IN THE SUPERIOR COURT

GRAFTON COUNTY, NEW HAMPSHIRE

EQUITY DIVISION

KINGCAST.NET, )
BY AND THROUGH
CHRISTOPHER KING, J.D. ) CASE NO.____________________
15 Beasom Street
Nashua, New Hampshire 03064 ) JUDGE:______________________
603.438.8017m
Plaintiff,
) ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
v.
)
NH ATTORNEY GENERAL
KELLY AYOTTE ) EXPEDITED DOCKET REQUESTED
33 Capitol Street
Concord, NH 03301 )

and )

TOWN OF FRANCONIA, )
P.O. Box 900
Franconia, New Hampshire 03580 )

and )

FRANCONIA POLICE CHIEF )

MARK MONTMINY,
P.O. Box 900 )
Franconia, New Hampshire 03580
In his official and individual capacity,
Defendants. )

MOTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Now comes Plaintiff pro se, pursuant to RSA 91-A, the Freedom of Information Act, the

First Amendment to the Unites States Constitution and any and all applicable decisional law, to

posit this Motion for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief and to request Oral Argument

given the intensely complicated and sensitive issues countenanced herein. Plaintiff apologizes for

the length of this filing at nearly 40 pages but as the Court will see, full explication of these issues

requires substantial time and space.

Respectfully submitted,
________________________
Christopher King, J.D.
Plaintiff pro se
I. Introduction.

Plaintiff brings this Action for Declaratory Judgment, Injunctive Relief, costs and

sanctions against several Defendants relative to a 11 May, 2007 double homicide case in

Franconia, New Hamsphire involving Liko Kenney, Caleb Macaulay, Bruce McKay, Gregory P.

Floyd and Gregory W. Floyd pursuant to New Hampshire Right-to-Know Statute, RSA 91-A, and

any and all relevant case law as noted in Section IV, Law and Argument.

At the outset Plaintiff brings the Court’s attention to two crucial pieces of

documentation that will inform the entire proceedings. First is Attachment 1, an Under Seal

Affidavit pertaining to “Ms. B” that supplements her unanswered 13 page complaint ten years

ago about the knife blade that Franconia Officer Bruce McKay unreasonably placed near her labia

in a downward sawing motion.

The second is Attachment 2, an Under Seal Affidavit from “Citizen L,” which

similarly enjoyed no response despite the fact that McKay allegedly was suspended as a result of

his actions.

Third is Attachment 3, an Under Seal affidavit about a situation that cannot be

described in further detail without giving away the identity of the complaining party but which is

directly relevant and which will make the Court collectively gasp, put hand to forehead and say

“Oh my Gosh.”

These individuals have come forward now only because of the recent scrutiny of

Bruce McKay’s actions as an officer of the Law pursuant to RSA 91-A and it is imperative that

the integrity of that law be maintained for the future of New Hampshire. In discussing their

complaints it has become obvious to this litigant that they would be more indignant if they had

knowledge of the facts contained in the full set of evidentiary materials that the State refuses to

host online, despite the fact that there is no clear legal basis for such refusal, given that the State

has already waived privilege and given that the investigation has been terminated.
 Significantly, “Ms. B” said that "[She] recommended [McKay] be sent to a
certified psychologist for cognitive testing for communication and control issues... this
could cause serious problems for officer McKay or Franconia."
Obviously it did. Furthermore, Plaintiff requested the policies, procedure and
protocol for the AG’s investigation of homicides involving police personnel and was
soundly rejected. This is important because as a former AAG himself, he finds it
unbelievable that the AG’s office would not review McKay’s personnel file and of course
in stride make copies of it. Yet the AG’s office wrote to Plaintiff that they had no such
gdocuments in their possession. Interestingly, Defendant Ayotte and Attorney Strelzin
have not timely provided copies of their CV’s as requested by Plaintiff as he vigorously
and lawfully addresses their professional integrity and aptitude. Plaintiff addresses these
matters in his request for Declaratory Judgment at item R.

II. The Parties.

Plaintiff has been a New Hampshire resident since 2002 who operates a law-related blog,
or "blawg" and a video podcast site called KingCast.net, and has done so for the past two (2)
years. While it is a personal-interest blawg a constant theme on that blawg is government
accountability and First Amendment issues, beginning with his very first post which addressed
the sneek’n’peek provisions of the Patriot Act, which has since been repealed. In the late 1980’s
he was an editor of a statewide Ohio Newspaper (Call & Post) and a reporter at a large
metropolitan daily (Indianapolis Star) where he authored a feature piece on the illegitimate use of
police scanners for eavesdropping, which many in Franconia believe Gregory Floyd was doing.
He has successfully litigated against NH AG Kelly Ayotte on prior occasion and he has served as
an Ohio AAG for four (4) years. Along with Nashua Alderman Fred Teeboom and others, he
successfully lobbied to make the Nashua School Board radically change its First Amendment
Policy earlier this year after he drafted a lawsuit and emailed it to the Board and Teeboom offered
to fund the court costs. Attachment 4._
Defendant Kelly Ayotte is and was at all points in time the highest law enforcement
officer of the State of New Hampshire. She has written Plaintiff extolling the virtues of RSA 91-A
on prior occasion, earlier this year. Attachment 5. She was charged with the duty of conducting a
full and thorough investigation of all the facts and issues in the 5/11 tragedy. She is further
charged with the affirmative duty not to materially misrepresent any aspect of that investigation
to another attorney, the media or the general public.
She is being sued primarily for failing to provide the entire investigative files for public viewing
online, after having materially misled at least one other attorney, the media and the general public
and after waiving privilege by posting a summary of the investigation online.
She is also being sued for several ancillary matters, the most significant of which is her
evasive response to Plaintiff’s request for a copy of any and all emails in her office bearing the
names “Liko Kenney” or “Bruce McKay,” which are readily retrievable through Microsoft
Outlook or other similar email management program.
Defendant Mark Montminy is and was at all relevant points in time the Chief of Police
of Franconia, New Hampshire. He is being sued in his official and individual capacity for failing
to release certain public records as shall be delineated in Section IV, Law and Argument.
Attachment 6
Defendant Franconia, by and through its Board of Selectmen is a duly-chartered
entity subject to suit under RSA 91-A for failure to adhere to the letter and spirit of said statute.
The Board is being sued for failing to turn over certain public records, chiefly Bruce McKay’s
personnel file, as shall be delineated in Section III, Facts and Relevant Background. See
Attachment 7 and Plaintiff’s requested Model Policy at Appendix A.

III. RELEVANT FACTS AND BACKGROUND

A. The Unconstitutional Fox Hill Park Arrests of 2003 and Public Comment
on Bruce McKay’s demeanor.

In December 2002 and January of 2003 there were a series of Unconstitutional arrests at
the trailhead of Franconia’s Fox Hill Park. The arresting officers’ modus operandi each time was
essentially similar, i.e. pull up and turn on the cruiser bar lights and/or blocking in the suspect’s
vehicle with the cruiser before or without substantiating any probable cause. Pdf p.99 and
Littleton Court filings and decisions of Judge Cyr noting Civil Rights violations at Attachment 8.
Public Defendant James T. Brooks, with whom the undersigned has spoken, verified that
he did author a Motion to Suppress that was used in three (3) such cases, with successful results
each time, over the objection of one Bruce McKay.
The cases of State v. Nathan Wright 03-CR-109 and State v. William Miller 03-CR-012,
013, 029 were summarily dismissed by Littleton Municipal Court Judge Peter Cyr finding Civil
Rights violations, specifically an Unconstitutional search and seizure under the Fourth
Amendment. Id.
 Liko Kenney’s case State v. Kenney 03-CR-197 was dismissed by Officer Stephens
before the Court ruled on it, but not before a ten (10) week delay in providing the arrest report to
Attorney Brooks. Id.
The exact same modus operandi was employed by the arresting officers which included
in some fashion using the patrol car to impede or deny egress from the area and lighting up the
vehicle with both the Patrol Car head lights and bar-mounted taken down lights. Id
As such, Liko told McKay:
20:48:00 "You don't have the right to keep me here without a good reason."

But prior to that:

20:45 – 20:46 McKay apparently goes for his gun and Liko tells him “Don’t even think about it,”
as he continues to request State Police assistance and tells McKay not to touch him and reminds
McKay that he is not threatening him.
Police took Liko down -- hard and at the direction of McKay -- who instructed the
responding officers to cut their sirens for some reason. As the Affidavit of “Citizen L” attests, this
was not the first time that Bruce Mckay overreacted near Fox Hill Park.
Significantly, the driver and passengers in the Wright/Miller cases were smoking
marijuana and sending dank, odiferous plumes of radiant smoke into the night air as one’s
olfactory senses would indicate on close up, whereas Mr. Kenney was not. He was merely resting
in his mother’s car, and that is why the possession charges against him were nol-prossed before
Judge Cyr could get to it because that would have been a horrible result for the town: A use of
force on an Unconstitutional arrest.
It bears noting at this time that eight (8) weeks have passed since KingCast requested any
documentation supporting McKay contention that Fox Hill Parks was a “suspicious place,” and as
we shall see in the Public Policy Section of this Motion, a local resident Jeffery Jesseman has
written Franconia Selectmen and Chief Montminy to demand an explanation because his property
abuts Fox Hill Park, yet he was not given any notice of any alleged dangers lurking therein, nor
was Affiant “Citizen L,” as noted in the Under Seal documents.
Moreover, KingCast has not received the police report or use-of-force report from 2003
arrest of Liko Kenney and it appears that no one will ever see those reports. Plaintiff believes that
constitutes a per se violation of RSA 91-A. What KingCast cameras DID see, however, in our
tour of Franconia is this rather unflattering portrait of Bruce McKay:
 "I hate to say it, but McKay walked around here like he was King Shit of the
neighborhood.... [effin'] with people he didn't like...... and Liko showed him he
wasn't."

and

"I always figured he would find [Officer McKay] dead by the side of the road... and if
it wasn’t Liko it would have been someone else."

