Sunday, January 23, 2011
KingCast to file Rule 11 Sanctions against NH GOP, Nashua GOP and Nixon, Peabody's Gordon MacDonald in KingCast v. Ayotte, GOP and Nashua PD, NH District 2010-CV-501.
What's the matter Gordon, not reading too well these days? I need bifocals these days myself, but I'm here to help, don't turn your head and walk away, let's see if we can work this out together over the Internet before Justice Elena Kagan has to read up, shall we?
KingCast v. Friends of Kelly Ayotte et al. Motion for Rule 11, Rule 3.3 Sanctions.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS
AGAINST ATTORNEY GORDON MACDONALD
AND NEW HAMPSHIRE AND NASHUA REPUBLICAN COMMITTEES
Now comes Plaintiff to note that he has seen Defendant continue on a course of conduct commenced some time ago that precipitated Plaintiff’s first filing of a Rule 11 Motion. An Order of Sanctions is fully appropriate:
I. Defendant and Counsel’s Calculated Lies and Material Misstatements.
Defendants wrote in their Reply Memorandum in Support of Dismissal:
When reduced to its essence, the plaintiff’s discussion on this point, see Am. Opp. Mem., pp. 17-19, points to just a single “fact” that actually appears in the Amended Complaint: at the VFW event, a police officer allegedly said, “The Campaign said you are not welcome here.” Am. Opp. Mem., at p. 18; see also Amended Complaint ¶ 27. It is on this single (and entirely lawful) statement that the plaintiff attempts to construct a conspiracy.
Sadly, Counsel for GOP Defendants has once again cut out substantive portions of Plaintiff’s Arguments because that is not the single “fact.”
First of all it is not “alleged” what the officer said, he said it on video for the entire Free World to see. Unless Defendants are now arguing that Plaintiff is a ventriloquist or a master film editor, the Court must recognize that’s what the man said.
Second, in the very same section of his Memorandum Plaintiff stated a similar comment from yet another white Nashua Police Officer at yet a different event:
Note that these statements were also noted in KingCast video on file with the Court and provided with Plaintiff's Complaint and First Amended Complaint and viewed during the TRO Hearing of 2 November, 2010. Therefore Defendants actions in this matter reflect desperation and are indeed Sanctionable.
Third, Plaintiff made a thorough allegation that all Defendants worked together. Let us review Plaintiff’s response in his Memorandum in Opposition to see what Counsel for Defendant intentionally ignored, in violation of Rule 11 and or Rule 3.3 Candor to the Tribunal:
 Plaintiff noted this sort of “gerrymandering” on Capitol Access TV, “Reel News with Christopher King,” http://nhcaptv.com/episode/142 segment 142. Plaintiff withdrew a Motion for Sanctions issued on prior occasion to give the Defendants the benefit of the doubt when they engaged in similar conduct on prior occasion. This time he will not be so charitable and this Honorable Court must not give quarter to this continued pattern of lies, deception and gamesmanship. The Court may not grant imprimatur to another big name law firm thinking that it can lie at will, and do and say as it pleases. It smacks of Big Money Right Wing hegemony.