kingcast v. mckenna 11 june 2015 annotated free press first amendment transcript
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
-
1
CHRISTINE L. QUINN, RPROFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CHRISTOPHER KING, J.D. d/b/a ) KINGCAST/MORTGAGE MOVIES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. K15C-03-028 RBY ) BETTY LOU McKENNA, HOLLY ) MALONE and JOHN W. PARADEE, ) ESQUIRE, ) ) Defendants. ) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
TRANSCRIPT OF
CIVIL MOTIONS
Thursday, June 11, 2015 Kent County Courthouse
Dover, Delaware 19901
BEFORE:
THE HONORABLE ANDREA M. FREUD, Commissioner.
* * * * *
APPEARANCES:
CHRISTOPHER KING, Pro Se Plaintiff
JOSEPH S. SHANNON, Esquire, appearing on behalf of Defendants Betty Lou McKenna and Holly Malone
PETER C. McGIVNEY, Esquire, appearing on behalf of Defendant John W. Paradee, Esquire
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MacBookNote:
See Mortgage Movies Journal for the DE AG Advisory Opinion that banning cameras is extremely risky as the law is evolving in a more permissive direction.
Not with Cultural Hegemonist Robert B. Young as Judge.
See also Pomykacz v. Village of West Wildwood See also Tisdale v. Gravitt
MacBookSo help me God Ive already won this case by showing what jerks they are, but I am in it to win it with a Decision and we will go to SCOTUS.
There are virtually no journos with my background as an escrow attorney, First Amendment Trial atty and daily news reporter who do what I do. This is why Judge Young is downplaying all of that and trying to keep someone like me silenced. I will not stand for it.
-
2
CHRISTINE L. QUINN, RPROFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
June 11, 2015 Courtroom No. 5 2:00 p.m.
* * * * *
THE COURT: Okay. The remaining motions all
have to do with the same case. That would be King
versus McKenna, et al. I think after my review of
the three motions that are on that it makes sense to
address the motion for the stay of the proceedings
first.
MR. SHANNON: Your Honor, Scott Shannon on
behalf --
THE COURT: Stay of discovery, I guess.
MR. SHANNON: Mr. King was here. He stepped
out of the courtroom.
THE COURT: We need to wait for him to get
back.
MR. SHANNON: I'm sorry?
THE COURT: I said we need to wait for him
to get back.
We will find out where he is.
MR. KING: Good afternoon, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. King, I wasn't aware that
you weren't in the courtroom when I made my initial
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
-
3
CHRISTINE L. QUINN, RPROFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
remarks; so I will repeat them.
I have reviewed the three motions that are
pending in this matter, and it appears to me that it
would make the most sense to start with the motion --
I guess it would be the joint protective order. Is
it also a motion to stay the discovery? Is that
primarily what that is?
MR. SHANNON: That is the relief that we are
ultimately seeking. It's two parts which would go
hand-in-hand. The one being an order that the
discovery sought not be had, and as part of that,
that this litigation be stayed pending Judge Young's
consideration and disposition of the pending
dispositive motions.
THE COURT: Well, my review of everything
leads me to conclude that we should address that
motion first.
MR. KING: If I may, Your Honor, as a
preliminary matter of housekeeping, I had filed a
notice of media coverage, and in that notice, I cited
to the second revision of Administrative Directive
No. 155. That was updated several times and most
recently on the 29th day of November, 2005.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MacBookFirst of all, why not start with my Motion to Compel, as it narrows the issue? Stay tuned
-
4
CHRISTINE L. QUINN, RPROFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
THE COURT: Mr. King, also as a preliminary
matter, I understand that you filed a notice of that,
but unfortunately, there is no motion that was
attached to it. So I was completely unaware that
that was an issue until I was walking out the door to
go to lunch today. So it's not something that has
been brought to my attention.
I can tell you that I have been doing this
for over 20 years, and to my knowledge, the Court has
never once, at any point in time, allowed any
recording of any procedure in the court. I also know
that by the directives of the court for the Superior
Court policies that there are no video recording
equipment allowed in the courtroom.
So at this point in time, I'm not going to
allow any recordings because, based upon my
experience, that is not allowed. In the limited time
I had to look it up, I do know that the Superior
Court rules forbid videotaping, television
broadcasting in criminal matters. Also, it's been
the practice in our court to not allow it in civil
matters as well.
So at this point since I have not had any
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MacBookThat is not true.Google Rule 155
-
5
CHRISTINE L. QUINN, RPROFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
time to do any further research on that, based upon
that, I'm going to deny that request.
