Senator Kelly Ayotte

Senator Kelly Ayotte

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

$2K v. $150K -- Hey KingCast how's your Reply Brief coming in KingCast v. Ayotte, NH GOP and Nashua PD in case no. 12-1891?

Not bad. I'll run through the bullshit cases they have to present but basically here's the Deal from my First and Second pages rough draft. Here's the KingCast Appellate Brief. Above, the Ayotte First Amendment Free Press case is discussed at various points during my fireside chat with Kevin Avard. Read below the fold for the draft. I am not spending a lot of time on this because there's no need to. Either the Court does the Right Thing and protects the media or it doesn't, simple.

Plaintiff-Appellant KingCast will issue a short Reply Brief in this case because there is no need to continually rehash the following main issues: That this is truly a case of First Impression in this District, which is but one of the many reasons Republican former NH State Representative Kevin Avard hosted Plaintiff on Speak Up! -- his weekly television show.[1]
22 JANUARY 2013
KingCast and former NH State Rep Kevin Avard discuss fraudulent foreclosure, Kelly Ayotte, Terie Norelli, NH Redress & Grievances, NH Family Court, current NH legal and socio-political issues and corruption on Speak Up!

Screen Shot 2013-01-24 at 8.22.23 AM.png

I.            The Pruneyard/NAACP Progeny must be affirmed in this case.
In the right circumstances, with the right quantum of proof, a purportedly private event may loose the cloak of secrecy when the “private” event is publicly-advertised, involves a Federal election and his held on property subject to state licensing and permitting. Again see Moose Lodge, Pruneyard and Seveney v. Town of Bristol Town Council, 2006 R.I. Super. LEXIS 85 (town mandated private facility pay for police detail) that will be discussed below.

            No other cases cited by the Defendants and the Lower Court involved police harassment of members of the press where the property owner had not objected to the reporter’s presence.
Further, Defendants-Appellees and the Court must acknowledge and admit that police cannot mistreat a reporter of any race by:

a)             ignoring someone who smacks the reporter’s equipment while accusing the reporter of wrongdoing,
b)            continuing to harass a reporter and remain hovering above him AFTER he has left the leased premises
c)             continuing to treat said reporter disparately by singling him out for alleged misconduct while other people (of any race) are the ones who are actually engaging in said misconduct, i.e. being close to a backing car. Any one of these incidents – as clearly documented on video – may provide indicia of a First Amendment and/or race-based Civil Rights violation. When taken as a whole, they most certainly present enough evidence that Plaintiff must be permitted to engage in discovery, per Seveney v. Town of Bristol Town Council, 2006 R.I. Super. LEXIS 85 that will be discussed below.

In summation, Nashua Police Department, which has a documented, proven history of threatening, macing and beating people who engage in protected First Amendment activities such as Mike Gannon, Pamela Reynolds and David Ridley, all at times directly related to this pending case. Here is a picture – actually a KingCast video still capture -- of Ms. Reynolds describing how she was “tackled like a football player” and maced and beaten.

[1] Note that State Rep. Avard has been following KingCast for some time and has never found Plaintiff-Appellant to have misrepresented any factual claims about mortgages, Civil Rights or policing in New Hampshire. The two men discussed the fact that he is going to get heat for hosting Plaintiff, however both men agreed it is always important to air the Truth without fear of consequence. Defendant Ayotte does not want that Truth aired, so that is why she has had high-powered Republicans donate more than $150,000.00 for her defense, so they can win the right to control the media. This Court must not give quarter for this conduct. For what it’s worth, Plaintiff has spent $2,000.00. 

No comments:

Post a Comment