Public Trust Betrayed:

PUBLIC TRUST BETRAYED: How Chief Jordan and Terri Littlefield Lent Their Names to an Unauthorized, Unconstitutional Deception

By Jeffrey Thomas Clay

In any functioning democracy, public officials and administrators are bound by a sacred oath to uphold the law, protect constitutional rights, and ensure absolute transparency. But in the ongoing saga of municipal overreach, a staggering display of bad faith has come to light—one that strips away any illusion of institutional integrity.

At the center of this controversy is an agreement explicitly weaponized to suppress a citizen's rights under the New Hampshire Constitution and the Right-to-Know Law (RSA 91-A). Yet, the most damning revelation isn't just what is written inside this document; it is the names plastered upon it: Newmarket Police Chief Gregory Jordan and Terri Littlefield.

The truth must be told plainly: neither Chief Jordan nor Terri Littlefield ever signed this agreement. Yet, they allowed their names, titles, and institutional weight to be used to legitimize a completely unauthorized and unlawful contract—an act of profound negligence, if not outright complicity.

The Illusion of Authority and the Void Agreement

To understand the depth of this betrayal, one must look at the law. In New Hampshire, municipal agents and public officials do not possess infinite, unilateral power. They cannot simply invent authority to enter into restrictive legal agreements that bind public entities or curtail civil liberties. Such authority must be explicitly granted, vetted, and authorized under state law.

Chief Jordan and Terri Littlefield knew—or absolutely should have known—a fundamental legal truth: this agreement was never authorized by the New Hampshire legislature.

Because it lacks statutory authority, the document is not a binding legal contract; it is an absolute nullity. It is void ab initio—void from the very beginning. By permitting their names to stand on an unauthorized instrument, Jordan and Littlefield didn't just sign off on a flawed piece of paper; they lent the power of their offices to a legal fiction designed to deceive the courts and the public.

A Direct Assault on Constitutional Rights and RSA 91-A

What was the actual purpose of this unauthorized agreement? It was designed to act as a shield against public oversight. It was engineered to violate protected constitutional rights and trample the clear mandates of RSA 91-A, New Hampshire’s Right-to-Know law.

RSA 91-A exists to ensure that government remains accountable to the people. It guarantees that the public can scrutinize the actions of those in power. When public officials use unauthorized agreements to restrict a citizen's ability to demand transparency, challenge municipal corruption, or exercise free speech, they are engaging in a direct assault on the Constitution.

Chief Jordan, as the town's top law enforcement officer, is tasked with enforcing the law, not circumventing it. Terri Littlefield, as a key administrative figure, is bound to the rules of proper governance. For them to remain silent while their names were used to anchor an unconstitutional, unauthorized document is an abdication of their duty to the public.

Accountability Cannot Be Avoided By Leaving the Signature Line Blank

A favorite tactic of bureaucratic bad faith is the "plausible deniability" defense. The defense will undoubtedly claim: "They didn't sign it, so they cannot be held responsible."

This is a coward's argument. In the realm of public oversight and equity, accountability is not limited to ink on a signature line.

• If they knew their names were on an unauthorized, unconstitutional agreement being presented to the courts and did nothing to stop it, they are guilty of active deception.
• If they claim they didn't know, they are guilty of gross, reckless negligence in the administration of their official duties.

You do not get to have your name and title used to legitimize an illegal assault on a citizen's constitutional rights and then wash your hands of the consequences. By failing to repudiate this fraudulent agreement, both Chief Gregory Jordan and Terri Littlefield adopted the deception as their own.

Conclusion: The Need for Absolute Transparency

When public officials allow unauthorized agreements to be masqueraded before the courts as legitimate law, the entire system is poisoned. It erodes public trust, insults the intelligence of the community, and makes a mockery of the New Hampshire legislature.

Chief Jordan and Terri Littlefield must be held publicly and legally accountable for this charade. The courts, the legislature, and the citizens of New Hampshire must demand to know: By what authority did these officials allow an unauthorized, right-stripping document to bear their names?

The cover-up has failed. The light of transparency is shining directly on this unauthorized agreement, and those who lent their names to this deception must now answer for it.