KNOW THE TRUE CONDITION OF YOUR STATE BEFORE YOU VOTE

Updated October 23, 2018

Over a 3rd of the state of New Hampshire has continued to suffer for decades and the NH governor now tells us in 2018,

"As we look back on this past year and recognize our milestones and achievements, we cannot lose sight of New Hampshire's future!"

He now says, "NH has never been better."

In January 1776, New Hampshire became the first of the British North American colonies to establish a government independent of the Kingdom of Great Britain's authority, and it was the first to establish its own state constitution. Six months later, it became one of the original 13 states that founded the United States of America. And in June 1788,was when it was the ninth state to ratify the Constitution, bringing that document into effect.  Since then the state has only continued to be the first for many things but they are anything but good.

According to a commentary by the Libertarian CATO Institute, these are some of the reasons why they ranked "NH The Freest State In America."

"The two major parties in 2016 haven’t left freedom-loving people very hopeful for the future.  Indeed, over the last several years, they have favored bigger, more intrusive government.

Neither party have put a premium on liberty at the national level...New Hampshire is one of the four worst states in the country for residential building restrictions, owing to strict zoning laws.

Local zoning ordinances should be reviewed and those that increase the price of new housing beyond what is needed to pay for the cost of new infrastructure should be struck down.

New Hampshire’s labor laws are mediocre, encouraging relatively high workers’ compensation costs. Energy regulations drive up costs for manufacturing businesses, and New Hampshire has increased occupational licensing dramatically over the past decade."

Well, it is high time we start to take a good hard look at all those so called milestones and achievements that claims tax free NH "is better than ever!"  Since I am very capable of seeing all of NH's history and hard cold facts, even with a brain injury, inflicted and only proudly caused by the NH Government itself, then what the hell is the government's real excuse? 

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

FACT 1: For the past 5 years now, the No.1 leading cause of death in New Hampshire still remains to be only cancer and apparently no one seems knowledgeable enough to conclude why.  The state's second leading cause of death is drug overdose. NH was also ranked No.1 for the most suicides in the nation.  The Granite State now ranks No.1 for having the most new diagnosed breast cancer cases each year throughout the nation.  It reported 8,670 new cancer cases alone with 170 deaths now just for the year 2017.  "They have claimed that the cause is now from the population being 94% white.  Breast cancer has been also claimed to be most prevalent in white women. New Hampshire is now moving up the ladder and quickly ranking fourth in the nation for all cancer-sites diagnosed, with now 490 cases per 100,000."

FACT 2:
Now another new study just released in July 2018, by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, has also concluded that pediatric cancer rates have only grown to also be only the highest in New Hampshire out of an entire country.  And once again, the state is only unable to specify any specific cause as to why this is happening throughout the state.  The study shows that there were actually 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 once again the highest rate in the United States.

A) There are both children and teen pediatric cancer cases 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.

THOUGH, "NH HAS NEVER BEEN BETTER"

B) NH Children are now also being infected by STD's at such a very young age.  Between 2012 to 2016, the state of NH had a total of 16,238 cases of chlamydia reported from all age groups throughout the state.  However, the report broke it down and surprisingly showed that there were actually 4,170 cases just between the ages of 13 to 19 alone.  While 7,228 cases were diagnosed between the ages of 20 to 24.  And an additional 2,673 cases were diagnosed between the ages of 25 to 29 years of age.  There were only 2,167 cases that were spread out between the ages of 30 to 60+ yrs of age.  Safe sex today is only having extremely minimal to no sex partners, meaning no more than 1 or 2 in a lifetime.

C) High Risk Of HPV Causes Several Types Of Cancer.  There are two types, 16 and 18 that are not responsible for about only 10% of all cases.  New Hampshire Division Of Public Health Services reported HPV Cancer sites between 1999-2013.  A new report  is possibly every 5 years.

NEW HAMPSHIRE

CANCER SITE    NUMBER OF CASES    NMBER POSSIBLY CAUSED BY HPV

Anus                                            309                                                          281

Oropharynx                               954                                                          687

Cervix                                         624                                                          568

Vagina                                          49                                                            37

Valva                                          248                                                           171

Penis                                             67                                                            42

TOTAL                                      2,257                                                          1,786  


Various cancer cases observed and the Expected Numbers just in Merrimack, NH alone.  In 2014 the Population  was 25,563.  Between 2005-2014, there were 1,331 cancer cases in Merrimack, NH alone.

