11 August 2007

Motion Practice 601 #4: KingCast is coming around the bend on the RSA 91-A litigation with Franconia lawyer Daniel Mullen and NH AG Kelly Ayotte.

Yepper.... the final letter on Franconia's refusal to provide unfettered access to the personnel file and complaints and compliments about Bruce McKay is in the comments section and it comports with Manns v. City of Charleston as well as ACLU v. Whitman. Note to newbies: The RSA 91-A statute is analysed under the Federal Freedom of Information Act as noted in Union Leader v. City of Nashua.

California is at odds with Ohio and Florida. Read this case about a sexual predator cop, which is EXACTLY what Liko said McKay was, regarding his alleged actions with a 13 year-old girl and others. According to my sources, the girl eventually moved away from Franconia and was traumatized.

Next we go to Part III(B) of the Motion, which will either appear in this post or be set off in the next:

Bruce McKay's apparent violation of Franconia police policies and the false, deceptive and misleading NH AG Official Report of 25 June, 2007.

Then Comes Part IV, Law and Argument, in which KingCast will address a LOT of things, depending on what information I receive in the next several days, but apparently it will address:

* Bruce McKay's personnel file in all of its component parts, i.e. performance reviews and annual evaluations/citizen complaints and responses/personnel matters that may reflect on his capacity to perform as a peace officer. I know, that's an oxymoron with McKay, but whatever we'll give it to him in a linguistic sense because there really are no words to succinctly describe that hater. At any rate, the NH Right-to-Know experts point out that this law is unsettled in New Hampshire. KingCast is about to change that. See generally. Union Leader v. City of Nashua., State v Theodosopoulous, NH ACLU v. City of Manchester and persuasive Federal Law of Kallstrom v. City of Columbus II. In Ohio, disclosure is AUTOMATIC under its Sunshine Act, because as Mentor Union President Tim Baker said:
"All of my members are good cops, so we have no problem opening up the Sunshine Law and letting it shine in." --- and Wickliffe's Chief James Fox said "But when you sign up for this job, in a position of public trust, that's part of the deal," Fox said, "You must accept the fact that your work-related life is a matter of public record."

KingCast submits that the residents of the Live Free or Die State should have no less protection against the government than those of a hayseed cow-town State like Ohio, after all. They're just a bunch of dumb, unsophisticated midwesterners, you know.
* Declaratory Judgment that the 150+ responses sent to the Franconia Selectmen are public records and that the failure to deliver them makes Franconia out of Rule and in violation of the letter and spirit of RSA 91-A. See Brian D. Lamy v. NH PUCO.
* Declaratory Judgment that Franconia Chief Montminy' initial response to KingCast on the Fox Hill "suspicious" issue violated the letter and spirit of RSA 91-A.
* Declaratory Judgment that the missing use-of-force report and police report from 2003 constitute a Right-to-Know violation.
* Declaratory Judgment that a police officer's failure to state his or her name, badge number and jurisdiction excepting truly exigent circumstances violates RSA 91-A.

* Declaratory Judgment that the AG is required to post the rest of its investigative files online because of the substantial and material conflicts it presents that are not respresented in its official file. Only allowing someone to come to the office to review such files after placing the conflicting report online violates the letter and spirit of RSA 91-A. See generally the David and Goliath post containing the case of Hawkins v. NH DHHS, which held that "cost is not a factor in determining whether the information is a public record." Also that The trial court correctly ruled that HHS was not required to create a new document. However, to the extent that the plaintiff requests the Medicaid claims compiled in their original form, we remand for further proceedings. The investigative files are not a new document. They exist already and it costs virtually nothing to put them online with the selected materials that the State has put on line. Also, there is not argument of privilege because that has been waived by producing the summary, persuant to Unincorporated Operating Div. of Ind. Newspapers, Inc. v. Trustees of Indiana University, 787 N.E.2d 893 (Ind. App. 4 Cir. 2003)..
* Declaratory Judgment that NH AAG Jeffery Strelzin intentionally or recklessly misrepresented the facts about why various taped interviews were not initially provided, which prompted the Ethics Complaint which immediately liberated them.
* Declaratory Judgment that the price of the taped interviews, at $10.00 per copy, is excessive and violates the letter and spirit of RSA 91-A because it costs virtually nothing to burn a copy of a CD/DVD with existing State resources and bulk CDs cost what, half-a-dollar.
* Declaratory Judgment awarding $9.00 per CD refunds to any and all media who paid the $10.00 per CD.
* Declaratory Judgment that the emails to and from the AG's office containing the names "Liko Kenney" or "Bruce McKay" be provided (1) under the principles of waiver and (2) because the case is closed and (3) because the Attorney-Client privilege is between NH AG Ayotte and KingCast, or any other citizen of the State of New Hampshire. As such, KingCast waives privilege and wants the emails. And the New Hampshire School Boards Association has stated as noted in this post that every email should be treated as public.

More may follow.


Christopher King said...

15 Beasom Street
Nashua , New Hampshire 03064


Re: Final offer on Bruce McKay’s personnel file

Dear Counselor Mullen:

I’m scrubbing the case prior to filing and the Court needs to be aware of exactly what KingCast offered your client so I believe this letter will make it clear in terms of what I am seeking as a remedy:
Defendant shall be ordered to provide a copy of Bruce McKay's entire personnel file for review and inspection by KingCast and any and all other members of the media. Plaintiff will identify the documents he wants to reproduce to the general public. If there are documents that Defendant believes are actually protected by privacy concerns they will mark such documents and the parties will visit the matter on the Court, which will maintain jurisdiction. Should Plaintiff in the interim (or subsequently if the Court sustains the objection) post any information that came exclusively from those sequestered documents, it shall be criminal contempt of the Court.”

And of course I am still awaiting your response on the other outstanding Right-to-Know issues as countenanced by my letters of 9 and 10 August, 2007 including but not limited to the 150+ Franconia Recovery and Reconciliation documents.

I am not here to provide home addresses, addresses of family members, and social security identification to the general public, Sir but everything else is fair game for a man who walks around with a gun and a badge and makes his living from tax dollars. Honestly, as to the old documents that your client will likely never find, I’ll just go and get a Declaratory Judgment that failure to maintain them violates RSA 91-A and that’s a no-brainer. It is those 150+ responses and that personnel file that is of paramount importance.

Please advise.

Very truly yours,
Christopher King, J.D.

Christopher King said...

Anyone looking at the law presented on this very post alone can see that the law is Balkanized throughout the country.

Some states have specific statutes grating broad access and some do not. New Hampshire has no bright-line standard or recent case, either.

But by articulating a reasonable option I hope to establish one.

So there you go.

That's what I do: Help shape public policy, as noted in this Nashua Telegraph editorial.

"When a public entity seeks to avoid disclosure of material under the Right-to-Know Law, that entity bears a heavy burden to shift the balance toward nondisclosure. See Petition of Keene Sentinel, 136 N.H. 121, 127, 612 A.2d 911, 914 (1992)."


Counselors Ayotte, Strelzin and I shall also address the email Right-to-Know issue too, because that is unsettled in NH as well.

Christopher King said...

California is at odds with Ohio and Florida; here is an interesting story about Florida vs. California law and a sexual predator cop.

Anonymous said...

The editorial is E400.

Anonymous said...

go for it, chris. a high five to you ;-) you're makin' it all happen.

Christopher King said...


Dig it. We need some definitive answers and I'm not afraid to help establish what they are.

My letter to Attorney Mullen is as good as any licensed attorneys and my brief will be of similar quality and direction.

Still waiting for the dissenters to actually say something about any of the brief I've been composing online, open to review and criticism, but they've said NOTHING.

And wait until the bombshell drops.

Also, in direct contrast to a poster who said that Liko's charges were nol-prossed because of a plea, perhaps they should read this:

And lastly, there was no plea on the nol-prossed charges.

