Newmarket Town Officials and Their Attorneys Are Not Above The Law!

MASTER DOCUMENT – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & INDEX

Allegations, Contradictory Representations, and Potential Statutory Violations

Prepared for Investigative, Judicial, Ethical, and Oversight Review

Allegations, Contradictory Representations, and Potential Statutory Violations

Prepared for Investigative, Judicial, Ethical, and Oversight Review

Author: Jeffrey T. Clay

This document presents allegations, legal analysis, factual inconsistencies, and potential statutory implications derived from publicly filed records, sworn statements, court filings, transcripts, appellate submissions, Right-to-Know responses, and official correspondence involving the Town of Newmarket and attorneys associated with Donahue, Tucker & Ciandella, PLLC (“DTC”).

Nothing herein constitutes an adjudication of fact or criminal guilt. All matters are presented for investigative, prosecutorial, judicial, ethical, legislative, and oversight review.

Many observations contained herein arise from apparent contradictions between statements made across multiple proceedings and forums. This document is intended to identify matters warranting independent review and does not purport to substitute for judicial findings or prosecutorial determinations.

This submission concerns the formation, approval, concealment, defense, and enforcement of a municipal settlement agreement allegedly involving nonpublic serial email deliberations, contradictory governmental narratives, disputed assertions of attorney-client privilege, and multiple inconsistent factual representations made across separate proceedings.

The record, consisting of public filings, sworn affidavits, appellate briefs, transcript admissions, RTK responses, and Ombudsman filings, raises substantial concerns regarding:

• Concealment of public records;
• Nonpublic serial deliberations;
• Failure to create or preserve governmental records;
• Contradictory factual representations across tribunals;
• Potential misuse of attorney-client privilege;
• False or misleading RTK responses;
• Potentially misleading judicial filings;
• Retaliatory enforcement actions;
• Attempts to obtain attorney fees and enforcement remedies through disputed factual narratives;
• Coordinated conduct among multiple actors; and
• A broader pattern of governmental misconduct.

This submission does not seek to adjudicate guilt. Rather, it identifies factual inconsistencies, legal concerns, and patterns of conduct warranting independent investigative and judicial review.

These apparent contradictions form the central basis for the concerns identified throughout this submission.

PART I

1. Potential Falsification of Government Records & Evidence Concealment Concerns
2. Potential False Affidavit and Evidence Concealment Concerns
3. Potentially Misleading Statements to the RTK Ombudsman

PART II

1. Materially Inconsistent Judicial Representations
2. Potentially Misleading Representations to the New Hampshire Supreme Court
3. Individual Attorney Conduct Raising Ethical and Statutory Concerns
4. Conduct Potentially Supporting Fraud-Upon-the-Court Claims
5. Potential Official Oppression and Abuse of Authority
6. Systemic and Coordinated Obstruction Concerns Regarding RSA 91-A
7. Potential Financial Misrepresentation and Improper Enforcement Concerns
8. Potential Misuse of Attorney–Client Privilege to Conceal Deliberative Conduct
9. Potential False Swearing and Unsworn Falsification Concerns in Appellate Filings

PART III

1. Potential Coordinated Conduct and Conspiracy Concerns

PART IV

1. Pattern and Practice Concerns Regarding Governmental Misconduct

(Stephen Fournier’s August 28, 2023 RTK Denial Letter)

A. Overview

This section concerns the August 28, 2023 Right-to-Know response issued by Town Manager Stephen Fournier, which asserted that no Town Council deliberations occurred, no approval or vote occurred regarding the settlement agreement, and no responsive public records existed.

Subsequent filings and transcript statements appear materially inconsistent with those assertions, raising substantial concerns regarding the accuracy and completeness of the RTK response.

B. Litigation Awareness

At the time the RTK response was issued, the Town allegedly knew litigation concerning RSA 91-A issues was reasonably anticipated. Accordingly, the accuracy and preservation of responsive records became materially significant.

C. Deliberation Concerns

The assertion that communications constituted merely “consultations with legal counsel” raises additional questions under New Hampshire case law concerning serial deliberations conducted outside a publicly noticed meeting.

Relevant authority potentially implicated includes:

• Ettinger v. Town of Madison Planning Board
• Hampton Police Ass’n v. Town of Hampton

D. Potential Statutory Concerns

If proven, the conduct described could potentially implicate:

• RSA 641:3 – Falsification of Government Records
• RSA 641:4 – Unsworn Falsification
• RSA 638:1 – Tampering With Public Records
• RSA 641:6 – Causing Reliance on False Information
• RSA 642:1 – Obstruction of Government Administration

(September 26, 2023 Affidavit)

This section concerns a sworn affidavit submitted to Rockingham County Superior Court asserting that no deliberations, discussions, approvals, or responsive records existed concerning the settlement agreement.

Subsequent filings, Ombudsman submissions, and transcript admissions appear materially inconsistent with portions of the affidavit, raising concerns regarding:

• accuracy of factual representations;
• completeness of disclosures;
• preservation of records; and
• consistency across proceedings.

If proven materially inaccurate, the affidavit could potentially implicate:

• RSA 641:2 – False Swearing
• RSA 641:4 – Unsworn Falsification
• RSA 638:1 – Tampering With Public Records
• RSA 641:6 – Causing Reliance on False Information
• RSA 642:1 – Obstruction of Government Administration
• RSA 629:3 – Criminal Conspiracy

This section concerns representations made during Ombudsman proceedings acknowledging that settlement-related approval communications occurred through email exchanges while continuing to dispute disclosure obligations.

These positions appear difficult to reconcile with earlier representations denying the existence of responsive deliberations or records.

The apparent inconsistencies raise concerns regarding:

• completeness of RTK disclosures;
• consistency of legal positions;
• preservation of public records; and
• possible obstruction of statutory review processes.

(January 17, 2024 Superior Court Filing)

This section concerns representations made in the January 17, 2024 “Statement of Material Facts.”

The filing reportedly asserted:

• the Town Council did not approve the settlement agreement;
• no deliberations occurred;
• no discussions occurred;
• no meeting occurred; and
• any communications were privileged and exempt.

These representations appear materially inconsistent with:

• prior Ombudsman submissions;
• RTK correspondence;
• transcript admissions concerning email approvals; and
• other filings acknowledging email communications.

These narratives appear irreconcilable and raise substantial concerns regarding the accuracy and completeness of representations made across proceedings.

If proven materially inaccurate, the conduct could potentially implicate:

• RSA 641:4 – Unsworn Falsification
• RSA 641:2 – False Swearing
• RSA 642:1 – Obstruction of Government Administration
• RSA 638:1 – Tampering With Public Records
• RSA 641:6 – Causing Reliance on False Information
• RSA 629:3 – Criminal Conspiracy

This section concerns representations allegedly made in appellate filings asserting:

• no responsive emails existed;
• no public records were created;
• no records were concealed; and
• the Town never impeded access to public records.

These assertions appear materially inconsistent with:

• earlier RTK responses;
• Ombudsman submissions;
• Superior Court filings; and
• transcript admissions acknowledging email communications.

Because appellate courts rely heavily upon factual accuracy and candor, these inconsistencies raise significant concerns warranting careful review.

Potential statutory implications may include:

• RSA 641:2 – False Swearing
• RSA 641:4 – Unsworn Falsification
• RSA 641:6 – Causing Reliance on False Information
• RSA 642:1 – Obstruction of Government Administration
• RSA 638:1 – Tampering With Public Records
• RSA 629:3 – Criminal Conspiracy

This section concerns litigation conduct by several attorneys associated with DTC, including allegations involving:

• evolving factual narratives across forums;
• contradictory positions concerning email deliberations;
• disputed privilege assertions;
• representations concerning the existence of records;
• fee and enforcement litigation; and
• communications involving investigative inquiries.

The record may support concerns regarding:

• candor toward tribunals;
• consistency of factual representations;
• preservation obligations;
• use of privilege claims; and
• litigation conduct across multiple proceedings.

This section does not adjudicate wrongdoing but identifies issues potentially warranting ethical or investigative review.

Fraud upon the court concerns conduct that allegedly corrupts the judicial process itself through deliberate deception directed at tribunals.

The record described herein raises concerns regarding:

• contradictory factual narratives;
• disputed affidavits;
• inconsistent privilege assertions;
• concealed records;
• inconsistent appellate representations; and
• evolving explanations depending upon forum.

The apparent progression of mutually inconsistent narratives across:

• RTK proceedings,
• Ombudsman review,
• Superior Court litigation, and
• Supreme Court filings

may support a broader fraud-upon-the-court theory warranting independent judicial review.

