A Subversion of Justice: How Newmarket’s Town Manager and DTC Legal Counsel Perpetrated a Fraud Upon the Cour

A Subversion of Justice: How Newmarket’s Town Manager and DTC Legal Counsel Perpetrated a Fraud Upon the Court

By Jeffrey Thomas Clay

When citizens entrust public officials and municipal attorneys with the responsibility of governance and legal representation, they expect adherence to state law and absolute fidelity to the judicial process. In Newmarket, New Hampshire, that trust has been shattered by conduct that transcends ordinary legal error, reaching the level of a deliberate fraud upon the court.

Through the actions of Town Manager Steve Fournier and attorneys from Donahue, Tucker & Ciandella (DTC)—most notably Christopher Hawkins, who serves simultaneously as lead attorney and as Newmarket’s Town Moderator—a void, unconstitutional settlement agreement was deceptively presented and defended as a valid contract.

The Dual Role of Attorney Christopher Hawkins

Central to this institutional breakdown is Attorney Christopher Hawkins. His dual status as a senior litigator at DTC and as Newmarket’s elected Town Moderator places him at the intersection of municipal governance, procedural compliance, and judicial advocacy.

As Town Moderator, Hawkins is directly tasked with presiding over town meetings, enforcing parliamentary authority, and ensuring strict adherence to New Hampshire’s statutes governing municipal procedures and public notice. Few individuals in the municipality possess a deeper structural understanding of the non-negotiable mandates of the Right-to-Know Law (RSA 91-A) and Part I, Article 8 of the New Hampshire Constitution.

Yet, as legal counsel for the Town, Hawkins—alongside DTC colleagues John Ratigan, Briana Matuszko, and William Warren, and Town Manager Steve Fournier—offered and submitted a settlement agreement to the court that systematically bypassed those exact statutory requirements.

The Gravamen of the Fraud: Presenting a Void Instrument to the Tribunal

Under New Hampshire law, a municipal contract that violates a positive state statute or exceeds municipal authority (ultra vires) is void ab initio—a complete legal nullity from its inception (Professional Fire Fighters of Wolfeboro v. Town of Wolfeboro, 164 N.H. 18, 21).

A fraud upon the court occurs when officers of the court—attorneys who owe an uncompromising duty of candor under Rule 3.3 of the NH Rules of Professional Conduct—engage in an intentional scheme or misrepresentation that corrupts the judicial machinery. The fraud perpetrated by Hawkins, Fournier, and DTC was executed through three distinct steps:

1. Affirmative Misrepresentation of Legal Capacity: Counsel presented the settlement agreement to Superior Court Judge Andrew Schulman as an enforceable, legally binding contract, while knowingly concealing the statutory non-compliance under RSA 91-A that stripped the municipality of authority to enter into it.
2. Manipulating the Judicial Standard: Rather than disclosing that the town lacked statutory authority to contract around open-government mandates, counsel actively misdirected the court toward common-law "public policy" balancing tests, deceiving the tribunal into treating a statutory nullity as a matter of judicial discretion.
3. Exploiting Taxpayer Funds to Perpetuate the Deceit: Once the statutory defects were brought to light, municipal officials refused to concede the error. Instead, Fournier and DTC expended an estimated $60,000 or more in public taxpayer funds to litigate, defend, and perpetuate a void agreement in court.

Inducing Judicial Overreach

By withholding the true statutory posture of the agreement, municipal counsel induced the court to issue rulings enforcing an illegal act—effectively causing the judiciary to exceed its constitutional boundaries under Part I, Article 37 (Separation of Powers).

A court cannot grant legal life to an instrument that state law declares void. Inducing a judge to do so by concealing foundational statutory violations is not vigorous advocacy; it is a deception practiced directly upon the tribunal.

Conclusion: The Immediate Need for Judicial Relief

When public officials and municipal officers of the court collaborate to shield an unconstitutional agreement behind misrepresentations of law and fact, the integrity of the judicial system is compromised.

Christopher Hawkins, Steve Fournier, and the legal team at DTC did not merely misinterpret state law—they actively manipulated the judicial process to uphold a contract they knew was legally defective. Any judgment or order procured through such concealment is tainted by fraud upon the court and cannot stand. Justice demands that these claims be immediately dismissed, the orders vacated, and the public trust restored.