final: kelly ayotte, gop & nashua pd take body blows in kingcast reply brief, 12-1891

7/29/2019 Final: Kelly Ayotte, GOP & Nashua PD take body blows in KingCast Reply Brief, 12-1891

1/24

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

_____________________________________________________

CORRECTED OMNIBUS REPLY BRIEF

OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT

_____________________________________________________

Christopher King, J.D.85 Messer StreetSuite TwoProvidence, RI [email protected] pro se


2/24

2

TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF CONTENTS Page

1. Table of Contents2

2. Table of Authorities2

ARGUMENTI. Introduction.4

II. The Pruneyard/NAACP Progeny must be affirmed in thiscase because the properties and events in question arenot truly private.5

III. Plaintiff-Appellant has Successfully Pleaded StateAction and Conspiracy Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1985..11

IV. A Special Word about Nashua PD Defendants and ThirdAmended Complaint....16

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page

1.Invisible Empire of Knights of Ku Klux Klan v. Thurmont,700 F.Supp 281 (Maryland 1988)....3

2. Kay v. Bruno 605 F. Supp 767 (1985)..6

3. Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins447 U.S.74 (1980).5

4. Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, 407 U.S. 163..5

5. NAACP v. Thompson, 648 F.Supp. 195 D.Md.,(1986)..5

6. Seveney v. Town of Bristol Town Council, 2006 R.I.Super. LEXIS 856, 6

7. Article XIII, section 5, of the Rhode Island Constitution. 7

8. Weise v. Jenkins, 796 F. Supp. 2d 188 (Dist ofColumbia 2011)..9

9. Do Not Admit List Lifted in Fargo for Bush Event

http://www.progressive.org/node/23531

Matthew Rothschild

February 4, 2005..810. Senator Ayottes $120K Legal Headache, Politico...9.


3/24

3

11. Ashcroft v. Iqbal 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009).. 13

12. Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) .13

13. Adickes v. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970).13, 14

14. Arizona v. Wells....18

15. Food Lion v. Capital Cities/ABC194 F.3d 505(4th Cir. 1999). ..... 18

16. Williams v. Le Crewe De Spaniards,2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4852. 23

17. Gent v. CUNA Mut. Ins. Society,210 U.S. App. Lexis 141894

FRE 201.5, 10, 17

Certificates of Compliance & Service...24

PREAMBLEThe Friends of Kelly Ayotte brief, at p. 16 proves thatthey (and all of the Defendants) still just dont get it:

Mr. King attempts to distinguish this case from Kayand Grandmaison because those cases involveindividuals being denied the opportunity to speak at apolitical event. Mr. King argues that he simply

wanted to attend the Events as a journalist. Br. 23-24. It makes no legal difference, however, why Mr.King wanted to attend the Events.

Sadly that is at once the wrong answer and misleading.

Plaintiff-Appellant does not make that distinction, the

Courts have already made that distinction, and it is a

common sense distinction as ignored by the Lower Court yet

shown in Invisible Empire of Knights of Ku Klux Klan v.

Thurmont, 700 F.Supp 281 (Maryland 1988).1(TR 163, 267, 335)

1Thompson specifically did not address the issue of whether minoritiesattending a KKK rally would have any right to speak. 648 F.2d at218. Thompson is thus not applicable to the facts in this case. Ahem.


4/24

4

I. Introduction.

KingCast v. Ayotte, GOP & Nashua PD or$2,000 v. $150,000.00.

Why is this case so important to Defendants?

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 that last week, Republican former NH State

Representative Kevin Avard hosted Plaintiff on Speak Up! --

his weekly television show.2

2 Note that State Rep. Avard has been following KingCast for some timeand has never found Plaintiff-Appellant to have misrepresented anyfactual claims about mortgages, Civil Rights or policing in NewHampshire. The two men discussed the fact that he is going to get heatfor hosting Plaintiff, however both men agreed it is always importantto air the Truth without fear of consequence. Defendant Ayotte does notwant that Truth aired, so that is why she has fought this case withhigh-powered Republicans so they can win the right to control themedia. This Court must not give quarter for this conduct. Counsel forDefendant Nashua PD is claiming that he is going to file for Sanctions

because this interview was not part of the Lower Court Record.Obviously material that is truly extraneous may be stricken from anAppellate Brief, however per FRE 201 it is hardly irrelevant that arecent former Republican State Representative was concerned enoughabout this and other issues to bring Plaintiff on his show. Gent v.CUNA Mut. Ins. Society, 210 U.S. App. Lexis 14189 (1st Cir. July 12,2010) (No. 09-1703. As such, Plaintiff-Appellant will not object to ashort Surreply by Defendants as to why this issue actually should bestricken from the record or merits sanctions while their clients arebusy beating and macing and falsely arresting innocent citizens.


5/24

5

http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2013/01/kingcast-and-former-nh-state-rep-kevin.html22 JANUARY 2013KingCast and former NH State Rep Kevin Avard discussfraudulent foreclosure, Kelly Ayotte, Terie Norelli, NH

Redress & Grievances, NH Family Court, current NH legal andsocio-political issues and corruption on Speak Up!

http://youtu.be/DLQywsmcX2M

II. The Pruneyard/NAACP v. Thompson Progeny must beaffirmed in this case because the properties and

events in question are not truly private.

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, Pruneyardand 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.


6/24

6

Kay v. Bruno 605 F. Supp 767 (1985) is simply off-point

and no other cases cited by the Defendants and the Lower

Court involve this exact sort police harassment of members

of the press where the property owner had not objected to

the reporters presence.3(TR 85, 266). At TR 85 Defendants

have the nerve to claim Plaintiff opted not to provide

more video from this event, but that is because Nashua PD

stood there, glared at him and hovered over him, scaring

him into leaving the building even though he is reasonably

hearty he is not stupid and knows when he is in fear.

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 reporters equipmentwhile accusing the reporter of wrongdoing,(TR 84-85)

b) continuing to harass a reporter and remain hoveringabove him AFTER he has left the leased premises andthe property owner said they were not throwing himout for trespass(TR 85).

c) continuing to treat said reporter disparately bysingling him out for alleged misconduct while otherpeople (of any race) are the ones who are actuallyengaging in said misconduct, i.e. being close to abacking car. (TR 16, 29, 165). Any one of theseincidents as clearly documented on video may

3 Recall, Defendant Nashua PD was more than happy to note that theproperty management personnel at the Crowne Plaza stated that they werenot going to throw him out. Well if that be the case, then those threeuniformed police officers had no right to hover over Plaintiff-Appellant well after he left the leased area, and thats a fact. And itis also a fact that a reasonably hearty individual in that circumstancewould feel that his ability to gather and to disseminate news had beenviolated. How could Plaintiff pull out his laptop and begin to composea story under that sort of duress? This is not Kosovo in 1999, it isNashua in 2012.


7/24

7

provide indicia of a First Amendment and/or race-based Civil Rights violation. No qualified immunityexists to engage in that conduct.

When taken as a whole, they most certainly present

enough evidence that Plaintiff must be permitted toengage in discovery, per Adickes v. Kress & Co., 398U.S. 144 (1970), Seveney v. Town of Bristol 2006R.I. Super. LEXIS 85:

[*7] Topside states that the Ordinance is invalid for avariety of reasons. First, Topside maintains that theOrdinance improperly delegates a legislative function to anexecutive officer, the Chief of Police.Second, the plaintiff claims that the charge for the policeofficers amounts to an unlawful tax. Third, Topside arguesthat that the Ordinance has been imposed in violation ofits state and federal equal protection and due processrights.

In response, the Town maintains that the delegation ofpower to the Chief of Police is valid because it isaccompanied by specific guidelines.

Furthermore, the Town argues that the Ordinance isconstitutional as it imposes a valid condition on themaintenance of a liquor license for the safety andwellbeing of the public and that the means used are

rationally related to this legitimate goal. Finally,the Town claims that the assessment for the police officersis not a tax because it funds to implementation of theprotection plan and is not received into the Town's generalfund.

Constitutionality of the Fee Charged for the PoliceOfficers

Lastly, Topside argues that the fee it must pay tothe Town pursuant to the Ordinance amounts to anunconstitutional tax under article XIII, section 5, of the

Rhode Island Constitution.Article XIII, section 5, statesthat HN14 "[n]othing contained in this article shall bedeemed to grant to any city or town the power to levy,assess and collect taxes or to borrow money, except asauthorized by the general assembly." The Town maintainsthat the fee for the police officers is not a tax butrather a permissible licensing fee.


8/24

8

ConclusionAfter closely considering the facts of the case, this Court

declares that the Ordinance is constitutional and valid inall respects. As a result, the Town is entitled to thelicensing fees assessed against Topside, pursuant to theOrdinance, from the year 2003 to the present. Thedefendant Bristol Town Council shall submit a judgment inconformity with this decision.

*********************From Faith M. Sparr in Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesInc. Communication Law and Policy paper in Winter, 2007 at12 Comm. L. & Pol'y 91ARTICLE: TOWN HALL MEETINGS WITHOUT THE TOWN: WERE THEDENVER THREE'S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS VIOLATED?

The Thompson court also reasoned that requiring landownerswho held private meetings on their property to refrain fromracial discrimination would not violate the landowners'property rights to exclude individuals from the meetings.According to the court, the property owner chose to openhis land to the public, and cannot thereafter complain thathe has been deprived of his privacy right or his freedom touse his own property as he desires.

In addition, the court held that the KKK would not beinhibited in its views at the rally by requiring the publicrally to be open to all. The plaintiffs in the case did notseek the opportunity to speak at the rally, nor to requirethe KKK to call upon anyone at the rally. Instead, theplaintiffs complained only of being excluded entirely fromthe KKK's public rallies.

As to the amount of governmental involvement needed toestablish "state action," the court in Thompson cited aU.S. circuit court case establishing that a lesser degree

of state involvement is needed [*106] in cases allegingracial discrimination. According to the Thompson court, insuch cases, the amount of state action can be de minimis.4

4 Plaintiff-Appellant finds it fascinating that a visiting University ofMichigan Professor sees things the same way Plaintiff-Appellant seesthem, yet Defendants characterize his conduct as sanctionable, withoutmerit, etc. when it is they who are not on point. Please see theembarrassing Preamble, supra.


9/24

9

Further, the antics of Defendants herein are akin to

the insanely abusive, morally and politically repugnant

policy of Republican predecessors in the Social Security

Denver Three case (in which three perfectly law-abiding

citizens were ousted by the Republican thought police5),

which led to an embarrassing, awkward policy backpedal:

Do Not Admit List Lifted in Fargo for Bush Event

http://www.progressive.org/node/23531

Matthew Rothschild

February 4, 2005

They lifted the ban.

5 In Weise v. Jenkins, 796 F. Supp. 2d 188 (District of Columbia 2011)Plaintiffs ultimately failed in that somewhat similar case because theycould not prove a policy or custom, and in fact the actions of theBecause the Advance Manual did not dictate the ejection of Plaintiffsfrom the President's speech based on Weise's bumper sticker, Plaintiffshave failed to plead facts that plausibly demonstrate a causalconnection between their ejection and any nationwide policy created byDefendants. In this case however we dont even know what the policy isand whether the Political Parties that either enforced it or breachedit using the Nashua, NH Police Department and the threat of the

Manchester NH Police Department who did in fact, arrive. We dont knowthis for the same reason we are not able to prove that the taxpayerspaid for the Nashua PD police detail because the Lower Courterroneously dismissed the case prior to discovery, when Plaintiff hadsought answers to those very questions in his Discovery. In any event,recall that these Plaintiffs were not reporters so these cases andtheir likely results are not apples-to-oranges but important underlyingthemes, such as the denial of reasonable discovery held only in thehands of the Defendants, is key in this case.