MR. KING: If I may just briefly to note my
objection for the record, Your Honor. It states, "At
the request of the Bar" --
THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. Could you
slow down?
MR. KING: It states, "At the request of the
Bar Bench Media Conference, the Supreme Court
extended the experimental period to permit the
electronic news media to cover cases that might arise
in an extended experimental period."
THE COURT: Mr. King, my understanding of
that rule -- and as I said, I have not done extensive
research on it -- but my understanding of that rule
is that applied only to Supreme Court oral arguments,
which is the only thing in the State where they're
currently allowed to have video recordings of it.
They do post that. As far as I know -- and I have
never been told otherwise by anyone -- there is no
recording in Superior Court or in any other court.
MR. KING: Point of fact, Your Honor, if I
may beg to differ. I read the first version of 155,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MacBookShe cuts me off..
-
6
CHRISTINE L. QUINN, RPROFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
and it specifically referenced --
THE COURT: Mr. King, I've made my ruling.
MR. KING: I understand. Please note my
objection for the record, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. KING: I will certify with the Supreme
Court.
THE COURT: Thank you.
You may proceed with your motion.
MR. SHANNON: May it please the Court, on
behalf of defendants, Beverly McKenna and Holly
Malone, my name is Scott Shannon.
In the presentation of defendants joint
motion for protective order -- although, I would ask
Mr. McGivney, who is here representing defendant,
John Paradee, an opportunity to speak to the extent
that he may wish to emphasize certain points on
behalf of his client that I may not touch on
adequately on behalf of Ms. McKenna or Ms. Malone.
In putting together the outline for my
argument today, Your Honor -- and I appreciate you
giving us the opportunity to go first. But my
argument actually addresses both the motion for
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MacBookBoom!Before I can even read itinto the Record.
MacBookIt fucking clearly saysTrial Courts.
MacBookIn a few weeks I am suing for DeclaratoryJudgment on this.What jerks.
-
7
CHRISTINE L. QUINN, RPROFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
protective order and motions to compel, if Your Honor
will entertain the argument that way, since to a
certain extent they are hand and glove. It was,
after all, Mr. King's advising us of his intention to
file the motions to compel that prompted us to file
the motion for protective order, if that's fair
enough.
THE COURT: Well, if -- depending upon how
we rule on a stay of discovery, if a stay of
discovery is granted, then I don't believe we need to
address anything else, and we can leave that to
another time until after any ruling on Judge Young's
order would come into place. I have not -- it's
going to depend on how I rule on that, but depending
on how that goes, I don't think there is a need to
get to the merits of the other arguments today.
MR. SHANNON: I will try to separate the
sugar from the salt then, as I present.
THE COURT: Do as best you can.
MR. SHANNON: Without repeating the
arguments that are made in our motion itself, which
points out that we have meritorious early dispositive
motions that are pending, that are based upon well
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
-
8
CHRISTINE L. QUINN, RPROFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
established Supreme Court case law and Third Circuit
case law that defines the scope of the First
Amendment privilege that Mr. King seeks to enforce,
that those cases, in fact, are not even disputed or
challenged by the plaintiff because they cannot be.
The scope of the First Amendment Right that
he seeks to enforce does not include all demand
access by any citizen to the bureaucratic functions
of government. The requirement is that the
information be made public to the extent that it is
the function of government -- in this case Recorder
of Deeds -- that those deeds, which are on record,
the public have access to them.
Mr. King appeared at the Kent County
Administrative Complex. He asked for access to the
nonpublic office space for the purpose of filming.
That was denied. He was given access to the public
space and to the public database through the computer
terminals that are made available for that purpose at
the Kent County offices. That's not disputed. It's
also not disputed that Mr. King, in fact, retrieved
documents from that database and that he has
published those on his website. Those are included
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MacBookI wasnt only coming to access records. I was coming to ask a question of a senior staffer and there is a narrowly-tailored requirement here before they can shut my cameras down.
-
9
CHRISTINE L. QUINN, RPROFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
in the motion.
So for the purposes of determining the
extent and scope of the right Mr. King seeks to
enforce, that issue is squarely in front of the judge
on dispositive motions. The final briefing of which
my answer and opposition to Mr. King's cross-motion
for partial summary judgment is due tomorrow.
Now in the meantime, Mr. King is persistent
in pursuing discovery. We have responded to three
complete rounds of discovery for Mr. King. The first
set of interrogatories, request for documents,
request for admissions, a revised first set and a
second set.
