Complaint Alleging Misappropriation of Public Funds, Official Misconduct, and Related Criminal Violations

COMPLAINT ALLEGING MISAPPROPRIATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS, OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT, AND RELATED CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS

To: Newmarket Police Department
From: Jeffrey T. Clay
31481 Cannon Rush Drive
San Antonio, Florida 33576
603-534-1963
jeffreytclay@gmail.com

Date: 12 May, 2026

I submit this complaint requesting a formal criminal investigation into the misuse and misappropriation of taxpayer funds by officials of the Town of Newmarket, New Hampshire, including members of the Town Council, the Town Manager, and retained legal counsel.

This matter goes beyond a disagreement over legal strategy. The record reflects a sustained course of conduct in which public funds were expended to defend positions that Town officials and their attorneys knew or should have known were unlawful, unsupported, and contrary to clearly established New Hampshire law. The continued authorization and expenditure of taxpayer funds under these circumstances raises serious concerns of criminal misconduct.

The individuals whose conduct warrants investigation include, but are not limited to, Stephen Fournier, Town Manager; Christopher Hawkins, in his official and/or legal capacity; members of the Newmarket Town Council; and attorneys affiliated with Donahue, Tucker & Ciandella, PLLC, including John Ratigan and others involved in advancing these positions at taxpayer expense.

The Town of Newmarket has expended substantial public funds—estimated in the tens of thousands of dollars—to defend and enforce actions that lacked lawful foundation. These expenditures continued even after Town officials and their attorneys were placed on notice that their legal positions were defective. That notice included applicable New Hampshire Supreme Court precedent, statutory obligations under RSA 91-A, and the Town Charter’s clear limitations on the authority of the Town Manager.

Despite this, officials and counsel continued to authorize legal expenditures to pursue and defend these positions. This conduct supports investigation under multiple provisions of New Hampshire law, including:

• RSA 641:3 (Unsworn Falsification) – where false statements were made in written submissions or representations in official matters
• RSA 641:4 (False Statements Under Oath) – to the extent sworn affidavits or testimony contained materially false statements
• RSA 641:7 (Tampering with Public Records or Information) – where public records were knowingly withheld, concealed, or mischaracterized, including the improper classification of non-privileged communications as attorney-client privileged
• RSA 643:1 (Official Oppression) – where public officials knowingly exceeded their lawful authority or exercised authority in an unauthorized manner to the detriment of a citizen
• RSA 640:2 (Theft by Unauthorized Taking or Exercise of Control) – to the extent taxpayer funds were knowingly expended for purposes not legally authorized
• RSA 640:3 (Theft by Deception) – where public funds were obtained or used through misleading representations regarding the legality or necessity of the expenditures
• RSA 629:3 (Criminal Conspiracy) – given the coordinated actions between Town officials and retained counsel in advancing and defending the conduct at issue

The facts supporting these potential violations include the continued expenditure of taxpayer funds after officials knew or should have known that the legal positions being advanced were contrary to controlling law, the use of public funds to defend an agreement that may have been entered into without lawful authority, and the advancement of factual representations that were materially disputed and, in multiple instances, contradicted by the record.

Public officials have a fiduciary duty to taxpayers. That duty does not permit the use of public funds to defend unlawful conduct, to prolong litigation lacking a legal foundation, or to shield improper actions from scrutiny. When officials and their attorneys continue to expend taxpayer money after they knew or should have known their position could not be lawfully sustained, such conduct supports investigation as potential misappropriation and official misconduct.

The coordinated nature of the conduct further raises concerns that public resources were knowingly used in furtherance of improper objectives, rather than legitimate governmental purposes.

Evidence supporting this complaint includes court filings, transcripts, judicial orders, correspondence placing Town officials and counsel on notice of controlling law, billing records to the extent available, and documentary evidence demonstrating inconsistencies in the positions advanced. Additional materials will be provided upon request.

I respectfully request that the Newmarket Police Department open a formal investigation into the conduct described, determine whether violations of the above-referenced statutes have occurred, and refer the matter to the appropriate prosecutorial authorities if warranted.

This complaint is made in good faith based on direct involvement and a detailed review of the record. I am prepared to cooperate fully.

The taxpayers of Newmarket are entitled to accountability. Public funds are not a blank check to defend the indefensible. Where officials and their attorneys knew or should have known their actions lacked legal foundation, yet continued to expend public resources anyway, that conduct warrants criminal investigation.

Respectfully submitted,

Jeffrey T. Clay