Tuesday, July 1, 2008

For July 4 Independence Day KingCast says like me or not, here I come Martha McLeod - with a draft lawsuit in the Spirit of Liko Peter Kenney.

Here it is at Scribd.com and in the comments.

I’m just waiting on my bonus from another attorney to file it. I’m going to write the whole thing today, having started at 6:48 a.m. and posting this at 9:30 a.m. Funny, my old boss, Terry Gilbert was quoted in the Cleveland Plain Dealer magazine as saying that the law is not about a popularity contest and he’s right. I really don’t give a damn who likes me or not. If you do, that’s cool, and if you don’t that’s cool too. As Daniel Mullen’s partner Charlie Bauer (over at Ransmeier & Spellman) told me in a Depo. a few years back “I’m not here to be your friend.” I just came for the facts, and anyone who wants access to the facts is welcome to follow along and kibbutz, heckle, praise, condemn, whatever you feel like.

After all, it is a Free Country, sort of.

PS: Why the duct tape image from the Boston Phoenix? Because I was personally involved in two of their stories featured in their annual muzzle awards.

Milan Kohout and I did a follow up to the nooses story. Someone accused him of being racist with the nooses, and his point was that we are all here as brothers and sisters, everyone paying the price for corporate greed. I grabbed a court pic of him in Boston Municipal; the government hates that sorta' thing but I live for it =^.)

Izzy Figueroa and I became friends after she and others spoke up about artist Thuan Tran and her daughter losing their First Amendment Rights of expression because of Lawrence Schools Stuporintendent Wilfredo T. Laboy.

1 comment:

Christopher King said...

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
GRAFTON COUNTY, NEW HAMPSHIRE
EQUITY DIVISION

KINGCAST.NET, )
BY AND THROUGH
CHRISTOPHER KING, J.D.

15 Beasom Street
Nashua, New Hampshire 03064 )

Petitioner, JUDGE_________________
v.
)
MARTHA MCLEOD, ROBERT LETOURNEAU,
and TERIE NORELI,
c/o New Hampshire State House, )
[Addresses go here]
Concord, New Hampshire 03301

Respondents. )

PETITIONER’S COMPLAINT, SEEKING DECLARATORY JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENTS’ INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE REFUSALS TO PROVIDE EMAILS TO AND FROM THEIR STATE-MAINTAINED EMAIL ADDRESSES

I. Introduction: Pursuant to RSA 91-A, Petitioner has for months sought emails to and from taxpayer-subsidized individual email addresses owned and operated by the named Respondents, in this instance regarding failed HB 1428 “Bruce McKay Highway.” The bill, currently tabled for Interim Study, would have renamed a portion of I-93 after Franconia Corporal Bruce McKay who was shot and killed immediately after he went incommunicado for six (6) whole minutes as he violated seven (7) pursuit and OC Spray policies against Liko Kenney and Caleb Macaulay. Citizens and Statesmen in the North Country, Concord and through the Internet successfully petitioned the government for redress in that matter and the bill was set to Interim Study. However, the bill’s primary sponsor and lead Defendant Martha McLeod – now running for State Senate – intentionally failed to tell any of her local Statehouse peers or the Community at-large about HB 1428 and they found out about it on the eve of a legislative hearing after a chance dinner conversation. McLeod was and potentially still is the spokesperson for the Franconia Recovery and Reconciliation Committee, (hereinafter “FRRC”) which named as its primary goal the healing of the community through outreach and open public communication and discourse. Attachment 1. Meanwhile, New Hampshire has recently passed a more expansive Right-to-Know Law that originated as HB 1408 – prior to HB 1428. See Section IV, Law and Argument.

II. The Parties:
1. Petitioner is an ordinary guy who resides in Nashua, New Hampshire and who runs a couple of websites protected by the First Amendment, most notably “KingCast.net,” “Christopher King’s 1st Amendment Page” and “Elect Martha McLeod.” He often seeks redress from his government and has been successful in Nashua, New Hampshire on school board issues where he also holds a Mayoral Commendation from 30-year Executive Council member Bernard Streeter. He also is to be awarded court costs by NH Attorney General Kelly Ayotte and the Town of Franconia as a result of his efforts in the related Right-to-Know litigation of KingCast v. Ayotte et al., Grafton County 07-E-268.

2. Respondent McLeod is, and was at all times a New Hampshire State Representative living in Grafton County, New Hampshire. She is the Principal sponsor of HB 1428 and was at most or all relevant times the spokesperson for the FRRC which was ostensibly a group of concerned citizens who were going to seek ways to help the community heal in the aftermath of the tragic shootings of 5/11 2007. Her commitment to the group and to the issues was and is still openly questioned by other members. The shootings of course left Corporal McKay and Liko Kenney dead and three (3) time felon Gregory W. Floyd on the loose after NH AG Kelly Ayotte cleared him within 24 hours after he possibly murdered Liko Kenney.

