The dangerously flawed structure of the New Hampshire judiciary, administrative offices of the court, judicial conduct committee, and attorney disciplinary office is finally being exposed.
TL;DR:
- The New Hampshire judiciary, administrative offices, and judicial conduct committee face scrutiny for structural flaws and alleged misconduct.
- Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald took a medical leave of absence shortly after his legal counsel, Jane Young, faced a grievance complaint regarding alleged tampering with evidence by the State Police Forensic Lab.
- The grievance complaint also involved conflicts of interest.
- Charges were announced against retired Associate Justice Anna Barbara Hantz-Marconi. Hantz-Marconi alleges MacDonald advised her to speak with Governor Sununu.
- MacDonald’s deposition testimony and his attorney’s arguments have raised concerns.
- Concerns exist regarding the Attorney Disciplinary Office’s independence, as it falls under the Administrative Offices of the Court.
- The judiciary claims immunity from Right to Know Laws, which critics argue allows for a lack of transparency and accountability.
- The Judicial Conduct Committee’s composition is questioned due to the involvement of judges implicated in the alleged structural issues.
- Jane Young’s alleged intent to bypass the Attorney General and go to the Governor, contrasted with Hantz-Marconi’s similar action, highlights potential double standards.
- Occam’s Razor suggests MacDonald may have had prior knowledge of Hantz-Marconi’s plea deal and was involved in its resolution to protect himself.
- The timing suggests a coordinated effort to manage public perception.
It is well past time for this, especially when we find out that a State Police Officer involved in digital investigations has been covered up for five years for online sex offenses and is to receive no jail time. None. The State Police fall under the jurisdiction of the Attorney General, New Hampshire’s top law enforcement officer who is appointed by the Governor. And, as we have just found out, there’s no separation between the Attorney General’s Office and the Judiciary.
A functioning democracy relies on an independent judiciary. New Hampshire has just revealed it doesn’t have either. It has all the trappings of a kleptocracy.
On July 31st, 2026, the New Hampshire Supreme Court announced that Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald was going on a medical leave of absence — effective immediately.
The timing could not be more peculiar.
Just a couple of days earlier, on July 28th, 2026, an administrator for the Attorney Disciplinary Office had acknowledged additional materials to add to a grievance complaint against Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald’s legal counsel: Jane Young. Those materials? An email exchange from July 3rd & 4th 2017 revealing then Associate AG Jane Young’s complicity in getting the State Police’s Forensic Lab to tamper with a “yearbook”.
RSA 641.6 prohibits tampering with material evidence during a criminal or pending criminal investigation in which public servants are employed. Four days later, on July 8th, 2017, Jane Young was quoted in the Union Leader. She stated a criminal investigation had begun using the (secretly tampered) yearbook as the argument. On July 13th, 2017, AG MacDonald, her boss, announced a Grand Jury Criminal Investigation which would employ public servants: State Police, Concord Police, members of the AG’s office. Neither he nor she mentioned they’d got the State Lab to tamper with that yearbook…it is mentioned here:
The grievance complaint was about Jane Young’s conflicts of interest in representing Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald in an administrative matter regarding Dianne Martin, who got laid off from being the Director of the Administrative Offices of the Court and then rehired in a new position days later with a $50K payout in benefits in between. NHPR first reported on this unusual situation after a whistleblower — who was laid off — came forward with details.
The following day, on July 29th, 2026, the Judicial Conduct Committee announced charges against retired Associate Justice Anna Barbara Hantz-Marconi. A hearing is set for December 7–9th in Concord, New Hampshire.
In his position as Chief Justice, Gordon MacDonald had been a key witness to alleged crimes by his judicial colleague Anna Barbara Hantz-Marconi. But his role is entirely downplayed in the Judicial Conduct Committee’s announcement. While other witnesses, Stephen Duprey and Governor Sununu, are quoted. He is not.
Anna Barbara Hantz-Marconi had been suspended from her judicial duties during an investigation into her husband, Geno Marconi, Director of the Port Authorities. According to Hantz-Marconi, she consulted Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald about talking to Governor Chris Sununu regarding her husband’s situation and her own need to get back to work on the bench. She alleges that Gordon MacDonald told her that it was fine for her to approach the Governor — which she did. This then prompted criminal charges against her by AG Formella following a Grand Jury Investigation and indictments for abuse of public office. Consequently, facing criminal charges herself, Hantz-Marconi was not only forced to withdraw from the bench, but she had her law license suspended as well.
In a deposition, Gordon MacDonald claimed that he did not speak to his associate, Hantz-Marconi, about whether or not it was OK for her to speak to Governor Sununu about her situation. However, his attorney, Erin Creegan, Esq., argued that he should not have to testify at Hantz-Marconi’s trial under oath. (NB: Erin Creegan got her license to practice law in New Hampshire in 2023. She is now New Hampshire’s US Attorney. Reportedly, she had provided counsel to Gordon MacDonald for his interview to become Attorney General as well).
With the trial fast approaching, Hantz-Marconi suddenly accepted a “No contest” plea deal and a $1200 fine. The original felonies and misdemeanor charges were dropped and replaced with a single misdemeanor. She returned to the bench and then, in February 2026, she retired.
But here’s the twist we should be bothered about: within hours of Hantz-Marconi’s no-contest plea deal on October 7, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a statement to welcome her back to the Supreme Court subject to her law license being reinstated by the Attorney Disciplinary Office. Chief Justice MacDonald was cited as the lead in the decision, with the other three justices also named as supporters.
Here’s the problem:
a) the Attorney Disciplinary Office falls under the Administrative Offices of the Court, whose director was appointed by the Chief Justice himself. Dianne Martin was appointed to this position by Gordon MacDonald and then fired and rehired in another newly created position with his blessing. The details of this are explosive….
b) on the screening committee for the Attorney Disciplinary Office was Jane Young, former US Attorney, former Associate Attorney General under Gordon MacDonald when he was the Attorney General. Jane Young would become Gordon MacDonald’s counsel when he was criticized for the appearance of impropriety regarding the Dianne Martin $50K payout between positions in the same branch of Government. It is only the appearance of impropriety that is required for a judge to be removed from the bench.
c) Drummond Woodsum Law Firm represents the Administrative Offices of the Court and the Attorney Disciplinary Office. In other words, they essentially represent the Supreme Court because it oversees the Administrative Offices of the Court and, by structural association, the Screening Committee for the Attorney Disciplinary Office: Gordon MacDonald and his Counsel, Jane Young. Both of whom were involved with the tampering of material evidence (the “yearbook”) by the State forensic lab when they occupied the Attorney General’s office.
On top of this, Drummond Woodsum also represents the New Hampshire Municipalities Association, which lobbied successfully to block a bill (HB111) which would have provided the public with access to accountability for public corruption. The monopoly problem becomes clearly visible. Drummond Woodsum denied access to the drafts of the memo from the Supreme Court issued on October 7th, 2025. Those drafts would have shown how far in advance Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald knew about the plea deal for a crime in which he was a principal witness.
The Attorney Disciplinary Office claims that the judiciary is immune from Right to Know Laws (RSA 91-A) because the legislation didn’t apply it to their branch. But the legislation never authorized the judiciary to run a kleptocracy by controlling the administration of the courts and the attorney disciplinary office — the office you can complain to about prosecutorial misconduct, attorney general misconduct, civil or criminal attorney misconduct.
The Judicial Conduct Committee is compromised due to the nature of the make-up of its members, which include judges caught up in this same structural knot.
Jane Young publicly stated that she would go around AG John Formella regarding the investigation into Gordon MacDonald for impropriety in the Dianne Martin Matter. Who was she going to go to? Governor Kelly Ayotte.
On the one hand, we have the Supreme Court Chief Justice and his attorney on the disciplinary screening committee able to usurp his position to go around the Attorney General to the Governor.
On the other hand, we have Associate Justice Hantz-Marconi charged with multiple felonies and misdemeanors, then convicted of one misdemeanor for abuse of office, usurping her position to go talk to the Governor. And she claims her boss—Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald—said he didn’t see a problem with it.
What’s really going on? Occam’s Razor leads to this:
Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald didn’t want to testify under oath in a criminal trial against Barbara Hantz-Marconi because either he was lying when he said he didn’t recall a conversation with her about approaching the Governor; or, because he didn’t want her to be convicted of felonies with minimum sentencing requirements. Having his legal counsel, Erin Creegan, quickly promoted to US Attorney, is a sure-fire way to make sure he is protected from any federal probe.
Chief Justice MacDonald likely had prior knowledge of the “no contest” plea deal that would replace the felony and misdemeanor charges. And that, despite being a key witness to the alleged crime, he was involved in this solution in order to save himself. He had prior knowledge that the Attorney Disciplinary Office would reinstate Hantz-Marconi’s license because he effectively controls it.
How could the Chief Justice convene the other justices to welcome back Hantz-Marconi on the same day and within hours of her no-contest plea deal without having had prior knowledge and being party to the deal?
Twenty days later, on 27 October 2025, the Judicial Conduct Committee began an investigation into Associate Justice Hantz-Marconi’s appearance of impropriety, which led to the notice above. Reports suggest the investigation occurred in response to media shock at Hantz-Marconi’s no-contest plea deal and reinstatement with a mere $1200 fine. The JCC was reacting in light of the Court of Public Opinion….
On the same date, October 27th, 2025, the Supreme Court hired a PR lobby strategist at $10,000 per month to manage its image and strategize: Legislative Solutions.
You can read the contract here with services retroactive to October 27, 2025.
How much are we willing to bet that Periklis Karoutas and his firm Legislative Solutions worked with the Judiciary and/or the Judicial Conduct Committee in its strategy to minimize scrutiny on Gordon MacDonald while drilling down on Barbara Hantz-Marconi?
The December 7th-9th hearing on Hantz-Marconi’s alleged impropriety is a Kangaroo court without Chief Justice MacDonald as a witness. If the Judicial Conduct Committee finds her guilty, the “sentence” will be given by the Supreme Court. But she’s retired. She paid her $1200 fine, so the only punishment left would be to remove her law license (hello Attorney Disciplinary Office, again).
Aren’t the Grand Jury indictments, no-contest plea deals, the Judicial Conduct Committee announcement, and the hiring of Legislative Solutions all a front to protect Gordon MacDonald?
The issue isn’t so much whether or not Associate Justice Hantz-Marconi abused her position to access Governor Sununu. It’s whether or not Gordon MacDonald, the Chief Justice and her superior, abused his office to tell her that it was OK to do so. Since MacDonald is on indefinite medical leave, will he ever have to face that question while it matters for Hantz-Marconi?
Authors’ and Speakers’ opinions are their own and may not represent those of Grok Media, LLC, GraniteGrok.com, its sponsors, readers, authors, or advertisers.
Disagree, agree, Got Something to say? We Want to Hear It. Comment or submit Op-Eds to steve@granitegrok.com
