OTHER STATES NOW ARE CLEANING UP AFTER NH's SO-CALLED FORM OF JUSTICE SERVED
In looking back on the history of New Hampshire's Judicial Branch of government we clearly can actually see where a major part of the problem lays. In the rules of the NH Circuit Court-family division, written by the NH Judicial Branch themselves, clearly states, "All hearings held in a courtroom SHALL be recorded." Simple right? But then the following sentence also clearly states, "And the trial judge gets to determine whether or not the procedures for monitoring-less recordings adequately protect the record." So Which is it because you cannot do both. Is it to protect a dishonest record or is this to protect themselves, or is it both! Then they end this rule by excusing their own lazy inadequate record keeping by finalizing this rule with clarifying, "In making this determination the Court should consider the quality of the recording device, the general sound quality of the courtroom, the nature of the proceedings, and the likelihood of a transcription request." So exactly why have any "Procedures for monitoring-less recordings" in the first place? If their struggling so much with modern technology, then maybe it's time to dust off and bring back the old fashion reliable stenographer's typewriter that produces accurate records.
In another family court rule that the NH State Supreme Court wrote in 2010, had been 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, and a specified time period for each that is required, to be all submitted to the courts within 45 days of the filing. But then in this very same rule, it suddenly clearly states, "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 NH state law along with United States Codes for the entire country.
Title LXII - CRIMINAL CODE
Chapter 641 - FALSIFICATION IN OFFICIAL MATTERS
Section 641:7 - Tampering With Public Records or Information.
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.
Title LXII - CRIMINAL CODE
Chapter 638 - FRAUD
Section 638:2 - Fraudulent Handling of Recordable Writings.
638:2 Fraudulent Handling of Recordable Writings. – A person is guilty of a class B felony if, with a purpose to deceive or injure anyone, he falsifies, destroys, removes or conceals any will, deed, mortgage, security instrument or other writing for which the law provides public recording.
Source. 1971, 518:1, eff. Nov. 1, 1973.
Life is a tragedy, confront it.
Life is precious, do not destroy it.
Life is life, so fight for it!
Mother Teresa
A LOOK AT THE REAL STATE OF NH
Updated September 8, 2018
Someone once said while leaving a NH courtroom that, "the truth will never set you free in NH when it's being so brazenly and easily ignored." It is now closing in on the year 2019 and The NH Circuit Court's famously well known Family Division is still passing shame onto legislators for their own inability to read and define laws as they are written. Now claiming that legislators need to thoroughly be more specific. However, they are clearly not the ones who should talk.
In looking back on the history of New Hampshire's Judicial Branch of government we clearly can actually see where a major part of the problem lays. In the rules of the NH Circuit Court-family division, written by the NH Judicial Branch themselves, clearly states, "All hearings held in a courtroom SHALL be recorded." Simple right? But then the following sentence also clearly states, "And the trial judge gets to determine whether or not the procedures for monitoring-less recordings adequately protect the record." So Which is it because you cannot do both. Is it to protect a dishonest record or is this to protect themselves, or is it both! Then they end this rule by excusing their own lazy inadequate record keeping by finalizing this rule with clarifying, "In making this determination the Court should consider the quality of the recording device, the general sound quality of the courtroom, the nature of the proceedings, and the likelihood of a transcription request." So exactly why have any "Procedures for monitoring-less recordings" in the first place? If their struggling so much with modern technology, then maybe it's time to dust off and bring back the old fashion reliable stenographer's typewriter that produces accurate records.
In another family court rule that the NH State Supreme Court wrote in 2010, had been 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, and a specified time period for each that is required, to be all submitted to the courts within 45 days of the filing. But then in this very same rule, it suddenly clearly states, "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 NH state law along with United States Codes for the entire country.
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.
Title LXII - CRIMINAL CODE
Chapter 638 - FRAUD
Section 638:2 - Fraudulent Handling of Recordable Writings.
