31 July 2015

KingCast and Mortgage Movies Present: "Rogue Justice: Former Trial Attorney Trial Atty Rips Judge Robert B. Young in Delaware Free Press First Amendment Case of King v. McKenna."

Cross Post: Piggybank Blog

Well everybody's looking, including the State of Delaware so does that mean that AG Denn is actually going to call me now regarding my complaint, or it is Judge Young reading it and trying to figure out a way to make it all go away?

Note: For you Attorneys, my Rule 59 Motion is here, My First Amended Complaint is here, and I filed an identical Motion for Interlocutory Appeal. Links to many Court filings (including my First Amended Complaint) and the bogus Decision dismissing my Constitutional Claims are here.  AG Denn's feet of clay are noted here, and a nasty Motion Hearing Transcript is annotated here. Here is how other states handle it:  Pomykacz v. Borough of W. Wildwood, 438 F. Supp. 2d 504 (2006), Tisdale v. Gravitt, 51 F. Supp. 3d 1378 (2014), Gravitt v. Olens, (press release) 2015 Ga. App. LEXIS 490 (2015), Tarus v. Borough of Pine Hill, 189 N.J. 497 (2007), King v. McKenna, 2015 Del. Super. LEXIS 323 (2015), Iacobucci v. Boulter, (1st Cir. Ct. App 1999).

In this Revolutionary short film I invoke Peter Finch (Best Actor Award) from the 1976 Network classic as he stands and implores the American Public to stand up and say "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!"

The same goes for this situation in Delaware, where Rogue Justice reigns supreme compared to other area States, and Attorney General Matt Denn's office has failed to do anything more than send me one email regarding my complaint to the Civil Rights and Public Trust section. This even though his predecessor Beau Biden issued an advisory memorandum warning government official that banning cameras is done at substantial risk because the law is evolving in a more permissive fashion. Well it may be, but they certainly don't want some bike-ridin' hippie skinny little negro from Seattle to prove it. We're gonna Keep it Real here folks, and it just doesn't get any more Real than that. 

I also included some footage from successful Georgia Federal Plaintiff Nydia Tisdale's Deposition of Defendant Gravitt and a passage from the court hearing where GA AG Olens sued the government on her behalf for a public records violation when they shut down her cameras. In Delaware I couldn't even get meaningful discovery on what their policy is, nor could I run video in my Court hearing, in blatant violation of Rule 155. These people are complete rogues. How ironic that my first job as an AAG was that of Civil Rights law clerk.

I have friends in law school right now and believe me this video will be discussed in academia for years to come. Not my fault. All I wanted to do was to run a camera the same way I do everywhere else in the Country. I forgot to add to the movie the fact that Alderman Fred Teeboom and I changed First Amendment Law in Nashua, NH when I sent them a draft copy of my lawsuit. That's part of the reason the Mayor gave me that First Amendment Commendation you see in the video. 


Your Honor we are in the midst of a simple case that involves a journalist's right to run B-Roll video in a public building, and to ask a few questions of senior public officials at such building whilst running a camera. The same rights that any citizen has using a pen and paper, unless you want to argue that citizens don't even have those rights in Delaware.

Now you tell me what to do in your court and you point out where I have erred, so I will take this opportunity to tell you the same thing. That is the beauty and the value of the First Amendment and I will never let you or the Defendants forget it. When I walk into your court or Commissioner Freud's court I will give you all the professional courtesy that any lawyer could muster but I will not sit by idly when you in return give me less than that and cut me off in mid sentence when I'm proving you wrong, as did Commissioner Freud regarding cameras in the Court.

Your cultural hegemony is showing in your decision because your decision was not well-principled as we shall see momentarily, but I want you to know that this is not personal... I have been accused of making things personal in my legal career but really it is you who has done that now and I can prove it by showing your dereliction of duty.

So what I expect from you as an impartial jurist is that you will not merely malign me with the pejorative "guerrilla journalist" label that you have used toward me but that you dug up whilst ignoring the plain language of my complaint that referenced my experience as a daily and weekly newspaper writer and editor, Assistant Attorney General, First Amendment trial experience and experience as an escrow attorney.  You didn't even mention the name of my website in your 29 June 2015 Opinion, another clear attempt to marginalize me.

I respectfully decline to participate in that sort of gamesmanship, Your Honor.

Again, you claim to have decided this case on the pleadings but I never called myself a guerrilla journalist so that is your own unlawful bias manifest, creeping in like poison.

Perhaps the most glaring thing that you and the Defendants did was to ignore my then-strongest Federal District case of Pomykacz v. Village of West Wildwood in which a citizen journo was protected by the first amendment after repeatedly shooting public officials at their office at al times of the day and night. 

You then lied about the holding in the Iacobucci case in Massachusetts to say that the First Amendment was not implicated, when it clearly was implicated because he could have been lawfully arrested were it not for his lawful exercise of First Amendment Rights as a reporter.

You also ignored the Attorney General Advisory opinion from three years ago that specifically warned public employees that banning cameras is highly risky because the law is evolving in a more permissive fashion.  As a Jurist I shouldn't have to look that up for you.

And I'm sure you are scheming a way to avoid addressing Tisdale v. Gravitt, in which the Georgia AG Owens and Tisdale's attorneys both sued the government when they shut her cameras down at a public meeting. The Defendants in this case have argued all along that the older public meeting case of Whiteland Woods applies, well suffice it to say that the law is not as clear cut on the issue as you attempted to portray in your Decision. So if you want to say you choose not to follow those cases then by all means do so but don't you ever lie to me and expect me to take it sitting down. I wasn't raised to do that, Your Honor and I won't ever do that, Your Honor, so we understand each other.

In all of these cases, understanding the policy or policy in fact is the touchstone of analysis, yet you and Commissioner Andrea Freud also refused to allow me any discovery whatsoever as to what their policy is, or what their authority was, to deny me the right to run video even as Ms. Tisdale and her lawyer were running video of Defendant Gravitt in her case and putting it on youtube.

But if you want to keep Delaware squarely behind Georgia and Squarely behind NJ and Massachusetts with respect to these free press rights, then go right ahead and do so but don't you dare lie to me or the World public while you do it, and don't ignore what are clearly my strongest cases because I will call you out not only on appeal, but in the Court of public opinion.

Moving on from there you failed to analyse this case on a summary judgment standard even though there was crucial information in the Court file that tends to show the Defendants do not have a legal leg to stand on, most notably their reference to my free press Kelly Ayotte lawsuit, but Sir that case occurred when she was not a public official and the Court ruled that the particular venue was private. You don't have that situation here, and since that time I put it into the record that I routinely shoot Senator Ayotte in public and at her office in the nation's capitol and in NH.  That's not because she likes, me, it's because the First Amendment compels that she not arrest me or threaten to arrest me as the Defendants did in this case.

You also failed to address the fact that Supreme Court Rule 155 clearly refers to cameras in the trial courts, so I will have to sue the Supreme Court in Declaratory Judgment later this year on that.

I've spoken, Sir, whether you like it or not. It's a free country and I'll bear no compunction to do it again as I deem appropriate.  I look forward to a more principled future in this case, devoid of the sort of tortured logic and intellectual disingenuity displayed thus far.

No comments: