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

Constitutional Law

: Chris King's 1st Amendment Page

KingCast Memorandum in Opposition to Respondents? Motion to Dismiss.

By Christopher King

This Memorandum started here with Martha McLeod and now continues so that the American Public can see the deliberative processes and arguments of the Parties. Later today or tomorrow I will address the argument that emails to individual legislators at their publicly-owned and/or privately-owned address are not subject to FOIA/RSA 91-A.

May it please the Court to note the following: Respondents completely fail to address the fact that this is a Constitutional case, even though it is clearly plead on the face of the Complaint, which reads, PETITIONER?S AMENDED COMPLAINT, SOUNDING IN RSA 91-A:3, RSA 91-A:4 AND AS GROUNDED IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES
AND NEW HAMPSHIRE CONSTITUTION ARTICLES 8, 10 and 22.

This is crucial because Petitioner is arguing that RSA 611-C:21 is being applied in a manner that is Constitutionally overbroad with respect to:
a) Petitioner as Christopher King, J.D.
b) Petitioner as media entity, KingCast.net
c) Other unknown and potential victims

RSA 91-A is grounded in First Amendment Law because, ipso facto, it involves the right to question and to Petition the Government for Redress. That?s why it was created. And New Hampshire Articles 8, 10, and 22 all involve the exercises of these rights. New Hampshire Courts have applied the overbreadth doctrine.

See State v. Brobst, 151 N.H. 420, 857 A.2d 1253, N.H.,2004.

If statute is found to be substantially overbroad, statute must be invalidated unless court can supply limiting construction, or partial invalidation, that narrows scope of statute to constitutionally acceptable applications. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 1, 14; Const. Pt. 1, Art. 22.

If statute is not substantially overbroad, then whatever overbreadth may exist should be cured through case-by-case analysis of fact situations to which its sanctions, assertedly, may not be applied. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 1, 14; Const. Pt. 1, Art. 22.

In this case, an analysis of the facts reveals that the way the law (RSA 611-C:21) has been applied leaves Petitioners and others like him in a situation where they cannot even know rudimentary facts about 5/11, such as whether Bruce McKay fired his weapon. Not even part of the autopsy or toxicology reports have been provided, thus we cannot successfully petition the government for redress in terms of the investigation of 5/11 because Respondent Ayotte, as gatekeeper, has locked the door.

Standing: The Right-to-Know laws are provided for each and every citizen to discover what the NH government is doing so that we can gauge the effectiveness of said government. Thus, RSA 91-A is to be liberally-construed, not minimally-construed?? (read more of this draft response in the comments).

Full post as published by Chris King's 1st Amendment Page on October 29, 2008 (boomark / email).