#

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.

The battle over Million Air’s plans to build an air facility close to wetlands at Pease International Tradeport is heading to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.

Rival aviation service company Port City Air is appealing a New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services ruling that it cannot intervene in the case since Port City does not own land at the Tradeport.

Jake Marvelley, Port City’s attorney, said DES’s order means anyone with a lease or rental agreement is now blocked from ever challenging that state.

“That’s the logical extent of it. That’s what they’re saying. If you’re not a landowner, you can’t appeal,” Marvelley told NH Journal.

Texas-based Million Air wants to build a new fixed-based operator facility at Pease to service private aircraft over objections from residents and nearby communities concerned about the potential negative environmental impacts.

Port City has joined the effort to block the development, and it was part of the appeal to the DES Water Council concerning state approval for Million Air’s wetlands permit. However, DES threw out Port City’s appeal on the argument the company does not qualify as an abutter under the law. 

Now Port City is taking its case to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, arguing DES’s order is unconstitutional. 

“The Order relies on a reading of applicable statutes that leads to an unconstitutional result: depriving Port City Air of any right to be heard, and therefore violating its right to due process under the United States and New Hampshire Constitutions,” Marvelley wrote in the appeal filed with the New Hampshire Supreme Court on Friday.

The Wetlands Council order found that Port City cannot be considered a “person aggrieved,” the legal term of an entity capable of the necessary standing to bring legal action, because the company does not own land at Pease. Port City leases its facility from the Pease Development Authority. Zachary Towle, the DES hearing officer who ruled against Port City, states the company does not qualify under the law to fight Million Air.

“Port City does not possess a fee ownership interest in the relevant land. Port City does not possess an easement on PDA owned land, buildings, other facilities, or improvements. Port City possesses a leasehold interest regarding property owned by the PDA,” Towle wrote. “As Port City does not qualify as a landowner, it cannot qualify as an abutting landowner and therefore cannot be a ‘person aggrieved’ with standing pursuant to RSA § 482-A:10.”

Marvelley argued in his appeal that if Towle’s ruling is allowed to stand, no tenant anywhere in the state could appeal any DES order. 

“That would mean a wide-ranging infringement of constitutional rights of any party that happened to not be a landowner in fee simple. Specifically, the Order’s interpretation of applicable statutes prevents any tenant from ever successfully seeking administrative review,” Marvelley wrote.

If the DES order is allowed to stand, it will impact Port City and all the tenants at Pease, Marvelley said. The PDA is engaged in numerous long-term lease agreements with multiple tenants, some of whom have invested millions in their businesses. Under Towle’s ruling, these businesses have no right to appeal any DES orders. 

“Somewhere like Pease, everyone’s a tenant,” Marvelley said.

Port City has said its opposition to Million Air is based on environmental concerns. Pease is already the site of a major PFAS contamination that has impacted drinking water in the Seacoast region. 

Danna Truslow, a hydrogeologist Port City hired to look at the site, found levels of PFAS in the site Million Air wants to use are already 10 times higher than the levels considered safe. Million Air will be building near the wetlands that feed the aquifer, which supplies water for several communities.

Million Air has maintained Port City’s opposition is more about stopping competition than stopping contamination. Million For has stated its project will be environmentally safe and secure. 

Call it the “Don’t Let the Door Hit You” Defense.

During oral arguments in a lawsuit over its policy of keeping parents in the dark about their children’s behavior, the Manchester School District’s attorney told the state Supreme Court that parents shouldn’t be able to challenge the district’s policy. Instead, they should pull their kids out of public school and go somewhere else.

“If the parents want to make a different choice, they can homeschool, or they can send their child to a private school; those are options available to them,” said attorney Meghan Glynn.

The district is being sued over its policy of keeping students’ behavior related to sex and gender secret from their parents.

Richard Lehmann, the attorney for the Manchester mother going by Jane Doe, who filed the lawsuit, said parents have the right to know if their children are being socially transitioned in schools with the aid of school staff.

