In a previous article, I noted that I thought Attorney Celia Leonard was being coached by Attorney Bolton and his hired legal Dream Team on Wednesday, 4/10. The next day, I looked for a camera in Courtroom 3, as Mr Buckmire, the head of security advised me to mention in my request for footage.
I just called the number given to me, (855) 212-1234, and wound up frustrated. It was the same variety of frustration I experienced when Attorney Lehmann said that emails to and from individual members of the legislature are NOT subject to 91A, Gmail, or NH dot gov addresses alike.
Frustration has many varieties, though not necessarily 57 of them. One of them is being told to pound sand by the stewards of information being sought. I also mentioned how the police academy’s 10/13/21 raw video footage’s availability to the defense counsel was delayed for almost 20 months, even though Attorney Gens requested it.
My frustration was similar in that I was essentially denied also, but such frustration was compounded with my follow up questions being thwarted with repeated interruptions by the person on the other end of the phone. I will explain.
My call was answered by Pat, who introduced herself by name only. It was one of those countless cases, public and private, where the caller tells the long, detailed story to the call answerer only to be “cold transferred” to a coworker chosen by the answerer as the one most fit to field the request.
I did not have Laurie Ortolano’s PARTICULAR case number handy, my bad, but I offered the dates and other information Pat might find helpful, considering Laurie has/had multiple cases. I even said I would like to write the case number down so I could reference it in the future when asked. Unfortunately, I was unable to get that information despite repeated attempts to get it from both Pat and the person Pat cold transferred my call to. Neither of them was interested in what customer service experts call “identification and acknowledgment of the customer’s request.”
A whole separate article could be written on how such expert consultants would advise the CSR to let the customer finish explaining the reason for the call/visit. Then the CSR reiterates back to the customer what the problem or request is, thus establishing an understanding of the customer’s objective in the encounter. I’m aware that we’re all human beings who often do things less than perfectly, but such training would benefit both the public and the people employed to handle calls made to (855) 212-1234.
My ex-BF, an electrical engineer, would always say that the more moving parts there are to something, the more opportunity there is for malfunctions. While I hate to point out that a man was right, especially him, he was indeed right, no matter how many trees were falling in the forest at the time.
There were too many moving parts to my unproductive phone call to discuss and still keep this article short, so I will only focus on a few. One of them was the second person I spoke to relentlessly interrupting me. A few times, I had to resort to interrupting her back with a “pardon, I would like to finish, please” to answer her question, steer her back to the nature of why I called, or properly clarify my follow-up question(s).
The second person thought I WAS Laurie Ortolano. That mistake was on one or both of them, not me, and I politely pointed out that I was not. She also thought I was talking about another case with Laurie as the plaintiff. When she mentioned the Supreme Court, her error was obvious. She told me several times that there were several cases involving Laurie, but she obviously wasn’t listening when it was my turn to talk because I acknowledged several times that I was aware of there being multiple cases.
As noted earlier, I expressed interest in the one that was in court last Wednesday and would like to write down its case number. Deaf ears were definitely on full display throughout the call, so I ultimately took the high road and ended the call with a “no sense in barking up the wrong tree, but thanks for the information you gave me and have a good day” instead of complaining about her attention being a real “moving target” during my line of questioning. I will confess that I did throw in an “I think I’m done here” with my parting comment, but I stand by it. Let’s get to the takeaway item I learned.
I was told that they don’t just give out camera footage to anyone requesting it, media or otherwise. The request has to be filed as a motion by one of the parties involved in the case, and Judge Temple has to approve it. Laurie has another case on Thursday, 4/18, which is about the City’s misuse of New Market Tax Credits, so I’m not going to bog her down with my suggestion to motion Judge Temple while she’s preparing for it.
A reader might ask why I wrote this, and I have a few thoughts. One of them is that I have a greater appreciation for Frank Staples insisting on doing all his own courtroom recording. Another is that I’m glad to have heard during the robo greeting that my call was being recorded (presumably and hopefully for training purposes) when I called (855) 212-1234. And lastly, it’s another example of the RTK frustrations our government creates all by design. Consider this another reminder to tell the Senate Judiciary Committee that HB 1002 is a bad bill and needs to be killed.
