Remember Daniel Richard’s first State Supreme Court litigation? He sued the legislature pro se and humiliated Attorneys James Cianci (House Counsel) and Richard Lehmann (Senate Counsel) during oral arguments. As part of the overflow crowd, I watched it livestream in the legal library and must say that Attorney Lehmann did a better job of saving face than Attorney Cianci.
I also would later observe that Attorney Lehmann is more user-friendly to the public than his House counterpart, which I’ll get into in a moment.
By now, most readers are up to speed on the Right To Know (RTK) Tax, aka HB 1002, which had an executive session at 10 am today in House Judiciary.
Within a day of the whole House sending the bill back to that committee (re-referred), I sent some RTK emails, which I’ll summarize as requests for all HB 1002-related communications between municipal associations, lobbyists, or any other entities on their behalf and the City of Nashua (including its individual public servants).
The other request was the same but with all the House Judiciary members instead of the City of Nashua. These carefully worded emails were sent hours before business day opening time on Friday, 2/9.
Later that morning, Attorney Cianci sent me a well-worded “legalese” email acknowledging my request. He let me know that it would require some time to respond, which was no surprise. Attorney Bolton, on the other hand, was predictably hostile and slow to answer.
Since it’s customary to reply to an RTK (with at least an acknowledgment of the request) within five days, I followed up with Bolton at the end of (in my opinion) Day 4 and took the step to thank Cianci for his prompt reply days earlier. I also asked him (but not for legal advice) what the law says as to when the clock starts ticking after an RTK request is made.
A few hours later, Cianci, in his own clever legal-speak, replied that he was refusing to answer my question because (as I had acknowledged in my email to him) he doesn’t work for the City and it’s unethical to make comments that could be thought of as legal advice. Um, isn’t a judge’s opinion essentially an interpretation of the law and NOT legal advice? I do remember observing Judges Temple and English telling pro se litigants Laurie Ortolano, and Laura Colquhoun, so, respectively.
So here it is, a month later, and Cianci followed with his findings in response to my inquiry, which I shared with some locals. One of them said the following:
“No, I do not believe his outcome. None of the records came from individuals on the committee, even those received via email. It can be construed that you did address requests to each individual. You are getting the middle finger.
Cianci did not provide copies of the multiple emails I sent to committee members and the committee as a whole. It is good practice to have others send “test” records for circle back to check search veracity. He did, however, provide your own email, which also does not fit your request.
After some thought about this local’s feedback, I got to thinking about emails to and from members of the legislature and that several members do use Gmail or other accounts, presumably as a “91A shelter.” If you visit NH dot gov, you will see that a “leg.state.nh.us” email address is available to the public for all 24 senators, whether or not any one or more of them prefer to use it. This is important because you, the private person, can get your email to them on record. And if you know a 2nd/private address is also used or preferred, you can email both addresses. Easy peasy.
The House, on the other hand, is another story.
Each rep has EITHER a “leg.state.nh.us” address OR (not in addition to) their own private email.
It has been that way for quite some time and hasn’t taken up much space in my mind until now. House Judiciary has two members (Mr. Testerman and Marjorie Smith) who have non-government emails displayed on their home pages, but even more curious is the chair, Judge Lynn, who’s been viciously pushing for HB1002. The ONLY email for him that’s displayed on NH dot gov is his Gmail address.
This makes for an interesting situation because I (or anyone else from the hoi polloi) likely have no admissible way of proving that he’s been reached out to. It also means that anything sent or received involving rjlynn4@gmail.com is likely below the radar.
Considering that I was told that I was being given the finger by Attorney Cianci (by someone known for doing his due diligence and knowing his stuff), I began to wonder if Cianci’s ability to “give me the finger” is based upon Judge Lynn having a Gmail address. Of course, asking Cianci if Judge Lynn’s Gmail is subject to 91A would essentially compare to having faith in a fox guarding a hen house, so I turned to Attorney Lehmann. And because I had predicted HB1002 advancing past the House, I decided to be proactive and turn to Senate Judiciary, which has three lawyers in its membership. One of them is a dumb blonde who mistakes a constitutional republic for democracy all the time and can’t even answer yes-no questions in the chamber, so I only included the two gentlemen with the Chair (Sharon Carson) in my email to Attorney Lehmann.
Before the crack of dawn, I sent that email, saying the following: “My legal question for you, Counselors, is whether or not a non-“leg.state.nh.us” email address is subject to 91A.” Hours later, and as the end of the day nears, I wonder how long I must wait until one of them, presumably Lehmann, replies. Or does one have to initiate litigation (at their own expense, of course) to get an answer in court?
Kind of weird, don’t you think, considering that the person of interest is retired from the state’s highest court?
