How the New Hampshire Supreme Court Violated My Rights by Endorsing a “Well-Reasoned” Order

I. INTRODUCTION

The New Hampshire Supreme Court violated my constitutional and statutory rights by affirming Judge Schulman’s order and characterizing it as “well-reasoned,” despite that order being premised on demonstrably false assumptions, legal fictions, and conclusions that directly conflict with the New Hampshire Constitution, RSA 91-A, and binding precedent.

By doing so, the Supreme Court did not merely deny relief. It institutionalized constitutional error, extinguished statutory rights, and foreclosed meaningful judicial review, thereby compounding—rather than correcting—the violations that occurred in the trial court.

II. THE SUPREME COURT ADOPTED FALSE AND UNSUPPORTED PREMISES

Judge Schulman’s order relied on the assertion that the Town of Newmarket Town Council engaged in a lawful “non-meeting” with legal counsel. This premise was material to the court’s analysis.

The record reflects that:
• No meeting minutes exist;
• No public notice was given;
• No vote was recorded;
• Counsel represented that deliberations occurred through emails with the Town Manager, not the Town Council collectively.

By affirming this order as “well-reasoned,” the Supreme Court accepted a factual premise contradicted by the record, depriving me of due process and meaningful appellate review.

III. NULLIFICATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE NH CONSTITUTION

Part I, Article 8 of the New Hampshire Constitution guarantees accountability and transparency in government.

The Supreme Court’s affirmance effectively held that:
• Public bodies may deliberate and approve government contracts in secret;
• No minutes need be kept;
• No public record need exist;
• Citizens bear the impossible burden of proving prejudice caused by concealed conduct.

This interpretation eviscerates Article 8, converting a constitutional guarantee into an unenforceable aspiration.

IV. IMPROPER SHIFTING OF THE BURDEN OF PROOF

RSA 91-A places affirmative obligations on public bodies to conduct business openly, create and maintain records, and justify secrecy.

By affirming an order requiring a private citizen to prove prejudice resulting from illegal secrecy, the Supreme Court reversed the statutory burden, rewarded concealment, and incentivized violations of the law.

V. DENIAL OF MEANINGFUL ACCESS TO THE COURTS

The Supreme Court’s summary affirmance and characterization of the order as “well-reasoned” failed to address constitutional arguments, engage with controlling precedent, or provide a reasoned analysis.

This deprived me of meaningful appellate consideration and violated my First Amendment right to petition for redress of grievances.

VI. EFFECTIVE LEGALIZATION OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT

RSA 641 criminalizes falsification of governmental records, failure to keep required records, and abuse of official authority.

By endorsing an order excusing the absence of minutes, undocumented approvals, and concealed deliberations, the Supreme Court placed judicial approval on conduct the legislature classified as criminal, in violation of public policy and separation of powers principles.

VII. ADDITIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS

A. Fourteenth Amendment – Procedural Due Process

The Supreme Court deprived me of procedural due process by summarily affirming an order grounded in false factual premises, failing to address dispositive constitutional claims, and denying meaningful judicial review.

B. Fourteenth Amendment – Substantive Due Process

Endorsing secret government conduct and extinguishing statutory transparency rights constitutes arbitrary state action that shocks the conscience and violates substantive due process.

C. First Amendment – Right to Petition

The Court’s refusal to meaningfully engage with my constitutional claims rendered my right to petition the judiciary for redress illusory.

D. Equal Protection (State and Federal)

The Supreme Court’s affirmance shielded government officials and attorneys from accountability while imposing heightened burdens on a private citizen, denying equal protection of the laws.

E. Separation of Powers and Public Policy

By judicially nullifying the enforcement mechanisms of RSA 91-A and excusing conduct criminalized under RSA 641, the Supreme Court usurped legislative authority and undermined public policy enacted by the people’s representatives.

VIII. INDEPENDENT AND CONTINUING CONSTITUTIONAL HARM

The Supreme Court’s actions caused independent and continuing violations of due process, equal protection, the right to petition, and the right to transparent government, extending beyond the underlying case.

IX. CONCLUSION

By declaring Judge Schulman’s order “well-reasoned,” the New Hampshire Supreme Court ratified a framework in which public bodies may violate transparency laws with impunity. This stripped statutory protections of meaning, denied fair adjudication, and undermined public confidence in the judiciary’s constitutional role.