2005 -2014 MERRIMACK NEW HAMPSHIRE ALONE

Cancer Type                        Site Observed                     Expected          Significant Difference 
Oral Cavity and Pharynx            28                                    33                Not significantly different
Esophagus                                     20                                    18                Not significantly different
Stomach                                         13                                     14                Not significantly different
Colorectal                                     115                                   101                Not significantly different
Liver and Intrahepatic                12                                     15                Not significantly different
Pancreas                                        30                                    30                Not significantly different
Gall Bladder                                    5                                      5                 Not significantly different
Larynx                                              9                                    10                 Not significantly different
Lung and Bronchus*                 138                                  152                 Not significantly different
Mesothelioma                                 6                                      5                 Not significantly different

Females Only: 
Breast                                           197                                 203                 Not significantly different
Cervical                                            5                                      8                 Not significantly different
Uterus                                            55                                    49                 Not significantly different
Ovary                                              17                                    18                 Not significantly different

Males Only: 
Prostate*                                     198                                  173                 Not significantly different
Testis                                               8                                      9                 Not significantly different
Bladder                                         79                                    68                 Not significantly different
Kidney and Renal Pelvis            51                                    41                 Not significantly different
Brain and Other CNS                 22                                   20                 Not significantly different
Thyroid                                         52                                    41                 Not significantly different
Hodgkin Lymphoma                    5                                     8                  Not significantly different
Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma        48                                   54                  Not significantly different
Kaposi Sarcoma                            5                                     5                  Not significantly different
Multiple Myeloma                       14                                  15                  Not significantly different
Leukemia                                      43                                  36                 Not significantly different
Melanoma of Skin                       61                                   75                 Not significantly different
Other Cancers                              95                                  95                 Not significantly different            

On March 9, 2016, "It is tragic to see yet another community impacted by PFOA contamination,” Erin brochevich said.  "my colleague Robin Greenwald, head of the Environmental and Consumer Protection Unit at Weitz and Luxenberg. “We have decided to expand the scope of our drinking water investigation to understand the health risks to residents of Merrimack and provide the community with robust legal options."  Weitz And Luxenberg, along with Erin Brochevich have since then filed a class action suit now on the behalf of Merrimack NH residents.
 
FACT 3: Many NH cities and towns are still currently having the same drinking water toxin (Chromium-6), that was known to be made famous through the 'Erin Brokovich' Ground Water Investigation in Hinkley, California.  Environmental agencies can't agree on what the safety standards should be regarding the cancer-causing toxin Chromium-6, now found in 2016, in dozens of NH drinking water samples that were done in different locations.

"Yet federal regulations are stalled by a chemical industry challenge that could mean no national regulation of a chemical that state scientists in California and elsewhere already say causes cancer when ingested at even extraordinarily low levels," according to the report."

"According to The Verge Report, at California's recommended level of chromium-6, which is 0.02 Parts Per Trilliont now, "one out of 1 million people is likely to get cancer after drinking that water for 70 years."  Though, officials in California believe that (0.02 PPT) level of the contaminant can be harmful and pose a cancer threat — not just for people who drink the water, but also bathe in it or have any contact whatsoever."

CHROMIUM-6 IS IN NH DRINKING WATER 2015

NH WATER            CHROMIUM-6     CHROMIUM-6         CHROMIUM-6

 SUPPLIER                  SAMPLED               FOUND                       RANGED AVERAGE   AMT.        