Manchester School District lawyer Meghan Glynn told Supreme Court justices that parents who don’t like the district’s policies can send their kids to private school.

“The real issue is not a school reporting on what a student is doing in school, but for the school to report what the school itself is doing in school,” Lehmann said.

Lehmann rejected the argument that Doe’s lawsuit was an attempt to force the district to out LGBT students to their parents. He argued that it is about a government entity usurping parental powers and making decisions in place of a parent.

“This is the government substituting its own judgment over a parent’s judgment when it comes to gender identity,” Lehmann said. 

Jane Doe stated in her original complaint that she found out in the fall of 2021 that her child was using a different pronoun and gender identity at school. The school’s name was withheld in court documents to protect the child’s identity.

The mother spoke with school staff, including the student’s guidance counselor. According to the lawsuit, the mother made it clear she wanted her child to be called by the name and pronouns the child had at birth while in school.

Even though the staff she spoke to initially agreed, the mother received an email from the school principal stating that the mother’s instructions were being overridden due to the district’s policy. According to the lawsuit, the principal stated that the district’s policy requires school staff to keep such matters secret from parents if the child so chooses. Even if staffers agree to use the child’s true gender identity when speaking with the mother, they would be obligated to not tell the mother if the child wished to be identified as something else.

The policy states teachers and staff are not to tell anyone about a child’s gender identity without the express consent of the child. School employees are also directed to use the child’s biological pronouns and given name when talking about the child to people who do not know about the nonconforming gender identity.

Last September, Hillsborough Superior Court Judge Amy Messer ruled in favor of the school district, declaring parents ultimately do not have the right to direct how their children are to be educated in public schools.

“(T)he right to make decisions about the care, custody, and control of one’s child is not absolute,” Messer wrote.

Because Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi has recused herself from the case without giving a reason, the court may issue a 2-2 tie decision. If they do, Messer’s original ruling will stand.

On Friday, Glynn maintained the Manchester school staff, and officials did not lie to Doe about her child’s gender identity. They simply followed policy.

“If the issue, in this case, is truly that the district has a constitutional duty to report what the school is doing, the school has met that burden,” Glynn said.

Glynn said that parents have the right to have their voice heard when the district crafts policies, and they have the right to vote out school board representatives who pursue policies they do not support. A comment from Justice James Bassett seemingly rebuked this line of reasoning.

“Constitutional rights are not up for a vote,” Bassett said.  

In fact, parents’ rights are coming up for a vote in the New Hampshire House. Last week, the House Education Committee cast a 10-10 party-line vote on SB272, the Parents Bill of Rights. The full Hous is expected to vote on the legislation, which is supported by Gov. Chris Sununu, later this month.

Glynn cautioned the justices that if they decide in favor of Doe and parents’ rights in this case, more lawsuits will likely come.

“The next case up is going to be the case of a student,” she said.

New Hampshire moms and dads lose the right to parent their children once that child enters a public school, according to the New Hampshire ACLU.

The state’s largest civil liberties organization is standing with the Manchester public schools and against a local mom suing the district over a policy that directs staff to lie to parents about the sexual and gender behavior of their own children while at school.

“Schools and parents are natural partners in advancing the education and well-being of their students. At the same time, schools must control the learning environment for the benefit of all students,” the ACLU’s brief stated.

The mother, known as Jane Doe in her lawsuit, is appealing her case to the New Hampshire Supreme Court after Hillsborough Superior Court Judge Amy Messer ruled parents ultimately do not have the right to direct how their children are to be educated in public schools.

“(T)he right to make decisions about the care, custody, and control of one’s child is not absolute,” Messer wrote.

Republicans have responded by filing a Parents Bill of Rights in the legislature, a measure that polls show has overwhelming support among Granite State voters.

Jane Doe’s attorney, Richard Lehmann, said Wednesday the ACLU is backing a policy that flies in the face of the constitutional rights of parents.

“Manchester has taken the position that parental rights should not pass the schoolhouse door,” Lehmann said.

