#

New Hampshire Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley could go to trial soon for allegedly defaming state Rep. Dan Hynes (R-Bedford).

The case was revived this week when a New Hampshire Supreme Court ruling found Hynes could sue after the state Democratic Party published incorrect information about his criminal record during his 2018 Senate run. 

Hynes, who is representing himself, appeared in Hillsborough Superior Court — North in Manchester on Wednesday along with the Democratic Party’s attorney, Tim McLaughlin, to discuss the next steps in bringing the lawsuit before a jury.

Both Hynes and McLaughlin agreed with Judge David Anderson to submit a new case ordering structure — essentially a schedule — by Sept. 1. Hynes suggested the Democratic Party may want to refile its answer to his complaint in light of this summer’s Supreme Court decision.

“I think it’s possible for a new answer in the case,” Hynes said.

Hynes sued Buckley and the party after Democrats released election fliers during the 2018 campaign that Haynes said portrayed him falsely. He went on to lose that election.

The flier in question alerted voters to parts of Hynes’s criminal history, though it got some key facts wrong. Hynes got in trouble in 2009 for reportedly sending legal threats to hair salons. 

According to court records, Hynes sent a “Cease and Desist/Demand Letter” to Claudia Lambert, Claudia’s Signature Salon owner in Concord. 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 and 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 those businesses and their attorneys.

“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 Democrats flier stated.

Hynes initially lost the first round in court when the case was dismissed based on the fact that he had, in fact, been convicted of extortion.

However, that conviction had been annulled before the 2018 election, and New Hampshire law treats annulled convictions as though they do not exist. In addition, while Hynes was, in fact, disciplined and his law license suspended, he was not disbarred.

As a result, the Supreme Court ruled Buckley and the NHPD sent voters mailers that contained factual untruths.

“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 Supreme Court ruled. “In the context of this case, to conclude otherwise could discourage those with annulled criminal records from seeking elective office, a constitutionally protected right.”

There is an exemption if the reporting party was unaware that a conviction had been annulled, but the NHDP flier included an internet link to the relevant court documents, inducing Hynes’ annulment. There was also a link on the flier to documents concerning Hynes’ law license suspension, meaning the NHPD and Buckley knew Hynes had not been disbarred.

Former Democratic State Sen. Jeff Woodburn is filing another appeal after he was sentenced Thursday to a month in jail on criminal mischief charges connected to the domestic violence case that ended his political career.

“We will defend this tooth and nail,” said Mark Sisti, Woodburn’s attorney.

This week, Coos Superior Court Judge Peter Bornstein denied Woodburn’s motion for a new trial on the two criminal mischief convictions and sentenced him to 12 months in jail on each count, with all but 30 days suspended. That sentence is stayed, meaning he will not have to report to jail until after his appeal to the New Hampshire Supreme Court is heard.

The state Supreme Court ruled earlier this year Woodburn is entitled to a new trial on the convictions for one count of domestic violence and one count of simple assault. The Supreme Court found Woodburn did not get a fair trial in 2021 since he was not allowed to use a self-defense argument.

According to court records, the convictions stem from Woodburn’s violent actions related to three separate incidents. In the first instance, Woodburn and the woman arrived in separate vehicles at a Dec. 15, 2017, Christmas party, and the woman agreed to drive him home so that Woodburn would be able to drink at the party. During an argument on the drive home, Woodburn had the woman pull over. During a struggle over his phone, he bit her hand, according to court records.

On Christmas Eve of that same year, Woodburn kicked the door to the woman’s house after she refused to let him inside. Earlier that year, in August 2017, he reportedly kicked her clothes dryer, breaking the appliance, according to court records.

The woman went on record telling Bornstein that she tried to grab his phone without permission at one point during her many struggles with Woodburn. Bornstein stated in court that did not rise to the level of behavior allowing Woodburn’s self-defense claims.

But the Supreme Court found there was just enough evidence on record for Woodburn to make a self-defense case.

“Because the record contains ‘some evidence’ supporting a rational finding that the defendant acted in self-defense, the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury on that theory of defense was unreasonable,” Supreme Court Judge James Bassett wrote.

However, in the same ruling, the New Hampshire Supreme Court upheld the criminal mischief convictions. 

Woodburn and Sisti continue to aggressively pursue appeals. They have been arguing Woodburn should get a new trial on all counts because Woodburn’s prior attorney erred by not seeking separate trials on all the charges, which ended up prejudicing the jury.

Sisti has further argued against the 30 days in jail, saying the sentences for the criminal mischief convictions might have been different if Woodburn had originally been found not guilty of domestic violence and assault.

Sisti said Woodburn will keep fighting the case as long as the state continues to push it. He’s open to a resolution, though.

“If they want to push it, they can push it,” Sisti said. “Jeff’s been open to a resolution to this for the past five years. For some reason, there’s this need to go forward with this.”