Carroll County    

Lower Bartlett

Water PTC                             6                    6                     0.067 - 0.18 PPT               0.0  PPT          

Belknap County
Laconia                                   8                    0                         0.0 - 0.0  PPT                0.0  PPT

Cheshire County
Keene Water Dept               16                  13                       0.0 - 0.23  PPT            0.077  PPT

N. Walpole Village

District/Lower                       2                    2                   0.073 - 0.10  PPT           0.088  PPT

Grafton County

Lebanon Water Dept           8                     6                     0.0 - 0.05   PPT              0.03  PPT

Littleton Water +

Light Department                10                   6                      0.0 - 0.39  PPT               0.15  PPT

Hillsborough County

Hudson Water Dept            8                     8                     0.13 -0.23  PPT               0.17  PPT      

Manchester Water-

Works                                     8                     8                   0.04 - 0.79  PPT              0.06  PPT

Merrimack Village

District                                   16                  16                       0.11 - .77  PPT               0.15  PPT

Pennichuck Water-                                                       

works                                      8                     6                        0.0 - 0.1  PPT            0.049  PPT

Merrimack County

Concord water dept             8                     0                      0.0 - 0.0  PPT                 0.0  PPT

Rockingham County

Aquarium Water NH         20                  19                   0.0 - 0.26   PPT                0.13  PPT

Derry Water Dept                8                     6                      0.0 - 0.1   PPT               0.45  PPT

Exeter Water Dept             16                     6                 0.0 - 0.046  PPT              0.014  PPT

Portsmouth Water-

Works                                   18                   16                   0.0 - 0.46   PPT                0.19  PPT

Salem Water Dept               8                     6                   0.0 - 0.29   PPT                0.10  PPT

Seabrook Water Dept        10                    6                    0.0 - 0.16   PPT             0.064  PPT

            

Strafford County

Somersworth-

Waterworks                         8                     8                 0.036 - 0.07  PPT             0.051  PPT

Dover Water Dept          

Rochester Water Dept       8                     3                        0.0 - 0.1  PPT             0.029  PPT

UNH-Durham

Water System                     12                    6                     0.0 - 0.19   PPT             0.045  PPT

"By all accounts, the current rate of investment is grossly insufficient to fund the infrastructure that will be required to assure continued safe and reliable water service across New Hampshire. However, some State legislators, municipal leaders and water utility experts are increasingly worried that the traditional funding sources will not be sufficient to address future anticipated costs. Now is the time for State leaders to collaboratively forge a path toward a sustainable water infrastructure for all of New Hampshire."

THOUGH, "NH HAS NEVER BEEN BETTER"

______________________________________________________________________

HEALTH BEHAVIOR BEROMETER FOR NH, 2015

Source: SAMHSA, Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, National Surveys on Drug Alcohol Use and Health, 2010–2012 to 2013–2015.  Latest statistics are from 2015

FACT 4: In New Hampshire, about 11,000 adolescents aged 12–17 (11.1% of all adolescents) per year in 2013–2014 reported using illicit drugs within the month prior to being surveyed. The percentage did not change significantly from 2010–2011 to 2013–2014.

FACT 5: In New Hampshire, about 31,000 individuals aged 12–20 (19.5% of all individuals in this age group) per year in 2013–2014 reported binge alcohol use within the month prior to being surveyed. The percentage did not change significantly from 2010– 2011 to 2013–2014.

FACT 6: In New Hampshire, about 2 in 3 (66.4%) adolescents aged 12–17 in 2013–2014 perceived no great risk from having five or more drinks once or twice a week—a percentage higher than the national percentage (60.9).  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 did not change significantly from 2010–2011 to 2013–2014.

FACT 7: In New Hampshire, an annual average of about 82,000 individuals aged 12 or older (7.2% of all individuals in this age group) in 2014–2015 had an alcohol use disorder in the past year. The annual average percentage in 2014–2015 was not significantly any different from the annual average percentage in 2011–2012.  In 2016, that number has now increased to 87,000 per year.

FACT 8: In New Hampshire, an annual average of about 13,000 adolescents aged 12–17 (13.4% of all adolescents) in 2014– 2015 had experienced an MDE - Major Depression Episode in the past year. The annual average percentage in 2014–2015 was higher than the annual average percentage in 2011–2012. 

FACT 9: In New Hampshire, an annual average of ONLY 5,000 adolescents aged 12–17 with past year MDE (only 41.2% of all adolescents with past year MDE) from 2011 to 2015 received treatment for their depression in the past year.

FACT 10: In New Hampshire, an annual average of about 57,000 adults aged 18 or older (5.4% of all adults) in 2014–2015 had SMI - Serious Mental Illness in the past year. The annual average percentage in 2014–2015 was higher than the annual average percentage in 2011–2012.

