For the past two centuries now, a larger growing number of Graite Staters are beginning to question whether they should be given the choice to vote WHO their NH judges will be and Who gets to sit on the State Supreme Court, since they pay all judges salaries.  A NH judge may very well one day personally be making the very decision that could and would affect the rest of you and/or your children's lives one day, sooner than you may think.

The same freedom of democracy is not given to voters for NH judicial choices the same as for State Representatives, Senators, and a state Governor, or even the president of the United States.  Immediate change is seriously needed in a forever growing, very poor track record, state of New Hampshire judicial branches selection of judges. So far they have only been continually proving one fact, that it is definitely time for change.

States have debated for centuries how to create a fair and impartial judicial branch but NH has clearly never establish one as of yet.  Selecting an optimal literate in law judicial selection method has apparently proven to be a highly unique challenging experience for NH. Simply for one main reason, the judicial branch is expected to impartially apply laws without regard for politics or other considerations.

By giving independence with immunity to all laws, is not a way to instill responsibility for the quality of their decision-making, therefore never would hold them accountable as the NH Judicial Conduct (-less) Committee has very clearly proven.

However, the NH judicial branch of government's history with the state's own records that have proven alone, very clearly through case file after case file, that this system is not working even without any help from a lacking NH JCC, never mind an entire dishonest NH government itself. This is a serious abuse of power.

A conduct-less government is the main cause for the state continually renegging on everything at one point or another. The states governor clearly confessed that either previous administrations in the past or possibly just his own, - it wasn't made very clear - was taking taxpayer's money and government grants, that were meant to go towards a specific need, but instead was being used to play "tricks" with; that even required taking from NH's "unpredictable surplus revenues"for the state's already continuous "unpredictable previous budgets." Now, continually making any attempts to balance an already continuous "unsustainable government spending;" year after year.

You can also look at it as a premeditated crime that is, performed methodically with precautions that conceal the criminal conversion of the property or funds, which only occurs without the knowledge or the consent of the affected person or persons, That also is clearly defined as a well know crime called embezzlement. You can take your pick because neither one is good.

This is what is still causing "long-term operational obligations to become untenable" in NH, still even today. So if "The state's preliminary surplus statement is (really?) a testament to the strong management by our (His) team" as claimed by Gov. Sanunu, then how is it continually reported now in 2019, that NH only has anywhere between a negative -5.7 percent to a negative -6.8 percent budget, incapable to maintain the state's financial demands, if and/or when a moderate recession were to even occur in the economy now.

NH's economy might be improving but it is anywhere far from "Booming", let alone close to even becoming "nourishing again." Some analysts have even predicted that the U.S. could be in a recession by the middle of next year. Sorry governor, nice sell but still no cigar. So if "The state's preliminary surplus statement is (truly) a testament to the (so-called) strong management by our (His) team", as the present Governor recently reported, then NH is in serious trouble.

Proof: report by the Concord Monitor in 2018,

"One way that the state has sought to ease its conscience is the Alcohol Fund, which was established in 2000 to redirect a small percentage of alcohol profits to education, treatment and recovery programs.

The fund was originally supposed to receive 5 percent of the profits, but it has been funded only once at that level. Last year just 1.7 percent, about $3.3 million, went into the fund. That’s $6.6 million for the biennium when it should have been close to $20 million."

Also according to the Concord Monitor."

"We are not teetotalers, and we don’t believe the state should shutter all of its liquor and wine outlets. But we do believe that when New Hampshire can’t bring itself to give up even 5 percent of its record profits each year to address the negative impacts of the product it sponsors, it reveals shortsightedness that approaches malevolence."

Other reports in 2018:

FACT: Elyssa Margolin of Housing Action NH, clearly clarified 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. New Hampshire cames in with the chamber of commerce and asked for $25 million, but were only fortunate enough to now embezzle a whopping $2.5 million" from the budget.

This is simply reckless and very dangerous stupidity to use knowledgeable illegal "irresponsible practices", while knowing the outcome could only be poorer conditions and more suffering throughout the state now continually even today. Whoever said NH state isn't a gambling state was clearly lying, proven only once again, by NH's own government track record itself.

NH government has inflicted this one tiny New England State, that only has a land mass less than just 10,000 square miles to begin with, to still struggle now from nearly $900 million in budget cuts, that the state has yet to be capable to recover from.   Recorded history is supporting everything but a growing healthy "booming" economy that the state's government and the governor himself is still attempting to sell you today.

FACT: Because this "State sas always never fully funded its promises, by 1989, actually caused for Claremont's high school and Stevens High School to even lose its accreditation because the district could not keep up with needed repairs. The then chairman of the Claremont school board, Tom Connair, had the parties reinstigate their lawsuit again, and three lawyers were then hired, Arpiar Saunders, John Garvey and Andru Volinsky."

