This blog is an informative, interactive journey through the legal life of Kelly Ayotte. Not the life you hear about in most major media, but the dirty, seamy underside..... The fish rots at the head:
Good ol' Grand Cayman Carbon-Bag Kelly even ignored her Senior Attorney on filing Amicus in Mass v. EPA, 127 U.S. 1438 (2007) read the emails here.
Senator Kelly Ayotte
Monday, December 6, 2010
KingCast tells Friends of Kelly Ayotte, GOP and Nashua PD: "I'll make you a Deal, let's have a Special Limited Hearing with Judge Barbadoro right here, right now on NAACP v. Thompson and 42 U.S.C. §1981 issues."
You can disagree all you want Counselor, but the bottom line isyou don't have a case on point in this jurisdiction,NAACP v. Thompson is the ONLY case on direct point in any of the circuits that any of us could find, and Courts routinely cite law from different circuits when issuing opinions, you and I -- and everybody in the legal World knows that. I already admitted it isn't BINDING, but the fact that there is indeed PERSUASIVE law on point in the Federal Circuit inherently means that a Motion to Dismiss is...... frivolous. I could potentially see your point if Kay wasn't trying to participate in the rally and you had a case on all fours in NH but we are not here to engage in revisionist history.
Moreover, it is not just Thompson, but the companion case of Invisible Empire of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Maryland Chapter v. Town of Thurmont, MD. 700 F.Supp. 281 (1998) (at leagle) that addresses this exact same scenario and you cannot get away from that at this Court -- well maybe at this Court you can given its predilection for tossing Civil Rights cases -- but certainly not at the next. [Note to newbies -- The Empire Plaintiffs lost because they were trying to do what the Kay Plaintiff tried here in NH, i.e. to participate in the rally, not merely observe and report. In contrast, the Thompson Plaintiffs won the right to observe and report].
And may you not lose sight of the fact that I filed my case under the United States Constitution and the New Hampshire Constitution, so the Court is compelled to conduct inquiry as to the state of the law as I have described.
Also, are you going to look me in the eye and tell me that an offer to purchase tickets is contemplated by 42 U.S.C. §1981 in Alabama but not in New Hampshire? Please.
As such, I am going to correct a few typos and file my Rule 11 Motion and Memorandum and Request for Extension of Time on Defendants' Motions that I clearly stated I would do as soon as I receive word from the other Defendants that they concur with you.
Then I will let Judge Barbadoro do his thing and note the record accordingly to preserve any and all issues for Appeal to the First Circuit and SCOTUS.
In the alternative, I'll make this offer:
The Parties agree to Petition the Court for a Special Hearing on the limited issue of conflicting law and the 42 U.S.C. §1981 claims. If the Court, after such hearing, decides that he agrees with Defendants he can issue his Order of Dismissal right then and there and we can get on to the Next Court, which will then turn around and send it right back.
I'm not here to waste time or engage in any worthless pleadings.