638:2 Fraudulent Handling of Recordable Writings. – A person is guilty of a class B felony if, with a purpose to deceive or injure anyone, he falsifies, destroys, removes or conceals any will, deed, mortgage, security instrument or other writing for which the law provides public recording.
Source. 1971, 518:1, eff. Nov. 1, 1973.
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.
On November 29, 2007, NH Superior Criminal Court Judge William Groff presided unwillingly over a Temporary Relief Hearing that I requested. The court had scheduled 30 minutes for this hearing. When the court clerk called our name first in alphabetical order, Judge Groff immediately raised his hand up and said "NO." The clerk placed our file at the bottom of the pile then immediately called the next case. We sat their waiting a few hours until their was absolutely no other case left in the courtroom to call but our own. When the court clerk finally called our name again, Judge Groff immediately tells us, "You only get 15 Minutes!"
When my lawyer reminded him that the courts had scheduled 30 minutes for the hearing, he replied, "Well I don't have it so take it or leave it!" I clearly should of left it. His final ruling was based on no financial statements or paystubs because he refused to take any of the evidence that he himself had asked for. He denied my request for temporary alimony. He court ordered my mortgage free home to be sold out from under me at my husband's request and the profits into escrow unless an agreement was made. All just because my then husband was now supporting his co-workers ex mistress who dumped him for my husband. A welfare fraud committing - already divorced twice prostitute of a mistress, with 4 children fathered from 3 different men. She had an affair simultaneously for 6 months with both married men during her second divorce. After her divorce finalized, the co-worker then filed for divorce 1st, and then my husband filed 3 months later and moved in with her, taking our entire savings and his income with him.
The only mortgage against the house belonged to my husband alone for his purchase of my sister's half. I already owned my half mortgage free. I was court ordered to live out of my car only on a gross income of $164 weekly gross. I no longer could afford my medication's, food or gas, let alone pay rent and utilities after 21 years of marriage. I ended up having a stroke with multiple blood clots in both of my lungs and in the right frontal lobe of my brain.
I was immediately flown from Southern NH Medical Center, Nashua NH, to Mass General Hospital in Massachusetts by helicopter for emergency brain surgery. I immediately suffered complications that immediately required 3 more additional surgeries that also required 14 additional blood transfusions. I loss memory, mobility and my speech ability, that has taken years to only partially recover. I was forced at the age of 50 to unnecessarily now have to only live on $937/month disability, that was inflicted only by the very state who now pays my disability from all NH's hard earned and paying tax dollars.
In 1991, the NH Supreme Court upheld Judge Groff's decision to overturn a conviction of a Lowell, Mass man, who was found guilty of sexually assaulting a young boy in Nashua. 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. Months later, that same man plead guilty to sexual assault charges involving the same boy, but only now it was 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 having to do so too.
"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."
More Evidence on NH's form of so called intellectual justice
In 2003 The case of Blanchflower v Blanchflower went before the NH State Supreme Court.
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 all completely false and ridiculously reckless stupidity! 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 considered as a whole.” The statement is clear in plain english. "Engages in sexual intercourse with another." Another is clearly defined in the English dictionary as "someone or something different and in addition to." Therefore, homosexual affairs are simply something different that is in addition to sexual intercourse. Therefore it simply did constitute adultery because the terms were clearly "defined within the meaning of the law", plain and simple. Therefore, "the definition does not (actually thoroughly) specifically state that the “someone” with whom one commits adultery must be of the opposite gender, it does (NOT) require sexual intercourse." The NH Supreme Court never did as they said, 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.”
The 1842 compilation very clearly defined the adultery law along with any other redefined versions that were made to the existing law at that time. Today, all we now have is lazy narrow minded illiterate judges who are now picking and choosing to fixate each entire law or testimony only on one individual word and that simply cannot be done. Nor making up an entire false story that doesn't pertain to the actual case, or even the actual laws themselves for that matter, for each ruling. Now we know why NH has Judges like Pamela Albee, who are too lazy to examine evidence and base their decisions only on the internet-Zillow for their final rulings instead of examining the actual evidence in the case. The questions now to ask is, who, why, and where is NH finding and picking these illiterate clowns from for the past century!?!