10/24

10

After negative publicity surrounding the existence of a do

not admit list to Bushs Social Security event in Fargo,

North Dakota, Republican Party officials let everybody in

on February 3.6

***************In this case the Court must take Judicial Notice that

former Bush staffers have contributed to the estimated

$150,000.00 Ayotte defense fund.7 That is because they all

hate the truly free press and are aiming to get a tool from

this Court in order to run their hegemonic agenda.

Plaintiff Appellant, again by way of FRE 201 provides a 18

July 2012 Politico story, Kelly Ayottes $120K Legal

Headache,

6Plaintiff-Appellant again extends the opportunity for Defendants toissue a Surreply as to why this sort of history is so truly extraneousas to merit sanctions: Recall that part of the history Plaintiffattempted to seek in Discovery Requests related to what the Local and

Federal GOP policies are, so that we could determine if they took avariance from such procedures against Plaintiff, a black journalistsimilar to Stephen Price, who was ejected sua sponte by Kelly Ayottesfriend John McCain. So first they say you have no indicia of racialanimus all the while hiding the peanut so that you cannot furnish theproofs to a trier of fact. Good work when you can get it.7 Again, it was $120K in the Politico feature from months ago --- thesame feature in which Defendant Ayotte issued public commentary aboutgoing after Plaintiff. That is fair game on appeal per FRE 201whether Defendants like it or not See Fn.8.


11/24

11

in which Defendant Ayotte issued at least one

statement against interest:8

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78691.html

A number of GOP senators including John Cornyn,Richard Shelby, Rob Portman and Lindsey Graham havedonated to Ayottes fund through their politicalaction committees or PACs. Honeywell InternationalsPAC has given $10,000, while Andy Card, former chiefof staff to President George W. Bush, donated $1,000.

Its an unfortunate price to pay for going intopublic service, Easton said. Unfortunately, electedofficials increasingly become targets of these kindsof tactics.

As a rhetoric minor and protector of the First

Amendment, KingCast takes exception to the use of the word

Tactics when uttered by the same man who lied and said

that Plaintiff-Appellant has filed frivolous lawsuits.

(Appellants Third Amended Complaint TR 24).

8In the story, Reporters Scott Wong and Manu Raju completely tried touse Plaintiff to fit their own agenda and storyline, writing King, aself-described liberal when in fact Mr. Wong badgered Plaintiff duringthe phone call to identify his journal as being liberal-leaning. Forthe record, the TV interview with Republican Kevin Avard gets it right:KingCast questions every politician and pulls no punches and owes nofavors. The story did get one thing right, however, and that isDefendant Ayottes stated mission to go after Plaintiff-Appellant:Actually, its not the first time that something I did as attorneygeneral or someone who I went after not after but someone who Ienforced the law as attorney general.. The same goes for this

statement by Defendant Ayotte. If she believes this sort of publiccommentary is truly extraneous to this Appeal then she shall file herMotion to Strike, but Plaintiff-Appellant contends that there isnothing sanctionable about the use of her comments or the amount ofmoney she has spent on this case. It is, for example important for thisCourt to know that she stated, out of her own volition, that shetargeted Plaintiff-Appellant when she was an Attorney General, and shedid it in a racial, First Amendment context. And she lost. She mustlose again, because she is wrong again.


12/24

12

As a rhetoric minor and protector of the First

Amendment, KingCast takes exception to the use of the word

Tactics when uttered by the same team that said an RSA

91-A lawsuit for Defendant Kelly Ayottes emails was an

election year stunt. Query, what were Defendant Ryan

Williams and Kelly Ayottes tactics in spiking the

emails? To deprive the World public of information about a

political process to which they were clearly entitled? The

answer is a chilling but true.