Jane Doe stated in her original complaint that she found out in the fall of 2021 her child was using a different pronoun and gender identity at school. The school’s name was withheld in court documents to protect the child’s identity. 

The mother spoke with the school staff, including the student’s guidance counselor. The mother made it clear she wanted her child to be called by the name and pronouns the child had at birth while in school, according to the lawsuit.

Even though the staff she spoke to initially agreed, the mother soon received an email from the school principal stating that, due to district policy, the mother’s instructions were being overridden. The principal stated the policy required school staff to keep such matters secret from parents if the child so chooses, according to the lawsuit. Even if staffers agree to use the child’s true gender identity when speaking with the mother, they would be obligated not to tell the mother if the child wished to be identified as something else.

The policy states teachers and staff are not to tell anyone about a child’s gender identity without the express consent of the child. School employees are also directed to use the child’s biological pronouns and given name when talking about the child to people who do not know about the nonconforming gender identity.

While the ACLU traditionally supports individual citizens in the face of government action, in this case, it is siding with education officials at the government-run school. Their brief claimed school staff often knows things about children their parents do not, and that staffers should not be required to tell parents anything unless the student agrees.

“To force a disclosure by the school that in all likelihood would otherwise come directly from the student voluntarily once the young person is ready, or when parents raise questions about their own observations with the young person, would be the very insertion into family relationships to which the plaintiff-appellant objects,” the ACLU wrote.

That schools-over-parents stance is also held by the New Hampshire Democratic Party. Chairman Ray Buckley claims if parents are informed about the behavior of their children “some kids will be beaten to death.” (There are no known incidents in New Hampshire of a child being beaten to death by a parent over their sexual or gender behavior.)

Lehmann agrees with the ACLU that schools do need a certain amount of autonomy, but said the ACLU and the Manchester School District are ignoring the fact that parents are the primary educators for their children, a role enshrined in the New Hampshire Constitution.

“(The schools) have to control the learning environment while adhering to all the other constitutional norms that permeate our society, including parental rights,” Lehmann said.

Lehmann said a law affirming the rights of parents could clarify the matter. New Hampshire Republicans tried and failed to pass a parental bill of rights during the last legislative session. The proposal died after Gov. Chris Sununu signaled he would veto the bill over concerns raised by New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella about the privacy and safety of students.

A new Parents Bill of Rights, sponsored by House Speaker Sherman Packard (R-Londonderry) and Senate Majority Leader Sharon Carson (R-Londonderry) is currently before the legislature.

Former Democratic leader Jeffrey Woodburn, convicted of physically abusing his ex-fiancée, will represent himself next week as he seeks to reverse his case at a hearing before the state Supreme Court. 

The hearing is set for Tuesday morning. Woodburn is expected to argue he was denied a fair trial because he could not accuse the victim of abuse for trying to take his phone.

Woodburn (D-Whitefield) was the Democrat’s Senate Minority Leader when he was charged in 2018 with nine counts of assaulting his former fiancée. Though he initially resigned as leader, Woodburn clung to his Senate seat for months and members of the Coos County Democratic Committee initially refused to ask him to step down.

The appeal stems from Coos Superior Court Judge Peter Bornstein’s ruling that Woodburn could not argue self-defense during the trial. Woodburn was originally charged with nine counts stemming from more than a year of abuse he reportedly directed at the victim.

The convictions are based on Woodburn’s violent actions related to three separate incidents, according to court records. The victim went on the record telling Bornstein that at one point during her many struggles with Woodburn she tried to grab his phone without permission. Bornstein stated in court the attempted grab did not rise to the level of behavior that allows for Woodburn’s self-defense claims.

In the lead-up to the trial, Woodburn leaked the name of the victim to the media by having his attorney, Donna Brown, send unredacted copies of sealed court records to members of the press.

“His lawyer proactively sent copies of unsealed documents to the media,” the alleged victim’s attorney—and former Hillsborough County prosecutor— Patricia LaFrance told NHJournal at the time. “I’ve never seen that in my 16 years as a prosecutor”

Woodburn was sentenced to two years in jail with all but 60 days suspended. He has been out on bail pending his appeal.

