New Hampshire Supreme Court Endorses Lies, Concealment, and Corruption!

The New Hampshire Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Judge Andrew Schulman’s order in Clay v. Town of Newmarket is a disgraceful betrayal of the people of this state. The Court turned a blind eye to undeniable violations of RSA 91-A (Right-to-Know Law) and RSA 641 (Falsification in Official Matters), ignored the record of lies told by town officials and their attorneys, and failed to apply the correct legal standard to my appeal.

Secret Approvals, Concealed Records

The Newmarket Town Council did not approve the settlement agreement in a lawful public meeting. Instead, approval was arranged through secret email exchanges with Town Manager Steven Fournier. There was no public notice, no open deliberation, no minutes. This was a blatant violation of RSA 91-A, and the concealment of those records was a direct violation of RSA 641.

To cover it up, Fournier submitted an official false statement claiming that the Town Council’s discussions, deliberations, and votes were part of a “consultation with legal counsel.” That was a lie. No such consultation ever occurred.

The Attorneys’ Web of Lies

Rather than admit the truth, Newmarket’s attorneys—Christopher Hawkins, John Ratigan, Briana Matuszko, and William Warren—doubled down. They lied to the Ombudsman. They lied to the Rockingham Superior Court. They lied to the Supreme Court.

• They claimed Newmarket never violated RSA 91-A.
• They claimed the Town Council never approved the settlement.
• They fabricated the story that Fournier approved the contract alone, knowing full well that was false.

At the Superior Court hearing, Attorney Ratigan, with Attorney Matuszko present, admitted he only ever exchanged emails with the Town Manager. No Town Council meeting ever took place. No consultation with legal counsel ever happened. Fournier’s written claims were false, and the attorneys knew it. Yet they repeated those lies anyway, in violation of their oaths and the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Judicial Complicity

Judge Schulman excused this misconduct, ruling that the Town had “ratified” its illegal actions simply by enforcing the contract in court. That logic rewards lies and concealment by allowing officials to sanitize unlawful acts after the fact.

And when I appealed, the Supreme Court failed its most basic duty. My appeal was from a summary judgment order. Under long-established precedent, the Court was required to review the facts in the light most favorable to me, the non-moving party. Instead, the Court adopted Newmarket’s false narrative wholesale, ignoring the record and refusing to apply the correct standard of review.

This was not just error—it was judicial complicity in protecting lies and misconduct.

A Dangerous Precedent

The result is devastating. The Court has told every town in New Hampshire: you may conceal records, submit false documents, and lie in court without consequence—as long as a judge later blesses it.

Town Manager Steven Fournier lied. Attorneys Hawkins, Ratigan, Matuszko, and Warren lied. They violated their oaths, corrupted the judicial process, and profited from misconduct. Judge Schulman and the Supreme Court legitimized it all—while abandoning the very legal standards they are sworn to uphold.

If this is justice in New Hampshire, then RSA 91-A is dead. Transparency is dead. And faith in the courts should be dead as well.