Clearly public access is paramount.
Now the question is why am I the ONLY media outlet for this information?
Here also is today's response to the letter in yesterday's post from Franconia Attorney Mullen, who among other things admits that his office misplaced or is not sophisticated enought to handle my email and fax requests for 91-A information (The AG's office responded in timely fashion to the same email BTW) and that they have NOT located any sort of use-of-force report to date, and that they will seek the arrest report for Liko's Unconstitutional arrest in Fox Hill Park, probably because McKay had a bonfire with it. I will respond to this letter later this evening, but really the key is wait until I tell you what else I know about McKay soon.
Funny, I thought the client was supposed to learn from the lawyer about responsibility, not vice versa.
Anyway, soon everyone can see what should be placed online by NH AG Kelly Ayotte that conclusively shows the coverups.
Anyway, I'm back from Concord and boy the AG's office has more 'splainin' to do because my trip to Kelly's House (it will be for rent soon) reveals yet more missing information:
They called themselves providing me ALL of the correspondence between John P. and the AG's office on the Right-to-Know request but they failed to provide the one from 7 July 2007 seen at this link
That is just another reason why they cannot be trusted and why the Court should ORDER them to provide the Investigative files online to the same extent that they provided it to the media.
In one of the emails on 11 July 2007 Attorney Strelzin tells John P. that he "can also make an appointment and come into the office to review the written materials without purchasing them."
What if you don't have a car?
What if you don't feel like driving to Concord?
Then I guess all you get for free is the bogus, apparently unsigned official report, which is chock full of lies.
To my mind (especially knowing what I know now that I will mention next week) that does not comport with the letter or spirit of RSA 91-A and I will also structure in the argument that those of us who paid $10.00 per audio CD are entitled to a $9.00 refund because as John P. wrote:
"You did not AT ALL address my email but instead you have your paralegal send me the below price list letting me know how to order these items as inflated "prices" and not "cost." This can only be taken as an insulting response to my inquiry.....
I expect you to answer my original email as you have been instructed and please also refer me to the proper contact who can explain to me how you are deriving your costs for material.
These documents are supposed to be made available at "cost" and I would like to understand why the state is paying $10 for blank CDs.
These requests have been reasonable but your response has not."
Also, they spent 79 hours on their unfounded case against me as NAACP legal chair and 75 on former Jaffrey officer Aaron Deboisbriand's failed case.
I can't find the time sheet pay rate but it's like more than $10,000.00 on each case.