05 November 2010
KingCast open letter to Kelly Ayotte, McLane Graf, and Judge Landya McCafferty in 2010-CV-501.
May it Please the Court and Opposing Counsel:
As noted in this afternoon’s email, I do not plan to seek recusal of Her Honor. I do wish to point out that the background of the participants is relevant and in the spirit of Open Government it is important to know when background material might potentially give rise to a conflict. There’s not doubt that former U.S. Marshal Monier, a former Police Chief, may be biased against me because I regularly harsh on bad LE.
Similarly, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the specter of McLane, Graf all over this case – Defendant Ayotte, Attorneys Middleton, Parent, Judge McCafferty, her predecessor Judge Muirhead – might have an undue influence on Her Honor. It is not unforeseeable to believe that Attorney Middleton and others at McLane, Graf past and present helped her obtain her position by way of positive reference. However, I have studied her cases throughout her career and realize that she is able to see many facets of a diamond so we're going to stay right here.
I know that my Internet friend arrestajudgekit takes a more sardonic view of things, and if I were indeed the paranoid, knee-jerk reactionary some paint me out to be I would file for full disclosure and/or recusal.
But instead I put my faith in the system and hope for full candor from everyone going forward, because that is the only principled way to operate. If Her Honor makes an adverse ruling, or decides not to give the Jury the question of liability based on the NAACP cases of NAACP v. Thompson, 648 F.Supp. 195 D.Md.,1986 vis a vis Invisible Empire of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Maryland Chapter v. Town of Thurmont, MD. 700 F.Supp. 281 (1998) (at leagle) then I will appeal toward SCOTUS and I imagine you will do the same if I prevail. To me a permit is a permit, and discrimination based on a Fundamental Right is discrimination based on a Fundamental Right no matter whether it occurs in Maryland, Montana or New Hampshire, and you are aware of course that Thompson was decided under a Federal First Amendment analysis as my case is plead; the NH First Amendment is just niggardly in its protections if read strictly. You've got your work cut out for you to oppress my Free Press Rights regardless of where Judge McCafferty is from, I'll say that much. Because it's not where you're from, it's where you're at.
At any rate, let’s keep it simple, keep it open and keep it real, and have a nice weekend.
Very Truly Yours,
Christopher King, J.D.
KingCast.net -- Reel News for Real People.
Addendum and Objection to Report and Recommendation: Her Honor was arguably charitable to Defendants when she characterized part of my racial claim as being the result of an "acrimonious relationship" with Kelly Ayotte. It is indisputable, however, that this "acrimonious relationship" occurred in a racial context. Indeed my full testimony was that Kelly Ayotte and Martin Dunn mounted Unconstitutional First Amendment challenges to me as Legal Chair of the Southern NH NAACP. The NAACP is of course a minority, predominately black Civil Rights Organization, and Kelly was trying to eliminate a First Amendment voice from that Organization. It will be vigorously-argued in Summary Judgment proceedings because it is far more specific and germane to this discussion, particularly because it was another First Amendment NAACP case -- NAACP v. Button
371 U.S. 415 (1963).
"You mess with the bull; you get the horns of embarrassment."
See the Motion to Dismiss that effectively ended the bogus cases against me, I wrote that with former Hillsborough County lead Prosecutor David Horan as I schooled him on reaches of the First Amendment.