still at 437, odd, i feel like it watched it, perhaps i'm mistaken markusmuley 40 minutes ago
Maybe you didn't watch it, perhaps you have lived it as well & just thought you watched it Meanwhile go to my journal page and read my Motion for Rule 59E Relief that Judge McConnell slammed in 3 days so the Defendants did not have to even issue a response. Note how what the Court wrote that I complained of bore no verisimilitude to what I actually wrote in my Complaint. Look for a video at Case Western Reserve law school alumni ass'n I don't care we went to the same law school he covered up.I will file my Notice of Appeal in timely fashion and continue on to see how the next court treats this matter. This is the sort of thing that really should not happen in American Jurisprudence but Courts disfavor pro se people, especially when they question Authority. It doesn't matter that you graduate from the very same law school as the Judge, or that you were a former Assistant State Attorney or that you have gone past Summary Judgment to Trial Several times in your career (i.e. Belcher v. ODHS 48 F.Supp 2nd 429). What matters is that you are a PROBLEM, a fly in the ointment and you will lose almost every time regardless of the merits, even if the Court has to ignore half of what you wrote in your Complaint in order to slam you. Anyone reading the Decision would take me to be some bumpkin who just fell up off a damn turnip truck and that is just the way the Courts like it. I will politely continue toward SCOTUS.
It is easy to give the government politicos and police a win when the court leaves much of your case on the cutting room floor. I simply won't stand for it. In reviewing p. 10 of the Decision note how the Court omitted the fact that Defendant Hargreaves allowed a white GOP woman to slap Plaintiff’s camera while admonishing him (Plaintiff). Note how the Court omitted the fact that
Plaintiff only “felt compelled to leave or be arrested” AFTER Nashua PD and run him out of the foyer area as well as the leased space. It is a simple fact of law that Nashua PD had no right to threaten arrest at that point yet and still they did and it is in video as provided to the Court, yet the Court overlooked this crucial fact.
This is how Plaintiff’s para. 30 actually read, with Plaintiff reinserting what the Court removed. It makes a huge difference:
30. Nashua PD Officer Hargreaves expressly told Plaintiff he was being ejected from the event because of “the people running the event “ – which was the New Hampshire and Nashua GOP. Hargreaves drove Plaintiff out of the entire Crowne Plaza under threat of arrest even though the GOP did not exercise dominion over the building, even though Crowne Staff said they were not throwing Plaintiff out and even though Plaintiff told him on video, “this is a place of public accommodation… I can chill here and get a sandwich, right?” Hargreaves never retreated from his position and Plaintiff felt compelled to leave or be arrested.
Then at the VFW the Court whitewashed and omitted the facts by noting only that Plaintiff was instructed to stay on the sidewalk when in point of fact that Complaint clearly alleges that Plaintiff was singled out amongst white people who were NOT on the sidewalk and who were closer to a backing car than he was. All of this activity occurred as Plaintiff was attempted in the prosecution of Plaintiff’s duties as a journalist, as he was trying to ask Candidate Ayotte a question about the unlawful DNA testing she allowed against New Hampshire children.
Let us review exactly what Plaintiff alleged rather than the limited summary offered by the Court. Again, it makes all the difference in the World.
44. Lieutenant John Fisher spoke out of turn as Plaintiff attempted to ask Candidate Ayotte a question about Unconstitutional DNA testing, as the video clearly shows other white people closer to a loud, backing car than Plaintiff. Fisher admonished Plaintiff on the backing car and did further continue to caution him to remain on the sidewalk, even though Plaintiff had never once left the sidewalk.
45. One may clearly see that other white people were closer to the backing car yet Fisher said nothing to them because he was too busy harassing Plaintiff, such that Plaintiff was not able to ask another question of Candidate Ayotte, thus his First Amendment Rights to speak AND to gather news were at once chilled and trammeled. Of course as previously noted, Defendant Fisher is being sued in this Court at this very moment for lying about a vehicular incident more tragic in nature that resulted in the death of the actual driver. Gorsuch v. Fisher et al. 2010-CV-495.
The problem with the Court’s analysis is that by gerrymandering the Complaint and just flat out deleting salient portions of Plaintiff’s allegations, it makes it appear that Plaintiff is only offering conclusory diatribe when in point of fact there are distinct issues of disparate treatment that got buried. The actions of Defendants, once the Court accurately reads and reflects what was truly in Plaintiff’s Complaint, clearly provide a Jury with enough factual backdrop to find that Nashua PD unlawfully trammeled Plaintiff’s First Amendment Rights to gather and to report news irrespective of race, but also contemplative of race.