23 November 2008

KingCast admits being wrong. There was a ballistics report in the Michael Paulhus case. Now it's time for NH AG Kelly Ayotte to show it per RSA 91-A.

Dear Kelly:

1. You told me some time ago that the Michael Paulhus case was still under investigation so you declined to give me anything I asked for. Frankly, I think you are a liar because the criminal and civil cases have been adjudicated and/or settled for more than a year now, and Senior AG Simon Brown had this situation well under control and advice 3-1/2 years ago at Item A (document scan forthcoming) when he wrote the Court on 1 March 2005:
"The ballistics report in question was provided to the County Attorney's Office in October 2004. The issue before the Court is whether the ballistics report, as written, provides adequate notice to defense counsel. This issue dos not involve delayed disclosure by the Attorney General's Office."

I'll take a copy of that ballistics report now Kelly, and wonder why it was not provided to Paul Erwin Kish as he noted in his forensic report.

I'm also going to wonder why you never produced a ballistics report in the Franconia shooting tragedy, given that we don't even know if Bruce McKay fired his gun. We don't pay your salary for you to turn around and offer this sort of malfeasance in office.

2. Also please provide me a "copy of the black and white diagram already provided," at Brown item B.

3. Also please provide me copy of the dispatch calls transcript contemplated by Brown item C.

4. As to item F, I note that your office did not possess gun powder residue testing results, which runs counter to the Peter Heed Deadly Force Protocol 9E because we know for CERTAIN that Officer Fateux's clothing was of evidentiary value. I note that you told me the same thing relative to the Franconia investigation, so that makes you a willful policy violator, or law-breaker. On my nickel. Again, We don't pay your salary for you to turn around and offer this sort of malfeasance in office.

5. Attorney Brown didn't like the fact that the Court discovered the AG's Office was intentionally feckless:
"Finally, with regard to the Court's statement that it was 'given no explanation as to the failure ir inability of the Office of the Attorney General to reach a finding with respect to the investigation that is had conducted,' counsel for the Attorney General's Office shall appear, as ordered, at the next hearing and provide a status of its investigation."
Wherefore KingCast respectfully requests any and all documents that reflect the nature and output of any such status update(s).

Kelly: Your office will never find substantial wrongdoing by NH LE. This much we already know. It's all in how you go about torturing the law and abusing our collective notions of common sense that I'm here to document.

PS: I asked for the report back on 12 Nov. 2008 but now I see there's more to be had, so I'm going to have it.

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

Komrade Kelly

Christopher King said...

8:09

And her (n)ever-ready sidekick,

Colonel Klink.

Anonymous said...

not it's time, how can you be taken seriously when you can not proof read your headlines.

Christopher King said...

11:43

Hi Bill,

I made the correction. Mistakes can happen at a freeway rest plaza but mistakes are not supposed to happen in a criminal investigation that requires application of given and established protocol, yah.

Kelly can't be taken seriously when she doesn't complete an investigation of a police shooting within 5 years.

And you can't be taken seriously, ever.

-The KingCaster.

Anonymous said...

Another example of YOUR fine investigative skills, jackass? I didn't make the post at 11:43 AM. I told you I always post in bold, IDIOT.

Christopher King said...

Bill,

Nobody gives a crap about you.

Bottom line is that I'm about to review that damn ballistics report.

Anonymous said...

and, what will be gained, you looked at them, big deal, itstill will not change the final disposition of the case.

Christopher King said...

We don't know exactly what will come of the review, nor do we know what will come of the Congressional Complaint.

The whole point is that we live in America, dammit, and nobody -- I repeat nobody -- is going to stop me or anyone I'm friends with from holding the government accountable under FOIA and RSA 91-A.

In case you didn't notice, that is the point, the sine qua non as it were, you stupid jackass.

You have just provided me with my next blawg entry.

As Bruce McKay would say:

"GOTCHA!"

-The KingCaster

Anonymous said...

who are you accountable to

Christopher King said...

6:38

You mean, "to whom are you accountable?"

Answer: The United States Constitution, and I'm usually correct about those freedoms, in case you haven't noticed.

Thanks for allowing me to clarify.

-The KingCaster.

Anonymous said...

You...? Accountable to the US Constitution...? This seems to be the case only in situations that prove your point to yourself. You have shamelessly and blatently violated the US Constitution in regard to others on multiple occasions. My opine... it's time that you faced justice for your violations against others, creating a terrorist environment for those you stalk and lying in print on over 55,000 occasions (that's including the echos of your posts worldwide).

Anonymous said...

The question SHOULD BE, "Who is John Lynch accountable to for failing to hold Kelly Ayotte accountable for her failure to hold out-of-control New Hampshire Law Enforcement accountable ?"

Christopher King said...

9:00

You are an idiot.

9:13

Dig it. As I say, when we launch this Congressional Complaint it is going to be signed by a LOT of people in New Hampshire, you had better believe that.

And the Complaint will be placed in the Congressional record, a permanent stain on those who fostered this sort of environment.

And there are more things in the making, involving duly-licensed attorneys who are legitimately interested in Justice.

Meanwhile I look forward to hearing the response from the ATF, that will be interesting regardless of what they say.

I'm sure they will pick their words very carefully.

-The KingCaster.

Anonymous said...

The whole point is that we live in America, dammit, and nobody -- I repeat nobody -- is going to stop me or anyone I'm friends with from holding the government accountable.


Thomas Jefferson could not have said it better.


Duff

Anonymous said...

The Ohio Supreme Court has found you wanting when it comes to accountability. You expect people to be accountable but you cannot be accountable for your own actions. Your whole blog is based on hyprocrisy.

Anonymous said...

The Ohio Supreme Court is a corporation of the state.

Incorporation of State is not a contract with the freedoms of man.

Incorporation of slavery is today's wall street privilege of the rich witch is no different than your savings in a bank.

Freedoms of men will never be bookmarked in history as a slave to any corporate entity. Most of the bookmarks in the pages of history have been torn out or lost.

I know its off topic.

This is the fist Amendment page and not a gathering of henchmen.

Chris has the balls to keep it going....More balls than me or you.

Duff

Christopher King said...

2:10

My clients didn't find me lacking.

NH Courts have found that I was correct about the Constitution, i.e. Judge McLeod.

NH Courts have found an attorney lacking and disbarred him and put him away for mail fraud, a felony.

Michael McLaughlin.

Now he is of counsel with Shaheen & Gordon.

None of which would have a damn thing to do with his or my ability and right to question the government, so you have absolutely no point.

With this principle firmly established in your little brain, have a Good Night.

Christopher King said...

RSA 91-A request vis a vis Senior Attorney Brown's comments.Monday, November 24, 2008 7:39 PM
From: "Christopher King" kingjurisdoctor@yahoo.com

To: letters@thegazette.canwest.com, mirichardson@thegazette.canwest.com, rteague@thegazette.canwest.com, rbruemmer@thegazette.canwest.com, pmceachern@shaines.com, info@murdervictimsfamilies.org, Marta.Modigliani@dos.nh.gov, Andrew.Paparella@abc.com, Kelly.Ayotte@doj.nh.gov, Jeffery.Strelzin@doj.nh.gov...

Hi Kelly, Jeff and James.

This should help me understand more about my government.

The green shading connotes a necessary response.

Thank you in advance for your prompt and thorough responses.

Very Truly Yours,

Christopher King, J.D.
On behalf of KingCast.net
On behalf of FOIA
On behalf of RSA 91-A
On behalf of the First Amendment.

http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2008/11/kingcast-admits-being-wrong-there-was.html

23 November 2008
KingCast admits being wrong. There was a ballistics report in the Michael Paulhus case. Now it's time for NH AG Kelly Ayotte to show it per RSA 91-A.

Christopher King said...

Of course now is the time to retrieve the docs I requested in the Governor Lynch Integrity post, from the Department of Safety.

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:

The Department does not have any documents responsive to this request.

The Department does have crime scene photographs, however, because the investigation is open, I am unable to release them at this time. (Nah, that strains credibility past the maximum. The Paulhus investigation has long been closed).

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.
The Department does have evidence in the Paulhus matter, however, physical evidence is not subject to the Right to Know law.

Please see response in 4 above.
The Department does not have any documents responsive to this request.

The Department does not have any documents responsive to this request.

The Department does have certain items of clothing into evidence, however, physical evidence is not subject to the Right to Know law.
Please see response in 5 above.

The Department does not have any documents responsive to this request.

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.

Regards,

Marta Modigliani, Esq.

Anonymous said...

Kelly, Jeff, and James.

The Three Stooges.

"Hey Kelly....What's a good word for scrutiny ?"

"Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck."

Anonymous said...

"The Department does have certain items of clothing into evidence, however, physical evidence is not subject to the Right to Know law.
Please see response in 5 above."

yet you still continue to request the same type of evidence in the murder investigation of Cpl. McKay...WTF are you an idiot.

Christopher King said...

Naw dude you are an idiot, there is case law that suggests the matter is not as clear as the AG suggests.

But then again the AG is full of dookie, see they allegedly didn't conduct any testing on the clothing, which is REQUIRED by deadly force protocol Rule 9E.

You are the idiot, buying Kelly Ayotte's propaganda, hook line and sinker.

Tosser.

Christopher King said...

4:10

Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. U.S. Customs Service, 959 F.Supp. 11 (D.D.C., 1997). Here you go, with some comments from Truman Capote on Malcolm X, to boot.

"So they have clothing that they won't give up, even for custodial chain of custody evaluation, yet they conducted no tests of said clothing. That's Barney Fife to the maximum. Actually it's worse than that because it is a planned coverup as opposed to mere incompetence, but hey I wanted to use today's art. Also, see Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. U.S. Customs Service, 959 F.Supp. 11 (D.D.C., 1997) for the proposition that the U.S. House should order testing of these items of clothing before they are destroyed. It's in the comments.

Anyway, view the full requests and responses here, and in the comments to see that item 10 of course is the KingCast request for
"A copy of any and all of your investigative files or toxicology reports in which the clothing of Liko Kenney or Bruce McKay was analysed in any way.""