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

Constitutional Law

: Chris King's 1st Amendment Page

The KingCast view from Liko's bus on Sunshine Laws: Clarification is coming to the Franconia shooting tragedy.

By Christopher King

Saturday morning I gazed out of the window, stoked the fire in the bus and stepped outside, into the Heart of the Sunrise. I stopped to reflect on what lies ahead in this Right-to-Know litigation, and other potential litigation relating to the Franconia shooting tragedy.

The quick and dirty:

1. We will know whether Martha McLeod and House Speaker Terie Norelli can hide and freeze public access to incoming and outgoing emails on email addresses owned and subsidized by New Hampshire residents (read: taxpayers) that relate to public issues such as failed HB 1428 Bruce McKay Highway. The obvious question there is "what is so dirty in those emails that they would they want to keep this information secret?"

2. We will know what the heck is going on with the clothing worn by Bruce McKay and Liko Kenney because all of these items are of evidentiary value. Attorney Modigliani is about to answer. The clothing will establish muzzle-to-target range for Floyd shooting and potentially murdering Liko, and whether McKay fired his gun on 5/11, and in turn the answer to those questions informs whether Gregory W. Floyd lied about the number of times he shot at Liko and where he was standing when he did so. See Peter Heed's AG "Officer Deadly Force Protocol" Section IV Policy E(9)(e). This information should have been gathered a long time ago, actually so I apologize for failing in my due diligence. There. KingCast admits making a mistake. Mark this day in history :)

3. We will know whether Franconia can get away with not providing a copy of a 2006 complaint against the police that in part cause them to change their complaint policy. They claim they don't have to provide a copy of it but they have provided a copy of dozens of other police complaints pursuant to litigation so what is so special about this one? Probably an ongoing complaint against Bruce McKay and they don't want the public to know he was still receiving complaints in the months before 5/11 because that would make them appear more negligent than they already are. That's why they also refuse to provide proof that they went into Executive Session regarding the attempt to fire Bruce McKay but they have to provide a copy of the minutes showing that they went into Executive Session.

Full post as published by Chris King's 1st Amendment Page on October 21, 2008 (boomark / email).