ANOTHER SEXUAL DESEASE BECOMES AN EPIDEMIC:

BEWARE OF ALL NH ADULTERERS, SEX JUST ISN'T AS SAFE

ANYMORE AS YOU ONCE THOUGHT IT WAS IN 2018

Estimated deaths so far since start of 2014 due to HPV

United States: 0 1 2 3 7 8 1 2 5 6 9 0

Worldwide: 3 4 0 1 6 7 9 0 8 9 5

Genital human papillomavirus (HPV) is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the United States.   An estimated 14 million persons newly infected every year, resulting in approximately $1.7 billion (estimates range from $800 million to $2.9 billion) in direct medical costs. 

79 million Americans, most in their late teens and early 20s, are infected with HPV - Human Papilloma Virus. There are 200 different types of HPV. Some types can cause health problems including genital warts and cancers. But there are vaccines that can stop these health problems from happening.  Annual HPV associated cancer incidence rates range by state from 7.9 per 100,000 to 15.3 per 100,000.  New Hampshire annual rate was at 11.o per 100,000 in 2014.

You can get HPV by having vaginal, anal, or oral sex with someone who has the virus. It is most commonly spread during vaginal or anal sex. HPV can be passed even when an infected person has no signs or symptoms.  It can also be spread through oral sex or other close skin-to-skin touching during sex. HPV can be spread even when an infected person has no visible signs or symptoms.

Anyone who is sexually active can get HPV, even if you have had sex with only one person. You also can develop symptoms years or even decades after you have sex with someone who is infected. This makes it hard to know when you first became infected.

HPV can cause cervical and other cancers including cancer of the vulva, vagina, penis, or anus. It can also cause cancer in the back of the throat, including the base of the tongue and tonsils (called oropharyngeal cancer

https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/hpv/statistics/headneck.htm)).

Cancer often takes years, even decades, to develop after a person gets HPV. The types of HPV that can cause genital warts are not the same as the types of HPV that can cause cancers. There is no way to know which people who have HPV will develop cancer or other health problems. People with weak immune systems (including those with HIV/AIDS) may be less able to fight off HPV. They may also be more likely to develop health problems from HPV.

Number of HPV-Attributable Cancer Cases per Year

An HPV-attributable cancer is a cancer that is probably caused by HPV. HPV causes nearly all cervical cancers and many cancers of the vagina, vulva, penis, anus, rectum, and oropharynx. A CDC study used population-based data from cancer tissue to estimate the percentage of these cancers that are probably caused by HPV. Since rectal cancer was not included in the CDC genotyping study, the percentage of anal cancer caused by HPV was used because recent studies have shown that the HPV-associated types of anal and rectal squamous cell carcinomas are similar.

To find the number of HPV-attributable cancers, multiply the number of HPV-associated cancers by the percentage of these cancers that are probably caused by HPV. For example, about 5,229 people are diagnosed with anal cancer each year, and about 91% of anal cancers are thought to be caused by HPV.

91% of 5,229 is about 4,800, as shown in the table below.

• About 79% of anal cancers are probably caused by two types of HPV: 16 and 18.
  79% of 5,229 is about 4,200, as shown in the table below.
• About 8% of anal cancers are probably caused by HPV types 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58.
  8% of 5,229 is about 400, as shown in the table below.

Number of HPV-Associated and HPV-Attributable

Cancer Cases per Year

Cancer site	(HPV-associated cancers)	Percentage probably caused by any HPV typea	Number probably caused by any HPV typea	Percentage probably caused by HPV types 16/18b	Number probably caused by HPV types 16/18b	Percentage probably caused by HPV types 31/33/45/52/58c	Number probably caused by HPV types 31/33/45/52/58c
Cervix	11,693	91%	10,600	66%	7,700	15%	1,700
Vagina	819	75%	600	55%	500	18%	100
Vulva	3,671	69%	2,500	49%	1,800	14%	500
Penis	1,181	63%	700	48%	600	9%	100
Anus	5,229	91%	4,800	79%	4,200	8%	400
Female	3,416	93%	3,200	80%	2,700	11%	400
Male	1,813	89%	1,600	79%	1,400	4%	100
Rectum	772	91%	700	79%	600	8%	100
Female	528	93%	500	80%	400	11%	100
Male	244	89%	200	79%	200	4%	<100 font="">
Oropharynx	16,479	70%	11,600	60%	9,900	6%	900
Female	3,203	63%	2,000	51%	1,600	10%	300
Male	13,276	72%	9,600	63%	8,400	4%	600
TOTAL	39,844	79%	31,500	63%	25,300	10%	3,800
Female	23,330	83%	19,400	63%	14,700	13%	3,100
Male	16,514	73%	12,100	64%	10,600	4%	700

^A) HPV types detected in genotyping study; most were high-risk HPV types known to cause cancer(Saraiya M et al. U.S. assessment of HPV types in cancers: implications for current and 9-valent HPV vaccines. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2015;107:djv086).

