IS THIS WHY RUSSIA IS SHOWING SUCH AN INTEREST IN ONE NH BLOG?

It is truly ironic how such a corrupted state such as New Hampshire became a leader in the delivery of community services to individuals with disabilities, and in the late 1980s, was ever recognized by the National Institute of Mental Health for its leadership in providing services in community settings.

However, in NH, the state’s history of commitment to community-based services are always cut and very short-lived, as do many other commitments made by the state over the past 200 years.  

For the past forty years, the State's rates of institutionalization only rose while the state continually sat back and only watched as community services kept declining. " New Hampshire has a history of reneging on all commitments made to develop any system of community-based services that are capable to only grow strong in the future.  

Now for the past forty years, NH government has strongly continued to only ignore the findings and recommendations from its own officials. With apparently no fear of actually recording now the state's growing laundry list of only failures from violating federal and state laws, both in and out of a courtroom.  NH's revenue is incapable of covering all  debts.  New Hampshire has been paying dearly in more ways than one, just to simply to remain a tax free state, now for generations to come.

In 2012, even Four female inmates in NH state prisons were capable to sue the state of New Hampshire and won.  Over what they say is unequal access to education, substance abuse treatment and other services compared to males. The lawsuit filed in Merrimack County Superior Court says the State Prison for Women in Goffstown was only opened in 1987 as a temporary facility in the first place, following a federal court decision. They said the judge ruled that the state had to provide services "on parity" with those at male prisons. NH has now completed a $50 million state of the art women's facility recently now opened in 2018.

Yet In 2012,  when "Six state civilian residents with psychiatric disabilities whose lives have been interrupted, disrupted, and even destroyed by prolonged or needless stays at state institutions sued New Hampshire for its failure to provide adequate community-based mental health services...The DOJ once again found that the state is violating the ADA by failing to provide services to individuals with serious mental illness in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs,  and added, “Systemic failures in the state’s system place qualified individuals with disabilities at risk of unnecessary institutionalization now and going forward.” 

The United States Department Of Justice also accused New Hampshire of warehousing patients in hospitals and turning jails into asylums with no proper medical treatment possible, instead of properly treating people with mental health illnesses. NH still continues to do so now throughout 2019.  The inmates from a NH women's prison sued the state and won but only after decades of already continuous legal battles, concerning the services offered at the old Goffstown facility. 

Also in 2012, The state had originally agreed to spend an additional $6 million in the current budget, plus an additional $23.7 million within the next two-year spending plan. The resources will support more round-the-clock care for people in crisis, as well as more community housing and employment opportunities." 

So what happened with the reports supposedly done by an "independent expert" on the state's compliance with the agreements now made 5 years ago for the United States Justice Department and the state of NH?

"Stephen Day, the expert reviewer overseeing reforms called for in the NH settlement of a 2012 lawsuit by patients and advocates, said the state’s failure to keep its promises had left some patients without treatment, waiting in hospital emergency rooms for high-level care or institutionalized when they could otherwise be receiving care through community clinics and services.

“The time for patience on these issues is over,” Day wrote in 2013. He noted “the need for the State to be more aggressive, assertive, planful, and timely in its implementation and oversight efforts” of the lawsuit settlement.

Day, who in January 2014 issued his last assessment, said the state, "has been and currently remains out of compliance” with its obligation to expand and upgrade so-called Assertive Community Treatment teams. Such teams are made up of caregivers with a range of skills and training and provide high-level, ongoing treatment in community settings to patients with serious mental illness.

The state had also failed to meet its obligation to develop community services that would enable 10 patients to move out of the Glencliff Home, a state-operated nursing facility, he wrote.

In addition, Day found that while the state had surpassed its goal of having at least 18 percent of its seriously mentally ill patients in supported employment, some regions fell well short of the target rate because the statewide rate was increased by placements in the Manchester area, which had a supported employment rate of about 37 percent.

Supported employment refers to services that help patients find and retain jobs.

Studies at Dartmouth and elsewhere have found that such services enhance and complement other treatments for serious mental illness.

West Central reported supported employment for 15 percent of its patients.

Day called for the state to have in place by Aug. 1, 2013 detailed plans for expanding and upgrading ACT teams, widening access to supported employment services and moving residents out of Glencliff. He also urged the state to begin issuing monthly progress reports on those plans. Now in 2018 the state has only increased its failures.

Aaron Ginsberg, a lawyer for the New Hampshire Disability Rights Center, which represented the lawsuit plaintiffs, welcomed Day’s recommendations for action: “We hope the state follows that.”
Jeffrey Meyers, the state health and human services commissioner, acknowledged the shortcomings in the key areas identified by Day, but said his department “is committed to meeting the milestones set out in (Day’s) report and to continuing to implement the (settlement agreement).”

But Ken Norton, the executive director of the New Hampshire affiliate of the National Alliance on Mental Illness, an advocacy group for patients and their families, said the state’s deficiencies in mental health care extend beyond the issues addressed in the lawsuit settlement.  He was clearly absolutely correct.

New Hampshire only has a total population that is a little over 1,334,000 people living on a land mass that is only 50 miles wide by 190 miles long with only broken finances now with a entire government to match.  To the point where 10 NH hospitals are still owed 10 years later over a 270+ million dollar debt by the state of NH.

The state's finances are such a mess and money is so tight that now many hospitals are severely in need of serious expansions to be made to emergency rooms, beds, more hospital rooms, more equipment, labs, diagnostic testing expansions, and above all a legal and safe secured medical facility for the mentally ill patients with proper support 24/7 round the clock care. Many residence fear that given NH's serious history of failures, only the worse is still yet to happen, when and if NH state is now hit by another outbreak or attack on one small state that continually only produces an appearance of being so incapable and literally bankrupt.

EXAMPLE: The state of New Hampshire was even incapable of simply being equipped to even handle a 250 percent increase in gonorrhea that happened 2 years ago in 2016.  Even then DHHS had to inform the public just the following year later, that 15 percent of those already diagnosed and treated for gonorrhea alone, were now not even correctly and properly treated accurately in the first place.

Also studies are now showing that there were 816 pediatric cancer cases recorded in New Hampshire between 2003 and 2014. That's a rate of more than 205 per one million, which is the highest rate in the United States. New Hampshire only has a total population that is a little over 1,300,000 people.  There are only 3 other states that are smaller than NH in the U.S. of A.

FACT: Overall, there were about 174 pediatric cancer cases per one million children and teens alone throughout New Hampshire, and the rate was higher in males compared to females. When broken down by age group, the rates were higher in children between the ages of 0-4 and teens between the ages of 15-19, as compared to kids between the ages of 5-9 and 10-14.

FACT: In 2018, New Hampshire has now literally become known as ground zero for the nations opioid crisis when the state already was awarded $150 million over five years, by federal Medicaid officials, to expand access to mental health and substance abuse treatment services.

I am very fortunate that in 2013, a Nashua NH hospitable knew right away they were incapable to further treat me for a stroke.  Within 30 minutes, they immediately had me flown by helicopter out of NH state to Mass General Hospital in Massachusetts for emergency surgery.

On November 29, 2007, after 25 years, 4 years of dating, then 21 yeas of marriage to one man, NH judge William Groff was only another perfect storm re-occurring daily throughout NH's courtrooms. 

Within just 15 minutes, he requested proof of evidence but then never once looked at it.  He never denied it nor accepted it for case record.  He just immediately decided to court order me to sell my mortgage and debt free portion of my half of my home, when my income was only $164 weekly gross salary during a 2 year divorce.  I was already with poor health, no food or capable means to even pay co-pays for required medications. That were keeping me alive.  DON'T ANYONE EVER SAY ATTEMPTED MURDER IS AGAINST THE LAW IN NH!!!

My husband on the other hand, filed for divorce just 3 days after catching my private investigator, who caught him with his coworkers unemployed welfare fraud committing mistress, mother of 4, already fathered by 3 different other men, while in the middle of divorcing her second husband, while being just a 37 year old prostitute to both men simultaneously.