13/24

13

III. Plaintiff-Appellant has Successfully Pleaded StateAction and Conspiracy Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1985.

Once again, Plaintiff-Appellant has broken down Iqbal

andTwombly

. To wit, the state actor issue has been the

subject of substantial scholarly debate by Faith M. Sparr

in Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Communication Law and

Policy paper in Winter, 2007 at12 Comm. L. & Pol'y 91

ARTICLE: TOWN HALL MEETINGS WITHOUT THE TOWN: WERE THEDENVER THREE'S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS VIOLATED?

For instance, in Jackson v. Pantazes, 54 the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit collapsed the twoprongs of the Lugar test, reasoning that both prongs are"satisfied where the nature of the relationship betweenthe state and private actors is one of interdependence or'symbiosis.'" Even in the Lugarcase, the Court citedwith approval the reasoning from Adickes v. Kress &Co., 56 wherein the Court held that the joint actionbetween the private party in Adickes and a police officerwas sufficient to support a Section 1983 suit against theprivate party without any allegation of anunconstitutional statute or custom.

Another way to show a sufficient relationship existsbetween a private party and state actors for purposes ofthe state action doctrine is to demonstrate that thestate has exercised coercive power or has provided suchsignificant encouragement, either overt or covert, thatthe choice must be deemed to be that of the state. Anexample of this test in action is the Supreme Court's1970 decision in Adickes v. Kress & Co. In Adickes, theCourt considered whether a conspiracy between a privateparty and a law enforcement officer constituted stateaction for purposes of a Fourteenth Amendment equal

protection claim. Sandra Adickes, a teacher inHattiesburg, Mississippi, was refused service by awaitress at S. H. Kress & Co. because Adickes was in thecompany of six of her African American students. Adickesbrought two claims against Kress, a privately-ownedrestaurant, both based on an equal protection FourteenthAmendment argument. Her first claim asserted she had beendenied service because she was a white woman in the


14/24

14

company of her black students, and that such denial wasbased on a custom of the community to segregate the racesin public eating places. The second claim, in part,asserted that the refusal of service by the restaurantwas the product of a conspiracy between Kress and the

Hattiesburg police.

In rejecting the lower court's summary judgment decisionon the conspiracy claim, the Court relied on the factthat a police officer was present in the restaurant whenAdickes was refused service and that this was the sameofficer who arrested her. The Court acknowledged that thepleadings did not establish that Adickes had knowledge ofan agreement between the Kress employees and police, but

the sequence of events created a substantial enough

possibility of a conspiracy to allow Adickes to proceedat trial. Emphasis added.

That ispreciselythe KingCast argument herein (see TR

348), and as such, the Friends of Kelly Ayotte Brief at p9

is flat wrong because Plaintiff-Appellant has more than a

conclusory naked statement, he has everythingthat Adickes

had, and that is enough for further discovery as to what

extent Nashua PD and the Defendants coordinated their

efforts to single Plaintiff-Appellant out and why.

This Court must recognize the crucial nature of this

case and what Defendants Ayotte et al. are really fighting

for, and that is the ability to control the press, nothing

more and nothing less. This is key because in todays

society even so-called progressive media get dissuaded from

covering dicey matters of public interest when high-powered

pols are involved


15/24

15

That reinforces the fact that this Court must take

measures to protect the very sort of independent press that

KingCast has come to embody since 2005. Though Chris Kings

First Amendment Page and Mortgage Movies Journal have

received only several million page views since 2005, and

his YouTube pages reflects only 649 subscribers and less

than a million views (590,749 as of 31 January, 2013) those

numbers are certainlylarge enough to be considered as a

valuable news pipeline. That pipelines is built with

information coming from someone who has been an editor and

large daily reporter, practiced as a government attorney,

managed a title company, earned a Mayoral Commendation from

Nashua, NH Mayor Bernard Streeter (a Republican)

(Plaintiffs First, Second and Third Amended Complaints TR

1, 24, 243), and actually won First Amendment trials

(Defendant Ayotte tends to lose her First Amendment cases,

the Court may take Judicial Notice of Ayotte v. Planned

Parenthood, 546 U.S. 320 (2006),costing the taxpayers of

NH $300,000.00 in Attorney Fees for Planned Parenthood, and

thats a fact.9 KingCast was the onlymedia outlet to post

the two $150,000.00 checks on his journal page.

