Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Constitutional Law Blogs -> Chris King's 1st Amendment Page

Constitutional Law

: Chris King's 1st Amendment Page

Kelly Ayotte, Martha McLeod share lawyers to defend RSA 91-A lawsuit with Amended Complaint, seeking emails & deadly force investigation information.

By Christopher King

The same warriors from last year are present but Petitioner KingCast has substantially more information at his beck and call, and the litigation is refreshingly linear this time. The full Amended Paragraph 13 of the Complaint concerns Respondent Ayotte and it is in the comments. On other matters it will be interesting to see if NH goes against the grain of the entire country to hold that emails to a duly-elected public official, concerning issues of public importance, are not subject to disclosure. The KingCast position aligns neatly with that of other AG and City Counsel who say that even private email accounts are a matter of public record when the official is using them to conduct state affairs. See that makes sense because we can't have shifty people like Martha McLeod circumventing the Right-to-Know laws by using their private email accounts to cut behind-the-back deals.

13 h) The toxicology reports that must have been viewed pursuant to Deadly Force Protocol ? Petitioner notes that Respondent maintains that Bruce McKay fired his weapon because according to her Gregory W. Floyd only fired at Liko Kenney as he was talking with him at carside. Therefore the windshield bullet featured in last year?s oral argument could only have come from Bruce McKay. As such, then, per section E(9)(e) of said protocol, ?the directly involved officer?s clothing [is] of evidentiary value.? Obviously as we shall see clothing can tell us conclusively if McKay fired his gun, and can help establish muzzle-to-shooter range with regard to Liko Kenney. But of course Ayotte?s office watched over the Paulhus investigation in which forensic specialist Paul Erwin Kish noted "The clothing of Mr. Paulhus was apparently never collected. Had the shirt been collected it may have assisted in establishing muzzle-to-target range." We need to know if Respondent has learned her lesson or if she is willfully ignoring trajectories and clothing.

Full post as published by Chris King's 1st Amendment Page on October 01, 2008 (boomark / email).