05 December 2011

KingCast and crew see Justice stained in Federal District Court in KingCast v. Ayotte, NH GOP and Nashua PD Free Press Racial Lawsuit, 2010-CV-501.

Note: They tried to bring in Jack Middleton for the whammy at the end of the 4-on-1 session and he says "Your Honor he can't just say he didn't get his way because he's black." Newsflash Jack, did you happen to notice that about 90% of my support base in Court today was white? And they think race has a part in it as well. They too are sick and tired of oppression your client so readily embraces toward all common folk in general and toward blacks in the specific.

Note: I reminded the Court that I should have been able to file my Third Amended Complaint for actions Defendant Ayotte and Nashua PD committed after I filed my Second Amended Complaint. My case has only been around one (1) year but His Honor allowed an Amendment after two (2) years in TG Plastics v. Toray Plastics2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 81122.

Note: Judge John J. McConnell took the matter under advisement and will issue an Order, I would guess prior to the New Year. He is the visiting Judge from RI after I scared all the NH Judges into recusal..... but I guess I'm not entitled to know why they all scurried so even though I only moved to recuse Magistrate Judge McCafferty, a Motion to which former sitting Judge Paul Barbadoro initially held was "entirely without merit." Right. 

I quoted Justice Rehnquist who noted that allowing black reporters to attend the publicly-advertised KKK rallies in NAACP v. Thompson does not amount to a Fifth Amendment Constitutional taking, as the Defense Counsel almost fooled the Court into believing, before I took the microphone. Read it right here at 648 F. Supp 195 (1986).
In Pruneyard Justice Rehnquist further wrote:
It is true that one of the essential sticks in the bundle of property rights is the right to exclude others.Kaiser Aetna v. United States,444 U.S. 164, 179-80 [100 S.Ct. 383, 392-93, 62 L.Ed.2d 332] (1979). And here there has literally been a "taking" of that right to the extent that the California Supreme Court has interpreted the State Constitution to entitle its citizens to exercise free expression and petition rights on shopping center property. But it is well established that "not every destruction or injury to property by governmental action has been held to be a `taking' in the constitutional sense."Armstrong v. United States,364 U.S. 40, 48 [80 S.Ct. 1563, 1568, 4 L.Ed.2d 1554] (1960). Rather, the determination whether a state law unlawfully infringes a landowner's property in violation of the Taking Clause requires an examination of whether the restriction on private property "forc[es] some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole." Id., at 49 [80 S.Ct. at 1569]. This examination entails inquiry into such factors as the character of the governmental action, its economic impact, and its interference with reasonable investment-backed expectations. Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S., supra, at 175 [100 S.Ct.,
[ 648 F.Supp. 207 ]

at 390]. When "regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking." Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon,260 U.S. 393, 415 [43 S.Ct. 158, 160, 67 L.Ed. 322] (1922).
KingCast: No bullshit allowed.

That's former LE and current Senior Passport Inspector Ralph Holder. Read more about how New Hampshire -- with Defendant Kelly Ayotte's support -- put his black child in an inferior school in Massachusetts, using race as a criteria here. Brian Cullen, Nashua Defense Attorney in my case, had exculpatory EMT report that proved Mr. Holder never assaulted his daughter but he refuses to say when he obtained the report or who provided it to him. Kelly  Ayotte's pal and Veteran's Chair Stephen Monier -- who threatened to call the police on me as I stood on a public sidewalk -- even characterized Mr. Holder as a dangerous fugitive from Justice. That prompted Mr. Holder to issue a Cease and Desist letter (seen in my Objections to Magistrate McCafferty's Report and Recommendations before I made her recuse herself because she worked at Ayotte's law firm with my opposing counsel) shortly before Monier resigned as U.S. Marshal. This is his comment:
"The Constitution cannot control such prejudice, but neither can it tolerate it. Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect."  That's a quote from Palmore v. Sidoti.  a child custody case, but nonetheless, the principle remains across the board when it comes to the conduct of public officials as is the below.  

"Public officials sworn to uphold the Constitution may not avoid a constitutional duty bowing to the hypothetical effects of private racial prejudice that they assume to be both widely and deeply held." Palmer v. Thompson,

Writes Holder: You made an excellent point that in one instance you were actually invited to appear.  Given my law enforcement experience, I believe the police had more than a cursory responsibility to determine exactly why you were be asked to vacate public or commercial property , as opposed to private premises, for trespass.   They owed you a duty to determine why?   They gave the force of law to someone's private biases and prejudices. 


Deets later, I need a nap. I will say this much: Sushi lunch revealed many salient observations about what the onlookers saw as I mentioned certain items, people and issues. Yah, I rode the Triumph up there today..... because the People will Triumph one way or another. What a BEAUTIFUL ride back through the New Hampshire sunset. Riding a motorcycle through New Hampshire is the thing closest to freedom, because god knows they sure as hell don't have any free press up there!

So here's what happened, in a nutshell: I reminded the Court that "hey racists don't call me nigger anymore Your Honor" but that they have other ways to use race as proxy for ideology to separate me as a journo as opposed to all of the white journo. I noted that this case does not occur in a vacuum, and that these are not truly private events because you have a former AG running for U.S. Senate, along with paid advertising to the General Public. Let me tell you what these events are not: These are not GOP strategy sessions. These are not Communion afterparties. Nor is it my GF's son's Bar Mitzvah. At those kinds of events of course you can pick and choose to throw any media you want to out if they show up. But given this context in a National election to an election that is exceeded in importance only by the Presidential Election, the Court is free to say that the Bright Line Standard allegedly sought by Nashua PD Counsel Brian Cullen lies somewhere south of the Grand Ballroom at the Crowne Plaza, but north of Kelly Ayotte's personal home given these publicly-advertised events. 

In voluntarily dismissing my public accommodations claim (I didn't file administratively) for when Nashua PD continued to harass me after I had left the leased GOP/Joe Arpaio area the the Crowne Plaza I told the Court: "The larger issue is the fact that they continue to bother me at Crowne and at the VFW John McCain rally even though I was following their instructions. At that point you have to leave me alone, let me do my job and just shut up.... and every time they bothered me Your Honor they were trammeling my First Amendment Rights as a journalist to gather news and to write my story."  

And I know more than a bit about unlawful use of Police authority both as a former AAG and in private practice, in Isreal v. Roades and Hensley I got those LE busted for making my client a victim of violent crime, V96-61481.

And I reminded the Court that the rationale for not allowing me into the Joe Arpaio "steak out" public invite rally shifted, and shifting rationale is but one way to show that the proferred legitimate nondiscriminatory rationale is pretext for racism. First I was allowed in explicitly as a journo by Defendant Di Lothrop and Defendant Dennis Hogan, Nashua Republican Committee Chair who is also County Attorney. He knows me well. Then Defendant Ryan Williams informs me that I am not a journalist then Di Lothrop does a 180 and says "you are not a member of the media" and THEN she says "this is a private event."

I says they are full of it. Watch the movie, it doesn't lie. But they do every time they open their mouths.

Also I noted that an RSVP to the VFW John McCain/Kelly Ayotte and my acceptance constitutes thereof constitutes a contract pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1981 (which must be applied and construed liberally as a remedial Civil Rights Act) and that it is impossible for me to have more proof of racial animus on than what I have at this point because I have not yet had any discovery. For all I know the Republican policy on indie media is to let all of us in. Now if they are breaking with policy the trier of fact could find racial animus. Also Kelly Ayotte's past actions toward me as an AG might not be actionable under prosecutorial misconduct rubrics but they can still be probative of racial animus, particularly when coupled with the fact that she now continues to lie to me and to avoid doing anything about the forgery of my name to a mortgage even though she says in video that she would do something. (More coming Tuesday morning).

I reminded the Court that Kelly Ayotte and her Chief of Staff John Easton lied in collecting public money to defend this litigation by stating that I had filed frivolous lawsuits, which is actionable in and of itself.

I reminded the Court that Nashua PD blew it on application of Trespass laws against indie journo Dave Ridley and private citizen Mike Gannon in light of Glik v. Boston.

Addendum: On further review, these are some precious photographs. Wait until you hear what folks are saying in the video. The Big Dog lawyers, including NH Bar Association President Jennifer Parent, all scooted out the side door, I figured as much and they made their front door sortie on Dave Ridley video already anyway, as noted in a link I will soon post.

Also, Ridley is pissing me off... he now says my material is so dense he doesn't understand it, and will not be attending my hearing, but he certainly understood it a few months ago as noted in his own video. And his lawyer Seth Hipple, I could damn near feel ice in his veins when I asked him for a copy of Ridley's acquittal/NG Verdict. I dont' think he even gave it to me, I think I had to get it at the courthouse, whatever dude. Anyway I'll tell you why later, but I've mentioned it in a prior post. Either come correct DR or don't come at all, I have no time for any half-stepping bro. Like Judge McConnell, I'm a Case Western Reserve Law Grad and we don't play like that, we get straight to the business bro. We're also ranked above Kelly Ayotte's Villanova. Read this background entry.

