18 August 2007

KingCast completes the RSA 91-A Right-to-Know lawsuit for Liko Peter Kenney in the Franconia shooting tragedy.

Defendant by and through Selectman Administrative Assistant Sally Small wrote on 3 July 2007:
“The documents you are requesting are exempt from disclosure pursuant to RSA 91-A. The documents in Corporal McKay’s files are all personnel related and fall into the category of personnel records. Therefore, the records will not be disclosed to you because of the reasons I have just mentioned.”

With this Motion, we will let the Court be the judge of whether that, and many other government (non)responses constitute a violation of the most important Statute that we have as New Hampshire residents to protect ourselves against abusive government officials.

Mother Ann would have it no other way. And Liko Kenney would have it no other way, and he died in part because the letter and spirit of RSA 91-A had been effectively killed years ago in Franconia, right about the time that Bruce McKay rode in on his high horse.

Liko, I've got your back, Man. I would have had you on the front 2 years ago but I was busy dancing with Kelly and her friends instead of playing tennis at Tamarack. I've spent a lot of lonely nights crying for you and endured the wrath of a lot of people since I started this project but it was all worth it. The people of Franconia -- and many from well beyond Franconia --and I are going to change public policy and we will make certain that you did not die in vain.

From this point on then, a review from learned counsel, a quote here or there and simply formatting issues and lots of attachments. Lots of attachments. And I have to check for any page limit restrictions because it is 30 pages long.

Aloha, God bless, Peace, Namaste.

From the brother you never met.


Related post: The difference between Liko Kenney and me.
Related post: A note from Officer Aaron Deboisbriand's father for those who think I hate cops.
Related post: Motion Practice #5 with YouTube video links to 2003 arrest.

19 comments:

Christopher King said...

From Connie McKenzie, who tried to revive Bruce McKay and on whose lawn he died. She has refused to allow a memorial for him at that site but she did have this to say about Liko Kenney, as told to ABC News:

"People didn't trust Bruce McKay and they didn't like him. Heck I was afraid of him. You know when a police officer gets shot, it's a big deal. I understand that, but I want people to know that we loved that boy Liko. He was our native son. I don't want him to go down as just a cop killer. He was full of life and articulate and funny."

Christopher King said...

And from another poster, a statement so good I've used it 3 or 4 times now:

I found this comment while I was copying the email chain for the Fox Hill Park RSA 91-A violation, and this was BEFORE I heard Liko tell McKay in the second half of the 2003 stop that "I am a mental health patient."

"We know Liko had his problems and issues. He could be extremely difficult at times. He was far from perfect. Part of the point in this whole thing is that very fact because McKay took advantage of Liko's weaknesses. Most abuser's do that very thing. No one is pretending Liko was an angel at all but the state attempted to use the very fact that he wasn't to dump it all on him. That is wrong.

I don't think there is anything wrong with people remembering what was good in Liko. What is important to us was the conviction that Liko had about our civil rights. He tended to fight against injustice and was angry, feeling very wronged. What we can do is learn from this to stand up for justice in truth. That is how we can make it right."

By Christopher King, at 8:27 PM"

Anonymous said...

I thougt Mckay worked for the public?? I would certainly think we all have the right as any employer to review his "work" file any anything else that allows us to measure the effectiveness of an employee.

Anonymous said...

and who is the 13 year old girl that told Liko about Mckay forcing sexual favors on??

Why was Liko never asked to elaborate??

Anonymous said...

good job mr king and good luck, being a 2nd cousin to maura (I HAD ALCOHOL IN MY CAR SO IT"S COOL LE DIDN"T LOOK FOR ME FOR TWO DAYS AND HAVE REPEATEDLY LIED ABOUT THEIR BOUGUS INVESTIGATION) murray we know what your dealing with.

Christopher King said...

Right about now everyone who is intimately acquainted with this case is in shock.

Especially the State.

Trust me on this.

They can either move forward or remain entrenched and stuck on stupid.

From Martha McLeod's comment it appears that they wish to remain stuck on stupid, but all I can do is write the best brief I can write, and that is what I have done.

Probably about 2% of any American Attorneys could write anything better, so we'll see where it ends up.

Regardless of any particular outcome WE have put this case ON RECORD, with the full relevant spectrum of FACTS.

