22 August 2011

Nashua, NH Police Department has no documents indicating they reviewed a clear cut case of forgery and wire fraud, so KingCast gives them a Mulligan to get it right.

Note: Read the comments to see my request for Chief Don Conley's Oath of Office and Bonding information.

(13 Aug 2011) Dear Attorney Cullen:
It has occurred to me that the Nashua Police Department (who unfortunately has posed as NH AGs while they violated Michael Paulhus' Constitutional Miranda Rights) surely would have conducted an investigation into the wire fraud and forgery that occurred when a certain title company affixed a phony signature to a mortgage and faxed it off for funding to WAMU I believe it was (note to newbies: watch the above Kelly Ayotte "she's full of shit" town meeting from 7:35 onward to understand this -- she was the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the State of New Hampshire when this happened. And because your clients are so professional I'm certain they would have retained some records memorializing their efforts to investigate and/or refer the matter to the proper authorities.......

From Paulhus:
“The Defendant’s waiver of his Miranda rights was involuntary as it was induced by the trickery and deceit of the officers, particularly Det. Maloney…. In this case, Det. Maloney and Sgt. Parenteau misrepresented the nature of their investigation from the moment they entered the interrogation room with the defendant....Motion to Suppress GRANTED.
-Judge Bernard J. Hampsey, Jr., June 30 2005
 On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Bennett, Stephen <BennettS@nashuanh.gov> wrote:
Dear Mr. King: The Nashua Police Department has been unable to locate any documents that are covered by your request.
Steve Bennett
Christopher King to KellyBrianJackjennifer 
show details 11:46 AM (5 minutes ago)

Terrific, much as I suspected. So I'll give your client a Mulligan and I'll stop in this week to file a new complaint as the illegality is still manifest and never been corrected, as noted:

Note:  Christopher King said...

In addition to 42 U.S.C. §1983 there is also 42 U.S.C. §14141.....

I'll be sharing this update with the FBI later today in fact because this is a completely absurd situation.

While no one at the FBI office specifically mentioned the Statute they did take copious notes and we hope and pray they do the right thing because too much of Nashua PD has run amok.

From the FBI website linked on the front page:

"The FBI is the lead federal agency for investigating color of law abuses, which include acts carried out by government officials operating both within and beyond the limits of their lawful authority. Off-duty conduct may be covered if the perpetrator asserted his or her official status in some way.

During 2009, the FBI investigated 385 color of law cases. Most of these crimes fall into five broad areas:

Excessive force;
Sexual assaults;
False arrest and fabrication of evidence;
Deprivation of property; and
Failure to keep from harm.

Excessive force: In making arrests, maintaining order, and defending life, law enforcement officers are allowed to use whatever force is "reasonably" necessary. The breadth and scope of the use of force is vast—from just the physical presence of the officer…to the use of deadly force. Violations of federal law occur when it can be shown that the force used was willfully "unreasonable" or "excessive."

Sexual assaults by officials acting under color of law can happen in jails, during traffic stops, or in other settings where officials might use their position of authority to coerce an individual into sexual compliance. The compliance is generally gained because of a threat of an official action against the person if he or she doesn’t comply.

False arrest and fabrication of evidence: The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right against unreasonable searches or seizures. A law enforcement official using authority provided under the color of law is allowed to stop individuals and, under certain circumstances, to search them and retain their property. It is in the abuse of that discretionary power—such as an unlawful detention or illegal confiscation of property—that a violation of a person's civil rights may occur.

Fabricating evidence against or falsely arresting an individual also violates the color of law statute, taking away the person’s rights of due process and unreasonable seizure. In the case of deprivation of property, the color of law statute would be violated by unlawfully obtaining or maintaining a person’s property, which oversteps or misapplies the official’s authority."

Respectfully submitted this 18th day of August, 2011.

Christopher King, J.D.
http://KingCast.net -- Reel News for Real People
http://MortgageMovies.blogspot.com -- Documenting Deceit
4:06 AM


Christopher King said...

Factoid: Senator Ayotte told one of Liko Kenney's lawyers

"You can't believe what you read in blogs."

To hell with that noise Senator, you can believe 100% of what I put down in this space, would that America could say the same for what comes out of your mouth, instead you have your constituents saying you are "full of shit."

-The KingCaster.

Christopher King said...

RSA 91-A Clarification:

Dear Attorney Bennett:

As your response to me was rather cryptic it did not specifically state whether you were referring to:

1) My underlying complaint or;
2) My request for document retention policies that actually existed at the time I issued my complaint as opposed to the policy you gave me that was set down some time AFTER that complaint.

Unless I hear otherwise I will assume your clients have neither.

Next and last, I forgot to ask for a copy of Chief Conley's Oath of Office and Bonding agent information and a copy of his bond. Can you please forward me a copy of those documents to me?

Those I am certain your client has in its possession so I will need them to juxtapose his Oath with his actions. Please see to it that your client takes the time to set aside its Draconian pursuit of citizens and journalists with cameras like Dave Ridley, Mike Gannon and Pamela Reynolds in time to meet the Statutory timeframe of RSA 91-A.

Thank you in advance for your time and consideration.

Christopher King said...

See I never came to these people seeking trouble.

I came seeking Justice and to report a crime.

But trouble is what we've got now, that's for certain and that's nobody's fault but theirs, regardless of how they try to spin it, they failed to do their effin' jobs, most likely because their priorities are out of whack.

And priorities are established from the top down.

The fish rots at the head.

Christopher King said...

Further clarification was sought as to the three (3) pending items:

1) My underlying complaint on the unauthorized 2003 entry into my apartment or;

2) My subsequent request for documents showing the investigation into forgery and wire fraud or;

3) My request for document retention policies that actually existed at the time I issued my complaint as opposed to the policy you gave me that was set down some time AFTER that complaint.


Now the fourth item is new, the request for Chief Conley's creds.

They want my journo creds and I showed them. So I'll show them mine and they can show me theirs, fair enough?

I thought so..... see now we're getting somewhere.

-The KingCaster.