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 part trois; McLeod and Kilpatrick, two peas in a pod.

By Christopher King

Dear Representative McLeod: In case it was not already clear, I find you less than trustworthy in any measure and respectfully request per RSA 91-A that you forward me any and all emails to and from your private email account in which you discuss HB 1428 Bruce McKay highway with any non-family member constituents.

Dear Senator Gallus, take a look at this, willya?

Just a couple of corrupt and deceitful, lying government employees sucking the lifeblood out of the American Democratic process. Carefully review the case law in the beginning of the comments section, where the State tried to slip totally irrelevant law involving an ecstasy drug dealer into play in this case, only to get confronted by the cold, hard facts.

As to that dirtbag Kilpatrick the AP story in today?s Boston Globe read in pertinent part:

?At a time when this city needed transparency, accountability and responsibility, you exhibited hubris and privilege at the expense of the city,?

-Wayne County Circuit Judge David Groner, sentencing Kwame Kilpatrick to four (4) months of hard time in jail.

Note that Kilpatrick?s emails and text messages provided the backdrop for his downfall, and they were indeed released, as noted in the Huffington Post http://tinyurl.com/56n83g and, well, everywhere?? contrary to the cited law of Respondents at p.11 of their Memorandum in Support of Dismissal.

That case law is not even on point, however. First of all, the general principle was to ?treat every email as if it were subject to disclosure,? as noted by the NH School Board Association webstie. Moving on to an analysis of the case law, then:

United States v. Forrester, 512 F.3d 500 (9 Cir. 2008) involved reasonable expectation of privacy in emails. Respondent wrote: (?persons have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of their emails?) but that case found that a criminal defendant in a drug case (ecstasy) has no reasonable expectation of privacy. Nor does a deceitful legislator. Here is the relevant headnote?.(see comments for that and four (4) distinct sets of acts of material malfeasance and deceit by Respondent McLeod)....

Full post as published by Chris King's 1st Amendment Page on October 30, 2008 (boomark / email).