10 June 2015

KingCast, Mortgage Movies and Delaware Way's Nancy Willing are Ready for 11 June 2015 Free Press Constitutional Showdown in Betty Lou McKenna Kent County Recorder of Deeds Battle.

25 June 2015 update:

Good Day Counselors,

I look forward to your clients' individual and collective responses.  I can see it now.

You:   "Well Mr. King the Court said it was okay to trivialize your concerns about what authority Defendants had."

Me:    "Yeah, well the Court also said that Rule 155 didn't apply to Trial Courts and we see that's yet another lie."

I know I am driving your clients crazy.  

But that's not my fault.  This was a routine shoot much like I have done hundreds of times in my career. Here's one from 5 years ago relating to the Marinova v. Boston Herald lawsuit where I helped Ms. Marinova obtain counsel to sue the living shit out of the Herald = $.9M settlement after Jury Trial.

I covered that case from start to finish, including the Herald's failed attempt to subpoena me. I often made their lawyers look stupid in the hallways of the Courthouse, but guess what?  

Courthouse hallways are public areas.  I took a lot of those videos down but I think I'll put them back up now, starting with the first day of trial and the failed subpoena.


Subpoena: John McEnroe makes a cameo!

Rick Jensen doesn't seem to get it but Bill Gunlocke and Nancy Willing do. Fortunately, most Courts these days get it too.  Pomykacz v. Borough of W. Wildwood, 438 F. Supp. 2d 504 (2006).

In 2006, a federal district court in New Jersey decided the case of Pomykacz v. Borough of W. Wildwood, 438 F. Supp. 2d 504 (2006)

·       Pomykacz was a self-described “citizen activist” who expressed concern that a suspected romance between the town’s mayor and a police officer were leading to nepotism, conflicts of interest and preferential treatment. These suspicions led Pomykacz to “monitor” the two, which included taking photographs. Eventually she was arrested on charges of stalking, though the charges were downgraded to harassment. Pomykacz ended up filing suit asserting, among other things, that she was arrested in violation of the First Amendment retaliation for her monitoring activities.

·       On the night of October 7, 2002, on her way to Wildwood, Pomykacz drove past the borough municipal building and observed Officer Ferentz working on renovations while she was on duty. Later that night, after Pomykacz had returned from Wildwood, she photographed Officer Ferentz in the police headquarters. 7 Another police officer and  [*508]  Mayor Fox were also present in the police station at the time. According toPomykacz, Mayor Fox came out of the building and began yelling at her. Pomykacz walked home without responding.

U.S. District Judge Joseph E. Irenas noted, 

Pomykacz has put forth sufficient evidence that she was a concerned citizen who at times spoke her mind to Borough  [*513]  officials and other citizens about her concerns regarding the official conduct of the police department and the mayor. Such speech is clearly protected by the First Amendment. 14 See Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218, 86 S. Ct. 1434, 16 L. Ed. 2d 484 (1966) HN15o to the description of this Headnote.("a major purpose of [the First] Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs."); Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 484, 77 S. Ct. 1304, 1 L. Ed. 2d 1498 (1957) ("The protection given speech and press was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.").

That’s all she wrote, folks.  Defendants have one case to Plaintiff’s 5 or 6.

I offered to settle this case on the cheap.  The choices that you and your clients made outlined their fate and the trajectory of this case, which will soon include that Declaratory Judgment Action vis a vis Rule 155.

Best regards,

Delaware Way's Nancy Willing reports on tomorrow's 11 June 2015 Evidentiary Hearing. 

stolen election against La Mar Gunn after he won the initial and 3 subsequent recounts, and unlawfully-trammeled First Amendment/Free Press access.
Free Press lawsuit part one.
Free Press lawsuit part two.