New Hampshire Democrats now have the specter of Woodburn’s domestic violence haunting them again a few weeks before the midterm elections. Representatives for the state Democratic Party did not respond to a request for comment.

Woodburn’s case came at a particularly problematic time for New Hampshire Democrats, during the hearings for Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. U.S. Sens. Maggie Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen both opposed the Trump nominee and used unfounded — and in some cases, ludicrous — allegations of sexual assault from Kavanaugh’s high school and college days as a reason to reject him. They were unwilling, however, to publicly criticize Woodburn until months after he was charged with a crime.

Woodburn won the Democratic nomination in 2018 but lost the general election.

The most egregious blow to the victim, critics say, came when a Woodburn paramour who smeared the victim as a “liar” and “sociopath” was given a leadership award by the Manchester Democrats organization.

Dianna Ruddman was sitting in her car in a church parking lot in Enfield, N.H. when she was busted for DUI in 2020. The engine was running but the car was not moving. So she took the case to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.

And she won.

The court reversed her guilty verdict, not because of what she was doing, but where she was.

“These facts are sufficient for us to determine that, as a matter of law, the church parking lot does not meet the definition of ‘way’ within paragraph I. See RSA 259:125, I.,” the majority wrote in their ruling released Wednesday.

“I’m thrilled about it to be quite frank,” said Ryan Russman, a defense attorney who specializes in DUI cases.

Ruddman was seen by a police officer removing a bottle of alcohol from the trunk of her car and then getting behind the driver’s seat with the engine running, according to court records. Ruddman told the office she planned to stay in the parking lot until she sobered up, but she would call for a ride if need be. Instead, she was arrested and the Department of Safety suspended her license for six months.

During a subsequent hearing before the Department of Safety in June 2020, Ruddman allowed that the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe she was intoxicated. However, she argued the officer did not have reasonable grounds to believe that she was in control of a vehicle “upon the ways of this state,” as is stipulated in RSA 265-A:31, II(a). 

“She argued that the church parking lot where she was arrested is not a “way” within the meaning of (the law)” the ruling states.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Barbara Hantz Marconi writes the legislature may want to act to close the DUI loophole that allows drunk parking on private property.

“In light of the majority’s opinion, the legislature may wish to clarify its intent that the expanded definition of ‘way’ in RSA 259:125,” Marconi wrote.

Russman said he hears from clients all the time that they have been arrested for DUI even though they were not driving. He hopes the ruling means police will allow for people to do the sensible thing and pull over if they have had too much to drink, without risking getting arrested.

“The law punishes people when they’ve potentially made the decision when they should not be driving,” Russman said. 

Len Harden, another defense attorney who works with many DUI clients, said people can park on the side of the road in order to sober up, but they need to be in the passenger seat or back seat while they wait.

“If they’re in the driver’s seat, they’re (in trouble)” Harden said.

Under the law, an intoxicated person behind the wheel of a parked car that is on the side of a road or in a parking lot with public access can be charged with DUI, even if their intent is to sober up or wait for a ride.

Pat Sullivan, with the New Hampshire Chiefs of Police Association, said law officers are in a difficult position when they encounter an intoxicated person in those situations. If the officer leaves them be, the driver might get into an accident or suffer carbon monoxide poisoning from the car’s exhaust. 

Russman says he suspects the legislature will act to close the loophole, but he believes police need to have more options when dealing with possibly intoxicated drivers who are trying to do the right thing. Sullivan agreed, saying officers need to have the ability to use more discretion, he said.

“It’s one of those things, we’re all about public safety. It could be better to take that person into protective custody and release them to a sober individual if possible.

In a victory for Northern Pass, the state Supreme Court ruled that the controversial hydropower transmission plan can bury power lines under or alongside Route 3 in Coos County.

The court issued an order Tuesday, without oral argument, upholding an earlier Superior Court ruling against the Society for Protection of New Hampshire Forests.

The Forest Society argues that burying the lines exceeded the state’s right-of-way rules and would cause harm to the group’s property alongside the road in the town of Clarksville.

“We conclude that use of the Route 3 right-of-way for the installation of an underground high voltage direct current electrical transmission line, with associated facilities, falls squarely within the scope of the public highway easement as a matter of law, and that such use is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the DOT [Department of Transportation] to regulate” the order stated, which was signed by the three justices.

This is just one court ruling dealing with the Northern Pass project. If the controversial project continues as planned, the Forest Society said they can expect more lawsuits.

“The Forest Society will be ready when they do,” the group said in a statement. “As a result, Northern Pass can likely count on additional delays if they continue to pursue their current proposal.”

The 192-mile proposed line from Canada to Deerfield would bring roughly 1,000 megawatts of electricity from dams in Quebec to the New England power grid. Proponents of the project says the power would reduce energy costs for residents and businesses, but opponents cite possible environmental issues from putting the lines underground to high towers ruining New Hampshire vistas and impacting tourism. The state’s Site Evaluation Committee (SEC) is expected to decide in the fall if the project will move forward or not.

In its November 2015 lawsuit, the Forest Society argued that Northern Pass must seek approval to bury a portion of the line “within the public right-of-way next to property it owns, and that burial of a transmission line does not represent proper use of the roadways,” according to Northern Pass.

The Forest Society is claiming ownership of the land that Northern Pass wants to use, and they asked the court for a declaratory judgement to find and rule that the land, known as the Washburn Family Forest, is unauthorized.

In May 2016, the NH Superior Court rejected their claim, saying the project’s proposed use is “within the scope of the highway easement,” and that the NH Department of Transportation has “exclusive jurisdiction over whether to grant the project the necessary permits and licenses.” The recent Supreme Court ruling reaffirmed this point.

“The Supreme Court’s decision regarding the Forest Society’s lawsuit against Northern Pass is unfortunate in that it puts off until later a private property rights issue of extraordinary importance to New Hampshire landowners,” the Forest Society said in a statement. “In short, the Court punted. The Supreme Court did not settle the eminent domain issue with regards to Northern Pass, but asks us all to wait until the [NH DOT] acts.”

But the Legislature has already prevented Northern Pass from taking private property for their project by eminent domain. However, 18 of the 31 towns that would be impacted by the transmission lines recently submitted a petition to the SEC saying they should have “home rule” over the project and only a local municipality has the legal right to authorize the use of their roads for such projects.

“In other words, the Town would be liable for the taking and responsible for paying the damages assessed, not Northern Pass,” said Steve Ellis, chairman of the Board of Selectman in Pittsburg, one of the towns petitioning the state, in a letter. “Northern Pass is thus shifting the burden of eminent domain — a power it does not possess — to the Towns, while arguing that the towns have no say in the matter.”

But the SEC recently dismissed their motion.

One of the best chances for towns to have more authority over utility line expansion projects was also just shot down in the Legislature. The House Committee on Municipal and County Government voted unanimously last week to kill House Bill 145. It would have prohibited high voltage transmission lines from being located in any municipality by a two-thirds vote of the entire governing body of a city or by a majority of voters in an election.

“It provides one town veto power over what the two towns on either side of it want,” State Rep. Jim Belanger, R-Hollis, told the Union Leader. “Also, it establishes home rule, and New Hampshire is not a home rule state.”

Northern Pass has called the Forest Society hypocritical for calling them to bury the transmission line, yet then file a lawsuit against them for doing that.

“As we’ve previously noted, the Forest Society has frequently demanded Northern Pass be buried, yet in this case, had filed this lawsuit to prevent its burial,” Northern Pass said in a statement. “The Forest Society has also continued to raise the false notion that the use of eminent domain is possible for Northern Pass, when state law clearly prevents it, and the project does not require its use.”

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

Sign up for NH Journal’s must-read morning political newsletter.