24 October 2008

KingCast, Franconia Collective approach would-be ATF director Sullivan on Gregory W. Floyd's habitual violations of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1).

KingCast update: Read the 8th comment about my discussion with Boston ATF counsel Roy Chabra. He visibly chortled when he discovered the court file had no disposition on the Floyd request for return of property, i.e. THE GUNS.

Dear Director Sullivan, best of luck in getting your confirmation. That's quite the story; it seems like Bad Republicans like NH AG Kelly Ayotte have you stymied while you work your tuchis off. From last week's Boston Globe:
"The opposition is not to Sullivan personally, but focused on the belief that the ATF is overly aggressive in enforcing gun laws."

Sir, Gregory W. Floyd criminally threatened his neighbor, probably murdered Liko Kenney, and is a serial violator of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), which he violated again just this summer, exposing him to new charges. He should have turned in a certain gun and we'll see if that is indeed the gun he turned in, but regardless he no doubt exercised control and dominion of said gun pursuant to U.S. v. Ruckman, D.C. No. 02-CR-05-S (E.D. Oklahoma) 2003. The old possible charges expired as the Grafton County Superior Court waited for the U.S. Attorney's office to issue a declaration. Read the Index Sheet for Grafton 98-S-242.

Local LE have noted that people are afraid of Floyd, and with this submission please find relevant government documents on Gregory W. Floyd and the signatures of dozens of area citizens who are concerned about Floyd and who specifically urge an inspection of his compound and an Indictment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). Here is a KingCast amicus brief on related issues and sentence imposition of prior assault charges, with pictures of Gregory Floyd in action, citing State v. Gibbs, 953 A.2d 439(2008).

U.S. Attorney and former NH AAG Mark Zuckerman vowed to me he would forward the case. Joe Biden looked me straight in the eye, gave me a hug and vowed he would prosecute cases like this, and the exchange was heard by thousands. But look at the documents that NH AG Kelly Ayotte unlawfully withheld from the American Public about Floyd, and the court let her get away with it.

Is Floyd protected? Did he really kill 43 people as he told NH AG Kelly Ayotte in her "official investigation" into the Franconia shooting tragedy? What will you promise me, and what will you do?

Respectfully submitted,

Christopher King, J.D.
On behalf of the Franconia Collective


Christopher King said...

I'll be right here today to hand deliver this puppy:

U.S. Department of Justice
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
Boston Field Division
10 Causeway Street
Suite 791
Boston, Massachusetts 02222
(617) 557-1200
FAX: (617) 557-1201

Anonymous said...

Local LE have noted that people are afraid of Floyd. Local NH LE, NH State LE, NHAG, and members of both NH House and Senate noted that there are a hell of a lot more people sick of you and some actually afraid of you.

Anonymous said...

"Local LE have noted that people are afraid of Floyd."

No doubt, Bruce McKay must have noted this as he was Local LE. Seems unlikely they didn't know each other considering the incident at the school.

"Local NH LE, NH State LE, NHAG, and members of both NH House and Senate noted that there are a hell of a lot more people sick of you and some actually afraid of you."

Until the Law Enforcement of NH produce the body of Maura Murray, they can surely expect more of the same. The AG should be afraid of Chris, for the magnitude of this cover-up rivals anything in American History. Kelly Ayotte can't restrain the abuse flowing from her officers, nor does she care.

I would hazard that the solution for Maura's situation has its roots in Bruce's interactions with his dog Kelly. How far the scent was thrown!

I am sure the House and the Senate of NH would be facinated to know the sum total of Maura's case. Incredible the AG's conduct!

The real threat is not Chris with his Right-to-Know requests. At some point, Maura's family has a right to know even if the AG should argue against them.

Do you believe Maura drove to the Weather'd barn, Kelly? or havn't you been had.

Anonymous said...

we aren't discussing the Maura Murray case. In all my involvement in the Franconia case initially I DID NOT see any evidence that proved more than a handful of people (as in 5) had negative dealings with Floyd, and were in fear of him. Even the first officer on scene stated even though Floyd said "easy their sonny I'm quicker than you" HE (the officer) WASN'T afraid or in fear for his life.

There were a lot more mysterious cases long before the Maura Murray disappearance, angry people point the finger at anyone because they want and need to blame someone.

From her officers??? Some of them started when she was still being suckled as a baby, get serious.

Anonymous said...

"We create that bad among ourselves. We create it; then we try to call it devil, Satan, or evil. But man creates it. There is no devil. Man creates the devil." --Wallace Black Elk, LAKOTA

Inside every human being are the laws and codes by which we should live. These laws and codes are communicated to us through a little voice. When we are still, this voice guides us. If we choose to live out of harmony, our lives become filled with anger, hate, selfishness, dishonesty, etc. When these things appear in our lives, we give up accountability and blame it on something or someone else. If we want to live in harmony, we need to pray our way back to living the principles the Creator gave us.

Grandfather, today let me walk with the principles.

Anonymous said...

"A lying tongue hateth those that are afflicted by it..."
Proverbs 26:28 KJV

Anonymous said...

we're proud of you Liko! so tough so brave! wish you were here. You were a great friend! Peace be with you!

