimination as a defense, stating “Causation is not an element of the defense of recrimination.” The Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to dismiss the fault grounds and grant a divorce on irreconcilable differences.
The Takeaway
The conclusion of husband’s brief, artfully written by Attorney Joshua Gordon, argues: “It is not reasonable to suggest, in these times of protracted discovery and litigation, that a party to a divorce must remain celibate for the duration of the proceedings – here already longer than four years.” I happen to agree with him. Litigation can be a long and arduous process. While most divorces will settle within 6 months to 1 year, a small percentage can drag on. The longest divorce I have seen from start to finish has been 5 years. That is a long time to wait to date.
Why pursue the adultery grounds in the first place? It appears in this case that there was some significant bad blood between the parties. Husband had helped wife open her orthodontic practice and contributed financially and emotionally to that endeavor. In return, wife carried on an affair with a colleague for approximately five years. Wife changed the locks to the house two days after husband left. Husband may have been pursuing the emotional victory of a fault based divorce for wife’s cheating.
Husband may also have been pursuing the adultery grounds for the financial benefit. RSA 458:16-a, II provides that a court may divide property unequally when it would be appropriate and equitable to do so after considering one more of the statutory factors. One of the factors reads: “The fault of either party as specified in RSA 458:7 if said fault caused the breakdown of the marriage and: (1) Caused substantial physical or mental pain and suffering; or (2) Resulted in substantial economic loss to the marital estate or the injured party.” With the dental practices, marital home and savings and investments on the line, an uneven split make a substantial difference in the outcome."
THE NH SUPREME COURT RULE ON ADUTERY
Husband and wife met in dental school and later married. Husband, who had his own endodontist practice, helped his wife open and build her orthodontist practice. Considerable money was put into the venture. The couple separated the day that husband discovered wife was having an affair with another dentist. Wife filed for divorce 5 days after the parties separated alleging both fault and irreconcilable differences as grounds. Husband cross-petitioned for divorce on fault-based grounds, due to the wife’s alleged adultery and irreconcilable differences. The parties had been married for 9 years at the time they filed for divorce.
Approximately 11 months after the divorce was file, husband began a sexual relationship with the ex-wife of the dentist that the wife was dating. Wife filed a motion to dismiss the adultery grounds pled against her. She argued the defense of recrimination, or in other words that the husband was no longer an “innocent spouse” because of his own adultery. The trial court agreed with wife and dismissed the husband’s fault grounds. The trial court issued a decree of divorce based on irreconcilable differences that divided the property with an intent to split it equally.
The Appeal
Husband appealed the dismissal of the fault-based ground in his cross-petition for divorce, arguing that his sexual relationship, which occurred eleven months after the parties’ separation, could not be used as a basis for the defense of recrimination. Husband asserted that such a holding would require parties to remain celibate during years of litigation in a contentious divorce. Wife argued the trial court did not err in granting the motion to dismiss because the respondent was not an “innocent party” within the meaning of the statute. RSA 458:7 (2004).
The Court examined RSA 458:7, which states that a divorce “shall be decreed in favor of the innocent party.” The statute requires that one be an “innocent party” at the time of the decree. The statute makes no exception for fault based grounds that arise prior to the final decree, regardless of whether they arise before or after the filing of the divorce petition. Therefore, the trial court correctly considered Husband’s post-petition conduct when deciding the motion to dismiss.
The Court further stated the fact that Husband’s adultery did not lead to the breakdown of the marriage does not bar recrimination as a defense, stating “Causation is not an element of the defense of recrimination.” The Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to dismiss the fault grounds and grant a divorce on irreconcilable differences.
The Takeaway
The conclusion of husband’s brief, artfully written by Attorney Joshua Gordon, argues: “It is not reasonable to suggest, in these times of protracted discovery and litigation, that a party to a divorce must remain celibate for the duration of the proceedings – here already longer than four years.” I happen to agree with him. Litigation can be a long and arduous process. While most divorces will settle within 6 months to 1 year, a small percentage can drag on. The longest divorce I have seen from start to finish has been 5 years. That is a long time to wait to date.
