07 September 2005

Timmons dodges discovery; King files for emergency hearing

NAACP Nashua President Timmons was served with Discovery requests, including Interrogatories, Requests for Document Production and Admissions with her complaint, on 15 July, 2005. Her Attorneys' claims that somehow they don't know when the Discovery Requests were issued rings hollow. Not only were they served on 15 July, 2005 they had been online at www.christopherkingesq.com for at least a week or two earlier. These requests were due thirty (30) days later per Rule. Futher, I duly noticed Timmons for a Deposition on 19 September, 2005. Timmons' attorneys called me and asked for an expedited structuring conference, and I agreed only to the extent of further discovery, not that which I had already initiated. They claim that I initiated discovery without the benefit of a structuring order, but nowhere in the rules does it say that such an order is necessary.

But the court, perhaps misled by counsel for Defendant's Motion, granted a stay. Let the record be clear: Never at any time has any of my conduct in this matter indicated that I was willing to let Defendant Timmons off the hook for Discovery requests that are overdue, or her Deposition. I therefore place this Honorable Court on Notice that I request an exigent, Show Cause ruling on this matter because many of the documents I have requested include emails that are subject to purge, and because Defendant Timmons' lies and misrepresentations have led me to face criminal charges of Attempted Felony Extortion. As such, my 5th and 14th Amendment Due Process Rights may have been inadvertently trammeled by the Court as the Court mistakenly believed that I assented to continuing pending discovery. I therefore respectfully request a Show Cause Hearing immediately.

Defendants claim that I have not been prejudiced by this continuance, but none of them are subject to a bogus criminal indictment under a statute with language that has been ruled Unconstitutional in State v. Weinstein, 898 P.2d 513 (1995) under the U.S. Constitution in another venue. See also Becker v. Zellner 684 N.E.2d 1378 (1997), rehearing denied, 690 N.E.2d 1379:
Finally, setting forth a "hard bargaining position," threatening to institute civil suits, or declaring "that one intends to use the courts to insist upon what he believes to be his legal rights" are not actionable. Enslen v. Village of Lombard, 128 Ill.App.3d 531, 533, 83 Ill.Dec. 768, 470 N.E.2d 1188 (1984).

Lastly, I note that in no way would I assent to any continuance when I have evidence that (1), an NAACP President in Louisiana used NAACP Letterhead in a press release to threaten or to initiate suit without NAACP CEO approval, proving that even a man with presidential training doesn't know the rules, and (2) the former head of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund resigned under an ethics investigation for her clearly unethical conduct involving Senator Kennedy's office.

Gloria: sit down before me, quit hiding and and start talking.

No comments: