Public Statement Calling For Impeachment And Independent Investigation

Executive Summary

This public statement calls for the impeachment of Judge Andrew Schulman of the Rockingham County Superior Court and for an independent investigation into the conduct of the New Hampshire Supreme Court. The request arises not from disagreement with adverse rulings but from documented judicial actions that approved and enforced an unlawful government contract, disregarded binding precedent, and deprived a citizen of due process.

I. Unlawful Government Contract Approved by the Courts

The underlying dispute concerns a purported settlement agreement between myself and the Town of Newmarket that attempted to permanently waive my statutory rights under New Hampshire’s Right-to-Know Law (RSA 91-A). The agreement was never approved by the Newmarket Town Council, never lawfully authorized, and never adopted in compliance with statutory requirements governing municipal authority and transparency.
Despite these defects, Judge Schulman ruled that the agreement did not violate public policy and that the Town could “ratify” the agreement merely by filing suit upon it. These conclusions contradict settled New Hampshire law holding that public bodies possess only the authority granted by the Legislature and that contracts exceeding that authority are void ab initio.

II. Supreme Court Affirmance Without Legal Analysis

The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed Judge Schulman’s reasoning without addressing controlling precedent prohibiting the enforcement of unlawful government contracts or jurisprudence protecting citizens from prospective waivers of Right-to-Know rights. In doing so, the Court sanctioned the judicial enforcement of conduct that the Legislature has expressly forbidden.

III. Due Process Violations

Material factual findings were made without evidentiary hearings, disputed issues were resolved without testimony, and assertions contradicted by the record were accepted as fact. This process deprived me of fundamental due process and undermined the appearance and reality of judicial neutrality.

IV. Grounds for Impeachment

Impeachment is warranted where a judge knowingly disregards controlling law, legitimizes unlawful government conduct, suppresses statutory and constitutional rights, and erodes public confidence in the judiciary. The actions described herein meet that constitutional standard.

V. Public Importance

If courts may enforce illegal government contracts and excuse violations of transparency laws, then no citizen’s rights are secure. This matter implicates the integrity of New Hampshire’s judiciary and the continued vitality of open government.

VI. Call to Action

I respectfully call upon the New Hampshire House of Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings, upon the Governor and Executive Council to support an independent investigation, and upon the public and press to demand accountability.
Jeffrey Thomas Clay
Citizen and Litigant.

PUBLIC APPENDIX (SUMMARY)

Appendix A – Lack of Lawful Authorization

The settlement agreement was never approved by the Newmarket Town Council, never voted on in public session, and never executed by the governing body as required by law. Under New Hampshire precedent, municipal officials cannot bind a town absent express legislative or council authorization.

Appendix B – Violation of Public Policy

The agreement attempted to permanently bar future Right-to-Know requests. New Hampshire courts have repeatedly held that statutory transparency rights cannot be waived prospectively and that such waivers violate public policy.

Appendix C – Improper Ratification Theory

Judge Schulman concluded that the Town ‘ratified’ the agreement by suing upon it. This theory conflicts with precedent holding that void contracts cannot be ratified and that illegal governmental acts cannot be cured by subsequent litigation.

Appendix D – Due Process Deficiencies

Factual findings were made without evidentiary hearings, credibility determinations were rendered without testimony, and disputed facts were resolved against the record. These actions deprived the litigant of a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

Appendix E – Systemic Implications

By affirming these rulings, the New Hampshire Supreme Court created precedent that permits courts to excuse governmental illegality and suppress statutory rights. The implications extend far beyond a single litigant or case.