If I may for Mr. Paradee, Mr. Paradee has
responded fully to the revised first set and to the
second set.
In addition, there were affidavits from each
of the named defendants that were attached to the
dispositive motions that addressed the specific
claims going to the First Amendment Right, First
Amendment Right that Mr. King seeks to enforce.
When there are meritorious case dispositive
motions that are pending, as a matter of judicial
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MacBookYou are goddamn right I am persistent in obtaining Discovery because Judge Robert B. Young and Commissioner Freud allowed them to get away without answering the simple question of what their authority was to stop me, and what the goddamn policy is. This will haunt them on Appeal.
-
10
CHRISTINE L. QUINN, RPROFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
economy, in order to avoid the parties incurring
unnecessary expense and to discovery matters that
would be rendered moot, depending upon the outcome of
the decision, it is appropriate -- and the Court may
in its discretion order -- that the litigation be
stayed, that no further discovery be had in order to
save those costs. That's the situation in which we
find ourselves, Your Honor, procedurally.
Substantively -- and this goes to the
discovery that is sought for which a protective order
is sought, and this may be where there is some
overlap with the motions to compel. It goes to the
nature of the discovery that is sought.
Mr. King in his answer and opposition to our
motion for protective order describes himself as
being a member of the fourth estate, the media.
Accepting that is true, the media have no greater
rights under the First Amendment than a public
citizen, than anybody. There is no distinction that
is made between the rights available to a member of
the media and a member of the general public. But it
would be the role of the fourth estate to seek out,
collect, and disseminate information. The role of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
-
11
CHRISTINE L. QUINN, RPROFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
the Court is to define the scope of the right.
Mr. King seeks to confound the two, and the
proof of that is in the discovery that he seeks. As
an example, he asks why Ms. McKenna did not return a
phone call he placed to her home phone. How -- how a
response to that interrogatory would, in any manner,
define the scope of the First Amendment Right is not
explained.
He asks who pays Mr. Paradee's fees. That's
been addressed in the dispositive motions that he is
not paid by public funds. He is not paid by public
funds. He is not subject to the First Amendment.
Mr. King seeks the case captions for civil
actions against any defendant since 1994. Well,
again, the issue here is the First Amendment Right he
seeks to assert. It's not to get to the information
that Mr. King as media, as fourth estate, would be
seeking to obtain assuming the right existed.
And this, Your Honor, is where we believe
that the protective order is necessary. Because,
again, the question before the Court is not what
allegations or what Ms. McKenna might have said about
the conduct of a campaign, election campaign. The
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MacBookShes never at work. I am allowed to call her ass at home to inquire about public matters.This is simple shit, folks.
-
12
CHRISTINE L. QUINN, RPROFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
issue before the Court -- and the only issue on which
Mr. King appears in his complaint -- is his assertion
of a First Amendment Right of on-demand access to the
bureaucratic function of government.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, United
States Supreme Court have repeatedly said that the
First Amendment does not compel government to provide
any information. That the First Amendment is not a
Freedom of Information Act. That there are only two
circumstances in which the First Amendment compels
access, criminal trials and legislative functions.
Imagine the chaos if any citizen at any time
could walk into any public office, executive
function, because where would it end, the governor,
the president, and say, "I'm a taxpayer. This is a
public building. I want to know what you're doing.
I'm going to film you doing your work." Now that's
the scope of the right that is asserted. If the
litigation is to be kept within that scope, that's
the discovery that should be permitted.
The Court should not be subverted for the
purposes of the fourth estate of which Mr. King
claims to be a member of to allow him to get to the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MacBookText
MacBookYou cannot delimit First Amendment Rights by a parade of horribles. This is bullshit.
MacBookGoogle Pomykacz v. Village of W. Wildwood, BOOM
MacBookGoogle Tisdale v. Gravitt, 2014, Boom!
-
13
CHRISTINE L. QUINN, RPROFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
information he was seeking in the exercise of his
First Amendment Right. Particularly, when and if,
the outcome of the case dispositive motions is that
the Court determines as a matter of law that, in
fact, the scope of the First Amendment Right Mr. King
seeks to assert is not as expansive as he interprets
it.
So for these reasons, Your Honor, because
there is a meritorious case dispositive motion
pending, because the information sought is in no
manner germane to the information -- excuse me -- the
claim that has been made, we ask that the protective
order be entered, the request of the discovery not be
had, and litigation be stayed pending case
dispositive motions.
Thank you.
Do you have anything to add?
