Kent County Delaware Judge Robert B. Young Ignores DE AG Advisory Opinion and Case Law to Dismiss...
of 25
-
Upload
christopher-king -
Category
Documents
-
view
582 -
download
0
description
http://mortgagemovies.blogspot.com/2015/07/kingcast-and-mortgage-movies-to-file.htmlSo that which I can do in every other State I've been in, I cannot apparently do in Delaware, nice. At least not on a Constitutionally-protected basis.... is what I am assuming until I read the Decision. The Court is apparently trying to send me down the Common Law path, which one of my cases sustained. Other Courts clearly disagree and sustain a Constitutional challenge.As I said:Rick Jensen doesn't seem to get it but Bill Gunlocke and Nancy Willing do. Fortunately, most Courts these days get it too. Pomykacz v. Borough of W. Wildwood, 438 F. Supp. 2d 504 (2006). In 2006, a federal district court in New Jersey decided the case of Pomykacz v. Borough of W. Wildwood, 438 F. Supp. 2d 504 (2006) · Pomykacz was a self-described “citizen activist” who expressed concern that a suspected romance between the town’s mayor and a police officer were leading to nepotism, conflicts of interest and preferential treatment. These suspicions led Pomykacz to “monitor” the two, which included taking photographs. Eventually she was arrested on charges of stalking, though the charges were downgraded to harassment. Pomykacz ended up filing suit asserting, among other things, that she was arrested in violation of the First Amendment retaliation for her monitoring activities. · On the night of October 7, 2002, on her way to Wildwood, Pomykacz drove past the borough municipal building and observed Officer Ferentz working on renovations while she was on duty. Later that night, after Pomykacz had returned from Wildwood, she photographed Officer Ferentz in the police headquarters. 7 Another police officer and [*508] Mayor Fox were also present in the police station at the time. According to Pomykacz, Mayor Fox came out of the building and began yelling at her. Pomykacz walked home without responding. U.S. District Judge Joseph E. Irenas noted, Pomykacz has put forth sufficient evidence that she was a concerned citizen who at times spoke her mind to Borough [*513] officials and other citizens about her concerns regarding the official conduct of the police department and the mayor. Such speech is clearly protected by the First Amendment. 14 See Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218, 86 S. Ct. 1434, 16 L. Ed. 2d 484 (1966) HN15o to the description of this Headnote.("a major purpose of [the First] Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs."); Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 484, 77 S. Ct. 1304, 1 L. Ed. 2d 1498 (1957) ("The protection given speech and press was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.").
Transcript of Kent County Delaware Judge Robert B. Young Ignores DE AG Advisory Opinion and Case Law to Dismiss...
-
MacBookCorrection: Very risky
MacBookRepeat after me: Were going to SCOTUS!
-
MacBookThey moved for Judgment on the Pleadings or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment.
But Discovery was ongoing and Plaintiff had adduced many many facts outside the Pleadings that provide context. This includes examples of Plaintiff conducting video of Senator Kelly Ayotte in public places including her office since I lost my Free Press case against her. But see the Defendants in their Dispositive Motion had raised my case of KingCast v. Ayotte as an example of me not knowing the private v. public distinction but alas, Ayotte was not an elected official at the time I sought admittance to an event at a private hotel.
Anyway bottom line is all of that should have been considered. See See Commonwealth Constr. Co. v. Red Clay Consol. Sch. Dist, 2010 Del. Super. LEXIS 489 (2010). On a motion for judgment on the pleadings, if matters outside the pleadings are presented and not excluded, the motion is converted to a motion for summary judgment and is disposed of as one for summary judgment under Rule 56. 3 When such materials are presented the Court must give all parties a reasonable [*5] opportunity to present all pertinent material needed for a motion for summary judgment.. Instead, I got the shaft. Did Judge Young honestly think I didnt know the law?
-
MacBookWhiteland Woods and all of the public meeting cases are almost irrelevant. The more germane cases are Pomykacz and Iacobucci, Where independent journos/activists were filming state actors in their office.The Court in both cases found their conduct protected by the First Amendment.
MacBook
MacBookEssential to Whiteland Woods was the fact that the Court found a blanket, content-neutral universal ban onvideo cameras. Some courts have found such bans unlawful. Be that as it may, recall that in this situation we have no clue what the policy really is, only a lie from Defendant Malone that there was a written policy.I have argued in response to Defendants Dispositive Motions that this is viewpoint and content based discrimination.I said if my Cousin, ESPNs Mike Wilbon showed up to do a puff piece regarding a former employee who used thevery same machines I wanted to video, no way in hell would they threaten to arrest him, no Sir.
MacBookText
-
MacBookThere is no alternative mode of demonstrating candidate Gunn pulling up fraudulent documents from the electronic fiche machine.And Defendant Malone admitted in her Affidavit that we came to lookfor fraudulent documents. They cant tell me how to project a newsstory unless I am disrupting the flow of government business, dammit.You routinely see news crews run B-roll footage like this. Its complete crap
-
MacBookToo bad I had already WITHDRAWN these claims.
-
MacBookThey definitely dont want a saturated Record for me to appeal this bullshit. Thats why the Court returned to me an SD video card showing me running video at anotherregistry of deeds. I sent it right back.
