12 December 2010

KingCast Memorandum Contra Dismissal rips Brian Cullen for lying in his Motion to Dismiss, he failed to distinguish NAACP v. Thompson, 648 F.Supp. 195 D.Md.,(1986) because he can't. All he can do is blow hot air.

I'm going to start in soon on Nashua PD's bogus Motion to Dismiss shortly as I am just about finished with Friends of Kelly Ayotte MTD but for now dig this: On the First Amendment claims Cullen cites to State v. 
Dupuy, 118 N.H. 848 (1978), a case that does not involve political rallies at which some members of the media were allowed but not others. Dupuy was a trespasser at a nuclear power plant -- not a political rally attended by other invited reporters. And Defendant's cited case of Kay v. NH Democratic 
Party, 821 F.2d  31 (1st Cir. 1987) fails because Kay was attempting to barge in and take a place on the podium, and Plaintiff already agrees that such activity is not supported by law. Again, in the political context the NAACP cases are most instructive, and the same exact holding would be contemplated by  Invisible Empire of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Maryland Chapter v. Town of Thurmont, MD. 700 F.Supp. 281 (1998) (at leagle). [Note: The Defendants in this case have not produced on shred of evidence that the actual property owners viewed him as a trespasser. At no point in time has anyone even used the word "trespassing" to Plaintiff until these Pleadings have been filed.] 

Regardless of all of that, the case most on point remains to be NAACP v. Thompson,  648 F.Supp. 195 D.Md.,(1986), in which black reporters for the NAACP were allowed to attend and to report on an all-white rally, just as Plaintiff was attempting to attend and to report on three all-white rallies in these examples before us. There was literally not one single black person at any of these Republican-Tea Party rallies. This is particularly true because the "acrimonious past" between Defendant Ayotte and KingCast was occasioned because of his activities as Southern New Hampshire NAACP Legal Chair, complaining of the abuse sustained by black man Willie Toney as three white Jaffrey, PD Officers stuck loaded guns in his face and conducted a visual body cavity search for loitering. The criminal case was dismissed with Mr. Toney acting pro se.
 With regard to the racial bias, the Nashua PD wrote:
The only allegation hinting at racial bias is the Plaintiff‟s observation that Officer Hargreaves is white, and that the officer did not react when “a white women [struck] Plaintiff‟s camera” and did not acknowledge his assertion that she had done so.  Amended Complaint, Count  II.  Such allegations fall far short of supporting an Equal Protection claim against the NPD.    
Too bad that's a lie. Below is how Plaintiff's Complaint actually read. Plaintiff is confused as to how Attorney Cullen could have missed it because Plaintiff would hate to believe that Cullen is engaging in revisionist history or Gerrymandering Plaintiff's Complaint as Kelly Ayotte and Judge McCafferty's former boss Jack Middleton did:

Racial Discrimination – Violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981
In particular at the Joe Arpaio rally, “Hargreaves,” -- a white police officer -- watched a white woman strike Plaintiff’s camera and did nothing to her, said nothing to her and instead asked Plaintiff for his press identification. A police officer of color sadly observed the situation as Di Lothrop and Officer Hargreaves ejected Plaintiff. When Plaintiff provided the identification the officer then quipped “just don’t touch anyone else,” to which Plaintiff, on video, told him “Officer I didn’t touch anybody, she struck my camera you saw it, right?”

The white police officer refused to acknowledge Plaintiff’s comment.
[Note: Said white Officer told Plaintiff he needed to buy a ticket so that would place Plaintiff on the same grounds as the white Republican female Karen Thoman, who struck his camera without any recourse from White Officer Hargreaves. If Plaintiff is on the same footing then Thoman should have been reprimanded but was not, thereby evincing racial prejudice.] 

 26. Lieutenant John Fisher spoke out of turn as Plaintiff attempted to ask Candidate Ayotte a question about Unconstitutional DNA testing, as the video clearly shows other white people closer to a loud, backing car than Plaintiff. Fisher admonished Plaintiff on the backing car and did further continue to caution him to remain on the sidewalk, even though Plaintiff had never once left the sidewalk.

27.  Fisher’s actions were done at the behest of the Campaign, and he specifically stated as much, i.e, “Who gave you those orders?” to which he replied, “The Campaign told me you are not welcome here.”  One may clearly see that others were closer to the backing car yet Fisher said nothing to them because he was too busy harassing Plaintiff, such that Plaintiff was not able to ask another question of Candidate Ayotte, thus his First Amendment Rights to speak and to gather news were BOTH trammeled.

Again may the Court take Judicial notice that Fisher is a named Defendant for lying about traffic and vehicular placement in Gorsuch v. Fisher et al, 2010-CV-495, (Appendix D). 
Cullen then goes on to address the pattern of racism and retaliation against black men who exercise their First Amendment Rights to complain about racism by stating that "Defendant Ayotte nominally oversaw certain operations, and none of those examples included an attempt to gain access to a political function."

This argument is unpersuasive for several reasons:

First of all, we can't really know how much involvement Kelly Ayotte had until we get to Discovery.

Second, the issues involved black men like Plaintiff and Ralph Holder complaining of Racism and receiving retaliatory criminal and administrative actions that were dismissed or withdrawn. There is no Court of Law that is going to hold that we need an exact case like this one on prior occasion in order to show racial bias and motivation, but there is a requirement that Plaintiff present a number of factual developments that involve race in order to make his claim, and that is precisely what Plaintiff did, noting that the "acrimonious past" involved Plaintiff as the NAACP Legal Chair, writing of racism by NH Law Enforcement whereupon bogus charges were instituted against him by and through Kelly Ayotte's Office. 

It is foolish to believe that Defendant Ayotte was unaware of this case, which was in the Union Leader and on WMUR. As such, this Court cannot ignore the racial and First Amendment Past between Plaintiff and Kelly Ayotte, the fact that it takes different forms goes to the pervasiveness of her racism and cannot be held against Plaintiff because to require that the prior act of racism match up with the current act is to stand the law on its head, and it's just plain ridiculous.

The bottom line is that Defendant Ayotte is charged with knowing what her office is doing, and if she wants to take credit for everything positive that her office does she can't then decline to take credit for the bad things that her office does. 

In sum, Defendant is attempting to play the Trier of Fact by saying that there is no way that the pattern of alleged discrimination by Kelly Ayotte against black male Civil Rights activists could result in a finding of liability, but that is precisely what Trials are for, not Motions to Dismiss.


Christopher King said...

Once again Defendant's argument is feckless, nonpersuasive and not grounded in any Law or Common Sense. Defendant writes:

"Here, Plaintiff has not pled sufficient facts to substantiate any claim of conspiracy. Contrary to the Plaintiff s contention, Defendants did not "work together in acknowledged Conspiracy" to deprive him of some constitutionally protected privilege. Amended Complaint ~ 19. For example, at the first campaign event upon which Plaintiff asserts his claims, Nashua Police Officers were not present."

Of course that would have no bearing on the other Defendants conspiring at the Facebook Rally then, would it? Of course not. And of Course the Nashua PD would not and could not be part of any Conspiracy on that day, date and time but they could be on the other two occasions in Nashua, that’s just common sense. Moreover the Political Defendants could be part of the Conspiracy on all three occasions if they agreed to kick Plaintiff out of them, in violation of Thompson.

Discovery is needed in order to determine the Communications between the Defendants at each event, Plaintiff has served the appropriate Discovery Requests. The videos clearly note that:

a) Officer Hargreaves told Plaintiff the "The people holding the event want you to leave" at the Offer of Proof video at 6:30 et seq.; Plaintiff tells him “It’s totally viewpoint-based discrimination, and you know it is.” Hargreaves also stated that the other media at the private function “had been invited” but that was a bald-faced lie made in furtherance of the Conspiracy. There were no invites, media just showed up as Plaintiff has done for decades without incident.

b) Lieutenant John Fisher -- a named Defendant in Gorsuch v. Fisher et al, 2010-CV-495, stated "I was told by the Campaign told me you are not welcome here," at 9:45 of the Offer of Proof video so obviously they were working together at the Crowne Plaza and the VFW as well. If they agreed on a Course of Conduct that violates the law set down by Thompson they then have exposure under 42 U.S.C. §1985 for tramelling a Fundamental Right, i.e. Freedom of the Press, this is simple, basic Pleading.

Christopher King said...

Ralph Holder RSA 91-A; Sealed Cases on Stephen Monier; 2/3 of Plaintiff's Memorandum Contra Motion to Dismiss

9:01 AM (1 minute ago)

from Christopher King
to Brian Cullen ,
Christopher King

Top of the morning Counselors,

First of all Attorney Delaney, I'm looking forward to reviewing that full file on Mr. Holder i.e. "any documents bearing his name" ASAP, it's about That Time.

Next of all:




Attorney MacDonald, I will finish my Memorandum Contra your client's Motion to Dismiss later today or tomorrow, these responses to Nashua PD and are 99% complete pending one last review. I want to make certain I didn't Gerrymander your statements of fact and argument, as you have attempted to do to me. The Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions will accompany. You guys wanted to fight, well by golly you've got a fight.

By the way, it took me four years to get justice for Michael Isreal as noted in the pleadings, when those cops caused him to be a victim of violent crime so I'm in no hurry. We can all sit back and enjoy the ride.


See you at SCOTUS.

Christopher King, J.D.
http://KingCast.net -- Reel News for Real People

cc: blind copies.