FACT: To give you another idea of how long NH government has been playing these "Tricks" with the state's budget now, it wasn't just one or two, or even just the past 3 NH state governors, but it was "the past four NH governors and their legislatures WHO refused to comply with multiple Court orders," that lead to even the Supreme Court to once again find the NH school funding system completely unconstitutional therefore illegal.

In September, 2006, Gov. lynch did try unsuccessfully though, to amend the state's illegal constitution. In 2018, Gov. Sanunu now claims this will finally come to an end, though NH has still yet to see any evidence of that.

Many states use partisan elections at some level of their judiciary selection.

Supreme courts and intermediate appellate courts

Eight states elect their supreme court justices in partisan elections. Altogether, 67 state high court justices (18 in Texas alone) are elected using this method.

Alabama (Initial/subsequent terms)
Illinois (Initial terms)
Louisiana (Initial/subsequent terms)
New Mexico (Subsequent terms)
North Carolina (Initial/subsequent terms)
Pennsylvania (Initial terms)
Texas (Initial/subsequent terms)
North Carolina (Initial/subsequent terms)

Two additional states have an electoral process that includes partisan and nonpartisan elements:

Michigan: Candidates for the supreme court are nominated at party conventions, but no partisan affiliation is listed by their name as it appears on the ballot. However, judges of the court of appeals and circuit courts are selected in nonpartisan elections.
Ohio: Candidates for the supreme court and courts of appeal are chosen in partisan primaries, but no party affiliation is listed by candidates' names on the general election ballot.

Trial courts

By state, more trial court judges participate in partisan elections than do appellate court judges. While only nine states hold partisan elections for appellate judges, 20 states use partisan elections to select their trial court judges. It is time for change in New Hampshire's way of selecting all of NH judicial candidates.

States with partisan elections for all trial courts

Of those 20 states, seven states select judges through partisan elections at all trial court levels:

Note: All judges in Ohio participate in partisan primaries and a nonpartisan general election.

States with partisan probate court elections

In these five states, the only judges who run for election are probate court judges:

States with varied methods of selection for trial court judges

The seven states below have varied methods of judicial selection but incorporate partisan elections at some level:

Arizona: In Arizona, only Justice Court judges are selected in partisan elections. Most other state judges are chosen through the assisted appointment method.
Indiana: In Indiana, all trial court judges are selected through partisan elections except for tax court judges, some circuit court judges and some superior court judges. For more information on Indiana, see Judicial selection in Indiana.
Kansas: Kansas has only one level of trial court, the district court. The method of selection is decided by voters of the judicial district; some judges are selected using the assisted appointment method, while others are chosen in partisan elections. For more on Kansas, see Judicial selection in Kansas.
Maryland: Judges of the orphans' court participate in partisan elections and circuit judges participate in partisan primaries, while most other judges are selected by assisted appointment.
Missouri: All judges of the circuit courts compete in partisan elections except those located in Clay, Greene, Jackson, Platte, and St. Louis counties and the city of St. Louis, who are chosen by assisted appointment.
New York: All trial court judges participate in partisan elections except those serving on the family courts.
Ohio: Judges participate in partisan primaries with nonpartisan general elections.

Today, a Washington Post article reported that Judge William McLeod in Texas thought he’d had a pretty good first two months on the bench at Harris County Civil Court, he figured, he was now ready to take a run at the Texas Supreme Court.

"But instead of preparing a bid for another, higher office, McLeod is now scrambling to hang onto the one he already has — his judgeship threatened by a clause in the state constitution. McLeod had accidentally resigned.

Shortly after he declared, in early March, roughly 60 days after taking office, a friend and fellow judge warned him that he may have inadvertently invoked Article 16, Section 65 of the constitution, which considers any declaration of candidacy for another office an automatic abdication of that official’s current position.

The Washington Post also said, "McLeod, realizing his error, removed from his website the references to his Supreme Court run and retracted his announcement, saying he’d rather finish his four-year term as county judge.

But the Harris County Attorney’s Office informed McLeod that there was no going back.
“It’s our opinion that the facts as we understand them constitute an announcement of candidacy for another office,” Robert Soard, the first assistant county attorney, told The Post. “And that triggers the constitutional provision,”

The law is supposed to discourage officeholders from using their current positions as platforms to run for other offices, furthering their careers on the taxpayers’ dime, Soard said. He couldn’t remember another case of an official accidentally running afoul the provision.

Some said cutting his tenure short would be like usurping the will of the people who elected him.
“I can think of 647,502 reasons why Judge Bill McLeod needs to stay in that seat,” wrote Monica Roberts, author of the blog TransGriot, on Facebook. “That was the number of Harris County voters (including me) who wanted him on that bench for his full term of office.”

However, some commenters were less willing to give McLeod a second chance. Responding to Roberts’ post, one said, “The good judge should know that ignorance of the law is never a defense especially one written into the state constitution.” Another asked, “Why is he above the law?”
McLeod says he understands that argument — he’s a law man himself — but he said he’s making a legal case that he should be allowed to stay.

“I’m not asking for anything special, I’m just asking for the whole law to be considered,” he said, referring to the holdover provision."

I'm 2018, NH Circuit Court Judge Paul Moore apparently also thought he had a good thing going when he tampered with his job reviews to attempt a seat on the State's Supreme Court.

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.

He now has joined a growing list of multiple judges proving only to be just one more ignorant in law NH judge, with an unstable mentality that was previously proven to already only be ignorant in both country and state constitutions, never mind all laws. The number of incapable NH judges being chosen today is now surpassing what simple statistics could ever imagine, let alone even conclude.

Hasn't it surpassed the time for a change in New Hampshire's way of selecting all justices who are still making up their own laws and illegal rules in the NH judicial branch of government? Starting with the lazy NH Supreme Court, who repeatedly can't stop braking laws to actually participate in a 21st century democracy. That apparently only the majority of the rest of the country is now only living in.

To think it all began as far back as the 1800's with Judge John Pickering who served as chief justice of the New Hampshire Superior Court of Judicature. As a judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire. However, he only made history throughout the country by becoming the first federal officer to ever be impeached in the United States of America.

On February 10, 1795, President George Washington nominated Pickering to preside on the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. He was confirmed by the U.S. Senate and assumed the office two months later. After five years on the bench, Pickering began to show signs of cognitive decline. In 1801, Judge Jeremiah Smith was asked to fulfill Pickering’s duties.

Pickering in the early 1800's had developed a reputation for “ravings, cursings, and crazed incoherences” the same as many NH justices are still doing today. As part of his effort to remove Federalist judges from office, President Thomas Jefferson suggested that Pickering’s embarrassing conduct and alleged unlawful rulings amounted to an impeachable offense. Because Pickering refused to resign, Jefferson argued that impeachment was the only way to remove him from the bench.

Pickering was charged with mental instability and intoxication on the bench and impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on March 2, 1803. NH judge John Pickering was then convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office on March 12, 1804. The articles of impeachment stated, in part:

That whereas for the due, faithful, and impartial administration of justice, temperance and sobriety are essential qualities in the character of a judge, yet the said John Pickering, being a man of loose morals and intemperate habits, on the 11th and 12th days of November, in the year 1802, being then judge of the district court in and for the district of New Hampshire, did appear on the bench of the said court for the administration of justice in a state of total intoxication, produced by the free and intemperate use of intoxicating liquors…

If Jefferson could only see the NH Judicial branch of government today, what would he have to say? The NH government today, continues to still to this day, keep only intemperate NH judges.

Since NH has become well known for some time now, for simply being nothing more than a drug infested den that now has even reached the NH state house itself, along with the fact that the state's alcohol consumption outdrinks an entire country, without a single secured medical facility within the entire state, other than a jail cell in the men's state penitentiary for 23 hours a day, with no proper medical treatment to be found - Maybe it's well overdue time to have all NH government employees regularly tested for drugs and alcohol along with a psych evaluations multiple times throughout the year. And the state should start with the judicial branch of government first.

THE NEW HAMPSHIRE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT TODAY STILL RULES BY "LOOSE MORALES AND INTEMPERATE HABITS"

Since the NH Supreme Court required so much assistance from a Webster Meriam Dictionary just to define "sexual intercourse", here is another word they might want to learn.

in·tem·per·ate

/inˈtemp(ə)rət/

adjective: intemperate

- showing a lack of self-control;

"intemperate outbursts concerning global conspiracies"

synonyms:

Immoderate, excessive, undue, inordinate, unreasonable, unjustified, unwarranted, uncalled for;

THE NH INTEMPERATE JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

A fundamental right to transparency by the NH Judicial Conduct Committee was suddenly stopped in 2009 without any reason as to why. Granite State Taxpayers are furious to have the only activist fraudulent court in the country, who continually throws away our rights, the state's and country's constitutions, along with all laws, since the founding of NH in 1776.

NH DISTRICT COURT INTEMPERATE JUDGE MICHEAL JONES

FACT: Jones was a part-time Special Justice investigated by the Judiciary Conduct Committee when police Chief Paul Donovan filed a grievance asking the committee to review 8 cases.

After hearing a direct examination of the defendant's spouse and victim in a domestic assault giving testimony, Jones said that he, "was more like a marriage counselor than a judge." Then after Jones had listened to the defendants testimony, who was a Caribbean man charged with marijuana possession, and worked on a catamaran sailboat, Jones' only response was, "The state doesn't get this, but this is all part of your culture, this stuff." the committee said that furthermore, Jones proceeded to then begin to tell a story of another case he presided over where the suspect is from Jamaica who was also charged with marijuana possession."