When I finished this Motion after crying again, my energies soared and will remain that way while I finish the rest of it.

The law is the law, I know it well and I present it well so that is all there is, at the end of the day.

BTW that is the CORRECT way to use "end of the day;" it should be used at the END of the sentence.

And as to this case and these issues, as an oldie plays right now, I say:

Pump up the volume.... brothers and sisters....

And that's Old Skewl4ya! :)

Anonymous said...

I remember reading they wouldn't let anyone help Liko, or even check on him on scene, but allowed for Ms. McKenzie to help revive McKay. Is this true?

Christopher King said...

Yes, that is true as well.

Funny you mention that, but it is the ONE THING I was going to add that I did not.

It's not directly tied in with the Defendants, but it sure is indicative of the State mentality.

Love to posthumously watch them detail my death with any cop involved.

Lotsa' high-fives and stuff, no doubt.

Which reminds me I left out the "dirtbag" comment describing Liko by the cop that McKay called for backup, Sgt. Wentworth.

You challenge the State in any way these days and you are definitely on The Radar.

What they can't deal with as far as I'm concerned is how open I am about it, and the fact that locals are picking up on it, and realizing I'm not so "out there" as the government would like them to believe.

It's a movement so transparent they can't see through it.

Niiiice....

Anonymous said...

in the 2003 showdown with mckay, although desperate and shouting out for a witness, i smile now knowing liko stood up for himself and left his testimony to the brutality of police officers engaged in overdrive. liko's statements then forever serve to protect his qualities of honesty and courage, while better defining mackay's dishonor.

Anonymous said...

If everyone takes the time to read the Motion for Declaratory Judgment, it is clearly evident that Chris King puts forth supported facts and inconsistencies vis a vis the government on behalf of Liko Kenney, but also seeks to establish future protection and full compliance for disclosure as right-to-know for citizens of New Hampshire and beyond.

says Chris:

"So don't get it twisted. When things are right in Franconia you will see the back of my head and the front of theirs.

Peace."


Thank you, and Peace, Always to you, Chris.

Christopher King said...

From the email tip-jar.

The body of work in the Motion is impressive......whew!!! I'm speechless, for once (LOL). Credibility? 200%!

**********

Thank you.

I think some folks don't understand the process and it was frustrating to have people come in and say "oh you are repeating the same things" on the blawg, but in reality the blawg was just a rough draft of the lawsuit in the making.

When I want to say something I write it and post it, then I use the word search to find it later.

In one place or another almost everything you see in that Motion appears on the blawg.

It's the most important thing I've ever written and I think Liko would be proud of me for doing it, and would further be thrilled that I can use it as a writing sample to help get myself gainfully employed with a progressive law firm and get back into the swing of things.

Critics be dammed because they really can't say much, if anything bad about this Motion except "I just don't like King."

Peace.

Christopher King said...

This is one of the parts I like the most:

N. Plaintiff seeks Declaratory Judgment that the failure of Defendant Montminy to issue a response to the Complaint of Ms. B constitutes a violation of RSA 91-A.

2. Plaintiff seeks Injunctive Relief ordering that Defendants respond to all outstanding requests for information, including the complaint from Ms. B.

Christopher King said...

I thougt Mckay worked for the public?? I would certainly think we all have the right as any employer to review his "work" file any anything else that allows us to measure the effectiveness of an employee.
By JP, at 1:54 PM


JP, the point of focus here is to change the balance of power when it comes to reviewing documents. Right now they give you a reduction of whatever they deem appropriate and some redacted complaints.

I believe you should be able to see the ENTIRE file excepting medical documents pertaining to OTHER family members that have NO relationship (other than genetically) to the officer, then if the State thinks that something is protected under the Privacy section RSA 91-A(5) they mark it and you walk it into Court and let the Court decide.

If you publish the info without Court permission you are subject to criminal contempt.

I dunno. Sounds reasonable to me, but what do I know. I just a suspended Attorney from Ohio :)

Christopher King said...

Oh, and to address the Huckster once and for all:

I told him what the $500 was for; here's the email.

I am almost POSITIVE I forwarded this to him after I sent it to Attorney X. I didn't misrepresent anything to Attorney X so why would I do so with Attorney X?

Answer: I didn't.

Namaste.

