17 October 2009

KingCast schools a tool and reminds folks of his eloquent testimony in helping to defeat SB 154, Bruce McKay Highway II.

Bada-Bing, Bada-Boom! Thanks to the tool for reminding me about this situation by writing some hateful comments in about how s/he was trying to defeat S 8013, Robert Taylor's Law. Here is some of my testimony on that from earlier this week.

Robert Taylor deserves a bill in his honor. Bruce McKay does not deserve a road named in his.

Did you know that in Boston, they are actually reviewing 5 police cases? Did you know that in NH I wrote this letter (thankfully former) State Rep. Martha McLeod about Civilian Review boards and HB 58 but she never wrote back and hid out with the NH AG's office and trash-talked me with Senior AG Jeffrey Strelzin. Read the emails between them right here. I'll definitely discuss this on my radio show this week or next.

PS: Did you know that while the major media focused on Bode getting a ticket for 83 in a 40 or 50, the bigger issue is that Bruce McKay once tried to serve him a ticket for speeding based on hearsay, and he also caused the Tamarack vans to be title-searched as if they were stolen. He hated all things Miller and Kenney, so when you add that to the 7 Pursuit and OC Spray violations documented herein of course Liko was scared of him, freaked-out and shot him. It's sad and tragic, but hardly rocket-science.

Speaking of rockets, I spoke with Davey last night and he says Chelone is on top of the snow boarding World, and I am happy for him, he's a great kid, animated and just a barrel of laughs. Check him out at Arbor's website. And here's Liko on YouTube talking about him in this 5/11/2009 post: "Cha-lone-eeeee...."


Christopher King said...

If they try to jam this bill down the throats of the NH taxpayers for a third time I'll just show up and play this clip from my MacBook for the record, get up and leave with the admonishment that:

"Nothing has changed and the townspeople still oppose it, so you need to forget about it, just as the members of the House told you to do so the first time this bill was offered."

-The KingCaster.

Anonymous said...

3,000+ signatures and growing in support of honoring Cpl. N. Bruce McKay the Franconia police officer murdered by Liko Kenney the murderer you have been trying to unsuccessfully defend for the last 2 years. Even Casey Sherman says Liko murdered Cpl. Mckay and he says it on your video.
Whatcha gonna do when we run over you. You will call everyone a racist hater.

Quit tring to ram your hidden agenda of hatred for former NHAG Ayotte down everyones throats especially the people of Franconia.

Yippe Tiyay MF (my friend)

Christopher King said...


Casey says a couple of different things about Bruce McKay, and he also said that Liko was entitled to his day in Court because it may not have been murder I guess you missed that part.

But Casey Sherman has no legal training, Brad Whipple and I do, and so too do the hundreds of people that Brad and I are about to address.

Lastly, we will revisit the Bruce McKay Highway issue in Due Course. I look forward to seeing your professionalism and eloquence at the hearing My Friend.

With that, I will have to let you go for a while, I've got some wireless work to do, and some work for some other attorneys that you simply don't need to know about ;)

No 650R play today, it's raining and nasty. Want to go for a ride sometime just give a holler, maybe a track day next spring we'll settle this out at Loudon My Friend.

-The KingCaster

Christopher King said...

See now here is the most important recent post about this case and coverup, with Brad, Casey and me on a KingCast YouTube video.

What's going to get interesting as time goes on, people will not be able to question my motives or to impugn Brad Whipple or me, because the underlying factual backdrop of this "investigation" is so patently appalling.

Casey takes it easy on the State of New Hampshire with regard to Bruce McKay, but Brad and I have no such intentions, that's just the way it is, dammit we're Americans and we have studied this case and we're going to put it down, whether you want to pick it up or not. That's why Michele and Davey dig me, and I dig them.

That's "jive talk" to one of the haters who writes in sometimes. What is "jive talk?" you ask?

Anytime a brown person is too smart for some hater's good. They wouldn't have said "jive talk" if I were white, they would have written "BS."

Code words. You tools forgot I was a rhetoric minor. You know, Socrates, Aristotle, that sort of thing.

"Jive Talk."

Of course when Ohio suspended my license you know what the worst put down of me they had was?

"King is a philosophical orator."

Mmmmm..... okay.

-The KingCaster

Anonymous said...

Two of the worst most evil characters ever to set foot in the north country: Bruce McKay and Greg Floyd. The one main difference: Bruce McKay was not a killer. One of them is dead, the other in prison.

Christopher King said...

