Nashua Representative Patricia Klee calls victim of PRL abuse a ‘liar’

NH House Rep Patricia Klee lies about victim's story. Photo from Yahoo Beauty.

Yesterday, Political Buzz received several emails from readers that came from one of their New Hampshire State Representatives, Democrat Patricia Klee. The freshman representative made some outrageous statements about a story that was presented as testimony during the hearings for Senate Bill 12, a bill that would end the admitted abuse of New Hampshire citizens regarding pistol/revolver licensing in the state.

Constituents sent emails to Klee asking for her to support SB 12. It’s not so much that Klee refuses to follow what her constituents want but it is the egregious and outrageous claims she made about a woman who was actually abused by her police chief when applying to renew her pistol/revolver license. You have seen the story before and maybe you have heard it in testimony. The Chairwoman of the Women’s Defense League of New Hampshire, Michelle Levell, is the person Klee is referring to in her email. You can read Levell’s story at WDLNH. This is the same story she has told in testimony in front of both the house and senate. She has also provided court documents to both the house and senate committees.

This is the email response to constituents from Nashua Ward 3 Representative Patricia Klee:

KleeEmailResponse

 

Specifically, the issues are with Klee’s outrageous claims (and lies) about Levell’s story with commentary:

Another example was the same woman that has been brought out to speak each time this is debated.

It’s unclear who Levell was “brought out” by to speak. Levell was telling her story because it is applicable to the issues with the current pistol/revolver licensing laws that allow government employees to abuse New Hampshire citizens.

She applied for a conceal carry permit however omitted the address and phone numbers of her references.

This is completely untrue. Levell specifically stated that she including the addresses, as required, on the PRL application. Phone numbers are not required by state law.

She had been called numerous times by the local police to get this information only to be ignored.

Again, this is untrue. Levell spoke with her police department right away when they called. Her police department chose not to send letters to her references as is their job. She talked to them again and they still had not contacted her references.

At the 14 day point they had no choice but to deny her the permit.

Again, this is untrue. Levell was denied her pistol/revolver LICENSE (it’s not a permit) on day 12, before her references even received letters from the police department.

A lawsuit was put in on her behalf that she did not pay for rather became a test case.

This is absolutely egregious on Klee’s part. There was no need for a test case; the New Hampshire Department of Safety has already admitted citizens are abused. This wasn’t the first case nor will it be the last unless Senate Bill 12 is passed. Levell spent thousands of dollars to have an attorney represent her because her police department did not follow the law and wrongfully denied her. Levell had no choice.

She won her case as she provided the court with the references that the police had requested.

Levell won her case because her police department asked for information that was not required by law and the police department did not perform its due diligence in sending out timely reference letters. They denied Levell before her references even received the letters. The court ruled in Levell’s favor, not her police department’s.

Now this case is paraded around as a costly example of what happens when you are denied a permit. I am happy that she was given her permit but somehow I can’t help feel that this whole thing was a setup.

A setup? “Paraded around?” How was it that Levell would know her police chief, after giving her a PRL twice previously (and never calling her references), would suddenly change the rules and deny her because Levell followed state law? How would Levell know that ahead of time to “set up” a test case? What kind of person literally calls a woman who was abused by her police department a “liar?”

The police even testified that if she had given verifiable references as requested she would most likely have had her permit in days rather than dragging this through the courts.

Levell gave verifiable references. The court deemed it so. The police department didn’t do their job.

The ridiculous claims and assumptions by Klee are not only egregious but outrageous. She clearly didn’t due her “due diligence” as she stated in the follow-up email below when contacted by Political Buzz:

KleeEmailExhange

 

Representative Klee didn’t bother to actually answer the questions that were asked, not really even the “canned response” question. It’s also telling that she isn’t going to use the wishes of her constituents for her votes but use her own supposed research. Research that Klee claims to have somehow completed yet her own statements prove otherwise. Political Buzz also sent a copy of Klee’s email to Michelle Levell for a response and received the following:

There are several inaccuracies regarding my 2015 Pistol Revolver License renewal coming from some lobbyists and Representatives. I completed a complete and accurate application, and it was submitted to the same Chief in the same town as my original eight years earlier. The police department failed to contact my references in a timely manner. Per statute, my only recourse was to petition the courts. The entire circumstances, including the judge’s finding, have been submitted to the NH General Court with evidence. If I had any objection to the $10 fee, then it makes no sense that I’d spend thousands of dollars for an attorney to defend my application in court. I resent the gross misrepresentation being perpetuated by these legislators and lobbyists.

Voters elect representatives to not only represent them in the New Hampshire Legislature but also count on those representatives to actually understand legislation that is being voted on in the legislature. It is clear from these exchanges that Representative Klee not only doesn’t understand the legislation but she admits she isn’t going to vote how a majority of constituents want her to vote. This is hardly “representation.”

What’s even worse is Klee not only victimized a woman who was courageous enough to stand up for her rights and then speak about it but when offered the opportunity to re-think her position, she chose to stand by it. Clearly Representative Klee doesn’t quite understand her role as a legislator. Political Buzz agrees with Klee that not everyone will have the same opinion; however, she is not entitled to different facts. Klee is not doing her due diligence as a representative by using alternative facts to make her decision on Senate Bill 12. Her constituents deserve better than that.

Comments

comments