9Smallwondertheyarehungryforbloodandhell-bent-for-leatherinthiscase,itmustbeexasperatingtotakesuchabeatingfromthepeskyCivilRightsBar.


16/24

16

So now we see men of two completely different

generations in Defendant Ayottes own partyworking to undo

what Defendant is doing, and to protect KingCasts

interests, which are in turn the interests of every

taxpayer in this Country. If Mayor Streeter and Kevin Avard

get it so too must this Honorable Court.10

10 With the exception of his lifestyle videos, Plaintiff-Appellantis not engaged in the practice of journalism to be a popular oreven well-liked fellow. He does not care whether this Court,Defendants or other journalists like him. All he cares about isthat all journalists receive equal protection under the Law,regardless of skin color, race, religion or creed.


17/24

17

IV. A Special Word about Nashua PD Defendants and ThirdAmended Complaint.

The Nashua Police Department 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 proximate to this pending case.11 Here is a picture

actually a KingCast video still capture -- of Ms.

Reynolds describing how she was tackled like a football

playerand maced and beaten. She is represented by counsel

and will sue now that the Court tossed Nashua PDs trumped-

up, retaliatory charges against her.

11 This proximity mandates a Third and final AmendedComplaint. Plaintiff recognizes reasonable finality ineverything, but we have not yet arrived at such point.


18/24

18

The First Amendment Center notes that the U.S. Supreme

Court has yet to decide on the ultimate Right of a reporter

to gather and to disseminate the news on private property,

however there are yet more relevant cases that inform this

case. Again by way of FRE 201 KingCast provides shares the

First Amendment Center notes on the subject:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faq/frequently-asked-

questions-press

1. Arizona v. Wells: A reporter was found liable for

trespass because, without invitation of any sort, heentered the residence of a police officer. That case is

clearly not on point.2. Food Lion v. Capital Cities/ABC) Food Lion was awardednominal ($2.00) damages after reporters exposed unsanitary

conditions. This case doesnt apply here because

thereporters gained access to Food Lion by way of

deception.


19/24

19

However in this case there was no deception; there was

an invitation and the video clearly shows Defendant Hogan

welcoming KingCast into the venue (specifically into the

leased area) after it had been made crystal clear that

Plaintiff-Appellant was at the Crowne Plaza Strictly as a

reporter. Moreover, on another occasion, the record is

entirely devoid of any indication that the owners of the

VFW had any issue with KingCast cameras,yet and still the

Nashua Police Department hindered his ability to gather

information, to ask questions and to disseminate the news

by repeatedly talking over him and doing so in a manner

that singled him out from the white participants as we

recall Defendant Fisher barking orders at him while the

whites were actually closer to the backing car.12 (See

Plaintiff-Appellants Second and Third Amendment Complaints

and Rule 59E Motion for New Trial at TR 243).

Plaintiff-Appellants role on Americas Journalistic

landscape is relatively small, yet at the same time it is

of huge import: KingCast does not physically resemble or in

practice act like the sort of more conservative burger of

12Defendants no doubt attempt to define this transgression as deminimis. But there is no such thing as a de minimis FirstAmendment violation for a Motion to Dismiss or Motion for SummaryJudgment purposes; the Trier of Fact in this case the Jury --determines what is or what is not de minimis.


20/24

20

the First Amendment like those at the First Amendment

Center, or those at the Sunlight

Foundation for that matter. All of them are basically white

and relatively low-impact on the front line.

