08 June 2011

KingCast (almost, maybe kinda sorta) sits corrected: Civil Rights cases do go to trial in NH District Court, see Frank v. City of Manchester, 2009 CV 389


Update: I got schooled so I went back to Pacer and now I am thoroughly confused. See the top thumbnails from January and this comment from the 6 June Request for Jury Instructions: 

Defendants, through their attorneys, submit the following proposed jury instructions 
pursuant to Local Rule 16.2. The defendants note that cross-motions for summary judgment have been pending for several months, and depending on the ruling on those motions, the defendants may withdraw or augment these requests........

Writes Plaintiff Frank:  No!!! There was some sort of false start a few months back. I believe a partial ruling may have been deleted or snatched back. Summary judgment has not been decided upon even though the final pretrial statements date has just passed.  The City's attorney and I both noted the missing 800 pound gorilla of no summary judgment in our June 6th individual pretrial statements submitted that day. Seriously. What about pretrial June 14th?

Hey your note about things actually going to trial is the question of the day. Our cross summary judgment motions are from Nov 15th, I assented to a 4 month delay in February.

In this journal entry I questioned whether cases actually proceed to trial, but I see that Judge Paul Barbadoro DENIED Summary Judgment in Frank v. City of Manchester, 2009 CV 389 in which the City denied Mr. Frank a vendor's license because of unproved criminal accusations in which he was found Not Guilty. The proposed Jury instructions were filed on Monday 6 June 2011. Whether said denial is Constitutional or whether it is knee-jerk sua sponte ultra vires hack policing from a force that loves to beat the crap out of innocent people like Chris Micklovich and the other bloke who recently settled with them remains to be seen.

In my Free Press Racial case I am waiting to discover just why in the heck Magistrate Landya B. McCafferty refused to disclose her association with opposing Counsel from McLane, Graf et al.

No comments: