Pièces De Résistance, A New Alimony Law in NH
NH is coming upon a new year, but whether the year will actually be new or not, remains to still be seen. But once in a while there can come a tiny glimmer of hope for the entire state of NH.
One of the most sensitive and controversial issues to approach in any Family court when it comes to divorce litigations is alimony. So as of January 1, 2019, whether you love alimony or hate it, things are definitely going to change in NH. NH judges should no longer be capable to deny actual evidence for any family court case anymore. Yes people, we can finally hope and expect all NH judges to actually begin working for a living between 8am to 5pm for like most of society has to.
A new family court alimony law was well past long overdue and pending for quite some time before legislature or any NH Governor would finally approve it. On June 25, 2018, NH governor Sanunu signes a very important law. It appears legislators did put some pain staking time to properly think things through unlike the majority of most NH judges.
So Hear Ye, Hear Ye, to all NH justices throughout the state of NH. Now is the time to actually learn how to stop being lazy, properly use a calculator, and finally get off the pot, to actually take in hand and read ALL actual real evidence offered to the courts by request or not.
To all NH attorneys who come to court with empty briefcases full of hot air, like attorney Richard C. Follender, I suggest you start educating yourselves on how to actually fill them with real conclusive evidence before you come to court. And please leave the hot air in your office. Apparently NH judges already have plenty of their own.
Pièces De Résistance Of The New NH Alimony Formula
"And the formula is … (drum roll if you please):
- 30% of the difference between the gross income of the parties (that is, before taxes).
- For a time period of half the length of the marriage.
If you were married for ten years, you should pay for five. Ouch!"
According to brennan, Lenehan, Iacopino, and Hickey, Attorneys At Law, "This law will apply to all cases filed on or after January 1, 2019. For any cases filed before this date, parties may agree to adopt all or part of the new law. For divorce cases filed on or after June 25, 2018 through December 31, 2018, where parties have not elected to follow the new law, they shall be controlled by the law currently in effect unless the court determines that applying the new law is equitable under the circumstances of the individual case."
However, "the new alimony law does not address a huge change in federal tax law. Currently, alimony can be deducted from income for the person paying it, and must be added to income for the person receiving it. Since the person paying almost always makes more, and therefore pays taxes at a higher rate, this rule has the effect of reducing the total income paid by the two spouses", according to Cohen and Winters, Attorneys At Law.
Winters also said, "Under the new tax law, for alimony orders starting in 2019, the deduction will no longer shift. This could end up being a double whammy for people being order to pay alimony. They will probably have to pay more than before, and it will not be deductible." So if you still choose marriage, be prepared to put the work into or you will end up paying the piper.
BUT, and yes people there is a major BUT. NH judges still will be allowed free rain to decide weather or not the formula set by the legislature, "as expressed in the words of a statute considered as a whole;” is actually feasible in each case. They can decide to lower it or even increase it depending on the facts of the case. BUT since we already know how well that doesn't work, we will just have to wait and see.
"The chief justice of the NH 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 are to be followed in all such courts."
The NH Supreme Court already made it perfectly clear in the case of Blanchflower v Blanchflower that when it comes right down to defining NH laws, the judicial branch of government will, "discern its meaning according to our rules of statutory construction." So basically screw any and all statutory construction produced by legislature that was already voted on and approved by the legislature, the senate, and then even by an actual NH state governor.
Their explanation was, "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.
Well let's just give a couple of clear examples of how well they "ascribe to them their plain and ordinary meaning of the intent of the legislature, as expressed in the words of a statute considered as a whole”, already signed into law by a NH governor.
EXAMPLE:
The Family Court Rule 1.25A drafted and enforced only by the NH Supreme Court itself in 2010:
"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."
However, not only does this sentence defeat the purpose of actually seeing real evidence now to begin with, it most certainly even has broken more than just one NH legislative law, along with even one of the United States Codes the entire country should follow. Proving now just how well "They ascribe to them their plain and ordinary meaning of the intent of the legislature as expressed in the words of a statute considered as a whole.”
"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."
However, not only does this sentence defeat the purpose of actually seeing real evidence now to begin with, it most certainly even has broken more than just one NH legislative law, along with even one of the United States Codes the entire country should follow. Proving now just how well "They ascribe to them their plain and ordinary meaning of the intent of the legislature as expressed in the words of a statute considered as a whole.”
Now, "The (actual) intent of the legislature as expressed in the words of a statute considered as a whole”
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.
NH Title LXII - CRIMINAL CODE
Chapter 638 - FRAUD
ection 638:2 - Fraudulent Handling of Recordable Writings.
Universal Citation: NH Rev Stat § 638:2 (2015)
638:2 Fraudulent Handling of Recordable Writings. – A person is guilty of a class B felony if, with a purpose to deceive or injure anyone, he falsifies, destroys, removes or conceals any will, deed, mortgage, security instrument or other writing for which the law provides public recording.
Source. 1971, 518:1, eff. Nov. 1, 1973.
FACT: 18 U.S.C. § 1505 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 1505. Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress--Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331 ), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE:
"The New Hampshire Supreme Court 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."
Yet again, "the intent of the legislature as expressed in the words of a statute considered as a whole.”
The adultery law that was in effect had vry clearly stated, “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.”
Our forefathers who were clearly knowledgeable and very aware of society's sexual evolution with multiple preferences already happening even over 200 years ago. They purposely used the word "another" because it specifically did not specify with only the apposite gender which became no great surprise. Otherwise they simply would have just said so.
A. The word "Another" is clearly defined in the English dictionary (had the NH Supreme Court bothered to even look when they had a dictionary in hand) as, "someone or something different and in addition to."
B. Therefore, a homosexual affair was simply considered as adultery by law because it was, "someone or something different that is in addition to" sexual intercourse at the time the law was in effect.
C. Homosexual affairs also constituted adultery according to the terms which were clearly "defined within the meaning of the law", plain and simple, again at the time the law was in effect.
D. And finally, even an emotional affair would have still only have fallen under adultery because once again, the statute defined it as being "someone or something different and in addition to" sexual intercourse now according to the law, at the time it was in effect.
If the NH Supreme court and other justices would just for once, make a capable attempt to truly actually listen to themselves, and actually truly, "ascribe to them their plain and ordinary meaning of the intent of the legislature as expressed in the words of a statute considered as a whole”, then just maybe we might finally see an honestly true judicial branch of justice in NH. Instead of a reckless monarchy destroying families five days a week from 8am to 5pm, Monday through Friday, even still today on a regular basis.
NOTE: Not permitting a man or woman to live with the opposite gender for basic economical needs after forced to divorce based on fault grounds, discriminates and lessons their chances of any affordable housing. My ex ran like the chicken he is and filed for divorce just 4 days after being caught by my private investigator. He was financially supporting and lived with his and his coworker's shared prostitute of a mistress for the two years that it took to divorce and marry her.
I was court ordered to neither remarry nor live with the opposite sex for five years just to even receive any alimony that was only already my money rightfully owed back to me in the first place. Under neither law nor constitution does it permit any government to enforce stipulations on any person to already rightfully have returned what is already legally theirs by law.
The ball is definitely now in the NH judicial Branch's court, once again, so let's just wait and see if they are actually going to begin playing like most law abiding boys and girls do, or just continue illegal deadly chaotic bullying and attempted murder throughout the state, like most mobsters do. Time is only going to once again, very quickly tell in NH.
A Single Human Life Unnecessarily Only Taken By Arrogance and Reckless Stupidity By Government, Is Already Just One To Many.
If the NH Supreme court and other justices would just for once, make a capable attempt to truly actually listen to themselves, and actually truly, "ascribe to them their plain and ordinary meaning of the intent of the legislature as expressed in the words of a statute considered as a whole”, then just maybe we might finally see an honestly true judicial branch of justice in NH. Instead of a reckless monarchy destroying families five days a week from 8am to 5pm, Monday through Friday, even still today on a regular basis.
NOTE: Not permitting a man or woman to live with the opposite gender for basic economical needs after forced to divorce based on fault grounds, discriminates and lessons their chances of any affordable housing. My ex ran like the chicken he is and filed for divorce just 4 days after being caught by my private investigator. He was financially supporting and lived with his and his coworker's shared prostitute of a mistress for the two years that it took to divorce and marry her.
I was court ordered to neither remarry nor live with the opposite sex for five years just to even receive any alimony that was only already my money rightfully owed back to me in the first place. Under neither law nor constitution does it permit any government to enforce stipulations on any person to already rightfully have returned what is already legally theirs by law.
The ball is definitely now in the NH judicial Branch's court, once again, so let's just wait and see if they are actually going to begin playing like most law abiding boys and girls do, or just continue illegal deadly chaotic bullying and attempted murder throughout the state, like most mobsters do. Time is only going to once again, very quickly tell in NH.
A Single Human Life Unnecessarily Only Taken By Arrogance and Reckless Stupidity By Government, Is Already Just One To Many.
