#

Former Democratic state Rep. Andrew O’Hearne may have crossed the line when he reportedly told Claremont Department of Public Works (DPW) employees how to do their job. Now he is facing possible expulsion from the city council. 

According to city communications, O’Hearne was upset with how a DPW crew painted lines on his street. So he intimidated the crew members, telling them what to do and why they better do it.

“(O’Hearne) informed them that a police commissioner was on his way to review the area and that he had a ‘big stick’ and did not mind ‘stirring the pot,'” City Manager Yoshi Manale wrote in an email about the May 11 incident.

O’Hearne, who has been on the Claremont City Council for several years, is scheduled for a June 21 hearing before the council to determine what happened last month when he confronted city employees, Mayor Dale Girard said.

“The worst that could happen is he could be removed from his seat if we feel he interfered with city employees,” Girard said.

Council members in Claremont, as in nearly every other municipality in New Hampshire, are barred from directing city employees in any way. Having spent decades as a Claremont police officer, a policy O’Hearne should have been aware of.

O’Hearne did not respond to a request for comment.

According to the email from Manale to council members first obtained by journalist Jim Sullivan, the DPW crew members said they were being harassed by O’Hearne, who did not like how they were directing traffic. At one point, O’Hearne said he would stay in the road and videotape the crew, according to Manale.

Police were called to the site and determined there was no problem with traffic, Police Chief Brent Wilmot told NH Journal. Manale was finally able to convince O’Hearne to go home. But the manager told council members the matter needs to be addressed.

“The councilor’s actions … were not appropriate and disruptive to the work of our DPW,” Manale wrote.

Manale initially wanted O’Hearne to apologize. The council instead decided to hold a hearing to determine the next course of action, which could include removal.

O’Hearne spent a decade as a state representative before losing his seat last November by fewer than 50 votes, with Republican Walter Stapleton defeating him.

If he is removed, O’Hearne would be the second Claremont city councilor forced off by the council this year. In February, Councilor Jim Contois was removed by a council vote after he allegedly called the police to get a no-trespass order against him lifted.

Contois, an environmental activist, was hit with the order by a local car dealership after the councilor went to the dealer’s property to document wetlands on the lot. Contois maintained he never asked Wilmot to lift the order, he just asked about how the order was enforced. 

After he was removed, Contois filed a lawsuit against the council, demanding he be reinstated. The council settled the lawsuit in April and voted to rescind Contois’ expulsion and restore his council membership.

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.