#

New Hampshire Democrat Party chair Ray Buckley signed off on a hit piece political mailer six years ago, but a judge ruled he can still be dragged into court over it today.

Buckley’s lawyers tried to get him off the hook for a mailer that may have contained defamatory language targeting a Bedford Republican by claiming Buckley was not involved in creating the political propaganda.

The judge didn’t buy it.

“[Former NHPD staffer Nick] Taylor stated ‘that everything that goes out from the New Hampshire Democratic Party is reviewed by . . . Buckley,’” Hillsborough Superior Court — North Judge David Anderson noted in his ruling released Wednesday.

The mailers featured Buckley’s signature and the disclaimer, “Paid for by NH Democratic Party. Ray Buckley, Chair. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.”

Anderson rejected the attempt by Buckley’s lawyers to have him dismissed as a defendant, ruling that jurors will make the call at trial. The NHDP did not respond to a request for comment.

During the 2018 state Senate race, 6,000 pieces of election mail were sent by the Democratic Party targeting then-state Rep. Dan Hynes. The mailers featured a photo of Hynes doctored to look like a police mug shot and alerted voters of his 2008 criminal conviction for theft by extortion.

The mailer also claimed Hynes had been disbarred as an attorney as a result of the conviction.

“THE WRONG KIND OF CONVICTIONS. [Hynes] targeted woman-owned businesses for extortion. [He] was charged by Republican Attorney General Kelly Ayotte, convicted by the state of New Hampshire for ‘theft by extortion’ and disbarred,” the mailer states.

Except Hynes wasn’t disbarred. Buckley and the NHDP got that wrong. (Hynes did have his law license suspended for one year, however).

Hynes says the Democrats got the “conviction” claim wrong, too, and the New Hampshire Supreme Court agrees. Hynes’ extortion conviction was annulled after he satisfied his sentence and repaid his victims, wiping it off the record.

“The effect of New Hampshire’s annulment statute is to, as a matter of law, render the arrest, conviction, or sentence void for the purposes of public discourse,” the Supreme Court ruled. “The fact that the plaintiff was convicted undeniably exists, but as a matter of New Hampshire law, upon annulment, it is false and misleading to fail to state that the conviction was annulled.”

The mailer makes no mention of Hynes’ annulment, though it includes a link to a news article that informs readers of the facts.

In his deposition, Taylor indicated he read the article and believed the statement about the annulment was true. But the annulment was never directly mentioned on the mailer. Taylor further said that at the time he was not sure about the difference between a lawyer being suspended or a lawyer being disbarred, according to Anderson’s ruling.

Hynes first brought his lawsuit against Buckley and the party after his 2018 loss, but it was dismissed. It was revived after Hynes won his appeal at the Supreme Court. 

Buckley is known for his abrasive persona, and is often accused by political opponents of taking cheap shots. For example, just days ago he retweeted a post about the Jan. 6, 2001 U.S. Capitol riot that featured a photo of Donald Trump taking a selfie with Manchester police officers.

“Trump’s ‘gala’ honoring Jan. 6 rioters may violate his terms of release,” read the caption.

In fact, the photo was from a 2016 Wall Street Journal article about Trump campaigning in the Queen City.

The Manchester Police Department declined to comment about the post.

The outcome of Hynes’s lawsuit is far from certain.

Anderson ruled Buckley and the Democrats can use the defense at trial that Hynes is “libel-proof.” That is the legal doctrine that a person with an already poor public reputation can’t be have their reputation further downgraded by libel.

Hynes was the Republican representative for Bedford until his surprise resignation in February. It’s since been learned Hynes moved out of the district late last year and rented out his house, but continued to claim his Bedford home as his residence. 

New Hampshire’s top Democrat played fast and loose with the facts, the New Hampshire Supreme Court has ruled, and now he is facing a defamation lawsuit for spreading falsehoods about a GOP candidate.

The State’s highest court decided that a defamation lawsuit filed by state Rep. Dan Hynes (R-Bedford) against the state Democratic Party and its controversial chairman Ray Buckley can move forward in Hillsborough Superior Court.

At issue is a 2018 campaign flier claiming Hynes, who was running for state Senate at the time, was a convicted extortionist who had been disbarred. But the flier got several key facts wrong. Now Buckley and his party are exposed to potential liability.

“Dan Hynes targeted woman-owned businesses for extortion. Hynes was charged by Republican Attorney General Kelly Ayotte, convicted by the State of New Hampshire for ‘theft by extortion’ and disbarred,” the flier stated.

But Hynes’s conviction in a 2009 extortion by theft case was annulled, which makes the flier fundamentally false, the court ruled.

Rep. Dan Hynes (R-Bedford)

“Under New Hampshire law, annulled convictions should be treated as if they never happened. Because a criminal arrest, conviction, or sentence potentially implicates one’s personal freedom, these are the most extreme steps the State can take against individuals. The effect of New Hampshire’s annulment statute is to, as a matter of law, render the arrest, conviction, or sentence void for the purposes of public discourse,” the ruling stated.

“The fact that the plaintiff was convicted undeniably exists, but as a matter of New Hampshire law, upon annulment, it is false and misleading to fail to state that the conviction was annulled.”

And while Hynes was disciplined for his actions with a suspension of his law license, he was never disbarred.

That was enough of a mistake to warrant a trial, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday, overriding a lower court that had dismissed Hynes’ case.

One common defamation defense is to claim the person making the charge wasn’t aware of the facts and made an innocent mistake. Unfortunately for Buckley, the Supreme Court noted that the hit piece mailer included the addresses of internet links to relevant court documents, including Hynes’ annulment. The hit piece also included an internet link to documents concerning Hynes’ law license suspension, meaning Buckley and the NHDP knew or should have known he was not disbarred.

“The inclusion of this citation in the mailer could lead a reasonable jury to find that the defendants were subjectively aware that the plaintiff had not been disbarred and, therefore, subjectively aware that the language in the mailer was untrue,” the ruling states.

Buckley and the state party declined to comment on the court’s ruling or answer questions about the false statements in the campaign flier.

According to court records, Hynes sent a “Cease and Desist/Demand Letter” to Claudia Lambert, Claudia’s Signature Salon owner in Concord, in 2009. Hynes claimed that because Lambert’s salon charged women more money for haircuts than men or children, she was engaging in gender discrimination. 

Hynes’ letter demanded that she stop charging women more money and that she pay him $1,000. Lambert’s husband contacted the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office, and during a sting operation, an investigator witnessed Hynes taking $500 to settle his claim of unfair trade practices. During that meeting, Hynes reportedly said he had sent other letters to other hair salons and was currently in negotiations with these businesses and their attorneys.

Hynes was convicted, ordered to pay restitution, and had his law license suspended for a year. The conviction was later annulled after completing all the terms of his sentence.