28 October 2008

Dear Attorney Frydman and State Representative Martha McLeod: It's after 1 July 2008, so give me the HB 1428 Bruce McKay Highway emails now.

Dear Counselor and Honorable Ms. McLeod:

In my Petition for Declaratory Judgment I noted that you all were charged with constructive knowledge that HB 1408 -- initiated before HB 1428 -- codified and ratified into RSA 91-A on 1 July 2008, compelled disclosure of all emails on public issues to and from the McLeod state email address.

You in turn, in your Motion to Dismiss, now claim that the applicable law of the case is that of the older RSA 91-A. While I still believe that version of the law compells disclosure, I'll ask you one more time: Please provide a copy of any and all emails to and from State Representative McLeod's public and private emails that concern the properly-failed HB 1428 Bruce McKay Highway. There. Now the Court will analyse this case under both versions should you refuse to provide the requested materials yet again. Now you as counsel have an ethical obligation to take that to your client, so she can now "see" my request, a fact that will become relevant in the next paragraph.

Furthermore, you all claim that Representative McLeod will swear that she never saw any of my requests for information, but that kind of logic is mere sophistry: If she provides the emails one can clearly see that she saw them. Not to mention the Certified U.S. Mail version I sent to her public office #7007 3020 0001 6051 6691 and to her private residence #0307 3330 0001 3502 8015 that she refused to accept. She cannot just absent herself from the Democratic process like that, with all due respect who in the hell does she think she is, counselor? I don't help pay her salary so that she can ignore emails, and it should not take a process server to give her hard copies of such emails. What you are doing, and what you are arguing, is patently absurd and if the Court lets you get away with it there is indeed no hope for New Hampshire in its entirety, much less North Country.

Have a nice day.
Very truly yours/Christopher King/KingCast.net

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hey King,

Just got your email.

You're right, this is a sh*t-show and it is all Miss Martha's fault.

Good luck.

Anonymous said...

Hey KingCast,

New Hampshire is not without hope if you appeal any adverse ruling to a more reasonable forum.

Christopher King said...

9:24

Word.

They are so dirty it's unreal.

-The KingCaster.

Christopher King said...

9:53

Missed your comment as I was posting response to 9:24

I concur with you only in part, because, in my opinion, the mere act of any court denying the public emails (much less the private on-topic emails) means that we should all be afraid, very afraid.

And my appeals in NH are limited to NH, I'm already reviewing one U.S. Supreme Court case with learned counsel in another matter and starting a new job soon so I honestly don't know if I would have time for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on this one.

I think if NH courts rule that Miss Martha is permitted to hide these emails I'll let it stand as testament to how hideous the government of NH really is.

In other words, you can take the horse to water but you can't make him drink.

-The KingCaster

Christopher King said...

Will Judge Harold W. Perkins get this one, too?

He's already busy with another back-door hide-the-facts RSA 91-A lawsuit involving the jail lawsuit, appropriately enough in today's Caledonian Record as a KingCast correspondent reports.

Nice.

Anonymous said...

I heard back when that jail vote occurred, Martha was involved in the alleged illegal caucus.

Go figger

Christopher King said...

Wouldn't surprise me in the least.

What a shallow, dirtbag existence she leads.

-The KingCaster.

Anonymous said...

kingcast wrote:
"Furthermore, you all claim that Representative McLeod will swear that she never saw any of my requests for information, but that kind of logic is mere sophistry: If she provides the emails one can clearly see that she saw them. Not to mention the Certified U.S. Mail version I sent to her public office #7007 3020 0001 6051 6691 and to her private residence #0307 3330 0001 3502 8015 that she refused to accept."

"SPAM FOLDER" she may have never even opened any of your email communications, nothing illegal about that. Also anyone has a right to refuse any USPS mail including any and all certified mail.

kingcast wrote:
"I don't help pay her salary so that she can ignore emails"

Just how far do you think "your" taxes on your $14,000.00 income goes. There is no law that states ANY governmental official has to respond to any constituent.

Christopher King said...

4:04

Let's assume arguendo that it did go to spam and that there is no legal requirement for legislators to check spam. The Complaint most assuredly did not go to spam, and she still has not offered up the emails, you stupid douchebag.

Also, I don't care if I made $10 last year I was still a taxpayer. Or is your point that only the wealthy get consideration from the legislators.

Ahhhh, now I see.

I see you are a stupid jackass, is what I see.

Now my salary is $73K so whaddya have to say to that, you stupid jackass?

Nothing.

Go fornicate yourself.

Christopher King said...

4:04 What an appropriate time for you to post, because you ARE lost in the 404. Show me any rule, statute or common law decision that says a STATE LEGISLATOR can refuse her USPS mail at her STATE OFFICE.

What a stupid jackass you are, wasting bandwidth.

You're the best argument for retroactive abortion I've yet seen.

-The KingCaster.

Christopher King said...

Ha, certified letters, here's one for you:

Boo!

Happy Halloween, fool.

Anonymous said...

christopher king wrote:
" you stupid douchebag, I see you are a stupid jackass, You're the best argument for retroactive abortion I've yet seen."

You really should seek professional help for your deep seated anger you display in your posts, like above. They are riddled with sexual innuendos, and references to male and female genitalia.

$73K annually huh....I call bullshit

Christopher King said...

8:02

I'm all set with your directives on how to tell me to do anything.

And yes, I make $73K, which is mid-range for what I have made since I largely quit practicing in 2000.

You need to seek mental help for trying to imply that someone going through hard times because of a jackass AG and a bogus indictment deserves less representation than someone who flies under the radar and makes more money.

Also, as far as sexual references, you're probably the same tool who kept writing in about my girlfriend's posterior, talking about busting butt pimples and all of that.

So then:

Butt pimples: You're wrong.
$73K: You're wrong again.

You stupid douchebag.

Anonymous said...

Who pays you $73K? You are lying.

Anonymous said...

christopher king wrote:
"And yes, I make $73K, which is mid-range for what I have made since I largely quit practicing in 2000."

You were suspended from practice in 1998

"You need to seek mental help for trying to imply that someone going through hard times because of a jackass AG and a bogus indictment deserves less representation than someone who flies under the radar and makes more money."

I implied no such thing, that is your perception. If I have something to say I don't pull punches or mince words,and I certainly don't ever imply anything.

"Also, as far as sexual references, you're probably the same tool who kept writing in about my girlfriend's posterior, talking about busting butt pimples and all of that."

WRONG AGAIN....I have no need to stoop to your level of childishness.

Christopher King said...

8:19

You'll never know, because I'm not stupid like Ditmar Kopf. You should say, "congratulations," but you're such a hater you can't bring yourself to do that, so yah you ARE a stupid douchebag hater face.

8:36

Suspended but on probation, idiot. I was still duly authorized to appear in court.

As to what you implied, you flat out said that $14K didn't go far to pay McLeod's salary, so I pointed out that is an elitist thing to say. You're busted.

Good, I'm glad it was not you who has been coming here with the sexual banter.

********

Now then, back to the main point:

Martha McLeod admitted receiving my very nice letter to her in the summer of 2007 and ignoring it, instead talking to Jeffrey Strelzin.

Read it all right here in this email, bubba.

Anonymous said...

"You need to seek mental help for trying to imply that someone going through hard times because of a jackass AG and a bogus indictment deserves less representation than someone who flies under the radar and makes more money."

How about a person going through hard times because of a jackass suspended lawyer/wanna be reporter?

Anonymous said...

christopher king said:

"you flat out said that $14K didn't go far to pay McLeod's salary, so I pointed out that is an elitist thing to say. You're busted."

What I actually said:
"Just how far do you think "YOUR" TAXES on your $14,000.00 income goes."

You demand answers and qualify your demands with your claim:
"I don't help pay her salary so that she can ignore emails"

at best your contribution is pennies on the dollar. That is all I was pointing out. Even someone who is indigent has a right to question the government, as long as they are truethful and respectful while doing so. You are neither.

Christopher King said...

4:34

I read what you said and you make a distinction without difference. You imply that because my tax dollars don't go as far as someone else's (well now they do, BTW) that my opinion means less.

That's makes you a jackass.

Cite the disrespectful portion of the letter that I sent to your buddy Martha that she ignored and went to Jeff Strelzin on, here it is you stupid douchebag haterhead:

20 August 2007
KingCast presents: An open letter to State Rep. Martha McLeod in Franconia shooting tragedy.

I sent it on 10 July 2007. The header is in the comments section.

Dear Representative McLeod:

Please allow me to introduce myself as someone who has dedicated this phase of his life to seeing something positive come out of the tragedies of 5/11.

My film maker and I are well into production for what will initially be a short piece highlighting the need for MANDATORY Civilian Review Boards and we will want to use this piece to raise awareness and to generate support for such a bill.

Believe me, after our days of production in Concord and in Franconia I can tell you the piece will be quite compelling.

We are securing funding for that right now (never an easy thing because we're not selling anything except Justice) but I know we can make this happen. Film editing takes a lot of time. A lot.

Meanwhile, please review this blawg post:

http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2007/07/kingcast-praises-nh-hb-58-establishing.html

.....and recognize that we press the government for answers, as we should do in a free society.

Christopher King, J.D.
603.438.8017
KingCast.net
Justiceforkids.net

Christopher King said...

As to being "truethful" (sic) try this.

The problem is, Petitioner had already noted in Tennessee that other lawmakers view things differently under virtually the same exact wording. Emails to one individual commissioner, clearly not sitting in a quorum situation, are subject to the Act, period. A copy of the County Attorney's opinion, and of other applicable law will be provided to the Court prior to Oral argument. Here's the Political Knoxville story:


"Law Director John Owings and Chief Deputy Law Director Mary Ann Stackhouse cited Tennessee Code Annotated 10-7-301(6) in offering that opinion, which defined public records as all documents, papers, letters, electronic data files, and similar material “made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business by any governmental agency."

When asked if that included a constituent’s letters or emails to a commissioner, Owings replied, “If it is in connection with the transaction of official business, then the answer is yes.”

Owings also stated that, in the case of email, it wouldn’t matter if such communication was sent to the commissioner’s government account or to any private account the commissioner has.

“If [an email] relates to the transaction of official business, it wouldn’t matter if it were sent to an official Knox County account or a private account. It would be public record, in my estimation,” Owings said.