Newmarket School District Crimes Shared With Court

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
ROCKINGHAM, SS SUPERIOR COURT
218-2019-CV-00592

Jeffrey Thomas Clay
V.
Newmarket School District

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS OBJECTION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
WITH PREJUDICE

Now Comes the Plaintiff, Jeffrey Thomas Clay, and Responds to Defendant Newmarket School District’s Objection to Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss and says:

1. To the detriment of our Honorable Courts, and with reckless disregard for New Hampshire laws, Defendant Newmarket School District and Legal Counsel have been engaged in perpetrating a great fraud upon the Courts for more than five years concerning Plaintiff’s litigations.
2. To this end, Defendant and legal counsel engaged in perjury, false swearing, obstruction of justice, records tampering, and other crimes. Defendant engaged in these illegal activities to shield violations of RSA 91-A and to avoid legal accountability for their crimes in covering up their illegal activities.
3. Defendant has been lying to the Courts over these past five years in claiming the 2015 superintendent search committee never met, that the 2015 superintendent screening committee sealed their nonpublic meeting minutes.
4. The 2015 Superintendent Search Committee consisting of Al Zink, Kim Shelton, Clay Mitchell, Arlon Chaffee, and Craig Dionne did hold meetings on November 5th through the 8th, 2015. Not only did this committee hold meetings, but Defendant and legal counsel have known all along the committee held meetings. Unconscionably, neither Defendant nor legal counsel ever revealed these facts to the Courts or Prosecutors.
5. Mr. Al Zink, who was the chairman of the search committee, is captured in a 12/17/2015 audiovisual recording of the Defendant School Board meeting (available on youtube at approximately 8:00 through 13:30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Irn3eskd6PA&t=586s) informing everyone that the Search Committee, consisting of himself, Kim Shelton, Clay Mitchell, Craig Dionne, and Arlon Chaffee did hold meetings on November 5th through the 8th, 2015, where they reviewed applicants, etc. Thie 12/17/2015 recording corresponds perfectly with public meeting minutes indicating the Seach Committee did hold meetings (see attached meeting minutes).
6. Mr. Zink’s comments on 12/17/2015 state: “Our committee (school board) decided to establish a subcommittee (search committee). The subcommittee ensured that the screening committee had an adequate number of high-quality candidates. That committee was made up of Kim Shelton, Clay Mitchell, UNH professor, Craig Dionne, and Arlen Chaffee.” “Applications came in on November 4th. We reviewed applications from the 5th to the 8th.” “We did not make any selections but we did feel the list was adequate to pass onto the screening committee. “
7. In 2019, Al Zink was interviewed by Rockingham investigators where he lied, claiming the search committee did not hold any meetings. Despite several public documents and the 12/17/2015 recording described above, Mr. Zink’s statement claiming the search committee did not meet was never questioned or vetted by investigators or anyone else.

8. Defendant’s legal counsel was interviewed by Rockingham County Prosecutors in 2020 (audiotape attached) where she informed investigators that it was Al Zink who informed her the search committee did not meet. Yet, with full knowledge of the public documents and 12/17/2015 audio recording of Mr. Zink claiming the search committee did hold meetings, neither the Defendant nor legal counsel ever sought the truth from anyone. They never vetted or asked Mr. Zink about the contradictory statements and evidence and never informed the Courts.
9. To the detriment of Defendant’s position, every public document concerning the Search Committee indicates the committee did meet, and the audiovisual recording confirms it held meetings. Yet, after approximately six years of litigation and investigations, Defendant and legal counsel continue to claim the search committee did not meet. This, without the Defendant or legal counsel ever confirming whether or not the search committee did meet with anyone except Mr. Zink, and without ever informing the Courts of the 12/17/2015 audiovisual recording.
10. Defendant and legal counsel have also been untruthful and incompetent to the Courts in claiming the 2015 screening committee sealed their nonpublic meeting minutes. This committee never sealed any meeting minutes.
11. There is not one person who served on the 2015 screening committee who has ever stated the screening committee sealed the nonpublic minutes of their meetings. There are, however, two men who did serve on that committee who are both on the record stating the screening committee did not seal any meeting minutes.
12. Screening committee chairman Al Zink is on the record informing Rockingham investigators that the nonpublic meeting minutes of the screening committee were not sealed. Additionally, Steve Fournier, Newmarket’s Town Manager, who also served on the screening committee, has also stated the screening committee did not seal any minutes. His comments are also in the record. In fact, he so informed Defendant’s legal counsel of this fact years ago.

