For example, on the First Amendment claims Cullen cites to State v. Dupuy, 118 N.H. 848 (1978), a case that does not involve political rallies at which some members of the media were allowed but not others. Dupuy was a trespasser at a nuclear power plant -- not a political rally attended by other invited reporters. And Defendant's cited case of Kay v. NH Democratic arty, 821 F.2d 31 (1st Cir. 1987) fails because Kay was attempting to barge in and take a place on the podium, and Plaintiff already agrees that such activity is not supported by law. Again, in the political context the NAACP cases are most instructive, and the same exact holding would be contemplated by Invisible Empire of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Maryland Chapter v. Town of Thurmont, MD. 700 F.Supp. 281 (1998).
That is complete crap from these people, sheer and utter crap.
As to the hyperlinks I will review them, however I believe most if not all of them go to videos that will never be altered and that may be noted by the YouTube upload information. I will check on those links and get back with you no later than Wednesday morning. As to your threats of Attorney fees, I will await your formal letter and we will proceed on that basis.
It is not just the fact that all of you made counter arguments, it is the fact that you truncated and gerrymandered what I pled in so doing, as I noted on the public access show currently running.
Again, I didn't fall off a turnip truck yesterday or any other day for that matter. Unless of Course you want to argue that somehow cases like this are irrelevant because they occur in another District.
|HN1||For at least two years after taking the bench, a judge should recuse himself from cases in which his former firm appears. Since 2000, I have maintained frequent contact with only a handful of Day, Berry lawyers. The firm represented my wife and me in a minor matter that concluded nearly three years ago. In short, I have no present relationship with Day, Berry or with the vast majority of its attorneys.|
That is not true in this case because I know Her Honor has frequent contact with many McLane, Graf Attorneys. And her Honor has been on the Bench for several months, not years. And while there was a break between her tenure with the firm, I am entitled to know the extent of her ongoing contacts with that firm and I am entitled to know whether Jack Middleton or anyone else at that firm supported her ascension to the Bench because that certainly would present a question on impartiality the, wouldn't it.
Yes. It. Would.
But wait, there's more.
This is what SHOULD have happened, I should have been told:
George N. Pegula Agency, Inc. v. Monumental Life I..., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23196
2 James Rogers, counsel for Monumental, has submitted an affidavit, which provides:
I have a distinct recollection that, in a telephone conference with the Court, in which Lawrence Ludwig, Esq. was participating on behalf of the plaintiff, Judge Vanaskie noted the fact of his prior membership in the Dilworth firm........ In particular, I recall advising Pegula's counsel of my prior relationship with the Dilworth firm, asking Pegula's counsel if there was any objection to my continued handling of the case, and Pegula's counsel indicating that he had no objection.
Did Jack or anyone else at McLane help Her Honor to the bench or not. Answer the question. Truthfully and fully to me right now, and I will consider withdrawing my Motion.
Christopher King, J.D.
http://KingCast.net -- Reel News for Real People