And as noted by the 15 August 2007 Concord Monitor, McKay terrorized a complaining party
in the backseat of his squad car:

“Without explaining what he was doing, McKay then used a knife to cut the cruiser's
seat belt off, near the woman's abdomen. "I was TERRORIZED," the woman wrote in
her complaint to Montminy.”

She received absolutely no response and as such contacted the Undersigned as noted at

Attachment 1.

B. Missing documents and cruiser transcript evaluation.

A complete copy of the 2003 Fox Hill episode with a chain of custody intact from the
Attorney General’s office to the undersigned litigant has been filed with the Court at Appendix B
and the Court will find any transcriptions posited in writing in this Motion to be accurate.
While eight (8) weeks have transpired, it must also be noted that Franconia initially
attempted to charge overtime for the request and has produced nothing to date.
In the meantime Plaintiff himself acquired the rulings noted above from Judge Cyr in
Littleton District Court and notified Defendant Franconia that such discovery did not obviate their
responsibility to produce any relevant documents. Those documents would presumably include
the original complaint of “Citizen L”
Liko was taken to the ground by three (3) grown men with guns, and Bruce McKay
indicates that there will be a civilian complaint, however the use-of-force report from that
incident remains missing.
Curiously, McKay claims that he told Liko Kenney his name as noted at pdf file page 99-
101.1 However Liko is heard asking his name and continues to address him as “this or that
1
Those pages are an arrest narrative. Apparently a narrative is not the same as a police report, because At
counsel for Defendant Franconia told Plaintiff that his client could not locate a police report.
officer” after more law enforcement personnel appear so it would seem that McKay never did
identify himself to Liko, which is part of the requested injunctive relief sought by this litigant.
The following are almost 100% accurate transcripts of the 2003 cruiser video as provided
to the Court which includes an interior discussion heretofore unseen by most of the Free World.

At 20:45 – 20:46 “Don’t even think about it, and don’t put your hands on me.”
(McKay apparently goes for his gun)

20:48:00 "You don't have the right to keep me here without a good reason."

At 20:54:30: "I am requesting police assistance... You're torturing me... why are you
harassing me? Can't you go arrest a drunk at a bar or something?"

Approx 20:55:00 "Get back in your fucking car," says McKay..... "Maybe you need to go back
to school......" "You're in a suspicious place at a suspicious time.”
At 21:00:00
"Get on your knees."
"What are you going to kill me?"
"You're going into a cruiser."
"Why, what have I done?"
"I don't know."

21:04:01 - "You can't pull people off the street and put them in handcuffs and drive them around
for no reason." [comports with Judge Cyr’s ruling].

21:05:46 - "I was sitting in my car resting before driving home and now you've done this to me
for no reason." [comports with Judge Cyr’s ruling].

21:11:20 - "You're resisting arrest." "I'm resisting torture. You punched me in the face you hurt
my injured neck you hurt both of my arms you hurt both of my legs all because I asked you a
question." "You grabbed my testicles, correct?" "I grabbed your testicles, hell no."[McKay
laughs, does not say 'yes you did.']" "You threw me to the ground and put your testicles in my
face you fucking faggot."

21:15:00 - "Why am I in handcuffs?" "[Officer Cox or Ball] Because you resisted arrest." "Why
was I being arrested, why?" "[Officer Cox or Ball] I don't understand what the original offense
was." "That's because there is no original offense." [comports with Judge Cyr’s ruling].

21:15:30 - "He punched me in the face and you and him both saw him punch me in the face and
you both are saying he didn't. I'm being beat up IN HANDCUFFS by 3 adult armed men who all
have guns and I have NOTHING."

21:13:48 – “I am a mental health patient,” & “you are making me feel very mentally unstable.”

21:19—“I want to see a lawyer.” However it is unclear that the State ever provided one prior to
arraignment. Plaintiff will have to clear that up in his next discussion with Jamie Brooks, Esq.
With all due respect the Court should realize that such is now the mind frame in which Liko
Kenney spent the last four (4) years of his life: That of being subjected to an Unconstitutional
beat down by Bruce McKay, a man with a gun and a badge and whose full personnel file the town
of Franconia is assiduously trying to hide, in direct contravention to developing case law in New
Hampshire and well-established Statutory and Decisional Case law in other Jurisdictions, as shall
be noted in Section IV, Law and Argument, infra.

C. NH AG Kelly Ayotte’s affirmative misrepresentations, Franconia Policy and the

2007 Arrest using deadly force and OC spray.

i. The 15 May 2005 email from Defendant Ayotte to Attorney X.

At the outset it is crucial to note the presence of a certain email that Attorney H.B.
forwarded to Plaintiff in June, 2007. It appears in its annotated form at Attachment 9 and
contains material misrepresentations and very questionable shading by Attorney Ayotte to
Attorney H.B., himself a former Assistant Attorney General. This is crucial because Defendant
Ayotte still has not provided the email and correspondence file between her office and Attorney
X, which is now ripe for Declaratory Judgment. In her email, she represents:
“First of all, there was no Court Order even mentioning that Corporal McKay could not
stop Liko Kenney or had to seek other officers assistance.” That’s a very slippery statement
because there was a Court Order from the 2003 plead/conviction that specifically Ordered Liko:

“No indirect or direct contact with Bruce McKay.”

So while that was a probationary sentence it certainly gave Liko the right to request
another officer during his probation, and it is further underscored by the fact that many other
people in Franconia were similarly afraid of Bruce McKay and either did or would have taken
similar action. In a blawg response to a legitimately concerned poster who has been following
this matter, the undersigned litigant wrote, on 18 August 2007
“You should have seen Sam Stephenson describe it to us in his interview.
Whrrrr...click”! He made the sound so awesome when he described how his brother
Tim would do it. And Ms. B told her daughter "Look, don't roll your window down,
this guy is nuts."Liko rolled his window down and look what happened. A plume of
mace to the face in violation of town policy. And Ms. B told me "if I had ever got
 stopped by McKay again I would call 911 and take my chances running to Littleton."
That is crucial information because it is now a matter of public record (and she directly
told this litigant) that she filed a 13-page complaint alleging that Bruce McKay brandished a
large, penis-shaped knife near her privates without any reason, cutting her seatbelt off with it even
though he never tried to use the clasp first.
Furthermore, in her email to Attorney X, she represents that “the witness statements
were all consistent in describing Mr. Floyd’s actions (including the passenger in Mr. Kenney’s
car).”

They are not. To wit:

a) Floyd as having spoken with Liko or Caleb, as claimed in the curiously
unsigned yet official report at p. 7:

"He told the driver to stop. He said to the driver "Stop." Put it down or you're gonna die;" and
"Leave it alone you know you want to live." He told the driver whatever came into his mind.....
Note: This reads just a bit like a Fairy Tale to the undersigned’s evaluation because it is:

Another Floyd Statement:

Pp. 867-868 of the PDF file.
A: "[T]his guy's trying to load and this guy's all mixed up or whatever so I kinda lean my elbow
into his adam's apple and just shoot the other guy."
Q: "So you actually put the gun inside the window I mean is the window open?
A: "Oh yah the window was open."
Q: "Now I just want to clarify were you actually touching the passenger?"
A: "Yah... I was trying to stretch my hand in there and make sure [Caleb] stayed back."

But that’s not what Caleb said:

Marshall: Was your window rolled down?
Caleb: No, my window was shattered, Sir.
Marshall: He shot through the window?
Caleb: Shot through the window.

But let's address the statements from Floyd himself and the other two witnesses -- which are
definitely NOT consistent with that:
 First there is the bullet through Liko's windshield "on bottom edge close to center." per p.
587 that was "recovered,” from inside the car. Exhibit 11 clearly shows that bullet was fired from
outside the car but Liko died with his seatbelt on and never alighted from his vehicle. But the
Official report does not address that fact other than as a narrative comment because that would
ruin the entire notion that Floyd spoke before shooting.
Here is what Gregory W. Floyd said:
Page 20/1,000:
"Did you say anything before you fired?"
"No, I didn't"

Here is what Caleb Macaulay said:

Page 11 of official report: "

The man said nothing before he fired."

Here is what Junior Floyd said:

[91-A pdf page 745]

"They had stopped in front of his arm the first time. They didn't actually hit the officer. Then
they backed up to here and at that time my dad got out and tried to pull him to prevent him
from running him over again" [KingCast says wait a minute: Run him over again??? There was
absolutely nothing to keep Liko from running McKay over the first time -- but he didn't. Liko was
just trying to get the hell out of there.] They backed up to here and the car went rushing
forward and my dad shot at the driver and it hit him and made him stop. The front end of the
car ended up over the officer's chest."

The undersigned litigant does not see where there was any room for dialogue in this sequence

b) The second shot through Caleb Macaulay's open or closed window.

Petitioner restates all previous allegations as incorporated herein and states further:

Caleb:
Page 672: "No, no, it was just - it was just pepper spray right away."
Page 700: "When I saw that gun I went down like this and that's all I saw and if I did not do that I
wouldn't be, I wouldn't be here today."

Page 701: "He did, did he say anything?" "He said nothing. He started shooting." Of course later
in the interview Caleb is picking glass shards out of his scalp.

And of course, there is the video. Caleb's window is CLEARLY up, and the official report clearly
notes at p. 26:

"The passenger side widow was in the fully up position but the glass was in fragments."
In fact the Court can clearly see Caleb's window up at 19:15:37 as the Tahoe ramming
starts, and see that both of Liko's hands are in the air in a classic "Stop it, panic" gesture and
Caleb's window is still clearly up as they roll out of view at 19:16:32.

P. 494/588: Further inspection of the door area discovered that the window was all the way up
when it had been broken. The New Hampshire public has a right-to-know and see this
information that contradicts the Official Report.

If the window is closed Floyd and Liko certainly were not having much of a conversation.

c) It gets worse, however. Here is p. 42 of the Official Report:

"Floyd was unarmed at the time he witnessed Liko Kenney shoot Cpl. McKay and then strike
Cpl. McKay with his vehicle."