3. Respondent Letourneau is, and was at all times a New Hampshire State Senator and co-sponsor of HB 1428.

4. Respondent Noreli is, and was at all times the New Hampshire Speaker of the House.

III. The Facts:

5. Plaintiff has written all named Respondents and asked for copies of their respective emails. Respondent Noreli responded through counsel David Frydman who denied access, which caused Petitioner to issue him relevant case law from other Jurisdictions, including as Petitioner wrote him verbatim:

Pulaski County v. Ark. Democrat-Gazette, Inc., 370 Ark. 435, 2007 Ark. LEXIS 436; 35 Media L. Rep. 2089 (2007) (except in this case none of the emails incoming or outgoing are "personal" so they are ALL public records); see Concurring and Dissenting Opinion at Pulaski County v. Ark. Democrat-Gazette, Inc., 371 Ark. 217, (2007), Brian D. Lamy v. NH PUCO, 152 N.H. 106 2005, rehearing denied 2005 N.H. LEXIS 92, Hawkins v. NH DHHS, 147 N.H. 376 (2005), Ark. Ins. Dep't v. Baker, 358 Ark. 289, (2004), Judicial Watch, Inc. v. United States DOC, 29 Media L. Rep. 1146, (2000) Attachment 2.

Respondent Letourneau issued a response to Petitioner that was at once both flippant and insouciant and that was the sum of his response. Petitioner then specifically identified the sought material as follows:

Dear Mr. King,

Is there a question here? Looks to me as though you are making statements not asking questions.
Thank you.

Sen. Bob Letourneau
********

Dear Senator Letourneau:

I made some statements based on fact and quoted you as you made statements not supported by fact, including some notion that the McKay dash cam video shows Gregory W. Floyd shooting into Liko's car after speaking to him.

And McKay violated pursuit and OC Spray policies as noted by the Littleton Courier. I published those policies in the links, Sir, did you have difficulty understanding them or what?

At any rate, I suggest you focus and read carefully lest you wind up on the receiving end of a lawsuit. Again, here is what I demand from you pursuant to RSA 91-A:

As such, I am going to have to demand that you issue an email of apology and/or clarification to the individual and bcc me on it. Whatever you do, Sir, it will go in the report to the U.S. House later this summer. I also hereby request any and all of your emails in and out of your Senatorial email address of: robert.letourneau@leg.state.nh.us that in any way pertain to HB 1428 and/or Bruce McKay, Liko Kenney or Gregory W. Floyd. Just run a word search in our Outlook program and print them out for me, or else I'll sue you as co-Defendant to Martha McLeod and State House Speaker Terie Noreli in a few weeks. If you choose to produce the documents we can meet up for a bike ride instead.

Are we clear?

Because if we're not we'll be making things clear in a Court of Law pursuant to Pulaski County v. Ark. Democrat-Gazette, Inc., 370 Ark. 435, 2007 Ark. LEXIS 436; 35 Media L. Rep. 2089 (2007).

http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2008/06/kingcast-tells-martha-mcleod-and-nh.html

Now how about that bike ride?

Christopher King, J.D.
Attachment 3.

*********
But most egregious are the responses from lead Defendant McLeod, who refused to communicate in any way with Petitioner after he wrote the professional and temperate letter to her of 20 August, 2007 seen at Attachment 4. In fact, she instead went directly to Senior NH AAG Jeffrey Strelzin about Petitioner, noting that “I haven’t responded and he is becoming more persistent.” Id.

6. Bill Kenney – Liko Kenney’s Uncle – wrote a letter to Speaker Noreli supporting the KingCast request for emails and for two other things: One, that a special fraud counsel be appointed to help determine who forged Liko’s friend’s name in the Union Leader as being in support of HB 1428 and a request that our letters be read before the Interim Study Committee. There was no response from Speaker Noreli to these requests either by her or through counsel. Attachment 5.

IV. Law and Argument.
A. Procedure.
RSA 91-A(4) is very clear about the responsibilities of our government and it reads, in pertinent part:
"....within 5 business days of request, make such record available, deny the request in writing with reasons, or furnish written acknowledgment of the receipt of the request and a statement of the time reasonably necessary to determine whether the request shall be granted or denied....."

Unfortunately none of the Respondents cannot demonstrate any compliance with those requirements as will be proved through discovery.

B. Substance.
In New Hampshire there were not one but two Right-to-Know Commissions that were structured to deal with the issue of electronic communications in the wake of the seminal New Hampshire case of Hawkins v. NH DHHS, 147 N.H. 376 (2005). Further, there was supposed to be an annual report issued pursuant to RSA 91-A:11-15 but NH AG Kelly Ayotte finally admitted to Petitioner that there indeed was no report issued in 2006. Attachment 6. As such, the report of 2007 indicated that litigation was likely. To quote the draft:

"Due to the failures of Hotlse [sic KingCast catches another typo] Bill 626 (2006) and House Bill 377 (2007), the New Hampshire Legislature has yet to accomplish the tasks requested by the Supreme Court in the Hawkins decision and embodied in the Commissions' enabling legislation.

The members of the Commission strongly believe that, unless key stakeholder groups are willing to actively participate in the public debate and are willing to compromise their entrenched positions, the current weaknesses in the Right-to-Know law will never be corrected by legislative action, and the issues may be decided by the Supreme Court on a case by case basis."

Well here we are indeed.

Because of the dearth of case law in New Hampshire we turn to HB 1408 and to case law from other Jurisdictions, as RSA 91-A takes its cue from statutory and established decisional FOIA/Right-to-Know laws from these Jurisdictions.

Perhaps the most compelling and on-point case as previously noted to Attorney Frydman hails from Pulaski County v. Ark. Democrat-Gazette, Inc., 370 Ark. 435, 2007 Ark. LEXIS 436; 35 Media L. Rep. 2089 (2007) (except in this case none of the emails incoming or outgoing are "personal" so they are ALL public records); see Concurring and Dissenting Opinion at Pulaski County v. Ark. Democrat-Gazette, Inc., 371 Ark. 217, (2007), Brian D. Lamy v. NH PUCO, 152 N.H. 106 2005, rehearing denied 2005 N.H. LEXIS 92, Hawkins v. NH DHHS, 147 N.H. 376 (2005), Ark. Ins. Dep't v. Baker, 358 Ark. 289, (2004), Judicial Watch, Inc. v. United States DOC, 29 Media L. Rep. 1146, (2000).

In Pulaski the Plaintiff sought and obtained

"all e-mail and other recorded communication between former Pulaski County Comptroller and Director of Administrative Services Ron Quillin and employees of Government e-Management Solutions, a software contractor for Pulaski County, from Jan. 2005 to the termination of Mr. Quillin’s employment with the county."

The only issue is whether some of the emails were private or not because they may not have related to public matters. But in this case, EVERY EMAIL SOUGHT pertains to a public matter, i.e. HB 1428. Note that the relevant Statute reads identically to NH HB 1408 – which again was introduced before 1428 so Respondents were on Actual Notice that if by chance their emails were not accessible prior to passage of 1408 they certainly would be after it.


(5)(A) "Public records" means writing, recorded sounds, films, tapes, electronic or computer-based information, or data compilations in any medium required by law to be kept or otherwise kept and that constitute a record of the performance or lack of performance of official functions that are or should be carried out by a public official or employee, a governmental agency, or any other agency wholly or partially supported by public funds or expending public funds. All records maintained in public offices or by public employees within the scope of their employment shall be presumed to be public records.

HB 1408:

III-a. Governmental records created or maintained in electronic form shall remain accessible for the same retention or archival periods as their paper counterparts. Methods that may be used to accomplish this requirement include, but are not limited to, copying to microfilm or paper or to durable electronic media using standard or common file formats.

C. The Constitutional Structure.

It is axiomatic pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution that no individual State may afford its inhabitants less Constitutional Protections than are afforded in the Federal scheme. As the Federal trend is clearly in favor of disclosure, the Respondents are attempting to give the residents of the Live Free or Die State appreciably less protections than are owed. As such this Honorable Court must find for Petitioner.

V. Prayers for Relief.

a) Judgment finding that the Respondent McLeod egregiously violated RSA 91-A by not even responding to Petitioner in the manner contemplated by Statute as noted in Law and Argument Section “.A.”

b) Judgment finding that Respondent Letourneau egregiously violated RSA 91-A by not issuing any substantive responses in the manner contemplated by Statute as noted in Law and Argument Section “.A.”

c) Judgment finding that Speaker Noreli violated RSA 91-A by way of a late response as noted in Law and Argument Section “.A.”

d) Judgment compelling immediate disclosure of all requested emails at Respondents’ cost pursuant to Law and Argument Section “B.”

e) Injunctive relief against further transgressions applied to Petitioner and others.

f) Reasonable costs to carry the event.

VI. Conclusion.

Petitioner prays that this Court give the matter its full and unwavering attention lest we set a pattern of governmental secrecy that may lead to further tragedy in the North Country.

Respectfully submitted,

________________________
Christopher King, J.D.
Plaintiff pro se
On behalf of KingCast.net

FOOTNOTES:

1. Floyd has an extensive criminal past and has since been convicted of threatening his neighbor with a gun – as forecasted by former Easton Police Chief Robert Every who wrote:

"All of us have made mistakes in our lives; in Mr. Floyd's case the behavior extends beyond a mistake; there is a pattern, a pattern of past violence, paranoid behavior and excessive anger. While no one can predict the future, I feel Mr. Floyd is capable of showing up at Lafayette Elementary School or at a neighbor's house with an automatic weapon..."

_______

2. Note that of the 273 emails that were released to Petitioner from the Highways Committee some of them are most definitely the same as the emails sought by Petitioner anyway so Respondents’ position when viewed as a First Amendment Restriction is not narrowly tailored and is potentially both under and overinclusive.