-The KingCaster.


Anonymous said...

Can you tell us the Defendants' or Judge's arguments against everything you said? Why did your argument not win? Were your arguments proven false or ignored?

Also... The paragraph that ends with the word "Ralph" - is that a quote from Ralph? Or from the judge?

Why didn't you win? I'm not finding an answer in this post.

Christopher King said...

The Court took the matter under advisement.

The comment is from Mr. Holder as now noted.

I have filled in about as much as I can recall at the moment but will later scan a copy of my folder notes during the event. They are a trip.



Christopher King said...

Someone in DC is up early and reading:

P Street NW between 7th & 9th


Service Provider Corporation ( [Label IP Address] 194 returning visits
New York, United States

(No referring link)
6 Dec 06:50:18

(No referring link)
6 Dec 06:51:30

(No referring link)
6 Dec 06:51:45

6 Dec 06:51:57

Anonymous said...

You're saying that you did not lose yesterday? Based on your title, I understood (and have publicized) that you lost, and the case against ayotte is over and dead.

You're saying "justice was stained" even though you did not lose? How was it stained?

I apologize if everyone else gets it and it's just me that doesn't.

Christopher King said...

Whomever you are, please do not publicize what I do not say.

I say we saw stained Justice because the entire case has been tainted from the get go when Landya B. McCafferty and my opposing Counsel Jennifer Parent (NH Bar President) and Jack Middleton (founding partner) all neglected to tell me that Her Honor worked for their firm of McLane, Graf less than a year after Defendant Ayotte did.

Please correct your statements accordingly,


Anonymous said...

Anonymous back in tha house:

When I read that the other NH federal justices recused themselves from your case, I laughed really hard!

It was my guess that they anticipated receiving the same negative publicity they saw you give Justice McCafferty and the other judge after her.

Their thought process would go thusly: Anxiously anticipating that your negative publicity was coming would justifiably taint their opinion of you as a plaintiff. And that would be really unfair to you. Therefore, in order to benefit you, and you alone, they all recuse themselves.

(Ain't they saintly?)

They can delay and delay and delay justice for a good long time if they ALL do this to a plaintiff.

Standard lawyerly tactic when you cannot win on law: Win on civil procedure.

Michael Holman said...

Not Negative Publicity, but wise moves by judges who don't want to be associated with blatant collusion or conspiracy, "whomever you pretend to be". Ayotte is a loser anyway, she has several battles where the cards are stacked heavily against her, crimes against African American males, of which I would bet you are not......I am laughing harder.

Anonymous said...

Michael, my post was entirely in favor of Mr. King, in case that was unclear.

I have been crying racism since the white woman smacked Chris' camera with her paper, and in response the police threatened Chris with arrest.

No - that's wrong. It was sooner. It was the day Ayotte's security guy said (and later testified) that he was "uncomfortable" with Chris - AFTER CHRIS HAD WITHDRAWN TO THE SIDEWALK. WHERE THERE WERE PROTESTERS WHO DID NOT MAKE HIM "UNCOMFORTABLE". That hit it out of the park for me, and would for a jury. IMO.

I am white as a saltine CRACKER - so I know exactly what is meant by Monier's feeling mysteriously and inexplicably uncomfortable. It is pure racism.

Michael Holman said...

Maybe you can ask the "other" media why they refuse to cover a legitimate legal battle regarding an elected official, with judges recusing themselves left and right......

Christopher King said...

Yah it's a joke, right. Remember how Joe McQuaid and the Union Misleader were all up in my grill when they thought Kelly had snubbed me out when I was NAACP Legal Chair, then McQuaid ran away like a puppy that peed itself, taking his bigoted little Editorial off the web... but not before I snagged a copy of it.

You've seen it, right?


Christopher King said...

PS: But in actuality this is the response you get from some people. I was a guest speaker at NENPA last year and I disagreed with Bob Holt, a photo journo I respect very much.

He was saying "you're becoming the story," and I was saying "that's not my fault bro."

Jeezlouise, like I'm supposed to suffer this kind of treatment gladly, I think not.


Dean said...

Give em hell, to many in government only want the friendly msm involved. Racism is still alive and well, sadly, its great to see it being fought:D