No he wasn't.
What Defendant Ayotte said is entirely inconsistent with the contents of her own
investigative files. Plaintiff explains, using Caleb at p. 682-687 and Gregory W. Floyd's own son
at 91-A pdf page 745 as previously quoted in this Motion.

Caleb noted at p.682 “I saw him pick it up from his hand” (saw Floyd pick up McKay’s
gun from his hand) and at p. 684 “He had picked up the gun, aimed it and Liko went like
that….” KingCast submits that Floyd did more than aim it, he shot it, and that is the windshield
bullet that the Official Report declines to address. Once Liko knew someone was shooting at him
gosh only knows WHAT went through his mind in the last seconds before his death. A reasonable
citizen of this State could find that Floyd took a bad situation and made it worse. See pepper
spray profile and massive Tahoe tracks at Attachment 10 a, b and c.

“That guy I thought pretty much had the gun pointed at us before we even got on the road."
RSA 91-A file p. 687

Then there is the matter of the Grafton Dispatch narrative at pp 382 and 391:
“One bald man standing over officer with gun,”
and
“Bald-headed man with a pistol standing over the officer.”

That certainly is consistent with what Caleb said because it is likely that the witnesses
saw this after Liko shot McKay and before they got pulled back and out from next to the gigantic
front-loader that McKay has pushed them back next to. Please see the windshield bullet holes
Attachment 11.
Again, given Floyd Jr’s comment that .: "They had stopped in front of his arm the
first time. They didn't actually hit the officer…….. it is entirely probable that Floyd had
gathered himself over McKay with his gun in hand, in direct contravention to what
Defendant Ayotte claims at p. 42 of her Official Report.

Defendant Ayotte cannot get away from that material inconsistency and that is all the more
reason why the entire files have to be hosted online.
d) The representation that Liko Kenney murdered Bruce Mckay and that McKay
“never even had his hand on his gun.”

First of all may we not forget that snowy day in 2003 when Bruce McKay hassled Liko
for no reason and ended up apparently going for his gun and Liko says “Don’t put your hands on
me” (Appendix B20:45) then subsequently giving him a beat down while the underlying “case”
of possession of a miniscule amount of marijuana was dismissed pursuant to Constitutional
concerns. That set a pattern of fear in Liko’s mind form the start of his relationship with McKay.
Next we must know that both Floyd and Caleb claim that Floyd retrieved McKay’s gun
not from his holster but from his hand. Caleb noted at p.682 “I saw him pick it up from his
hand” (saw Floyd pick up McKay’s gun from his hand). Floyd corroborates this at pdf.___. As
such, it is entirely possible that McKay had gone for his gun and had cleared leather but Liko’s
shot through the forearm (documented at pdf.___) prevented McKay from doing much else. The
point is, Attorney Ayotte’s comment is reflective of unlawful bias and amounts to insouciance on
stilts. She could have no way of conclusively knowing whether McKay touched his gun and that
will be painfully evident to Defendant Ayotte in open court in this and all other litigation.
The undersigned litigant makes his position in this regard absolutely clear: Given the
2003 reach for his gun and the abusive take down, the 2007 Tahoe bash and shove and the OC
Spray plume to the face -- again without any comment or directive – and everything in between
including McKay’s threat to Liko’s friend Tim Stephenson, if McKay touched his gun Liko
Kenney committed justifiable homicide of a rogue cop. In any event, Plaintiff asks this court to
examine the evidence before it and to issue a Declaratory Judgment as to whether the facts before
it substantiate the factual assertion that McKay “never even had his hand on his gun.”
This Court and the undersigned litigant are well aware of the statutory and decisional
case law on what constitutes murder. Unfortunately for Defendant Ayotte, Liko Kenney’s state of
mind, as witnessed by the passenger in his car who allegedly supports the State’s position was as
follows:

"Just to see the fear in his eyes, how scared, he was, he wanted nothing to do with this
and it turned out so bad in both ways," said Caleb Macaulay, who was in the
passenger seat when Liko Kenney's shot Cpl. McKay four times and then ran him over
Friday night. "He was a great kid, he really was, we were just trying to get home. I've
never seen him so scared in his life."

The video is available at:

http://wbztv.com/local/local_story_134194214.html
Clearly Liko Kenney, who telephoned three times for help at 6:05, 6:06 and 6:07,
(Official Report p. 27) and who motioned for McKay to meet him at Tamarack (where McKay
had no problem often driving by and high-beaming his parent’s house) was not of a mind to shoot
McKay – until he got his car rammed back about 50 feet (the undersigned paced the area and
that is about how far it was) and then OC Sprayed to the face without any comment or
directive. That’s terrifying, and given the entire set of circumstances it belies any sort of claim
that Liko murdered Bruce McKay. Manslaughter or excusable homicide is more likely.

This Honorable Court may find the 2007 shooting online at The Union Leader or
YouTube websites, or of course Defendants should be more than willing to provide a copy for the
Court’s review so that they may substantiate their respective positions.
In addition, there is a reduction and summary, using exact quotes and identifying page
numbers, of the events of 11 May 2007 at Appendix C:
http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2007/07/kingcast-says-hey-kelly-heres-your-hero.html
There is a short version of the shooting time itself, at Appendix D:

http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2007/06/kingcast-presents-short-version-of-2007.html

The most important thing for this Honorable Court to consider is that Defendant Ayotte
intentionally misrepresented the material aspects of this case to the general public as noted in this
Boston Globe story and as noted in the email to Attorney X at seen at Appendix E.

http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2007/07/kingcast-presents-res-ipsa-part-one-nh.html

Let us keep in mind that in the course of the past several years, according to neighbor
Connie McKenzie, as recounted in John Sedgwick’s August, 2007 Boston Magazine feature piece
“Collision Course” Bruce McKay would drive his cruiser onto the Kenney property, fully a ¼
mile off the road and in another jurisdiction, to shine his high beams on the cabin in the
evening, knowing that Liko was highly emotional and a mental health patient. The undersigned
litigant in this Verified Complaint did discuss that with Ms. McKenzie after she telephoned him in
May or early June. In fact, Lisbon police told McKay to stop patrolling there, to remove their
frequency from this equipment and to stop speeding through town like some modern day John
Wayne wannabe.
Let us keep in mind that Liko knew that McKay had scared Tim Stephenson out of town
with the admonition that he would do whatever it takes to get him out of town with his hand on
the butt of his gun. This has been reported and is common knowledge in town. Liko and Tim were
close friends; that is him next to Liko on the ATVs at Attachment 12.
Let us further keep in mind that just prior to 11 May 2007 McKay traveled to a hearing in
which he had no role whatsoever, and told Liko the same thing.
And Let us further keep in mind the use-of-deadly vehicular force guidelines for
Franconia and the use of Pepper spray guidelines reported thusly:
"The department's pursuit policy, allows officers to bump a vehicle off the road, but only
at low speeds when the officer has been trained and is in a situation that warrants the use of
deadly force." Concord Monitor, Attachment 13.
However Liko Kenney was already off the road when McKay rammed his little Toyota with the
5,500lb Police Tahoe.
 "The force policy also says officers should allow innocent bystanders to evacuate before
using pepper spray and to reconsider if the target subject is emotionally desperate. When
McKay sprayed Kenney, Kenney had a passenger in his car who was not under arrest.
And McKay knew Kenney had a gun and had reacted emotionally desperate during their
2003 interaction."

The policies also warn against using pepper spray on someone who feels trapped
because the person may react with violence toward others or kill himself."

The record reflects that McKay violated the standards on several counts as he knew Caleb
was in the car and did not even once ask him to evacuate, he used pepper spray on someone
who is clearly an emotional person who felt trapped because he was pushed 40-50 feet in
total from the first “boom smash” as Caleb described it at p. 662:

Marshall: "It wasn't like boom smash, he drove up."

Caleb: "Well the first one was like a boom smash."

e) Other bias noted at the scene and in the so-called investigation:

At pdf page 908 Bruce McKay specifically requested Sgt. Wentworth, who at pdf 353

reveals that he had a good relationship with McKay while identifying Liko Kenney as a

“dirtbag.” The mind boggles to contemplate how THAT arrest would have turned out. Next,

Gregory Floyd claimed that he wasn’t trying to kill anyone and says that in avoiding “the pump”

he was not trying to kill Liko Kenney by shooting him in the heart because he could have put two

[bullets] in there as noted at pdf 846…..

Yet and still he shot him through the neck and right in the head, when if he was reaching

in the window and past Caleb while pushing Caleb back with his arm (as he claimed) then it

would have been a simple procedure to shoot Liko in the leg or whatever to disable him. But

that’s not what Gregory Floyd had in mind. Gregory Floyd was after all a 3-term Vietnam veteran

(in his own mind, that is) who was going to get himself another kill.

Incredibly, at pdf 916 it is revealed that Floyd actually went home with a live round in his

pocket. Plaintiff asserts that the message conveyed by this fact -- coupled with the fact that Floyd

lied about his PCP conviction by calling it THC (pdf 852) – is that Floyd had carte blanche

because he killed a cop-killer. The State does not handcuff him nor does it produce an inventory

sheet of his car even though they know that he has previously had bogus registrations on it. See
Robert Every search warrant affidavit at pdf.____ And they did conduct an inventory search as

noted at pdf 549-550 but somehow didn’t feel the need to note what was in the vehicle. Many

wonder if there was a scanner in the car. See also Under Seal Affidavits.

Despite Floyd’s incredibly dangerous and threatening past, he is cleared of any

wrongdoing in one day and there is no discussion about the random bullets he lodged in the

McKenzie home and barn, nor is there any discussion about the windshield bullets but those are

critical to any fair assessment of this case. Last but not least are the mean-spirited emails Plaintiff

procured from the State between Attorney Strelzin and area State Rep. Martha McLeod where

they are coddling Floyd as if he were some sort of Boy Scout earning a badge of valor instead of

a potential murderer. On information and belief, including the statement of Connie McKenzie,

she was not allowed to even check on Liko at the scene and the State then failed to notify the

Kenney family of the whereabouts of their only son in a timely manner. That is insulting to

Michele Kenney and to the Notions of Fair Play and Substantial Justice. Sadly, it is par for the

course in this case. Attachment 14.

Then Floyd threatened a responding officer “careful son I’m quicker’n’you,” and

told Sam Stephenson and others that he did tours of Vietnam which is slightly doubtful at 49 but

to the State none of that mattered because he killed a cop-killer, and they will have a hard time

executing Stix Addison for murder. The State does indeed view these cases in the same breath.

See Attachment Id.

KingCast asks the Court to consider this in sum: Defendant Ayotte admitted to the

undersigned litigant that she never conducted an inventory of Floyd’s truck and that she issued a

decision on the merits before the autopsies were even conducted. See Attachment 15.
 Also, Defendant Ayotte’s own investigative files show that she knew McKay specifically

requested Sergeant Wentworth referred to Liko Kenney as a “dirtbag” (pdf 363) and admitted he

was in a positive relationship with Bruce McKay but those facts are of no moment to her for

some reason.

If you are Liko Kenney (for that matter anyone else) at that moment and Wentworth shows

up you can feel the vibe and after your car has been slammed and you’ve caught a face full of

mace without directive or comment you’re thinking “Okay, are they going to kill me today?”

And as noted below, Connie McKenzie has publicly stated that no one even checked on

Liko and that the authorities told her not to check on him. Instead she tried to save McKay’s life

while noting that people in the town do not trust McKay and that even she feared him.

ii. On Route 116:

On 11 May 2007 one of Liko’s cars was past its grace period for inspection/registration,
so Bruce McKay pulled him over. On information and belief, these two men were not to have any
contact unless absolutely necessary. As such, Liko requested another officer, and Bruce McKay,
who knew that Liko was a mental health patient from their 2003 encounter, called for another
officer but DID NOT inform Liko that he would do so and DID NOT inform Liko why he was
pulling him over. He only told Liko that he did not have that option.
Over the course of the past several years, McKay would pull his cruiser deep into the
Kenney property to shine his lights on the family house. The neighbor who tried to revive McKay
from her lawn said she could “set her clock by it.” Alas, Liko lived in Easton and not Franconia
(where McKay was employed) and that house is set off from the road a quarter-mile.
Liko telephoned a family member 3 times but did not reach anyone, so according to
Caleb Macaulay he left for Tamarack Tennis Camp, just down the road, which his family owns
and where he lived, to get some witnesses.
He was not driving fast and was wearing his seatbelt, as he was when he died a few
moments later. Please review the taped interview of witness Susan Thompson she states:

"The grey car was not going fast. I thought [McKay] was trying to get around it [for
something else]. He made several movements (her daughter called it a "10-point turn"
in her interview) to come nose to nose now facing north.... [McKay] pushed him and
kept pushing him down (into the gravel area) dirt flew back the police car pushed him
so strongly and just kept pushing and pushing and pushing until the grey car was
beyond my view."
 iii. In the McKenzie cut-away lot.

Caleb and Liko petitioned Gregory W. Floyd to stay around as witnesses and Caleb said
that he thought he had made eye contact but Floyd did nothing at the time. Appendix C citing to
pdf 654, 673, 674 “I’m pretty sure he heard my voice ‘cause like I…” (Police interrogator
Marshall then cuts him off for some inexplicable reason in the middle of a crucial statement).
As we know, McKay then used his Tahoe, a 5,550lb tool of deadly force, to bash Liko’s
little Toyota back. Please see the side view and rear view pictures showing part of the ruts from
McKay spinning his tyres as he pushed the young men back out of view near the front-end loader.
Careful viewing reveals Liko with both hands raised to his head, palms out in a gesture
commonly recognized as being scared and confused.
When being questioned Caleb Macaulay makes it clear that it was a substantial slam for a
vehicular registration issue at p. 662 “BOOM SMASH” as noted.
Next McKay alighted from his vehicle and without saying a single word or issuing any
command or directive, emptied a can of OC Spray into Liko’s face and front passenger
compartment. Liko’s head does not move the entire time and he appears to be in shock.
A reporting officer noted that Liko’s whole face was discoloured because of the sheer
amount of pepper spray, a fact that NH AG Kelly Ayotte’s apparently unsigned official report as
the autopsy fails to disclose. See RSA 91-A p. 455. Officer Blanchard says "he had a brown
complexion all over (emphasis added) his face and part of his neck."
Significantly, Connie McKenzie – a certified nurse – was directed not to give any
medical attention to Liko Kenney, and Sergeant Wentworth that night referred to Liko as a “Dirt
Bag” as noted at Pdf p 363, which set the tone for this anti-Liko, pro-police faux investigation.

***********

This is where the bullet in Liko’s windshield becomes of paramount importance,

especially because NH AG Kelly Ayotte’s official report fails to address that bullet in ANY
substantive detail, nor does it substantively address the two bullets that Gregory Floyd shot that
ended up in a toolbox and through the window of the Mckenzie home as noted at pp. 26-27. It
should be noted that Ms. McKenzie, who has telephoned the undersigned litigant, was quoted in
an ABC News story that even she was scared of McKay as follows:
 “People didn't trust Bruce McKay and they didn't like him. Heck I was afraid of him.
You know when a police officer gets shot, it's a big deal. I understand that, but I want
people to know that we loved that boy Liko. He was our native son. I don't want him to
go down as just a cop killer. He was full of life and articulate and funny."

Floyd undoubtedly rained the first shot down on Liko’s windshield as the effects of the
pepper spray begin to take hold as Liko pulled out of the lot. See bullet holes at Attachment 11.
Again, as previously-noted, at that point, according to Gregory P. Floyd, Liko DID NOT
strike the fallen McKay with his car, but rather stopped and backed up, then began driving
forward, probably to get to Tamarack WITHOUT running McKay over. Here is EXACTLY what
Gregory P. Floyd said at 91-A pdf page 745]
"They had stopped in front of his arm the first time. They didn't actually hit the officer.
Then they backed up to here and at that time my dad got out and tried to pull him to prevent
him from running him over again" [KingCast says wait a minute: Run him over again??? There
was absolutely nothing to keep Liko from running McKay over the first time -- but he didn't. Liko
was just trying to get out of there.]
They backed up to here and the car went rushing forward and my dad shot at the
driver and it hit him and made him stop. The front end of the car ended up over the officer's
chest."

His comments were supported by Caleb Macaulay, as will be noted over the next two
pages. In fact, the ONLY person who claimed that Liko ran over McKay before a shot was fired
at his car is Gregory W. Floyd, but as far as his credibility, let’s start with his criminal background
for PCP sales/production and his attempted assault of an officer by kneeing him in the groin.
Investigative files at pdf__.
Moving on from there It should be noted that Floyd told Sam Stephenson that he had
done three (3) tours of Vietnam, which is impossible at 49 years of age. Sam Stephenson’s audio
interview, and two others, were not provided until the undersigned litigant issued the 28 June
Ethics Complaint seen at Attachment 16.2
And the very next day, after SIX WEEKS those three audio recording popped up and
Attorney Strelzin notified State Rep. McLeod. Plaintiff had known they existed for a month so it
is hard to imagine a scenario where the State didn’t know of them. If so, that’s truly sad: A non-
practicing, suspended attorney not affiliated with any major news agency knows more about the

2
As an aside, in June, 2007 Sam Stephenson, in person, told the undersigned litigant all about McKay
hassling his brother Tim Stephenson with all matter of charges on which Tim prevailed, and of course Tim
Stephenson sued Mckay after McKay allegedly told him he would do “whatever it takes” to get him out of
town, while caressing his service pistol.
State’s investigation than it does.
Next we come to the shots fired through the Caleb Macaulay’s allegedly open passenger
window and the discussion that Floyd claimed to have had with Liko as he "He told the driver to
stop. He said to the driver "Stop." Put it down or you're gonna die;" and "Leave it alone you know
you want to live." He told the driver whatever came into his mind....

With all due respect, that reads like a Fairy Tale because it is:

Again, First of all, Floyd likely said nothing before firing the first shot through the
windshield, and if he did how would Liko have heard it?
Second, that window was closed when Floyd shot through it because we know that even
the official report notes that the “passenger side window was in the fully up position but the glass
was in fragments.” Official report at p. 26.
We also know that the window was clearly up when the car left our view and we know
that Liko did not get any shots off after he shot McKay and there has never been any contention
that Liko shot the window. This Court may clearly see Caleb's window up at 19:15:37 as the
Tahoe ramming starts, you then see both of Liko's hands in the air in a classic panic gesture and
Caleb's window is still clearly up as they roll out of view at 19:16:32. Appendix C.
Lastly, we know at p. 684 of the pdf. Files that Caleb Macaulay is picking glass shards
off the nape of his neck and scalp so obviously Floyd shot through the window, which entirely
compromises his credibility.
Caleb was very clear that neither McKay nor Floyd said ANYTHING prior to emptying
pepper spray or bullets toward Liko at p. 11 of the Official Report:

“The man said nothing before he fired.”

Last but definitely not least (and perhaps most significantly, Floyd tells us at p.20 of another of

the pdf. files that he didn’t say a word before shooting.

Sgt. West: All right, so and did you say anything to, before you fired?

Greg Floyd: No I didn’t.

Only much later in his statement does Floyd claim that he spoke with Liko prior to shooting.

That is significant because Caleb noted at p.682 “I saw him pick it up from his hand” (saw
Floyd pick up McKay’s gun from his hand) and at pdf. 684-687
“He had picked up the gun, aimed it and Liko went like that…. That guy I thought pretty much
had the gun pointed at us before we even got on the road."

And lastly, Floyd was still pointing the gun at Caleb long after Caleb had alighted from
the car and was known not to be armed or dangerous and this is important because the
government has redacted that portion of a relevant document, whereas other WAV files on that
same page were NOT redacted. To quote:

“He’s still standing, he has a, has the pistol in his hand pointing it at someone….” Attachment___

Firefighter Stan Sherburn saw it as well, and mentioned Floyd was “running around with a gun”
at pdf p. 981. Id.

Interestingly, Floyd told Caleb to pick up Liko’s gun, which would have undoubtedly
resulted in Floyd shooting Caleb, so he wisely declined to do so as Floyd threatened to “blow his
fucking face off.” must insert Caleb said at 607/701 "...and then he's like give me the gun and he
kept saying like hand me the gun and I, I kept saying. I'm not gonna’ touch that gun cause you're
gonna’ shoot me....." and "he had both guns and he was aiming em at me and that's the, pretty
much the end and then uh EMTs came....
And we must not forget that there are unexplained bullet holes from McKay's gun and
shot by Floyd in the McKenzie window and toolbox, as noted at pp. 26-27 of the Official Report.
This Court, but more importantly the citizens of the State of New Hampshire who enjoy
the Right-to-Know these things, could find that Floyd’s activities constitute murder or criminal
menacing, especially given Floyd’s mysteriously dismissed charges for threatening a meter reader
and then his negotiated plea to avoid jail time after he kneed a police officer in the groin when
they came to investigate as noted in the official report.
Significantly Plaintiff has discovered that not even Defendant Ayotte has a clue how or
why those charges were nol-prossed. Was McKay the prosecutor on the case or did he in any way
exert power of influence? Did the answers to this question and the question about the missing
arrest documents in Liko’s 2003 case expire with McKay? Further investigation is required.
Meanwhile, Plaintiff offers the Court a copy of colour snapshots of Floyd and Liko Kenney for its
edification. Attachment 17.
And what did Floyd say about the police and the meter reader?

"If that pussy comes back or if I see him again I'll kill him..... I know you wear vests so I
would have put it right between your eyes. I was sitting right on my Ruger..... (then to his son)
look at the fucking pigs, aren't they big men?"

And what did Chief Robert Every say about Floyd that Defendant Ayotte doesn’t want online?

“Gregory Floyd moved into Easton around the first of this year but first came to my attention
in mid to late April when the New Hampshire State Police came to my house and asked what I
knew of him.

His son was attending Lafayette Elementary School and there was a problem in which Mr.
Floyd became irrationally abusive – to the point the administration was concerned he might
return and do something. Because of the administration’s concern they contacted the State
Police.

The Townsend police chief [where Floyd once lived] did indicate Mr. Floyd was capable of
irrational behavior and to be careful on making any approach.

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 and that the
danger to the public safety far outweighs the minimal intrusion a check of his premises for
automatic weapons would represent."

KingCast respectfully asserts that In short, this is EXACTLY the kind of guy you DON’T
give a pass for murder or criminal menacing in 24 hours but that is what Defendant Ayotte did.
Then joined with Attorney Strelzin and State Rep. Martha McLeod – whose husband is a
Defendant in this case, as a Franconia Selectman – to protect Floyd and disrespect people like
Mark Sisti, the NH Public Defender’s Office and the undersigned litigant as noted in the bias
Section, III C(i)(e), infra.
In the search, they did not find automatic weapons but they did uncover a small arsenal
including:
1. Merwin Herbert .32cal.
2. Glock 9mm.
3. Ithica 12ga.
4. Ruger 233
5. Ruger Black Hawk
6. Black Powder San Mario

Plaintiff has had two clients shot to death and has shot a few guns in his lifetime, mostly
target rifles and a Desert Eagle .50 Caliber and has direct knowledge of 3 of these guns (2, 4, 5)
and can tell the Court they are serious killing machines. The Eagle is not. It’s just a huge gun
with one hell of a report. Unbelievable.
They also discovered that he had unlawful registration of his pickup truck, as it was
registered regular and handicapped. By his lightning-fast movements of 5/11 to get ready to shoot
Liko – from the front, at the windshield -- it is hard to consider him too disabled, however.

iv. Overview and summation.

The preceding paragraphs use the credible, yet hidden statements from the State’s own
files to reach a dramatically different conclusion than that reached by NH AG Kelly Ayotte. It is
entirely possible that Liko Kenney was just trying to get home and when he heard that bullet rain
into the windscreen, he lost control of his car struck McKay and started trying to unjam his
weapon -- if indeed he ever tried to do that before Floyd shot him. Remember, we cannot exactly
trust the word of Mr. Floyd, but we do know that his first story was that he DID NOT say
anything to Liko. Why wouldn’t Defendant Ayotte take the most contemporaneous version of
Floyd’s statement as truth, instead of what he said later when he’s had time to think more
about covering his tracks, especially because what he said at first is corroborated by Caleb and
the forensic evidence, i.e. an inward bullet hole and the shattered glass of Caleb’s window?
Could Floyd’s actions have muddied the waters and possibly constituted murder?
Reckless endangerment of Caleb Macaulay? Criminal menacing? Of course it’s possible, but by
omitting all of the facts this Motion has just set forth, NH AG Kelly Ayotte neatly avoids
addressing that possibility, which is a shame considering not only Floyd’s history with weapons,
but his current behaviour which includes “laughing” and saying “I shot him real good,” and at p.
456 he boasts about killing Liko: “I’m fine. That was the 43rd person I’ve killed, I’m fine.
Attorney Ayotte admitted in writing that she conducted no inquiry into truth or legality or
illegality these 43 kills.

Said Caleb:

"He was laughing and stuff." The guy was very, very it was almost like crazed.... page
697 "and he kept, like, 'Oh I shot him good and stuff like that....'"
Floyd is clearly a Man with Issues, and for NH AG Kelly Ayotte to give him a total pass
on all possible criminal charges in one day is repulsive to our notions of Fair Play and substantial
Justice, particularly in light of the material facts that her official report handily excludes. See also
the emails from local resident “Mr. G,” to Senators Gallus and Reynolds and as forwarded to
Defendant Ayotte by Ray Burton as expressing the EXACT same sentiments. Attachment 18.
Significantly, Mr. G is a member of the Franconia Recovery and Reconciliation
Committee trying to make a change and to hold his government accountable. In the words of
former U.S. Supreme Court Justice (and the undersigned’s idol) Thurgood Marshall, this Court
must help him do so “with all deliberate speed.”
As such, and as shall be developed in the Law and Argument Section, she must be
compelled to place the entire set of media materials online because offering the public to come in
and view them violates the letter and spirit of RSA 91-A. See correspondence with John P. at
Atttachment 19.3

3
It should be noted that the State failed to produce all of the emails between them and John P.,
because they left out the one from 7 July in which he wrote:
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2007 11:57:01 -0400
From: "John D. **********"
To: kelly.ayotte@doj.gov
Subject: 5/11 FRANCONIA - RIGHT TO KNOW
CC: governorlynch@nh.gov, mailbox@gregg.senate.gov, mailbox@sununu.senate.gov,
kingjurisdoctor@yahoo.com

THE BELOW HAS BEEN SENT TO YOUR OFFICE THREE TIMES SINCE JUNE 29th AND
AS OF YET I HAVE RECEIVED NO RESPONSE....

The undersigned litigant knows this because John bcc’d him on it, it is in his files already but of
course as a matter of Law that in no way obviates NH AG Kelly Ayotte’s duty to provide me a
copy of it, and it was simple to find using Microsoft Outlook or ANY contemporary email system
by using a simple word search.

Now this is key because the law and argument section will address the request for any and all
emails bearing the names Liko Kenney or Bruce McKay. If we cannot trust the AG’s to give us
the emails between John P. and their office, how can we trust that they will do the right thing with
the other emails.

Plaintiff will be requesting the data recovery company of his choice to review the hard drives
given their abhorrent track record in this instance. The Franconia Collective will also approach
for a United States Congressional investigation and International support using this very Motion.
IV. LAW and ARGUMENT

Decisional and Statutory Law on Each Request.

A. Bruce McKay's personnel file in all of its component parts, i.e. performance reviews and
annual evaluations/citizen complaints and responses/personnel matters that may reflect on his
capacity to perform as a peace officer. New Hampshire NH Right-to-Know experts point out that
this law is unsettled in New Hampshire, and therefore Plaintiff provides a proscriptive model that
could be used at Appendix F. This Court has the authority to decide that any existing law that
blanketly prohibits disclosure of medical information relative to the performance of a police
officer’s job, such as psychological evaluations or profiles, is inimical to the public’s Right-to-
Know.
Defendant by and through Selectman Administrative Assistant Sally Small wrote Plaintiff
on 3 July 2007: “The documents you are requesting are exempt from disclosure pursuant to RSA
91-A. The documents in Corporal McKay’s files are all personnel related and fall into the
category of personnel records. Therefore, the records will not be disclosed to you because of the
reasons I have just mentioned.” Conspicuous by its absence is any sort of reference to a Vaughn
index.
The requested documents in this case that Plaintiff wishes to make public are primarily
any documents that reflect complaints against McKay, compliments, disciplinary actions (vis a
vis the absence thereof), any physical, mental or emotional issues that may affect his ability to
perform the functions of a police officer, and any other acts or concerns that might cast doubt on
his ability to successfully function as a police officer.
The general trend is toward more, not less disclosure and the particular facts of this case
militate in favor of full disclosure, which according to Union Leader v. City of Nashua [citation]
is done on a case-by-case basis. Plaintiff’s analysis begins with the obvious presumption in favor
of disclosure of public records. “To advance the purposes of the Right-to-Know Law, we construe
provisions favoring disclosure broadly and exemptions narrowly. See, e.g., Fenniman, 136 N.H.
at 626, 620 A.2d at 1040; Herron v. Northwood, 111 N.H. 324, 326, 282 A.2d 661, 663 (1971).
The balancing test in this case between the public’s Right-to-Know and the nature of the
requested document or material and its relationship to the basic purpose of the Right-to-Know
Law.
 In this case the purpose of the Right-to-Know law is to determine whether a man paid
with taxpayer monies who carriers a gun and who wears a badge was a dangerous
instrumentality, and if so, whether the town of Franconia knew about it and what steps they
took or failed to take to address it.
At the outset, as noted by a Concord Monitor editorial in favor of production of the 2007
video, Bruce McKay is dead, so it becomes difficult to imagine his privacy rights being violated,
but Plaintiff does not place reliance on that fact alone. It is far more germane to know, for
example, that he allegedly misused a knife with a handcuffed woman in the back of his squad car,
and that we have no record of punishment for that. It is far more germane to see that he violated
policy on use of force and OC Spray and that even his peers have warned him and notified Chief
Montminy of his hostile tendencies. As such, there should be virtually NOTHING in his file that
should not be subject to public review excepting medical information about his daughter or things
of that nature, which Plaintiff in most assuredly not seeking.
Lastly, when the Union Leader Court held that the requested materials must be produced,
the person claiming the privacy interest was a public citizen, unlike Bruce McKay. Bruce McKay
was a public police officer, and there is no privacy interest in a police officer’s public
performance.
Moving on to NH Civil Liberties Union v. City of Manchester [citation] the court granted
access to photographs of private citizens who were photographed by police but not arrested. We
find a tripartite test employed in that case that when applied to this case will prompt a similar
result in release of the materials.

First, we evaluate whether there is a privacy interest at stake that would be invaded by
disclosure. Nashua, 141 N.H. at 477. If there is not, the Right-to-Know Law mandates disclosure.
Id. Again, it is questionable whether Bruce McKay’s privacy interest still obtains, but Plaintiff
will not of course rest his hat on that theory.

Next, we assess the public’s interest in disclosure. Id. at 476-77. While an individual’s
motives in seeking disclosure are irrelevant, in the privacy context, disclosure of the requested
information should serve the purpose of informing the public about the conduct and activities of
their government. Id. at 477. The stated purpose in this case is clearly consonant with that
objective, again primarily to determine whether a man paid with taxpayer monies who carriers
a gun and who wears a badge was a dangerous instrumentality, and if so, whether the town of
Franconia knew about it and what steps they took or failed to take to address it.
 Finally, we balance the public interest in disclosure against the government interest in
nondisclosure and the individual’s privacy interest in nondisclosure. Id. at 476. "When the
exemption is claimed on the ground that disclosure would constitute an invasion of privacy, we
examine the nature of the requested document . . . and its relationship to the basic purpose of the
Right-to-Know Law." Id. The party resisting disclosure bears a heavy burden to shift the balance
toward nondisclosure. N.H. Housing Fin. Auth., 142 N.H. at 554. In this case the balancing
contest clearly favors disclosure. Plaintiff is not seeking to publish any intimate detail of Bruce
McKay’s personal life unless it implicates some element of criminality or substantially aberrant
behavior. As such, the entire file must be available for inspection, whether be he alive or not.

The documents that they have produced fall well short of that, and the media is entitled to
full access subject to reasonable restrictions on publication. That is far different than having the
government tell us "you can come down here and pick up what we decide to give you," which is
the sort of approach contemplated by a Vaughn index. But in a case like this, given the history of
serious allegations and complaints of misconduct, the media should be entitled to more than that.

Turning to State v. Theodosopoulos [citation], we find New Hampshire Courts moving

toward greater, rather than less, disclosure. While the issue not directly on point some of the
movement in this case may inform the Court’s judgment. In Theodosopoulos the Court was
addressing the availability of a police officer’s file in a case where the officer is a material
witness. The Defendant in that case had been involved in an automobile collision with an officer
and sought “all information, documentation or disciplinary memoranda which would serve as
exculpatory evidence either where the information relates to (Officer) Defina’s credibility or his
use of police vehicles.”
The Attorney General’s office lost a Supreme Court challenge over a Hooksett Court
ruling that compelled production of a police officer’s personnel file. The Supreme Court held that
the lower Court did not err in providing substantial portions of the file instead of using an in-
camera inspection because the Defendant is entitled to ALL exculpatory evidence, and that’s what
was requested.
In this case, Plaintiff is analogously moving for exculpatory evidence for Liko Kenney,
who repeatedly voiced his concerns that he was scared of Bruce McKay as were many other
people in the community. The public has a Right-to-Know anything and everything that is in
McKay’s file that in any way implicates lack of fitness. In essence, the exculpatory file in this
case goes beyond the set of things that concern operation of a motor vehicle and extends to the
set of things that govern the operation of his badge.
 It should be noted that in Ohio, Federal Judge George C. Smith, himself a former City
Prosecutor, issued a ruling in Kallstrom v. City of Columbus II [citation] that addressed the media
seeking files including home addresses, summaries of investigations of officers' backgrounds,
reports of any assaults in which the officers were involved, reports of any motor vehicle accident
in which the officer and an official city vehicle were involved, any disciplinary charges, and
answers to personal history questions. His Honor held that
"The full disclosure of these personnel files is necessary to enable the press to do its job.”
Nowadays disclosure is AUTOMATIC under its Sunshine Act, because as Mentor Union
President Tim Baker said:

"All of my members are good cops, so we have no problem opening up the Sunshine
Law and letting it shine in." --- and Wickliffe's Chief James Fox said "But when you
sign up for this job, in a position of public trust, that's part of the deal," Fox said,
"You must accept the fact that your work-related life is a matter of public record."
Attachment 20.

KingCast submits that the residents of the Live Free or Die State should have no less protection
against the government than those of the fine State like Ohio but in an attempt of moderation
offers the model policy which lies somewhere in between.
The potentially adverse law of Manns v. City of Charleston[citation] is readily
distinguished because that request was overly broad as it requested “all information,” rather than
“all records,” as noted in the concurring opinion of Judge Starcher. Similarly, should Defendant
raise ACLU v. Whitman [citation] this Court should grant them no quarter because again, the
Plaintiff’s request was overly broad because his position was that there was NEVER any
protection under a privacy exception. While Plaintiff’s action in Whitman might have been
successful in Ohio or Florid (or not even necessary) this Court need not address that issue here
because the sought remedy provides protections by having the State identify the documents it
TRULY believes are exempt and then visiting the issue to the Court.
This way a Plaintiff has the ability to make arguments to the court after having actually
viewed the documents in question and knowing what is contained therein and how such
information might be relevant to this case.

B. Plaintiff seeks Declaratory Judgment that the 150+ responses sent to the Franconia
Selectmen are public records and that the failure to deliver them makes Franconia out of Rule and
in violation of the letter and spirit of RSA 91-A. See Brian D. Lamy v. NH PUCO [citation].
This is a simple matter. In Lamy the Plaintiff successfully sought copies of complaints against a
public utility company, complete with names and addresses. Plaintiff in this instance seeks only
the substance of the complaints and has granted express authority for redactions. As such
KingCast is entitled to immediate production and Declaratory Judgment.

C. Plaintiff seeks Declaratory Judgment that Franconia Chief Montminy's initial response to
KingCast on the Fox Hill "suspicious" issue violated the letter and spirit of RSA 91-A. Plaintiff
served Defendant Montminy an RSA 91-A request on 2 July that identified McKay’s admonition
to Liko Kenney that “you are in a suspicious place at a suspicious time” and asked for a copy of
any and all police reports that show Fox Hill to be a nucleus of suspicious activity. This Motion
will be filed the first week of September and Defendant has provided no documentation, which is
not in and of itself a violation, but Defendant Montminy’s response does constitute such a
violation, as this was the totality of his response on 3 July:

Dear Mr. King; I am in receipt of your request for records concerning Fox Hill Park
for the past 10 years and/or longer. This will take some time and will involve overtime
cost to have an officer research this request. If you would like to proceed with this,
please let me know if you are willing to cover the expenses.
Thank you,
Chief Mark Montminy
There is no timeframe whatsoever and there is an explicit threat to charge overtime. Both of these
raise red flags because the law reads, in pertinent part:
If a public body is unable to make a record immediately available for inspection, it has
five business days to either: (a) make the record available; (b) deny the request in
writing, giving the reasons; (c) give written acknowledgment of the request and a
statement of the time needed to grant or deny the request.
In point of fact there was no compliance with the Rule until counsel for Defendant responded on
11 July, claiming that if Plaintiff had paid for overtime the documents could be expedited.
Whatever the case, it has now been 8 weeks and still nothing except for the Court records that
Plaintiff HIMSELF obtained from Judge Cyr finding Constitutional violations as noted at the
outset of this Motion. As such, Defendant has violated the letter and spirit of RSA 91-A and
Declaratory Judgment must issue.
D. Plaintiff seeks Declaratory Judgment that the missing use-of-force report and police
report from 2003 constitute a Right-to-Know violation. This is a non-delegable duty and there is
no excuse for a document of this magnitude not to be maintained. Counsel for Defendant
informed Plaintiff on 8 August that he basically had no idea where the documents were and that is
a complete and utter violation of RSA 91-A and Declaratory Judgment must issue. But see Fn 1
questioning if pdf 99-101 is a police report or not and questioning if Defendant failed to identify
it as such because it contains false and otherwise damaging statements from McKay.

E. Plaintiff seeks Declaratory Judgment that a police officer's failure to state his or her
name, badge number and jurisdiction on request (excepting truly exigent circumstances) violates
RSA 91-A. Curiously, McKay claims that he told Liko Kenney his name as noted at pdf. 99-101.
However Liko is heard asking his name and continues to address him as “this or that officer” after
more law enforcement personnel appear so it would seem that McKay never did identify himself
to Liko, McKay never did tell Liko his name, but he DID say:

Approx 20:55:00 "Get back in your fucking car," says McKay..... "Maybe you need to go back to
school......" "You're in a suspicious place at a suspicious time.”

And he even reached for his gun, which is a terrifying thing for a 19 year-old, much less any one
to face as a result of just resting in one’s automobile and demanding to know the name of an
arresting officer. As usual with McKay and a history of negligent retention, another unnecessary
escalation.

********

As such, Plaintiff respectfully asks that this Court find that it is a violation of RSA 91-A for an
officer not to provide his or her

1. Name
2. Badge Number
3. Jurisdiction
When asked by a suspect or anyone unless dire exigent circumstances would make it impractical.

F. Plaintiff seeks Declaratory Judgment that the Defendant Ayotte is required to post the rest
of its investigative files online because of the substantial and material conflicts it presents that are
not represented in its official file. As noted in Section II, Attorney Ayotte actually represented to
Attorney X, with the initials H.B. that The witness statements were all consistent in describing
Mr. Floyd's actions (including the passenger of Mr. Kenney's car).
 That is a blatant falsity. As Appendices C,D, and E show, there are materially-conflicting
statements about whether Liko struck McKay with the Toyota before Floyd shot at him. Floyd’s
son and Caleb both say that he did not, but Floyd, who claimed that PCP was the same as THC
and that he did three (3) tours of Vietnam (he’s 49 years of age) also claimed that Liko hit McKay
twice but that that “tough son of a bitch got back up.” He also said he had killed 43 people and
the AG’s office has known of his violent propensities yet admitted that they have no
documentation that this claim was either valid, or that these kills were in any way conducted
pursuant to official government business. Nor did they even conduct an inventory of Floyd’s
vehicle.
As to Liko running over McKay, his own son said something entirely different.
Briefly:
"They had stopped in front of his arm the first time. They didn't actually hit the officer. Then
they backed up to here and at that time my dad got out…. They backed up to here and the car
went rushing forward and my dad shot at the driver and it hit him and made him stop. The
front end of the car ended up over the officer's chest."
That proves that, contrary to the position of the State, Floyd did not say anything to Liko
before he shot the windshield. Remember however that the State does not even reference the
windshield bullet that may have caused Liko to panic and try to reload his gun, run over McKay
or try to engage in any matter of life-protective activities as he tried to drive home, 800 feet away,
with a face full of OC Spray.
Pp. 867-868 of the PDF file.
Q: "Now I just want to clarify were you actually touching the passenger?"
A: "Yah... I was trying to stretch my hand in there and make sure [Caleb] stayed back."
Q: "So you actually put the gun inside the window I mean is the window open?
A: "Oh yah the window was open."

Page 20/1,000:
"Did you say anything before you fired?"
"No, I didn't"
Page 11 of official report: "
The man said nothing before he fired."

Caleb, Page 700: "When I saw that gun I went down like this and that's all I saw and if I did not
do that I wouldn't be, I wouldn't be here today."
Caleb, Page 701: "He did, did he say anything?" "He said nothing. He started shooting." Of
course later in the interview Caleb is picking glass shards out of his scalp.
That proves that Floyd did not have any conversation with Liko about putting a gun down
before Floyd rained down shots to the interior of Liko’s car
Lastly, remember that Attorney Ayotte’s email to Attorney X also notes that Gregory
Floyd had no idea whether Bruce McKay was dead or alive, which may have bearing on whether
he could or should have used deadly force instead of retreating
Only allowing someone to come to the office to review such files after placing the
conflicting report online violates the letter and spirit of RSA 91-A. See generally Hawkins v. NH
DHHS, which held that "cost is not a factor in determining whether the information is a public
record." Also that trial court correctly ruled that HHS was not required to create a new document.
However, to the extent that the plaintiff requests the Medicaid claims compiled in their original
form, we remand for further proceedings.
The investigative files are not a new document. They exist already and it costs virtually
nothing to put them online with the selected materials that the State has put on line. The
undersigned litigant has placed them online for free an it took all of 8 minutes to do once he knew
where to host it. Also, there is no argument of privilege because that has been waived by
producing the summary, pursuant to Unincorporated Operating Div. of Ind. Newspapers, Inc. v.
Trustees of Indiana University, 787 N.E.2d 893 (Ind. App. 4 Cir. 2003). In that case, Attorneys for
the school, functioning as Trustees, conducted an investigation of basketball coach Bobby Knight.
They subsequently issued a report, but it was a summary that did not contain all of the
investigative files. The Court held that the files must be produced and that any attorney privilege
was void under the principles of waiver because they produced the summary.
The same result obtains herein, and particularly because there is no ongoing investigation
and because even if there was a privilege Plaintiff as a resident of New Hampshire is the client
and he and virtually anyone who lives in Franconia waives privilege even if it existed, which it
does not.

G. Plaintiff seeks Declaratory Judgment that Defendant Ayotte’s failure to provide the email
chain and correspondence between her office and Attorney X violates RSA 91-A. Plaintiff
requested the full chain initially on ___, and Defendant stated that she was not aware of the
identity of Attorney X. Plaintiff noted in a letter sent on ___ that she should obviously know who
Attorney X is, and that it was indeed H.B., but to date no response has issued. Declaratory
Judgment for Plaintiff must obtain. [Note Documents were provided but not timely.]
H. Plaintiff seeks Declaratory Judgment that Defendant Ayotte’s failure to provide a 7 July
2007 email from John P., addressing substantive Right-to-Know issues, violates RSA 91-A. This
complaint is verified and Plaintiff asserts that his letter to Defendant is clear that Defendant failed
to provide this damaging email, which Mr. P. sent directly to the undersigned litigant. Delaratory
Judgment for Plaintiff must obtain.

I. Plaintiff seeks Declaratory Judgment that the failure to provide copies of any and all
correspondence with elected officials violates RSA 91-A. Defendant Ayotte said she will take 30-
45 days to decide if the State will provide the correspondence between any elected officials and
the AG's office regarding this tragedy. Plaintiff notified the State that we would be in Court well
before such time period elapsed. Declaratory Judgment for Plaintiff must obtain even though the
documents were eventually provided after Plaintiff notified Defendant Ayotte he would sue.

J. Plaintiff seeks Declaratory Judgment that the emails to and from the AG's office containing
the names "Liko Kenney" or "Bruce McKay" be provided (1) under the principles of waiver and
(2) because the case is closed and (3) because the Attorney-Client privilege is between NH AG
Ayotte and KingCast, or any other citizen of the State of New Hampshire. As such, KingCast
waives privilege and wants the emails. And the New Hampshire School Boards Association has
stated that government should "Treat all electronic communications as potentially subject to RSA
91-A. Do not put anything in an e-mail you would not want to read in the paper." Attachment 21.
Another State agency has noted that “Sending an email is not happenstance and therefore may be
considered public information.” Id.
Moreover, The Attorney General’s own publication on Right-to-Know at Section III C
“Access to information stored on computers” leaves this issue up to the Court, while noting that
Hawkins dicta supports disclosure: In dicta, the Court states that RSA 91-A does require that
public records be maintained in a manner that makes them available to the public and cost is not
prohibitive in this instance. See generally Hawkins, v. NH DHHS,147 N.H. at 379. And of course
at Fn. 9, the AG’s office notes that even work papers are not automatically exempt from
disclosure because the Court is charged with balancing the competing interests between
disclosure and nondisclosure. Goode v. New Hampshire Office of the Legislative Budget
Assistant, 148 N.H. 551 (2002).
 In sum, RSA 91-A provides that if the state has the documents it shall provide them
immediately unless they are "unable." If a public body or agency is unable to make a public
record available for immediate inspection and copying, it shall, 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. The State waiting 30-60 days to tell
Plaintiff anything further smacks of dilatory water-treading and Plaintiff is entitled to Declaratory
Judgment as a matter of law. Plaintiff did receive the documents after direct threat of lawsuit but
that does not vitiate the dilatory actions of Defendant Ayotte or protect her from Judgment .

K. Declaratory Judgment that NH AAG Jeffery Strelzin intentionally or recklessly

misrepresented the facts about why various taped interviews were not initially provided, which
prompted the Ethics Complaint which immediately liberated them. Here are the facts: Attorney
Strelzin, with the implicit support of Attorney Ayotte under respondeat superior and other legal
principles of agency, made the affirmative misrepresentation that the reason there were only six
(6) audio CDs is because,
"Some interviews were not audio recorded and are memorialized in report form, which is
why the number of actual interviews exceeds the number of audio CDs available."
Plaintiff responded thusly:
Indeed. What or who determined which witnesses were audio recorded? I'll be checking
to see whose interviews appear somewhat buried in the 1,000 page report,"

Plaintiff was fully aware that there were more audiotaped interviews because of his news
network in Franconia. Once we received the new recordings we were able to hear Sam
Stephenson tell the investigators that Gregory Floyd told him that he did 3 tours of Vietnam,
which destroys Floyd’s credibility. Plaintiff had already interviewed Sam Stephenson and knew
the State with not being honest about the presence of his taped recording.
As such, Declaratory Judgment must issue that the State willfully or incompetently
misrepresented the Truth to Plaintiff, thus violating the letter and spirit of RSA 91-A.
L. Defendant Ayotte has failed to respond within rule to the 11 August 2007 query from the
undersigned litigant: Please identify by bates stamp or any other reasonable identifying system,
each and every document from my media kit that you obtained AFTER 22 May, 2007 when I
requested that you provide a copy of the 2007 cruiser video. This is a lawful request pursuant to
Hawkins v. NHDHHS [citation] because it does not require Defendant Ayotte to compile data into
a format specifically requested by a person seeking information under the statute. No, instead it
simply asks when the State obtained that data that it already has provided. Defendant has refused
to identify the date it received documents that are not self-dating and must be compelled to do so.

M. Defendant Ayotte charges $10.00 per each audiotaped CD while offering absolutely no
explanation for such price to the public, as noted by John P. in his RSA 91-A correspondence.
Plaintiff seeks Declaratory Judgment that the price of the taped interviews, at $10.00 per copy, is
excessive and violates the letter and spirit of RSA 91-A because it costs virtually nothing to burn
a copy of a CD/DVD with existing State resources and bulk CDs cost about $.50 a piece.

As such, the Court should compel $9.00 per CD refunds to any and all media who paid the $10.00
cost of admission to this Vaudeville act.

