17 November 2005

Court shuts down blawg & website; King takes Dunn Depo. 18 Nov.; Euro Correspondent evokes Stalin

First watch my new short film, "A Day in Nashua: Rappin' with Prosecutor Goulden," from Gloria's failed "Stalking" attempt. At the news I am about to present, my European correspondent cringes and says, "This is just like Stalin's regime," said Sabine (identity withheld at present). So we're gonna have dinner over it soon; get ready for her to get the word out to Europe where she used to work as a journalist and film maker.

Well folks Charlie Bauer threatened not to provide Chief Dunn for the properly-scheduled Deposition tomorrow unless it was clear that sworn Deposition Testimony would not be placed on this blawg. Say what? Well the court gave him his wish, pending a hearing on 5 Dec. So since I can surmise from yesterday's failed attempt to revoke my bail that Jaffrey PD et al. read my blawg every day, I'll say this: Attorney Bauer should bring his client in, and I will follow any and all applicable rules of court. Those rules may, and should, change pending the 5 Dec. hearing and/or my interlocutory appeals. I am effectively shut down from countering the negative images the Defendants have put before millions of people using WMUR and other media.

I note that the Court's order mentioned that the sworn testimony that I filed in its entirety of the Gloria Timmons Deposition may be used only for "dignified" pleadings relative to the case. What does 'dignified' mean? If I am right about them conspiring to beat me down for voicing an opinion about Willie Toney and the NAACP -- and this email and this 14 Nov. blawg certainly leans in that direction -- then each and everything they have filed is 'undignified.' As I noted yesterday, my blawg clearly runs the gamut from cogent, highly-intellectual discourse to a few smut pics thrown in on 5 Nov. because the NAACP found it more important for me to investigate a titty bar than the claims of Willie Toney, since neither complainant had allegedly produced a written complaint to the mis(organization).

That smacks of unlawful viewpoint-based prior restraint and I will not rest until the matter reaches the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary. As I make the point in my new short film "A Day in Nashua: Rappin' with Prosecutor Goulden" Jaffrey PD, NAACP and WMUR -- who is represented by NAACP/Timmons/Levesque's attorneys, took my film maker's copyrighted work right off of my website and spun it in a way that had scores of people telling me "man, looks like you're going to jail," based on raw conjecture and unsworn statements, but now I cannot even post straight-up testimony that I have filed with the Court as a public record? What about Thomson v. Cash, 117 NH 653(1977); In re Petition of Keene Sentinel, 136 NH 121 (1992) and Douglas v. Douglas, 146 NH 205 (2001) holding that even finacial affidavits of private citizens who may not be public figures are public record.

Note that Orr & Reno, who represents WMUR, argued on behalf of intervenor Associated Press on that one: The person seeking nondisclosure has a heavy burden to meet; must demonstrate that a private right would somehow be affected such that the public's derivative First Amendment Right to know is outweighed. There is no such concern in this case. Willie Toney's case has come and gone. If there is any pending criminal matter to come from Chief Dunn's Depo. I obviously would not post a blawg about that. I'm gonna see if I can get a copy of Orr & Reno's brief to use it against them now :)

The antidote to speech you don't like is more speech of your own. Get your own blawg, if you want. If you think that the speech is defamatory (which your own Deposition testimony could never be) then you file an action sounding in Defamation. But you can't suppress the speech that you don't like, just because it shows you in a negative light, particularly when it came from your own mouth.

Note: If the Defendants had at any point in time indicated that settlement was a possibility and requested that we keep things confidential, I would have done so; done that many a time in my career; made many a client happy.

PS: Dunn counsel Charlie Bauer, to whom I directed several exculpatory emails months ago that have not been produced yet, had the nerve to imply that I don't know the rules of evidence that will govern tomorrow Deposition, talking about the limits of relevancy and a bunch of other hot air:
News flash: I studied evidence under Paul C. Gianelli, Esq , the professor who "has contributed most to Ohio law and the Ohio bar."

I used to talk with him late night on the phone while my clients and I were receiving arbitrary and capricious rulings in Ohio; he and I did what we could, but the onslaught continued. Thank goodness I've got video of much of that, too. It's all coming -- unless somehow some court rules that I can't talk about that, either. You just never know these days.

No Justice, No Peace.


Anonymous said...

A copy of the court order/hearing notice concerning the suppression of publishing the testimony here would go a long way to making you more credible. Full disclosure (which is your mantra, dude) and proof of the state's alleged attempt to silence you would be a the most telling evidence of the injustice you are fighting. Otherwise, who knows?

Can not make out the post mark on the letter - no big deal, but why would you not put this before the court as evidence of Police harrassment and intimidation - a friend of Dunn's allegedly wrote it, someone who hangs at a club you go to. If so, someone is watching you. I would put this in front of the court, make it a part of the official part of the case file. Or is it just BS you fabricated? Proof is proof, counselor.

Christopher King said...

I'll post a copy of that order as soon as I get it; I called the court and had them read it to me; it just came out.

Postmark is from Manchester, NH and it is entered in the record as Exhibit 1 of Dunn's Depo.

Of course he claims no knowledge of anyone who would do such a thing.

As to fabrications, I point you to the updates on this case above, as well as the issue of the confidential informant that Chief Dunn made Gloria Timmons privy to, but not me.

And as to further fabrications, as I told attorney Bauer yesterday: "If you catch me in a fabrication I'm sure you'll report it directly to the court," as he keeps trying to imply that my website-cached documents are incomplete or false. Dunn even implied that I altered an email he broadcast to about a dozen people where he says "You are obviously a disturbed individual, with fantasies about your past accomplishments."

Doesn't he know that an expert can prove he sent that?

Or were they just wasting my time, increasing the cost of the Deposition? I said that's what they were doing for the record -- not that any of you are allowed to actually see that until after the 5 Dec. hearing, of course.

Anonymous said...

Good luck in December

Christopher King said...

Thank you. We will know shortly. I believe that my First Amendment Rights already have been trammeled. If I had inquired about Timmons (who is a public official as a construct of law now from the Stalking hearing) regarding private matters and published that portion on line I could potentially see an argument.

But I didn't, and I haven't and I wouldn't. Even then it would be an issue of prior restraint, viewpoint and content-based, no?