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

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

1/23

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

_____________________________________________________

OMNIBUS REPLY BRIEF OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT

_____________________________________________________

Christopher King, J.D.

85 Messer StreetSuite TwoProvidence, RI [email protected] pro se


2/23

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

1. Table of Contents2

2. Table of Authorities2

ARGUMENT

I. 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)..5

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 855, 6

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

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

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

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

Matthew Rothschild

February 4, 2005..910. Senator Ayottes $120K Legal Headache, Politico...9.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reportshttps://supreme.justia.com/us/447/74/case.htmlhttp://www.leagle.com/xmlcontentlinks.aspx?gfile=407%20U.S.%20163http://www.progressive.org/node/2353http://www.progressive.org/node/2353http://www.progressive.org/node/2353http://www.progressive.org/node/2353http://www.leagle.com/xmlcontentlinks.aspx?gfile=407%20U.S.%20163https://supreme.justia.com/us/447/74/case.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reports


3/23

3

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

12. Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) .11

13. Adickes v. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970).11

14. Arizona v. Wells....17

15. Food Lion v. Capital Cities/ABC194 F.3d 505(4th Cir. 1999)...... 20

16. Williams v. Le Crewe De Spaniards,2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4852. 20

Certificate of Compliance ....22

Certificate of Service ....22

PREAMBLE

The 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 simplywanted 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

1Thompson specifically did not address the issue ofwhether minorities attending a KKK rally would have anyright to speak. 648 F.2d at 218. Thompson is thus notapplicable to the facts in this case. Ahem.


4/23

4

I. Introduction.

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

Why is this case so important to Defendants?

"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.

-Terry H. Gilbert, Esq. on Christopher King, J.D.

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

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

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 had high-poweredRepublicans donate more than $150,000.00 for her defense, so they canwin the right to control the media. This Court must not give quarterfor this conduct. For what its worth, Plaintiff has spent $2,000.00.
http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2013/01/kingcast-and-former-nh-state-rep-kevin.htmlhttp://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2013/01/kingcast-and-former-nh-state-rep-kevin.htmlhttp://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2013/01/kingcast-and-former-nh-state-rep-kevin.htmlhttp://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2013/01/kingcast-and-former-nh-state-rep-kevin.html


5/23

5

http://youtu.be/DLQywsmcX2M

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

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


6/23

6

of the press where the property owner had not objected to

the reporters presence.3

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,

b) continuing to harass a reporter and remain hoveringabove him AFTER he has left the leased premises

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. Any one of these incidents as clearlydocumented on video may provide indicia of a FirstAmendment and/or race-based Civil Rights violation.No qualified immunity exists to engage in that

conduct. When taken as a whole, they most certainlypresent enough evidence that Plaintiff must bepermitted to engage in discovery, per Seveney v.Town of Bristol 2006 R.I. Super. LEXIS 85:

[*7] Topside states that the Ordinance is invalid for a

variety of reasons. First, Topside maintains that theOrdinance improperly delegates a legislative function to anexecutive officer, the Chief of Police. Second, theplaintiff claims that the charge for the police officersamounts to an unlawful tax. Third, Topside argues that thatthe Ordinance has been imposed in violation of its stateand federal equal protection and due process rights.In response, the Town maintains that the delegation ofpower to the Chief of Police is valid because it isaccompanied by specific guidelines.

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 it

is 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.


7/23

7

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 arerationally 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 theRhode Island Constitution.Article XIII, section 5, states

that 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.

ConclusionAfter closely considering the facts of the case, this Courtdeclares that the Ordinance is constitutional and valid inall respects. As a result, the Town is entitled to thelicensing fees assessed against Topside, pursuant to the

Ordinance, from the year 2003 to the present. Thedefendant Bristol Town Council shall submit a judgment inconformity with this decision.

