"I'm down at the end by Silver Lake Park... It sounded like someone was hollering stop stop stop at the park... maybe I hear people, I've turn all my lights on... they were speaking maybe harshly to each other.... It sounded like someone was yelling for help.... There's a car leaving, a white truck leaving...He's laying in my yard he's hollering and laying down he's saying help help... 101 Washington.... Oh my goodness. I don't see any visible injury.... He's said call 911. Apparently he was robbed and they tried to kill him. The white truck left the park. It was a pickup truck. A white truck fairly new. I guess he climbed over the fence I don't know what he's doing... He's all beat up. He needs an ambulance."
(Next call from car to dispatch) "This is Davis in Dover can you start an ambulance to 101 Washington Street it's gonna be a reference to an assault victim who apparently was robbed... we have an officer on the scene now....."
I received the 18 August 2015 Letter from AG Denn and reply as follows:
This is an evasive response and pretty much what I expected. First of all it was not recent, and second, this is a discriminatory viewpoint-based policy (even though the Court has not made them disclose their policy or authority to shutter cameras), and Denn and Reardon completely ignored any reference to the AG Memorandum that specifically warned public bodies the banning cameras is done at substantial risk.
Stay tuned for a Randy Newman/KingCast short film, “Rednecks.”
Furthermore, AG Denn and his office ignored all of the other case law I sent them from every other jurisdiction in similar circumstances where Courts ruled access is protected. So unlike Georgia AG Sam Olens who actually got off his ass and sued for a violation for Ms. Tisdale, Denn has feet of clay as I noted on YouTube because he is Gov. Markell’s water boy and Markell was pivotal in stealing Mr. Gunn’s election, simple.
What is interesting, however, is what was not said in the Denn letter: By completely failing to address the 2011 Memo he did not say that Defendants' interpretation of that letter was correct as a matter of public policy. They want to say that public policy and the First Amendment lean against me because the Recorder of Deeds is not a "public body" but then again neither was the police station where the Pomykacz Plaintiff did her photography, yet and still it was protected conduct under the First Amendment. If you were to limit where cameras could run based on whether the venue was a "public body" then you couldn't record government officials in any public venue, think about it. The Defendants are acting like a bunch of rednecks, and I am offended by that because there's more than a little redneck in me and they are staining the Brand, ahem.
Dear Mr. Hill: