IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY

CHRISTOPHER KING, d/b/a KingCast/Mortgage Movies,

) CASE NO. K15C-03-028

Plaintiff,
)
v.

) JUDGE YOUNG

BETTY LOU MCKENNA, HOLLY MALONE

and JOHN PARADEE, ESQ.

Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF PERSUASIVE LAW

TO HIS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
Plaintiff recalls Delaware Attorney Generals position supporting him:
But in 2011, when everyone has a cell phone, and most cell phones
have camera, even video, capability, that time has arrived. To attempt
to ban recording is as pointless as trying to prevent citizens from
taking notes.
CONCLUSION: The DOJ should advise its client public bodies that to
outright prohibit any recording of public meetings is highly risky. The
law is evolving in a more permissive direction.
But now we have 200,000 other reasons to pay attention: Tisdale v.
Gravitt, 51 F. Supp. 3d 1378 (N.D. Georgia 2014).
As an initial matter, the Court agrees that Plaintiff has a First
Amendment interest in filming public officials at a public
meeting. Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir.
2000) ("The First Amendment protects the right to gather information
about what public officials do on public property, and specifically, a
right to record matters of public interest."). Prohibiting Plaintiff
from video recording the meetingeven while permitting her to attend
the meeting, take notes, or make audio recordingsimpacted how she
was able to obtain access to and present information about the City
Council and its proceedings. See Blackston v. State of Ala., 30 F.3d 117,
120 (11th Cir. 1994).
Based on this record, the Court finds that a reasonable jury could
conclude that Mayor Gravitt's restrictive policy announced at the April
17, 2012 meeting was [**12] a total ban on filming in City
Council meetings. If the restriction was a total ban, it burdens more
speech than necessary to further the City's interest in maintaining

order and efficiency at its City Council meetings; consequently, the

restriction was not narrowly tailored to serve the government interest.
Because Plaintiffthe non-moving party for the purposes of
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgmenthas presented evidence
that could allow a reasonable jury to conclude that Mayor Gravitt
announced a total ban, the Court cannot conclude as a matter of law
that Defendants did not violate Plaintiff's First Amendment rights. To
the extent that Defendants move for summary judgment on grounds
that no constitutional violation occurred, Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment must be DENIED.
The case then settled for $200,000.00 making Plaintiffs $12,500.00
offer of Settlement seem rather miniscule indeed.
http://www.forsythnews.com/archives/26998/
CUMMING A $200,000 settlement has been reached in a Roswell womans
federal lawsuit against the city of Cumming over reported free speech and
search and seizure violations.
Nydia Tisdale confirmed Tuesday that she had received the payment.
The lawsuit stemmed from an April 2012 incident in which Tisdale was
directed by Mayor H. Ford Gravitt to stop filming during a Cumming City
Council meeting and asked to leave. She later returned and continued filming
with a different device.
The same day as the incident, Georgias revised Open Meetings Act had gone
into effect.
Crystal Ledford, public information assistant with the city, said that the citys
liability insurance provider, Public Risk Underwriters, had settled with Tisdale.
She added that no official action had been taken by the city council or
administration.
The council was scheduled to meet Tuesday night.
The settlement, a copy of which was provided to the Forsyth County News by
Tisdales attorney, Gerry Weber, established a March 13 deadline to pay
Tisdale inclusive of all penalties, damages, attorneys fees and expenses.
As part of the arrangement, Tisdale agreed to dismiss the settlement with
prejudice upon payment. The parties also acknowledged that the terms of the
agreement should not be construed as an admission of liability or
responsibility by the defendants.
In addition, the city agreed to adopt a new policy on filming council meetings,
which states that handheld recording devices can be used from anywhere in
the meeting as long as they are not disruptive. And there will be a designated
area during meetings for tripods, which cannot be set up in aisles.
*********

Wherefore, given the Third Circuit case of Pomykacz v. Borough of W.

Wildwood, 438 F. Supp. 2d 504 (2006) and now this case, in addition to the
precatory remarks of Delaware AG Denn, it is patently clear that a Jury is
entitled to hear Constitutional arguments on this matter. It is simply not as
clear as Defendants and the Court have led the World to believe on LEXIS,
Leagle or on any other publishing forum.In Sum, Thomas Paine is still rolling
in his grave.

Respectfully Submitted,
_____________________________________________
CHRISTOPHER KING, J.D.
kingcast955@icloud.com
mortgagemovies007@gmail.com
http://affordablevideodepo.com
http://mortgagemovies.blogspot.com
617.543.8085m
206.299.9333f

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, swear that a true and accurate Courtesy copy of
this document was sent via email and via Tracked U.S. Mail to:
Joseph Scott Shannon, Esq.
Art C. Arnilla, Esq.
1220 North Market Street
5th Floor
P.O. Box 8888
Wilmington, DE 19899-8888
and to:
John A. Elzufon, Esq.
Peter McGivney, Esq.
300 Delaware Avenue,
Suite 1700
P.O. Box 1630
Wilmington, DE 19899
This 16th day of July, 2015
________________________________
CHRISTOPHER KING, J.D.