Fraud in Plain Sight: How Donahue, Tucker & Ciandella and New Hampshire Courts Normalized Deception

By Jeffrey T. Clay

For years, New Hampshire residents have been told to trust the courts, trust government lawyers, and trust that justice is administered fairly and transparently. My experience — and the evidence I have assembled — prove otherwise.

After conducting an exhaustive, document-by-document investigation into litigation involving municipal defendants and their counsel, I have identified 125 false and misleading statements made by government attorneys in court filings, briefs, and oral argument. These statements are provably false, contradicted by transcripts, public records, sworn testimony, and the absence of legally required approvals.

At the center of this misconduct is the municipal law firm Donahue, Tucker & Ciandella (DTC) — and the courts that chose to accept its misrepresentations as fact.

A DOCUMENTED PATTERN OF DECEPTION

This is not a disagreement over legal interpretation. It is a pattern of factual deception.

Across pleadings, post-hearing briefs, and oral argument, DTC attorneys repeatedly:
- Asserted that public bodies met, deliberated, or approved actions when no minutes, notices, or votes exist
- Claimed legal authorization where none was ever granted
- Represented compliance with Right-to-Know law despite undisputed statutory violations
- Shifted factual narratives mid-litigation to avoid exposure
- Presented conclusions as facts, knowing the underlying record contradicted them

Each of the 125 false or misleading statements has been traced to a specific document, date, speaker, and contradiction in the record.

NAMED ATTORNEYS, ATTRIBUTABLE CONDUCT

The attorneys whose filings and arguments form the backbone of this misconduct include Christopher Hawkins, William Warren, and Briana Matuszko.

Each participated in submissions containing false statements of material fact — statements that directly influenced judicial rulings.

FROM FALSE STATEMENTS TO POTENTIAL CRIMES

As my investigation expanded, it became impossible to ignore a more serious reality: many of these false statements implicate potential criminal conduct.

Based on the documentary record, I have identified evidence consistent with:
- False statements to courts
- Obstruction of justice
- Abuse of official position
- Tampering with public records
- Conspiracy to conceal unlawful government action

Several of these offenses constitute felonies under New Hampshire and federal law.

Accordingly, I have formally reported these findings to the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office, including indexed exhibits demonstrating how the false statements align with statutory criminal elements.

JUDICIAL ENDORSEMENT OF FALSEHOOD

Trial-level orders adopted factual premises never supported by evidence and, in several instances, directly contradicted by sworn testimony and transcripts. The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed those outcomes.

ESCALATION TO FEDERAL AUTHORITIES

Because state-level oversight has proven ineffective, I have requested investigations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Department of Justice.

WHY THIS MATTERS

If municipal attorneys can fabricate compliance and courts will ratify those statements, no citizen stands equal before the law.

CONCLUSION

Donahue, Tucker & Ciandella did not merely advocate aggressively. They rewrote facts.

The courts did not merely err. They embraced fiction over evidence.

Until this conduct is confronted openly, New Hampshire’s commitment to transparent government and equal justice remains illusory.