I also slipped in Fn4: As a relatively militant black man I feel good though even though the Court clearly has it in for me: Unlike La Mar Gunn I haven’t had an election stolen from me, I haven’t been lynched and I never have to set foot in Delaware again, nor will I. The remainder of this case will be heard on paper. Now that’s saying a lot for Delaware, even though AG Denn swears up and down that those five (5) black men all committed suicide, some by hanging by a belt. I have notified Douglas Beatty, Ohio Federal Prosecutor Steven J. Dettlebach and several other groups of people about my concerns in that regard after Detective Jeff Hill telephoned me because some unidentified folks were apparently concerned about my emails. See generally “First Amendment Lawsuits Show Markell, AG Biden, AG Denn Coverup of Black Lynchings” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QibeMFiaxgM
Excerpts from the filing:
First of all, Defendants now claim "....public body law and access to public meetings is inapplicable." (Defendants’ Joint Motion para 14-18, 21 et seq.) Well that is precisely what Plaintiff said, ab initio, while the Court was busy giving him the bum’s rush earlier:
It is the Pomykacz, Cirelli, Iacobucci and Glik cases and their progeny, including Third Circuit’s Montgomery v. Killingsworth, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7152 (January 22, 2015)(ACLU link) that are most germane because they all involve journalists filming public officials in and out of their offices. There’s the a-ha moment of this entire case.
The point is, Defendants and the Court cannot have it both ways: If public body/public meeting analyses are inapplicable now in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, then they were inapplicable in the first place when the Court struck Plaintiff's Constitutional claims and there’s yet another compelling reason for the Supreme Court of the United States to give this case a prompt Remand in the name of Justice. Gotcha.
Next, it is perfectly legal to photograph, video and to criticize police officers wherever they may be, and Judge Young can't cover it up any longer (but he will most assuredly try):
Next, the Court’s Patent Misrepresentation (read: lie) -- about Iacobucci v. Boulter, 1997 U.S. Dist. Lexis 7010, No. CIV.A. 94-10531 (D.Mass, Mar. 26, 1997) is startling:
Iacobucci specifically found that an independent reporter has a protected right under the First Amendment and state law to videotape public meetings and the events that occurred in the hallways of a public building. And quite frankly, for the coup de gras, the Third Circuit understands it as well so Judge Young should recognize that it cited Iacobucci and Glik just this year – prior to Plaintiff filing suit.
The fact of the matter is, if a citizen in the Third Circuit is entitled to politely criticize a police officer during the prosecution of his or her duties, then Plaintiff had dang well better be permitted to ask a couple of polite questions at the County Recorder’s Office. See Montgomery v. Killingsworth, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7152 (January 22, 2015).
Judge Young’s rationale is thoroughly rejected and slammed down to the ground with the force of an illegal police choke hold when Iacobucci is specifically cited in Montgomery v. Killingsworth, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7152 (January 22, 2015).
In Iacobucci v. Boulter, the First Circuit concluded that the plaintiff, Iacobucci, had a First Amendment right to film local government officials who were conducting public business in a public building. ....accord Gaymon v. Borough of Collingdale, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93014 (July 17, 2015) as we shall soon see.
In contrast, qualified immunity was rejected for the remaining First Amendment claim because "peaceful criticism of a police officer that neither obstructs an investigation nor jeopardizes a police officer's safety has strong social value, serving as a valuable check on state power, and is therefore protected under the First Amendment." Killingsworth, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7152, 2015 WL 289934, at *8 (citing Gentile v. State Bar of Nev., 501 U.S. 1030, 1034, 111 S. Ct. 2720, 115 L. Ed. 2d 888 (1991) ("There is no question that speech critical of the exercise of the State's power lies at the very center of the First Amendment.").7PS: Note: There are no private cubicles in Plaintiff’s immediate camera view. Somehow Plaintiff finds this significant but then what does he know: According to Judge Young he’s just a “Guerrilla Journalist,” even though such phrase appeared nowhere in his Complaints. That is because His Honor’s cultural hegemony is showing. Plaintiff will take this opportunity to remind him that the Courtroom is no place for that.
Here is a Motion to Recuse and a Reinstatement of Trial fee: Get this.... Update 17 Aug 2015: Allegedly because my Trial Fee was 12 days late now the Court will refuse to accept any further documents what a joke, right. I will note as much for the record, which the Court will return as well, and I will keep all of the filings for Appeal.
Note that they didn't deem my filings late until 13 August when documents had been received and accepted back on 5 August, so Judge Young clearly saw the heat coming and went Draconian, repeating the mantra "whitewash the file, whitewash the file....."
Whatever they do, the law is out there and everyone can see that Judge Young lied about Iacobucci and inserted items not in the Record to suit his whimsy, i.e. "inner offices" and "private cubicles" and "guerrilla journalist." As I said, it must be an easy life being an establishment attorney in Delaware you can say and do as you please and have people like Judge Young run and get your back 24/7. The joke is really on the taxpayers of Delaware, and the shame is on them, that's the thing of it.
Not that they care because the mantra is "enforce the Delaware Way at all costs," and one negro from Washington State will never change that. I will, however expose their corruption to a few thousand people and cause a little collateral damage along the way and who knows, possibly win an appeal. In the meantime they have have their happy little fiefdom because I have no cause to ever be there again. It's a hell hole owned and run by corporate interests. The Reinstatement of Trial document is here.
Here is the first video about Judge Young and his actions in this case. More to follow.