Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
12Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Final: Kelly Ayotte, GOP & Nashua PD take body blows in KingCast Reply Brief, 12-1891

Final: Kelly Ayotte, GOP & Nashua PD take body blows in KingCast Reply Brief, 12-1891

Ratings: (0)|Views: 3,185 |Likes:
Published by Christopher King

PREAMBLE The Friends of Kelly Ayotte brief, at p. 16 proves that they (and all of the Defendants) still just don’t get it: Mr. King attempts to distinguish this case from Kay and Grandmaison because those cases involve individuals being denied the opportunity to speak at a political event. Mr. King argues that he simply wanted to attend the Events as a journalist. Br. 23-24. It makes no legal difference, however, why Mr. King wanted to attend the Events. Sadly that is at once the wrong answer and misleading. Plaintiff-Appellant does not make that distinction, the Courts have already made that distinction, and it is a common sense distinction as ignored by the Lower Court yet shown in Invisible Empire of Knights of Ku Klux Klan v. Thurmont, 700 F.Supp 281 (Maryland 1988).

PREAMBLE The Friends of Kelly Ayotte brief, at p. 16 proves that they (and all of the Defendants) still just don’t get it: Mr. King attempts to distinguish this case from Kay and Grandmaison because those cases involve individuals being denied the opportunity to speak at a political event. Mr. King argues that he simply wanted to attend the Events as a journalist. Br. 23-24. It makes no legal difference, however, why Mr. King wanted to attend the Events. Sadly that is at once the wrong answer and misleading. Plaintiff-Appellant does not make that distinction, the Courts have already made that distinction, and it is a common sense distinction as ignored by the Lower Court yet shown in Invisible Empire of Knights of Ku Klux Klan v. Thurmont, 700 F.Supp 281 (Maryland 1988).

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Christopher King on Feb 01, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/22/2013

pdf

text

original

 
1
12-1891
__________________________________________
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
_______________________________________________________________________ 
CHRISTOPHER KING A/K/A/ KINGCAST.NET
Plaintiff-Appellantv.
 FRIENDS OF KELLY AYOTTE ET AL.Defendants-Appellees
_____________________________________________________
 
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
_____________________________________________________
CORRECTED OMNIBUS REPLY BRIEFOF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT_____________________________________________________
Christopher King, J.D.85 Messer StreetSuite TwoProvidence, RI 02909671.543.8085kingjurisdoctor@gmail.comPlaintiff pro se
 
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………………………22. Table of Authorities……………………………………………………………………………2
 ARGUMENT
I. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………….4II. The Pruneyard/NAACP Progeny must be affirmed in thiscase because the properties and events in question arenot truly private…………………………………………………………………………………………….5III. Plaintiff-Appellant has Successfully Pleaded StateAction and Conspiracy Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1985…..11IV. A Special Word about Nashua PD Defendants and ThirdAmended Complaint……………………………………………………………………….…..……….16
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page
 1.
 Invisible Empire of Knights of Ku Klux Klan v. Thurmont
,700 F.Supp 281 (Maryland 1988)…………………………………………………....32
. Kay v. Bruno
605 F. Supp 767 (1985)………………………………………………..63
. Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins
447U.S. 74(1980)
……………………………….…………………………………………………………
54.
Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis
,407 U.S. 163…………………….……….5
 
5.
NAACP v. Thompson,
648 F.Supp. 195 D.Md.,(1986)………………..56.
Seveney v. Town of Bristol Town Council
, 2006 R.I.Super. LEXIS 85…………………………………………………………………………………………………6, 67.Article XIII, section 5, of the Rhode Island Constitution.78.
Weise v. Jenkins
, 796 F. Supp. 2d 188 (Dist ofColumbia 2011)…………………………………………………………………………………………………..99. “Do Not Admit” List Lifted in Fargo for Bush Eventhttp://www.progressive.org/node/23531 Matthew RothschildFebruary 4, 2005…………………………………………………………………………………….……….810. “Senator Ayotte’s $120K Legal Headache,” Politico………...9.
 
3
11.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009)…………………..………1312.
Bell Atlantic v. Twombly 
, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)………….……13  13.
Adickes v. Kress & Co
.
, 398 U.S. 144 (1970)…………….
13, 1414.
Arizona v. Wells
…………………………………………..………………………………………..……18
 
15
. Food Lion v. Capital Cities/ABC 
194 F.3d 505(4
th
Cir. 1999).……………………………………………………….……………………….... 1816
. Williams v. Le Crewe De Spaniards,
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4852………………………………………………………………. 2317.
Gent v. CUNA Mut. Ins. Society 
,210 U.S. App. Lexis 14189…………………………………………………………………4 FRE 201……………………………………………………………….……………………………………………5, 10, 17
Certificates of Compliance & Service
…………………………….…………..……24
 PREAMBLE
The Friends of Kelly Ayotte brief, at p. 16 proves thatthey (and all of the Defendants) still just don’t get it:Mr. King attempts to distinguish this case from
Kay 
 and
Grandmaison
because those cases involveindividuals being denied the opportunity to speak at apolitical event. Mr. King argues that he simplywanted to attend the Events as a journalist. Br. 23-24. It makes no legal difference, however, why Mr.King wanted to attend the Events.Sadly that is at once the wrong answer and misleading.Plaintiff-Appellant does not make that distinction, theCourts have already made that distinction, and it is acommon sense distinction as ignored by the Lower Court yetshown in
Invisible Empire of Knights of Ku Klux Klan v.Thurmont
, 700 F.Supp 281 (Maryland 1988).
1
(TR 163, 267, 335)

1
 
Thompson
specifically did not address the issue of whether minoritiesattending a KKK rally would have any right to speak. 648 F.2d at218.
Thompson
is thus not applicable to the facts in this case.” Ahem. 

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->