This is straight from Attorney Brook's Motion for Continuance:

"Counsel requires a copy of McKay's police report in order to prooperly litigate this issue. Defense counsel, however, has yet to receive Officer McKay's police report from the Graton County Attorney. Counsel did request McKay's report in a February 20, 2003 discovery letter addressed to the Franconia Police Department. At the time of the discovery request, the Franconia Police Department was prosecuting the allegations in the above-captioned matters. The department did not respond to the request and, instead dropped all of the complaints.""


Anonymous said...

In reading the files posted, I saw that Liko requested a copy of the 03 video. I wonder if he ever received it. I do not recall the page but he also specified that he would like it to be mailed to him and did not wish to have verbal or personal contact with the FPD.

Christopher King said...


I bet. The truth will come out Debby.

Just a matter of time. It has now been about 6 weeks since they withheld the 2007 video for 6 weeks, and we're still gathering information and facts about all the horrible things they are trying to cover up.

We keep on keepin' on though.


Anonymous said...

As for your entertaining lead here. No one could ever question your 'mad skills' at self promotion and ingratiating your visage and savior complex comprehensively onto preferably dead victims who can't publically disassociate themselves from the private circus, but with sufficient bravado to keep most of the people drawn briefly here by the Kenney tragedy distancing themselves away from the endless childish exploits that make you such a legend in your own mind.
Not that you don't serve a purpose.

I'm guessing you'reTHE ubiquitous presence in the 'liko & me' opus you are seeking production $upport for. Please don't tell me no!! Hopefully that footage will differ in timbre, tenor, quality and editing than the endless self-congratulatory promos here. Do you film yourself peeing? Because after all, someone who once almost knew Liko sat on your toilet so don't tell me it's not connected dammit. Fasscinnnattting stuff. And classy. Makes my negro ass blush with pride. Go get 'em tiger.

So realistically after filing, whervever you file it this week, in whatever court, it will take how many weeks, months, quarters etc...for you to get the proscenium from which to do your mighty magic? I get the impression it will be considered right this month, as you state in the lead here.

Did i get this right? You are now contemplating aloud about losing the Declaratory that is set for sometime in the next two and a half weeks?? (I'm a little curious as your latest boast introduces how you're now ready to take it to the Supreme Court!!) Just tell us where and when!!!

(and if they accept the case, and if a non-lawyer is allowed to make a case there? And that would be heard in what decade?)
Meanwhile, please do go on. What other celebrity, living or dead, did you almost know that sat in a chair made by the same manufacturer that you almost sat in a chair once by? Or something. Really, more details!! You were a clerk but you sat in the judge's chair once?? Holy Mackerel! That is too rich! Hot Damn, I bet you're ready to litigate yo negro ass off now!!
Whooo!! Talk about balls!!!
Please, please, when can we get another long list of what you almost were going to do if something else didn't happen but it's connected anyway namaste? Please, please, the schoolboard thing again, and then that other case, and please be sure to repeat all press references to you again and again. Please??
I mean really, we need to hear this over and over, lest we forget it's primary relevance.
You've got some great posts though. And some great threads. And a whole lot of ones that makes my negro ass just want to fart for justice, right in my BMW. YEAH!!! Dig it mon, as Sammy used to say. You DO have a Sammy story, don't you?

Come on with it, don't be shy.
I know there's a connection. There's got to be a rat pack story; don't even try to wriggle out of it. I mean, all you guys were probably at the same airport at some time or another, right? Come on, don't let us down. And Please Don't make us wait!!! :(

Hey, one more thing please. What does it mean that you 'scrubbed the case prior to filing" in that long rambling letter to some official off of one of your links? Wassup with that wilis? Is that a "brief?" :)

Christopher King said...


Hey Joe McQuaid is that you?

Sounds a lot like your ummm..... "style."

I got no worries here. Hope you had a fun time typing all of that, and thanks for your concern :)