FACT 11: In New Hampshire, an annual average of about 105,000 adults aged 18 or older with AMI - Any Mental Illness (Only 49.3% of all adults with AMI) from 2011 to 2015 received mental health services in the past year.

 FACT 12: In 2015, 10,658 children and adolescents (aged 17 or younger) were served in New Hampshire’s public mental health system.  The annual average percentage of children and adolescents (aged 17 or younger) reporting improved functioning from treatment received in the public mental health system was lower in New Hampshire than in the nation as a whole. The annual average percentage for adults (aged 18 or older) was lower in New Hampshire than in the nation as a whole.

FACT 13: Among adults served in New Hampshire’s public mental health system in 2015, only 45.0% of those aged 18–20, 27.1% of those aged 21–64, and 59.5% of those aged 65 or older were not in the labor force.

FACT 14: In 2014–2015, New Hampshire’s annual average percentage of adults aged 18 or older with past year serious thoughts of suicide was higher than the corresponding national annual average percentage.

FACT 15: In New Hampshire, an annual average of about 52,000 adults aged 18 or older (4.9% of all adults) in 2014–2015 had serious thoughts of suicide in the past year. The annual average percentage in 2014–2015 was not significantly any different from the annual average percentage in 2011–2012.

OUR MILESTONES AND ACHIEVEMENTS

"NH HAS NEVER BEEN BETTER"

_________________________________________________________________FACT 16: TAX FREE New Hampshire's regional price parity is 105, so locals pay about 5% more for the things they buy. Housing costs in New Hampshire are much higher, as is the cost of food, utilities, and transportation. An older study also ranked New Hampshire as one of the most expensive places in the country to raise kids thanks to high costs of childcare and educational expenditures being unnecessarily still illegal, and unconstitutional, and ONLY inflicted illegally by government.   Now little NH's economic cost of living is now ranking #44 in the United States of America while having one of the highest property taxes in the country.

FACT 17: NH only resolves mental illness by continuing for only over the past thirty years to kidnap civilian hospital patients with mental illness from their hospital rooms, who originally admitted themselves for treatment of their own free will, to only be transferred and locked 24 hours a day into a jail cell against their will, where only convicted child pedophiles, rapists and murderers are imprisoned at the men's criminal penitentiary in Concord, NH.  

These civilians are not given any proper treatment, nor any means of freedom of visitation or communication with family, friends, or the outside world.  These people were diagnosed mentally ill, not criminals, and never even went before a judge, or were even charged with a crime, while  some have now died in a jail cell at the hands of NH's government.  NH's government has been the true catalyst for unnecessary loss of innocent life for decades now, in more ways than one, while government only still claims "NH has never been better."

REPORTED IN 2013: "The Department of Justice joined patients in suing the state for violating the Americans with Disability Act. The United States Department Of Justice has accused New Hampshire of warehousing patients in hospitals and turning jails into asylums, instead of treating people with mental health illnesses.

While reporting on the story for the Concord Monitor, Annemarie Timmins noted a study that said "26 percent of the state's adults, more than 253,500 people, have a mental illness."

REPORTED JANUARY 2016: "New Hampshire has been awarded $150 million over five years by federal Medicaid officials to expand access to mental health and substance abuse treatment services."  Whether state officials have actually used the funds for it's actual purpose has remained suspect and yet to be seen.

The additional federal Medicaid money results from the state seeking a Medicaid waiver under the Affordable Care Act is to provide greater flexibility and to expand services eligible for federal matching money.

With the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services' approval, the state will receive up to $30 million a year for regional health care and community service provider networks for projects that expand the state's behavioral health system; integrate mental health, substance use treatment and primary care; and reduce health care costs for the state and federal government." Only more broken promises.  But don't hold your breath because NH's repetitive mistake's only just continues on and on and on for decades, as you've seen so far.

So exactly where did the Medicaid funds really go? Because NH has yet seen a secure hospital wing or the required number of beds the hospitals now need in NH.

"NH HAS NEVER BEEN BETTER"

REPORTED IN 2017: "New Hampshire now became the second state only to Maine in the percentage of the population receiving Social Security Disability Income for mental illness, according to the latest research from the Urban Institute.  Nationally, only 1.76 percent of the population is receiving a monthly check for disability related to conditions like schizophrenia, mood disorders or depression.

