I never signed no damn constitution. Other assholes did that.

On the Court Lobby, Rule 1.4 of their district court rules use the words "in the courtroom" and "a proceeding" quite often. What's never mentioned is the lobby. Unless under very special circumstances, there are no proceedings that go on in the lobby. Edward Burke has lost his mind when he (or whoever wrote the words on paper, as nobody is standing up to say I wrote it since it's not signed) drafted legislation and ordered the men with guns to hurt people who don't follow along with his little fiefdom.

I have never understood the basis for the distinction you make between authority over the court room and authority over the adjacent lobby when it is occupied by court personnel and equipment performing the court security function.

But I expect that you and your lawyer will put forth a strong argument at your trial, and then we will get some clarity.

Regarding RSA 91-A:4 VI pertaining to records of court settlements, the main point is records retention. Other documents could be destroyed on any time length, but the minimum for these documents is 10 years. Your position seems to be that "available" is the same as "available for immediate inspection and copying." You might be right, but you might not be. As a practical matter, if you were to request access to court settlements, and they asked you to put it in writing and come back in two days, and you went to superior court to file a complaint, which receives priority handling, and if the city responded that Suzy the deputy clerk who knows where everything is was off on a personal day, and that they would have the stuff ready for you the day after their response, do you really think that the court would order them to respond faster? I don't.

Of course, the details of the law are really immaterial to the morality of the situation, but it certainly does appear that they violated their own rules — as well as moral laws, which goes without saying.

This is also not an educational how-to video, as that would be boring to watch and would be almost pointless to make. If somebody wants to do this they would have to look up local laws if they were not in NH, and reading the statutes before hand is a must.

I didn't expect blueprints to be available. 5 days is reasonable. On the settlements you left something out Curt. It says "shall be kept on file at the municipal clerk's office and made available for public inspection"

Is in a box in some other warehouse down the street the what you would consider "on file at the municipal clerk's office"? By getting to the person responsible for the records it saves a go around with the lower clerks.

The city has responded BTW, they need to know the specific records I'm looking for.

Wow, they must have thought this was my first rodeo. Now I'm going to have to give them another 91-A Request to make sure I understand what records are available. This would be so much easier on them if they would stop fighting.

My comment was only about 91-A. I have direct experience with 91-A, complying with it myself and expecting others in my town to comply with it.

I don't have much experience or knowledge about laws for or against video recordings in public places. I have no reason to dispute the impression I have gotten from you and others that it is generally OK to do it in places open to the public, although I think that the 1978 constitutional amendment giving judicial rules the force of law might play into your situation with the court. So I don't defend the "no video" sign in the clerk's office or any of the efforts to stop you from videotaping. But none of that has anything to do with 91-A. 91-A clearly gives you the right to photograph or video a document. It does not address capturing people or conversations in a municipal office.

Regarding your requests:

The request for architectural plans of the Keene District Court clearly falls into the category of stuff that they can take up to 5 days to respond to. I'm sure you didn't expect that somebody would just walk to a file cabinet and just pull them out. I don't even expect that the city clerk even has the plans on file. You might have to go to the city facilities department or something. You kept talking about a "custodian of the records." If your expectation is that one person is responsible for all of the records of the city, that is not correct. Each person or office is responsible for complying with 91-A for the records that they have.

Regarding the request for records of court settlements, you seem to think that "available", per the section pertaining to court settlements, means "available for immediate inspection and copying", per the section about all documents. I'm not convinced of that. They are required to keep such records going back 10 years. It's quite possible that some of the older stuff is in a back room or off site, or that the one person who knows where the stuff all is is out sick on the day you visited. If they respond within the statutory 5 days, I don't think you will be able to make the case that they were not in compliance with the statute.

RSA 91-A:4 IV. Each public body or agency shall, upon request for any governmental record reasonably described, make available for inspection and copying any such governmental record within its files when such records are immediately available for such release.

Yes not all records are available for immediate inspection. If the records are reasonably described, then they have 5 days to gather them if they are not "within it's files"

Unfortunately they have no choice on keeping lawsuits and other documents on file and available for immediate public inspection. It's kinda like a "Shall issue" concealed carry permit. They have no choice, but don't let that stop you from making excuses for the criminals. . .

Of course this completely misses the point that cameras simply cannot be banned from the office. What excuse do you make for them handing vital records on the phone at the front desk, and taking notes where anyone could see them. Should they be able to ban cameras so they can continue violating even basic privacy precautions?

Here are the first three portions:

I. Every citizen during the regular or business hours of all such bodies or agencies, and on the regular business premises of such bodies or agencies, has the right to inspect all public records, including minutes of meetings of the bodies or agencies, and to make memoranda, abstracts, and photographic or photostatic copies of the records or minutes so inspected, except as otherwise prohibited by statute or RSA 91-A:5.

I-a. Records of any payment made to an employee of any public body or agency listed in RSA 91-A:1-a, I(a)-(d), or to the employee's agent or designee, upon the resignation, discharge, or retirement of the employee, paid in addition to regular salary and accrued vacation, sick, or other leave, shall immediately be made available without alteration for public inspection. All records of payments shall be available for public inspection notwithstanding that the matter may have been considered or acted upon in nonpublic session pursuant to RSA 91-A:3.

II. After the completion of a meeting of such bodies or agencies, every citizen, during the regular or business hours of all such bodies or agencies, and on the regular business premises of such bodies or agencies, has the right to inspect all notes, materials, tapes or other sources used for compiling the minutes of such meetings, and to make memoranda, abstracts, photographic or photostatic copies, or tape record such notes, materials, tapes or sources inspected, except as otherwise prohibited by statute or RSA 91-A:5.

III. Each body or agency shall keep and maintain all public records in its custody at its regular office or place of business in an accessible place and, if there is no such office or place of business, the public records pertaining to such body or agency shall be kept in an office of the political subdivision in which such body or agency is located or, in the case of a state agency, in an office designated by the secretary of state.

This certainly seems to indicate these records shall be kept on file and made available for recording immediately. As you note, however, section 4 provides provision for records which are not on file.

My interpretation of this is that the records specifically listed must be available for immediate inspection, but that other records may not be — they may be made available after a few days.

I certainly do think it's ambiguous, though.

RSA 91-A:4 IV. Each public body or agency shall, upon request for any governmental record reasonably described, make available for inspection and copying any such governmental record within its files when such records are immediately available for such release. If a public body or agency is unable to make a governmental record available for immediate inspection and copying, it shall, within 5 business days of request, make such record available, deny the request in writing with reasons, or furnish written acknowledgment of the receipt of the request and a statement of the time reasonably necessary to determine whether the request shall be granted or denied. If a computer, photocopying machine, or other device maintained for use by a public body or agency is used by the public body or agency to copy the governmental record requested, the person requesting the copy may be charged the actual cost of providing the copy, which cost may be collected by the public body or agency. Nothing in this section shall exempt any person from paying fees otherwise established by law for obtaining copies of governmental records or documents, but if such fee is established for the copy, no additional costs or fees shall be charged.