13 November 2005

More amazing Depo. Testimony

Wow. This reads like hell and I'll have to clean it up when I get home from work [9 Feb. 2006 Note: Dear Charlie Bauer, this means formatting, not content, of all people you have some nerve to read this in open court and accuse me of falsifying evidence] but check it out: After agreeing with Chief Dunn that I am a "disturbed / individual" with "fantasies" about my past accomplishments here's what happened:

11 Q. Okay. But can you cite any specific
12 case that I've talked about what was untrue?
13 A. That's not the question. The
14 question -- is.
15 Q. That is the question here.
16 MS. PROULX: I'm going to object.
17 You said can you cite any case?
18 Q. Anything that I've ever talked about.
19 Any story I've ever told, any case I've ever
20 worked on. Can you say that I have told
21 you something untrue?
22 MS. PROULX: So anything you've ever
23 said to Miss Timmons?
24 MR. KING: About any case that I've
25 worked on, right. In other words, my, "Past

2 accomplishments."
3 THE WITNESS: Again, I -- I can't
4 remember any right off the bat, but just our
5 verbal conversation between you and I, you
6 build yourself as this grandeur of a person,
7 which I feel that you're not. And I agree
8 with Chief Dunn wholeheartedly. You are not
9 that person that you say you are. I mean,
10 you betray this -- for some reason you think
11 people should think this about you, so you
12 grand -- what's the word I want to use?
13 MR. BAUER: Grandstand.
14 A. Grandstand. That's a good word.
15 MR. KING: Little help from counsel
16 there.
17 MR. BAUER: She was groping for the
18 -- the word
17 Q. Miss Timmons, you have before you an
18 opinion, at least the first several pages of
19 an opinion from the Ohio Supreme Court --
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. -- dealing with State V. Lessin?
22 A. Mm-hmm.
3 Q. -- where the first check mark is.
4 It indicated that there was a law firm by
5 the name of Friedman & Gilbert and Terry H.
6 Gilbert working on this case for the
7 appellant. And then it further indicates at
8 the bottom of that they are mandating a
9 reversal of the appellant's conviction. Do
10 you have any reason to believe that I didn't
11 write most of that brief that resulted in
12 this reversal?
13 A. I don't care.
14 Q. All right. Thank you.

Then with respect to me securing Jerry Doyle's First Amendment Rights. See "Back in the Day," 13 Oct.

8 Q. So it would be important to try to
9 protect that First Amendment?
10 A. I'm a veteran, yes.
11 Q. Okay. All right. So is there
12 anything where I'm engaging in fantasy about
13 winning this man's case?
14 A. I'm sure you did something good in
15 your life.
16 Q. Actually -- move to strike as not
17 responsive. I'm sure you have, too, but let
18 me ask you, is there anything that's driven
19 by fantasy by this document?
20 A. I'm sure you did something good in
21 your life.

Then for the coup de gras we talk about w'happened when I tried to tell her the proof of what I had notifying her of the suspension issue. Check out Charlie Bauer trying to cop a free feel off of me, too. I shut him down like a virgin:

10 Q. Okay. Great. And now on this
11 document which is subject line, Absolute,
12 irrefutable proof that you knew I was
13 suspended, which was to you and to Hilda
14 Rodgers, who's like the division two chair,
15 the director, Dear Gloria, I think you need
16 to correct whatever was said to Chief Dunn
17 because I have the proof in my hands that
18 not only you, but others higher up than you
19 had actual knowledge of my suspension from
20 practice in Ohio. I have a valid defamation
21 claim against you, but I'm not going to
22 press it if you issue a retraction to Dunn
23 and to me by the close of business tomorrow.
24 I don't want to press it. I wish you all
25 the best, but you have left me with no

2 choice. I'm as serious as a heart attack.
3 I've never been subject to a Grand Jury
4 investigation, and I don't plan on being
5 subject to one now. If you want to know
6 the proof, just call me. I've got it right
7 here in my hands. Very truly yours,
8 Christopher King, JD. So you remember
9 receiving that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Okay. Did you take any action in
12 regard to that e-mail?
13 A. Absolutely not because I have proof
14 that you didn't tell me.
15 Q. Mm-hmm. Ma'am, I believe you did
16 take an action. Let me go to Exhibit-32.
17 MR. BAUER: Before we leave 31, what
18 is this proof?
19 MR. KING: You can ask me that
20 later at my deposition.
21 MR. BAUER: I'm asking you now.
22 MR. KING: I'm not going to tell
23 you now. It's my deposition of Miss
24 Timmons. You'll have your turn.
25 MR. BAUER: I may not use my turn.

2 MR. KING: That's up to you, but
3 I'm not giving it to you now.
4 MR. BAUER: Okay. I just thought
5 you might want to clarify the record.
6 MR. KING: Nope. Probably some of
7 those e-mails that she destroyed that we
8 talked about earlier that she should have
9 kept. Did you get that?
10 (Whereupon Timmons Exhibit-32 was
11 marked for identification.)
12 (Document handed to witness.)
13 MS. PROULX: Oh, 32?
14 MR. KING: 32, yes.
16 Q. So, Ma'am, this is on March 9th --
17 A. Right.
18 Q. -- as well?
19 A. Right.
20 Q. Let the record reflect that I've
21 tendered a -- an e-mail entitled Back From
22 You To Me on March 9th at a time
23 approximately four hours after my e-mail to
24 you where you say, Chris, I am placing you
25 on notice from this time forward to not

2 contact me under any condition. Furthermore,
3 refrain from any transactions dealing with
4 the Greater Nashua Area NAACP. If I receive
5 another e-mail, letter or anything else from
6 you you will leave me with no other
7 alternative but to pursue harassment charges
8 against you. So, Ma'am, are you saying that
9 you didn't write this e-mail in response to
10 the one that I sent you four hours earlier?
11 A. Let me just clarify this. When I
12 got this I could care less what you said, so
13 therefore I wrote that. So let me just
14 clarify this for you. This is exactly what
15 I mean, okay. Don't harass me, don't call
16 me, don't do anything. You got the e-mail,
17 and that's what I wanted. So what you said
18 in the e-mail here that you wanted me to
19 what, retract something? I don't think so,
20 and so therefore I wrote this saying no.
21 Q. Mm-hmm. Thank you very much. You
22 just said you could care less what I said in
23 the e-mail. I'm fine with that answer,
24 Ma'am.


Anonymous said...

What is your strategy. bringing up your prior accomplishments as a lawyer, when you are, I believe, trying to submit that the NAACP leadership knew that you were not recognized as a lawyer by a bar assn

Christopher King said...

Well first of all, we contend that my bar status has nothing to do with this case, anyway: I never implied or told Chief Dunn that I was a licensed attorney; never even used "Esq." behind my name toward him or the Department until well after I was removed from the chair. Any citizen can send a Demand Letter on behalf of anyone. That's the First Amendment. Moroever, for what it's worth, NH has provisions where a non-attorney may indeed represent others in Court. And the reason for the suspension in the first place was crap:


But read deeper; read Chief Dunn's email:




that demonstrates animus toward me by implying that I have no grip on reality and where I have been as a professional. Once he does that, and once Gloria agrees with him, they then have to show where I have engaged in "fantasy" about my background. The stronger my background as a legal professional, the more Good Faith basis I had to know that Willie Toney's rights may have been violated. But if I was in a "fantasy" world, then it looks more like I was trying to extort money without a Good Faith basis in the underlying claim. Get it?

Moreover, the NAACP should have rallied behind me, knowing that someone like Atty/Professor Jacobs said that "racism, ignorance and reactionary politics" played a role in my suspension -- but instead they did nothing, because I rail against many of the big businesses and other institutions with which they are either in bed with, beholden to, or afraid of.

By and Large, they suck.


Anonymous said...

You did sign as a JD, I assume. What is the perceived difference among non-lawyers between JD (which you have earned) and an esq.? To the average person, written on the leeterhead of a national organization, is it reasonable to think that you where a lawyer acting under the aegis of the NAACP as a legal representative of Willey TOney (and by extension the NAACP)? Certainly your argument is no, but what does that say to the public? Is it, sure I will take your case, and I wil screw it up (I mean c'mon, if there is anyone lost in this, its Willie Toney - he chose the wrong advocate - NAACP or you, right?), but its my own problem now that takes cener stage. Jeepers, if at any time you thought that you were building a base with the NAACP in New Hampshire, man, I don't know. Was it all about you back then?

Your circumstance is severe, but I have no idea if W.T. has a case - his case has become more about you than him.

This case is all about lies, which is a sad situation, I hope that truth will be heard - and maybe Willie Toney too.

Focus. Your message is, well, important enough in that it is to keep you out of jail, but outside of your well being, can we find a way to make this better for us all?

The sensational aspects of your blog worry me, like I am listening to a middle age crisis. This is real.

Christopher King said...

Timmons in her Depo. said "J.D." meant nothing, but "Esq." meant licensed attorney. I earned them both; helped a lot of little people (which I still am doing through a law firm, BTW), got the "Esq." taken for a year and fined into oblivion, unfairly, as noted by Lou Jacobs, Esq. so not enough mo-nay to pay to get it back.

Glad you mentioned the lack of attention to Willie Toney. Do you notice on the movie trailer toward the end the reporter writing? Willie met me at court that day and told his story -- this time to the Union Leader the second time he tried to do so (Keene Sentinel first time; there is a blawg about that on 2 July) but the story never ran. But we've got him on video. We tried. And we will keep trying.


Also notice this blawg where I say "All this attention on me - easy to forget what happened to Willie Toney."


Midlife crisis at 40? Ick. I'm having a great time in life, but I suppose there is a crisis there -- but it's not a personal crisis like, "did I live my life right," or something. No, my crisis is, "how can this happen to someone who DOES live his life right," and how can we help to prevent it from happening to others -- lawyers, activists and victims, as well as just ordinary working stiffs.

This is the way. Publicize things gone awry. Make short films about it and put them on the Internet. Make fliers. Take the power back. Like David Horowitz said, "Fight Back!" -- My business cards read: "Your right to speak. Your right to be heard. A new Civil Rights paradigm."

And it is. The powers that be absolutely hate this and must crush it by any means necessary.

I/we must not let that happen.