N. Plaintiff seeks Declaratory Judgment that the failure of Defendant Montminy to issue a
response to the Complaint of Ms. B constitutes a violation of RSA 91-A.

O. Plaintiff and Franconia resident Jeffery Jesseman both seek a response to his letters to

Franconia selectmen, as noted by Mr. Jesseman's Affidavit at Attachment___ and a finding that

the failure to provide him an answer to his first letter within five (5) days constitutes a violation

of RSA 91-A(4).

P. Defendant Ayotte made an affirmative representation pursuant to a request for information

in which she said without equivocation: Bruce McKay “never even had his hand on his gun.” As

such, and given that the investigation is over, she must produce any and all evidence that such

statement is accurate given the arguments set forth in the bias section, supra where it is noted that

Floyd and Caleb say that Floyd retrieved McKays gun from his hand and not his holster. How can

she possibly know when he cleared leather?

Was one or both of the windshield shots at Attachment 11 from McKay? Plaintiff seeks

Declaratory Judgment that the paucity of evidence set forward by Defendant Ayotte to support her

contention renders her public statement to be false, deceptive and violative of RSA 91-A.

Q. Plaintiff notes that there is muffled sound in the 2007 video as Bruce McKay drives

South on Route 116 and there are other sound problems and sporadic sound throughout the video.

Through his experience with audio-visual media Plaintiff knows that when you can hear anything

you can bump up the levels to hear everything. Plaintiff also knows that in the 2003 video in the

middle of winter one can hear everything just perfectly fine. As such, and given the

overwhelming nature of pro-police bias and false statements in this case, Plaintiff requests that

the government provide the original VHS dash tape for immediate inspection to be conducted by

a duly licensed, professional, bonded Information Technology or audiovisual expert of Plaintiff’s

choice. It is the ultimate Right-to-Know and to hear every possible thing that may be heard

through sound enhancement and to know that the tape exists in its original form without any

alterations, particularly in light of the lies and deceptions already noted in this case.

R. Plaintiff requested the policies, procedure and protocol for the AG’s investigation of

homicides involving police personnel and was soundly rejected. This is important because as a

former AAG himself, he finds it unbelievable that the AG’s office would not review McKay’s

personnel file and of course in stride make copies of it. Yet the AG’s office wrote to Plaintiff that

they had no such documents in their possession. Interestingly, Defendant Ayotte and Attorney

Strelzin have not timely provided copies of their CV’s as requested by Plaintiff as he vigorously

and lawfully addresses their professional integrity and aptitude.

As such, Plaintiff requests an Under Seal review of the policies by his own eyes because

if there is a protocol of reviewing the police officer’s personnel file then Defendant Ayotte should

have had a copy and provided it pursuant to RSA 91-A and if there is no such protocol Plaintiff

will attempt to get one established. That’s only common sense. Period.
V. Model policy Appendix F.

“Defendant shall be ordered to provide a copy of Bruce McKay's entire personnel file

for review and inspection by KingCast and any and all other members of the media. Plaintiff will

identify the documents he wants to reproduce to the general public. If there are documents that

Defendant believes are actually protected by privacy concerns they will mark such documents

and the parties will visit the matter on the Court, which will maintain jurisdiction. Should

Plaintiff in the interim (or subsequently if the Court sustains the objection) post any information

that came exclusively from those sequestered documents, it shall be criminal contempt of the

Court.

The sequestered documents need not leave custody of counsel for the State, and any

medical issues pertaining to family members that are linked only by way of genetics, or that

clearly have no relation to the officer’s ability to function shall not be sought for publication.”

This Court has the authority to decide that any existing law that blanketly prohibits

disclosure of medical information relative to the performance of a police officer’s job, such as

psychological evaluations or profiles, is inimical to the public’s Right-to-Know.

Public Policy Arguments. Appendix G.

Plaintiff is aware that police personnel are expected to testify in another proceeding in

a manner supportive of Plaintiff’s position in this case that the government was aware of a

dangerous instrumentality in Bruce McKay yet negligently hired, retained and supervised him.

There has been, and will continue to be substantial media coverage of this tragic event

from several angles or perspectives. As such, Plaintiff identifies some of the coverage and has

provided copies of some of the less-accessible piece. In the last week of August, 2007 Plaintiff

ran into the 20/20 crew, with whom he has spoken on prior occasion. They were setting up

directly in front of Tamarack Tennis Camp and looking for Caleb Macaulay. Caleb and Liko’s

friend Oliver Ruff -- a State lobbyist – and Plaintiff spoke with them as noted and drove off.

There is a feature story in the August issue of Boston Magazine “Collision Course.”

There is a letter from a life-long resident who wrote an editorial to the Franconia Selectmen that

was published in the Littleton Courier and a follow-up letter that notes he has received no

response to his first letter.

The Concord Monitor demanded the cruiser video and on 15 August published the fact

that a woman called Bruce McKay a “terrorist” after he brandished a knife near her pelvic area

during a “routine traffic stop.” See Concord Monitor stories and see affidavit relative to Ms. B, at

Attachment 1.

There are now two more affidavits with regard to Bruce McKay’s actions concerning

another complaint that received no response but which allegedly resulted in disciplinary action.

There are 150+ responses from the Franconia Recovery and Reconciliation Committee

whose spokesperson has actually gone on record in the Concord Monitor as stating that she does

not believe it is important to review Bruce McKay’s background or personnel files.

There is a Concord Monitor Editorial of 17 August 2007 “McKay file sheds light on

why officer died.”

The level of public interest in this case mirrors the substantial nature of the underlying

issues involving Constitutional Freedoms and Right-to-Know Law. It is incumbent of this

Honorable Court to bring life to these concerns by issuing appropriate decisions in this case
involving intersection of RSA 91-A and the First Amendment Right to seek redress and to

publicly petition our government. According to the New Hampshire Attorney General's own

website:
In 1976, the people of New Hampshire amended Part 1, article 8 of our
Constitution, reinforcing the existence of a right of access to public meetings and
records, by adding the following two sentences:

Government, therefore, should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive. To

that end, the public's right of access to governmental proceedings and records shall
not be unreasonably restricted. Finally every person interested in government
should understand the ease with which they may go to the Superior Court to seek
enforcement of their rights under the Right-to-Know Law. This guide and the copy
of RSA Chapter 91-A provided in the Appendix offers a firm foundation of
understanding for this fundamental aspect of New Hampshire's democracy.
My Office will continue to promote the public's understanding of the Right-to-Know
Law and compliance with the Right-to-Know Law by public officials.
Very truly yours....... Kelly Ayotte.

Noted Civil Rights Attorney Terry H. Gilbert said of Plaintiff: "There are few more noble

causes that a lawyer can pursue.....lawyers must be on the frontline of that struggle to give

meaning and dimension to the First Amendment to generate ideas regardless of their implications.

To silence opposition seems to be the modus operandi of the state in order to consolidate its

power over its citizens, particularly after 9/11......

I know Christopher King embodies the spirit of those who came before us who have

sacrificed greatly for this cause. He has experienced all kinds of injustice in his young career, and

his message needs illuminated to people as example of what can happen for speaking out in

today's society, even as a lawyer."

Liko Kenney has suffered for exercising his First and Fourth Amendment Rights. Plaintiff

has suffered for exercising his First Amendment Rights, and many citizens of Franconia suffered

for falling into the path of Bruce McKay, and that is why we are here today: The blood of Liko

Kenney and Bruce McKay may wash over the souls of the Franconia Selectmen and NH AG

Kelly Ayotte but this Court has the option to help us move forward to a new and brighter day.
VI. Conclusion and Prayer for Relief.

1. Plaintiff seeks Declaratory Judgment on each and every claim from A-R.

2. Plaintiff seeks Injunctive Relief ordering that Defendants respond to all outstanding
requests for information, including the complaints from Mr Jesseman, “Ms. B.” and
“Citizen L.”

3. Plaintiff seeks a full measure of compensatory damages for the cost of filing and materials
and cost of his time as a law clerk at a reasonable hourly rate and for materials and
filing fees.

4. Plaintiff seeks a reasonable assessment of punitive damages for Defendants’ willful initial
arrogance and continued and pointed intransigence.

5. Plaintiff seeks a public apology from Franconia Defendants for their dereliction of duty.

6. Plaintiff seeks a public apology from NH AG Kelly Ayotte for her dereliction of duty.

7. Plaintiff seeks a finding that Defendant Ayotte’s response to the Attorney X on the issues
of (a) whether McKay had touched his gun, and (b) whether the witness statements
were all consistent in describing Mr. Floyd’s actions (including the passenger in Mr.
Kenney’s car)” were violative of RSA 91-A because of lack of probable cause to issue
such statement (a) or because such statement was incorrect (b).

8. Plaintiff seeks any and all other relief as this Court may deem appropriate, and asks the
Court to assume continuing jurisdiction until all issues are completely resolved.

Plaintiff has continually apprised Defendants of his intentions in this matter and has

provided courtesy copies of this Motion in its current and last iterations so there is no surprise or

confusion regarding these issues. This case involves one of the most compelling issues of our

Time: A double homicide involving a young man who would “give you the shirt off his back”

according to Caleb Macaulay (pdf ___) and two men twice his age and of questionable virtue:

A police officer with a documented history of malfeasance and a PCP convict who

threatened a meter reader with death (a criminal threat case mysteriously dismissed when

Bruce McKay might have been the prosecutor) who lied about his actions and who laughed

and said “I shot him real good.”

 Both men did other heinous things as enumerated in the Under Seal Affidavits and

quite frankly people in Franconia and the Easton Valley are terrified of Gregory Floyd but have

received no help from their government and instead have watched their own State Representative

coddle and protect a known terrorists. Bruce McKay and Gregory Floyd may have been nice to

some people, but to many rational, educated and sensible people they are both terrorists. As such,

Plaintiff hereby requests an expedited docket and hearing schedule as the public trust hangs in the

balance.

Respectfully submitted,

_________________________
Christopher King, J.D.
Plaintiff pro se