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 to

use his own property as he desires. In addition, the courtheld that the KKK would not be inhibited in its views atthe rally by requiring the public rally to be open to all.The plaintiffs in the case did not seek the opportunity tospeak at the rally, nor to require the KKK to call uponanyone at the rally. Instead, the plaintiffs complainedonly of being excluded entirely from the KKK's publicrallies.
https://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=d006b01280343f9a19034d74627164d7&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b2006%20R.I.%20Super.%20LEXIS%2085%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=99&_butInline=1&_butinfo=R.I.%20CONST.%20XIII%205&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzB-zSkAz&_md5=0256fcf95267ea6c6aac3c6f4d427f99https://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=d006b01280343f9a19034d74627164d7&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b2006%20R.I.%20Super.%20LEXIS%2085%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=99&_butInline=1&_butinfo=R.I.%20CONST.%20XIII%205&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzB-zSkAz&_md5=0256fcf95267ea6c6aac3c6f4d427f99https://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=d006b01280343f9a19034d74627164d7&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b2006%20R.I.%20Super.%20LEXIS%2085%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=100&_butInline=1&_butinfo=R.I.%20CONST.%20XIII%205&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzB-zSkAz&_md5=7e4fbff2ea183a8af1376f3efad0c405https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?cc=&pushme=1&tmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&taggedDocs=&toggleValue=&numDocsChked=0&prefFBSel=0&delformat=XCITE&fpDocs=&fpNodeId=&fpCiteReq=&expNewLead=id%3D%22expandedNewLead%22&fpSetup=0&brand=&_m=a7a38dc73a99956580679d4b4fa1fccd&docnum=1&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzB-zSkAz&_md5=3425edfc1e77337351c4ea36c1af453b&focBudTerms=&focBudSel=all#clscc14https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?cc=&pushme=1&tmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&taggedDocs=&toggleValue=&numDocsChked=0&prefFBSel=0&delformat=XCITE&fpDocs=&fpNodeId=&fpCiteReq=&expNewLead=id=%22expandedNewLead%22&fpSetup=0&brand=&_m=a7a38dc73a99956580679d4b4fa1fccd&docnum=1&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzB-zSkAz&_md5=3425edfc1e77337351c4ea36c1af453b&focBudTerms=&focBudSel=allhttps://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?cc=&pushme=1&tmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&taggedDocs=&toggleValue=&numDocsChked=0&prefFBSel=0&delformat=XCITE&fpDocs=&fpNodeId=&fpCiteReq=&expNewLead=id%3D%22expandedNewLead%22&fpSetup=0&brand=&_m=a7a38dc73a99956580679d4b4fa1fccd&docnum=1&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzB-zSkAz&_md5=3425edfc1e77337351c4ea36c1af453b&focBudTerms=&focBudSel=all#clscc14https://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=d006b01280343f9a19034d74627164d7&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b2006%20R.I.%20Super.%20LEXIS%2085%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=100&_butInline=1&_butinfo=R.I.%20CONST.%20XIII%205&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzB-zSkAz&_md5=7e4fbff2ea183a8af1376f3efad0c405https://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=d006b01280343f9a19034d74627164d7&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b2006%20R.I.%20Super.%20LEXIS%2085%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=99&_butInline=1&_butinfo=R.I.%20CONST.%20XIII%205&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzB-zSkAz&_md5=0256fcf95267ea6c6aac3c6f4d427f99https://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=d006b01280343f9a19034d74627164d7&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b2006%20R.I.%20Super.%20LEXIS%2085%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=99&_butInline=1&_butinfo=R.I.%20CONST.%20XIII%205&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzB-zSkAz&_md5=0256fcf95267ea6c6aac3c6f4d427f99


8/23

8

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 degreeof state involvement is needed [*106] in cases alleging

racial discrimination. According to theThompson

court, insuch cases, the amount of state action can be de minimis.

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 police4),

which led to an embarrassing, awkward policy backpedal:

4 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.


9/23

9

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.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.***************

In this case note that former Bush staffers have

contributed to the estimated $150,000.00 Ayotte defense

fund. They all hate the truly free press and are aiming to

get a tool from this Court in order to run their hegemonic

agenda. From an 18 July 2012 Politico story, Kelly

Ayottes $120K Legal Headache:5

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 Internationals

PAC has given $10,000, while Andy Card, former chiefof staff to President George W. Bush, donated $1,000.

5In the story, Reporters Scott Wong and Manu Raju completely tried touse Plaintiff to fit their own agenda and storyline, writing King, a

self-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 afternot afterbut someone who Ienforced the law as attorney general..
http://www.progressive.org/node/2353http://www.progressive.org/node/2353http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78691.htmlhttp://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78691.htmlhttp://www.progressive.org/node/2353http://www.progressive.org/node/2353


10/23

10

Its an unfortunate price to pay for going into

public 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.

(Id.).

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.


11/23

11

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
https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=da99e84e7e827c701d665acdc9e9b359&csvc=le&cform=&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzV-zSkAz&_md5=6124811076acd2c6c06e74a5f19801ca#n54https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=da99e84e7e827c701d665acdc9e9b359&csvc=le&cform=&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzV-zSkAz&_md5=6124811076acd2c6c06e74a5f19801ca#n56https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=da99e84e7e827c701d665acdc9e9b359&csvc=le&cform=&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzV-zSkAz&_md5=6124811076acd2c6c06e74a5f19801ca#n56https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=da99e84e7e827c701d665acdc9e9b359&csvc=le&cform=&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzV-zSkAz&_md5=6124811076acd2c6c06e74a5f19801ca#n54


12/23

12

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 of

an agreement between the Kress employees and police, but

the sequence of events created a substantial enough

possibility of a conspiracy to allow Adickes to proceed

at trial. Emphasis added.

That ispreciselythe KingCast argument herein, 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 everything that 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. For example, Plaintiff-Appellant

received half a dozen phone calls and several emails with a


13/23

13

reporter from the Sunlight Foundation over the course of a

month, who affirmatively stated she was set to get her

story run this week nearly two months ago, yet now the

same reporter is dodging Plaintiffs phone calls and

emails:

What's going on with sunlight foundation coverage?

Inbox x

Christopher King Jan8

to Kathryn, bcc: Kevin

Dear Kathryn,

I know you are busy. You know I wrote for major pressbefore law school so you know that I know that no matterwhat press you're working for..... you are Always Busy.

I get that.


14/23

14

I also know that you at this point have more than enough toissue a major story about this case but I feel somethinghas it bottlenecked. The fact that I asked you about itseveral times with no response gives me little hope that

this story will ever see the light of day in Sunlightpublications.

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), and

actually won First Amendment trials (Defendant Ayotte tends

to lose her First Amendment cases).


15/23

15

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.6

6 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.


16/23

16

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.7 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.

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


17/23

17

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. 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 fortrespass because, without invitation of any sort, he

entered 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.

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
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faq/frequently-asked-questions-presshttp://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faq/frequently-asked-questions-presshttp://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faq/frequently-asked-questions-presshttp://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faq/frequently-asked-questions-press


18/23

18

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.8

KingCast does not physically resemble or in practice

act like the sort of more conservative burger of the First

Amendment like those at the First Amendment Center, or

those at the Sunlight Foundation for

8Defendants 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.


19/23

19

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.

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


20/23

20

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. 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:


21/23

21

"There are few more noble causes that a lawyer canpursue.....lawyers must be on the frontline of that

struggle 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 consolidateits 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."

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 4852.9

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Christopher King, J.D.__________________________________KingCast.netBy and through Christopher King, J.D.

9

Contrary to Defendant Friends of Kelly Ayotte briefing thismatter was not waived on appeal. It is clearly argued atpp. 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.


22/23

22

617.543.8085m


23/23

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 Reply Briefwas signed and mailed to the Court and

that this version was electronically delivered on:31 January 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

/s/Christopher King, J.D.__________________________________KingCast.net

By and through Christopher King, J.D.617.543.8085m

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

Documents