14 December 2005

The Heavy Hand of the State:


First the Defendants counsel, some of whom have outright accused me of manufacturing and manipulating documents in open court (which we could have seen if the court had granted access) claim they haven't received my Motion to Compel on Gloria Timmons. To that notion I say this:

Then next, the Attorney General's office sends me an Unauthorized Practice of Law complaint without any attachments and expect me to respond to it, then they request my agreement that (former) gallery owner Jackie Ellwood not appear at a hearing because of "travel plans." Here's my Motion to Dismiss (1) & (2) & (3). So this liar can get me implicated in something that carries a $10,000.00 fine and just not appear at my hearing? Pardon my French, but what Hell?.... Wait until I post up the full text of her letter that they still have not provided me. Never mind how I got it. And I say "former" owner because I was there today across the street picking up my business cards from Minuteman Press (see "Lawyerman" movie) and the gallery is gone. All papered-up. Dust in the wind. Whatever. The state never alleges that I've set foot in court to file anything for anybody, so how can it be that a private citizen or duly-elected officer of a Civil Rights "organization" cannot say that she or he thinks that a public entity ought offer recompense -- for a perceived wrong, and/or call a press conference?

The State's Petition acknowledges that I repeatedly said "we may sue," and "we may do this or that," but never that "I" would do anything. Interesting..... All the more so because the NAACP training manual they later provided specifically indicates that the organization, i.e. "we" can sue... and I clearly had Good Faith basis for believing that they would accept my recommendation to do so (1) & (2). Anyway, see Kamasinski v. McLaughlin Not Reported in A.2d, 2003 WL 367745 N.H. Super.,2003 and In re: Tocci's Case, 140 NH 68 (1995).

For crucial background on my 'relationship' with the AG's office, and how Chief Dunn, Peter Heed and Timmons' Defense Lawyer Marty Van Oot are all peas-in-a-podcast, read this 10 Dec. blawg and this 10 Oct. blawg; it might shed a little light on this "complaint."

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

NAACP getting it wrong again
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10468992/

Christopher King said...

That's a Good Story. I'll report back after I digest it more fully. I'm sure my cousin has a few thoughts about it, though, so maybe I'll ask him. Haven't seen him in a while (in person at least) but I would love to have this discussion with him, just as we usedta' argue & jaw 'bout thangs when we were a coupla' yoots.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/03/24/LI2005032400073.html

PS: Mike I'll always be more 'yoot' than you!