The Four Faces of Newmarket:

THE FOUR FACES OF NEWMARKET: AN ANATOMY OF MATERIAL CONTRADICTIONS AND PROBABLE CAUSE

An Analysis of Sworn Filings, RTK Denial Letters, and Appellate Briefs in Town of Newmarket v. Jeffrey Clay

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Under New Hampshire criminal law, the integrity of governmental records and sworn statements submitted to courts or administrative tribunals is protected by strict statutory mandates—most notably RSA 641:3 (Unsworn Falsification), RSA 641:4 (False Swearing), and RSA 641:7 (Tampering with Public Records or Information).

A review of the official record spanning the Right-to-Know (RTK) Ombudsman proceedings, the Rockingham County Superior Court (Docket Nos. 218-2023-CV-01356 & 218-2023-CV-01435), and the New Hampshire Supreme Court (Case No. 2024-0474) reveals four mutually exclusive factual versions submitted by Town Manager Steve Fournier and the Town’s outside legal counsel, Donahue, Tucker & Ciandella, PLLC (DTC). These shifting narratives raise serious questions regarding whether false statements were knowingly introduced into official proceedings to conceal illegal serial deliberations and validate an ultra vires contract.

I. THE FOUR MUTUALLY CONTRADICTORY FACTUAL VERSIONS

• The Record: On August 28, 2023, Town Manager Steve Fournier issued a formal RTK denial letter regarding requests for records showing Town Council approval of the settlement agreement. Fournier reiterated this position in a sworn affidavit submitted in litigation.
• The Claim: Fournier represented that the Town Council engaged in no discussions, held no non-public meetings, took no votes, and that "no such documents exist." He claimed all relevant communications were non-public "consultations with legal counsel."
• The Legal Implication: This version established the baseline claim that the Town Council was completely uninvolved in deliberating or approving the settlement.

• The Record: In the Town’s formal Answer submitted by DTC to the Right-to-Know Law Ombudsman in RKO 2023-024.
• The Claim: DTC explicitly stated that "The settlement decision of the Town Council was the product of the Town Council email responses to the Town legal counsel’s email inquiry."
• The Contradiction: This statement directly contradicts Fournier's August 28 letter and sworn affidavit. Rather than "no deliberations or approvals," DTC admitted in writing that Council members received settlement terms by email, responded with their positions by email, and that those email responses formed the basis of the final settlement decision.

• The Record: Filed on January 17, 2024, in Rockingham Superior Court (Respondent's Statement of Material Facts), signed by DTC attorneys Briana L. Matuszko and William K. Warren.
• The Claim: DTC reversed course from its Ombudsman filing, asserting to the Superior Court judge that the Town Council "did not approve the Settlement Agreement" and that there were "no discussions or deliberations, nor was there a meeting."
• The Contradiction: This directly contradicts Version 2 (the Ombudsman Answer), where DTC acknowledged that the settlement decision was the direct product of an email consensus loop among council members.

• The Record: The Town’s Response Brief submitted to the New Hampshire Supreme Court in Case No. 2024-0474, signed by Attorney Briana L. Matuszko.
• The Claim: DTC asserted to the Supreme Court Justices that there were "no emails between the Town Manager and the Town Council related to the Agreement" and that "no part of the Town’s actions resulted in the creation of documents subject to the Right-to-Know law." Simultaneously, the brief cited Fournier’s August 28 letter referencing emails between the Council and legal counsel to claim those records were protected by attorney-client privilege.
• The Contradiction: DTC presented two contradictory arguments to the state's highest court: claiming on one hand that no emails ever existed, while arguing on the other hand that those same emails exist but are protected from public disclosure under RSA 91-A:5, XII.

II. THE CRITICAL TRIAL CONFESSION (MARCH 28, 2024)

The irreconcilable nature of these filings culminated during the March 28, 2024 consolidated hearing in Rockingham Superior Court.

Under live examination, DTC Lead Counsel John J. Ratigan testified on the record (Transcript, pp. 40–46) that he emailed the Town Manager, who in turn conducted an electronic email exchange with Town Council members to obtain their informal consensus ("thumbs up") outside of a publicly noticed meeting.

This live, under-oath testimony destroyed the evidentiary foundation of Steve Fournier’s earlier affidavits certifying that no deliberations or consensus-building occurred, proving that the Town utilized an un-notified serial email loop to bypass NH RSA 91-A public meeting mandates.

III. STATUTORY CRIMES IMPLICATED BY THE RECORD

When public officials and officers of the court advance mutually exclusive factual claims across different tribunals to obtain favorable judgments, their actions transcend civil litigation strategy and enter the realm of criminal falsification:

1. Unsworn Falsification (NH RSA 641:3): A person is guilty of an offense if they make a written false statement which they do not believe to be true on or pursuant to a form bearing notice authorized by law to the effect that false statements made therein are punishable. Submitting sworn affidavits certifying no deliberations took place—when an email consensus loop was actively utilized—violates RSA 641:3.
2. Tampering with Public Records or Information (NH RSA 641:7): Knowingly making a false entry in, or false alteration of, any record or document belonging to, or issued by, the government. Denying the existence of public emails to an Ombudsman or court when those emails document official municipal actions falls directly under RSA 641:7.
3. Official Oppression (NH RSA 643:1): A public servant commits an offense if, with a purpose to benefit himself or another or to harm another, he knowingly commits an unauthorized act under color of law or refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law.

CONCLUSION

The paper trail in Town of Newmarket v. Jeffrey Clay is defined by a shifting factual record. From Steve Fournier’s initial RTK denial letter claiming no records existed, to DTC’s Ombudsman admission that emails formed the settlement decision, to their subsequent trial court and appellate briefs denying those same emails, the municipal record is rife with contradictions.

When a municipality uses manufactured factual premises to secure a $38,444.57 fee judgment against a private citizen, law enforcement agencies holding statutory authority over public integrity have a mandatory obligation to investiga