MR. McGIVNEY: Just briefly, Your Honor.
Peter McGivney on behalf of defendant, John
Paradee.
Just to piggyback sort of off of what
Mr. Shannon was just saying, we believe that we
presented a meritorious defense in our motion to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
-
14
CHRISTINE L. QUINN, RPROFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
dismiss motion for judgment on the pleadings. It's
our position that John Paradee is not a state actor
and, therefore, is a private citizen. He could not
deprive anyone, let alone the plaintiff, of any
constitutional rights.
The plaintiff's complaint can be broken down
into three claims. The plaintiff wanted access to
the Recorder of Deeds, ability to operate cameras
there, and to compel answers directed at public
officials. The discovery that he has filed to date
it will not determine whether or not he's suffered a
harm, which he claims in the complaint. It's our
position that this motion for protective order motion
for stay is proper under Rule 26(c). At this point
in litigation, it would be placing an undue burden
and significant expense and costs on the defendants
to engage in this type of discovery, especially given
the fact that all the plaintiff's claims are subject
to a motion to dismiss.
Finally, Your Honor, it's our position that
granting the motion for protective order motion to
stay, the plaintiff will not suffer any prejudice if
this motion is granted. If our motions to dismiss
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MacBookI did suffer prejudice because we dont even know what the policy is.
-
15
CHRISTINE L. QUINN, RPROFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
are denied, then the case can move forward with
discovery. If they are granted, then the case is
over.
That's all I have. Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. King.
MR. KING: May it please the Court. I would
like to first address several blatant misstatements
that were made by counsel.
Now, obviously, there is a little bit of
sugar with the salt here because we have to go into
the merits first off before we can address. They
cited the merits in their filings; so I am going to
address the merits as well in this instance. They
didn't cite to any cases just now. Okay. What they
cited to were the Woods case and the Cinelli case.
The Cinelli case --
THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. What case?
MR. KING: Cinelli, C-I-N-E-L-L-I. The case
that they cited to in Pennsylvania -- and they like
to go to Pennsylvania for their law. Well, while
we're there, let's stop and remember that Nancy
Becker just successfully sued MERS in Pennsylvania
over faulty and fraudulent documents in her registry.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MacBookFaulty documents are obviously a matter of substantial public concern.
-
16
CHRISTINE L. QUINN, RPROFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
That problem exists in all 50 states.
I shoot video across the country about these
matters in courtrooms across the country on a routine
basis. I was a title insurance producer, escrow
attorney. I have worked in major media for years. I
now run my own operation.
There is a distinction between media and the
general public in many instances, particularly in
this case, where there is a Delaware Free Press
statute which did not roll off the lips of either of
my brothers just now. That is a claim as well as the
First Amendment claim that we are reviewing before
the Court, and that's a crucial distinction.
My brothers have attempted to say that I
want some type of any-time access to these people.
That's not what is being sought. What was being
sought at bottom, Your Honor, we can walk up and down
the ladder and scratch it all we want to, but the
bottom line is all I was seeking is: May a reporter
ask a high ranking public official a couple of
questions about her campaign and about false
statements she may have made in her campaign, as well
as a question or two about fraudulent documents that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MacBookJudge Robert B. Young issued his opinion without citing to any of my professional background or even the name of my goddamn website, i.e. Mortgage Movies. He is a cultural hegemonist.
MacBookThis right here is simple: Obviously a reporter or a citizen has a right to ask a question with a pen and a pad;therefore s/he has a right to do so with an unobtrsucive camera as well.
-
17
CHRISTINE L. QUINN, RPROFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
may exist in her office.
Now, I'm not allowed to sit there all day,
but do I get a first blush? Do I get an opportunity
to ask that question? Of course, I do. And
furthermore -- and I have two witnesses in this
courtroom today. One of whom is La Mar Gunn who was
with me on the day in question. I didn't seek access
to any private area. I was in the public foyer the
whole time.
And the reason I called Betty Lou McKenna at
her home is because I know she's never at the office.
But when I called her at her home, I called her about
a matter which is clearly a matter of public concern
whether or not she made false statements, campaign
statements, about that man, La Mar Gunn.
Now, the defendants would like to drive a
wedge between -- let's put it another way. The
defendants are trying to obfuscate the issue by
stating that, you know, they've stated in their
pleadings I'm trying to advance a claim on behalf of
La Mar Gunn or something like that. None of that is
what is happening here. I am seeking discovery to
determine why they did what they did.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MacBookJudge Young tried to imply that I was trying to film in back areas and private offices.I made no such representations.
-
18
CHRISTINE L. QUINN, RPROFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
The cases they cited to -- let's delve into
that because it's crucial to your understanding of
this case -- the Woods case. There was a gentleman
who was there on behalf of a developer. He was going
to run video. The governing body -- it was a zoning
hearing or something like that -- specifically passed
a resolution stating no cameras, okay, for one
meeting. He was denied at that meeting. There was a
policy. Okay. The policy was repealed and found
unconstitutional because the public has a right to
video these meetings. Okay.
But in that case, they cited to Cinelli in
Rhode Island, where I used to live. In Cinelli, a
school teacher was running video in the building
about issues of public concern. The last time I
checked the mortgage crises is an issue of public
concern. I think all of us in this room know that.
So how is it --
And, Your Honor, we've come along way since
we studied communications in the '80s. The new
paradigm is reasonable access. And that's where all
these cases wind up, reasonable access. That's all I
was seeking. I didn't want to go into the turns and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MacBookEven in Woods they abolished the policy banning cameras so he had a statutory right.My Amended Complaint goes there.
MacBookJudge Young said that case pivoted on whether she was a public employee, which is bullshit because the case held that she much as any reporter would have to follow the same procedures as the general public for access during her non-working hours. That is the key to this case.
MacBook Her Honor and I both have Communication Degrees. The difference is, she uses hers to oppress.
-
19
CHRISTINE L. QUINN, RPROFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
details of the office; just to ask a couple of
questions. And then -- and I stated in my affidavit
very clearly that I was going to ask a couple of
questions about false statements that were made about
Mr. Gunn, and that's why I called on the phone to
give them a courtesy to ask in the first place and
then I was going to video Mr. Gunn at a machine
pulling up a fraudulent document.
This is video footage that is done
everywhere across the country on a routine basis. I
was denied that opportunity. Point blank. I was
denied any opportunity whatsoever, and that is, as
you know, Your Honor, you studied communications.
It's overbroad. It's not nearly tailored to reach
any compelling governmental interest.
In Holly Malone's affidavit, she said that
her interest was to try to maintain the order of the
office. I have better things to do than to disrupt
the order of the office, so does every journalist.
We are there to ask a couple of questions and move on
our way, but I wasn't allowed to do that. They said
it was overbroad and not nearly tailored to reach any
compelling governmental interest.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MacBookThis is how I wanted to project my news story and unless I am disturbing the functions of the office they simply cannot stop me, period.
-
20
CHRISTINE L. QUINN, RPROFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
They can't tell me how I'm supposed to run
my media. If I want to show a picture of a static
picture of a document pulled up from the machine, I
can do that. But I can also show Mr. Gunn pulling
that document up himself for greater visual impact.
I'm well within my right to do that. This is simple.
Furthermore, Your Honor, let's get into the
specifics of what I asked for that they ignored.
Before I do that, I want to bring up the
Kelly Ayotte case they've cited to in a public
private distinction as to what I would like to do.
If you look, there are actual pictures and videos in
the pleadings, Your Honor, relative to the Kelly
Ayotte matter in which the Court ruled that was a
private event where I was trying to run video. Okay.
I had interviewed Joe Arpaio and Kelly Ayotte
declined. They said that was a private event. It
was at a hotel, okay. Since that time -- and by the
way, at that time, Your Honor, Kelly Ayotte was not
an elected official. She was in between being a
attorney general and a U.S. Senator, okay.
In this instance, the defendants are both
publicly employed individuals 24/7, okay. And since
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MacBookBoom!!!
MacBookThey have since dropped the Ayotte argument, LOL..
-
21
CHRISTINE L. QUINN, RPROFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
the time that Ms. Ayotte has become elected, every
single time I go to her office -- and this is in the
pleadings -- they answer my question. Be it on
school grounds -- I have proof in the file that I
have gone to her office in Washington, D.C. I have
gone to her office in New Hampshire. I'm allowed to
walk in and ask a question. Now if I remain there
all day and disrupt the office, of course, you can
throw me out. That's common sense, too.
That's why all my pleadings are entitled in
honor of Thomas Paine. It's common sense. What kind
of society do we want to live in -- and I want to
finish the quote that the counsel pulled up about
unlimited access. You know, if you finish that
quote, it goes on to say that when the government is
hiding something in secrecy that makes things much
more suspect. And the reason why I'm wanting to find
out about what they said about La Mar Gunn is because
that informs why they denied me access. It's simple.
Now, what did I ask for that they didn't
mention just now. I asked them -- and I quote --
because knowing what the policy is is important,
right?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MacBookIts all about common sense folks.
-
22
CHRISTINE L. QUINN, RPROFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
"State what authority that any defendant has
had, at any point in time up to the 27th of November,
that indicates that video was verboten in the 555 Bay
Road building on or about November 25th, the only
day, date, and time that plaintiff was there."
You know what their response to that was?
"Objection. This interrogatory is incomprehensible
and incapable of response."
I just asked what the policy is. I think
I'm entitled to know that. All the other cases said
so. But you know what? We don't have a policy here.
What we have is an ad hoc policy
administered by Ms. Malone who, during all of this,
made two phone calls. To whom were those calls made?
I believe I am entitled to a deposition to find out
about that.
And I have also put in the record, Your
Honor, just the other day when I responded in
replying to defendant Paradee's motion regarding the
compel, their memorandum and opposition to motion to
compel, I noted cases all throughout the country that
courts are reluctant to grant protective orders to
public defendants, you know, including Mayor
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MacBookObfuscatory bullshit response.The Court let them get away with it.
-
23
CHRISTINE L. QUINN, RPROFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
Giuliani, okay, because they're less argument.
There's a little bit of embarrassment. That doesn't
hold weight.
As to whether or not they have dispositive
motions filed, I dismissed the emotional distress
claims. I have dispositive motions filed too, and
mine are stronger based on their own case law when it
comes out. There is only one case that restricts the
ability of a journalist or a citizen to run video and
that was at a prison. We are not at a prison. We
are in a public building. I didn't walk off the
public path in that building. I am not disruptive.
So the other questions were -- I ask why
defendant McKenna did not respond to my phone calls.
That's important because what's going on the
allegation that they're engaged in content based
discrimination, viewpoint based discrimination.
The First Amendment lies in the nuances,
Your Honor. That's why I almost never lose these
cases. As a matter of fact, the Ayotte case is the
only one I lost. The First Amendment is my life. I
know it well. This is my ground.
And so I am entitled to know why they didn't
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
-
24
CHRISTINE L. QUINN, RPROFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
return the call because it might inform as to whether
or not they have a viewpoint based discrimination
against me; as opposed to say had my cousin, Mike
Wilbon, he's a big columnist for ESPN.
Okay. If Mike walks in there and he says,
"Hey, I want to do a story about this gentleman here.
He is a famous basketball player and he used to work
here. Can I roll some footage of him next to a
machine?" Do we honestly think that the defendants
are going to say no? Of course, they're not.
Because it's a puff piece. But you can't make
distinctions based on what you like and what you
don't like when you are a public official. You give
that up by being a public official.
So I am not here to keep them at their
office all day. I just want to ask a couple of
questions.
Now, the only couple of issues specifically
that I asked for, that I didn't get, include the case
captions for civil cases. Okay. That's a common
litigation question, Your Honor. You know, it's not
the point of the court or the defense to truncate my
discovery at this point. If I look back into those
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MacBookThis is viewpoint and content-based discrimination
MacBookAgain: Just trying to ask a couple of goddamn questions here.
-
25
CHRISTINE L. QUINN, RPROFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
cases and I find patterns that the defendants are
engaged in, then that might be helpful. But that's
for later. That's subject to motion in limine, not
to truncate my entire discovery path.
THE COURT: Mr. King.
MR. KING: Yes.
THE COURT: I, too, like common sense, and
I, too, like to go to the simple.
MR. KING: Yes.
THE COURT: Particularly this, because my
job is to handle routine nondispositive civil
motions, not the merits of a case. So that's why I
started out with this motion for protective order.
When I was looking at this, it seemed to me
that the simple thing is should we -- based upon
these motions to dismiss that are filed that seem to
have -- been claimed to have merit and the fact that
this case does seem to be -- there is a lot of
different issues in it that properly should be
decided on the motions that are pending before Judge
Young. What is the harm to you for granting the stay
at this point of discovery, pending the outcome of
Judge Young's ruling, at which time if he denies
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
-
26
CHRISTINE L. QUINN, RPROFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
their motion or grants yours, then we can go forward
with discovery at that point in time?
MR. KING: Your Honor, the cases they cited
to, the Woods case and the Cinelli case that screams
from that all turn on policy. Okay. And so the way
they answered that question --
Do I need to read it back, Your Honor? I
asked them, "What authority they have to deny my
access." They couldn't answer it. That is crucial
to know. If they want to bring up cases that address
policy, then you live by the sword and you die by the
sword. But you can't have it both ways. That's
simple. That's common sense. I need to know what
their policy is. I need to be able to sit down at
deposition and ask them why did you stop me from
doing that.
THE COURT: Maybe I'm not making myself as
clear as I hoped too. My question is: At this point
if I grant a stay in the discovery until Judge Young
has ruled on his pending motions and don't address
the merits of your motion to compel or their specific
motions for a protective order today, just stay the
discovery so that there is no more discovery until
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MacBookPolicy policy policy..But Im not entitled to know..
-
27
CHRISTINE L. QUINN, RPROFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
after Judge Young has made his ruling, what is the
harm?
MR. KING: The harm is that I don't know
what the policy is, Your Honor. They want to cite to
cases that reference policy. I can't strengthen my
argument because I don't know what their policy is.
Your Honor, if I may --
THE COURT: Is the briefing getting ready to
be complete?
MR. KING: Yes, it is. So -- but before
it's complete and over my objection, you know, I
filed myself a motion to strike their filing because
I'm not done with discovery. One of the ways that
you prove a First Amendment case, Your Honor, is to
show a policy and a deviation from the policy. In
this instance, I don't have that. I have been
massively handicapped. I'm entitled to have that.
That's a simple question. State what authority you
had for doing what you did, and they turn around and
say they can't answer that. That's ludicrous.
THE COURT: Thank you.
Any response?
MR. SHANNON: If I may, Your Honor.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MacBook
MacBook
MacBook
MacBook
MacBook
-
28
CHRISTINE L. QUINN, RPROFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
Again I ask the Court's indulgence to give
Mr. McGivney the opportunity to respond on behalf of
his client to the extent I do not adequately address
or respond to the arguments made by Mr. King.
The policy argument is a red herring.
Either the First Amendment mandates the access
Mr. King seeks or it does not. The existence or not
of a policy, nor even the terms of that policy, will
not create a First Amendment Right where none exists
and will not enlarge one assuming that one exists.
The policy is something entirely different. The
threshold question here is whether or not that right
exists in the first place.
If I may, to address the two cases
referenced by Mr. King. The Whiteland Woods versus
the Township of West Whiteland was heard by the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. King refers to the
policy of the Township Planning Commission that
prohibited video. Well, the reason that policy of
the Planning Commission was repealed was because the
policy conflicted with Pennsylvania's statutory
sunshine laws that mandated municipalities conduct
open meetings and allow access. It was an issue of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
-
29
CHRISTINE L. QUINN, RPROFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
state statute.
Incidentally in 1991, while this case was
pending, that state statute was repealed and has not
been replaced. When the matter went up to the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals, the Third Circuit looked at
it and said, "This was a violation of state statutory
law, but it did not rise to the level of a
constitutional violation, because a state statute
does not confer a federal constitutional right." So
if a state statute does not confer a federal
constitutional right, it's kind of difficult to
conceive of how a policy of the Kent County Delaware
government could confer constitutional right, but
that's the argument Mr. King is making.
The second case to which he cited is
Cirelli. It's not Cinelli. It's Cirelli,
C-I-R-E-L-L-I. It's actually not referred to by
Mr. King in the motions on the discovery motions
here, but he does bring it up in his -- at the
dispositive level, but I will just touch on it
briefly, if I may.
Cirelli was cited to in Whiteland Woods. In
that case a -- it was either a school employee or
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MacBookWell Federal Courts in NJ and GA disagree. Pomykacz and Tisdale, supra.And my Amended Complaint adds Common Law and Statutory.
-
30
CHRISTINE L. QUINN, RPROFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
teacher, I believe it was, was -- believed that the
conditions of the school was such that the health of
the children was being affected, and she showed up
with a video camera to videotape conditions in the
school during the school day. The school
administrators told her that she could not do that.
So she brought the suit asserting First
Amendment Right. And the Court said -- in denying
her claim, the Court said that there is an interest
in the government in preventing the disruption of
government functions, and they are not required --
I'm paraphrasing now -- to give on-demand access.
That's as far as Cirelli went.
How Mr. King is reading it for just the
opposite proposition that the result of Cirelli was
that this teacher could walk into the school any time
she wanted to and film, it's not there in the case,
Your Honor. It's simply not there in the case.
That Mr. King has repeatedly asserted that
he is entitled to ask these questions of Ms. McKenna,
of Ms. Malone, that he is entitled to sit them down
and take their deposition, that he's entitled to find
out why Ms. McKenna did not call him back, he claims
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MacBookBullshit. Read the case. She won on First Amendment grounds.
