Open Letter to Clerk Larry Kane

NH Secret Police vehicle, captained by trooper Joseph DiRusso

NH Secret Police vehicle,
captained by trooper Joseph DiRusso

One week after having my property stolen from me by a secretive enforcer for the New Hampshire state police, I have written a letter which I have submitted to Larry Kane, the clerk of court for the Keene district. I entertained the idea of writing to the judge in this case, but ultimately decided to address the clerk of court. Not being charged with a crime, I cannot file a motion relative to a charge, so I instead exercised my free speech and relayed my issues and requests to the court’s president of paper.

Dear Mr. Kane,

I, Garret Ean, am a member of the Keene, New Hampshire community. On the morning of June 26, I was bicycling in my neighborhood when I was approached by two men claiming to be acting under judge Edward Burke’s authority. One of them handed me paperwork before penetrating my pants pockets with his bare hands, looking for all sorts of items to deprive me of, ultimately settling on confiscating only my valuable videocamera.

When I was free of the undesired captivity of the two strangers, I searched to find out why it was that my property was taken, and why such a warrant exists. As I flipped through the documents, I discovered that at least one attachment cited in the partial search warrant was missing. Specifically missing was the explanation of what constituted probable cause to violate my state and federal constitutional, as well as human rights.

My desire was to file a request for the immediate return of my property, but without knowing the allegations against me, it makes it difficult to know where to initiate dialogue with an entity that is conspiring against myself in secret. My next course of action was to travel to the court, where surely a copy of the full search warrant must be archived. I brought a friend with me who had his own video recording device, so that my exploration into the allegations against me could be objectively documented. After obtaining permission to use his camera from bailiffs, I was refused service at the district court clerk’s window because someone other than myself was filming, as is within their rights. I felt my own right to be serviced by the court was being violated by the receptionist’s refusal to service me.

At the suggestion of a bailiff, I next went in search of the affidavit from the office of the alleged ‘victim’ of the alleged wiretap, city attorney Thomas P. Mullins. His secretary looked over the paperwork, and referred me back to the man who had violated myself earlier in the day, identifying trooper Joseph T. DiRusso as the applicant of the warrant.

I recorded my call to Mr. DiRusso wherein he agrees to meet me at his office to provide me with any paperwork which may be missing. When I arrived at his compound minutes later, the receptionist informed myself that he had left the building but handed me paperwork from him, which was still missing any reference to probable cause of criminal activity.

Later in the day, I returned to the court without a friend or recording device in the hopes that the receptionist would service myself. She had “no idea” where the remainder of the search warrant was. When I asked how a search warrant could possibly be authorized without supporting probable cause, and whether a judge would actually authorize a search warrant without the essential body of the warrant, she stated that she could not speak to what the judge may or may not have done.

After publicizing the story of the secretive heist of my camera by plainclothes state police, an attorney volunteered to investigate why I was not afforded an explanation of the supposed probable cause against myself. Joseph DiRusso was apparently forthright with the attorney in explaining that the supposed evidence against myself was sealed by the court, presumably by the same judge who authorized the seizure. In addition to all of the other offenses against myself, I find it especially egregious that Mr. DiRusso was cagey to the point of dishonesty with myself. Part First, Article Ten of the New Hampshire Constitution states that government is, “…instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men…” In addition, Part First, Article Eight reads, “All power residing originally in, and being derived from, the people, all the magistrates and officers of government are their substitutes and agents, and at all times accountable to them. Government, therefore, should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive. To that end, the public’s right of access to governmental proceedings and records shall not be unreasonably restricted.”

It should matter not whether I am a licensed attorney or representing myself, all agents of government are obligated by our constitution to be accountable to all people, and specifically not responsible only to “classes of men”.

Please consider this letter a request for the following:

1. The immediate return of my Canon Vixia HFR21 camera, in its original state and including all video contained therein unmolested.

2. The immediate release of any sealed allegations against myself.

3. The immediate education of all receptionists at the district court clerk’s office regarding their responsibilities under Part First, Article Eight of the New Hampshire Constitution.

I look forward to having my property returned to me with my recordings unmolested, and will be following up with other members of the community to ensure that the Keene, New Hampshire courts retain the transparency that is vital to our democratic republic. You may reach me by e-mail through or by standard mail.

In Camaraderie,
Garret Ean

cc: Joseph T. DiRusso, Thomas P. Mullins, Esq.

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!

Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x