APPARENTLY NOT ALL NH JUDGES AGREE WITH AMENDING ARTICLE 8 OF THE NH CONSTITUTION

Updated February 8, 2019

NH court judges are well known to be adamantly, anything but people who believe in preventative medicine.  Many people have been contacting me to report that The NH Judicial Branch of Government Family Division has been increasingly showing that they are much more brazenly prejudicially bias than ever before in the past 6 months, against all Pro Se litigants, specifically in matters of divorce and custody issues. NH Judges, who are suppose to be a neutral litigator, are continuing to only ignore laws and evidence once again, and continuing to even refuse young capable children their legal right to be heard in a family court of law.  Specifically when it pertains to the child's own fears, sanity and safety.  

Only child victims of a crime committed when it is already too late, will be allowed to be heard in a NH criminal court of law, that is only if they can survive it first.  And even then, the NH court records only continue to document their failures to protect them.  The multi trillion dollar question for the past century is why?  Why are NH justices so against children having a voice and having rights before criminal intent has actually occurred upon a child in the state of NH?  NH justices are still refusing to state the evidence and what laws they are basing their rulings on when asked for this information in a court of law, because there actually is none that support's their rulings. When a NH Judge is asked why they are not following a specific law, they claim they don't have to state it because "I am the law."

Also Many NH lawyers who are NH Board approved Guardian Ad Litems are falsely and poorly representing themselves as actually being a knowledgeable child pschology without a completed education and degree specifically in that field of study.  This is also occurring with other  NH Board Approved NH Guardian Ad Litems and now the decades of results are still being ignored.

The NH judicial Branch of government once again, is continuing to only record breaking many laws as the rest of the state's government only continues to inflict many "TRICKS" played to cover it up, as NH Gov. Sanunu, already admitted once, that the state was already doing to the people of NH with their money.  

Clearly centuries of NH's illegal "TRICKS" are not going to be stopped anytime soon.  Since the first impeachment of a  judicial judge in the United States federal history was only a NH judge, for actually being mentally unstable and a drunk behind the bench in 1804.  Apparently, not a hell of allot has, nor will ever change, for the state of NH.

Amending Article 8, The First Part of NH Constitution

SOURCE: WIKIPEDIA

"Overview

Amendment design

In 2018 Question 1 added language to the New Hampshire Constitution stating that a taxpayer has a right to take legal action against the state or local government where the taxpayer resides to declare that the government spent, or has approved spending, public funds in violation of a law, ordinance, or constitutional provision. The amendment also stated that a taxpayer "shall not have to demonstrate that his or her personal rights were impaired or prejudiced beyond his or her status as a taxpayer." The measure allowed the legal action to begin in the New Hampshire Superior Courts.

How did this amendment get on the ballot?

Question 1 was introduced into the state legislature as Constitutional Amendment Concurrent Resolution 15 (CACR 15) on January 3, 2018. On March 6, 2018, the New Hampshire House of Representatives voted 309 to nine with 73 members not voting. The nine "no" votes came from Democrats, while three-quarters of Democrats voted to pass the amendment. All Republicans who were not absent or excused from voting, which was 17.6 percent of them, supported the amendment. On May 2, 2018, the New Hampshire Senate voted 22 to two to pass CACR 15. 

As CACR 15 was approved in both chambers of the New Hampshire General Court, the measure was referred to the ballot for the election on November 6, 2018. Who supported and opposed this measure?

The measure was sponsored in the New Hampshire General Court by Rep. Joseph Hagan (R-Rockingham 4), Rep. Claire Rouillard (R-Hillsborough 6), Rep. Robert Backus (D-Hillsborough 19), and Rep. Paul Berch (D-Cheshire 1). Organizations supporting the measure included the Granite State Taxpayers and the Coalition of New Hampshire Taxpayers.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:

Are you in favor of amending article 8 of the first part of the constitution to read as follows: "[Art.] 8. [Accountability of Magistrates and Officers; Public’s Right to Know.] All power residing originally in, and being derived from, the people, all the magistrates and officers of government are their substitutes and agents, and at all times accountable to them. Government, therefore, should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive. To that end, the public’s right of access to governmental proceedings and records shall not be unreasonably restricted. The public also has a right to an orderly, lawful, and accountable government. Therefore, any individual taxpayer eligible to vote in the State, shall have standing to petition the Superior Court to declare whether the State or political subdivision in which the taxpayer resides has spent, or has approved spending, public funds in violation of a law, ordinance, or constitutional provision. In such a case, the taxpayer shall not have to demonstrate that his or her personal rights were impaired or prejudiced beyond his or her status as a taxpayer. However, this right shall not apply when the challenged governmental action is the subject of a judicial or administrative decision from which there is a right of appeal by statute or otherwise by the parties to that proceeding."