Anonymous said...

Suspended for good reason apparently 8:33, and by a variety of Justices including a panel of Supreme Court Judges reissuing and continuing King's suspension in an effort to protect further scams on his clients and the courts.

A clear pattern, and repeated here quite regularly. I can understand one wanting to climb back into credibility once an attorney is busted down to a server in the food service industry. The pattern of serial lies has long been established, and continues in the name of someone silent in his grave. Thankfully the family has retained a talented and capable actual professional attorney, and things will come to light in time, without the drama, promotion, intellectual dishonesty, and petty thievery that is an earmark here.

Thus King, and to some extent any issue (ambulance or hearse) he chases to sink his unliscensed shark-teeth Hollywoood dreams into, similarly loses credibility & respect by association with the slick madness here.

The policitians, press and general public are not intimated or in reaction to Mr. King; they simply ignore him because he continuingly reliqueshes credibility on any issue he forces himself into.

Thus he is the victim of three or more particular courts explained herein, of
The Naacp who were very sorry they hired him and claimed King neglected to inform them of his suspended status. He has an excuse. He always has an excuse.

We have clearly seen similarly dishonest techniques on this blog.

Responsible local members of the community are aware of the issues and dangers, and duly concerned. Ane are in process, as is a legitimate licensed and successful lawyer with an incredibly sharp reputation as a professional investigator.

Here you get, well, a common hustle.

COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION

v.

KING


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------









Columbus Bar Association v . King.



[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. King (2002), 95 Ohio St.3d 93.]



Attorneys at law — Misconduct — One-year suspension with credit for time served — Failing to fulfill purpose of mentorship imposed at previous disciplinary proceeding — Engaging in conduct indicating inability to function as a professional lawyer in a courtroom or afford clients adequate representation — Failure to pay costs imposed at previous disciplinary proceeding.



(No. 98-423 — Submitted January 8, 2002 — Decided April 24, 2002.)

On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-115.

__________________





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Per Curiam. In December 1998, for conduct in January 1996, we suspended Christopher King, now of Dallas, Texas, Attorney Registration No. 0062199, from the practice of law in Ohio for one year, but stayed the suspension on the condition that during that year he be placed on probation and work with a mentor appointed by the relator, Columbus Bar Association. Columbus Bar Assn. v. King (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 174, 702 N.E.2d 862. We also imposed costs of that proceeding on respondent.

On February 19, 1999, relator appointed Guy L. Reese II, a former Franklin County Municipal Court Judge and a former Franklin County Common Pleas Court Judge, to be respondent’s mentor. Based upon the mentor’s report to the relator and respondent’s failure to make the payment ordered in our December 1998 order, relator requested on September 13, 2000, that respondent’s probation be revoked that his stayed suspension be reinstated, and that respondent be held in contempt. Respondent opposed this request, and the matter was heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court.

At a hearing on June 6, 2001, the panel considered testimony, exhibits, and stipulations. It received evidence that on January 9, 1998, Judge David Cain of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas imposed a Civ.R. 11 sanction on respondent in the amount of $5,000 to be paid in thirty days for frivolous behavior in continuing to pursue an action despite his client’s own acknowledgement that she had no claim. Respondent did not appeal the order or pay the sanction. Instead, he wrote a letter to the judge and filed suit against him. The panel received evidence that on September 9, 1998, Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio fined respondent $1,500 in attorney fees and $1,311.73 in costs for his conduct in Lampley v. Vagnier (1998), No. C2-96-337. Respondent did not appeal this sanction or two others in the same case that totaled $5,139, nor did he pay them, except for possibly $300 of the attorney fees. On February 28, 2000, Judge Sargus ordered respondent to appear and show cause why he should not be held in contempt for failure to pay the sanctions.

The panel also received evidence that on February 11, 1999, Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio held respondent in contempt for the manner in which he comported himself in Belcher v. Ohio Dept. Human Serv., (S.D.Ohio 1999), 48 F.Supp.3d 729, and ordered him to complete a six-week preceptorship with Professor Shirley Mays of the Capital University Law School. Respondent did not at any time comply with the requirements of the preceptorship.

The panel received further evidence that on July 7, 1999, Visiting Judge John Martin of the Franklin County Common Pleas Court held respondent in contempt and granted a mistrial due to respondent’s conduct in Smith v. Professional Cellular Serv., Inc., No. 95CVH-12-8949, and ordered him to pay attorney fees and court costs. Respondent instead filed a complaint against Judge Martin.

In addition, the panel received evidence that respondent informed his monitor, Judge Reese, that additional sanctions had been imposed against him of $1,852.50 by Judge David Cain in Oglesby v. Columbus, Franklin C.P. No. 97-CVC-03-3823, of $2,077.59 by Judge Nodine Miller of the Franklin County Common Pleas Court in Hamm v. Gahanna City Council, No. 95CVF085484, of $200 by Judge Cain in Michael v. Whitehall, No. 97CVC012333, and of $1,000 by Judge James L. Graham of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio in Archer v. Roman, No. C-2-95-1187.

On the basis of this evidence the panel found that respondent had not fulfilled the purpose of his mentorship and that his conduct indicated that he could neither function as a professional lawyer in a courtroom nor afford his clients adequate representation.

In addition, the panel further found that respondent had not paid the costs imposed in our December 1998 order. The panel recommended that respondent’s probation be terminated and that his suspension from the practice of law be reinstated.

We have reviewed the record and adopt the findings of the panel. It is clear from the numerous sanctions that respondent received during his term of probation for his conduct in several courts, sanctions that remain unpaid, that the mentor’s report is credible. Further, in three years respondent has not paid the costs we imposed in December 1998, costs that we ordered paid within ninety days.

We have already revoked respondent’s probation and reinstated his suspension on October 4, 2001, “pending entry of a final order by this court.” 93 Ohio St.3d 1438, 755 N.E.2d 901. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for one year with credit for time served. Respondent is further ordered to pay the costs of the original proceeding in the amount of $1,363.71 plus interest of ten percent from March 8, 1999 until paid. Respondent shall further pay the costs of these proceedings.



Judgment accordingly.



Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.



__________________



Julia A. Davis, Bradley N. Frick and Anthony M. Roseboro, for relator.

Christopher King, pro se.



__________________


[Cite as Columbus Bar Association v. King, 95 Ohio St.3d 93, 2002-Ohio-1945.]

COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. KING.

[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. King (2002), 95 Ohio St.3d 93.]

Attorneys at law — Misconduct — One-year suspension with credit for time

served — Failing to fulfill purpose of mentorship imposed at previous

disciplinary proceeding — Engaging in conduct indicating inability to

function as a professional lawyer in a courtroom or afford clients

adequate representation — Failure to pay costs imposed at previous

disciplinary proceeding.

(No. 98-423 — Submitted January 8, 2002 — Decided April 24, 2002.)

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-115.

__________________

Per Curiam. In December 1998, for conduct in January 1996, we

suspended Christopher King, now of Dallas, Texas, Attorney Registration No.

0062199, from the practice of law in Ohio for one year, but stayed the suspension

on the condition that during that year he be placed on probation and work with a

mentor appointed by the relator, Columbus Bar Association. Columbus Bar Assn.

v. King (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 174, 702 N.E.2d 862. We also imposed costs of

that proceeding on respondent.

On February 19, 1999, relator appointed Guy L. Reese II, a former

Franklin County Municipal Court Judge and a former Franklin County Common

Pleas Court Judge, to be respondent’s mentor. Based upon the mentor’s report to

the relator and respondent’s failure to make the payment ordered in our December

1998 order, relator requested on September 13, 2000, that respondent’s probation

be revoked, that his stayed suspension be reinstated, and that respondent be held

in contempt. Respondent opposed this request, and the matter was heard by a

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the

Supreme Court.

At a hearing on June 6, 2001, the panel considered testimony, exhibits,

and stipulations. It received evidence that on January 9, 1998, Judge David Cain

of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas imposed a Civ.R. 11 sanction on

respondent in the amount of $5,000 to be paid in thirty days for frivolous

behavior in continuing to pursue an action despite his client’s own

acknowledgement that she had no claim. Respondent did not appeal the order or

pay the sanction. Instead, he wrote a letter to the judge and filed suit against him.

The panel received evidence that on September 9, 1998, Judge Edmund A.

