28 December 2007

KingCast email reproduction regarding updates on attempts to obtain FOIA/RSA 91-A information and reports from Franconia/McKay OC Spray activities.

Note: On the left I will in an hour or two finally JPEG the Troy Watts, Esq. email to me of 24 June 2007 so there won't be any doubt as to the complaint and video he claims exist. I'm not going to subpoena Attorney Watts because the onus is on the State to refute those claims via Affidavit, which they have not produced. See Diamond v. IRS, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19534; An agency may demonstrate compliance with the obligations of FOIA by providing supporting affidavits. Perry v. Block, 221 U.S. App. D.C. 347, 352, 684 F.2d 121, 126 (1982) as noted in this post.

Note: This issue has been cooking since before 7 December as noted in the 16 Dec. 2007 Rosemary Woods post. For a detailed analysis read the comments section. I have not yet received a response to yesterday's email either:

27 December 2007

Dear Attorney Mullen:

Thank you for the additional materials [note: other Fox Hill docs]

I will add it up:

$2.20 for new materials.
$12.40 for old materials.
______
$14.60 total.

Also, I assume that I requested the 13 page complaint from ["Ms. B"]. Please confirm and I'll send out the $14.60.

Also I am sending out the notarized Affidavit this evening.

Lastly, can you send me an email regarding the outstanding requests in the attached letter I sent on 20 December 2007? Does your client have any responsive documents?

Thank you in advance,

Christopher King, J.D.

7 comments:

Christopher King said...

Okay.

At once we see several things:

First, the tone of my official correspondence with Defendants is beyond reproach.

Second, they don't seem too motivated to respond.

Third, as to why they don't respond there are several possibilities so let's visit them quickly:

a) I made up the whole Troy Watts scenario and ascribed a false email address for him and/or got the password to his account and broke into his office and then emailed myself from his IP address. Not likely.

b) Attorney Watts sent me the email but he was just joking; none of that happened. Not likely.

c) Attorney Watts sent me the email and everything in it is accurate but Defendants lost the complaint and the video. Not likely.

d) Attorney Watts sent me the email and everything in it is accurate but Defendants refuse to issue an affidavit regarding these purportedly missing items because that would constitute Perjury because they haven't lost them at all. However, admitting that they have them would show that they were on Actual Notice of Bruce McKay's unlawful proclivities and that might help provide the basis for subsequent legal action regarding wrongful retention and negligent supervision of Corporal McKay.

Bingo.

They think they're slick but they ain't foolin' nobody. Just reducing the quality of life for all Franconians and for those who care about Justice, the First Amendment and the Right to Petition our Government for redress.

You know, the American Way, established pursuant to our American ideals of Justice and stuff.

Namaste.

Lifer said...

When will you know when that court date is cast in stone. I'm so looking forward to it and I know there are a few other interested parties who want to know too.

Christopher King said...

Ahhh, Grasshopper nothing is ever cast in stone in the American Jurisprudential system.

All I can do is continue to call the court and inquire.

I will do that on 2 Jan however and by that point I would assume that if there were to be any changes in schedule the Court would know by that point.

I'm looking forward to it and am reviewing everything to stay up on what's salient, and the issues in this post are some of the mot important ones in the litigation.

All the best,

-c

Anonymous said...

Is this an open court hearing? Will we be allowed to sit in the courtroom?

Christopher King said...

Oh you better believe it's open.

And if Senior NH Superior Court Judge Robert Lynn is correct video is allowed as well.

Watch him say so in this video from our companion site, "Advocacy in Action: Then and Now."

Of course he also calls me "nonsense" but you gotta' take the good with the bad, I guess.

Namaste.

Christopher King said...

Gotta love the part when he says "It's unfortunate that people want to post courtroom proceedings up on blawgs or whatever...."

Why is that unfortunate? I'm not exposing any trade secrets or the identity of rape victims......

The only thing unfortunate about courtroom TV is shows like Judge Judy, etc. etc. that never delve into anything Constitutional, just keep feeding the public a bunch of bullshit.

I say let the public experience what's going on in REAL cases.

Christopher King said...

I sent Attorney Mullen the money for the documents as noted. U.S. Postal Money Order:

#93431105190

Still haven't heard from him on the other document requests that are of course well overdue.