Kelly Ayotte, GOP & Nashua PD take body blows in KingCast Reply Brief, 12-1891
Nashua PD, Ayotte, GOP try for sanctions in KingCast Ayotte Appeal to cover their own dirt 12-1891
-
Upload
christopher-king -
Category
Documents
-
view
220 -
download
0
Transcript of Nashua PD, Ayotte, GOP try for sanctions in KingCast Ayotte Appeal to cover their own dirt 12-1891
-
7/29/2019 Nashua PD, Ayotte, GOP try for sanctions in KingCast Ayotte Appeal to cover their own dirt 12-1891
1/13
1
12-1891__________________________________________United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
_______________________________________________________________________
CHRISTOPHER KING A/K/A/ KINGCAST.NET
Plaintiff-Appellant
v. FRIENDS OF KELLY AYOTTE ET AL.
Defendants-Appellees
_____________________________________________________
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
_____________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT-APPELLANTS
MOTION TO STRIKE AND FOR SANCTIONS
AGAINST APPELLATS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE INSTANTER:
CORRECTED OMNIBUS REPLY BRIEF OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
_____________________________________________________
Christopher King, J.D.85 Messer StreetSuite TwoProvidence, RI [email protected] pro se
-
7/29/2019 Nashua PD, Ayotte, GOP try for sanctions in KingCast Ayotte Appeal to cover their own dirt 12-1891
2/13
2
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION1
I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND
It is axiomatic that parties seeking sanctions in any
particular case must come to that case with clean hands.
Defendants do not, and they are wrong on the facts as well,
as seen in Section II. In point of fact as Plaintiff-
Appellant pointed out in his Memorandum in Support of his
Motion to file a Corrected brief (issued less than one
calendar day after he filed his Brief) he wrote:
Essentially, counsel for Nashua PD Defendants toldPlaintiff-Appellant that he was going to seek sanctionsagainst Plaintiff-Appellant, a common and abusive tacticused throughout this litigation ever since Plaintiff-Appellant exposed the fact that Magistrate Landya B.McCafferty never should have heard this case because sheand Defendant Ayotte BOTH worked UNDER Defense CounselJennifer Parent and Jack Middleton, and thats a fact.
The organization chart submitted in the Lower Court on
numerous occasions is now presented for this Courts
review. There is not one single Judge reviewing this case
who could honestly say that Appellant should not have been
informed of this relationship, and the abject failure in
this regard by all Defense counsel, coupled with Judge
Barbadoros insouciant comment that the Motion to Recuse
was totally without merit without any analysis
1Defendants-Appellant cite no Decisional law supporting their motionwhatsoever, because there isnt any.Plaintiff-Appellant has searchedLexis all day as surely as they did in the past 3 days after theirthreat. The threat was issued by Counsel Brian Cullen because he hasthe least amount of dirt in this case, but as the Court will see, inspecific detail, he too is without clean hands.
-
7/29/2019 Nashua PD, Ayotte, GOP try for sanctions in KingCast Ayotte Appeal to cover their own dirt 12-1891
3/13
3
whatsoever complements and compounds the problem.
Magistrate McCafferty, once confronted with the series
other recusals, finally recused herself in the present case
in a terse one-sentence Order as other Judges recused
themselves without prompting whatsoever, something that
Plaintiff-Appellant has never seen in his life.
-
7/29/2019 Nashua PD, Ayotte, GOP try for sanctions in KingCast Ayotte Appeal to cover their own dirt 12-1891
4/13
4
But thats not all. At another point in time Defense
counsel, falsely accused Plaintiff-Appellant of being
disbarred in order to put him down, when in point of fact
he was suspended from practice for a year. KingCast
directed Defense counsel to the federal conviction,
disbarment and apparent reinstatement of New Hampshire
lawyer Mike McLaughlin, currently of counsel with Shaheen &
Gordon to illustrate the difference.2
2 Defendants cry about the $150,000.00 figure that Plaintiff-Appellant
pointed out, but what they fail to realize is that $2,000.00 toPlaintiff-Appellant, unsubsidized by former Presidential cabinetmembers.. means more to him than that $150,000.00 ever will toDefendants, ahem.
-
7/29/2019 Nashua PD, Ayotte, GOP try for sanctions in KingCast Ayotte Appeal to cover their own dirt 12-1891
5/13
5
In any event, Plaintiff-Appellant was compelled to
bring this attention to the Court and the related filing
was sealed.
And thats still not yet all: Despite counsels
implications that Plaintiff-Appellant does not know how to
comport himself before this Court, in recent history,
counsel for Nashua Defendants and/or his client were found
in contempt of Court because they dont want bad
information to come out. This happened in case no 1:05-CV-
00365, infra.
II. LAW AND ARGUMENT
First of all, there is no citation to case law
whatsoever in Appellees Motion. Thats because it is
ridiculous to start with. The Brief does NOT exceed the
word limitation, and that is all that matters. In point of
fact, the Corrected Brief actually contains the word count
from the first Brief, which is too high. Either way,
Counsel for Defendant should pay closer attention to the
rules before complaining.
-
7/29/2019 Nashua PD, Ayotte, GOP try for sanctions in KingCast Ayotte Appeal to cover their own dirt 12-1891
6/13
6
As someone with a bit of trial and appellate
experience Plaintiff-Appellant knows how to read. And he
knows how to win.3
Second, Plaintiff-Appellant believes there may be
minimal typeface deviations, only because the source
material was not in Courier New typeface. Briefs are not
stricken because of minimal conformance; this is the
argument of a desperate Defendant.
Third, there are no allegations made against the
Nashua Police Department that were not raised in the Court
below. Defense Counsel claims there are without direct
reference whatsoever -- are but there are not. He simply
does not like the dirty laundry being aired in this Court,
but that is part of the reason we have this Court, to
review the things that are relevant that the lower Court
ignored, and that dirty laundry including the continued
arrests, beatings and macing of innocent civilians and
reporters, is germane as to why the Third Amended Complaint
should have been GRANTED. This is not rocket science, it is
simply Jurisprudence.
3 For the record, since Defendants have taken Plaintiff-Appellant totask, the facts are that Plaintiff-Appellant has won more criminaldefense trials than he lost, and he defeated his former employer, theOhio AGs Office, in proving that two policemen made his client a
victim of violent crime, after he won his clients criminal trials and
settled the Civil Action sounding in 42 U.S.C. 1983 and FirstAmendment issues. And thats a fact. See Ohio Court of Claims V96-61481at the end of this document. It was a landmark decision, much as thiscase will be regardless of its outcome.
-
7/29/2019 Nashua PD, Ayotte, GOP try for sanctions in KingCast Ayotte Appeal to cover their own dirt 12-1891
7/13
7
An award of sanctions for presenting scurrilous
material in an Appellant Brief must be awarded only under
the most abusive circumstances, made entirely devoid of any
plausible Good Faith Argument. It is a standard similar to
the one under which Attorney Cullen and/or his client was
found in Contempt in Federal Court.
That having been said, this is a case of immense
importance in the field of Journalism, and as such it is
particularly important that the Court grant Plaintiff-
Appellant the benefit of the doubt, particularly given what
happened to him already in the Lower Court with Defendant
Ayottes former bosses presenting to Magistrate Judge
McCafferty without informing KingCast.4
Therefore it is important that recent State
Politicians such as Mayor Streeter and Kevin Avard have
commended Plaintiff-Appellant and invited him to speak on
TV for the Free World to observe. As the Court may readily
see other material from a more remote journalist was
removed in the Corrected Brief, but the presence of a
Republican State Representative journalist concerned about
the matter is worthy of Judicial Notice, pure and simple.
4All of these attorneys were aware of this situation. Keep in mindthat the McCafferty issue is two-fold in complexity: Not only did JudgeMcCafferty work underneath Jack Middleton and Jennifer Parent arecent NH Bar President mind you so too did Kelly Ayotte within 12months of Judge McCafferty. The U.S. Supreme Court cannot and will notcondone that sort of nondisclosure because it is clearly inexcusable.
-
7/29/2019 Nashua PD, Ayotte, GOP try for sanctions in KingCast Ayotte Appeal to cover their own dirt 12-1891
8/13
8
And if it is not, it also is not sanctionable, nor is
the reference to the Politico story in which Defendant
Ayotte admitted she had gone after Plaintiff-Appellant,
then awkwardly tried to mend her words. That is probative
of ill-intent, and that is why Counsel for Defendants try
to categorize the Politico story as being solely about
money, when Plaintiff-Appellant cited to it for several
reasons. But as with everything else in this case the
Defendants pick and chose what they want to hear,
disingenuous to the end.