Christopher King said...


I see you have nothing of substance to say.

I really couldn't care less if people are sick of me or of Fred Murray for asking questions.

If someone is scared of me, let them file a Restraining Order. I do know that the illustrious Miss Martha McLeod accused Davey Kenney and me of "stalking" her, just as she did to the gofranconia.com owner who wrote me to say as much.

Read it right here.


Taking the government at its word -- always a dangerous thing to do, especially in NH, it looks like no clothing analysis was done and they are saying clothing is not subject to right-to-know.

Items 8-9 were the clothing worn my Liko Kenney and Bruce McKay

It's All Good because now we see that they have the ability to conduct these tests but never did, or still will not, all of which will be presented in the U.S. House Complaint.

The other item of BS is the allegation that the Michael Paulhus investigation is somehow still open, even though the civil and criminal cases have been concluded more than a year ago.

I reckon that will remain "open" for the next 100 years or so. It's pure BS so at oral argument I'll note it for the record and at a minimum Kelly and her minions will have to tell the court approximately when they think they might be done "investigating." In reality they never investigated anything, just destroyed all of the evidence and failed to conduct any trajectory analysis just as with the windshield bullet in Liko Kenney's Supra.

Not to mention the adjudicated Miranda violations, with Nashua LE posing as AG office representatives, apparently without a shred of disciplinary repercussions from Kelly.


Good Afternoon Mr. King:

I apologize for the delay in getting back to you. After your email of October 6, I uncovered that the Department of Safety may have some documents with regards to Paulhus. I will respond to your numbered requests as follows:

1. The Department does not have any documents responsive to this request.
2. The Department does have crime scene photographs, however, because the investigation is open, I am unable to release them at this time.
3. I have researched this request and have found 12 documents (13 pages) that are responsive to your request and open for inspection. The remainder of the documents that I identified as responsive are not subject to release as the investigation is still active.
4. The Department does have evidence in the Paulhus matter, however, physical evidence is not subject to the Right to Know law.
5. Please see response in 4 above.
6. The Department does not have any documents responsive to this request.
7. The Department does not have any documents responsive to this request.
8. The Department does have certain items of clothing into evidence, however, physical evidence is not subject to the Right to Know law.
9. Please see response in 5 above.
10. The Department does not have any documents responsive to this request.
11. The Department does not have any documents responsive to this request.

Production cost is $1 per page, or $13 total. Upon receipt of a check in the amount of $13, I will be happy to release the documents to you. Please make the check payable to “Treasurer, State of New Hampshire ” and remit to my attention. In the alternative, if you wish to view the documents, please contact my office to arrange a mutually convenient time.


Marta Modigliani, Esq.

Christopher King said...

Also, Division counsel Roy Chabra and I had a chat about this situation as I turned over 45 pages of information to him.

He did measurably chortle when I showed him the their was absolutely nothing in the Court file indicating the decision on the return of Floyd's property, i.e. THE GUNS.

There will be an answer of some kind and obviously he won't tell me if Floyd is a protected witness, but with the volume of information collected and presented on Floyd, if the Feds don't indict him on 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) we can pretty much be sure that he is protected.

And to the knucklehead who says there is no evidence that Floyd transported weapons, you know that possession as part of the chain of transportation under the law, you silly-dilly.

-The KingCaster

Anonymous said...

Transport weapons for the purpose of "sale"

The law isn't a buffet table for you to pick and choose what part of the words, phrases, sentences you want to use to suit you feeble assertions. You DO NOT have one single shred of evidence that Gregory W. Floyd violated any portion of 18 C that is why it hasn't and won't be addressed.

Not because as you claim "he's proteceted" or there is another conspiracy.

Every single time YOU FAIL it is a conspiracy, or everyone else is at fault and wrong.

YOU are NOT above REPROACH, and quite frankly you ARE more incorrect than correct in most cases you present.

Christopher King said...


You seem to be getting pretty uptight.

Go back and read the case law I have presented on this. Mere possession is enough.

And I'm hardly the only one who wonders if Floyd is protected, I've got former Franconia and Sugar Hill LE who wonders the exact same thing.

As you don't have that kind of LE acumen I recommend you shut up and listen, boy.

Have a nice day.

Anonymous said...

"Go back and read the case law I have presented on this. Mere possession is enough."

You need to read the law it clearly states "possession" with the INTENT TO transport, sell. "INTENT TO" you have zero proof that Floyd was transporting, or selling firarms or ammunition.

That's why you have not had a response back because they can not charge Floyd with a violation under 18C.

How many federal cases have you prosecuted or served as defense counsel for.

Christopher King said...


How many times have you read U.S. v. Ruckman, you stupid jackass?

On January 16, 2001, Oklahoma state authorities executed a search warrant at the home of Robert and Bridget Ruckman. The authorities found several firearms in the Ruckmans' bedroom. In particular, they found a Remington Model 700 7mm Magnum Rifle under their bed. They also found twenty-five other firearms, including seven inside a black gun safe, thirteen inside a green gun safe, three hanging on a gun rack above the bed, one leaning against a dresser, and another under the bed.

Defendant was indicted on three counts of being a felon in possession of firearms. Count I concerned the 7mm rifle and Counts II and III concerned the other firearms found in the Ruckmans' bedroom, a firearm found in another bedroom at the home, and firearms found during a subsequent search of Bridget Ruckman's vehicle. Defendant pled guilty to Count I and the government dismissed Counts II and III. At the sentencing hearing, the government introduced evidence detailing the search of the home and facts surrounding defendant's 1992 conviction for second degree burglary....."

It's simple: You got the guns in your friggin' house, you're going down. Same way the Feds used Interstate Commerce to shut down racist places of public accommodation. You got a jar of tomato paste that came across state lines? You're subject to the Civil Rights Act.

It's good that you write in though, because I actually think you're on my side and want me to keep further developing and highlighting the actual law, as opposed to whatever you're ostensibly espousing.

On that note, Peace.

-The KingCaster

Christopher King said...


It's possession, not intent to distribute. And to answer the question yes I have briefed this issue for Terry Gilbert on several occasions in law school.

Ruckman continues from where I left off:

"The district court sentenced defendant to a term of imprisonment of eighty-seven months. The court determined he possessed twenty-five additional firearms and enhanced his sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(E). The court also enhanced his sentence based upon the conclusion that his second degree burglary conviction was a "crime of violence," as that term is used in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a).


Non-exclusive possession

The district court applied the sentencing enhancement factor in U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(e) (2000),(1) which suggests a five-level enhancement for possessing between twenty-five and forty-nine firearms. Defendant argues the court erred by finding he constructively possessed the firearms found in the Ruckmans' bedroom. Where, as here, a defendant objects to a fact contained within the presentence report, the government bears the burden of establishing that fact by a preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Shinault, 147 F.3d 1266, 1278 (10th Cir. 1998).

Ordinarily, an individual is considered to constructively possess an item when he or she knowingly holds the power and ability to exercise dominion and control over the property. See United States v. Carter, 130 F.3d 1432, 1441 (10th Cir. 1997). In situations involving joint occupancy, such as here, more is required to establish constructive possession than dominion and control. "To prove constructive possession where there is joint occupancy, the government must present direct or circumstantial evidence to show some connection or nexus individually linking [defendant] to the [firearms.]" United States v. Lazcano-Villalobos, 175 F.3d 838, 843 (10th Cir. 1999). The requisite nexus is established where there is some evidence to support the plausible inference that defendant had knowledge of and access to the firearms. See id.; United States v. Mills, 29 F.3d 545, 550 (10th Cir. 1994). We review the district court's interpretation of the guidelines de novo, and its factual findings for clear error, giving due deference to the district court's application of the guidelines to the facts. See United States v. Brown, 314 F.3d 1216, 1222 (10th Cir. 2003)......"

Anonymous said...


This subsection shall not apply with respect to the sale or disposition of a firearm or ammunition to a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector who pursuant to subsection (b) of section 925 of this chapter is not precluded from dealing in firearms or ammunition, or to a person who has been granted relief from disabilities pursuant to subsection (c) of section 925 of this chapter.

(e) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to deliver or cause to be delivered to any common or contract carrier for transportation or shipment in interstate or foreign commerce, to persons other than licensed importers, licensed manufacturers, licensed dealers, or licensed collectors, any package or other container in which there is any firearm or ammunition without written notice to the carrier that such firearm or ammunition is being transported or shipped; except that any passenger who owns or legally possesses a firearm or ammunition being transported aboard any common or contract carrier for movement with the passenger in interstate or foreign commerce may deliver said firearm or ammunition into the custody of the pilot, captain, conductor or operator of such common or contract carrier for the duration of the trip without violating any of the provisions of this chapter. No common or contract carrier shall require or cause any label, tag, or other written notice to be placed on the outside of any package, luggage, or other container that such package, luggage, or other container contains a firearm.

(1) It shall be unlawful for any common or contract carrier to transport or deliver in interstate or foreign commerce any firearm or ammunition with knowledge or reasonable cause to believe that the shipment, transportation, or receipt thereof would be in violation of the provisions of this chapter.
(2) It shall be unlawful for any common or contract carrier to deliver in interstate or foreign commerce any firearm without obtaining written acknowledgement of receipt from the recipient of the package or other container in which there is a firearm.

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

Christopher King said...


Dude, damn you are thick.

The Decisional law is quite clear that a felon cannot be in possession of a firearm.

I have things to do for a while but I'll check back to see what else stupid you have to offer this forum.

-The KingCaster

Anonymous said...

and it is quite clear that in NH the charges against Floyd do not rise to the level of a felony. According to USC the State of New Hampshires RSA supercedes the Federal statute.

Christopher King said...


Cite the code, cite the code, boy.

I hear your jowls flappin' but I don't see any substance, as usual.

Also, then let the U.S. Attorney say that in response to the open inquiry from the Court.



Anonymous said...

You gotta' be careful tryin' to understand them thar' legal statutes. Next thing you jus' might go thinkin' that the law allows you to go takin' things from kids that don't belong to you.
Things like DNA samples.
Why, even with my 6th grade education I could see that wasn't right.

Jethro Bodine