Plaintiff submits, with substantial force, that the public interest in learning about foreclosure fraud is no less compelling than the students’ health in Cirelli. It caused the entire 2008 economic collapse for Pete’s Sake. He was going to film Candidate Gunn at the machines, pulling up fraudulent documents and discussing the FACT that he got Notary Nikole Shelton decommissioned FORLIFE while Defendant McKenna [stand] by with feet of clay, ignoring him. Somehow Plaintiff sees a story of substantial public import there, call him crazy if you must. From Cirelli: 
Although the press cannot command access wherever, whenever, and however it pleases, neither can government arbitrarily shroud genuinely newsworthy events in secrecy. . . . The state's rulemaking power is not absolute: if the first amendment is toretain a reasonable degree of vitality, the limitations upon access must serve a legitimate governmental purpose, must be rationally related [**17] to the accomplishment of that purpose, and must outweigh the systemic benefits inherent in unrestricted (or lesser-restricted) access. 
So the only issue here is whether Defendant had any reason to believe that Plaintiff was going to substantially disrupt the workflow, and given that Defendant Malone stated Plaintiff was there “to address fraudulent documents” the only inference is that he had no intent to disrupt the workplace and barring him from running video at all was at once an unlawful Prior Restraint, Overbroad, and not narrowly-tailored. Simple.(Fn.7)

14 June 2014 email to Delaware Supreme Court Chief Admin William Montgomery and all staff, as well as to the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) a nonpartisan outfit that reached the same conclusion I did. But don't take my word for it, read it right here
Dear Sir et al:

We are in the midst of a Constitutional and Statutory spat in which certain government actors and their private, well-heeled friends are substantially limiting (read: eliminating) camera access by media in the Recorder of Deeds Office and in a Trial Court.

I am not here to ask you about the Recorder of Deeds issue as that will be litigated all the way to SCOTUS if necessary.

What I *AM* here to ask you about is the fact that the Supreme Court seems to have made it more than clear that cameras ought be allowed, specifically in the Trial Courts -- even as Commissioner Freud said no, and cut me off when I went on to explain. The Transcript will be ordered next week.

The language is unequivocal and is hosted on several websites, some owned by the State as well as one owned by the National Center for State Courts, an apparently non-partisan outfit that is copied on this email.

(2) The Bar-Bench-Media Conference, after considerable study, has submitted to the Supreme Court a thoughtful proposal that would permit expanded electronic media coverage of judicial proceedings in the trial courts of this State.

(4) The Court has evaluated the Conference’s proposal, and agrees that an experiment with electronic media coverage of certain Delaware trial court proceedings may lead to future policies that will enable our citizens to become better informed about the important public role served by our trial courts.

My thoughts are noted in the video link below and in my Motion to Reconsider as attached. Further, in the interests of public knowledge in the stated Spirit of the Rule, this email and your response is being vigorously posted online this coming week. Further, there will be a video with this email and all responses set to a voiceover.

I was an Assistant State Attorney and I have been involved in media and law for far too long to suffer the indignities that I am suffering in Delaware and having people post my picture up at guard desks and basically look at me as if I have three heads when I raise this issue. I will simply not stop until every stone has been upturned in my quest to shed light on what should be public processes.

Attorney Hurley over at the NCSC speaks fluid Russian, so I am certain that he -- and those of us of a certain age -- are all aware of the worth of glasnost and perestroika.  I am also certain that he favors the status quo over that of the former Stalinist empire, which seems to be the active model involved in Kent County, Delaware. That is their shame, Sir, not mine.

I look forward to a phone call from you tomorrow, 15 June 2015 on this crucial issue. Because either the NCSC and I are correct, or they have to modify their website accordingly. It's kind of like that line in Gorky Park when William Hurt says:

"They fell into a chasm.... the chasm between what is said.... and what is done."

I have no desire to inhabit any such chasm in the Free World.

"But if anyone can help us move forward as a Court and Judiciary, it is Bill Montgomery."
   - Supreme Court Chief Justice Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Wherefore, please advise.

Very Truly Yours,

No comments: