8/6/2019 KingCast v. Nashua PD RSA 91A Warning Letter - Mike Gannon 2006 Home Videotapes of LE Misconduct

1/3

1

11 July 2011

Re: RSA 91-A Requests on Mike Gannon videos 2006/2011.

Dear Brian,

I have reviewed your RSA 91-A response denying production of the illegally-seized and wrongfully withheld video from the abusive 2006 actions of NashuaPolice. Before you continue with my response I suggest you take time to reviewthe 4 August, 2010 Time Editorial by Adam Cohen:

CASE STUDY

Should Videotaping the Police Really Be a Crime?http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2008566,00.html

LE is often beating up on bikers and as a life-long biker Im not having it.

In Anthony Grabers case the Court opined:

"Those of us who are public officials and are entrusted with the power of the state areultimately accountable to the public. When we exercise that power in public fora, we should

not expect our actions to be shielded from public observation. 'Sed quis custodiet ipsoscutodes'("Who watches the watchmen?)." Read the Decision for yourself because Im goingto cite to it when I sue:

http://www.aclu-md.org/aPress/Press2010/Court_Opinion_092710.pdf

It is the KingCast position that the same rationale applies in New Hampshire.

I find your arguments less than compelling for the following reasons:

8/6/2019 KingCast v. Nashua PD RSA 91A Warning Letter - Mike Gannon 2006 Home Videotapes of LE Misconduct

2/3

2

2006

1. Lodge v. Knowlton, 118 NH 574 (1978) does not apply in this case. As Ialready made clear there is no case law that supports the notion thatthe police have any reasonable expectation of privacy when standing

just off the sidewalk on someones front porch, particularly with respectto the audiovisual materials that were recorded after Mr. Gannonspecifically and verbally told the officers he was recording them. Youwrote:

..as their release would constitute an unwarranted invasion ofprivacy of not only Mr. Gannon, who you represent has consentedto their release, but the officers recorded on the video, who havenot provided you such consent.

First of all you already acknowledged that Mr. Gannon consented, so

that point is moot. The Consent of Mr. Gannon, along with the sameConsent and Waiver by his wife and their son is all that is required.

2. The Publication of Juvenile records is controlled by RSA 169-B:37, whichprovides that the records may be released is the conduct was constitutea felony if it were the act of an adult. I dealt with this when some idiotnamed Denise in New Jersey wrote Kelly Ayotte and complained aboutthe fact that I published Greg Floyds extensive rap sheet, including thesale and distribution of PCP-laced marijuana.

Notwithstanding all of that, Mr. Gannons audiovisual tapes are not

considered a juvenile record, ab initio.

3. Lastly there has been no finding of fact or law that Mr. Gannon violatedRSA 570 A:2 and in point of fact that case was basically dismissed, ornol-prossed. And as I have already noted, the Statute was not violatedbecause the police had no reasonable expectation of privacy for thereasons previously noted.

Therefore I am reviewing more law in anticipation of an RSA 91-A lawsuitwith respect to this matter. Moreover, as a side note, if and when Mr.Gannon sues Nashua PD for an ongoing course of conduct those tapes will be

available to him at such time.

8/6/2019 KingCast v. Nashua PD RSA 91A Warning Letter - Mike Gannon 2006 Home Videotapes of LE Misconduct

3/3

3

2011You write:

Moreover, there is a pending investigation and prosecution as to whichthe referenced video is evidence, and which could be compromised by

the release of this evidence to you at this time.

There is no opportunity to compromise anything because the tape will beviewed at the Nashua Police Department under Police care and custody.

Moreover -- and you may consider this a new request that can beaddressed coterminously with the one issued 5 July, 2001 Under RSA 91-AYour clients are to provide a copy of the footage captured by the cameraslocated on the Adjunct Police Station on Canal street, 200 from the area ofthe 1 July 2011 unlawful and Unconstitutional assault on Mr. Gannon.

The conduct of Nashua LE is not much better than what we see in the RaymondHerrise shooting, but at least they have an excuse because they did notprovoke the initial altercation.http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2011/06/new_video_of_raymond_herrise_s.php

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXpMzT5yGp8

And they definitely provoked the altercation in this instance, as the witnessesnoted in this mornings KingCast video that is being forwarded to the FBIbecause of Nashua PDs ongoing obsession with abusing people who catch themon video:

FBI Nashua NH Police Abuse Mike Gannon 2006 2011witness statements

http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2011/07/kingcast-tells-nashua-pd-attorney-brian.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Uq60c-FskU

I look forward to your response and yes I will let you know when I have the

lawsuit drafted so that you can have time to establish whether that is yourclients Final Answer.

Christopher King, J.D.http://KingCast.net -- Reel News for Real Peoplehttp://MortgageMovies.blogspot.com -- Documenting Deceit617.543.8085/m617-507-8031/f