^B) HPV types 16/18 can be prevented by the bivalent, quadrivalent, and 9-valent HPV vaccines.

^C) HPV types 31/33/45/52/58 can be prevented by the 9-valent HPV vaccine.

There is no test to find out a person’s “HPV status.” Also, there is no approved HPV test to find HPV in the mouth or throat.

HPV-Associated Oropharyngeal Cancer Rates by State

The states below are divided into groups based on the rates at which people were diagnosed with an HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancer.

During 2009–2013, The rates are the average numbers out of 100,000 people who developed cancer each year.

*Note: This study used cancer registry data to estimate the amount of HPV-associated cancer in the United States by examining cancer in parts of the body and cancer cell types that are more likely to be caused by HPV. Cancer registries do not collect data on the presence or absence of HPV in cancer tissue at the time of diagnosis. In general, HPV is thought to be responsible for about 91% of cervical cancers, 75% of vaginal cancers, 69% of vulvar cancers, 63% of penile cancers, 91% of anal cancers, and 70% of oropharyngeal cancers.

              DATA FOR MEN INTERVAL RATES

                    

DATA NOT AVAILABLE                                     ‡

LOW                                                       4.84 to 7.22

MEDIUM                                            7.23 to 8.41

HIGH                                                  8.42 to 10.03

Location	Interval	Rate
Alabama	8.42 to 10.03	8.46
Alaska	4.84 to 7.22	5.99
Arizona	4.84 to 7.22	6.28
Arkansas	8.42 to 10.03	9.20
California	4.84 to 7.22	6.83
Colorado	4.84 to 7.22	6.88
Connecticut	7.23 to 8.41	7.69
Delaware	7.23 to 8.41	8.05
District of Columbia	7.23 to 8.41	7.29
Florida	8.42 to 10.03	9.97
Georgia	8.42 to 10.03	8.58
Hawaii	4.84 to 7.22	6.49
Idaho	7.23 to 8.41	7.73
Illinois	7.23 to 8.41	8.10
Indiana	8.42 to 10.03	8.70
Iowa	7.23 to 8.41	7.58
Kansas	7.23 to 8.41	7.67
Kentucky	8.42 to 10.03	10.03
Louisiana	8.42 to 10.03	8.99
Maine	8.42 to 10.03	8.97
Maryland	7.23 to 8.41	7.51
Massachusetts	8.42 to 10.03	8.42
Michigan	7.23 to 8.41	7.65
Minnesota	4.84 to 7.22	7.03
Mississippi	8.42 to 10.03	9.17
Missouri	8.42 to 10.03	8.50
Montana	7.23 to 8.41	7.28
Nebraska	4.84 to 7.22	6.08
Nevada	Data not available‡	Data not available
New Hampshire	7.23 to 8.41	8.31
New Jersey	4.84 to 7.22	6.86
New Mexico	4.84 to 7.22	5.55
New York	4.84 to 7.22	6.73
North Carolina	8.42 to 10.03	9.35
North Dakota	4.84 to 7.22	6.85
Ohio	7.23 to 8.41	8.01
Oklahoma	7.23 to 8.41	8.35
Oregon	8.42 to 10.03	8.54
Pennsylvania	7.23 to 8.41	7.87
Puerto Rico	4.84 to 7.22	5.92
Rhode Island	7.23 to 8.41	7.40
South Carolina	8.42 to 10.03	9.53
South Dakota	4.84 to 7.22	6.55
Tennessee	8.42 to 10.03	8.74
Texas	4.84 to 7.22	6.92
Utah	4.84 to 7.22	4.84
Vermont	8.42 to 10.03	8.68
Virginia	7.23 to 8.41	7.64
Washington	7.23 to 8.41	7.60
West Virginia	8.42 to 10.03	8.72
Wisconsin	4.84 to 7.22	7.18
Wyoming	4.84 to 7.22	6.15

              DATA FOR WOMEN INTERVAL RATES                 

Interval Data not available                               ‡

LOW                                                      0.82 to 1.56

MEDIUM                                               1.57 to 1.85

HIGH                                                     1.86 to 2.43

Location	Interval	Rate
Alabama	1.86 to 2.43	1.99
Alaska	1.86 to 2.43	1.88
Arizona	0.82 to 1.56	1.32
Arkansas	1.86 to 2.43	1.98
California	0.82 to 1.56	1.33
Colorado	0.82 to 1.56	1.54
Connecticut	1.57 to 1.85	1.61
Delaware	1.86 to 2.43	2.13
District of Columbia	1.86 to 2.43	2.23
Florida	1.86 to 2.43	2.21
Georgia	1.86 to 2.43	1.92
Hawaii	0.82 to 1.56	0.97
Idaho	1.57 to 1.85	1.62
Illinois	1.57 to 1.85	1.82
Indiana	1.57 to 1.85	1.81
Iowa	1.57 to 1.85	1.65
Kansas	0.82 to 1.56	1.54
Kentucky	1.86 to 2.43	2.27
Louisiana	1.86 to 2.43	1.96
Maine	1.86 to 2.43	2.43
Maryland	0.82 to 1.56	1.44
Massachusetts	1.86 to 2.43	2.22
Michigan	1.57 to 1.85	1.78
Minnesota	1.57 to 1.85	1.65
Mississippi	1.86 to 2.43	2.15
Missouri	1.86 to 2.43	1.86
Montana	1.86 to 2.43	1.92
Nebraska	0.82 to 1.56	1.36
Nevada	Data not available‡	Data not available
New Hampshire	1.86 to 2.43	2.14
New Jersey	0.82 to 1.56	1.52
New Mexico	0.82 to 1.56	1.41
New York	0.82 to 1.56	1.55
North Carolina	1.86 to 2.43	2.06
North Dakota	0.82 to 1.56	1.41
Ohio	1.57 to 1.85	1.73
Oklahoma	1.57 to 1.85	1.83
Oregon	1.57 to 1.85	1.78
Pennsylvania	1.57 to 1.85	1.85
Puerto Rico	0.82 to 1.56	0.88
Rhode Island	0.82 to 1.56	1.56
South Carolina	1.86 to 2.43	2.09
South Dakota	1.57 to 1.85	1.65
Tennessee	1.57 to 1.85	1.74
Texas	0.82 to 1.56	1.51
Utah	0.82 to 1.56	0.82
Vermont	0.82 to 1.56	1.43
Virginia	0.82 to 1.56	1.5
Washington	1.57 to 1.85	1.74
West Virginia	1.57 to 1.85	1.63
Wisconsin	1.57 to 1.85	1.83
Wyoming	1.57 to 1.85	1.58

There are HPV tests that can be used to screen for cervical cancer. These tests are only recommended for screening in women aged 30 years and older. HPV tests are not recommended to screen men, adolescents, or women under the age of 30 years.

Most people with HPV do not know they are infected and never develop symptoms or health problems from it. Some people find out they have HPV when they get genital warts. Women may find out they have HPV when they get an abnormal Pap test result (during cervical cancer screening). Others may only find out once they’ve developed more serious problems from HPV, such as cancers.

How common is HPV and the health problems caused by HPV?

HPV (the virus): About 79 million Americans are currently infected with HPV. About 14 million people become newly infected each year. HPV is so common that almost every person who is sexually-active will get HPV at some time in their life if they don’t get the HPV vaccine.

Health problems related to HPV include genital warts and cervical cancer.

Genital warts: Before HPV vaccines were introduced, roughly 340,000 to 360,000 women and men were affected by genital warts caused by HPV every year.* Also, about one in 100 sexually active adults in the U.S. has genital warts at any given time.

Cervical cancer: Every year, nearly 12,000 women living in the U.S. will be diagnosed with cervical cancer, and more than 4,000 women die from cervical cancer—even with screening and treatment.

There are other conditions and cancers(https://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/stdfact-hpv.htm) caused by HPV that occur in people living in the United States. Every year, approximately 19,400 women and 12,100 men are affected by cancers caused by HPV.

*These figures only look at the number of people who sought care for genital warts. This could be an underestimate of the actual number of people who get genital warts.

Can I be treated for HPV or health problems caused by HPV?

There is no treatment for the virus itself. However, there are treatments for the health problems that HPV can cause:

1. Genital warts can be treated by your healthcare provider or with prescription medication. If left untreated, genital warts may go away, stay the same, or grow in size or number.
2. Cervical precancer can be treated. Women who get routine Pap tests and follow up as needed can identify problems before cancer develops. Prevention is always better than treatment. For more information visit www.cancer.org.
3. Other HPV-related cancers are also more treatable when diagnosed and treated early. For more information visit www.cancer.org"

ANOTHER CURRUPT DIVORCE IN NEW HAMPSHIRE

"AEGIS Alliance, The - The Activists - Alliance for the Exposure of Government Intelligence and Secrets"

Marcg 23, 2017

"Dianne Haley of Nashua NH filed for divorce in 2012 after her former husband broke and shattered her son Jake’s jaw when he was 16. NH DCYF founded the abuse and placed Joseph Haley on the Central Registry for Abuse and Neglect to children for 7 years. 

While awaiting her divorce trial she discovered many secrets about the man she was married to. She learned the following facts about Joseph Haley and presented all evidence during a 4 day custody/divorce trial in the Nashua NH Family Court…

1. He was a military poser for the 20 year relationship. Purporting to be a decorated United States Army Ranger- the branded US Army Ranger tattoo on his left arm and shadow boxes of purple hearts and medals of commendation were all fraudulent.

2. She learned that Joseph Haley had been molesting her oldest daughter. She had evidence of their intimate sexual text messages and found physical evidence of father- daughter incestuous pornography in the marital home. The Nashua Police dismissed the evidence and refused criminal analysis. The Nashua Court refused a subpoena of Verizon text messages to protect and intervene for the health and safety of her daughter.

3. Mr. Haley then sought revenge on her son Jacob and slashed the family dog he loved so much with a knife. The Nashua Police and the Family court dismissed all evidence of felony animal cruelty.

4. Joseph Haley committed IRS tax fraud under Diannes social security number and the IRS traced the years of joint refunds deposited into Mr. Haleys single bank accounts. She filed with the criminal fraud unit of the IRS and filed a suit which was dismissed by the Family Court at the request of his attorney Peggy Small of Nashua (suspected to have ties to the NH greek mafia). Ms Haley then presented evidence of over 500k stolen from the joint marital bank account over the course of the marriage by Mr. Haley- ignored and dismissed.

5. Recorded death threats made by Joseph Haley to Diannes brother that were so serious that her brother and family feared for their life- dismissed.

6. Evidence of severe mental illness and known diagnoses of Narcissistic Personality disorder and Antisocial Personality disorder ( dismissed and ignored).

7. Mr Haley's recent electric convulsive shock treatments, section 12 psychiatric admissions and arrests by the Nashua police- ignored.

8. Evidence of domestic violence in the marriage and  a pattern of restraining orders from his two previous ex wives- dismissed.

9. All  testimony of witnesses during trial dismissed by the Family court-.

10. All evidence and testimony that the minor child was in danger – dismissed.

Dianne was a loving, fit protective mother with no psychiatric or criminal history. However, she was a 30 year federal employee with no history of unemployments and  the higher salary in the marriage. A perfect target and victim for the criminal racketeering activities to follow…..being a federal employee meant both the state of Massachusetts where she is employed and the state of New Hampshire would profit greatly from her 6 figure income.

Case rigging- case assigned to Judge Bruce Dalpra- he was not corrupt so their plan would not work.

Without notification to Dianne, she arrived for first day of trial to a change in judges- Marital Master Alice Love brought out of retirement and paid on the side to do the dirty work for presiding NH Judge Julie Introcaso.

Alice Love listened to 4 days of grueling testimony from witnesses including one of the children who took the stand for 4 hours. All witnesses corroborated that the minor child would be in grave danger if placed with his father.

Opposing counsel for Mr. Haley purported to have ties to mafia of New Hampshire- Peggy Small of Small and Lyons law firm – she recommended the guardian ad litem George Larocque in this case who colluded with her to rig the case. George Larocque, the court appointed counsel to protect the child, met with Ms. Haley one time, met with Mr. Haley 26 times and billed Ms. Haley for 19 conference calls with Mr. Haleys attorney. He ignored all witness testimony and evidence and refused to review the evidence files from NH DCYF documenting their grave concerns. Peggy Small hen put into place a child therapist Stephen Q Taylor who was court ordered to only meet with father, not mother.

The minor child was left with no protection from the abuser.

The case was premeditated and rigged from the beginning. There were no laws in that courtroom. Every one of Ms. HAleys rights were violated. She had spent over 70K to get through trial fighting for the safety of her children.

Judge Alice Love gave sole custody to the abuser, signed off by Judge Julie Introcaso. Ms. Haley lost her home valued at over 550K that she worked her life for. They ordered an extravagant amount of child support and attached all of her federal wages leaving her no way to self support for the support of one child ( age 14 at the time).

Ms. Haley was left destitute and homeless with no way to rebuild her life or to survive.

She appealed the final decision to the NH Supreme Court paying a NH appeal attorney close to 50K only to realize that the NH Supreme Court was also corrupt, refusing oral arguments and supporting the lower courts decision despite overwhelming evidence of case rigging and extortion and obstruction of justice (no due process, no evidentiary hearings). For 4 years Dianne filed hundreds of motions, EVERY single one DENIED.

Judge Julie Introcaso has ordered Dianne to pay an additional 500 per month in health insurance coverage for the minor child, knowing full well that Mr. Haley has the child covered for free through his employer. This is extortion.

The State of NH has extorted well over 200,000 dollars from a loving and innocent mother for greed and profit.

Ms. Haley informed the following NH authorities ( to name a few) of her case in detail who refused to intervene:

NH Attorney General Joseph Foster

NH Governor Maggie Hassan (now a United States Senator)

NH Secretary of State Bill Gardner

FBI Boston/Portsmouth NH

NH Hillsborough County Prosecutor, Dennis Hogan

United States Attorney General, Chief of Criminal Investigations, Donald Feith who refused to move forward with FBIs attempt to prosecute under RICO

Chief administrator of Courts- Judge Edwin Kelly ( the head criminal/extortionist in NH)

NH Senators Kevin Avard, Sharon Carson, Betty Lasky

Nashua NH Police Department – detectives Mark Anderson and Robert Dunn- Child abuse and sexual assault division- covered for Mr Haley who coached sports with fellow officers on the police force)

Dianne Haley went on to inform and officially file complaints with the following federal agencies and was ignored ( to name a few)

Department of Justice Washington DC

Bureau of Criminal Investigations Washington

Criminal Investigative Division of the IRS

United States Marshalls Office

United Nations

FBI Washington

Ms. Haley's relationship with her son was destroyed by these players. She has now gone 4 years and 5 months without her two children in her life. These criminal crooked judges must be brought down.  They must be inprisoned for their felony crimes.