Woodburn was formally charged in August of 2018, and, ignoring calls for his resignation, ran for reelection to his Senate seat. Woodburn won the Democratic primary but lost in the general election in 2018.

He was originally tried on nine counts, but the jury found him not guilty of five of the alleged criminal acts.

Could the next 60 days see an end to New Hampshire’s school funding system as we know it?

Rockingham Superior Court Judge David Ruoff told lawyers Wednesday he is set to rule sometime in the next 60 days on either the final decision in the Contoocook Valley Regional School District adequacy grant lawsuit or the summary judgment for the Grafton County lawsuit seeking to cancel the Statewide Education Property Tax or SWEPT.

“Time is of the essence here for everyone involved,” Ruoff said.

New Hampshire lawmakers, education leaders, and local school boards have been tussling for decades over how to fund a constitutionally-mandated adequate education. Despite hundreds of millions in new funds going to education this year alone, there is still no agreement on how to pay for public schools.

Ruoff is now the one man in the state who could change everything thanks to the lawsuits which landed before him in court. 

The original judge on the Grafton County case, Grafton Superior Court Judge Lawrence MacLeod, recused himself last year, citing a potential conflict of interest. MacLeod is a property owner in one of the property-rich towns pushing to keep the current SWEPT system in place.

MacLeod’s recusal sent the case to Ruoff. Ruoff is also under orders from the New Hampshire Supreme Court to decide in the ConVal case exactly how much the state should pay per pupil.

In both cases, the school districts claim the way the state is currently funding education, using an unevenly enforced SWEPT to pay for adequacy grants that do not cover all necessary expenses, is unconstitutional.

Ruoff initially ruled in ConVal’s favor, agreeing the state is not paying enough per pupil, but he left setting a particular amount to legislators. On appeal, the Supreme Court ruled Ruoff needed to hold a trial and set a specific dollar amount.

New Hampshire upped its per pupil adequacy grant this year to $4,100. But the plaintiffs in the ConVal case are looking for just short of $10,000 per pupil. Ruoff listened to weeks of testimony this year; his highly anticipated ruling is pending.

With approximately 160,000 students in the state’s K-12 public schools, a $10,000 adequacy payment would cost state taxpayers $1.6 billion yearly.

Meanwhile, lawyers representing the state and the Grafton County plaintiffs argued in court Wednesday over an injunction to set the SWEPT rate at 0, as the plaintiff wants. Ruoff indicated he would issue a judgment in the case without need for a trial since neither side disputes the facts about how schools are funded.

SWEPT accounts for 30 percent of education funding in New Hampshire. Under a law change in 2011, a loophole was created. Now as many as 30 wealthier communities in New Hampshire are keeping a portion of the money raised through SWEPT, essentially getting to set a negative property tax rate, while poorer communities end up with higher SWEPT rates to make up for their low property values.

Michael Jaoude, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said the uneven SWEPT burden violates the Claremont decision from the 1990s, which ruled there is a constitutional right to adequate education and that the cost needs to be shared equally.

“No resident should have a greater burden of funding that constitutional right than another,” Jaoude said.

SWEPT started in 1999 as a response to the Claremont decision, which found the state has a constitutional obligation to fund adequate education. The money raised, more than $360 million estimated in the coming year, is used to fund state adequacy grants. 

Senior Assistant Attorney General Sam Garland said ruling for the Grafton County plaintiffs would have disastrous impacts on local town and school budgets. Garland said the plaintiffs have not shown that the SWEPT system is unconstitutional, and their arguments don’t hold up.

“We don’t think they’ve made that showing, and we don’t think they can make that showing as a matter of law,” Garland said.

Garland said even if the 2011 law creating the SWEPT exemptions might be unconstitutional, the tax itself is not, and Ruoff should allow the rate to be set.

Ruoff indicated the whole SWEPT issue might be moot depending on his eventual ruling in the ConVal case.

Former Democratic state Sen. Jeff Woodburn wants a do-over.

Woodburn and his attorney, Mark Sisti, are asking Coos Superior Court Judge Peter Bornstein to toss out the two criminal mischief convictions in his domestic violence case and give him a new trial. It is a request opposed by the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office.

Woodburn is already getting a new trial on the domestic violence and assault charges after the New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled the former Senate Minority Leader didn’t get a fair trial his first time around. He was convicted in 2021 on two counts of criminal mischief, one count of domestic violence, and one count of simple assault.

He was originally tried on nine counts. The jury found him not guilty of five charges.

The state Supreme Court ruled Woodburn should have been able to claim self-defense on the domestic violence and simple assault charges. At the same time, the state Court upheld the criminal mischief convictions. Facing 30 days in jail after the Supreme Court ruling, Woodburn now wants those charges tossed out instead.

The new domestic violence and assault trial is set for March of next year.

Sisti filed a motion seeking a new trial on the grounds that Woodburn’s prior attorney erred by not seeking separate trials on all the charges, which resulted in prejudicing the jury.

Assistant Attorney General Zachary Wolf called the arguments “nonsensical” in his motion opposing the request.

“Indeed, it is hard to see how the defendant can claim he suffered any type of prejudice in this matter when the jury chose to take him at his word, finding him guilty of only the offenses that he admitted and not guilty of the offenses he denied,” Wolf wrote.

Woodburn allegedly bit his then-girlfriend during an argument after a Christmas party in 2017. Days later, he allegedly kicked the door to the woman’s house when she refused to let him inside. Earlier that year, in August 2017, he reportedly kicked her clothes dryer, breaking the appliance, according to court records.

Sisti also wants to delay any sentencing imposed for the criminal mischief convictions, arguing his sentence might have been different if he had originally been found not guilty of domestic violence and assault. Wolf wrote that line of argument is unconvincing.

“There is simply no indication in the record that the Court would have sentenced the defendant differently had he been acquitted of the domestic violence and simple assault charges. As a result, there is nothing for the Court to reconsider at this juncture, and resentencing would be an exercise in futility,” Wolf wrote.

Woodburn has been fighting the charges for years, and he is running out of room to keep his case alive — and himself out of jail.

Patricia LaFrance, the former attorney for the victim in the case, told NHJournal there’s nothing to appeal for the criminal mischief convictions after the state Supreme Court upheld those counts.

“The next step would be the United States Supreme Court, but there would have to be some controversy that splits the states,” LaFrance said.

Criminal cases that raise questions for the United States Supreme Court usually center on legal discrepancies between states, where particular laws or standards vary. Woodburn and Sisti are not currently arguing anything that could go to the highest federal court. She said that even if they were, it is unlikely they would get that far. New Hampshire criminal cases rarely go to the High Court.

“I had a case in 2011 that went to the (United States) Supreme Court, and that was the first criminal case from New Hampshire in 40 years to go there,” LaFrance said.

Woodburn was formally charged in August 2018 and ran for reelection to the state Senate, despite calls for his resignation. Woodburn won the Democratic primary and lost in the general election in 2018.

The only protestor convicted for protesting COVID-19 lockdowns in front of Gov. Chris Sununu’s home is taking his case to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.

Frank Negus Staples, aka Foot Loose, is appealing his conviction on one count of disorderly conduct for his role in the protests outside the homes of Sununu and Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald. He was among nine people arrested during the protests, and the only one convicted.

“We were all found not guilty of ‘picketing,’” Staples said. “I was found guilty of ‘disorderly conduct.’”

NHJournal reporter Chris Maidment was arrested during the protests and charged with picketing, despite identifying himself to authorities as a journalist on assignment. NHJournal earned a First Amendment award from the New Hampshire Press Association for its work on the story, and the charges were dismissed before the case went to trial.

MacDonald, who was New Hampshire’s Attorney General at the time of the protests, has recused himself from the case according to Staples. MacDonald’s Department of Justice was instrumental in creating the picketing ordinance used to charge the protestors.

“Gordon MacDonald has recused himself from the case due to his direct involvement in the creation of the town ‘picketing’ ordinance and how to enforce it,” Staples said.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court accepted Staples’ appeal as part of the dozens of cases accepted in November. A hearing date has not been set.

After Sununu started conducting government business from his home due to the pandemic, opponents of the governor’s COVID-19 policies started protesting in the street outside. Sununu and his neighbors expressed their unhappiness with the crowds of sign-waving demonstrators in their cul-de-sac, but the protestors were on public property.

In response, the town Board of Selectmen, including Sununu’s brother Michael, drafted an anti-picketing ordinance designed to discourage — if not prevent — the protests. Three members of the Sununu administration, including Department of Safety Commissioner Robert Quinn, testified on behalf of the protest ban at a December 8 select board meeting.

The language for the ordinance came directly from the Attorney General’s Office, according to emails obtained by NHJournal.

Concord attorney Seth Hipple, who represented several of the protesters, including Maidment, told NH Journal last year that the government is holding a losing hand.

“The prosecution’s case was a dumpster fire,” Hipple said.

None of the arresting officers were able to individually identify any of the protesters who were charged, and they were unable to specify what actions the protestors took that violated the law, according to Hipple.

Staples, who told NHJournal people do not like it when he gets loud, was a fixture at anti-COVID lockdown protests throughout the pandemic. He was among several people arrested at an Executive Council Meeting last year who were protesting a federal contract to pay for COVID vaccines.

Staples was also the lead protestor at the September 2021 Executive Council meeting that was shut down because of safety concerns.

Staples made statements to New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services employees that they deemed threatening.The employees were unnerved and subsequently escorted to their cars by New Hampshire State Police Troopers. Staples, who was shouting and acting in an aggressive manner through the meeting denies he meant a threat when he shouted “we know where you live” to the DHHS employees.

Staples and several other protestors at the September 2021 Executive Council meeting were investigated by Attorney General John Formella’s office, but no charges were ever brought.