Another adultery case, Ross v Ross, 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 blog.
When there was a NH adultery law in effect:
"The New Hampshire Supreme Court has (Narrow Mindedly) 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. Equally, an emotional affair does not constitute adultery for purposes of obtaining a divorce. 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." Like I said, they are truly one hell of a false story teller! If they could only now actually just pertain it to the actual evidence of the actual case and the actual laws of this state, we might just finally actually have a justice system in NH! Well at least we now know why Judge Albee only uses online Zillow instead of the evidence or even the laws for her final decrees.
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.
Because of many arrogant NH judges only abusing their power now like judge Groff, and the entire NH State Supreme Court, who now simply chose to not except the word "bum" instead of "anus", from a child's testimony, a young boy had to endure additional unwanted sexual abuse and had to be saved by a neighboring state's judicial branch of government. Such continual plain abusive stupidity throughout NH courts is simply unacceptable and to high a price to pay at the expense of others. NH's laziness is even affecting other states who now continuously have to do NH's job for them by cleaning up after all of NH's messes.
And here is the reason why:
NH SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE JOHN M. LEWIS RETIRES DURING JCC INVESTIGATION
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 also. 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.
Seriously? Well clearly we now can see where he got it from.
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 then 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
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 actual 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.
FACT 1:: As of 2018, NH state was in contempt of court with the United States Department of Justice for it's failure to comply with the 2012 agreement to invest $30 million in mental healthcare within the immediate following 2 years. We are now 5 1/2 years later and in more of a crisis than ever before in TAX FREE NH!
In 2012, The state agreed to spend an additional $6 million in the current budget, plus an additional $23.7 million in the next two-year spending plan. The resources were suppose to support more round-the-clock care for people in crisis, as well as more community housing and employment opportunities. This quickly went down the drain and never happened.
FACT 2: NH is also in contempt of court once again for, "Multiple NH Hospitals who sued New Hampshire and settled. NH was facing a budget shortfall of up to $36 million following a federal district court decision over hospital payments, setting up a high-stakes scramble among state officials to negotiate a solution ahead of a May 31, 2018 payment deadline.
“They did not carry in the budget enough for the obligation,” said Scott O’Connell, an attorney representing a group of hospitals. “So somebody is going to be shorted.”
The issue stems back to the 2017 budget process. Last year, the Legislature set aside $166 million for the state’s uncompensated care fund in Fiscal Year 2018. That figure relied on a new payment formula from the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) that allowed for lower payouts, even as hospitals warned the formula was improperly established and would be challenged in court.
"On March 6, responding to a multi-state lawsuit, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia handed down a ruling siding with the hospitals. The decision voided the CMS formula nationwide, putting New Hampshire back on the hook.
The state’s hospitals were pushing for the full sum they said was owed – about $237 million – $71 million more that was budgeted, according to Senate President Chuck Morse, R-Salem. Roughly half of that would come from state funds, with the rest paid through a federal match.
John Formella, legal counsel for the governor’s office, confirmed that the upper limit that could be owed by the state amounts to “approximately $36-37 million per year in fiscal years 2018 and 2019.”
And in an April 10 letter to the hospitals provided to the Monitor, Deputy Attorney General Ann Rice acknowledged that the March 6 decision created new obligations.
“The state fully intends to follow the law in the amount of DSH payments that will be made by May 31, 2018,” Rice wrote to O’Connell, referring to the “disproportionate share hospital payments” owed by the state. May 31 is the federally-mandated payment deadline to hospitals under the Medicaid law."
FACT 3. Reported back in February 2015,
"This isn’t the first time lawsuits have put a crunch on the state budget.
A. The state spent $38 million in the current spending plan to build a new women’s prison after a class action lawsuit filed by female prisoners. Upon completion the total cost was $50 million.
B. Lawsuits over school funding stretched out for decades when towns said the state was shortchanging them on aid, costing the state millions after the ruling in the so-called Claremont suits of the 1990s.
The Claremont lawsuit was brought on behalf of five school districts that could not afford to properly fund their schools based on local property taxes. This was the second suit of this nature against the State of New Hampshire. The first suit was brought in the early 1980s and was settled when the State agreed to contribute 8% of the cost of education to a fund targeted to aid poor districts. The formula by which the money was distributed was designed by Professor John Augenblick and was called the Augenblick formula.
The State never fully funded its promise and by 1989 Claremont's high school, Stevens High School, had lost its accreditation because the district could not keep up with needed repairs. The then chairman of the Claremont school board, Tom Connair, caused the parties to reinstigate their lawsuit and three lawyers were hired, Arpiar Saunders, John Garvey and Andru Volinsky.
In 1993, the New Hampshire Supreme Court interpreted Part II, Article 83 of the New Hampshire Constitution to guarantee students a right to a public education. In 1997, the New Hampshire school funding system was found unconstitutional and the legislature and governor were ordered to define the components of a constitutionally adequate education, cost them out and pay for them with taxes that were equal across the state.
Four NH governors and their legislatures refused to comply with the Court's orders leading the Supreme Court to again find the school funding system unconstitutional in September, 2006, leading Gov. John Lynch to try again, unsuccessfully, to amend the state's Constitution.
The Claremont petitioners have been represented since 1995 by John Tobin, Scott Johnson and Andru Volinsky, all of Concord, New Hampshire."
"Curbing the amount of the grant deprives Dover of the full amount of what the legislature deemed necessary to sufficiently fund the opportunity for an adequate education in Dover," Tucker wrote. "When this occurs, the school district is left short of funds to pay the cost of an adequate education and either must make do with the amount of state aid allotted or make up the shortfall on its own. Either outcome violates Part II, Article 83, because the state ‘has the exclusive obligation to fund a constitutionally adequate education’ and ‘may not shift any of this constitutional responsibility to local communities’ ..."
Andru Volinsky, an attorney representing Dover, said the next step is to engage the state and legislative leaders to work out a payment agreement.
Then Gov. Maggie Hassan said she agreed with the attorney general’s position when the lawsuit was filed the previous year beore, that funding levels for certain school districts in 2016 "were not legally defensible."
"The Superior Court’s decision today reaffirms the validity of concerns raised by communities about school funding levels as well as the Attorney General’s original determination," Hassan said in a statement.
Hassan criticized the Legislature, saying, "I continue to call on the Legislature to meet our state’s obligation to pay these districts the money they are owed under the law, and my door is open to legislative leadership from both parties to discuss a way forward."
In a joint statement, Senate President Chuck Morse, R-Salem, and House Speaker Shawn Jasper, R-Hudson, said the Legislature is leading the way on education funding, including a plan to eliminate the (illegal) cap entirely in fiscal year 2018."
D. In 2014, the state had a financial stake in 28 lawsuits, according to the state’s annual financial report. Of those, the state only lost one, won six and settled three. Eighteen were still then undecided.
“This isn’t a problem of costs coming up unexpectedly, this is a problem of not being able to pay our bills when they come due and the Legislature seeing how long it can dodge the bill collector,” said Andru Volinsky, the lead attorney on the education funding lawsuits."
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 having to do so too.
"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.
More Evidence on NH's form of so called intellectual justice
In 2003 The 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 all completely false and ridiculously reckless stupidity! 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 considered as a whole.” The statement is clear in plain english. "Engages in sexual intercourse with another." Another is clearly defined in the English dictionary as "someone or something different and in addition to." Therefore, homosexual affairs are simply something different that is in addition to sexual intercourse. Therefore it simply did constitute adultery because the terms were clearly "defined within the meaning of the law", plain and simple. Therefore, "the definition does not (actually thoroughly) specifically state that the “someone” with whom one commits adultery must be of the opposite gender, it does (NOT) require sexual intercourse." The NH Supreme Court never did as they said, 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.”
