17 April 2006
NAACP Trial: Listen to Nashua NH NAACP President Timmons lie under Oath.
This post is a follow up to two prior entries, one from 16 April 2006 "Happy Easter for Perjury" and my 6 January 2006 entry "Timmons tells another goddamn lie," in which I noted how I had a copy of a CD where she told Willie Toney "real lawyers don't just ask for $65,000.00... they ask for millions." When she said that to Willie she was talking me down and trying to get him to say negative things about me as a wrongfully-suspended lawyer and Civil Rights advocate. But he later figured that out. So as she faces Defamation charges from me, it is most certainly material to the case.
As usual, she effn' lied and Attorney Proulx, also a liar, tried to cover. She's going to catch an ethics complaint pursuant to In re Feld's case, 149 N.H. 19, 815 A.2d 383 (2002) for reasons I'll explain later. Let's pick up the action on page 145:
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.
22 Q. Okay. Thank you. For the record,
23 Ma'am, have you ever had any experience with
24 police abuse cases --
25 A. No.
2 Q. -- personally?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Okay. Let's move to 17. And
5 didn't you tell Willie Toney that real
6 lawyers don't just sue for 65,000, real
7 lawyers sue for millions?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Really?
10 A. I have the tape.
11 Q. So do I.
12 A. No. You don't.
13 Q. Yes, I do.
14 MS. PROULX: Did you say we're going
15 to an exhibit?
Well I do have the tape: It goes like this, at about 9:55 in:
"If you feel that your Civil Rights have been violated, normal legitimate lawyers don't go for 65 thousand, they go for really high they go for millions." At once she lies and shows her ignorance. Real lawyers may well start a case like this at $65K to see if they can get something done reasonably with someone with a drug/criminal history and no palpable/bodily injury. But equally as important, she told yet another lie and it's key under State v. Sands, 123 NH 570 (1983), Sands v. Cunningham 617 F. Supp 1551 (1985), State v. Hutchins, 144 NH 669 (2000) [Defendant’s claim “nothing of a sexual nature happened”] potentially actionable, and State v. Gates, 17 NH 373 (1845).
Here's why Proulx catches the ethics complaint... per Rule 3.3 Candor toward the Tribunal and 3.4 Fairness to opposing Party and Counsel: Timmons says she had the tape. That means Proulx listened to the tape. And Proulx heard and read the Deposition Testimony yet still did nothing to correct Timmons but instead "orchestrated, assisted, counseled and tolerated the formulation of [an] inaccurate" discovery response, per Feld, supra -- which carried with it a one-year suspension from practice. Even though the State of New Hampshire will likely let her get away with it because they are too busy violating my Due Process Rights, that would equal mine!
King: Bugs, Ogre.