As to Defendants whining about how much this case
costs, the Defendants would be well-advised to remember
Plaintiff-Appellants no-cost option to settle this case
before NENPA panel, as will be discussed at Oral Argument.
For that matter, Plaintiff-Appellant could more justly
complain about all of the time, money and resources he
expended when Defendant Ayotte went after him for no
lawful reason as NAACP Legal Chair, only to nol-pross the
case after Plaintiff-Appellant sat through voir dire with
former Hillsborough lead prosecutor David Horan as counsel.
They are nothing but bullies, and they hate the sand that
KingCast repeatedly throws in their face.
Sadly for them, hatred provides no grounds for
sanctions.
-
7/29/2019 Nashua PD, Ayotte, GOP try for sanctions in KingCast Ayotte Appeal to cover their own dirt 12-1891
9/13
9
Further, the Court must be aware, as noted in the
Motion for Leave to File Corrected Brief Instanter, that
Plaintiff-Appellant made an attempt to resolve the issue
raised by Defense Counsel in the same way he promptly
addressed a prior Defamation allegation raised by Attorney
Cullen relative to Plaintiff-Appellants Journal page. The
bottom line in that instance, was this: Basically no matter
how much he huffed and puffed, Attorney Cullen and/or his
clients were indeed found IN CONTEMPT in FEDERAL COURT and
Attorney fees were awarded. And thats a fact.
In any event the exchange on this conflict is below,
and it shows a reasonable exchange, nothing sanctionable:
-
7/29/2019 Nashua PD, Ayotte, GOP try for sanctions in KingCast Ayotte Appeal to cover their own dirt 12-1891
10/13
10
So in this case, in this particular issue, Plaintiff-
Appellant removed some of the material in dispute that
Defendant claims is immaterial (i.e. the Sunlight
Foundation information), while leaving information that
Plaintiff believes the Court must be aware of by way of FRE
201, such as a PARTY ADMISSION by Defendant Ayotte that she
went after KingCast.
-
7/29/2019 Nashua PD, Ayotte, GOP try for sanctions in KingCast Ayotte Appeal to cover their own dirt 12-1891
11/13
11
III. CONCLUSION
This case has far-reaching implications and will
continue to unfold and to reverberate cross Americas First
Amendment landscape whether some chose to ignore it or not.
Plaintiff-Appellant told Defense Counsel straight out
that he has had enough of the sort of tactics that delay
and complicate this case. The Defendants all should have
conceded the 28 U.S.C. 455 issue but instead fought back
and threatened sanctions and huffed and puffed and still
ultimately WERE WRONG. They were wrong again in accusing
Plaintiff-Appellant of being disbarred. And they are wrong
yet again, here.
Lastly, as to a legitimate error, note that Plaintiff-
Appellant has also inserted direct citations to the Joint
Appendix, as seen as his TR designations. There is
nothing to see here, we need to move along toward Oral
Argument and a Decision on our way to the Supreme Court of
the United States.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Christopher King, J.D.__________________________________KingCast.netBy and through Christopher King, J.D.617.543.8085m
-
7/29/2019 Nashua PD, Ayotte, GOP try for sanctions in KingCast Ayotte Appeal to cover their own dirt 12-1891
12/13
12
-
7/29/2019 Nashua PD, Ayotte, GOP try for sanctions in KingCast Ayotte Appeal to cover their own dirt 12-1891
13/13
13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I the undersigned, solemnly swear that a true copyof this Memorandumwas signed and mailed to the Court and
that this version was electronically delivered on:7 February 2013 to:
Jennifer Parent and Jack Middleton, Esq.City Hall Plaza900 Elm Street
Manchester, NH 03101
Gordon MacDonald, Esq.Nixon Peabody LLP900 Elm Street
Manchester, NH 03101
Brian Cullen, Esq.10 East Pearl StreetNashua, NH 03060
/s/Christopher King, J.D.__________________________________
KingCast.netBy and through Christopher King, J.D.
617.543.8085m