The 1842 compilation very clearly defined the adultery law along with any other redefined versions that were made to the existing law at that time. Today, all we now have is lazy narrow minded illiterate judges who are now picking and choosing to fixate each entire law or testimony only on one individual word and that simply cannot be done. Nor making up an entire false story that doesn't pertain to the actual case, or even the actual laws themselves for that matter, for each ruling. Now we know why NH has Judges like Pamela Albee, who are too lazy to examine evidence and base their decisions only on the internet-Zillow for their final rulings instead of examining the actual evidence in the case. The questions now to ask is, who, why, and where is NH finding and picking these illiterate clowns from for the past century!?!
Another adultery case, Ross v Ross, 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 blog.
The Facts
Husband and wife met in dental school and later married. Husband, who had his own endodontist practice, helped his wife open and build her orthodontist practice. Considerable money was put into the venture. The couple separated the day that husband discovered wife was having an affair with another dentist. Wife filed for divorce 5 days after the parties separated alleging both fault and irreconcilable differences as grounds. Husband cross-petitioned for divorce on fault-based grounds, due to the wife’s alleged adultery and irreconcilable differences. The parties had been married for 9 years at the time they filed for divorce.
Approximately 11 months after the divorce was file, husband began a sexual relationship with the ex-wife of the dentist that the wife was dating. Wife filed a motion to dismiss the adultery grounds pled against her. She argued the defense of recrimination, or in other words that the husband was no longer an “innocent spouse” because of his own adultery. The trial court agreed with wife and dismissed the husband’s fault grounds. The trial court issued a decree of divorce based on irreconcilable differences that divided the property with an intent to split it equally.
The Appeal
Husband appealed the dismissal of the fault-based ground in his cross-petition for divorce, arguing that his sexual relationship, which occurred eleven months after the parties’ separation, could not be used as a basis for the defense of recrimination. Husband asserted that such a holding would require parties to remain celibate during years of litigation in a contentious divorce. Wife argued the trial court did not err in granting the motion to dismiss because the respondent was not an “innocent party” within the meaning of the statute. RSA 458:7 (2004).
The Court examined RSA 458:7, which states that a divorce “shall be decreed in favor of the innocent party.” The statute requires that one be an “innocent party” at the time of the decree. The statute makes no exception for fault based grounds that arise prior to the final decree, regardless of whether they arise before or after the filing of the divorce petition. Therefore, the trial court correctly considered Husband’s post-petition conduct when deciding the motion to dismiss.
The Court further stated the fact that Husband’s adultery did not lead to the breakdown of the marriage does not bar recrimination as a defense, stating “Causation is not an element of the defense of recrimination.” The Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to dismiss the fault grounds and grant a divorce on irreconcilable differences.
The Takeaway
The conclusion of husband’s brief, artfully written by Attorney Joshua Gordon, argues: “It is not reasonable to suggest, in these times of protracted discovery and litigation, that a party to a divorce must remain celibate for the duration of the proceedings – here already longer than four years.” I happen to agree with him. Litigation can be a long and arduous process. While most divorces will settle within 6 months to 1 year, a small percentage can drag on. The longest divorce I have seen from start to finish has been 5 years. That is a long time to wait to date."
(however, psychologists have been suggesting possibly setting some guidelines like the first 6-12 months before another relationship begins in the middle of a divorce, such as Mr. Ross had reasonably done. It is not unreasonable to require time to reflect and take the time to adjust to ones life. But most importantly to take the time to learn from mistakes made and what should not be repeated.
Closing one door before opening another holds more truth to it now more than ever before. A family unit and/or unity is now becoming extinct if it hasn't been already.
Given the amount of repetitive marriages and divorces now reoccurring in the US, happening 2, 3, and 4+ times over, even from just one more American is just one more loss and lack of true family unity too many, within the millions that already are occurring and exist within this country.
Now to the point where we don't even give a damn if we are separating newborns, toddlers and children from their parents, and putting borders and oceans between them. Haven't we evolved far enough to see one fact? And that is that the human race desperately needs logical direction before all is lost completely.)
The Takeaway Continued By Kysa Crusco - "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."
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."
(however, psychologists have been suggesting possibly setting some guidelines like the first 6-12 months before another relationship begins in the middle of a divorce, such as Mr. Ross had reasonably done. It is not unreasonable to require time to reflect and take the time to adjust to ones life. But most importantly to take the time to learn from mistakes made and what should not be repeated.
Closing one door before opening another holds more truth to it now more than ever before. A family unit and/or unity is now becoming extinct if it hasn't been already.
Given the amount of repetitive marriages and divorces now reoccurring in the US, happening 2, 3, and 4+ times over, even from just one more American is just one more loss and lack of true family unity too many, within the millions that already are occurring and exist within this country.
Now to the point where we don't even give a damn if we are separating newborns, toddlers and children from their parents, and putting borders and oceans between them. Haven't we evolved far enough to see one fact? And that is that the human race desperately needs logical direction before all is lost completely.)
The Takeaway Continued By Kysa Crusco - "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 was a NH adultery law in effect:
"The New Hampshire Supreme Court has (Narrow Mindedly) 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. Equally, an emotional affair does not constitute adultery for purposes of obtaining a divorce. 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." Like I said, they are truly one hell of a false story teller! If they could only now actually just pertain it to the actual evidence of the actual case and the actual laws of this state, we might just finally actually have a justice system in NH! Well at least we now know why Judge Albee only uses online Zillow instead of the evidence or even the laws for her final decrees.
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."
"[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 and is enforced by NH courts to this day. 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."
"[Art.] 73-a. [Supreme Court, Administration.] The chief justice of the supreme court shall be the administrative head of all the courts. He shall, with the concurrence of a majority of the supreme court justices, make rules governing the administration of all courts in the state and the practice and procedure to be followed in all such courts. The rules so promulgated shall have the force and effect of law."
No NH Supreme Court rule has ever been voted on and 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.
Because of many arrogant NH judges only abusing their power now like judge Groff, and the entire NH State Supreme Court, who now simply chose to not except the word "bum" instead of "anus", from a child's testimony, a young boy had to endure additional unwanted sexual abuse and had to be saved by a neighboring state's judicial branch of government. Such continual plain abusive stupidity throughout NH courts is simply unacceptable and to high a price to pay at the expense of others. NH's laziness is even affecting other states who now continuously have to do NH's job for them by cleaning up after all of NH's messes.
And here is the reason why:
NH SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE JOHN M. LEWIS RETIRES DURING JCC INVESTIGATION
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 also. 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.
Seriously? Well clearly we now can see where he got it from.
NH DISTRICT COURT JUDGE MICHEAL JONES
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 then 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
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 actual 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.
NH CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE WILLIAM LYONS
Lyons was suspended for 60 days without pay after an angry outburst towards a Deputy Sheriff. The Judiciary Conduct Committee 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 then 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 (Circus) COURT JUDGE PAMELA ALBEE
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 it was not serious enough to warrant formal discipline by the Supreme Court. Instead, with the consent of Albee, “the Committee issues this Reprimand.”
"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 only thing the Head Of Circuit Court, Judge Edwin Kelly, had to say was this, "She served really ably in Carroll County and rarely was on the overdue list." So basically NH keeps her on the bench as a judge to screw with more lives.
7 - 21 overdue cases per month is not considered as "rarely on the overdue list???" Someone is not doing their job and should know his employees better.
Ex - NH CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE PAUL MOORE
In October 2017, Moore was suddenly quietly placed 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.
Well at least this clearly explains allot of What the NH's Supreme Court is truly made up of!
Well at least this clearly explains allot of What the NH's Supreme Court is truly made up of!
Moore was only 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 as a free felon with a complete pension paid by taxpayers!
If Moore had succeeded he would of stolen over a million dollars in his lifetime from all of NH taxpayers.
NH judges can do whatever they damn well please, and boy, we are paying for it in more ways than one. They proudly have no shame in what they do to others!!!!!
