Senator Kelly Ayotte

Senator Kelly Ayotte

Monday, July 25, 2011

KingCast video: Mike Ganon Demands 2011 Exculpatory Evidence of Nashua PD First Amendment Beat Down, Macing.

You newbies best review FBI Semper Fi Post #1.
Savage Nation producer Eric Steele and I were having a chat about this and other troubling Banking Mortgage Fraud issues (see Mortgage Movies Journal) today.... more on this later. Meanwhile, Mr. Gannon and I even rode our motorcycles in the rain (apologies to Billy Joel) to Nashua PD to deliver our requests. Movie coming tonight. For now read the Semper Fi FBI journal entry from last week and read today's RSA 91-A Demand, above. I didn't read Mr. Gannon's Demand for Discovery but I know he basically hand wrote it, and Demanded access to the video. 
At one point in the lobby as you will see, I clarified that he doesn't even need to gain physical access to the video but that I will record it for him.
I will then turn over one video card to Nashua PD and keep 
one for Mr. Gannon and the World Public so that they can see I have not altered anything. Simple. Shouldn't be any need for litigation right.... but I bet that there will be litigation, and as a former LE Attorney I will be more than happy to bring it to them. City Attorney Brian Cullen is getting salty with me now that the FBI might investigate, not my fault. Read today's email exchange below the fold.

Brian Cullen to me
show details 3:08 PM (2 hours ago)


I responded to your July 5 and July 10 91-A requests on July 11.  By that same email, I noted that the City required 30 days to determine whether your July 11th request for what you termed at the time the
“kiosk” video would granted or denied. That response complies with RSA 91-A:4.  I would ask that you refrain, therefore, from announcing to your lengthy distribution list (many of which addresses are not even active, I learned from my prior reply all, so presumably are kept by you to give the appearance of a broader circulation than you in fact have) that I am not complying with the statute.  To the extent that you have buried requests in your blogs or other places, I do not read your blogs in depth, so if you have a request to make under the statute please do so by separate and properly identified correspondence.

With respect to the “kiosk” video, I take it that you are referencing video from the Canal Street substation.  I have concluded my review of this request (three weeks early) and have learned that no such video exists.  Therefore none can be produced to you.

I did receive today a copy of yet another 91-A request from you, dated 7/25/11.   I note that the 4 requests repeat aspects of prior requests, and therefor appear to be interposed only to increase the burden to the City rather than for any proper purpose.  As to the non-repetitive aspects of those requests, the City will require 30 days from today to fully review the requests and determine whether the documents you seek exist and whether the request will be granted or denied.  Please note in this regard that to overcome any privacy concerns of the Gannons I will require notarized releases from each. 


Christopher King to Brian
show details 5:16 PM (19 minutes ago)

Let me break it down for you Brian:

1.  Don't get salty with me because the FBI may investigate your abusive client. Pamela Reynolds is about to come down to Boston to file with the FBI as well, and the bar guy at Peddler's Daughter better watch his step lest he wind up getting popped for forgery when your client turns over the 2011 video as required by law. He's trying to make nicey with the boys in blue so he can get a break when his drunken patrons cause problems, don't forget I was resident attorney for a night club Brian I know The Game.

2. I am making my record for litigation, and you should appreciate the fact that I have assembled one distinct cartridge of information that will serve as Attachment A, including all of the substantive analysis from Maryland under almost identical statutes in a very similar situation. There is nothing needlessly duplicative about any of this, and if your client is upset about the amount of money that is being spent I would recommend you advise your client to quit beating and macing people without just cause, and as I stated in the video "Put your f______g guns down and quit threatening civilians."

3. None of my requests are "hidden" anywhere, they are all there plain as day and denoted by headline and bold print and yes your client is indeed tardy with that copy of my 2002/3 complaint. I am being a gentleman about it but do not test my patience or your client will find itself facing a lawsuit for failure to comply with RSA 91-A. I don't know what the holdup is on the request for my own complaint,  which is clearly subject to production, I remember the Ramy case right off the top of my head, I want to say his name is Brian Ramey.

4. I have no need to make my circulation appear broader than it is off of some government emails chain.  I've got more business developing now across the Country than I can deal with already as you are about to find out, and I just got off the air with a large network out of California.  I told you and your client in today's video, the beatings will continue until the morale improves.

5.  The Gannons will be more than happy to add notary to the releases your client already has.

Thank you for your continued attention to these concerns.


  1. Lamy, Brian Lamy it is:

    Consistent with Goode, we avoid any "categorical rule" that would exclude the derivative use of requested information from consideration. Ray, 502 U.S. at 178. We agree, however, with the courts that have held that when the derivative use of information is the only public interest in its disclosure, it has little weight. Although there might be some public interest in knowing the names and addresses of residential customers who filed voltage complaints with PSNH, the central purpose of the Right-to-Know Law "is to ensure that the Government’s activities be opened to the sharp eye of public scrutiny, not that information about private citizens that happens to be in the warehouse of the Government be so disclosed." U.S. Dept. of Justice v. Reporters Committee, 489 U.S. 749, 774 (1989). When the sole public interest in disclosing the information is only tangentially related to the central purpose of the Right-to-Know Law, we decline to accord it great weight. See City of Nashua, 141 N.H. at 473.

    ....So the guy couldn't get the identities of people who complained but only the substance of the complaints because of privacy issues.

    ....Well guess what? None of that applies to me getting a copy of my own Complaint.

    I will sue the living shit out of these guys if they don't provide me a copy of my Complaint.

  2. used to think these guys weren't taking me seriously.

    Such is not the case.

    They took me seriously from the get go, that's why in my Free Press Civil Action KingCast v. Kelly Ayotte, GOP, Nashua PD et al. they went and got Kelly's old law firm who used to employ the Judge (Landya B. McCafferty) to go to battle with me.

    They know that I know the goddamn law as well or better than any of them jointly or severally, they are just hoping that the friendly Judge will make it all go away.

    What they did not anticipate is the growing interest in all things that KingCast and Mortgage Movies covers.... Municipal and Judicial and banking corruption, the whole nine yards.

    I have been there, done that.

    I went to their schools.

    I got their degrees.

    I worked their jobs.

    Now I expose their active and willful malfeasance.

    And they hate every minute of it, but the beatings will continue until the morale improves. From the looks of it, I've got job security until I choose to retire, hahahahaaa....

    -The KingCaster.