In New Hampshire, the rate is nearly double 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.”

The large number of SSDI recipients for mental disorders in the New England states is not particularly new, Schwabish observed. 

Since 2001, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, and Rhode Island saw increases in the number of people filing claims for mental disorders that far exceeded national averages and NH currently remains still doing so now even 17 years later in 2018.  NH's Disability Employment Gap is now also Ranked #47 in the nation!

But once again, there is no conclusive research on why the New England states are such outliers when it comes to disability income for mental illness. New Hampshire demographics run contrary to the stereotype of a disability income recipient, with the exception of our aging population.

“New England states tend to have older, whiter and richer populations. Consequently, the question remains as to why the rate of disability income for mental disorders is so much higher for these states than for the rest of the country,” writes Schwabish in his report, titled, “Geographic Patterns in Disability Insurance Receipt: Mental Disorders in New England.”

FACT  "For now, the state is (only once again) concentrating its efforts on community care. As part of a 2014 mental health settlement over a lawsuit alleging patients were needlessly institutionalized because they could not get mental health treatment in their own communities, New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu has proposed adding only $3 million to the state budget. 

The funds would expand community-based response (including mobile units) to people in crisis, with the hope of avoiding hospitalization through treatment at home. But once again, there’s no provision in the budget to increase the number of beds. It may take another similar lawsuit to bring that about. In addition, the proposal does not address the need for a secure facility, or at least a secured wing of the New Hampshire Hospital, that will be required to stop the much-criticized practice of placing civilly committed patients at the Secure Psychiatric Unit (THAT IS ONLY) the Concord (men's) prison." 

"NH HAS NEVER BEEN BETTER"

FACT 18: NH's government was knowingly in contempt of court not just once but twice now, from the same multiple, 10 to be exact, NH Hospitals who sued New Hampshire, who were willing to settle for payment installments for over 200 million dollars owed by government that was already illegally withheld for years just so they can pay much older overdue debts.  Now NH's government, to their own demise and ours, was facing a budget shortfall of up to $36 million following a federal district court deciding, only once again, over hospital payments due, setting up a high-stakes scramble among state officials to negotiate a solution ahead of a May 31, 2018 payment deadline."  Which clearly explains why NH is now ranked #47 in short term state budget planning.

All because now for a second time "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. 

Unfortunately, the hospitals are still forced to attempt to put their trust only once again in a government known for making broken promises on much needed money that is now required for much needed healthcare expenditures, like doctors, nurses, beds, equipment and supplies, all because NH's government purposely withheld their payments only to pay other well overdue bills.   NH has been robbing Peter just to Pay Paul for a century now, while doing even an extremely very poor job at that, all at the expense of others.

FACT 19: "This isn’t the first time lawsuits have put a crunch on the state budget."  While the state will continue to clearly only mishandle the state's funds.

FACT 20: The state was also forced to spend $38 million in the current spending plan to build a new women’s prison after a class action lawsuit filed by female prisoners.  But upon completion the final total cost was $50 million.

FACT 21: Lawsuits over school funding also stretched out for decades when multiple towns said that the state was shortchanging them on aid, costing the state millions after the ruling in the so-called Claremont suits of the 1990s. Since then, the government clearly still hasn't learned their lesson while continuing to only enforce an unconstitutional law for over 20 years to date.  Still in effect to this day in 2018.

FACT 22: Claremont School District v Governor of New Hampshire is 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.

FACT 23: 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.

FACT 24: 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 ONCE AGAIN, and both 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.

FACT 25: Four governors and their legislatures continued to refused to comply with the Court's orders leading the Supreme Court to once again find the school funding system unconstitutional now in September, 2006, leading Gov. John Lynch to try, unsuccessfully, to amend the state's illegal Constitution.

The Claremont petitioners have been represented since 1995 by John Tobin, Scott Johnson and Andru Volinsky, all of Concord, New Hampshire."

FACT 26: Dover school district v New Hampshire: In 2016, "a superior court judge once again ruled that the state’s cap on adequacy grants to public schools is unconstitutional FOR A THIRD TIME.

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, the state's illegal 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."

The illegal cap did not affect Dover the first year, but it has ever since, for an estimated total of $14.2 million, only 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."  This still continues to date in 2018

Andru Volinsky, an attorney representing Dover, said the next step is to engage the state and legislative leaders to work out a payment agreement.  And here we go again!