NH CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE SHARON DEVRIES
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.
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 now 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.
Is this women related to Circuit (circus) Court Judge Pamela Albee?
MORE ILLEGAL ACTIONS FROM NH's GOVERMENT
FACT 1:: As of 2018, NH state was in contempt of court with the United States Department of Justice for it's failure to comply with the 2012 agreement to invest $30 million in mental healthcare within the immediate following 2 years. We are now 5 1/2 years later and in more of a crisis than ever before in TAX FREE NH!
In 2012, The state agreed to spend an additional $6 million in the current budget, plus an additional $23.7 million in the next two-year spending plan. The resources were suppose to support more round-the-clock care for people in crisis, as well as more community housing and employment opportunities. This quickly went down the drain and never happened.
FACT 2: NH is also in contempt of court once again for, "Multiple NH Hospitals who sued New Hampshire and settled. NH was facing a budget shortfall of up to $36 million following a federal district court decision over hospital payments, setting up a high-stakes scramble among state officials to negotiate a solution ahead of a May 31, 2018 payment deadline.
“They did not carry in the budget enough for the obligation,” said Scott O’Connell, an attorney representing a group of hospitals. “So somebody is going to be shorted.”
The issue stems back to the 2017 budget process. Last year, the Legislature set aside $166 million for the state’s uncompensated care fund in Fiscal Year 2018. That figure relied on a new payment formula from the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) that allowed for lower payouts, even as hospitals warned the formula was improperly established and would be challenged in court.
"On March 6, responding to a multi-state lawsuit, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia handed down a ruling siding with the hospitals. The decision voided the CMS formula nationwide, putting New Hampshire back on the hook.
The state’s hospitals were pushing for the full sum they said was owed – about $237 million – $71 million more that was budgeted, according to Senate President Chuck Morse, R-Salem. Roughly half of that would come from state funds, with the rest paid through a federal match.
John Formella, legal counsel for the governor’s office, confirmed that the upper limit that could be owed by the state amounts to “approximately $36-37 million per year in fiscal years 2018 and 2019.”
And in an April 10 letter to the hospitals provided to the Monitor, Deputy Attorney General Ann Rice acknowledged that the March 6 decision created new obligations.
“The state fully intends to follow the law in the amount of DSH payments that will be made by May 31, 2018,” Rice wrote to O’Connell, referring to the “disproportionate share hospital payments” owed by the state. May 31 is the federally-mandated payment deadline to hospitals under the Medicaid law."
FACT 3. Reported back in February 2015,
"This isn’t the first time lawsuits have put a crunch on the state budget.
A. The state spent $38 million in the current spending plan to build a new women’s prison after a class action lawsuit filed by female prisoners. Upon completion the total cost was $50 million.
B. Lawsuits over school funding stretched out for decades when towns said the state was shortchanging them on aid, costing the state millions after the ruling in the so-called Claremont suits of the 1990s.
Claremont School District v Governor of New Hampshire was an important legal case in New Hampshire. In the mid-1990s, the city of Claremont, New Hampshire started a process against the State of New Hampshire, challenging the constitutionality of the New Hampshire allocation of school funding.
The Claremont lawsuit was brought on behalf of five school districts that could not afford to properly fund their schools based on local property taxes. This was the second suit of this nature against the State of New Hampshire. The first suit was brought in the early 1980s and was settled when the State agreed to contribute 8% of the cost of education to a fund targeted to aid poor districts. The formula by which the money was distributed was designed by Professor John Augenblick and was called the Augenblick formula.
The State never fully funded its promise and by 1989 Claremont's high school, Stevens High School, had lost its accreditation because the district could not keep up with needed repairs. The then chairman of the Claremont school board, Tom Connair, caused the parties to reinstigate their lawsuit and three lawyers were hired, Arpiar Saunders, John Garvey and Andru Volinsky.
