When the New Hampshire DOJ Says Crimes Aren’t Crimes

By Jeffrey Thomas Clay

Attorney Thomas P. Velardi’s Declination Letter and the Quiet Redefinition of Criminal Law
On November 24, 2025, Attorney Thomas P. Velardi, Chief of the Public Integrity Unit of the New Hampshire Department of Justice, issued a written declination refusing to open a criminal investigation into alleged misconduct by officials of the Town of Newmarket and its attorneys.

The letter did more than decline prosecution. It articulated a position that, if taken at face value, fundamentally alters what conduct the New Hampshire DOJ is willing to recognize as criminal when committed by municipal actors.

According to Velardi, after reviewing court decisions and correspondence, “there was no criminal wrongdoing on the part of Newmarket town officials,” and “no actionable RSA 91-A violation associated with the town’s actions.” Crucially, those conclusions were not the result of any independent criminal investigation.

Crimes Declined Without Investigation Velardi’s letter confirms that no criminal investigation was opened. No witnesses were interviewed. No records were subpoenaed. No forensic review occurred. The declination rests almost entirely on the assertion that civil courts declined relief and that the allegations were conclusory.

That posture matters because the allegations involved conduct that—if proven—has long been criminal under New Hampshire law.

What Was Alleged

Fourteen distinct categories of alleged criminal conduct were documented for investigative and oversight review. These included falsification of government records, false sworn affidavits, false statements to the Right-to-Know Ombudsman, contradictory narratives to different tribunals, concealment and tampering with public records, misuse of attorney–client privilege, false representations to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, obstruction of government administration, theft by deception, conspiracy, and official oppression.

None of these allegations depend on civil success. None are negated by procedural posture. None can be resolved without factual investigation.

The Courts Never Found There Was No RSA 91-A Violation

Importantly, no court ever found that Newmarket did not violate RSA 91-A.

Judge Andrew Schulman expressly avoided making that determination. Instead, the court stated that even if the alleged Right-to-Know violations occurred, it would not grant relief or invalidate the settlement agreement. The ruling was discretionary and remedial—not factual.

The court did not adjudicate whether illegal deliberations occurred, whether records were concealed, or whether false statements were made. It assumed violations for purposes of its ruling and declined relief anyway.

A decision declining civil remedies is not a finding of lawful conduct, nor is it a determination that no crimes occurred.

The Logical Consequence of the DOJ’s Position

Velardi’s letter does not say the allegations were investigated and disproven. It says they were not crimes.

If knowingly submitting false affidavits after notice of litigation is not criminal wrongdoing;
If falsifying Right-to-Know responses is not criminal wrongdoing;
If advancing mutually exclusive factual narratives to multiple tribunals is not criminal wrongdoing;
If concealing public records while pursuing financial enforcement is not criminal wrongdoing;
Then the unavoidable conclusion is that conduct historically criminalized under RSA Chapters 638, 641, 642, 629, and 643 is no longer treated as criminal when committed by municipal officials, so long as civil courts decline relief.

Civil Findings Are Not Criminal Immunity

New Hampshire criminal law does not require prior civil liability. It does not permit prosecutors to substitute judicial abstention for investigation. False swearing does not become lawful because a judge declined a remedy. Falsification does not become opinion because discovery was denied.
Yet the DOJ’s position collapses these distinctions entirely.

A Precedent With Statewide Consequences

This declination signals to municipalities and government attorneys that false statements, concealed records, and contradictory narratives may escape criminal scrutiny if litigation is managed carefully.
That is not discretion. It is abdication.

The Question That Remains

The issue is not whether the allegations are provable. That is the purpose of investigation.
The issue is whether entire categories of conduct remain crimes when committed by government actors.

If they do, investigation is required.

If they do not, the public deserves to be told when and for whom New Hampshire’s criminal laws no longer apply.