PS: Take time to watch this video so you can see the length and depth of the tire tracks that Bruce McKay laid down when he bashed Liko Kenney's little Toyota.


I just listened to my testimony again, and contrary to the assertions of a few Internet wind bags, I was quite professional even as Senator LeTourneau repeatedly interrupted me and tried to keep me from saying negative FACTS even as he allowed others to provide positive facts and opinion.

Then he tried to pretend he didn't have the emails and documents I had sent him.

I smoked him, but good. Dig the highlights; I don't put in every time that LeTourneau tried to shut me down but he tried several times and each time I made him back down so that I could say what I needed and wanted to say.

Eternal vigilance is indeed the price of liberty.

"I am sorry for your loss as a brother, as a son and as a fiancee.... but that will not temper what I am going to say this afternoon."

"Just remember I'm the chair of this committee."

"Oh I will Sir I will afford you all due respect and I ask that you do the same for me."

"He was going to arrest Bruce McKay but we have no proof of that, because McKay was incommunicado and that's a FACT."

"Died enforcing the law but in reality he wasn't really enforcing the law, he was violating the policy, and that's a fact."

"The most disturbing this about this dance is that we've been here before, with respect to HB 1428 that Martha McLeod tried to run through with out nofitying the town of Franconia, or the Franconia Recovery or Reconciliation Committee... or ANYBODY.

Whereupon I read the House Decision from the previous year stating that until the community asked for it, it should never happen because none of the sponsors other than Martha McLeod were even from the area. I spoke about the fact that:

"The House is the will and the soul of the American populous and the House already clearly spoke about it and that should have been that unless the community came forward which it has not done."

"So they're allowed to say positive things about him but I'm not allowed to say negative things about him is that what you're telling me?"

"You don't grant government imprimatur to police officers with records like that of Bruce McKay"

"Stuck a non-spec knife near her privates...never investigated... sent a kid to the hospital using OC Spray in a closed building and I interviewed people about that... anyone who would try to give someone a ticket based on hearsay has no practical knowledge of the law, YOU CAN'T DO THAT."

"Sir I gave you these (OC Spray and Pursuit policies) a year ago."

"This man was on a frolic and detour on 5/11."

"Now if I may take leave to briefly conclude...."

"Are you finished, yet?"

"I just said I'll take time to briefly conclude... did I stammer?"

"There was never any investigation as to the impropriety of the stop that day by the state, Kelly Ayotte or by the town but yet we're supposed to jump up and give this man an award that is bestowed upon officers who act respectfully but he did not, and it is a shame that he is dead but that does not mean that a road should be named after him.""

"Thank you for your testimony."

Yah, shoor.

-The KingCaster

Anonymous said...

funny how you had your head firmly planted up Casey Shermans ass until he disagreed with you, and now you are back pedaling. You may have legal training to bad your hatred gets in the way. Just look at the results of all your frivilous lawsuits, like the Franconia case. Your battle plan is throw enough shit against the wall and hopefully something sticks. You tried to apply 91 A to a private questionaire sent out about the Franconia tragedy. You wanted those 150 email addresses to harass the people. Trying to apply 91 A in regard to an officer ot giving his name and badge number. Even a pre law student wouldn't make such a idiotic mistake. Whipple was a cop not a lawyer he has no legal training in adudicating a criminal or civil case.

Keep your stupid ass race card out of your argument. As far as Ohio, I guess you missed all the remarks about your incapability to represent a client in a professional manner.

Anonymous said...

When you wear the robes of a judge and sit on a bench issuing rulings then you can claim what is fact. Until then you are nothing more than a race hating, suspended attorney who is a criminal. Apparently you forget Contempt of Court is a criminal act, just like you are an indicted felon.

You earn respect and youhave not earned my respect or anyone elses, and personally I don't owe you a thing especially respect.

Christopher King said...


Blah blah blah, saw my father last spring at his home in Cleveland, blah blah blah, indicted felon, charges nol-prossed, white lawyers in Boston have been convicted of felonies and served time and are now of counsel with Shaheen and Gordon....

Thanks for letting me remind new readers of that :)

I have the respect of the people I need, and Brad and I are discussing things with them now, have a great night!

-The KingCaster

Christopher King said...


Casey Sherman and I disagree about some things, Mr. Cumbee... is that you writing through your red mist of hatred?

Brad Whipple and I agree, and we both disagree with Casey about some things.

Apparently that concept is too heavy for you to grasp, but not for Casey because he invited me to his book launch.

You coming, too? I'll be wearing this fedora in case you don't recognize me next to all the white folks I allegedly hate.

I'm not really concerned about what was claimed in Ohio because it's not true.... except for the part when the Disciplinary Panel scoffed at me and wrote: "King is a philosophical orator...."

Ouch, that hurt.


As far as RSA 91-A not applying to whether a cop should give his name and badge number when asked, remember that Bruce McKay lied in his police report when he wrote that he gave his name to Liko Kenney.

He did not.

But to you, it's cool. If you have have a badge, feel free to lie, abuse the privilege and kick some ass.


Christopher King said...


True that.


Christopher King said...

The protectionist, pro-cop bias inherent in the major media's protection of Bruce McKay is highly inappropriate and it does a major disservice to the Cause of Justice. Bruce McKay was involved in a series of Bad Acts that instilled fear in a lot of people, and the townspeople in Franconia/Sugar Hill and I have sent this information out to different media on numerous occasions, only for them to ignore it.

That's why I am pleased to part-time it over at TOUCH 106.1 FM so we can break it right on down, grow that brand.


Anonymous said...

Adolph Hitlers speech 1939 was also described as eloquent....

eloquent - expressing yourself readily, clearly effectively; "able to dazzle with his facile tongue"; "silver speech"

You do nothing clearly when you speak or write. You muddy everything up more the the mighty Mississippi river. You are incapable of sticking to a topic at hand but instead use the old adage if I can't dazzle them with intelligence (YOU CAN'T) I'll flatter them with bullshit (which you do very well)

For the life of me I don't know why I listened to your "eloquent" speech. The Chairman did not have an attitude or tone in his voice when he stated that you were to stick to the matter at hand. You in response got all up in his face like you always do.
Your tone was clearly disrespectful "no need to admonish me".

1. To reprove gently but earnestly.
2. To counsel (another) against something to be avoided; caution.
3. To remind of something forgotten or disregarded, as an obligation or a responsibility.

Christopher King said...


Dude I have private and municipal awards for my speech and written conduct.

I have a radio segment because of my speech and clarity on the issues.

Brad Whipple and I are presenting to an entire criminal justice program because of my speech and clarity on the issues, and because of his attributes in the same vein, so you're just blabbering again.


The Good Senator interrupted me repeatedly and he had no reason to do so, and he tried to prevent me from saying anything negative about Bruce McKay, even though I had the documents to prove it.

So there you go.

Was that simple enough for you my widdle simpleton?

-The KingCaster

Christopher King said...

Or, in the alternative, point out for me any and all of my comments that you feel were not on topic and why.



Anonymous said...

Is this simple enough for you
You don't piss in someone elses house on their rug.

What the senator did is no different than what you do daily.
You refuse to put posts in your 1st amendment blog which are critical of you or prove that you are posting lies. You demand everyone adhere to the rules but when it comes time for you to do the same you categorically refuse to follow them. You try to intimidate and silence people who oppose you and speak out publicly against you. You claim to have a tracker in this blog and threaten to expose peoples ISP number. You threaten people with SLAPP lawsuits or by posting "your facts" which you know are outright lies.You start seperate blogs under alias names to harass, and spread factless rumors about anyone who doesn't agree with you or that pisses you off.
When that doesn't work you play the race card....it indeed is a sad day when real professional black men and women who have never met you but have viewed your blogs state once a nigga always a nigga.

Anonymous said...

"Your comment has been saved and will be visible after blog owner approval."

This statement shows this is not a true 1st amendment blog, you are deciding what can and can't be said.

Christopher King said...


I see you still haven't answered the question:

What did I say that merited being interrupted by the Senator?

I'll be waiting for your answer, My Nigga'.

-The KingCaster

Christopher King said...


Did you raise those concerns with the Union Leader or ABC News 20/20, "professional" entities that actually delete posts because of their bias?

At least I post your drivel, I only monitor comments because of some of the profane comments from s/tools like you.

Keep on working, one of these days you'll actually say something intelligent, in the meantime all you do is give me the opportunity to expose more big media bias and faults in the sham investigation run by Kelly Ayotte.

Query, you coming to the forum with Brad and me?

You wanna come on my radio show and enter a debate, contact TOUCH FM.org if you can keep from cussing and calling me a "nigga," my "nigga."

Ha-ha, as Bruce McKay's license plate would (and did) say:


-The KingCaster

Christopher King said...


Hahahahaaa.... SLAPP lawsuits I'm working on a brief regarding one right now for a certain attorney who is very well-respected, and who knows that I know what I'm doing :)

As noted, if NH had an effective anti-SLAPP lawsuit Kelly Ayotte and Chief Dunn never could have come after me for writing a simple Demand Letter and "threatening" public discourse about the Willie Toney matter, in which those three jackbooted cops stuck loaded guns in Mr. Toney's face and visually body-cavity searched him for LOITERING, which he beat without a lawyer, even.

Lastly, I paid my $53.80 today for the Internal Affairs investigation on that disrespectful cop I blogged about some months ago. They took their sweet old time with it, but can't dance around it much longer.

I'll be sure to post and broadcast my findings, much to your chagrin, you highly-esteemed Ph.D (Player-hatin'-Dork).

-The KingCaster

Anonymous said...

More frivilous lawsuits, meant to silence detractors from exercising Freedom of Speech. What a hypocrite you are.

Generally, a "SLAPP" is a (1) civil complaint or counterclaim; (2) filed against individuals or organizations; (3) arising from their communications to government or speech on an issue of public interest or concern. SLAPPs are often brought by corporations, real estate developers, government officials and others against individuals and community groups who oppose them on issues of public concern. SLAPP filers frequently use lawsuits based on ordinary civil claims such as defamation, conspiracy, malicious prosecution, nuisance, interference with contract and/or economic advantage, as a means of transforming public debate into lawsuits.
Most SLAPPs are ultimately legally unsuccessful. While most SLAPPs lose in court, they "succeed" in the public arena. This is because defending a SLAPP, even when the legal defense is strong, requires a substantial investment of money, time, and resources. The resulting effect is a "chill" on public participation in, and open debate on, important public issues.This "chilling" effect is not limited to the SLAPP target(s): fearful of being the target of future litigation, others refrain from speaking on, or participating in, issues of public concern.

Anonymous said...

part 2
The filing of a SLAPP also impedes resolution of the public matter at issue, by removing the parties from the public decision-making forum, where the both cause and resolution of the dispute can be determined, and placing them before a court, where only the alleged "effects" of the public controversy may be determined. For example, imagine a company asks for a zoning variance to place an incinerator in a residential area. When local residents object to the city council, the company sues them for "interference with contract." The judge hearing the suit cannot decide the real issues -- the location of the incinerator -- but will have to spend considerable judicial resources to decide the side issues of the alleged "damages" or other consequences of the public debate on the real issues.

Every year, thousands of people are sued for participating in government or for speaking out on public issues. SLAPP targets have been sued for engaging in a wide variety of protected speech and protected expression activities, including:
writing a letter to the editor
circulating petitions
calling a public official
reporting police misconduct
erecting a sign or displaying a banner on their property
complaining to school officials about teacher misconduct or unsafe conditions in the school
speaking at a public meeting
reporting unlawful activities
testifying before Congress or state legislatures
speaking as an officer of an active public interest group
filing a public interest lawsuit
In California, a new law to protect people from SLAPPs, Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, took effect in 1993. The law allows a judge to decide at the outset of the suit whether the SLAPP has a "probability" of winning. If the judge finds that it does not, the SLAPP must be dismissed, and the SLAPP target wins his or her legal defense costs and attorneys' fees.

The expressive activity which is protected under the new California law is broad. Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 states that activity which is protected under the law includes:

any written or oral statement or writing made before a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law;
any written or oral statement or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law; or
any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest.
Other states have similar protections against SLAPPs. Washington and New York have "anti-SLAPP" statutes: Washington Revised Code sections 4.24.500 - 520; New York Civil Practice Law, Rule 3211(g) and Rule 3212(h), and New York Civil Rights Law sections 70-a and 76-a. The Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that citizens of that state are protected from SLAPPs. Protect Our Mountain Environment v. Superior Court, 677 P.2d 1361 (Colo. 1984).

Christopher King said...

5:59 and 6:00

Thanks for agreeing with me as you wrote:

"(3) arising from their communications to government or speech on an issue of public interest or concern."

Right, and when I sent the Demand Letter to Chief Dunn for those 3 loaded guns stuck in Willie Toney's face, and that visual body cavity search for loitering, that was an an issue of public concern, you took the words right out of my mouth, doofus. I should not have been indicted for Attempted Felony Extortion as NAACP Legal Chair.

Watch me say what you just wrote in the KingCast short film (90 seconds) "Live Revolution."

Meanwhile of course you have absolutely no idea what the SLAPP or Anti-SLAPP case I'm working on is all about, and you don't know if I'm working for the moving or non-moving party, all you know is you hate the fact that I'm still LEGALLY and ETHICALLY doing legal work and doing it quite well, so you trash talk.

But thanks for coming in so I could (again) show the relevance of my short films, doofus.

-The KingCaster

Christopher King said...

PS: LeTourneau stopping to tell me to remember he's the Chair of the Committee, I can see that you tool, and until I say or do something that is inappropriate as chair you sit in that chair and listen to what I have to say to you.

It's not even his chair, it belongs to me and the other taxpayers, so THERE.


Anonymous said...

guess you missed this:
"The resulting effect is a "chill" on public participation in, and open debate on, important public issues. This "chilling" effect is not limited to the SLAPP target(s): fearful of being the target of future litigation, others refrain from speaking on, or participating in, issues of public concern."

You're problem is you tik everyone owes you something including respect. Over the course of you starting your blog people have commented about the way you deliver your message. You re filled with rage, racism,distain and hatred. That is what comes out loud and clear to everyone who reads your blog. You real message gets lost in all the insults, taunts, profanity, and general lack of respect taht you show towards anyone who doesn't agree with you. Nothing wrong with you personally thinking someones a asshole, or anything else you want. You just need to understand when to say it and when to keep it to yourself, if your message truly is bigger than all of us including you. You take everything way to personal and 99% of the time it ain't about you, but you always make it about you.
I could put together a group of professional blacks older than you who have seen and gone through a hell of a lot worse than you ever have. The difference they put their hatred aside because if they didn't they would be no better than the haters they are fighting against.

If your message is that important put your personal feelings aside because they do drown your message out.

Christopher King said...


The chilling of speech was the government trying to chill my speech, don't get it twisted.

As far as mean people, are you saying that me posting the FACT that Marty Dunn laughed at the possibility of me being gang-raped in prison is me being mean by reporting him being mean?

You know, "Hey King better get dat vasoline ready."

Please clarify.

Read the Depo. transcript.

My message is getting out just fine.

I've got a radio show, I've got strong professional connections and I'm working with many of the black professionals to whom you allude and I am actually helping them do a number of things that we don't need to discuss right here, but thanks for your concern.

-The Editor.

Christopher King said...

5:59 and 6:00

Also, SLAPP is not limited to issues of public concern in Massachusetts, just so you know:

Adams v. Whitman, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 850; 822 N.E.2d 727; 2005 Mass. App. LEXIS 77

The Adamses made a special motion to dismiss Whitman's counterclaim pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 59H, the anti-SLAPP statute. They argued that since their lawsuit against Whitman was petitioning activity, it was entitled to the protection of [**729] § 59H. Wayne Adams filed two affidavits in support of the special motion, one of his own and one of Duncan Brown, an expert witness in engineering who concluded that Whitman was personally negligent in preparing and supervising implementation of the septic design plan. Whitman submitted only a memorandum in opposition to the special motion to dismiss. After a nonevidentiary hearing, a judge of the Superior Court denied the Adamses' special motion to dismiss. Despite concluding that Whitman's abuse of process claim was solely based on the Adamses' [***3] petitioning activities, he ruled that the anti-SLAPP statute did not apply here because the Adamses' claim against Whitman did not raise an issue of public concern. The judge, therefore, did not perform the rest of the analysis dictated by G. L. c. 231, § 59H. See Duracraft Corp. v. Holmes Prods. Corp., 427 Mass. 156, 167-168, 691 N.E.2d 935 (1998) (Duracraft).

On appeal, the Adamses contend that the judge's reasoning was in error. 3 On that point, we agree. See id. at 164 (issue of public concern not a prerequisite for applying the anti-SLAPP [*852] statute); McLarnon v. Jokisch, 431 Mass. 343, 345-347, 727 N.E.2d 813 (2000) (again interpreting the anti-SLAPP statute to apply even where no issue of public concern was involved). We must therefore consider in our analysis whether and how the anti-SLAPP statute may apply to Whitman's abuse of process claim. We conclude that the Adamses made a showing that Whitman's abuse of process claim was based solely on their petitioning activity and so satisfied their burden at the first stage of the anti-SLAPP procedure. We also conclude that Whitman did not meet his burden of showing that the Adamses' petitioning activity (filing [***4] suit against him) was devoid of arguable legal basis or reasonable factual support.


Now not being a duly-licensed attorney I can't bill you for that, just take it as a token of my sincere appreciation for you taking the time to stop by and chat.