Gov. Maggie Hassan back then said she agreed with the attorney general’s position when the lawsuit was filed the previous year, 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 had said in a statement.

Hassan had criticized the Legislature, when she had said that, "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 (decades of an illegal) cap entirely in fiscal year 2018."  That was originally only illegally designed and enforced by legislators themselves in the first place.

But don't hold your breath.  NH's history only has a way of CONTINUALLY repeating itself over and over and over again.  As I've clearly already have shown you so far!

"NH HAS NEVER BEEN BETTER"

FACT 27: In 2018, New Hampshire's average weekly wages have now declined 1.2% between August 2017 and August 2018.  NH's hourly minimum wage still remains at $7.5o, in a state where a 2 bedroom apartment rental requires a minimum wage income, to work a minimum of 123 hours per week just to pay the rent, now making NH the third-worst rated economy among the 50 states and DC.  This is only one of many reasons why NH's cost of living is ranked #44 in the U.S. of A.

FACT 28: Elyssa Margolin of Housing Action NH contends that the state needs extremely so much more to increase the supply of affordable housing,  "According to Margolin, Vermont has bonded $35 million in addition to another $10 million a year later.  Maine bonded $50 million in 2010, and every year had committed between $6 million and $12 million to affordable housing.  And Massachusetts bonded 1 billion over 5 years.

FACT 29:  New Hampshire came in with the chamber of commerce and asked for $25 million, and only received a whopping $2.5 million.

When your state's government becomes only well known through the united States Justice Department for only illegally bootlegging liquor just to continue to increase revenue to only very poorly and illegally rob Peter to pay Paul, while simultaneously running from bill collectors, for repeatedly making broken promises, while simultaneously breaking more than just one law in the process; exactly what else would the final outcome be of all the illegal domino games that NH GOVERNMENT continues to play?

This is what NH government claims is best!

SO NH GOVERNMENT's ONLY RESOLUTION NOW WAS?

TO KEEP PUSHING FOR THE PAST 9 YEARS TO LOWER THE DRINKING AGE.  SO AS TO NOW LEGALLY NUMB YOUNG VOTER'S FROM THE STATE'S CONTIUAL REPETITIOUS PROBLEMS.  SINCE LIQUOR IS ONE OF NH's MAIN SOURCES OF INCOME , WELL, NOTHING LIKE KILLING 2 BIRDS WITH ONE STONE

NEW HAMPSHIRE 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.

"NH HAS NEVER BEEN BETTER"

NEXT BUT NEVER SHALL BE THE LEAST - The NH Judicial Branch of Government.  Oh dear god where does one even begin.  

ALL I OR ANYONE ELSE CAN SAY IS,  THAT EVERY NH LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IN THIS STATE, DESERVES DOUBLE OF WHAT THERE CURRENTLY BEING PAID.  TO  JUST CAPTURE CRIMINALS TO BE  ONLY JUDGED BY AN ILLITERATE CRIMINAL AT BEST. 

YES, I ALSO REALIZE THAT EVEN LAW ENFORCEMENT WILL HAVE THEIR BAD COPS TOO, WHO  WILL RUIN IT FOR EVERYONE ELSE, BUT IN NH, YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO ASK WHY IT'S EVEN HAPPENING!

NH DISTRICT COURT JUDGE MICHEAL JONES

FACT 30 :  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 them proceeded 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 CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE WILLIAM LYONS

FACT 31: 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 34: 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  35: Judge Groff, is only one of many NH judges, including the ENTIRE NH Supreme Court, who very much truly enjoys their abuse of power while proudly recording it all on record for us to read. 

Fact 36:"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 37: "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 38: In 1991, even the NH Supreme Court also upheld Judge Groff's decision to overturn this same 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.   

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.

FACT 39: "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 40: 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 41: 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.

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.

NOW THIS EXPLAINS WHAT THE NH SUPREME COURT IS TRULY MADE UP OFF

NH SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE JOHN M. LEWIS RETIRES DURING JCC INVESTIGATION

FACT 42: 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 43: 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 44: 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

FACT 45: 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.  SERIOUSLY????