13. When legal counsel was asked about the screening committee minutes being sealed during her 2020 interview with investigators, she claimed it was Al Zink who informed her the minutes were sealed (see audio recording). This statement contradicts Mr. Zink’s statement to investigators and those of Mr. Fournier. Moreover, legal counsel never informed the Court that she only ever asked one person who served on the screening committee, Al Zink, if the nonpublic meeting minutes were sealed, before proclaiming to the Courts and Attorney Discipline Office for more than five that the screening committee minutes were sealed.
14. To this day, despite full knowledge of Mr. Zink’s and Fournier’s statements denying the screening committee ever sealed meeting minutes, Defendant and legal counsel have continued to maintain the minutes are sealed, all without anyone who served on that committee claiming they were sealed.
15. Defendant and legal counsel lied to the Courts concerning the screening committee meeting minutes being sealed to cover up violations of the right to know and to hide their crimes in the cover-up they engaged in. This lie has also resulted in Defendant and legal counsel committing additional unethical, immoral, and illegal acts in covering up their actions.
16. The reason Defendant and legal counsel never verified with anyone else is clear. The answer would have proven their criminal and unethical acts. Making this matter more repugnant and vicious, the alleged sealed minutes are required by law to be kept in the school district office. Defendant and legal counsel always knew there were no sealed minutes because there are none on file.
17. Defendant and legal counsel also illegally redacted documents to shield their crimes and unethical and immoral actions.
18 Defendant and legal counsel then made an offer of proof to the Court they knew was untruthful regarding the redactions Defendant redacted many documents beyond what Defendant and the legal counsel claimed to the Courts (see attached documents).
19. Legal counsel informed investigators in 2020 that she assisted Nadeau in redacting documents by providing her with advice regarding what redactions she could make. Counsel did not inform the Court of this fact when she made the offer of proof for Defendant. More importantly, legal counsel knew criminal allegations had been filed against her with Rockingham County Prosecutors, and that the documents redacted pertained to those issues. By engaging in the redaction of the documents legal counsel was able to redact any potentially incriminating evidence against her.
20. Defendant’s Objection to Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss attempts to deflect and misdirect their bad faith concerning the agreement offer to Plaintiff by further disparaging Plaintiff and attributing his motives in all of this to his 2009 dismissal from the Defendant School District. This is a red-herring, employed by Defendant for nefarious reasons, including shielding their criminal, unethical and immoral activities.
21. Plaintiff admits that once he found out the agreement was illegal, that there was no record of the Defendant school board ever having discussed or voting to authorize the agreement, and with the realization, a judgment against the Plaintiff would remain for up to 20 years, a judgment Plaintiff knew was based entirely upon the illegal, immoral, and unethical actions of the Defendant and legal counsel, Plaintiff could not live with the agreement or be a party to it.
22. Plaintiff admits that he repeatedly and often demanded Defendant dismiss the award of attorney fees with prejudice, and that if they fid not, that Merideth Nadeau should pay the awarded fess. These demands were made with evidence provided to Defendant and legal counsel of their many illegal, immoral, and unethical actions in these matters.
23. Defendant claims “the school board delegated the chore of all negotiations with Plaintiff to the superintendent of schools, yet, there are no the public records of the school board ever discussing or voting to authorize this action.
21. Defendant claims the April 22, 2021 agreement was negotiated by the superintendent with the assistance of legal counsel, reviewed by the school board, and signed by the superintendent and chairman of the school board. Plaintiff has been unable to locate any school board meeting minutes indicating the school board ever reviewed, discussed, or voted on any such agreement. Additionally, the superintendent’s signature is not on the e-mail agreement as stated by Defendant.
22. Plaintiff is unaware if the agreement offered to Plaintiff, an agreement which appears to have been made in violation of RSA’s 91-A and 641, would affect Defendants right to collect on its judgment. This is for the Court to decide. However, Bad Faith was Defendant’s motive in offering the agreement.
23. Defendant was motivated to offer the agreement due to the many complaints made against Defendant with state and local officials. Complaints including fraud, corruption, and other crimes and acts of immorality and unethical actions engaged in by district officials and employees, past and present.
24. Defendant never wanted the people of Newmarket to ever know about the agreement. This is why there are no public records concerning the agreement and why Defendant did not file a copy with the Town Clerk as required by RSA 91-A. All of this constitutes bad faith by Defendant.
25. Before the agreement was ever offered, Plaintiff has publicly alleged Defendant and legal counsel lied to our Courts, obstructed justice, falsified public records, and committed other crimes to cover up their violations of RSA 91-A concerning the Defendants 2015 search for a new superintendent. Plaintiff had also filed numerous criminal allegations against Defendant with law enforcement officials and filed allegations with the NH DOE.

26. To be very clear, before the agreement was offered, Plaintiff had done everything within his power to inform and illuminate for the public, the Courts, and law enforcement how the Defendant and legal counsel engaged info the criminal, unethical, and immoral acts of Defendant and legal counsel.
27. Defendant’s newest Motion for periodic payments and Motion to Attach Plaintiffs Real Estate, and their Objection to Plaintiffs Motion to dismiss with prejudice, are further examples of Defendant’s immoral, unethical, and criminal behavior.
28. In seeking the award of attorney fees Defendant and legal counsel have been engaging in extortion. This is true because all the lies that were told by them enabled them to be awarded these fees.
29. Today, new allegations have been filed against Defendant alleging extortion and numerous other crimes concerning all of the above. Rockingham County Prosecutor, Patricia Conway, has requested the NH Attorney General appoint a special prosecutor to review all of these allegations.
30. Plaintiff informed Defendant before their newest Motion for periodic payments and Motion to Attach, that he will pay the illegally awarded attorney fees on July 22, 2020, at the SAU office. Having agreed to make the payment, Plaintiff will not be filing the personal assets form. Plaintiff is without knowing if he must still attend the hearing scheduled for July 23, 2021.

Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests,
1. That the Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss the award of all attorney fees, with prejudice.
2. That the Court grant any other relief the Court may deem appropriate.
3. That the Court subpoena Al Zink, Penney Botterman, Nathan Lunney, Kim Shelton, Meredith 4. Nadeau, and the alleged sealed nonpublic minutes of the 2015 superintendent screening committee, that the Court place these individuals under oath, and seek the truth.

Respectfully submitted,
{S} Jeffrey T. Clay
Jeffrey Thomas Clay, M.Ed, prose.
603-534-1963
53 Mallard Drive
Alton, NH 03809

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that I have forwarded a copy of the foregoing to be served on the parties via the Courts e-file system.

{S} Jeffrey T. Clay
Jeffrey Thomas Clay, M.Ed, pro se.
603-534-1963
53 Mallard Drive
Alton, NH 03809