In 1993, the New Hampshire Supreme Court interpreted Part II, Article 83 of the New Hampshire Constitution to guarantee students a right to a public education. In 1997, the New Hampshire school funding system was found unconstitutional and the legislature and governor were ordered to define the components of a constitutionally adequate education, cost them out and pay for them with taxes that were equal across the state.
Four NH governors and their legislatures refused to comply with the Court's orders leading the Supreme Court to again find the school funding system unconstitutional in September, 2006, leading Gov. John Lynch to try again, unsuccessfully, to amend the state's Constitution.
The Claremont petitioners have been represented since 1995 by John Tobin, Scott Johnson and Andru Volinsky, all of Concord, New Hampshire."
C. Dover school district v New Hampshire: In 2016, "a superior court judge has ruled that the state’s cap on adequacy grants to public schools is unconstitutional.
The lawsuit, brought by the city of Dover and its school district, means an extra $1.4 million for Dover, and a potential boost for nearly 40 other communities with caps on the amount of "adequacy funding" they receive.
The heart of the ruling goes back to the state Supreme Court’s rulings in the Claremont school funding case that began in the 1980s. The court ruled in part that the state has a constitutional duty to define an adequate public education and pay for it.
In fiscal years 2009 and 2010, state law directed the state Department of Education not to "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."
The cap did not affect Dover the first year, but it has ever since, for an estimated total of $14.2 million, according to the ruling.
The lawsuit, brought by the city of Dover and its school district, means an extra $1.4 million for Dover, and a potential boost for nearly 40 other communities with caps on the amount of "adequacy funding" they receive.
The heart of the ruling goes back to the state Supreme Court’s rulings in the Claremont school funding case that began in the 1980s. The court ruled in part that the state has a constitutional duty to define an adequate public education and pay for it.
In fiscal years 2009 and 2010, state law directed the state Department of Education not to "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."
The cap did not affect Dover the first year, but it has ever since, for an estimated total of $14.2 million, according to the ruling.
"Curbing the amount of the grant deprives Dover of the full amount of what the legislature deemed necessary to sufficiently fund the opportunity for an adequate education in Dover," Tucker wrote. "When this occurs, the school district is left short of funds to pay the cost of an adequate education and either must make do with the amount of state aid allotted or make up the shortfall on its own. Either outcome violates Part II, Article 83, because the state ‘has the exclusive obligation to fund a constitutionally adequate education’ and ‘may not shift any of this constitutional responsibility to local communities’ ..."
Andru Volinsky, an attorney representing Dover, said the next step is to engage the state and legislative leaders to work out a payment agreement.
Then Gov. Maggie Hassan said she agreed with the attorney general’s position when the lawsuit was filed the previous year beore, that funding levels for certain school districts in 2016 "were not legally defensible."
"The Superior Court’s decision today reaffirms the validity of concerns raised by communities about school funding levels as well as the Attorney General’s original determination," Hassan said in a statement.
Hassan criticized the Legislature, saying, "I continue to call on the Legislature to meet our state’s obligation to pay these districts the money they are owed under the law, and my door is open to legislative leadership from both parties to discuss a way forward."
In a joint statement, Senate President Chuck Morse, R-Salem, and House Speaker Shawn Jasper, R-Hudson, said the Legislature is leading the way on education funding, including a plan to eliminate the (illegal) cap entirely in fiscal year 2018."
D. In 2014, the state had a financial stake in 28 lawsuits, according to the state’s annual financial report. Of those, the state only lost one, won six and settled three. Eighteen were still then undecided.
“This isn’t a problem of costs coming up unexpectedly, this is a problem of not being able to pay our bills when they come due and the Legislature seeing how long it can dodge the bill collector,” said Andru Volinsky, the lead attorney on the education funding lawsuits."
WELCOME TO NEW HAMPSHIRE FOLKS!
P.S. CHECK INTO THE DRINKING WATER SITUATION THAT CONTINUES TO AFFECT THE STATE'S HEALTH FOR WELL OVER A DECADE NOW TOO!
STILL WANT TO LIVE IN TAX FREE NEW HAMPSHIRE?