FACT 46: 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."  Are you kidding me???  Not only does this sentence defeat the purpose of the entire rule to begin with, but it most certainly breaks even more than 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 justice in the state of NH.

FACT 47: 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 49: 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. 

"NH HAS NEVER BEEN BETTER"

FACT 50: In 2003 The 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)

This is all completely false and ridiculously reckless plain outright 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 (itself) considered as a whole.”

A.Therefore, The "definition of adultery was contained in that statute", because of one very clear WORD in that statute.  That was in clear 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) 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.  

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, "the definition does not (actually thoroughly) specifically state that the “someone” with whom one commits adultery must be of the opposite gender, it does (DOES NOT) require sexual intercourse." 

E.The NH Supreme Court and the entire judicial branch of government will never even do as they say, 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.”   While continuing to only minimalize each entire law now to only the definition of one word.

FACT 51: 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 nutshell in 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 52: "The New Hampshire Supreme Court (illegally Narrow Mindedly along with plain brazen stupidity only broke NH law once again) when they 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 53:  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 and the year of 2018 and is still enforced by 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 54:  And above all, we cannot leave out the Judicial Conduct Committee for clearly aiding one of the main causes to the states entire mess.

"NH HAS NEVER BEEN BETTER"

FACT 55: TIME FOR A BIG REALITY CHECK PEOPLE: FYI: Congress has impeached and removed only seven judges in American history of the federal judiciary.  Being the one and only very first judge to go in American history was once again, only from a little state called New Hampshire.  When John Pickering, a NH district court judge was convicted in 1804.  According to information from the federal judiciary, He was removed on charges of mental instability and for being a drunk on the bench!

I could continue but 214 years is one hell of a long time to list 3 entire encyclopedia sets of all of the state's judicial government's HISTORY of illegal OOPs and ERRORs alone, while they still continue to know only absolutely nothing.  NH truly takes the abuse of power to a whole new level.

So please clearly understand and know who and what you are voting for on November 6, 2018!

BONUS: Remember, NH Governor Chris Sununu has clearly asked of all of us:

"As we look back on this past year and recognize our milestones and achievements, we cannot lose sight of New Hampshire's future!"

Well, let's just list a couple of new great milestones and achievements in 2018 still on a road leading to no where while, "NH has never been better", NOW according to government 

A) ALERT: NH IS NOW AT 'HIGH RISK' OF UNCONTROLLED HIV, HEPATITIS C DUE TO IV DRUG USE. 

NOW EVEN AFTER FINDING OUT 60,000 MEMBERS ON THE ASHLEY MADISON, "Have An Affair" 2015 website scandal, were in NH ALONE!

2018 IN NEW HAMPSHIRE

NH Department of Health and Human Services

Government Health and Wellness

May 18, 2018

"CONCORD, NH – The state’s Public Health Division  on Wednesday issued an alert to care providers around the state describing a notable increase in the number of new HIV and Hepatitis C virus (HCV) cases in Hillsborough County.

Of recent concern, NH DPHS has been investigating a report of a homeless individual in Manchester who shares injection drug equipment, and has been diagnosed with acute HIV infection with a very high HIV viral load, which increases risk of transmission.

The alert was issued to physicians, health care providers, hospitals and health clinics.

New Hampshire’s annual number of new HIV cases has been stable (approximately 30-40 cases per year); however, Hillsborough County is experiencing a significant increase in the number of new HIV cases among those who report injection drug use as a risk factor.

• From January 1, 2017, through April 30, 2018, there were 46 NH residents newly diagnosed with HIV.
• Of the 46 individuals, 11 (24 percent) reported injection drug use, a majority of whom lived in Hillsborough County at the time of their diagnosis.

Symptoms of Hepatitis C, according to the CDC, include:

• Fever
• Fatigue
• Loss of appetite
• Nausea
• Vomiting
• Abdominal pain
• Dark urine
• Clay-colored bowel movements
• Joint pain
• Jaundice (yellow color in the skin or eyes)

DPHS is continuing to investigate and identify contacts who may be at risk. HCV infection is also a major risk for individuals who inject or use intranasal drugs. New diagnoses of HCV infection were made provider reportable to the NH DPHS in 2016. Of all the new diagnoses of HCV infection in New Hampshire residents from November 1, 2016 to present, 85 percent reported ever injecting drugs (current or former), and almost 65 percent report current injection drug use as a risk factor.

