(Volunteer Court watchdog Dana Albrecht also submitted this as his testimony to the House of Representatives on HR38, A RESOLUTION authorizing and directing the house judiciary committee to investigate whether cause exists for the impeachment of any justice of the New Hampshire supreme court.)
By DANA ALBRECHT
On February 11, 2026, the House Judiciary Committee heard testimony on HR38 – a resolution directing the committee to investigate whether maladministration has occurred at the highest levels of the New Hampshire Supreme Court. Here is what the documented record shows.
I. Chief Justice MacDonald’s $50,000 Payout to Dianne Martin
Dianne Martin served as Chief Justice MacDonald’s chief of staff when he was Attorney General. When MacDonald became Chief Justice in 2021, Martin followed him to the Judicial Branch as Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts.
In February 2025, Justice Donovan convened an all-staff meeting and announced that Martin was “no longer working” at the Judicial Branch. (Interview of Suzanne Gelinas, N.H. Dep’t of Justice, Nov. 3, 2025, at 42-43.) What followed was not a clean departure. It was a month-long effort – directed by Chief Justice MacDonald – to structure Martin’s exit in a way that allowed her to collect nearly $50,000 in accrued benefits while being immediately rehired into a newly created position.
Judge Christopher Keating, installed as Interim Director, told the Judicial Branch’s HR Manager, Suzanne Gelinas, that Martin “needed access to some money” and that her benefits had to be preserved. (Gelinas Tr. at 46.) When Gelinas couldn’t find authorization in the personnel rules, Keating told her to contact the Division of Personnel – but to “make it as discreet as possible. I don’t want them knowing what we’re doing, but you need to figure this out.” (Gelinas Tr. at 46.)
When Gelinas asked where these instructions were coming from, Keating’s answer was direct: “This is not my idea, this is coming from the Chief.” (Gelinas Tr. at 51.) She understood “the Chief” to mean Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald. Keating told her he was discussing the drafts with the Chief. (Gelinas Tr. at 52.) She testified: “You could tell by Judge Keating’s body language that he’s saying … just do this, just do this, this is the Chief, man, just do it.” (Gelinas Tr. at 53.)
There were six or seven versions of the layoff letter. Each time Gelinas produced a draft, it came back marked up in red and blue, with language crossed out and rewritten. (Gelinas Tr. at 50, 66–67.) The final version included an upgraded salary because Martin was not satisfied with the original offer. Gelinas told investigators: “This is Dianne dictating what her rehire was going to be.” (Gelinas Tr. at 15.)
On April 1, 2025, a termination letter was issued. On April 2, an offer letter followed. On April 4, Martin started her new position. The three-day gap triggered a payout of $49,856. Investigators later discovered that Martin had already received a prior payout of $10,619 when she left the Public Utilities Commission in 2021. When Gelinas learned this during her interview, her response was: “Gentlemen, if I knew that, I would have reported it.” (Gelinas Tr. at 72.)
This happened during a Judicial Branch hiring freeze – and a corresponding budget crisis.
II. The Collapse
On the same day Martin was removed, Judge Mark Howard pulled Gelinas aside and told her – she confirmed this was a direct quote – “You need to get rid of that fucking MOU.” (Gelinas Tr. at 44.) He was referring to the memorandum of understanding with the Division of Personnel – the one mechanism providing outside oversight of the Judicial Branch’s HR operations. His instruction: “It’s none of their fucking business what we do over here at the Judicial Branch… they’re into our business, they have access to our information, and get rid of it.” (Gelinas Tr. at 45.)
On March 18, 2025, Gelinas reported her concerns to Matthew Mavrogeorge, an attorney at the Division of Personnel. She told him “the taxpayers of New Hampshire are basically almost defrauded in a way.” (Gelinas Tr. at 48.) Mavrogeorge escalated it. According to the investigative report, Commissioner Arlinghaus never responded. (DOJ Report at 4.)
One month later, Gelinas was fired. She had been a human resources professional for thirty years. Judge Keating told her that her behavior was “unprofessional” and that she was “a disgrace.” He handed her a letter, collected her keys, and told her not to cause any problems on the way out. (Gelinas Tr. at 57–59.) She lasted five months at the New Hampshire Judicial Branch. She was terminated one month before the end of her probationary period. (Gelinas Tr. at 53, 77.)
Then the bill came due.
On May 15, 2025, the Department of Administrative Services submitted a request to the Governor and Council for the Division of Personnel to assume oversight of the Judicial Branch’s HR functions. Cost to taxpayers: $400,910 over two years. The explanation on the face of the document: the MOU “was developed in response to staffing turnover within the Human Resources Office at the New Hampshire Judicial Branch and the urgent need for continued support.” (MOU at 1.)
The Chief Justice’s office ordered the destruction of outside oversight, executed a sham layoff to benefit a personal associate, and fired the whistleblower who reported it. The result was Chernobyl – the Judicial Branch’s HR department ceased to function. The cleanup cost taxpayers four hundred thousand dollars.
The Attorney General reviewed the Martin payout and concluded there was no reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct. But the Attorney General also stated: “While it would be reasonable to conclude that in certain respects human resources best practices were not followed during the series of events and transactions examined, DOJ does not have oversight authority over the judicial branch for such issues.” (DOJ Statement, Nov. 25, 2025.)
The Department of Justice does not have oversight authority over the Judicial Branch. The Committee on Judicial Conduct answers to the court it is supposed to oversee.
This is the Legislature’s responsibility.
Rep. Katelyn Kuttab, for the Minority of the House Judiciary Committee, stated:
“This resolution authorizes and directs the House Judiciary Committee to investigate whether there are grounds for impeaching Chief Justice Gordon J. MacDonald and/or any other justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court. The investigation would be based on the testimony and evidence that was presented to the committee, and any new information arising from the committee’s investigation. A minority of the committee believes there is a sufficient probability that the burden of probable cause for maladministration would be met in an investigation, warranting an investigation into Chief Justice MacDonald and/or any other justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court. Documented contradictions from justices in testimony, unresolved ethical questions regarding a substantial court employee payout, and governance failures have eroded public confidence in the Supreme Court, necessitating a legislative investigation. The minority believes that this current crisis of confidence must be addressed and that the House needs to resume its constitutional duty and investigate these serious allegations regarding members in the unelected branch of our government, the Judiciary.”
In light of that report, I respectfully ask that you review:
HR38 Public Testimony (2/11/26):
HR38 Executive Session (2/13/26):
But, most importantly:
Please read the Gelinas transcript!
It is attached to this email.
Suzanne Gelinas is a thirty-year human resources professional who was hired to manage HR for the New Hampshire Judicial Branch. She lasted five months. She was interviewed by investigators from the Attorney General’s Office on November 3, 2025. The transcript is 88 pages.
This is not a summary. This is not my interpretation. This is a career professional, under oath, describing in her own words what she witnessed inside the Administrative Office of the Courts – the pressure, the drafts, the instructions from “the Chief,” the retaliation when she reported it.
Read it and decide for yourself whether the House Judiciary Committee should investigate.
III. Additional Background: Irreconcilable Sworn Accounts and the MacDonald Divorce Case
Beyond the financial misconduct, there is a separate unresolved matter. On October 23, 2024, Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi stated under oath that she had informed Chief Justice MacDonald of her intent to request a meeting with Governor Sununu, and that the Chief Justice raised no objection. (Motion to Recuse Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald, No. LD-2024-0014, Oct. 23, 2024, ¶11; Affidavit of Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi.) Two months earlier, on August 2, 2024, Chief Justice MacDonald told investigators from the Attorney General’s Office – with counsel present – that the meeting was “news to me” and that he “did not know she was going to see the Governor.” (Interview of Chief Justice MacDonald, N.H. Dep’t of Justice, Aug. 2, 2024, at 7–8.) These accounts cannot both be true. No entity has investigated this contradiction.
See:
IV. Conclusion
The House of Representatives is the grand inquest of the state. No other branch can do this. No other body will.
HR38 is the vehicle. The question is whether this House will use it.
Thank you for your consideration.
Dana Albrecht