03 January 2008

Holy batsh*t Robin, Franconia and NH AG Kelly Ayotte have requested an extention of time to respond to KingCast.

Yep, they can't handle the heat from that Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. And how ironic is this, given the post I just put up this morning. The full email exchange is in the comments, and you can read my welcome letter to my adversaries in this post, in which I told them "no problem" with extensions. Also see how these same attorneys got dusted up good in the same courthouse last year on RSA 91-A issues with Fred Murray.
Dear Attorney Mullen:

Of course I will assent to both of you.....

As soon as your client provides me responses and/or documents to outstanding RSA 91-A requests as noted in today's post:

http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2008/01/kingcast-says-franconia-is-most.html

PS: Your letter dated 2 Jan 2008 that I received today fails on all counts. First you admit that you have my letter of 20 December 2007 but do not acknowledge my letter of 7 Dec. 2007 even though I can prove I sent it to you; here is the email in its entirety to you and eleventy-billion people:

Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 11:35:58 -0800 (PST)
From: "Christopher King" kingjurisdoctor@yahoo.com
Subject: KingCast Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
To: Kelly.Ayotte@doj.nh.gov, Jeffery.Strelzin@doj.nh.gov, Nancy.Smith@doj.nh.gov, James.Kennedy@doj.nh.gov, bud.fitch@dohj.nh.gov, dmullen@ranspell.com, wchapman@orr-reno.com, jlavely@salmonpress.com, police@franconianh.org, selectmen@franconianh.com, Andrew@RightToknowNH.org...

Dear Attorney Mullen:

I figured I'd give you a jump start on everything by sending you the draft, along with the draft response to your client's Motion to Dismiss.

I don't anticipate any major changes.

See you around 3:30-4p, then to retrieve the $12.40 worth of documents your staff has copied for me.

Best wishes for a great weekend,

Christopher King, J.D.

http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2007/12/kingcast-finishes-motion-for-partial.html

07 December 2007

KingCast finishes Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Memorandum Contra Motion to Dismiss; asks one more RSA 91-A question for Defendant Montminy.


Dear Defendant Montminy: The end of KingCast's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment reads as noted in the comments section.

As you claim not to have Troy Watt's Complaint on McKay and Sarah, and as you claim not to have the cruiser video of McKay OC Spraying Sarah (I don't believe you) can you provide a copy of the Police Report and Use of Force Report for that incident. Ms. Ellie describes it rather vividly in the short film, "Franconia 5/11: Injustice on Stilts."

Hand and email delivered to Attorney Daniel Mullen this 7th day of December, 2007.

Scribd is down right now but I will post the Memoranda later this evening. Rosemary Woods would be proud.
posted by Christopher King at 11:15 AM | 1 comments

*******************

They you ask to get back with me within "two weeks" owing to the "holiday season." Counselor, show me anywhere that RSA 91-A gives your client from 20 Dec. to 2 Jan to respond, much less asking for two more weeks on that. Remember, I've got you on video trying to explain not having the 2003 police report when in fact one exists.

Related pics: The KingCast Bat-mo-Bimmer #3 and the Liko Kenney Bat-mo-Bimmer #1. Y'all got rid of him but you won't get rid of me.

5 comments:

Christopher King said...

Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 14:33:53 -0800 (PST)
From: "Christopher King" kingjurisdoctor@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: KingCast RSA 91-A Materials re: Your 19 Dec. 2007 letter.
To: "Daniel J. Mullen" dmullen@ranspell.com

Dear Attorney Mullen:

Of course I will assent to both of you.....

As soon as your client provides me responses and/or documents to outstanding RSA 91-A requests as noted in today's post:

http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2008/01/kingcast-says-franconia-is-most.html

03 January 2008
KingCast says: Franconia is the most derelict, unlawful FOIA regime I have ever seen.
Feel free to notify the Court, using these exact words, of the KingCast intentions in this matter.

Namaste,

Christopher King, J.D.

"Daniel J. Mullen" dmullen@ranspell.com wrote:

Mr. King:

Assistant Attorney General Kennedy and I are filing a joint motion to extend time to respond to your partial motion for summary judgment until 30 days after the court rules on our motions to dismiss. Would you assent to the extension?

Daniel J. Mullen, Esquire
Ransmeier & Spellman
One Capitol Street
PO Box 600
Concord, NH 03302-0600
603 228 0477
603 224 2780 (fax)
Email: dmullen@ranspell.com

Christopher King said...

Hater: Well Mr. King you think you're funny with your lil' blog, dontcha'?

KingCast: Yes.

Christopher King said...

Okay, okay it's not funny.

It's deadly serious.

********
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 21:33:15 -0800 (PST)
From: "Christopher King" kingjurisdoctor@yahoo.com
Subject: Dan, don't play with me. I want my documents, now.
To: Kelly.Ayotte@doj.nh.gov, Jeffery.Strelzin@doj.nh.gov, Nancy.Smith@doj.nh.gov, James.Kennedy@doj.nh.gov, bud.fitch@dohj.nh.gov, dmullen@ranspell.com,

Dear Attorney Mullen:

I will file a Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions against you
and your client in a heartbeat for your noncompliance on the 2003 arrest report alone.

The report exists yet you are on TV saying that it
does not. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and
shook your hand on 7 Dec. 2007 after you told me you had 5 children and I smiled and admired you for that because I can barely handle more than two of my nieces/nephew at one time. If your family commitments are taking your attention away from the First Amendment/FOIA issues at hand you need to get another lawyer on board or something because this is not reasonable.

I warned you about the arrest report on numerous
occasions and my position is well-documented.

As a matter of fact, I've had it. I'm bringing a
Motion for Sanctions; I'll draft it up tomorrow on my day off from work.

Very truly yours,

Christopher King, J.D.

Lifer said...

Can you put into context what all this legal posturing means? Basically is the Jan 10 hearing on or off? If on, what is the hearing going to be about? What are the legal ramifications of a favorable and unfavaorable outcomes from this hearing?

What are all these motions for? Who decides upon merits of these motions and in what timeframe?

Help a legal neophyte here understand this process.

Thanks

Christopher King said...

Oh, the hearing is still on. The court will use information garnered at the hearing to guide its decisions on the motions.

But of course I won't have as much evidence at the hearing as I should:

Motion for Sanctions.

Defendants have continually lied about not having access to Liko's 2003 arrest without supporting Affidavit. Moreover, the contumacious "responses" to Petitioner's requests for information on issues pertaining to Bruce McKay OC Spraying Sarah and the time sheets for Bruce McKay will result in Petitioner obtaining these documents until after the merit hearing on 10 January 2007 when presentation of these items in open court would be the most effective."

Then they have the nerve to ask me for an extension of time. The more I study this issue the more I have to Just Say No: They lied when they said they were not in receipt of my 7 December request, as I proved yesterday. Watch this space throughout the day.


Stay tuned for an email in a few minutes on related issues.

Namaste.