27 May 2006

California Appeals Court backs KingCast in Apple vs. Does case.

Apple v. Does means that teachers who tell me about the abuse at Columbus Public Schools, as noted yesterday -- the same day of the Decision -- are free from Civil harrassment. Listen to the oral argument and read all the documents in the case, formally captioned: O'Grady v. Superior Court of Santa Clara, Cal App. Sixth Appellate District H028579 here at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. I have written EFF several times about my cases, including those Justice Department Securities Fraud Subpoena-answering haters at American Tower Corp. getting reversed by Blogger attorneys after they tricked Blogger into removing posts that they subsequently reposted. I think I also notified them about the NAACP trying to shut down this blawg using a ridiculous "stalking" statute on two occasions (read JPEG 5pp. decision here) despite the fact that their Legal Defense Fund Attorney Victor Bolden, Esq. sits on the Board of the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) with such luminaries as Judy/Blume.

I suppose Bolden and the Board -- many of whom I emailed and received no comment -- obviously support Prosecutor Albrecht's attempts to shut down this blawg, as you can see him the short film "Oreo" argue for that, stating "I know [King] will argue his First Amendment Rights," as if it's a damn afterthought and of no material moment to strip a nigger of such Inalienable Rights in the last state in the Union to Honor Dr. Martin Luther King. I guess it must be O.K. if the NAACP says it's O.K., right?

Overall, then, 7 attempts to shut down this little blawg. Instead I have preserved and solidified the right of little people like me to bring video cameras to Court, as noted in King v. Gloria Timmons et al., NH Hillsborough South 05-217. We've got video from that hearing. The case sounded in Defamation and was wrongfully dismissed because the Court ordered me to produce a transcript that I could not afford and was not going to use at trial. It is an improper and arguably Unconstitutional (Substantive and Procedural Due Process) decision that is under reconsideration and will be appealed to the NH Supreme Court.

I also told my haters about another significant ruling in the same vein as Apple v. Doe, in the 4 December 2005 post, Don't %^^#&@$!! with my @%*%@#!!! Blawg!!! -- in which I discussed John Doe v. Cahill, Delaware Ct. App. No. 04C-11-22 (2005).

A whole lot of so-called liberals hate this blawg, but those who hate this blawg cannot truly consider themselves progressive.

KingCast.net: 21st Century Civil Rights.

1 comment:

Christopher King said...

From the email tip jar from someone whose identity I choose to shield unless given specific approval to reveal:
Hope to hear from you when you have time.

By the way, I do not have legal training so, as you fill me in on how you see this law going, do it for a layman. I would like to use your ideas and opinions in later weblog entry that might be able to illustrate the pros and cons of this ruling.