Exposing Judicial Cover-Up:

EXPOSING JUDICIAL COVER-UP: How a New Hampshire Superior Court Judge Shielded Municipal Corruption by Distorting the Record

When a trial judge deliberately disregards uncontradicted, sworn testimony to shield municipal officials from statutory violations, the bench ceases to function as a hall of justice and becomes an instrument of institutional cover-up.

In the high-profile litigation involving the Town of Newmarket, Superior Court Judge Andrew Schulman issued a series of rulings—culminating in his July 8, 2024 final order and August 7, 2024 post-trial order—that reveal an alarming breakdown of judicial integrity. A forensic line-by-line comparison between the official trial transcripts and Judge Schulman’s written decisions exposes how the court manufactured false premises, distorted evidence, and misapplied fundamental tenets of New Hampshire law to protect town leadership and their legal counsel from public accountability.

I. THE SMOKING GUN: Sworn Testimony vs. Judicial Fabrication

The centerpiece of the Town of Newmarket’s defense was that its execution of a contentious 2023 settlement agreement was conducted lawfully under the advice and direction of its legal counsel, Attorney John Ratigan. However, during sworn trial testimony on March 28, 2024, Attorney Ratigan made a fatal admission under oath:

The Record (March 28, 2024): Attorney Ratigan explicitly admitted that he did not consult with or deliberate alongside the Town Council in a noticed meeting regarding the key settlement provisions. Instead, town leadership utilized an off-the-record "electronic consensus loop"—a serial email thread—to discuss, deliberate, and approve the settlement terms without public notice or a recorded vote.

The Judicial Falsification:

In his subsequent orders awarding $38,444.57 in legal fees to the Town and rejecting allegations of municipal misconduct, Judge Schulman completely erased this admission from his legal analysis.

Instead of addressing the sworn testimony, Judge Schulman wrote a narrative claiming that the email exchanges between the Town Council and Town Manager were protected by attorney-client privilege and represented routine legal consultation.

• The Conflict: Under N.H. Rule of Evidence 502, attorney-client privilege requires the active involvement of legal counsel for the primary purpose of rendering professional legal services. You cannot have an attorney-client privileged communication when the attorney himself testifies under oath that he was not present or consulted during the inter-official deliberations.
• The Deception: Schulman proclaimed these communications privileged despite knowing that the evidentiary record established no attorney was involved in the electronic consensus thread. By re-labeling an illegal, un-noticed municipal meeting as "privileged attorney work product," Judge Schulman knowingly fabricated a legal shield to hide an explicit violation of New Hampshire's Right-to-Know law (RSA 91-A).

II. NULLIFYING DILLON’S RULE: Inventing "Executive Discretion" Where None Exists

Under the doctrine established in Town of Tilton v. City of Franklin (117 N.H. 248), New Hampshire is a strict Dillon’s Rule state. Municipalities possess zero inherent authority; they can exercise only those powers explicitly granted by state statute. Any reasonable doubt regarding the existence of a municipal power must be resolved against the town.

The False Legal Premise:

Judge Schulman’s orders fundamentally misapplied New Hampshire municipal law by granting broad, non-statutory "executive discretion" to the Town Manager and Town Council to conduct public business through informal electronic polls.

1. Failure on Statutory Authority: No statute in New Hampshire authorizes a municipal body to deliberate or approve binding legal agreements through off-the-record, serial email polling. RSA 91-A:2 commands that all public deliberations shall occur in open, properly noticed public meetings.
2. Fabricating "Harmless Error": Schulman’s order treated the electronic consensus loop as a minor administrative oversight rather than an ultra vires act. Under Dillon’s Rule, an action taken outside statutory authority is not a "procedural error"—it is null and void as a matter of law.
3. Inverting the Legal Burden: Rather than requiring the Town of Newmarket to cite the explicit state statute authorizing their electronic voting procedure, Schulman placed the burden on the public to prove "bad faith," effectively treating Newmarket as a "Home Rule" municipality with broad implied powers.

III. ANATOMY OF JUDICIAL DECEPTION: Misleading and Conflicting Statements

A direct examination reveals three specific, irreconcilable conflicts between Judge Schulman’s written orders and the actual trial record:

IV. CONCLUSION: A FRAUD UPON THE COURT

When a judge actively misstates trial testimony, invents attorney-client privileges where no attorney participated, and ignores controlling state supreme court precedent regarding municipal power, it transcends mere legal error. It constitutes fraud upon the court.

Judge Schulman’s orders were not designed to apply the law neutral to the facts; they were constructed to insulate municipal officials and prominent municipal attorneys from the severe legal consequences of their statutory violations. By rewarding the Town of Newmarket with tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees while burying sworn trial admissions of illegal serial deliberations, Judge Schulman demonstrated that in his courtroom, institutional protection of government actors takes precedence over the rule of law.