Jones' conduct was also called into question when he accused prosecutor Grosky of undermining his authority when Grosky only simply asked to move forward with the trial. Jones suddenly told Grosky to "Be quiet, be quiet, ok? Hey, when you sit up here you can decide. All right?" Jones furthermore accused Grosky of even "stepping over the line" and threatened "One more time and I'm going to have these folks take you out of here."

According to documents with the JCC, Jones also allowed a reputed member of the Hells Angels to be given a concealed handgun permit over chief Donovan's objections. He overruled the chief's authority and within months later that member threatened a Londonderry couple driving along interstate 93 by pointing a handgun at them. That member was then arrested and found guilty of reckless conduct and threatening behavior and served roughly 2 years in the state prison.

NH CIRCUIT COURT INTEMPERATE JUDGE WILLIAM LYONS

FACT: Lyons was suspended for 60 days without pay after an angry outburst towards a Deputy Sheriff. The JCC found that Lyons lost his temper when the deputy refused to remove restraints from a suicidal 48 year old woman who became the focus of the emergency room Involuntary Commitment petition.

Lyons suddenly just dismissed the case without it ever being heard, possibly causing potential harm to the woman who was already in danger of hurting herself. Dismissing the petition was enormous, according to the JCC Referee, Paul Fauver, and according to a petition from a mental health worker handling the woman's case. The commitment hearing was held May 31, 2013.

When Deputy Sheriff Matthew Poulicakos refused to remove the woman's wrist and leg restraints, he cited security reasons and department policy. The JCC Referee Fauver determined that Lyons "continued his impatient, discourteous, demeaning behavior" towards Deputy Sheriff Poulicakos in the courtroom and also in his orders written days later.

Lyons argued that the woman and her lawyer had no right to be heard, "because the hearing could not be conducted in a lawful manner given the refusal of the deputy to remove the restraints."

The Supreme Court orders affirmed what the committee had found. That Lyons violated the code of judicial conduct by not controlling his temper.

NH CIRCUIT COURT INTEMPERATE JUDGE SHARON DEVRIES

FACT: DeVries was reprimanded by the JCC based on the complaints made by the state police pertaining to her manner for which she presides over a series of criminal cases. The case was initiated and brought to the committee by Kevin O'Brien, former Assistant Commissioner of the NH Dept. of Safety. Complaints and Resolution were outlined in a 15 page decision, with a 25 page addendum attached by the JCC.

12 cases were brought to the committee by the Dept. of Safety and were dismissed. DeVries refused to accept plea deals negotiated by a state police prosecutor, describing them as a "Global Resolution" on Drugs. The JCC found DeVries failed to make reasonable efforts to allow the prosecutor to be "fairly heard."

In one case the JCC found DeVries made an "offense charging decision", for which "should be left to the prosecutor."

"Once the prosecutor objected to the reduction of the offense from a misdemeanor to a violation, the case should have been allowed to proceed to trial." According to the JCC

In another case, she reported giving a defendant the benefit of the doubt because she knew a court clerk was under investigation for taking court fines that had later found to be totaling around $147,000 for personal use.

In another case, she refused to order a defendant to obtain an interlock for driving while intoxicated conviction because it was not mandated. The state police argued that the DWI was reduced from an aggravated DWI for which the device is mandatory for.

Another case involved DeVries dismissing a domestic violence charge because the plea was made by state police prosecutor who sent a trooper to see it through. In this case the JCC found that it was common practice to have police surrogates appear when cases are previously negotiated, and the victim was deprived of now 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 Intemperate Judge William Groff
FACT: Judge Groff, is only another one of many NH judges like the entire NH Supreme Court, who only proves to be incapable of their duty pertaining to actually being knowledgeable in state legislative law.

FACT:"French kissing doesn't amount to sexual contact under New Hampshire law, according to Hillsborough County Superior Criminal Court Judge William Groff. Judge Groff dismissed a felony sexual assault charge against a city teen-ager, finding that sexual assault laws don't cover kissing with the tongue. The young man faced a charge of felonious sexual assault, involving a 6-year-old girl.

State law defines sexual contact as intentional touching of sexual or intimate parts. The tongue, Judge Groff ruled, is neither sexual nor intimate. He reasoned that the tongue is neither sexual nor intimate and wrote, "A tongue is not related to sexual relations, nor is it private. A tongue is displayed daily by the average person in speech and other conduct."

"To accept the state's definition of tongue as an 'intimate part," Groff wrote, "would result in a person potentially committing a felonious sexual assault by touching a person's tongue with a finger."

The judge further reasoned that French kissing (a 6 year old girl mind you!) can't be considered sexual contact under state law "even if done without consent and even if done for the purpose of sexual gratification."

FACT: "In 1989, Groff also overturned a convictions of a Lowell, Mass., man, who was found guilty of sexually assaulting a young boy in Nashua because the boy used the word “bum” rather than “anus” in his testimony. Because of the potential ambiguity of the word “bum,” Groff found that the boy’s testimony wasn’t enough to prove sexual penetration. Months later, that same man plead guilty to sexual assault charges involving theat same boy, but only now it was in Massachusetts."

FACT: In 1991, even the NH Supreme Court actually still upheld Judge Groff's decision to overturn this same conviction of this Lowell, Mass man, who was already now found guilty of sexually assaulting a young boy in Nashua and again now in Massachusetts. All because the boy used the word "bum" rather than "anus" in his testimony. Groff found that the boy's testimony wasn't enough to prove sexual penetration and so did the NH Supreme Court, even after he was charged with the same crime once again with the same victim in massachusetts.

Massachusetts isn't the only state having to protect and save NH residents while cleaning up after NH's so called form of justice served. There have been other states getting involved too. And they are not too happy about spending their time and resources to clean up all the crime coming out of NH.

FACT: "In fact, in 2012, it was a top GOP lawmaker who called for a special House committee to investigate potential wrongdoing within the NH Liquor Commission, including how it handles large cash purchases.

"That committee's final report included two anecdotes of out-of-state residents arrested in Massachusetts with large hauls of New Hampshire-purchased booze. One of those arrests included 1,676 bottles of Hennessy, bought at multiple locations. The driver was charged with possessing untaxed liquor and unlawfully transporting liquor.

Liquor enforcement officials in Vermont have made two arrests, one involving an estimated $40,000 worth of New Hampshire-purchased liquor in the back of an SUV, the other with an estimated $28,000 worth. Both suspects were charged with crossing state lines in possession of more than 9 liters of alcohol, Vermont's current legal limit."

"The product that was the most prominent in both of these cases was Hennessy cognac," says Patrick Delaney, Vermont's commissioner of liquor control, who backs increasing the financial penalties for those caught illegally importing large quantities of liquor. He adds that "by using cash, there is obviously no paper trail, if an authority were to investigate it, The activity itself is basically tax evasion."

“From our perspective, this is organized criminal activity,” says Gary Kessler, deputy commissioner at the Vermont Department of Liquor Control."

"Along with New York, court records show Kessler’s agency has also sent investigators to stake out New Hampshire liquor store parking lots in recent months, including in Peterborough and Keene. When the customers crossed back into Vermont with trucks full of booze, they were arrested for violating that state’s liquor laws.

“Clearly, these guys aren’t just randomly deciding that they are going to come up and buy some cases of alcohol,” Kessler says. “They are coming up here with shopping lists, these guys had a notebook, they have the money and the gift cards.”

"These operations by other states are happening without the assistance or knowledge of New Hampshire officials. The New Hampshire Liquor Commission, which oversees 79 retail stores statewide, says it wasn't notified. Neither was the attorney general’s office or New Hampshire State Police." The NH Attorney General's office finally got around to warranting an investigation 6 years later in 2018.

NH CIRCUIT (Circus) COURT INTEMPERATE
JUDGE PAMELA ALBEE

The Only Zillow Ruling Judge In The Country!

WE PRAY!!!!!!

Only With A Spank On The Hand, Was She Placed Right Back Behind A NH Courtroom Bench To Only Continue The Insanity.

So Where Exactly Is The Justice In That?

FACT: Albee was investigated by the JCC only after the State Supreme Court issued their opinion finding "Irreversable Error" in the September 11, 2015 case involving Tammy Rokowski and Shane Rokowski. Albee entered and agreement to avoid facing formal disapline by the State Supreme Court.

The agreement said she had multiple cases on the overdue orders list in 2013 and 2014. The list is kept by administrators in order to make sure circuit court orders are completed within 30 days. According to records Albee had anywhere between 7 - 21 delinquent cases every 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 then 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 back 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."

First, 7 - 21 overdue cases per month is not considered as being rarely on the list and is considered a far cry from ably services in Carroll County. Someone should know his employees better.

THE INFAMOUS EX - NH CIRCUIT COURT INTEMPERATE JUDGE PAUL MOORE
FACT: In October 2017, Moore was suddenly quietly place on paid leave of absence. Then in March 2018, the Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Conduct, finally 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." Seriously NOW only "PROBABLE EXISTS?"

Only after authorities became suspicious of Moore's perfect scores on his job evaluations, that are submitted supposedly by only the public and lawyers, Moore suddenly resigned. His scores were way above all other judges.

In January 2018, Moore applied for disability benefits and claimed his health had been deteriorating for the past 15 months. Yet nine months earlier he submitted his application to be considered for a supreme court appointment with no mention of poor health.

(NOW THIS TRULY EXPLAINS AND EXPLAINS EXACTLY WHAT THE NH SUPREME COURT IS TRULY MADE UP OFF.)

Moore was charged with 1 count of fraud "For making false statement'(s) in an attempt to defraud the NH Judicial Retirement Plan," and plead guilty to attempt to secure a disability pension. He will not face any criminal charges as a result of fraudulent evaluations that were submitted. He also was only sentence to a suspended 12 month prison term. He now walks free as a known felon!

If Moore had succeeded he would of stolen over a million dollars in his lifetime from NH taxpayers hard earned paid tax dollars.

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

FACT: While in a meeting with the county attorney's office and the public defenders office, Lewis made sexist remarks saying people are loosing respect for the legal profession because so many women are becoming lawyers. It's hurting the teaching profession. Another alleged comment made by Lewis was mentioned. He allegedly said there is more respect in the business world because it is dominated by men.

He was place on a paid administrative leave, then suddenly submitted his retirement letter within the following 2 weeks. He was also accused of not being sympathetic enough to crime victims and allegedly had said that the aggressive product of child sexual assault may do more harm than good to the families and communities.

The Judiciary Conduct Committee said that Lewis at least gave the appearance of being bias against women therefore he violated the code of conduct. Again, seriously? Only "GAVE THE APPEARANCE", are you kidding?

NH COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE EDWARD FITZGERALD INVESTIGATED
FACT: In 2007, Merrimack County Superior Court Judge Edward Fitzgerald had presided over a murder case. He had been dating a courtroom employee named Corcoran, then they had stopped. Corcoran then began dating the defendant's Attorney Ted Barnes. The defendant was George Knickerbocker, a former NH man that was accused of killing a baby years ago who was now going to trial for a murder. according to the JCC, there was no evidence proving this was the reason Knickerbocker received a lesser charge of manslaughter, and there was no reason this case nor any other case was affected by Judge Fitzgerald's conduct.

The Entire NH Intemperate Supreme Court

Who Should Be Investigated

FACT: In 2010, NH State Supreme Court had written a much needed well overdue mandatory family court rule. It demands that all debts, property deeds, bank statements, retirement plan statements, investment statements, all life insurance statements and medical coverage policies, for 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 which is not being done.

FACT: This very same rule also very clearly but suddenly states. in case the court actually gets around to doing it's job and request any evidence that, "2. The parties may redact all but the last four (4) digits of any account numbers and social security numbers that appear on any statements or documents." Not only does this sentence defeat the purpose of the entire rule to begin with, but it most certainly breaks even more than just one NH state law, along with the United States Codes for the entire country. Gee, how long did it actually take them to come up with this BS. So clearly even the NH Supreme Court can't be bothered to actually review un-redacted evidence to follow the law, let alone be capable to enforce it.

FACT: Title LXII - CRIMINAL CODE
Chapter 641 - FALSIFICATION IN OFFICIAL MATTERS
Section 641:7 - Tampering With Public Records or Information.

Universal Citation: NH Rev Stat § 641:7 (2015)

    641:7 Tampering With Public Records or Information. – A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if he:
    I. Knowingly makes a false entry in or false alteration of any thing belonging to, received, or kept by the government for information or record, or required by law to be kept for information of the government; or
    II. Presents or uses any thing knowing it to be false, and with a purpose that it be taken as a genuine part of information or records referred to in paragraph I; or
    III. Purposely and unlawfully destroys, conceals, removes or otherwise impairs the verity or availability of any such thing.
Source. 1971, 518:1, eff. Nov. 1, 1973.

FACT 48: Title LXII - CRIMINAL CODE
Chapter 638 - FRAUD
Section 638:2 - Fraudulent Handling of Recordable Writings.

Universal Citation: NH Rev Stat § 638:2 (2015)

638:2 Fraudulent Handling of Recordable Writings. – A person is guilty of a class B felony if, with a purpose to deceive or injure anyone, he falsifies, destroys, removes or conceals any will, deed, mortgage, security instrument or other writing for which the law provides public recording.
Source. 1971, 518:1, eff. Nov. 1, 1973.

FACT: 18 U.S.C. § 1505 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 1505. Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress--Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331 ), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

Blanchflower v Blanchflower

FACT: In 2003 The well famously known NH adultery case of Blanchflower v Blanchflower went before the NH State Supreme Court.

This was their Final Ruling:

"The record supports the following facts. The petitioner filed for divorce from the respondent on grounds of irreconcilable differences. He subsequently moved to amend the petition to assert the fault ground of adultery under RSA 458:7, II. Specifically, the petitioner alleged that the respondent has been involved in a “continuing adulterous affair” with the co-respondent, a woman, resulting in the irremediable breakdown of the parties' marriage. The co-respondent sought to dismiss the amended petition, contending that a homosexual relationship between two people, one of whom is married, does not constitute adultery under RSA 458:7, II. The trial court disagreed, and the co-respondent brought this appeal.

Before addressing the merits, we note this appeal is not about the status of homosexual relationships in our society or the formal recognition of homosexual unions. The narrow question before us is whether a homosexual sexual relationship between a married person and another constitutes adultery within the meaning of RSA 458:7, II.

RSA 458:7 provides, in part: “A divorce from the bonds of matrimony shall be decreed in favor of the innocent party for any of the following causes: ․ II. Adultery of either party.” The statute does not define adultery. Id. Accordingly, we must discern its meaning according to our rules of statutory construction.

(So basically screw any law by legislative construction!)

“In matters of statutory interpretation, this court is the final arbiter of the intent of the legislature as expressed in the words of a statute considered as a whole.” Wegner v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 148 N.H. 107, 108, 803 A.2d 598 (2002) (quotation omitted). We first look to the language of the statute itself and, where terms are not defined therein, “we ascribe to them their plain and ordinary meanings.” Id.

The plain and ordinary meaning of adultery is “voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband.” Webster's Third New International Dictionary 30 (unabridged ed.1961). Although the definition does not specifically state that the “someone” with whom one commits adultery must be of the opposite gender, it does require sexual intercourse.

The plain and ordinary meaning of sexual intercourse is “sexual connection esp. between humans: COITUS, COPULATION.” Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2082. Coitus is defined to require “insertion of the penis in the vagina[ ],” Webster's Third New International Dictionary 441, which clearly can only take place between persons of the opposite gender.

We also note that “[a] law means what it meant to its framers and its mere repassage does not alter that meaning.” Appeal of Naswa Motor Inn, 144 N.H. 89, 91, 738 A.2d 349 (1999) (quotation omitted). The statutory compilation in which the provision now codified as RSA 458:7 first appeared is the Revised Statutes of 1842. See RS 148:3 (1842). No definition of adultery was contained in that statute. See id. Our cases from that approximate time period, however, support the inference that adultery meant intercourse. See Adams v. Adams, 20 N.H. 299, 301 (1850); Burns v. Burns, 68 N.H. 33, 34, 44 A. 76 (1894).

Cases from this period also indicate that adultery as a ground for divorce was equated with the crime of adultery and was alleged as such in libels for divorce. See, e.g., Sheafe v. Sheafe, 24 N.H. 564, 564 (1852); White v. White, 45 N.H. 121, 121 (1863). Although the criminal adultery statute in the 1842 compilation also did not define adultery, see RS 219:1 (1842), roughly contemporaneous case law is instructive: “Adultery is committed whenever there is an intercourse from which spurious issue may arise․” State v. Wallace, 9 N.H. 515, 517 (1838); see also State v. Taylor, 58 N.H. 331, 331 (1878) (same). As “spurious issue” can only arise from intercourse between a man and a woman, criminal adultery could only be committed with a person of the opposite gender.

We note that the current criminal adultery statute still requires sexual intercourse: “A person is guilty of a class B misdemeanor if, being a married person, he engages in sexual intercourse with another not his spouse or, being unmarried, engages in sexual intercourse with another known by him to be married.” RSA 645:3 (1996). Based upon the foregoing, we conclude that adultery under RSA 458:7, II does not include homosexual relationships." (This is false)

Instead of being so fixated on looking up definitions for "sexual intercourse, coitus, copulation" which actually had nothing to do with this case in the first place, the courts once again, chose to completely ignore the specifics of "the words of a statute (itself) considered as a whole.”

A.Therefore, because the "definition of adultery was contained in that statute", by one very clear important WORD simply used within the statute itself. That was clearly in plain english. "Engages in sexual intercourse with another." The word "Another" is clearly defined in the English dictionary (had they even bothered to look that word up too) as, "someone or something different and in addition to."

B. Therefore, a homosexual affair is simply something different that is in addition to sexual intercourse at the time the law was in effect.

C. Therefore it did constitute adultery because the terms were clearly "defined within the meaning of the law", plain and simple.

D. So therefore and finally, "the definition does not (actually) specifically state that the “someone” with whom one commits adultery must be of the opposite gender, it does (DID NOT) require sexual intercourse."

E.The NH Supreme Court and the entire judicial branch of government did not even do what their even actually stating they did, which was, "this court is the final arbiter of the intent of the legislature as expressed in the words of a statute considered as a whole.”

But they will "discern its meaning according to only their rules of alien statutory construction."

(So basically screw any and every law actually ever produced by NH legislative statutory construction that is now actually signed into law by the state's governor.)

Ross v Ross

FACT: Another case to be a famously known adultery case now in NH is Ross v Ross. That went before the NH State Supreme Court in 2016. Kysa Crusco, a NH Family Law Attorney and Guardian Ad Litem out of Bedford NH, clearly summarized this case in a nutshell through a blog.

"By Kysa Crusco - On August 23, 2016, the New Hampshire Supreme Court issued an opinion in Ross and Ross. It is a fascinating case about adultery and new relationships during a divorce. The outcome is a cautionary tale for persons seeking fault grounds for divorce.

The Facts
Husband and wife met in dental school and later married. Husband, who had his own endodontist practice, helped his wife open and build her orthodontist practice. Considerable money was put into the venture. The couple separated the day that husband discovered wife was having an affair with another dentist. Wife filed for divorce 5 days after the parties separated alleging both fault and irreconcilable differences as grounds. Husband cross-petitioned for divorce on fault-based grounds, due to the wife’s alleged adultery and irreconcilable differences. The parties had been married for 9 years at the time they filed for divorce.

Approximately 11 months after the divorce was file, husband began a sexual relationship with the ex-wife of the dentist that the wife was dating. Wife filed a motion to dismiss the adultery grounds pled against her. She argued the defense of recrimination, or in other words that the husband was no longer an “innocent spouse” because of his own adultery. The trial court agreed with wife and dismissed the husband’s fault grounds. The trial court issued a decree of divorce based on irreconcilable differences that divided the property with an intent to split it equally.

The Appeal
Husband appealed the dismissal of the fault-based ground in his cross-petition for divorce, arguing that his sexual relationship, which occurred eleven months after the parties’ separation, could not be used as a basis for the defense of recrimination. Husband asserted that such a holding would require parties to remain celibate during years of litigation in a contentious divorce. Wife argued the trial court did not err in granting the motion to dismiss because the respondent was not an “innocent party” within the meaning of the statute. RSA 458:7 (2004).

The Court examined RSA 458:7, which states that a divorce “shall be decreed in favor of the innocent party.” The statute requires that one be an “innocent party” at the time of the decree. The statute makes no exception for fault based grounds that arise prior to the final decree, regardless of whether they arise before or after the filing of the divorce petition. Therefore, the trial court correctly considered Husband’s post-petition conduct when deciding the motion to dismiss.

The Court further stated the fact that Husband’s adultery did not lead to the breakdown of the marriage does not bar recrimination as a defense, stating “Causation is not an element of the defense of recrimination.” The Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to dismiss the fault grounds and grant a divorce on irreconcilable differences.

The Takeaway
The conclusion of husband’s brief, artfully written by Attorney Joshua Gordon, argues: “It is not reasonable to suggest, in these times of protracted discovery and litigation, that a party to a divorce must remain celibate for the duration of the proceedings – here already longer than four years.” I happen to agree with him. Litigation can be a long and arduous process. While most divorces will settle within 6 months to 1 year, a small percentage can drag on. The longest divorce I have seen from start to finish has been 5 years. That is a long time to wait to date.

Why pursue the adultery grounds in the first place? It appears in this case that there was some significant bad blood between the parties. Husband had helped wife open her orthodontic practice and contributed financially and emotionally to that endeavor. In return, wife carried on an affair with a colleague for approximately five years. Wife changed the locks to the house two days after husband left. Husband may have been pursuing the emotional victory of a fault based divorce for wife’s cheating.

Husband may also have been pursuing the adultery grounds for the financial benefit. RSA 458:16-a, II provides that a court may divide property unequally when it would be appropriate and equitable to do so after considering one more of the statutory factors. One of the factors reads: “The fault of either party as specified in RSA 458:7 if said fault caused the breakdown of the marriage and: (1) Caused substantial physical or mental pain and suffering; or (2) Resulted in substantial economic loss to the marital estate or the injured party.” With the dental practices, marital home and savings and investments on the line, an uneven split make a substantial difference in the outcome."

When there even was a NH adultery law in effect:

FACT: "The New Hampshire Supreme Court still ruled with bias 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 AGAIN) Equally, an emotional affair does not constitute adultery for purposes of obtaining a divorce. (FALSE AGAIN)

However, an emotional affair which causes significant emotional distress to the innocent spouse may result in a separate fault ground known as “conduct to injure health and reason."

FACT: In 1978 The NH Supreme Court wrote Article 73A which was voted in by both NH's politicians and NH voters. This is what was actually written as article 73A on the ballot in 1978.

However, this is what mysteriously appears on the books to this day still in the year of 2018, and is strongly still enforced by all NH justices. As you will see, it suddenly miraculously 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."

The same rules today that have been breaking all laws, such as the new Mandatory Family Division Rule 1.25A.

No NH Supreme Court rule has ever been voted on nor passed by legislators, that "shall have the force and effect of law", let alone actually signed into an actual law by a NH governor. And let's not forget a golden star to only a continuous conduct-less NH Judicial Conduct Committee who just continues to sweep even allot more of this kind og conduct under a rug that still remaining untold today.

After 243 years of NH's currupt illegal Justice system throughout the state, who was one of the original 13 colonies that actually signed the United States Declaration of Independence, and was the ninth state to ratify the United States Constitution, that actually brought that document into effect in June 1788, leaves only one unanswered question. Why the hell isn't NH already a real law abiding state and government by now?

ONLY IN NH FOLKS, ONLY IN NH!

NH DIVORCE LAWS ARE BAD!

NH FAMILY COURT

Apr 4, 2019

NEW HAMPSHIRE IS IN SERIOUS NEED FOR DRASTIC CHANGES IN GOVERNMENT