IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NEW HAMPSHIRE CHRISTOPHER KING, J.D. a/k/a KINGCAST.NET, Plaintiff-Petitioner, v.

FRIENDS OF KELLY AYOTTE, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) )

CASE NO. 2010-CV-501 JUDGE PAUL BARBADORO MAGISTRATE LANDYA McCAFFERTY

PLAINTIFFS REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION TO STRIKE ON HIS CORRECTED MEMORANDUM OF LAW: NOTICE OF REPEATED UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR BY MCLANE, GRAF SENIOR ATTORNEYS AGAINST ANOTHER BLACK MAN, CHARLES GLENN, NH SUPREME COURT #2008 912 Now comes Plaintiff to cut the wheat from chaff in this case, quickly and simply: 1. The corrected Motion was necessary to issue a correction as to the apparently systemic unethical treatment of black men by McLane, Graf: Having spoken with Defendant Glenn Plaintiff issued a corrective Notice because Glenn specified something even more insidious:
The fact that McLane, Graf attorneys entirely failed to mention the fact that the States perjury prone white witness had previously (and illegally) discharged a gun of the same caliber that killed the decedent in the murder case. As such, McLane Graf Attorneys clearly stand in violation of any and all relevant Canons of Ethics in a case involving another black man who is militantly going after the Establishment. As proved in Plaintiffs case McLane Graf is clearly part of the Establishment.

2.

Next, the Motion to Strike and the Updated Motion do not constitute two Motions

within one Pleading because Plaintiff telephoned the ECF Help Desk and notified them of the fact that he needed to issue a correction to the pleading, and that is in fact the correct way to do it: Strike the First Motion and submit the new Motion in the same filing. If counsel or the Court would like to see a copy of Plaintiffs phone records on the day of the filing that could be arranged. 3. Further, minor deviations from Rule do not constitute a death knell for the

Pleading: In Liko Kenney v. Greg Floyd et al, Kelly Ayotte protg Dan Mullen filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss that was not in proper form (it did not have a Separate Motion and Memorandum as required by Rule) but it was accepted by the Court because the underlying argument had merit to the extent that the Estate of Liko Kenney cannot sue for monetary damages beyond the Statute but may only use those events to show a pattern and practice of Unconstitutional & unlawful behavior by the Town of Franconia.

The same is true in this case: Even if Plaintiff was in error (he is not) the Underlying Motion clearly has merit because the relevant and previously-cited Judicial and Attorney Ethical Canons mandated that someone from McLane, Graf should have told Plaintiff that Magistrate McCafferty worked underneath the lead counsel and owner and founding partner of McLane Graf and that she worked next to Attorney Parent. Similarly it doesnt take rocket science to know that McLane, Graf breached their ethical obligations in representing Charles Glenn, another black man who questioned the Ayotte and Delaney AG regimes. As a former AAG Plaintiff is rightfully appalled that McLane, Graf covered for Prosecutorial Misconduct and that informs the ethics failures in the Case at Bar: Again, while Defendant attempts to imply that Plaintiff was somehow aware of the Glenn case because he cited to it in his Memorandum of Law the fact of the matter is the Plaintiff only recently because aware of the case via a 23 June 2011 email. That is when he discovered that Defendant Kelly Ayotte's successor Michael Delaney after his office intentionally withheld evidence that: 1. Their only witness, Joseph Salvatore had obtained a gun permit and purchased his gun BEFORE the fatal shooting of Leonard Gosselin. 2. Their only witness, Joseph Salvatore, had a prior history of unlawfully discharging a firearm of the same caliber that killed Leonard Gosselin. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nh-supreme-court/1532956.html

McLane Graf counsel, rather than fully fighting for its black male client who was questioning the Establishment to the core, sold that negro right on down the river.1 Again, Plaintiff is well-versed in the law of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel not that any of his clients ever brought such a suit, but because he has assisted others to air their concerns on such matters. 2 That type of activity is of course entirely consistent with the role of a watchdog press, and it is precisely why former Nashua Mayor Bernard Streeter a man with the longest Executive/Governors Council membership awarded Plaintiff a First Amendment Mayoral Commendation.

Plaintiff did indeed withdraw and refile the matter with a slight correction, which took no extra time or expense from Defendants because he did it within a calendar day or so. Defendant is grasping at straws in an attempt to impugn Plaintiff rather than to examine the (in)actions and arguably outright ethical failings of McLane, Graf Counsel. Plaintiff will simply not stand for any of it nor should this Honorable Court. 2 Plaintiff has directly-related experience on this matter, having helped expose the Ineffective Assistance of Counsel/malpractice claims (and settlement) of former client Derrick Gillenwater against Whitey Bulgers putative Counsel Jeffrey Denner, when Plaintiff was Boston Bob as noted in the Harvard Citizen Media Journal (Denners Alma Mater).

4.

As to the Courts Order that Plaintiff not file more motions, Plaintiff has explained

that he does not file these motions without extensive research and consideration and respect for the Court. However it is not Plaintiffs fault that McLane, Graf attorneys have demonstrated a lack of professional respect toward black men that besmirches the legal community, first by failing to even mention Her Honors employment under lead counsel and next to assistant counsel and now this. Similarly it is not Plaintiffs fault that he only recently learned of the Glenn matter but it is indeed relevant because it goes to show the extent to which McLane, Graf past and present employees will engage in skullduggery to protect their own, particularly in the presence of a militant black man.3

5.

When viewed in this light, the failure of not only Magistrate McCafferty but of

McLane counsel to notify Plaintiff of her association with the firm looms large. Further, no one can reasonably question Plaintiffs need to know why in the same month, her Honor recused herself immediately after a certain lawyer filed an appearance in State v. Issacson, NH Dist. 2009-3332 but not in this case? One logical inference is that Her Honor has an association of some sort with the new attorney. Unless or until that notion is solidly disproved by testimony Under Oath this Court and the Parties are stuck with that logical inference and any other suggestion amounts to more skullduggery and obfuscation. As previously stated, it is quite clear that they have a little boys and girls club where they protect their own and can do no wrong, and if that is not the case then it is high time this Honorable Court make it known that such activity will not be tolerated, rather than to become complicit in these crimes and omissions of moral turpitude.

Defendants naked attempts to malign Plaintiff fail miserably. Defendant Ayotte cites to Educadores Puertorriquenos en Accion v. Hernandez, 367 F.3d 61' 68
3

Similarly, as we shall see in Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint, it is also not Plaintiffs fault that Defendant Ayotte issued materially false statements to the U.S. Senate that Plaintiff a man with a law degree from a top 50 school filed frivolous cases. Nor is it Plaintiffs fault that Nashua PD, in beating down Mike Gannon for no reason, directly referenced KingCast videos.

(1st Cir. 2004) but that is a red herring because the Court was not even analyzing any particular language but was instead just issuing a prophylactic general warning: Second, in considering motions to dismiss courts should continue to "eschew any reliance on bald assertions, unsupportable conclusions, and opprobrious epithets." Chongris v. Bd. of Appeals, 811 F.2d 36, 37 (1st Cir.1987) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Such eschewal is merely an application of Rule 8(a)(2), not a heightened pleading standard uniquely applicable to civil rights claims.

In this case Plaintiff has cited to Judicial Codes of Conduct and to specific glaring legal omissions by McLane, Graf in yet another racially-tinged matter. Thus it is clearly Defendant and not Plaintiff who is engaging in bald assertions and unsupportable conclusions.

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED Owing to the unique and troubling issues surrounding this matter Oral Argument is requested such that everything at issue be put on the record in Open Court. As an investigative journalist who demands open and full access to information and to the law Plaintiff submits that would be the only appropriate course of action in this matter. People need to take the stand and explain these (in)actions Under Oath to the satisfaction of the Court, which they cannot do and hence the fierce objection to the Notice. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Christopher King, J.D. _____________________________ Christopher King, J.D. http://KingCast.net -- Reel News for Real People

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I the undersigned, solemnly swear that a true copy of this Reply was Electronically delivered on 13 July 2011 to: Jennifer Parent and Jack Middleton, Esq. City Hall Plaza 900 Elm Street Manchester, NH 03101 Gordon MacDonald, Esq. Nixon Peabody LLP 900 Elm Street Manchester, NH 03101 Brian Cullen, Esq. 10 East Pearl Street Nashua, NH 03060 /s/Christopher King, J.D. __________________________________ KingCast.net By and through Christopher King, J.D. 617.543.8085m