25 October 2005

First Amendment and Timmons on Trial in Nashua Wed: Malicious Prosecution

This is the second time I have been through this nonsense. As seen in this 27 September post: "Timmons a No-Show; I'm free to protest!" The case of Weiss-Lawrence, Inc. v. James Talcott, 399 F. Supp 84 (D.N.H. 1975) was posted regarding malicious prosecution, and I noted the fact that Timmons should be facing malicious prosecution for filing claims against me (and subsequently not even showing up to court) because she knows I'm not stalking her or physically threatening her. It's these mind-bombs on the Internet that are ripping her up if you must know the Truth of it.

So I am asking the court to specifically rule that I am (1) free to contact any third party not in her immediate family, and (2) the people at the NH Department of Employment Security, where Timmons -- who recently sued them for unlawful discrimination for big bucks -- currently works as a public employee to alert them that I believe she has committed unethical acts in a professional capacity that reflect poorly on an employee of the State.

Timmons, the NAACP and Jaffrey PD put out all matter of outright lies about me, on media owned by clients of local NAACP lawyers, so turnaround is certainly Fair Play. If she's got a Defamation complaint against me then let her bring one, but it is certainly not for any Court to start telling me what third parties with whom I may and may not communicate in this instance unless such parties specifically request that I stop communicating with them -- at which point I always do, the handful of times that such requests have been made. I said it before and I'll say it again: That's the Law in 2005, at least yesterday and today.

Still confused as to why I would portray Timmons in such a negative light? Well if the shoe fits, wear it: Read Nashua NAACP Veterans' Chair Cleaven Ferguson's Affidavit supporting me 100% right here -- which she tried to make him change -- which is witness tampering, but Chief Dunn will no doubt ignore that. Too bad Cleaven won't ignore it on the witness stand under direct examination from my lawyers, or on cross from Prosecutor Albrecht.


Anonymous said...

Do you think your blog will be and exhibit in the hearing?

Christopher King said...

You're darned right. Everything I say on this blawg can and will be used against me by the haters; I choose to use it for my protection.

Q: Are you aware that Mr. King claims in his blawg that such-and-such?

A: No.

Q: Well he does, right here. Do you have any recollection of the email that King has published here on his blawg page?

A: Ummm, could you go to Hell with that blawg?

Q: Ummm, no ma'am it's the First Amendment, see.....

....and so it will go.

Anonymous said...

But what about threatening people, or yelling fire in a restaurant? Surely there are some boundaries to what one can say? One could not threaten to kill someone unless they paid them, right? Not that you have done any of the above, but anyone's words are not so easily defended by the first amendment.

Good luck.

Christopher King said...

Of course not. But what I did was so far from that it is incredible. Arizona has even found the statute to be Unconstitutional in scope. Meanwhile, Timmons has moved for a continuance in my case against them, and they have avoided giving up a Deposition twice, on 19 Sept. and now, for 31 Oct. It is patently abusive and has ruined my entire litigation strategy, which is arguably a Constitutional issue in and of itself.