They are all derivative enterprises that report on

what people on the front line do. On the other hand,

KingCast and other courtroom journalists with professional

training, effective and proven Courtroom delivery and video

are the journalists who fill that front line, and we depend

on Courts of Appeal like this one to protect us. Without

this Court, the First Amendment has no friend. Any expert

will agree.


21/24

21

CONCLUSION

The actions of Defendants are not only rude, they are

completely intolerable in a free society, particularly on

taxpayer time. They cannot use uniformed police,

particularly on taxpayer time, to enforce discrimination at

a publicly-advertised event held at commercial facilities

subject to licensing and permitting. Plaintiff has

conclusively shown -- from Senator McCains ejecting a

black reporter, to the Busch era Denver Three to Kelly

Ayottes disdain for RSA 91-A, to the Nashua Police

Departments repeated arrests, macing and beating of

innocent citizens that it is time for this Court to step

in and to protect the press and other citizens engaged in

lawful exercise of their First Amendment Rights.

This Court may either do the right thing and open the

door to sunshine, or slam the door and plunge us right back

into the dark ages that existed prior to the American

Revolution. If the choice is to do so, then dont even

afford KingCast an Oral Hearing because there would be no

need for him to waste his time.


22/24

22

But if this Court is seriously interested in

protecting the future of this Country as it was designed,

then Plaintiff-Appellant will appear for Oral Argument with

bells on and wearing his First Amendment boxing gloves.

Because thats what it takes in this day and age to

protect Americas most important Amendment. Once we lose

the First Amendment, we have no way to exercise all of the

others.

Plaintiff-Appellant will conclude with a quote from

American Civil Rights lawyer Terry H. Gilbert, issued in

2006 about Plaintiff-Appellant (his former law clerk 12

year prior) as he defeated Defendant Ayottes attempt to

imprison him as NAACP Legal Chair because he exercised his

First Amendment Rights to forward the interests of Willie

Toney -- a black man who faced three drawn police guns and

a visual body cavity search for loitering (TR 47).

"There are few more noble causes that a lawyer canpursue.....lawyers must be on the frontline of thatstruggle to give meaning and dimension to the FirstAmendment to generate ideas regardless of theirimplications. To silence opposition seems to be themodus operandi of the state in order to consolidate

its power over its citizens, particularly after9/11......I know Christopher King embodies the spiritof those who came before us who have sacrificedgreatly for this cause. He has experienced all kindsof injustice in his young career, and his messageneeds illuminated to people as example of what canhappen for speaking out in today's society, even as alawyer."


23/24

23

And in speaking out and in trying to gather and to

disseminate news, such a reporter cannot be the victim of

unlawful retraction of an RSVP amongst his peers because that

creates an immediate breach of contract from which a reasonable

Jurist might find racial discrimination. See Williams v. Le

Crewe De Spaniards, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4852, (TR 29).13

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Christopher King, J.D.

__________________________________KingCast.netBy and through Christopher King, J.D.617.543.8085m

13Contrary to Defendant Friends of Kelly Ayotte briefingthis matter was not waived on appeal. It is clearly arguedat pp. 28-29 with a direct citation to Williams. Defendantsjust cannot help themselves from lying about everything inthis case. Their arguments going into pages 22 become evenmore ridiculous in that they try to claim that Plaintiff isnot allowed to claim that specific actions were committedwith racial animus when a Defendant treated him differentlythan white citizens and reporters.


24/24

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

This Reply Brief was prepared in a 12pt. Courier New font,

and carries a word count of 4629, including footnotes.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I the undersigned, solemnly swear that a true copyof this Corrected Reply Briefwas electronically delivered

1 February 2012 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

and shall be sent via 9 paper copies to the Courthouse

within the time allotted by Rule.

/s/Christopher King, J.D.__________________________________

KingCast.netBy and through Christopher King, J.D.

617.543.8085m

final: kelly ayotte, gop & nashua pd take body blows in kingcast reply brief, 12-1891

Documents