Newmarket, NH Officials and DTC Attorneys Accused of Serious Crimes

Based on the extensive record and court documents, here is the organized list of the specific instances identifying alleged violations of NH RSA Chapter 641 (Falsification in Official Matters) by the Town of Newmarket and its attorneys:

I. Alleged Violations of RSA 641:3 (Unsworn Falsification)

This statute targets written false statements certified or submitted on legal forms to a court or public agency with the intent to mislead a public servant.

• March 3, 2025 – Supreme Court Response Brief Falsification: In Newmarkt Supreme Court File (2).pdf, DTC attorney Briana L. Matuszko certified to the New Hampshire Supreme Court that "there were no emails between the Town Manager and the Town Council related to the Agreement..." This textually contradicts the firm's prior lower-court admissions, the Town Manager's own 2023 affidavit, and open-court testimony confirming that those exact contract emails did exist.
• August 25, 2025 – Supreme Court Reconsideration Objection: In Newmarket Objection to Reconsider.pdf, DTC attorney Christopher D. Hawkins certified to the Supreme Court that "there are no non-privileged documents subject to Clay's request," reinforcing the false narrative that no public records regarding the Council-Manager contract loop existed.
• December 21, 2023 & January 17, 2024 – Lower Court Summary Judgment Submissions: In Motion for Summary Judgement by Newmarket.pdf and Newmarket Objection to Summary Judgement.pdf, DTC attorneys certified to Judge Schulman that the Town Council had zero involvement in the contract and that the manager acted entirely alone without an affirmative Council vote. This directly buried the firm's early admissions that a secret electronic vote was the actual "product" and "source" of the contract.
• April 8, 2024 – Trial Court Post-Hearing Brief: In Newmarket post hearing brief.pdf, DTC certified that the town was not withholding any public records or prohibiting disclosure. This directly flat-denied John Ratigan's December 29, 2023, written admission that the town actively "refused to produce for public inspection" the internal contract email loop.
• November 25, 2025 – Sanctions Motion Falsification: In 2025 11 25 Final Version of Attys Fees Motion (1) (2).pdf, Hawkins certified to Judge Ogden that your fraud allegations were complete fabrications lacking a factual basis, hiding lower court files where his firm explicitly admitted to the non-public electronic quorum process.

II. Alleged Violations of RSA 641:7 (Tampering with Public Records)

This statute targets public officials or legal counsel who knowingly make false entries, misclassify files, or intentionally conceal/withhold public documents to impair their availability in a legal proceeding.

• August 28, 2023 – Fabricated Document Certification Letter: In Clayexhibits (2).pdf, Town Manager Steve Fournier officially certified in writing that "no such documents exist" regarding Council contract deliberations. This was directly contradicted by his own subsequent notarized affidavit admitting that a physical loop of Council email responses did exist.
• The Privilege Misclassification Campaign: Across multiple filings (such as the October 5, 2023 Ombudsman Answer, the January 17, 2024 Summary Judgment Objection, and the April 8, 2024 Post-Hearing Brief), DTC continuously misclassified the Council-Manager contract email loops as strictly exempt "attorney-client privilege" consultations. Under NH law, because they admitted those emails recorded the Council's rolling consensus and collective "settlement decision," treating them as private legal advice to withhold them from the public constitutes tampering.
• November 25, 2025 – Mischaracterization of DOJ Record: In 218-2023-CV-1356 NOD-Motion re attorney fees (3).pdf, Hawkins certified that the Attorney General conclusively reviewed and cleared town officials of criminal wrongdoing on the merits. The attached email text from Thomas Velardi explicitly proved the DOJ simply declined to open a file because you had not completed a formal PIU intake complaint form.

III. The Verified Evidentiary Admissions (The Foundation of Your Case)

These are the written and spoken text fragments where the Town and its attorneys openly admitted to the facts they later denied:

• September 26, 2023 (Fournier Sworn Affidavit): Swore under oath that the contract was the direct "product of the Town Council email responses to the Town legal counsel's email inquiry... which led to the Town's settlement approval."
  
• October 5, 2023 (Ombudsman Answer): Ratigan admitted that the agreement was the product of electronic "email responses to the Town legal counsel's email inquiry" to make a collective "settlement decision."
  
• December 29, 2023 (Answer to Notice of Appeal): Ratigan admitted to the Superior Court that the contract email loops existed, that they actively included both the Council and the Town Manager, and that the Council used them to convey that the deal was "acceptable".
• March 28, 2024 (Open Court Testimony): Ratigan admitted on pages 45–46 of the trial transcript that he emailed the Town Manager, who passed the contract through a loop of the Town Council to get their input, calling that electronic string the absolute "source of authority for the settlement agreement to go through."