Constitutional changes

See also: Article 8 of New Hampshire Constitution

The measure amended Article 8 of the New Hampshire Constitution. The following underlined text was added:

Art. 8. Accountability of Magistrates and Officers; Public’s Right to Know. All power residing originally in, and being derived from, the people, all the magistrates and officers of government are their substitutes and agents, and at all times accountable to them. Government, therefore, should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive. To that end, the public’s right of access to governmental proceedings and records shall not be unreasonably restricted. The public also has a right to an orderly, lawful, and accountable government. Therefore, any individual taxpayer eligible to vote in the State shall have standing to petition the Superior Court to declare whether the State or political subdivision in which the taxpayer resides has spent, or has approved spending, public funds in violation of a law, ordinance, or constitutional provision. In such a case, the taxpayer shall not have to demonstrate that his or her personal rights were impaired or prejudiced beyond his or her status as a taxpayer. However, this right shall not apply when the challenged governmental action is the subject of a judicial or administrative decision from which there is a right of appeal by statute or otherwise by the parties to that proceeding.

Support

Rep. Joseph Hagan (R-Rockingham 4), Rep. Claire Rouillard (R-Hillsborough 6), Rep. Robert Backus (D-Hillsborough 19), and Rep. Paul Berch (D-Cheshire 1) sponsored the amendment in the New Hampshire General Court.^[3]

Supporters

• Granite State Taxpayers^[4]
• Coalition of New Hampshire Taxpayers^[5]

Arguments

• "Rep. Paul Berch (D-Cheshire 1), a legislative sponsor of the amendment, stated, "This constitutional amendment restores to the taxpayers of our state the legal ability to bring certain lawsuits relating to the spending of public funds by the state or the political subdivision in which the taxpayer resides. In doing so, our taxpayers will have broader access to our courts and greater ability to ensure governmental accountability. Until recently, the state Supreme Court recognized taxpayer standing. This amendment will assure that this important taxpayer right will continue to be recognized and enforced."

Saying, "Until recently, the state Supreme Court recognized taxpayer standing" could not be further from the truth, because they have yet to recognize it, let alone acknowledge it and/or enforce important laws and taxpayers rights and a taxpayer's child's rights to safety now for over 214 years.

• "The Coalition of New Hampshire Taxpayers wrote the following:

"CNHT stands with Granite State Taxpayers and with all citizens who are outraged at an activist court’s ruling that a fundamental right to legal redress, existing since the founding of our State, can be simply tossed aside. All NH citizens and our Legislature need to send a resounding message to this judge and any other judge interested in writing new laws or stripping fundamental rights that we are still here and paying attention. Contact [your Senators] about CACR 15! Tell them to vote for CACR 15 and restore the Taxpayer’s Right to due process!"

• David McConville, vice chairman of the Granite State Taxpayers board of directors, wrote the following in a New Hampshire Union Leader column:

"CACR 15 is key to keep our government in check. For well over a hundred years, the New Hampshire Supreme Court allowed taxpayers to sue the state government to redress their grievances until a case in 2010 reversed that right. A constitutional amendment is necessary because the Supreme Court has denied our rights several times since 2010 by denying standing to people who have brought cases before it, even when the Legislature had specifically passed laws upholding those rights. Without CACR 15, provisions of the New Hampshire Constitution Bill of Rights are now unclear. Public funds for religious schools and articles restricting the use of such funds will not be enforceable in the future. CACR 15 allows citizens certainty in seeking protection from political institutions. What good is a legal right without the ability to go to court to enforce it?" It all began 214 years ago in 1804 when John Pickering, a NH circuit court judge, became the first judicial judge throughout an entire country, to ever be impeached from his position, for being mentally unstable and a drunk behind the bench. Now in the 21st century, NH is still dealing with only illiterate mentally unstable judges. 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 Zillow Ruling Judge  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 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, The "definition of adultery was contained in that statute", by one very clear important WORD in that statute.  That was in 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 simply 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 statutory construction."         (So basically screw any and every law that ever actually is produced by legislative statutory construction.)                                 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)  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."  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 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 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 rules have ever been voted on nor passed by legislators, that "shall have the force and effect of law", let alone was actually signed in as a law by a NH governor.  And let's not forget a golden star to a conduct-less NH Judicial Conduct Committee who simply continues to sweep all of this under a rug. After 214 years of illegal Justice, will NH ever be a state that will actually have a legal Judicial Branch of Government? ONLY IN NH FOLKS, ONLY IN NH!