Sargus, Jr., of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio

fined respondent $1,500 in attorney fees and $1,311.73 in costs for his conduct in

Lampley v. Vagnier (1998), No. C2-96-337. Respondent did not appeal this

sanction or two others in the same case that totaled $5,139, nor did he pay them,

except for possibly $300 of the attorney fees. On February 28, 2000, Judge

Sargus ordered respondent to appear and show cause why he should not be held

in contempt for failure to pay the sanctions.

The panel also received evidence that on February 11, 1999, Judge

Algenon L. Marbley of the United States District Court for the Southern District

of Ohio held respondent in contempt for the manner in which he comported

himself in Belcher v. Ohio Dept. Human Serv., (S.D.Ohio 1999), 48 F.Supp.3d

729, and ordered him to complete a six-week preceptorship with Professor

Shirley Mays of the Capital University Law School. Respondent did not at any

time comply with the requirements of the preceptorship.

The panel received further evidence that on July 7, 1999, Visiting Judge

John Martin of the Franklin County Common Pleas Court held respondent in

contempt and granted a mistrial due to respondent’s conduct in Smith v.

Professional Cellular Serv., Inc., No. 95CVH-12-8949, and ordered him to pay

January Term, 2002

3

attorney fees and court costs. Respondent instead filed a complaint against Judge

Martin.

In addition, the panel received evidence that respondent informed his

monitor, Judge Reese, that additional sanctions had been imposed against him of

$1,852.50 by Judge David Cain in Oglesby v. Columbus, Franklin C.P. No. 97-

CVC-03-3823, of $2,077.59 by Judge Nodine Miller of the Franklin County

Common Pleas Court in Hamm v. Gahanna City Council, No. 95CVF085484, of

$200 by Judge Cain in Michael v. Whitehall, No. 97CVC012333, and of $1,000

by Judge James L. Graham of the United States District Court for the Southern

District of Ohio in Archer v. Roman, No. C-2-95-1187.

On the basis of this evidence the panel found that respondent had not

fulfilled the purpose of his mentorship and that his conduct indicated that he

could neither function as a professional lawyer in a courtroom nor afford his

clients adequate representation.

In addition, the panel further found that respondent had not paid the costs

imposed in our December 1998 order. The panel recommended that respondent’s

probation be terminated and that his suspension from the practice of law be

reinstated.

We have reviewed the record and adopt the findings of the panel. It is

clear from the numerous sanctions that respondent received during his term of

probation for his conduct in several courts, sanctions that remain unpaid, that the

mentor’s report is credible. Further, in three years respondent has not paid the

costs we imposed in December 1998, costs that we ordered paid within ninety

days.

We have already revoked respondent’s probation and reinstated his

suspension on October 4, 2001, “pending entry of a final order by this court.” 93

Ohio St.3d 1438, 755 N.E.2d 901. Respondent is hereby suspended from the

practice of law for one year with credit for time served. Respondent is further

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

ordered to pay the costs of the original proceeding in the amount of $1,363.71

plus interest of ten percent from March 8, 1999 until paid. Respondent shall

further pay the costs of these proceedings.

Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and

LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.

__________________

Julia A. Davis, Bradley N. Frick and Anthony M. Roseboro, for relator.

Christopher King, pro se.

__________________

Lifer said...

Anon @ 2:05 said

... Thankfully the family has retained a talented and capable actual professional attorney, and things will come to light in time, without the drama, promotion, intellectual dishonesty, and petty thievery that is an earmark here.
...Responsible local members of the community are aware of the issues and dangers, and duly concerned. Ane are in process, as is a legitimate licensed and successful lawyer with an incredibly sharp reputation as a professional investigator.


Here's why I have trouble believing to meaning of this post to be any thing other than another attempt to discourage good people who really believe in trying to make a difference...a difference which apparently goes against your grain for some reason:

1. We all know the family has its own representation and investigators. Some of us have actually talked to these principals.

2. The family knows who we are and we've all corresponded and or spoken directly with them. Some of us do this weekly and have actually sat at their dining room table discussing such matters. If this is a problem to the family all they need do is pick up the phone and request a different course of action. They know who we are and how to get in touch with us.

3. If there are "responsible" community members who do represent the interests of change in our community the family has candidly spoken to us about, why do they not speak up? Who are these people that are seeking real changes? Don't give me the Recovery Team as your answer, it may have some good ideas but doesn't have the teeth to push issues nor can it by virtue of it's charter. IF there is such a group, have them pick up the phone, they should aware of who we are as well, if indeed they are in the community and exist outside your say so. The spirit of the "collective" is true, if there is another avenue of CHANGE they should come forward.

4. If the famiy attorneys have an issue with anything here or pending litigation being brought forward, they too can contact us. Again, they are well aware of who we are and the Kenney family knows as well. Its not a secret society. If this hurts what they may be doing, they just need to say so.

5. You sign on as anon and regurgitate everything thats been rehashed many times over during the past few months. If you're real and genuine, then step forward, we have.

6. I'm having a difficult time seeing how this can be a money maker. Any "donations" have been few and far between, I don't see a documentary or Erin Brokavitch type movie coming from this, and to be blunt, given the hours invested against any possible ROI, King is working for less than minimum wage...I ask you for what?

So the answer to your concerns is simple. Have the family come forward, or a credible representative thereof, and simply ask for a different course. I'm not here to do anything but help improve the community and help the families make some sense of this tragedy.

Christopher King said...

Lifer:

Exactly. Everything is fine, and I'm not going to get into specifics.

Notice how this person does not address any of the substantive issues countenanced in the RSA 91-A Motion for Declaratory Judgment.

Nor do they delve into my successful alliance with many Nashua School Board memebers and Aldermen in changing Right-to-Know/First Amendment Policy just this year, so now I have to point that out to people who are joining in anew.

This individual is counterproductive to everything we are attempting to work on here and is probably either

the fool who said all black people are looking for a handout

or Huckster/LS/Light Shiner who cannot bring himself to admit that I gave him a FULL ACCOUNTING of monies spent, as noted in the emails I sent to Attorney X after he forwarded it to me so that I could use it in the Right-to-Know litigation in the first instance.

The lies that have been manifest against me in Columbus were just about as bad as the lies that have been manifest regarding Liko. None of my clients initiated any of these actions, mind you, they came from some of the most powerful people in Columbus, like the Schottenstien familly. Guess where Ohio State plays basketball?

In the Schottenstein arena you bet. Ha, I remember I actually gave a video of my courtroom performance in the case where I was allegedly unprofressional. Shirley Mays just threw it out, rather than review it to see the alleged unprofessionalism.

Wrong evidentiary rulings I would talk about late at night with my evidence Professor Paul C. Gianelli, who wrote the Ohio Rules of Evidence.

Niiiice.....

Christopher King said...

And you know the funny thing?

My role in this has always been as a reporter who knows the law, trying to get information and to hold the government responsible for its misdeeds.

I don't recall anyone ever revoking my reporter's license, which I held for many years at the Ohio Call & Post as an editor and IndyStart as a reporter before being a lawyer.

So has there been any comment on my writing from anyone in the community very close to this matter?

Why yes in fact, there WAS a recent comment in my email tip-jar.

Let's take a look at it, shall we?

"GOOD MORNING CHRIS, I think this article John Segwicks pardon my french " SUCKS " very poorly done and a embarrassment to the Kennys. So glad ****** did not agree to interview with him. He needs a lesson in journalism. Not one paragraph is correct.

You certainly put him to shame in your writing. Thanks for the updates have a good day. My best, [blankety-blank]"


BTW, we broke down Gregory Floyd, back on 7 July with this lengthy transcription of relevant passages before it was really acceptable to question the State's version of events and McKay's background.

On a related note...........

Christopher King said...

Oh, and of course the original "charge" against me, taping that landlord who called my client a "nigger lover" (I independently verified this) was not an ethical violation because Ohio was a one-party state (only one party need have knowledge of a taped phone call) and testing in racial issues in real estate is permissible because of Heights Community Congress v. Hilltop Realty.

I knew all of this because the City Attorney was Don Barclay, my friend's father. And because our family was racially-steered in 1970 when we moved to Cleveland Heights and my parents were testers.

They gave me a year probation because there was nothing there to nail me in the first place.

It's tantamount to McKay asking for leniency for Liko in 2003 after he beat the snot out of him and conducted an unconstitutional arrest ab initio, as noted by the rulings of Judge Cyr, which are documented in the RSA 91-A Motion that the poster entirely failed to address.

Niiiice......