30 November 2007

KingCast meets with Franconia Counsel Mullen and finds more complaints on McKay, including a lie by the NH AG's office and violations of force policy

Okay. Believe me, there was a complaint letter to the NH AG's office from the McKay knifing victim, "Ms. B." The problem is, I have an RSA 91-A reponse dated 1 August, 2007 in which Defendant Ayotte writes "the only complaint in our possession is the one referenced in your paragraph seven request above" (the Tim Stephenson complaint).

Oopsie-Daisy. Ms. B writes: "[Montminy] refused to answer my concerns about Officer Bruce McKay and told me that I could not prove that he committed perjury.... I am now concerned about the abilities and integrity of both Chief Montminy and Officer McKay.... The Chief told me that my report was "under investigation," yet the only neutral witness was never questioned... I am requesting that the state investigate Officer McKay so that this abuse will no longer be allowed. Thank you for your consideration."

And I found another complaint, written 19 June 2005 -- well after the town said they received its last complaint from 2000 -- from some folks who missed a wrong-way sign on a rainy day all filed written complaints against McKay that echo Liko Kenney's concern that McKay never told him his name: "Finally, when asked he refused to give his supervisor's name, saying with hostility that he would not stand in the rain to tell me." They couldn't believe his lack of decorum in front of a 3 year-old: "We felt as if we wre being treated like felons.... we were shocked...... we hope she is learning to respect those who take an oath to serve & protect the public (even in the rain)."

I did not see the Troy Watts 2005 (IIRC) Complaint.

In this 26 July 2007 post I linked a Concord Monitor story of 26 July 2007 which noted that McKay's use of OC Spray and the Toyota-ramming Tahoe were inappropriate. My review of the actual policies that I will be receiving and scanning next week supports what I wrote in the post linked in this paragraph but I will note that the use of vehicular force was not warranted because McKay had no right to use deadly force pursuant to RSA 627:5 when he bashed Liko's Toyota, and further as I have said repeatedly, you cannot engage in chemical warfare with someone without a command or directive:

Use of Chemical Agents
II. Nondeadly
C (5) In all situations involving use of chemical agents, suspects should be given adequate warning of their imminent use and should be afforded time to respond to lawful commands.


Bruce violated ALL OF THAT just before he died, because he hated Liko Kenney and fancied himself John Wayne, pure and simple. His track record clearly shows as much.

Lastly, there is another complaint in which McKay drew his OC Spray on a fellow near Kelly's/Mac's without reason, then denied that he did it but then later admitted that he did, and the complaining party had a witness.

But that's just one of Kelly's heroes. Sounds more like Hogan's Heroes to me.

Irony of the Day: McKay claims he filed a Whistleblower claim against Loon Mountain, another place I love to ski. The irony is not that I like Loon but that McKay actually thought he had his act together enough to criticize someone else. Anyone know what came of that complaint?

5 comments:

Christopher King said...

I told Attorney Mullen that I am going to forward some pages from the AG's report which appear to be a police report from 2003 (it is marked as a "narrative" in the AG "Investigative files" at p99 IIRC) because he has repeatedly stated, even in this post with this WMUR video -- that the town has never given him a police report or Use-of-Force Report.

"How the AG's Office got a report, if that's what it is, and we didn't, I don't know...."

"Oh, I know.... it's crazy and I'm not sure if indeed that is a Police Report -- I just want to know 'who's on First,'" I said.

I also informed Attorney Mullen that I will be pursuing the refusal to provide testing information on officers to the media/public.

Some of this is stutory, some of it isn't. Regardless of what it is, I want the highest courts in the land to analyse whether it is lawful to withhold that information, or whether the Statute itself needs to be declared Unconstutitonal and violative of our First Amendment/Right-to-Know protections and privileges.

Namaste.

Anonymous said...

Disgust, that is how I feel toward these jokers.

Thank you Bruce, Kelly, Mark, Carl, Martha, et al for destroying my faith in LE and public servants.

Tis the season to get even...

Go get them Chris!

Christopher King said...

So now are you saying that they intentionally hid the facts or just accidentally hid them through sheer incompetency?

Either way you've got something pathetic on your hands.

Christopher King said...

BTW as far as McKay not giving his name to Liko or his supervisor's name to the other complainants, one of the specific requested areas of relief is that it shall be a Right-to-Know violation for an officer in non-exigent situations to fail to provide:

Name
Badge Number
Jurisdiction

On request.

I dunno. Sounds reasonable to me.

Christopher King said...

Also note for Attorney Mullen and the Free World:

I was correct on the pagination of the Bruce McKay narrative. It is on pp. 99-101 of the AG RSA 91-A Investigative files that I hosted online, in which he admits to violating Due Process principles in the 2003 arrest of Liko Kenney by stating that he:

1. Based his Probable Cause on a "high-crime area," which the Court struck down because Judge Cyr ruled that every cop knows you can't do that, and;

2. Lit the vehicle with headlights and bar mounted taken down lights, which of course seized Liko Kenney without Probable Cause, when Judge Cyr ruled every cop should know that.

Whoops.