I’ll start with a quick review of 30 years ago when Ms. Faulkner disgraced ALL women (real adult females), veterans, and civilians alike by litigating her way into the Citadel and then dropping out. Look it up if you want to learn more, but I’ll get back to her later.
While sitting in the bleachers for Laurie Ortolano’s trial structuring hearing for her New Market Tax Credit misuse case, scheduled for 8/28-8/30, I thought of the court camera footage I noted in my earlier article.
I also thought about Part 1, Article 8, of the NH Constitution, addressing RTK matters, how House Judiciary member Louise Andrus read it aloud to her peers on 2/1/24 in dissent of the committee recommendation favoring the RTK tax (HB 1002), and my desire to write a follow-up piece on Courtroom 3’s camera footage’s inaccessibility being repugnant.
When I got home, I grabbed my copy of the NH Constitution with the intention of copying Part 1, Article 8, word for word, but my copy is from 2019 when the state house was dominated by scum, and I ran into some pictures that I also find repugnant. Among them were the Damn Emperor, Pignatelli, Cryans, Volinsky, Prescott (who wanted to raise the tolls), Gatsas (though he’s the least repugnant), Shurtleff, Donna Soucy and… (drum roll) …Judge Lynn! I gasped, had to put the book down, and concentrated on avoiding becoming a patient of Dr Sherman. I also found Part 1, Article 8 is rather lengthy to copy here, so I leave it to the readers to consult it on their own and will offer my own thoughts.
I am a Granite Stater, a Nashua taxpayer, and a member of the public and, therefore, should be entitled to access to court camera footage upon reasonable request. It’s not unreasonable as it is not family court involving the privacy of minor children or battered women. I’m even willing to work with the keepers of that video regarding the best way to fetch the file during office hours and bring my own thumbnail or CD, whatever suits holding the file best. Judge Temple’s permission to have access to it should not be required.
Suppose for a moment that I did seek access via litigation and won. I would then watch the approximately 5 hours of Attorney Bolton’s legal Dream Team facing Attorney Leonard on the stand. The quality of such footage is not guaranteed nor is there any guarantee that I find any behavior of interest. If I did, whether Judge Temple overlooked it or ignored it would be another matter. Then, it would become another issue, which would require reporting lawyers and/or Judge Temple to the appropriate bodies for ethics complaints. I’ve been told that such entities designed to receive such complaints are as much of a joke as a fox guarding a hen house. As a nonlawyer and an ordinary commoner, I suspect that all efforts would be in vain, and the result would be one big nothingburger.
So, back to Shannon Faulkner’s answer, the question is, “Why am I doing nothing more on this?” The words Attorney Gens was observed saying to Frank Staples, “Don’t poke the bear,” also come to mind regarding any possible subjective influence on the outcome of Laurie Ortolano’s cases.
If I set out to pursue the acquisition of the footage I rightfully deserve access to, I would be poking the bear, some might argue, thus landing me on another watchlist.
And on a related note to all readers, HB 1002 was unfortunately given a unanimous OTP in committee and is awaiting its day in the senate chamber.
Please email your senator to say it’s a bad bill that needs to die.
