The Letter That Proves The Law Does Not Apply Equally

If an ordinary civilian had done what the record shows occurred in Newmarket—misrepresented how a public agreement was approved, concealed public records, invoked privilege where none applied, and obstructed lawful transparency—that person would have been investigated. Very possibly charged.

Instead, New Hampshire’s Department of Justice issued a letter declaring “no criminal wrongdoing”—without conducting any investigation at all.

That letter, dated November 24, 2025, was written by Associate Attorney General Thomas P. Velardi. It exonerates officials of the Town of Newmarket and their outside counsel at Donahue, Tucker & Ciandella, while describing no interviews, no subpoenas, no document demands, and no investigative steps of any kind.

That is not prosecutorial discretion.
That is institutional protection.

Velardi’s letter does not say prosecution was declined after inquiry. It says—flatly—that no crimes occurred. That is a factual determination, not a policy choice. And it was reached without investigation.

Instead of facts, the letter relies on civil court rulings and prior county declinations to dispose of allegations that were explicitly criminal in nature. That maneuver is indefensible. Civil courts do not investigate crimes. They do not apply criminal standards. Losing a civil case does not immunize anyone from criminal scrutiny.

Using civil outcomes as a substitute for criminal inquiry is not law. It is a shortcut designed to avoid accountability.

Had a private citizen engaged in even one of the acts alleged here—tampering with public records, making false statements to an oversight body, obstructing access to records, or coordinating with others to conceal public business—law enforcement would not have responded with a lecture about “conclusory opinions.” They would have opened a file.

Here, the DOJ did the opposite. It dismissed the allegations as repetitive. It criticized formatting. It faulted persistence. And then it closed the door—while issuing a final declaration of innocence.

The letter even scolds the complainant for not submitting a “formal complaint,” while simultaneously claiming the DOJ reviewed “all of the material” and reached a merits conclusion anyway. That contradiction exposes the truth: process was invoked not to improve review, but to justify refusing it.

Worse still, the DOJ declined to re-review prior county decisions on the grounds of conserving resources—the precise moment when statewide oversight is supposed to step in to ensure independence and public confidence.

This letter proves what many suspect but rarely see so plainly: there are two systems of justice.

One for civilians—where allegations are investigated.
Another for municipalities and their lawyers—where allegations are explained away.

When prosecutors issue factual exonerations without investigation, they do more than decline a case—they teach the public that accountability depends on status. That is how transparency laws die. That is how whistleblowers are silenced. That is how trust collapses.

The law is supposed to restrain power, not shield it. A justice system that protects insiders by refusing to investigate has already failed its most basic duty.

— Jeffrey T. Clay