This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
FRIENDS OF KELLY AYOTTE, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) )
CASE NO. 2010-CV-501 JJM JUDGE JOHN J. MCCONNELL, JR. MAGISTRATE
PLAINTIFF’S ISSUE MEMORANDA FOR 27 OCTOBER, 2011 TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE
Plaintiff naturally maintains his position on all matters presented in his Second Amended Complaint and the case law and public policy cited therein, including but not limited to NAACP v. Thompson, 648 F.Supp. 195 D.Md.,1986. Essentially it is simply bad public policy for political candidates to play favorites with the media at publicly-advertised events held on commercial property subject to substantial state local and federal licensing and permitting. This is basically the same roadmap that Plaintiff anticipates using if or when there are subsequent appeals onward toward the United States Supreme Court. 1. What is the precedential import to be afforded the Report and Recommendation from a Magistrate Judge who: a. Was potentially ethically compromised or conflicted. b. Failed to disclose such potential compromise or conflict as required by standards of professional practice and codes of Judicial Conduct. c. Glossed over the “acrimonious past” of Defendant Kelly Ayotte and Plaintiff without mentioning the racial and First Amendment context of the past, when Plaintiff prevailed against Defendant Ayotte as NH AG against criminal charges that were arguably frivolous as Southern NH NAACP Legal Chair.
d. Issued every adverse ruling or inference possible on the facts and law against Plaintiff, ignoring the fact that former U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier threatened to call the Manchester Police even though the video evidence clearly showed Plaintiff was standing on the sidewalk at the time.
2. Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint vis a vis Rule 15(A)(2): a. Is it potentially defamatory for a U.S. Senator to claim to the entire U.S. Senate and U.S. House that someone who holds a law degree from the same top 50 law school as His Honor (Case Western Reserve) has “filed frivolous lawsuits” against her when in point of fact there is no such specific finding of fact or law? b. May Plaintiff Amend his Complaint to include the pattern, policy and practice Monell fact that another independent reporter who has covered this case was wrongfully and arrested for trespass by the Nashua PD and subsequently found Not Guilty by bench trial? This given the fact that they ran him out of an entire hotel in similar fashion to the way they ran Plaintiff out of the Crowne Plaza, chilling his First Amendment Rights as caught on KingCast video. This given the fact that Defendant Nashua PD counsel Brian Cullen stated in his own filings that the case at bar involves application of the trespass statute to an independent reporter.
c. May Plaintiff Amend his Complaint, with or without the Affidavit of Mike Gannon or Pamela Reynolds, to note that Nashua PD uttered the words “You are a YouTube sensation” to Mr. Gannon as they tackled him and maced him after they saw him running hand held video of two Detectives on Canal Street. This particularly in light of the First Circuit ruling of Glik v. Boston. Wachsberger v. Pepper, 583 A.2d 77 (1990) informs this case: HN2: Although leave to amend a pleading lies within the sound discretion of the trial justice, R.I. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 15(a) liberally permits amendment absent a showing of extreme prejudice. The court's liberal interpretation of Rule 15(a) encourages the allowance of amendments in order to facilitate the resolution of disputes on their merits rather than on blind adherence to procedural technicalities….Aside from the trial justice's misplaced reliance on delay only, there was no evidence that suggested that the Peppers and Tenev would be prejudiced by allowing Wachsberger to amend her complaint. The trial had not commenced, there was no allegation that witnesses were lost, and the Peppers and Tenev could not have been surprised by Wachsberger's further specification of fraud since it was alleged in her original complaint. The Peppers and Tenev failed [**7] to carry their burden to show they would be substantially prejudiced under our decided cases; therefore, we believe the motion to amend should have been allowed. In this case there was no delay whatsoever. The Plaintiff raised these issues in timely fashion and Defendants, rather than face them head on, are attempting to hide from them but they are clearly valid concerns. 3. False Allegations of Disbarment: Whether this Court will strike from the record any and all factually incorrect and otherwise Defamatory references made by Nashua PD Counsel Brian Cullen to an Ohio “Disbarment Letter” which is in point of fact a one year Suspension Letter. The mere fact that Counsel typically enjoy immunity in court proceedings does not cloak Attorney Cullen with authority to unreasonably attempt to bias this Honorable Court against Plaintiff because he is upset that Plaintiff raises particularly thorny issues.
4. Settlement: Plaintiff offered a non-monetary settlement in this matter for Defendant Ayotte to engage in discussion with Plaintiff and a NENPA moderator over what constitutes a journalist in 2011. At the time, Plaintiff was a guest speaker at New England News and Press Association’s Annual Winter Conference and Trade Show, speaking on that very same topic. The question is not “what makes a popular or well-liked journalist amongst Conservative Republicans or Tea Party Candidates,” but rather, what constitutes a Journalist, period. Plaintiff thought that might be a good idea given that Defendant Ryan Williams told Plaintiff “You are not a journalist” prior to calling the police on him, as seen below. Plaintiff has of course edited and written for weekly and large daily press. In a completely disrespectful and unprofessional show of contempt, Defendants individually and collectively failed to even respond to such offer.
5. Recusal Miscellany: a. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to discover the reasons that all five (5) Judges recused themselves when only one had a financial reason and Plaintiff only accused two others of impropriety. b. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to full disclosure on the recusal of Magistrate Judge Landya B. McCafferty, given the organizational chart below and if not, exactly why not:
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Christopher King, J.D. _____________________________ Christopher King, J.D. http://KingCast.net -- Reel News for Real People 617.543.8085
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I the undersigned, solemnly swear that a true copy of this Issue Memorandum was Electronically delivered on 19 October 2010 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