Senator Kelly Ayotte

Senator Kelly Ayotte

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

Nashua PD, NH GOP and Kelly Ayotte Attorneys threaten sanctions when Judge McCafferty's silent recusal is exposed in KingCast v. Ayotte et al, NH Dist 2010-CV-501 but they don't even have their facts straight.

So these deceitful Attorneys knowingly allow ethical breaches by a Federal Judge then try to threaten me with attorney fees because I have the nerve to file a motion over it after the Court unlawfully tries to prevent me from filing any more documents in the case -- without any finding identifying any specific frivolous filings in this case? Frankly they can go to hell. Let Judge Barbadoro sanction the living shit out of me, I'll just walk it on up to SCOTUS. Look at the thumbnail to see the proper way for Judge McCafferty to recuse herself, using a goddamn COURT ENTRY instead of some back room bullshit. They wanted a battle well goddammit they are going to get one. Here's today's email chain containing the bogus threats:

Brian Cullen to meStephenLavoieDEmilyHeilMarta.Modiglia.ryanvbarrysberwickmichael.delaneymike.delaneyreporterRipholdenHousePublicWor.david.cotephil.prestonfranpotterrobert.thompsonnancy_elliottsilvawards589jeffbrownenhrick.watrouswill.smithgrichardsonnixonraichelawrh.rowe
show details 11:37 AM (2 hours ago) 

Mr. King.  I object to you filing this motion on the following grounds:

1.       The Motion is inaccurate.  You state that the “13 July 2011 Order . . . can no longer be located at present in the ECF file . .. “ In fact, the order you cite is a July 12, 2011 order and it remains present on the ECF docket report. 
2.       The Motion is an improper second motion to reconsider the denial of that July 12, 2011 order.  You filed a motion to reconsider that order on July 13, 2011 (not July 14, 2011 as you incorrectly state in your proposed motion). See Docket No. 113.  Although you claim that your Motion to Reconsider was not addressed by the Court, in fact the Court denied that motion by Order dated July 14, 2011 (denying all pending motions other than the motions to dismiss).
3.       The proposed Motion violates the Court’s Order of July 14, 2011.  The Court has been extremely clear that further motions of this sort are prohibited.  See Order July 14, 2011 (“No further motions other than discovery motions shall be filed with this Court until further order of this court.” 

Should you insist on filing this motion or any similar motion, I will not only object but request attorneys’ fees and the posting of a bond to prevent further improper filings in light of your documented history of pursuing frivolous actions and failing to pay court ordered sanctions, as detailed in the order disbarring you from the practice of law in Ohio, a copy of which is attached.

Brian Cullen

Christopher King to BrianStephenLavoieDEmilyHeilMarta.Modiglia.ryanvbarrysberwickmichael.delaneymike.delaneyreporterRipholdenHousePublicWor.david.cotephil.prestonfranpotterrobert.thompsonnancy_elliottsilvawards589jeffbrownenhrick.watrouswill.smithgrichardsonnixonraichelawrh.rowe
show details 1:28 PM (10 minutes ago) 
Let me tell you something Mr. Cullen:

1. The Motion is not inaccurate. I searched for that Order and it does not appear anywhere in the view documents. It does appear when I went to link the document, however, which I just did.

2. It is not an improper Motion to Reconsider because of the material development of Magistrate McCafferty's silent recusal, done in a manner devoid of the typical Order she files:

3. You want to reach back into the 1990's to try to discredit me in a 2010 case, huh? You are desperate now and losing your cool. The record is already set and the damage is done. File whatever you want to file, and I will counter file for sanctions against you. Regardless of what you get this local Court to hop to by the time this case gets to SCOTUS you will be singing a different tune.

Just because you and your happy little client are upset that my people are schooling them good on their documented history of abusive actions such that they hide from KingCast cameras. 

4. And that's not all.
I have video of me delivering the documented forgery and wire fraud complaints to your client, Defendant Ayotte and Defendant Hogan. When they fail to investigate it I will sue Nashua PD for Civil Rights violations, try getting that dismissed.

5. As to the lawsuit for the Gannon videos let me understand one thing: Are you telling me that you will provide the 2006 and/or 2011 videos once I produce the notarized releases from the the Gannon family? Because if not you can get ready for another lawsuit.

You couldn't care less about Justice, with you it is all about putting down the hegemonic hand of the law. I will meet you every step of the way if that's the way you want it.

Have a nice day Counselor.

Very Truly Yours,

Christopher King to BrianStephenLavoieDEmilyHeilMarta.Modiglia.ryanvbarrysberwickmichael.delaneymike.delaneyreporterRipholdenHousePublicWor.david.cotephil.prestonfranpotterrobert.thompsonnancy_elliottsilvawards589jeffbrownenhrick.watrouswill.smithgrichardsonnixonraichelawrh.rowe
show details 1:31 PM (0 minutes ago)

And another thing:

Apparently you can't read too well. It is a 2002 suspension order, not disbarment.

"Respondent is hereby suspended from the  practice of law for one year with credit  for time served."

You best get your facts straight if you want to do battle with me or otherwise keep your mouth shut and your hands off your keyboard.

Very Truly Yours,
Christopher King to BrianStephenLavoieDEmilyHeilMarta.Modiglia.ryanvbarrysberwickmichael.delaneymike.delaneyreporterRipholdenHousePublicWor.david.cotephil.prestonfranpotterrobert.thompsonnancy_elliottsilvawards589jeffbrownenhrick.watrouswill.smithgrichardsonnixonraichelawrh.rowe
show details 2:12 PM (29 minutes ago) 
Oh, my bad. You made a mistake about disbarment and I made a mistake about whether the Order was still online.

I am filing a Notice of Errata with the corrected sentence on p. 5. It certainly doesn't change the underlying issue.

I look forward to receiving your Motion for Attorney Fees.

Christopher King to StephenLavoieDEmilyHeilMarta.Modiglia.ryanvbarrysberwickmichael.delaneymike.delaneyreporterRipholdenHousePublicWor.david.cotephil.prestonfranpotterrobert.thompsonnancy_elliottsilvawards589jeffbrownenhrick.watrouswill.smithgrichardsonnixonraichelawrh.roweAnn.Rice
show details 2:41 PM (0 minutes ago)
Also Brian,

You want to call a kettle black, you were found in contempt of court as well:

Go ahead with your Motion.

1 comment:

  1. This shit is so absurd:

    They have a goddamn Judge who used to work for the same goddamn firm defending the case who also employed the lead goddamn Defendant and the Judge doesn't even mention it, then recuses herself.

    I logically raise the issue of voiding her Report and Recommendations and get threatened with Sanctions by a slate of high-powered "our shit don't stink" lawyers.

    Well guess what guys:

    Your shit does indeed stink to high hell.

    This is why common folk have no faith in the U.S. Justice system.