Why pursue the adultery grounds in the first place? It appears in this case that there was some significant bad blood between the parties. Husband had helped wife open her orthodontic practice and contributed financially and emotionally to that endeavor. In return, wife carried on an affair with a colleague for approximately five years. Wife changed the locks to the house two days after husband left. Husband may have been pursuing the emotional victory of a fault based divorce for wife’s cheating.
Husband may also have been pursuing the adultery grounds for the financial benefit. RSA 458:16-a, II provides that a court may divide property unequally when it would be appropriate and equitable to do so after considering one more of the statutory factors. One of the factors reads: “The fault of either party as specified in RSA 458:7 if said fault caused the breakdown of the marriage and: (1) Caused substantial physical or mental pain and suffering; or (2) Resulted in substantial economic loss to the marital estate or the injured party.” With the dental practices, marital home and savings and investments on the line, an uneven split make a substantial difference in the outcome."
THE NH SUPREME COURT RULE ON ADUTERY
"The New Hampshire Supreme Court still ruled that sexual intercourse does not include all types of sexual contact. The Court states that sexual intercourse is limited to sexual acts that could lead to the conception of a baby.
Accordingly, a homosexual affair does not rise to the level of adultery under New Hampshire law. (FALSE) Equally, an emotional affair does not constitute adultery for purposes of obtaining a divorce. (FALSE)
However, an emotional affair which causes significant emotional distress to the innocent spouse may result in a separate fault ground known as “conduct to injure health and reason." (THIS IS FALSE AGAIN!)
Again, the NH Supreme Court illegally claims, "the definition of adultery wasnot contained within the NH legislative statute", when they simply used one very clear important WORD in plain english. "Engages in sexual intercourse with another", and not just the opposite sex, or they simply would have just said so. The word "Another" is clearly defined in the English dictionary (had they even bothered to look that word up too) as, "someone or something different and in addition to."
Again, both homosexual and emotional affairs were simply something different that is in addition to sexual intercourse, at the time the adultery law was in effect, or legislative construction would simply have clearly specified otherwise if that was not the actual intent.
Accordingly, a homosexual affair does not rise to the level of adultery under New Hampshire law. (FALSE) Equally, an emotional affair does not constitute adultery for purposes of obtaining a divorce. (FALSE)
However, an emotional affair which causes significant emotional distress to the innocent spouse may result in a separate fault ground known as “conduct to injure health and reason." (THIS IS FALSE AGAIN!)
Again, the NH Supreme Court illegally claims, "the definition of adultery was
Again, both homosexual and emotional affairs were simply something different that is in addition to sexual intercourse, at the time the adultery law was in effect, or legislative construction would simply have clearly specified otherwise if that was not the actual intent.
THE NH SUPREME COURT WROTE Article 73A
FACT: In 1978 The NH Supreme Court also wrote Article 73A which was voted in by both NH's politicians and NH voters. This is what was written as article 73A on the ballot in 1978.
Article 73-a (1978)
"[Art.] 73-a. [Supreme Court, Administration.] The chief justice of the supreme court shall be the administrative head of all the courts. He shall, with the concurrence of a majority of the supreme court justices, make rules governing the administration of all courts in the state and the practice and procedure to be followed in all such courts."
"[Art.] 73-a. [Supreme Court, Administration.] The chief justice of the supreme court shall be the administrative head of all the courts. He shall, with the concurrence of a majority of the supreme court justices, make rules governing the administration of all courts in the state and the practice and procedure to be followed in all such courts."
However, this is what mysteriously appears on the books to this day in the year of 2018, and is strongly still enforced by all NH justices. As you will see, it suddenly appears with 1 additional sentence suddenly appearing at the end of the paragraph. That was never seen nor voted on because it was never on the ballot.
Article 73-a (1978)
"[Art.] 73-a. [Supreme Court, Administration.] The chief justice of the supreme court shall be the administrative head of all the courts. He shall, with the concurrence of a majority of the supreme court justices, make rules governing the administration of all courts in the state and the practice and procedure to be followed in all such courts. The rules so promulgated shall have the force and effect of law."
"[Art.] 73-a. [Supreme Court, Administration.] The chief justice of the supreme court shall be the administrative head of all the courts. He shall, with the concurrence of a majority of the supreme court justices, make rules governing the administration of all courts in the state and the practice and procedure to be followed in all such courts. The rules so promulgated shall have the force and effect of law."
No NH Supreme Court rules have ever been voted on nor was passed by NH legislators, that "shall have the force and effect of law", let alone was now actually signed in as a law by a NH governor.
YEP! NH JUDGES DEFINITELY NEED ABSOLUTELY NO OVERSITE TO KEEP THEM IN CHECK AND BALANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION AND ALL LAWS.
ONLY BECAUSE THEY CLEARLY ARE TRULY DOING SUCH A "MUCKING" BANG UP JOB ALL ON THEIR OWN!
YEP! NH JUDGES DEFINITELY NEED ABSOLUTELY NO OVERSITE TO KEEP THEM IN CHECK AND BALANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION AND ALL LAWS.
ONLY BECAUSE THEY CLEARLY ARE TRULY DOING SUCH A "MUCKING" BANG UP JOB ALL ON THEIR OWN!
one can never say NH is or ever was tough on crime, because all the proof clearly remains in judicial records through cases, after cases, after cases, after cases. NH law enforcement clearly deserves double what they are being paid to be actually putting their lives at risk daily, only to keep bringing criminals before a complete stupidly insane lawless idiot, who just so happens to be sitting behind a real NH judicial courtroom bench, now claiming themselves a real NH judge.
NH judges will continue to only discern the meaning and intent of each law by only "their rules of statutory construction", and not the actual statutory construction that was already legally designed, voted on and passed by legislators, senators, and then finally even approved and signed off by the actual state's governor.
Your marriage, your home, your children, and your future are not, nor ever will be, safe from the NH judicial branch of government. It truly is time to get the hell out of dodge if your living in NH. I have waited and watched for 10 years after NH government ordered a permanent brain injury upon me for life from my husband just committing adultery with a coworker's mistress 10 years ago.
So what does NH do a year after blood clots had to be removed from my brain after they court ordered me homeless with no money to afford my prescriptions during a NH divorce?
They had a good laugh and then even legalized adultery! So clearly it is very apparent that the NH government is just as mentally disturbed as the entire state continues to statistically actually be, according to both the CDC, and the amount of monthly NH disability checks now paid just for mental illness and government inflicted brain injuries alone is plenty of evidence. That is only closing in on surpassing double the amount distributed throughout an entire country, and once again, this is only just for mental illness alone.
NH judges will continue to only discern the meaning and intent of each law by only "their rules of statutory construction", and not the actual statutory construction that was already legally designed, voted on and passed by legislators, senators, and then finally even approved and signed off by the actual state's governor.
Your marriage, your home, your children, and your future are not, nor ever will be, safe from the NH judicial branch of government. It truly is time to get the hell out of dodge if your living in NH. I have waited and watched for 10 years after NH government ordered a permanent brain injury upon me for life from my husband just committing adultery with a coworker's mistress 10 years ago.
So what does NH do a year after blood clots had to be removed from my brain after they court ordered me homeless with no money to afford my prescriptions during a NH divorce?
They had a good laugh and then even legalized adultery! So clearly it is very apparent that the NH government is just as mentally disturbed as the entire state continues to statistically actually be, according to both the CDC, and the amount of monthly NH disability checks now paid just for mental illness and government inflicted brain injuries alone is plenty of evidence. That is only closing in on surpassing double the amount distributed throughout an entire country, and once again, this is only just for mental illness alone.
Only all in NH folks, Only all in NH!
