The controversy surrounding New Hampshire's Supreme Court extends beyond the misleading statement endorsed by four justices and could lead to criminal charges, according to attorney Christopher Gregory.

"There are potential federal felonies that need to be investigated," Gregory said.

Gregory, the former Executive Director of the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline, is urging action on the New Hampshire Supreme Court. He is seeking intervention from United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts via Roberts' position on the Judicial Conference of the United States.

Gregory became involved because he sees similarities to the Colorado scandal that led to his removal in 2024. The Colorado Supreme Court matter emerged in 2021 after former chief of staff Mindy Masias received a multi-million consulting contract to remain silent on alleged sexual misconduct in the Colorado court system.

Gregory is part of a lawsuit regarding his termination as the Colorado court's watchdog and notes parallels to the New Hampshire situation.

New Hampshire Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald stepped down last month due to his involvement in the 2025 $50,000 payout to former director of the Administrative Office of the Court Dianne Martin for her accrued time during a short layoff. MacDonald's Sept. 15 resignation marked the first public disclosure that the Chief Justice had faced a Judicial Conduct Committee probe for much of the prior year.

Neither the Judicial Conduct Committee nor the Office of United States Attorney for New Hampshire Erin Creegan would comment when contacted by InDepthNH.org, noting they could neither confirm nor deny any federal investigation. Creegan previously served as counsel for the New Hampshire Supreme Court before becoming the state's top federal prosecutor.

The New Hampshire Attorney General's Office, led by John Formella, cleared MacDonald last year following its own review.

MacDonald reportedly assisted Martin, his longtime associate, in transitioning from her role as director of the Administrative Office of the Court through a planned layoff and a new position at the Office of Bar Admissions. The layoff timing allowed Martin to receive about $50,000 in unused sick time and vacation pay. She also began the OBA role at a higher pay level due to MacDonald's actions. The OBA position was adjusted so Martin could report to MacDonald, per the JCC records.

After NHPR's Todd Bookman reported on Martin's job change, the Supreme Court issued an October 31, 2025 statement asserting Martin's job was cut as part of a cost-saving restructuring. That statement was inaccurate, and MacDonald's signature on it became one of the issues leading to his resignation.

"That press release stated that in early 2024 the Judicial Branch began 'a comprehensive review of its administrative operations and costs as part of an effort to improve efficiency, better align staffing with current needs, and lower overall costs for taxpayers.' The press release then states that Ms. Martin was laid off as part of that reorganization," the JCC stated in a letter to MacDonald. "The press release contradicts other evidence."

Records from the JCC show Martin accepted the OBA job in 2025 instead of facing termination. She had been under review for months prior due to personnel complaints and internal probes into her management, according to the JCC.

The October 2025 statement from the Supreme Court, signed by MacDonald and Associate Justices Patrick Donovan, Melissa Countway, and Bryan Gould, poses a significant issue for the Court, per Gregory. Donovan and Countway knew the true reason for Martin's departure, based on JCC documents, and Gould likely did as well.

Gregory noted Donovan, Countway, and Gould probably knew when signing the misleading statement that MacDonald was under JCC investigation.

"[Judges] are not supposed to comment on pending or impending cases," Gregory said. "These are some very basic rules."

Donovan, Countway, and Gould could now face JCC scrutiny for their signatures on the October 2025 statement. The JCC has not confirmed if that is occurring.

Federal funds are at stake regarding the misleading statement signed by four justices, according to Gregory.

If Martin's $50,000 payout and job change is not part of the 2024 restructuring initially claimed by the justices, which the JCC disputes, it could be viewed as fraud, per Gregory.

New Hampshire's Judicial Branch would then risk its federal funding. The millions in federal revenue for the court system require annual audits for accountability. Judge Christopher Keating, who succeeded Martin as court administrator, is the official who last approved the court's most recent audit.