TO PRACTICE NH LAW IS CONSIDERED PRACTICING TO EVADE DAILY "TRAPS FOR THE UNWARY" BY MANY NH LAWYERS

In January 1776, NH became the first of the British North American colonies to establish a government independent of the Kingdom of Great Britain's authority, and it was the first to establish its own state constitution. Six months later, it became one of the original 13 colonies that signed the United States Declaration of Independence, and in June 1788 it was the ninth state to ratify the United States Constitution, bringing that document into effect.

Today, NH is the fourth smallest state in the country. It is only 50 miles wide and only 190 miles long. With an entire land and water mass altogether that can only total 9,351 square miles.  It has a population that only totals 1.343 million on record to date.  As of February 5, 2016, there were 882,959 registered voters, of whom 389,472 (44.1%) did not declare a political party affiliation, 262,111 (29.7%) were Republican, and 231,376 (26.2%) were Democratic

Here we are 243 years later, and now with 400 very divided representative minds combined with an additional 24 very divided senator minds, have only clearly proven, they cannot even get it together to organize themselves, let alone an entire state, enough to get their act together and do real justice.  This is still even after they already caused a $900 million dollar deficit.

Tax Free New Hampshire is still poorly attempting to dig itself out of that hole that still has left a negative -5.7 percent budget to even maintain the state's financial demands, upon the event, of even a moderate recession in the economy now.  NH definitely doesn't have, nor will ever have, a concerned family oriented government by any means.

NH has now become the biggest deficit in New England and the entire northeast.  Vermont is -3.8 percent, Massachusetts is -3.5 percent, Maine is -1.8 percent, in the event, of just having a moderate recession in the economy now. 

While Granite Stater's have been still suffering from growing problems that continue with unsustainable drinking water, from 100 year old lead pipes, and corrosion, that is not helping, NH simultaneously is also struggling with public and private wells throughout the state, continuing to suddenly dry up for the past decade, without the state giving any conclusions as to why. 

Many NH hospitals are still struggling from a serious lack of additional space, beds and additional staffing.  They also require more diagnostic equipment, better labs, while the state already has been owing them a multiple court ordered debt for the past decade.  Now to the tune of $270 million dollars, forcing hospitals to once again, accept only scheduled payments, that the state already keeps defaulting on.  NH is clearly proving to be anything but a concerned safe family oriented government that is continually proves only incapable of handling any form of emergencies.

Last year, NH Governor Sanunu blamed the problem on so-called "TRICKS" the state had played for decades with the state's budget that simply was not working, according to him. But what happens when NH government's so-called "TRICKS" are now in actuality, only illegal by recklessly taking millions of dollars in grant money specifically meant for a specific purpose, but then suddenly used for something completely different like as President Trump has done for his wall. 

These so-called NH "TRICKS" as Governor Sanunu likes to call it, are as illegal and reckless as the 2011 NH Family court rule 1.25a by the State supreme court.  That clearly states that all evidence can be redacted other than social security and account numbers on all documents, before submitting it to a court of law.  This is considered as fraud and illegal by many Granite Staters.  And apparently the majority of the entire country that is now agreeing.  Because of so many broken promises already made by the NH state government, NH even became incapable of properly treating an outbreak of gonorrhea correctly in 2016, and was forced to report that error to the public in 2017.

This is what NH Granite Staters get from 243 years of only a corrupt government.  Now for 5 years, New Hampshire continues to silently suffer to the rest of the world, with the highest percent in breast cancer cases that only is increasing from the already 140.7 percent per 100,000 total, that was reported only between 2003 to 2014 alone. The entire country overall, only had 173.7 percent per 1 million, between 2003 to 2014 alone. 

Did NH ever further do research until they could finally conclude and resolve why? No!

NH became no longer safe even just over 30 years ago. When NH government recklessly and illegally chose the men's state prison to become a secured hospital, to kidnap and transfer mentally ill patients, from their hospital rooms to a jail cell, against their will for 23 hours a day, without proper treatment other than security guards using tazors to now treat mental illness in the 21st century.  NH is anything but a safe family oriented government by any means.

NH families have been also suffering for a decade with Pediatric Cancer causing the deaths of several young children just along NH seacoast alone, who died without ever finding a definitive answer as to why this even began and still is continues almost a decade later. 

But in 2018, NH government suddenly now finds more money from god knows where and now took it from god knows whom, to finally pursue another study on the high increase of NH pediatric cancer alone, and not towards the continuing increasing numbers of breast cancer throughout the state that has been already exceeding the entire country.

We can now only hope and pray that it wasn't another illegal "TRICK" planned to now take funds from the $27,147,000 in Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund grants seriously needed to finance community-based water infrastructure projects, now needed throughout the state. That was awarded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency last November to specifically be used only to improve NH's water infrastructure.

While these issues continually remain ongoing and are only getting worse, the state is still struggling to recover from a $900 million dollar deficit, that was already clearly inflicted by a very illiterate divided government.  Can NH's divided government actually now be truly trusted to be capable of properly and correctly legally financing a $340 million dollar proposal to run natural gas lines through the southern part of the state, just by  building more liquor stores?  To only continue lowering the drinking age to pay for it? against all warnings from all law enforcement across the state?  

NH also is still struggling with other remaining ongoing and incompleted issues as well.  Such as mental illnesses, drug abuse, suicides, and already a severe alcohol problem.  Clearly NH does not have a safe environment, nor a concerned family oriented government capable to even produce one by any means.  We have heard all the promises before along with the state continually failing each and every one of their attempts to do so.  And in doing so, continue to only make matters worse then what they already were.  Well at least now the rest of the country is quickly learning what it is truly like to live under a  NH government.

NEED MORE EVIDENCE?

In March 2017, The Concord Monitor Reported:

"The CDC offers various guidelines for individuals when it comes to alcohol consumption, but it also issues recommendations for state and local governments. For example, the CDC’s Task Force on Community Preventive Services cited “sufficient evidence of a positive association between outlet density and excessive alcohol consumption and related harms.”

New Hampshire doesn’t want to hear it. Seven new liquor and wine stores opened last year and two more are on the way, including one in Warner, for a total of 81 state outlets. And that doesn’t include all the markets and restaurants that buy licenses to sell beer and wine. 

One way that the state has sought to ease its conscience is the Alcohol Fund, which was established in 2000 to redirect a small percentage of alcohol profits to education, treatment and recovery programs. The fund was originally supposed to receive 5 percent of the profits, but it has been funded only once at that level. Last year just 1.7 percent, about $3.3 million, went into the fund. That’s $6.6 million for the biennium when it should have been close to $20 million.

We are not teetotalers, and we don’t believe the state should shutter all of its liquor and wine outlets. But we do believe that when New Hampshire can’t bring itself to give up even 5 percent of its record profits each year to address the negative impacts of the product it sponsors, it reveals shortsightedness that approaches malevolence.

If New Hampshire is going to peddle alcohol, it should have no illusions about its culpability in a silent epidemic."

In 2018, when NH State Liquor Stores opened the largest liquor store in New England, a 20,000 sq. ft, store above the 80 stores they already had, was also when now NH Governor Sanunu immediately signed into law, to actually lower the legal drinking age from 21 to 20, against all law enforcement warnings and statistics.

Make no doubt about it. If NH can make a profit on killing more outer staters let alone  our own children, then they damn well will do it.  Even through a fraudulent family and criminal court of law if they!

THE NH JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE
A fundamental right to transparency by the NH Judicial Conduct Committee was suddenly stopped in 2009 without any reason as to why.  Granite State Taxpayers along with all citizens, are furious to have the only activist fraudulent court in the country, who continually only throw away our rights, the state's and country's constitution, along with all laws, simply like trash, since the founding of NH in 1776.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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,  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 only proves to be incapable of their duty pertaining to actually being knowledgeable in state legislative law.  FACT:"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 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 a 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.    Massachusetts isn't the only state having to protect and save NH residents while cleaning up after NH's so called form of justice served.  There have been other states getting involved too.  And they are not too happy about spending their time and resources to clean up crime coming 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 The Only Zillow Ruling Judge In The Coutry! And She Still Was Put Right Back Behind A NH Courtroom Bench 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 disapline by the State Supreme Court. 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. "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 his 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 WHAT THE NH SUPREME COURT IS TRULY MADE UP OFF.) 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! If Moore had succeeded he would of stolen over a million dollars in his lifetime from NH taxpayers hard earned paid tax dollars. 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.  The Judiciary Conduct Committee said that Lewis at least gave the appearance of being bias against women therefore he violated the code of conduct. NH COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE EDWARD FITZGERALD INVESTIGATED FACT: In 2007, Merrimack County Superior Court Judge Edward Fitzgerald had presided over a murder case.  He had been dating a courtroom employee named Corcoran, then they had stopped.  Corcoran then began dating the defendant's Attorney Ted Barnes.  The defendant was George Knickerbocker, a former NH man that was accused of killing a baby years ago who was now going to trial for a murder.  according to the JCC, there was no evidence proving this was the reason Knickerbocker received a lesser charge of manslaughter, and there was no reason this case nor any other case was affected by Judge Fitzgerald's conduct. The ENTIRE NH Supreme Court Who Should Be Investigated FACT: In 2010, NH State Supreme Court had written a much needed well overdue mandatory family court rule. It demands that all debts, property deeds, bank statements, retirement plan statements, investment statements, all life insurance statements and medical coverage policies, with a specific time period required for each, to all be submitted to the courts within 45 days of the filing.  But only 'IF' it is even actually requested by the court first.  FACT: This very same rule, also very clearly but suddenly states now 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."   Not only does this sentence defeat the purpose of the entire rule to begin with, but it most certainly breaks even more than just one NH state law, along with the United States Codes for the entire country.  Gee, how long did it actually take them to come up with this BS. This is nothing but more reckless lazy careless illegal so-called judicial justice in the state of NH. FACT: Title LXII - CRIMINAL CODE 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 48: 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.  Blanchflower v Blanchflower FACT: In 2003 The well famously known NH adultery case of Blanchflower v Blanchflower went before the NH State Supreme Court. This was their Final Ruling: "The record supports the following facts.   The petitioner filed for divorce from the respondent on grounds of irreconcilable differences.   He subsequently moved to amend the petition to assert the fault ground of adultery under RSA 458:7, II.   Specifically, the petitioner alleged that the respondent has been involved in a “continuing adulterous affair” with the co-respondent, a woman, resulting in the irremediable breakdown of the parties' marriage.   The co-respondent sought to dismiss the amended petition, contending that a homosexual relationship between two people, one of whom is married, does not constitute adultery under RSA 458:7, II.   The trial court disagreed, and the co-respondent brought this appeal. Before addressing the merits, we note this appeal is not about the status of homosexual relationships in our society or the formal recognition of homosexual unions.   The narrow question before us is whether a homosexual sexual relationship between a married person and another constitutes adultery within the meaning of RSA 458:7, II. RSA 458:7 provides, in part:  “A divorce from the bonds of matrimony shall be decreed in favor of the innocent party for any of the following causes:  ․ II.   Adultery of either party.”   The statute does not define adultery.  Id.  Accordingly, we must discern its meaning according to our rules of statutory construction.                                          (So basically screw the laws!) “In matters of statutory interpretation, 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. 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. 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. 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.   See id.   Our cases from that approximate time period, however, support the inference that adultery meant intercourse.   See Adams v. Adams, 20 N.H. 299, 301 (1850);  Burns v. Burns, 68 N.H. 33, 34, 44 A. 76 (1894). Cases from this period also indicate that adultery as a ground for divorce was equated with the crime of adultery and was alleged as such in libels for divorce.   See, e.g., Sheafe v. Sheafe, 24 N.H. 564, 564 (1852);  White v. White, 45 N.H. 121, 121 (1863).   Although the criminal adultery statute in the 1842 compilation also did not define adultery, see RS 219:1  (1842), roughly contemporaneous case law is instructive:  “Adultery is committed whenever there is an intercourse from which spurious issue may arise․” State v. Wallace, 9 N.H. 515, 517 (1838);  see also State v. Taylor, 58 N.H. 331, 331 (1878) (same).   As “spurious issue” can only arise from intercourse between a man and a woman, criminal adultery could only be committed with a person of the opposite gender. We note that the current criminal adultery statute still requires sexual intercourse:  “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).   Based upon the foregoing, we conclude that adultery under RSA 458:7, II does not include homosexual relationships."  (This is false) Instead of being so fixated on looking up definitions for "sexual intercourse, coitus, copulation" which actually had nothing to do with this case, the courts once again, chose to completely ignore the specifics of "the words of a statute (itself) considered as a whole.” A.Therefore, because the "definition of adultery was contained in that statute", by one very clear important WORD simply used within the statute.  That was plain english. "Engages in sexual intercourse with another."  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, a homosexual affair is simply something different that is in addition to sexual intercourse at the time the law was in effect.   C. Therefore it did constitute adultery because the terms were clearly "defined within the meaning of the law", plain and simple.  D. So therefore and finally, "the definition does not (actually thoroughly) specifically state that the “someone” with whom one commits adultery must be of the opposite gender, it does (DID NOT) require sexual intercourse."  E.The NH Supreme Court and the entire judicial branch of government did not even do what their even actually stating they did, which was, "this court is the final arbiter of the intent of the legislature as expressed in the words of a statute considered as a whole.” But they will "discern its meaning according to only their rules of  alien statutory construction."         (So basically screw any and every law actually ever produced by NH legislative statutory construction that is actually signed into law by the state's governor.)                                 Ross v Ross FACT: Another case to be a famously known adultery case 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.   "By Kysa Crusco - On August 23, 2016, the New Hampshire Supreme Court issued an opinion in Ross and Ross. It is a fascinating case about adultery and new relationships during a divorce. The outcome is a cautionary tale for persons seeking fault grounds for divorce.    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." When there even was a NH adultery law in effect: FACT: "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 AGAIN)  Equally, an emotional affair does not constitute adultery for purposes of obtaining a divorce. (FALSE AGAIN) 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."  FACT: In 1978 The NH Supreme Court wrote Article 73A which was voted in by both NH's politicians and NH voters.  This is what was actually 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." However, this is what mysteriously appears on the books to this day still 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 added 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." No NH Supreme Court rule has ever been voted on nor passed by legislators, that "shall have the force and effect of law", let alone was actually signed into an actual law by a NH governor.  And let's not forget a golden star to only a continuous conduct-less NH Judicial Conduct Committee who just continues to sweep even allot more of this under a rug that is still remaining untold today. After 243 years of NH's currupt illegal Justice throughout the state, who was one of the original 13 colonies that actually signed the United States Declaration of Independence, and was the ninth state to ratify the United States Constitution, that actually brought that document into effect in June 1788 leaves only one unanswered question. Shouldn't NH already be a real law abiding state by now? ONLY IN NH FOLKS, ONLY IN NH!