Senator Kelly Ayotte

Senator Kelly Ayotte

Saturday, October 2, 2010

KingCast Mexican Standoff: GOP, John McCain, Kelly Ayotte tell Attorney William Chapman, KingCast and the First Amendment to go to Hell.

Movie coming by 5:30, links coming later or tomorrow.

So funny the final thumbnail for the movie you will see it change tonight, is the Nashua Telegraph's Grant Morris recording me while I'm recording me recording him.... or is it vice versa.... Preamble for the uneducated folks who wondered why I asked about Kelly Ayotte supporting Unconstitutional DNA reporting for all NH youth charged with any crimes...... That's Unconstitutional folks, and a Momma Grizzly shouldn't be espousing policies against children that violate the Constitution.  Judge David LeFrancois ruled as much a long time before Kelly was forced to abandon this policy after heat was applied from a certain young man's father (I broke the story here, with him) and the ACLU was applied. That goes hand-in-hand with all of her other malfeasance duly noted, and her flip flops on Immigration as noted by Debbie Schlussel and me, and John McCain's history of flip-flips and skeletons in his closet, including Immigration, Guantanimo Bay, Roe v. Wade and marital flip-flops, I wonder if he helped Cindy smuggle contraband while he was a U.S. Senator?

Be that as it may, as noted in this post:

Noted New Hampshire First Amendment and Media Law Attorney William L. Chapman categorically stated:
Quoting another court decision, the justices noted in the ruling, “Freedom of the press is a fundamental personal right which is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. ... The press in its historic connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.
“The informative function asserted by representatives of the organized press ... is also performed by lecturers, political pollsters, novelists, academic researchers, and dramatists. Almost any author may quite accurately assert that he is contributing to the flow of information to the public...”
That ruling suggests that opinioned bloggers are also journalists, Chapman said.
“I can think of no case where a blogger would be treated differently (than a print journalist under the law),” Chapman said.

WHEREFORE: Plaintiff is a former resident of New Hampshire with a background in Communications. He has worked as a reporter for the Indianapolis Star, as an Editor with the Ohio Call & Post, and holds a Nashua Mayoral Certificate for First Amendment activity in the Public Interest. He has also instigated a First Amendment Policy change at the Nashua School Board, in which the Board changed a restrictive speech policy after Plaintiff threatened to sue in 2007.

Defendants are Kelly Ayotte, the New Hampshire and Nashua GOP, who have consistently threatened Plaintiff with arrest at three (3) distinct functions that were openly advertised to the general public and to the media.

First, Defendant Ayotte threatened Plaintiff's arrest at a Manchester, NH function that was advertised on Facebook, even after Plaintiff offered to pay money to attend when he was excluded as a media member.

Second, Defendant Ayotte and/or the all Defendants conspired to threaten Plaintiff's arrest at the Joe Arpaio rally, in which Plaintiff politely asked Sheriff Arpaio if he was aware that Kelly Ayotte said the 2005 Monadnock Valley Immigration crackdown was Unconstitutional.

Third, as seen today Defendant Ayotte did it again, proving she has a vendetta against Plaintiff and Freedom of the Press, and it is crucial because she -- with substantial backing from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and shady companies like Taxmasters (under suit by Texas AG for False and Deceptive Consumer Practices) will probably be elected for U.S. Senate over Paul Hodes because of current National cyclical trends and Hodes' milquetoast campaign.....

Media other than Plaintiff were welcomed or present at all three events.

.....So the Mexican Standoff ensues. Attorney Chapman has made his position known. The ACLU position should mirror his position. Therefore I would expect that the ACLU -- which is known for defending the Free Speech and Press Rights of All persons including white supremacists -- will be contacting me to proceed with litigation forthwith.

Whether you like me, love me, hate me or anything in between, litigation is now absolutely necessary to preserve the Freedoms and Inalienable Rights enumerated in the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights.

2 comments:

  1. Should the ACLU defend free speech rights of white supremacists?
    PRO (yes)

    The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in its Oct. 31, 2005 paper titled "Freedom of Expression" stated:

    "The ACLU has often been at the center of controversy for defending the free speech rights of groups that spew hate, such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazis. But if only popular ideas were protected, we wouldn't need a First Amendment. History teaches that the first target of government repression is never the last. If we do not come to the defense of the free speech rights of the most unpopular among us, even if their views are antithetical to the very freedom the First Amendment stands for, then no one's liberty will be secure. In that sense, all First Amendment rights are 'indivisible.'"

    Oct. 31, 2005 - American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)

    **********

    If they can defend and protect white supremacists, I'm certain they look forward to protecting me, the victim of Kelly Ayotte's and Martin J. Dunn's misguided and Unconstitutional attempted prosecution toward me when I was NAACP Legal Chair in Southern NH.

    There is a pattern here, and Kelly Ayotte clearly has a vendetta against me, all the while claiming I have one against her. Hell, I just want to ask her a couple of questions, and that's something that a damn U.S. Senator has to get used to, sorry.

    -The KingCaster.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Someone suggested to me yesterday that the real Mexican Standoff is between the ACLU and me, and whether they will Do the Right Thing and sue for Injunctive Relief and Damages.

    I told them that I have no doubts that the ACLU will Do the Right Thing and sue for Injunctive Relief and Damages.

    The Law is clear,

    http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2010/2010041mortg.pdf

    http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/728051-196/court-backs-website-on-free-speech.html

    ...especially given that I have experience with a large daily and medium-sized weekly newspapers, in addition to winning First Amendment Criminal Defense cases as an attorney.

    -The KingCaster.

    ReplyDelete