Both men had over 25 years each of marital life savings and retirement with a wife. Cases like mine have only continued to be supported and recorded by NH's government for over 2 centuries now and all of NH can do is laugh at it, to the point now, by even actually legalizing adultery now on January 1, 2015.

 On December 3, 2013, ironically my ex husband's birthday, I ended up having a stroke from multiple blood clots that were now in both my lungs and in the right frontal lobe of my brain, and only at the age of fifty.  Doctors warned me of this possibly happening if the medication was to be stopped suddenly.  Every single time I begged the courts to reconsider with evidence to prove why, they continually denied me!

I ended up requiring 3 immediate surgeries back to back due to complications within 3 weeks requiring also a dozen blood transfusions. I was transferred to Mass General Hospital by helicopter from Nashua NH's Southern NH Medical Center.  Then I was transferred back home to Nashua NH's St Joseph's Hospital, and then afterwards transferred once again to Manchester, NH's Catholic Medical Center just to keep me alive. 

The NH government completely expects the entire state and medical profession throughout the state to continue to completely function under these conditions. I am only one of many people permanently damaged and disabled, only by the hands of NH's entire government.  Who has now inflicted nearly double the rate of the entire country's population that  are now receiving disability checks for mental illness alone.  Again, I have nothing but gratitude towards all 4 hospitals who fought like hell to save my life, given with what they only have to work with.  Unlike what NH's illegal judicial justice system and government have only been doing for centuries.

In 2018 now  just 2 years after being awarded in 2016, $150 million over five years, by federal Medicaid officials, just to expand already much needed access to mental health and substance abuse treatment services alone, NH government clearly felt it more important to only increase the state's revenue received from state liquor stores.  NH Governor Chris Sanunu now signs a bill to only lower the drinking age now to twenty years old.  Even if it is at our children's expense, the following shows just how diligent and desperate NH state can just be for revenues alone.  By only once again, continuously ignoring the dangers presented and made continually by NH's law enforcement.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

HB 1753 (2018)

Signed by Governor

Lowers the drinking age to twenty years-old. The House amended the bill to instead allow minors to transport alcoholic beverages in a vehicle when accompanied by an expanded list of family members.

HB 228 (2017)

Died in Conference Committee

Allows minors to transport alcoholic beverages in a vehicle or boat when accompanied by a stepparent, grandparent, domestic partner, or sibling of legal age.

HB 545 (2017)

Signed by Governor

If a person seeks medical assistance for someone experiencing an alcohol overdose, this bill protects the person from prosecution for any charges related to underage drinking, if the evidence for the charge was obtained as a result of the person seeking medical assistance.

HB 1321 (2016)

Killed in the House

Allows minors to transport alcoholic beverages in a vehicle or boat when accompanied by a legal age family member.

HB 1606 (2016)

Killed in the House

Makes some changes to the laws against underage drinking and states, "It is the intention of the general court that minors between the age of 18 and 20 be permitted to consume only beer or wine while in the presence of responsible adults who are over 21 so that younger people will no longer be initiated to alcohol consumption in the absence of adult supervision."

SB 147 (2015)

Interim Study

Provides limited immunity for a person who seeks medical assistance for someone who is experiencing a drug or alcohol overdose or for themselves.

HB 585 (2015)

Killed in the House

Imposes a penalty assessment of $5 or 10%, whichever is greater, on all fines or penalties imposed by a court or the liquor commission for violations to the alcohol beverage laws. (The most common violation is for underage drinking, which carries a minimum fine of $300; the penalty assessment for that would then be $30). The penalty assessments would be divided equally among the Victims’ Assistance Fund, the Special Fund for Domestic Violence Programs, and the Alcohol Abuse Prevention and Treatment Fund.

HB 1486 (2014)

Killed in the House

Decreases the fine for underage drinking from $300 to $100 on first offense and from $600 to $300 on a subsequent offense.

HB 1436 (2014)

Tabled in the House

Exempts certain individuals under age 21 from the law against unlawful possession (not consumption) of alcohol: individuals possessing alcohol for medical or religious reasons, and individuals between 18 and 21 in a place where alcohol is not sold.

HB 588 (2009)

Killed in the House

Lowers the legal drinking age to 18.

FACT: It is just like New Hampshire's government to already ignore the fact that there already was about 2 in 3 (66.4%) adolescents aged 12–17 in 2013–2014 who already now perceived no great risk from having five or more drinks once or  even twice a week—Once again, and only at a percentage that is now always higher than the national average percent of (60.9).
 
FACT: It is just like New Hampshire's government to ignore the fact that the percentage of adolescents aged 12–17 in New Hampshire who perceived no great risk from having five or more drinks once or twice a week, once again, did not even change significantly from 2010–2011 to even 2013–2014. 

FACT: It is just like New Hampshire's government to already ignore the fact that there already was "an annual average of about 82,000 individuals aged 12 or older (7.2% of all individuals in this age group) in 2014–2015 alone, who already now had an alcohol use disorder in the past year.

FACT: It is just like New Hampshire's government to already ignore the fact that the annual average percentage, once again, in 2014–2015 was also only once again, (yep, you got it) not significantly any different from the annual average percentage even back in 2011–2012.  In fact in 2016, that number has increased to 87,000 and continues to only grow since then."

Seriously people, come on. How ironic could it now actually be, that the very first judicial judge to ever be impeached in the entire country 214 years ago, was now only a New Hampshire district court judge, John Pickering, Who was convicted in 1804, , he was actually convicted and removed on charges, 

JUST FOR "mental instability and for being a drunk on the bench", according to historical records from the federal judiciary 214 years ago.

Today there is now 1.76 percent of the total population in the United States receiving a monthly check now for disability related to conditions like schizophrenia, mood disorders or depression.

And yet only once again, 214 years later, New Hampshire has nearly doubled that rate alone at 3.18 percent, topped only by Maine, at 3.41 percent, according to Urban Institute researcher Jon Schwabish, who relied on data from the Social Security Administration, the U.S. Census Bureau and other sources.

“It was shocking to me,” said Schwabish. “It’s not just that it’s higher; it’s much higher than elsewhere in the country!”

Clearly NH has truly only been actually run by a very serious mentally ill government now for centuries.

More Historical Evidence of NH Corruption Destroying Lives

It's just like the New Hampshire government to now be the state that would actually vote and pass an illegal unconstitutional law decades ago that only enforces an actual unconstitutional cap on school funding for education, that the state was now court ordered 3 times now to remove and change it. The state just once again ignored it and actually forrcing NH schools to actually loose their required credentials.  

NH residents owe a great deal to all NH school teachers who are even WILLING TO WORK FOR THE STATE OF NH.  Who now pay anywhere from $375 to even up to a $1000 per school year, out of their own income, just to properly educate our children each year.


"In fiscal years 2009 and 2010, the state's law directed the state Department of Education to illegally not "distribute a total education grant on behalf of all pupils who reside in a municipality that exceeds that municipality’s total education grant for the 2009 fiscal year by 15 percent."

It's just like the NH government now to now have not only just 1 or 2, nor just even 3 governors, but now has actually 4 New Hampshire state governors along with their state house representatives, who have now continued to ignore and fail to adhere to not just one or just two, but now 3 Judicial Court Orders.  Demanding that the unconstitutional educational state cap be removed and changed to a legal constitutional funding system, that should be implemented and distributed as needed.  Rightfully now paying the money required by all schools.  Even today it only  still remains illegally unconstitutional and still in effect and enforced in 2018.  

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 DISTRICT COURT JUDGE MICHEAL JONES

FACT: Jones was a part-time Special Justice investigated by the JCC 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  he then furthermore proceeded 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 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.

FACT: Clearly we cannot leave out the entire NH Judicial Conduct Committee for clearly aiding all of this, to only continue happening behind all NH's judicial benches.

Being only one of the "main causes" now to the state's entire mess.

Well, Governor Sanunu, you are right!  "NH has never been better!"  Because it is truly incapable of ever getting any better than this!!!!!

ONLY IN NH FOLKS, ONLY IN NH!