We have federal informants who have all the evidence needed showing these judges are fraudulently taking and extorting federal funds to rig divorce and custody cases. Our children are in danger. Parents are taking their own lives daily because the pain is too much to bear.

Please ask for the indictment  of Judges Edwin Kelly chief of courts and Judge Julie Introcaso and US Attorney Donald Feith.

This cant continue. They are all guilty of felony crimes that are being covered up.

Peggy Small is suspected to have mafia ties as does Judge Introcaso to the Rhode Island Introcaso funeral homes.

I never knew such evil or corruption existed in this world and have to fight everyday to want to live after what I’ve endured at their hands. The 4 children are destroyed and my family ripped apart for profit to the state of NH.

Everything I say here can be backed up with insurmountable evidence (boxes of it); and there’s no one who isn’t aware of the case, both at the state and federal level.

The case can be tied into Mike Gill as we have been working together for many years to bring this all down. There are hundreds of other parents affected by the same in NH.

The felony crimes are MISAPPROPRIATION OF FEDERAL FUNDING, FRAUD AND EXTORTION, CHILD KIDNAPPING, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, SILENCING AND INTIMIDATING A WITNESS.

– Dianne Haley"

___________________________________________________________

Another Corrupt Divorce In NH

__________________________________________________________________________________

REPORTED MAY 24, 2018: "PORTSMOUTH, New Hampshire — Two federal judges, during the past three business days, have removed themselves from presiding over a lawsuit filed against the city and two police detectives by Rye resident Oneta Bobbett.

In her four-count civil suit, Bobbett claims she reported a credit card dispute to Portsmouth police, which led to her arrest for charges that were dismissed in August 2015 and annulled in March 2016.

During the course of her pending criminal case, Bobbett claims, she “was engaged in a contentious divorce” from her husband who had “close personal ties” to Portsmouth police officers, including going to a strip club with one of them. During divorce proceedings, she alleges, private information from her police-seized phone was “funneled to” her husband to be used against her during the divorce.

Bobbett filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of New Hampshire on June 27, 2017, the same day the case was assigned to Judge Joseph DiClerico Jr. The judge has since issued orders in the case, including in March when he ruled Bobbett had “sufficiently alleged” the city and detectives “acted with malice” when they prosecuted her, while the judge allowed the suit to proceed.

On Friday, DiClerico filed an order with the federal court stating, “Due to a recent conflict that has arisen, this case is to be assigned to another judge.” No specifics are cited and lawyers for the city and Bobbett — Charles Baeur and Benjamin King, respectively — both said they did not know the reason."

Also on Friday, the federal court clerk’s office announced the case had been assigned to Judge Landya McCafferty. But on Monday, McCafferty filed an order of recusal with the court stating, “I hereby recuse myself from presiding over this case. The case shall be assigned to another judge.”

On Tuesday the case was reassigned to Judge Steven McAuliffe.

According to the federal court clerk’s office, generally speaking judges may recuse themselves if they are familiar with a party, a lawyer, or a law firm affiliated with a case, including when they become new to a case.

The city and detectives this month filed a motion seeking dismissal of three of four counts in the civil suit, while Bobbett’s ex-husband, Jonathan Bobbett, reported to he “did not receive any information, directly or indirectly, from any police officer or other personnel associated with the city of Portsmouth.”

 

The Canadian government is slapping the US with massive tariffs — and they might be even bigger than expected

June 3, 2018

"Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland announced the responsive measures to President Donald Trump's tariffs on steel and aluminum from the US's northern neighbor.

Freeland and the Canadian government pegged the total value of the goods subject to the Canadian tariffs at 16.6 billion Canadian dollars, or roughly $12.8 billion US dollars. Those values are roughly equal to that of the Canadian steel and aluminum exports to the US.

"In response to these measures, Canada intends to impose surtaxes or similar trade-restrictive countermeasures against up to C$16.6 billion in imports of steel, aluminum, and other products from the US, representing the value of 2017 Canadian exports affected by the US measures," Canada's government wrote on its official website.

A spokesperson for the Canada's Global Affairs office also confirmed to Business Insider that the target was to place tariffs on 16.6 billion Canadian dollars.

But after totaling the value of Canada's list of US goods subject to tariffs using import data, Business Insider found that the value of these exports is equal to roughly just over $15 billion US dollars, or 19 billion Canadian dollars.

The spokesperson said the government stands by its analysis that the total value of the goods subject to tariffs is 16.6 billion Canadian dollars.

Business Insider used 2017 import data from Canadian statistics agency StatsCan and the Harmonized System code for each product on the tariff list. The Harmonized System contains a unique code for a product to distinguish it from other materials and is used to standardize the identification of goods moving through the international trade system.

Another analysis, using the US Census Bureau, would paint the retaliatory measures as even more severe. Based on an analysis of US export data, the value of the goods subject to tariffs was $15.72 billion, well above the target level.

While the tariffs being higher than expected could certainly have ramifications for US businesses, experts say they would be permitted under international law.

Canada argued that the retaliatory tariffs on US goods were legal under World Trade Organization rules since they were equivalent to what they viewed as an improper US action. Debbie Shon, a partner at the law firm Quinn Emanuel and a former official in the US Trade Representative's office under President Bill Clinton, told Business Insider that the exact value of the tariffs doesn't have to be exactly the same.

"It doesn't have to be exactly the same, dollar for dollar," Shon said. "The other country just has to show that the response was commensurate to the original action."

"Canada is slapping tariffs on $12.8 billion of US goods — here are the states that stand to lose the most
JUNE 2, 2018

"Provided by Business Insider justin Trudeau donald trump Canada isn't taking President Donald Trump's decision to hit the country with steel and aluminum tariffs lying down.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that Canada will impose retaliatory tariffs on $12.8 billion worth of US goods in response to Trump's metals tariffs.  

The list of goods set to get hit by the Canadian tariffs varies from industrial steel to sleeping bags. Trudeau said the tariffs were not designed to hurt the American people, but rather defend Canada's interests and send a message to the Trump administration.

Using US Census Bureau data on exports and the list of goods subject to the tariffs, Business Insider determined exactly which states will get hit hardest by the Canadian crackdown.

The biggest losers from the US-Canada trade fight are industrial states in the Midwest:

• Ohio would be the hardest hit. The state sent $1.75 billion worth of goods to Canada in 2017 that could fall under the tariffs.
• Michigan would be close behind, with $1.17 billion in goods that could be subject to tariffs.
• They are followed by New York ($1.17 billion), Pennsylvania ($1.14 billion), and Illinois ($1.02 billion).

The tariffs will go into place on July 1, Canada's government said, and will stay in place until the US removes the steel and aluminum restrictions."

NH, A STATE THATS ALREADY HAS BEEN SINKING FINANCIALLY IN DEBT CAUSED BY STATE'S GOVERNMENT FOR DECADES, IS NOW SUBJECT TO $12.8 MILLION IN CANADIAN TARIFFS!  WHAT IS NH GOVERNMENT GOING TO DO NOW?

NEW HAMPSHIRE'S ELEPHANT

IS STILL IN THE ROOM

NH MAKES MONEY BY BROKEN PROMISES

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.

The additional federal Medicaid money results from the state seeking a Medicaid waiver under the Affordable Care Act 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."

REPORTED IN 2017: "New Hampshire is now second 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, released on Thursday.

Nationally, 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.

But 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.”

"For now, the state is 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 $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 there’s no provision in the budget to increase the number of beds. It may take a 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) in the Concord (men's) prison." 

Another Corrupt Divorce In NH

__________________________________________________________________________________

REPORTED MAY 24, 2018: "PORTSMOUTH, New Hampshire — Two federal judges, during the past three business days, have removed themselves from presiding over a lawsuit filed against the city and two police detectives by Rye resident Oneta Bobbett.

In her four-count civil suit, Bobbett claims she reported a credit card dispute to Portsmouth police, which led to her arrest for charges that were dismissed in August 2015 and annulled in March 2016.

During the course of her pending criminal case, Bobbett claims, she “was engaged in a contentious divorce” from her husband who had “close personal ties” to Portsmouth police officers, including going to a strip club with one of them. During divorce proceedings, she alleges, private information from her police-seized phone was “funneled to” her husband to be used against her during the divorce.

Bobbett filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of New Hampshire on June 27, 2017, the same day the case was assigned to Judge Joseph DiClerico Jr. The judge has since issued orders in the case, including in March when he ruled Bobbett had “sufficiently alleged” the city and detectives “acted with malice” when they prosecuted her, while the judge allowed the suit to proceed.

On Friday, DiClerico filed an order with the federal court stating, “Due to a recent conflict that has arisen, this case is to be assigned to another judge.” No specifics are cited and lawyers for the city and Bobbett — Charles Baeur and Benjamin King, respectively — both said they did not know the reason."

Also on Friday, the federal court clerk’s office announced the case had been assigned to Judge Landya McCafferty. But on Monday, McCafferty filed an order of recusal with the court stating, “I hereby recuse myself from presiding over this case. The case shall be assigned to another judge.”

On Tuesday the case was reassigned to Judge Steven McAuliffe.

According to the federal court clerk’s office, generally speaking judges may recuse themselves if they are familiar with a party, a lawyer, or a law firm affiliated with a case, including when they become new to a case.

The city and detectives this month filed a motion seeking dismissal of three of four counts in the civil suit, while Bobbett’s ex-husband, Jonathan Bobbett, reported to he “did not receive any information, directly or indirectly, from any police officer or other personnel associated with the city of Portsmouth.”

HOW MANY MORE OUTSTANDING LAWSUITS CAUSED BY NH GOVERNMENT'S ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL SCREW UPS WILL TAXPER'S BE FORCED TO PAY.

REPORTED IN 2014: "The state had a financial stake in 28 lawsuits, according to the state’s annual financial report. Of those, the state only lost one, won six and settled three. Eighteen are still undecided.
“This isn’t a problem of costs coming up unexpectedly, this is a problem of not being able to pay our bills when they come due and the Legislature seeing how long it can dodge the bill collector,” said Andru Volinsky, the lead attorney on the education funding lawsuits."

REPORTED IN 2015: "the next state budget, the potential $104 million price tag of two lawsuits looms large, the latest in a series of legal actions that directly affect New Hampshire’s bottom line.

The state settled a federal lawsuit over inadequate mental health services in 2013 that’s predicted to cost $24 million in the upcoming budget. A second settlement with hospitals over a controversial tax could mean roughly $80 million less in the state’s general fund. In an already tight budget of $10.7 billion, these costs won’t be easily swallowed."

REPORTED IN 2016: "Frankie Berger, director of advocacy at the nonprofit Treatment Advocacy Center, said the practice violates patients’ civil rights and must stop immediately.

“We had no idea this type of thing was happening,” Berger said. “Honestly, it’s appalling and shocking what we’ve learned so far. We need to see it fixed.”

The Arlington, Va.- based center is taking immediate action to investigate and press for action that could result in a federal civil rights lawsuit, Berger said.

“I don’t think it comes as a surprise that a national organization with expertise in this area comes to the conclusion that New Hampshire is violating patients’ rights,” Cushing said.

The Legislature recognized the problem in 2005 and 2010, he said. “Reports then acknowledged the potential for legal action against the state,” Cushing said.

“It’s long past time that the state of New Hampshire stop taking people who have never been charged with or convicted of a crime and sending them to prison. We should be sending them to hospitals, not prison,” Cushing said.

Berger agreed that the practice of commingling patients who haven’t committed a crime with convict criminals has to stop. “It doesn’t matter how many laws the Legislature passes in New Hampshire to say it’s legal. That doesn’t make it legal,” Berger said. “It is unconstitutional.”

REPORTED IN 2017: "Attorney Rus Rilee has a unique perspective on the tragic child abuse cases that have prompted intense scrutiny of the state Division of Youth, Children and Families.

He represents certain family members of 3-year-old Brielle Gage of Nashua and 21-month-old Sadie Willott of Manchester, both of whom died while their neglect and abuse cases were under DCYF review. He also represents the grandparents of two children who were victims in a highly publicized Claremont case involving the videotaping of sexual abuse.

Those cases have sparked at least three separate investigations into DCYF: an internal review; an examination of infant homicides at the state Department of Justice; and an outside review by an independent third party.

Pressure is on
Rilee says its no coincidence the immunity legislation has been proposed at this time, with potential civil lawsuits looming in these highly publicized cases.

“This is a direct result of the pressure that is being placed on them. As a result of these cases, the spotlight is being shone on their failures,” he said. “Unfortunately for my clients, it's too late, but they are adamant about the fact that they want to make sure this doesn't happen to another child. That's what our battle is all about.”

If Rilee is ultimately allowed to pursue his civil cases in open court, the result could be exactly what CASA and DCYF fear the most — more victims or their surviving family members going to court with claims of negligence or negligent supervision.

Minors who have been abused with personal injury claims have from 20 to 30 years to sue, depending on the nature of the abuse.

“If they have any allegation that what happened to them was caused by the acts or omissions of DCYF, CASA or any other state or private actors, they have until they are in their 20s or 30s to file,” Rilee said. “Once some of these cases come to light, there is going to be a flood of them.”

REPORTED IN 2018: "The state has agreed to pay $6.75 million to settle a suit brought by the grandparents of two young girls who were sexually abused by their parents while under the supervision of New Hampshire’s Division for Children, Youth and Families.

The lawsuit alleged DCYF and two nonprofits – Easterseals New Hampshire and CASA-NH – failed to protect the two girls from “horrific” sexual abuse by their biological parents in 2013 despite repeated warning signs.

Under the settlement, each child will receive $3.125 million and their grandparents, who have adopted the girls, will receive $500,000. The money will come from the state’s general fund and be released as soon as Hillsborough County Superior Court Judge Gillian Abramson officially signs off on the deal, said Rus Rilee, the attorney representing the family.

The girls’ parents pleaded guilty in 2014 to felony sexual assault charges and to manufacturing child pornography. Each was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison. The suit alleged the abuse took place during supervised and unsupervised visits, sometimes during “bath time,” when an Easterseals worker was in another room.

Associate Attorney General Anne Edwards said the state has made larger total payouts in civil injury settlements before, but this agreement represents the largest amount paid to an individual plaintiff.

Settlements with CASA and Easterseals are confidential.

The lawsuit also brought key rulings, including one from the state Supreme Court, establishing the rights of plaintiffs in child abuse cases to sue in open court. Before, such cases were kept completely under seal to protect the privacy of children. Rilee had argued the state’s Child Protection Act had been interpreted too broadly, and that a child’s identity could be protected even if a complaint were made public.

“Transparency breeds accountability, and accountability brings change,” Rilee said.

DCYF has been under intense scrutiny since two toddlers under agency watch were killed by their mothers in 2014 and 2015. Lawmakers have since created an independent Office of the Child Advocate to oversee the agency and funded more caseworkers.

Rilee also represents William Boucher Jr., the father of Brielle Gage, a 3-year-old from Nashua who was murdered by her mother, Katlyn Marin, while under DCYF supervision in 2014. Boucher filed suit this February against the agency, which was warned about repeated abuse for a year before Brielle’s death.
______________________________________________

REPORTED IN 2011: "Michael McCord of the New Hampshire Business Review provides a good synopsis of why ten hospital administrators are so upset about the latest state budget that they’ve filed a lawsuit.

“Each October, New Hampshire and the state’s hospitals engage in an accounting sleight of hand set up in 1991. Hospitals wire the state millions of dollars to pay the “Medicaid Enhancement Tax,” and the state then wires the amount back, often within minutes.

The goal of the tax was to create the illusion of raising money so the state could apply for and receive more federal matching funds to cover uncompensated care costs for Medicaid services and indigent patients. Not all the federal funds go back to hospitals and doctors – New Hampshire has the second-lowest Medicaid reimbursement rate in the country – and money is diverted to the general fund. The ploy has been known over the years as “Mediscam.”

“We used to joke and say ‘What would happen if the state didn’t wire this money back?'” said Mark Whitney, vice president for strategic planning at Exeter Health Resources, parent company of Exeter Hospital.

A majority of the state’s 26 hospitals are about to find out the answer.”

That’s most of the Medicaid issue in a nutshell.  McCord goes on to explore other hospital complaints about forced layoffs and other budget problems that arose in the wake of this year’s legislative decisions.  Then he gives us this interesting tidbit,

“Meanwhile…the biggest change to the state’s Medicaid program was Senate Bill 147, which has mandated a transfer of all Medicaid services to a private managed care program on an expedited basis by July 1, 2012.

One national consultant familiar with New Hampshire’s Medicaid regulations and practices believes in the end the CMS [federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services] will shoot down this latest legislative gambit. New Hampshire isn’t the only state that plays the Mediscam game but ‘the feds will take a very dim view of this,’ said Steve Scheer, a Chicago-based principal with Health Management Associates and adviser to the New Hampshire Hospital Association.

More importantly, he added, the CMS will need to disapprove because many states are already watching closely. If the CMS grants approval, some 33 other states could jump in line and, theoretically, it could lead to a dramatic rise in Medicaid payments to the states — not exactly an ideal scenario, given the immense debt and deficit pressures faced by the federal government.”
______________________________________________

REPORTED MAY 30, 2018: "NH Hospitals, State Agree on Uncompensated Care Payment Plan     

State officials have agreed on a deal to pay the state's hospitals back pay owed for previously uncompensated care.

By Dana Forsythe, Patch Staff | May 30, 2018 2:00 pm ET  

CONCORD, N.H. - In March, a federal court determined the federal formula New Hampshire used to determine payments to hospitals was wrongfully put in place. Now, a deal to has been struck. According to the Concord Monitor, the state owed $36 million more than had been budgeted for in 2018 – and $37 million in 2019.

Now, after heated public and private discussions, the state is on the cusp of a compromise: $22.1 million in fiscal year 2018 and $22.5 million in fiscal year 2019. And negotiators have found a new funding formula that will extend into 2024, overriding a previous agreement made in 2014 that was close to running out.

Under federal law, hospitals that treat significant numbers of Medicaid or uninsured patients may receive DSH payments – state and federal funds that help them recoup the higher costs associated with those patients. Exactly how much each hospital receives comes down to how many services it can count as "uncompensated care."

This month's agreement, packaged as part of an omnibus spending bill, House Bill 1817, pegs the state payments to hospitals at about 90 percent of the Medicaid Enhancement Tax they pay every year – an amount that gets doubled with a federal match.

To read the full article, visit the Concord Monitor."