Because new diagnoses of HCV infection are only reported to the NH DPHS by providers (no laboratory reporting of positive test results is performed), there has been significant underreporting of new HCV infections. We are asking providers, both primary and referral providers, to report new cases of HCV infection to the NH DPHS using the appropriate case report form.

---

Key Points and Recommendations for providers

• New Hampshire is at high risk of uncontrolled HIV and Hepatitis C virus (HCV) transmission due to the opioid epidemic and injection drug use.
• Providers should screen all patients who present to clinical care (regardless of the primary purpose of the visit) for substance use disorder, especially injection drug use.
• Individuals who have a history of substance misuse (especially injection drug use) should be tested for HIV and HCV.
• There have been multiple state outbreaks of hepatitis A virus infection associated with individuals who are homeless and individuals who use injection and non-injection drugs. All health care providers should assess for hepatitis A virus (HAV) and hepatitis B virus (HBV) immunity in these higher risk patients and provide vaccination if not immune.
• All new diagnoses of HIV and HCV should be reported to the New Hampshire Division of Public Health Services (NH DPHS), including preliminary positive or rapid-reactive HIV and HCV results, by utilizing the appropriate forms.
• If a provider (primary or referral provider) is unsure if a new HIV or HCV case has been reported to NH DPHS, please err on the side of re-reporting. NH DPHS does not receive laboratory reports for positive HCV tests, and relies on provider reporting of new HCV diagnosis for accurate counts."

B) In 2016 is when NH had an outbreak of Gonorrhea showing that the number of cases became significantly higher by 250% in just one year.  The state remained actively working to identify individuals who have been exposed.  According to the CDC, Gonorrhea is the second most common reported STD in the United States.

C) In 2017, NH reported that 15% of individuals diagnosed with Gonorrhea did not initially receive the correct treatment.  Treatment of Gonorrhea needs to include 2 different antibiotic to prevent the emergence of antibiotic resistance.  The CDC listed gonorrhea as one of the top 3 national antibiotic resist threats because of the propensity of Neisseria Gonorrhea to develop a resistance to antibiotics.

D) One of NH's responses to the STD outbreaks was May 9, 2017, with NH law RSA 141-C:15-a - The practice of EPT- Expedited Partner Therapy is explicitly legal and allowable according to NH.  EPT refers to a healthcare provider who gives their STD infected patient additional antibiotics or an additional antibiotic prescription to now give to the patients partner also.  So they too now can be treated without the provider ever needing to examine the partner first. 

However there are numerous parents of young adults and physicians who don't agree.  Every case is different and they feel that the state is being reckless by irresponsibly enabling and detouring many young adults from responsibly seeking their own providers for an accurate diagnoses and treatment so as to always establish and have a proper medical record history on file, that could very well one day save their lives.

IT IS HIGH TIME NEW HAMPSHIRE'S GOVERNMENT GETS OFF THE POT (LITERALLY SPEAKING) AND START TO USE WHATEVER ACTIVE BRAIN CELLS LEFT THAT ARE ABOVE THEIR SHOULDERS, INSTEAD OF THE ONES BETWEEN THEIR LEGS.  AT LEAST HITLER WAS EVEN MORE KINDER AND QUICKER WITH MORE EXPEDIANCE, WHEN IT CAME TO TAKING LIVES THROUGHOUT AN ENTIRE COUNTRY!

SINCE I CAN CLEARLY SEE ALL OF THIS WITH A BRAIN INJURY ONLY PUROSELY INFLICTED BY THE NH GOVERNMENT ITSELF, THEN WHAT THE HELL NOW IS THEIR REAL EXCUSE?

LOOK WHERE NH'S TAX FREE GOVERNMENT PUT US!

NH'S MAIN "INFESTED DRUG DENS" HAVE NOW CLEARLY JUST BEEN FOUND AND RECOGNIZED THROUGHOUT NH COURTHOUSES AND THE NH STATE HOUSE ITSELF.

YEP! "NH HAS NEVER BEEN BETTER" FOLKS!

MAY GOD TRUELY HELP US ALL IN NOVEMBER!!!