Potential remedies in such circumstances can include:

• vacatur of affected orders;
• sanctions;
• disciplinary referrals;
• evidentiary review; and
• further judicial proceedings.

This section concerns allegations that governmental authority may have been exercised for improper purposes including:

• retaliatory conduct;
• concealment of deliberations;
• suppression of records;
• fee recovery efforts; and
• enforcement actions based upon disputed factual narratives.

The conduct described may implicate:

• due process concerns;
• First Amendment petition rights;
• transparency obligations; and
• statutory duties imposed upon public officials.

If proven, the conduct could potentially implicate:

• RSA 643:1 – Official Oppression
• RSA 626:8 – Accomplice Liability
• RSA 629:3 – Criminal Conspiracy

This section concerns a broader coordinated effort allegedly designed to avoid disclosure obligations under New Hampshire’s Right-to-Know Law.

The alleged sequence includes:

1. nonpublic serial deliberations;
2. failure to create minutes;
3. disputed RTK denials;
4. contradictory Ombudsman positions;
5. inconsistent judicial narratives; and
6. continued enforcement actions based upon disputed factual representations.

The record raises substantial concerns regarding:

• obstruction of transparency obligations;
• concealment of public deliberations;
• record preservation failures; and
• inconsistent legal positions across forums.

This section concerns efforts to obtain:

• attorney fees,
• sanctions,
• writs,
• liens,
• exemplifications, and
• enforcement remedies

while material factual disputes concerning the underlying record allegedly remained unresolved.

If the underlying factual representations are proven materially inaccurate, the resulting enforcement efforts could raise substantial concerns regarding deceptive financial recovery practices.

Potential statutory implications could include:

• RSA 637:4 – Theft by Deception
• RSA 629:1 – Criminal Attempt
• RSA 629:3 – Criminal Conspiracy

This section concerns assertions of attorney-client privilege allegedly used to:

• withhold records,
• shield deliberations,
• dispute meeting requirements,
• resist disclosure obligations, and
• support contradictory litigation positions.

Relevant New Hampshire authority includes:

• Ettinger v. Town of Madison Planning Board
• Grafton County Attorney’s Office v. Canner

The record raises concerns that privilege assertions may have been used inconsistently across proceedings depending upon litigation objectives.

If proven, such conduct could implicate:

• obstruction concerns,
• transparency violations,
• preservation failures, and
• fraud-upon-the-court theories.

This section concerns apparent factual inconsistencies within appellate submissions regarding:

• existence of records,
• existence of deliberations,
• approval communications, and
• disclosure obligations.

Because appellate courts rely extensively upon written factual representations, the identified contradictions warrant careful scrutiny.

The cumulative inconsistencies may support concerns involving:

• unsworn falsification,
• false swearing,
• obstruction, and
• fraud upon the court.

This section concerns whether the cumulative conduct described throughout Issues #1–#12 reflects isolated litigation disputes or a broader coordinated effort involving:

• Town officials,
• legal counsel,
• RTK responses,
• affidavits,
• judicial filings,
• appellate submissions, and
• enforcement actions.

The record may support an inference of shared objectives including:

• concealment of deliberations,
• suppression of records,
• avoidance of accountability,
• preservation of the settlement agreement,
• fee recovery efforts, and
• resistance to investigative review.

This section identifies matters warranting further investigation rather than adjudicating criminal liability.

This section concerns whether the cumulative conduct described throughout this submission reflects:

• repeated inconsistent representations,
• recurring concealment concerns,
• coordinated institutional conduct,
• repeated disclosure disputes, and
• systemic transparency failures.

Potential constitutional implications include:

• First Amendment retaliation concerns;
• procedural due process concerns; and
• Article 8 transparency obligations under the New Hampshire Constitution.

The cumulative record may warrant:

• judicial review;
• ethical review;
• legislative oversight;
• investigative inquiry;
• structural reform considerations; and
• further proceedings concerning affected judgments or enforcement actions.

This submission identifies substantial factual inconsistencies, disputed representations, contradictory litigation positions, and potential statutory concerns arising from the approval, concealment, defense, and enforcement of the Newmarket settlement agreement.

The central issue throughout the record is not merely whether errors occurred, but whether materially inconsistent narratives were advanced across multiple forums in ways that obstructed transparency, impaired judicial review, and affected the integrity of governmental and judicial processes.

These matters warrant careful, independent review by appropriate judicial, investigative, ethical, and oversight authorities.