MacBookNo, but she was allowed to film at any time the public was entitled to be there, dammit.
-
31
CHRISTINE L. QUINN, RPROFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
to have that entitlement under the First Amendment of
the Constitution. The purpose of this litigation is
not for Mr. King to get that information. The
purpose of this litigation is to determine whether or
not, as a matter of law, the First Amendment entitles
him to get that information. It's a clear
distinction.
For that reason, Your Honor, we do ask that
the motion for protective order be granted, that
discovery not be had, and litigation be stayed.
I don't know if Mr. McGivney has anything to
add.
Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. McGIVNEY: Your Honor, again, I will try
to be brief.
It's our position that the matter before the
Court here today is the discovery issues with the
case. The First Amendment and Delaware Freedom of
the Press issues those are under consideration by
Judge Young. The briefing for those issues closes
tomorrow with Mr. Shannon filing his answering brief
and responding to the plaintiff's motion for partial
summary judgment.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MacBookI am still entitled to ask her why she didnt answer my question and whether she had any support for her false campaign allegations against La Mar Gunn.She does not have to answer that either but I am entitled to ask her, at her office, with a pend and a pad and/or a camera. So simple.
-
32
CHRISTINE L. QUINN, RPROFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
THE COURT: I have a question. Has the
briefing been completed on the motion to dismiss?
MR. McGIVNEY: It has, Your Honor.
What we have so far in this case, Your
Honor, as far as discovery goes and the need to stay
the case and to enter a protective order, the
plaintiff initiated this litigation by filing six
discovery requests to my client and to Mr. Shannon's
clients. Between the dates of May 19th and May 20th,
the plaintiff filed eight separate applications for
relief with the Court.
On May 21st, Judge Young entered an order
stating that he would not consider any more of the
plaintiff's Thomas Paine motions to uphold our
dispositive motions in abeyance.
Since that date, the plaintiff has filed ten
more applications for relief. That's as of June 4th.
The lack of restraint with the filings and the
discovery requests and the motion practice, it makes
it very clear why this protective order and the
motion to stay should be granted.
Again, I bring the Court's attention to the
fact that the plaintiff will not be prejudiced if the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
-
33
CHRISTINE L. QUINN, RPROFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
case is stayed. If the motions to dismiss are
denied, then the case can move forward. As of right
now, the Court needs to maintain control of the
docket while the motions to dismiss are being
considered.
That's all I have. Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. King.
MR. KING: I'll be brief, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. KING: In the first instance with
respect to defendant Paradee, we all know that
private persons can be found in conspiracy to violate
civil rights laws. That's 1985. It happens all the
time. Okay.
But let's get back to the issues of the two
cases again, because they want to stay in the merits
when they want to stay in the merits and get off when
they want to. But it's very important. The merits
are very important.
The Woods case, okay, it didn't rise to a
level of constitutional depravation because there was
a policy, even if it was for that one meeting. If
you read the Woods case carefully, that's why. All
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MacBookBut Judge Young said just the opposite but we all know he is wrong.
-
34
CHRISTINE L. QUINN, RPROFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
right.
Furthermore, Woods was not a reporter.
There was no allegation that he was a reporter
exercising the First Amendment Right of a reporter to
gather and to disseminate news. That is a
distinction of crucial importance. He was working
for the developer. He was just a guy there at the --
dealing with the Sunshine Act. Okay.
Now -- and again speaking of statutory to
statutory, remember they still have never addressed
the Delaware Free Press issue. They don't want to
talk about that. But it's there for a reason. The
Legislature didn't just create that out of thin air.
It's there. And they have no response to that.
Now, Cinelli or Cirelli, that case, Your
Honor, I know if you read the pleadings I am not
arguing unfettered access. And Cirelli does not
argue for it either. The gravamen is whether or not
it's reasonable. Okay.
And by all intents and purposes, by
everything we have in the record, my request was
reasonable. I wasn't unruly. I walked in. You
know, when can a reporter ask a public official a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MacBookSame as the First Amendment. But as I say the Amended Complaint adds Common Law and Statutory Claims.
-
35
CHRISTINE L. QUINN, RPROFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
question at her office in the middle of the day? If
I don't have that right, we are all doomed.
Now let's talk about the multitude of
pleadings that they are getting at. One of the
reasons, Your Honor, I had to file more discovery
requests is because they engaged in gamesmanship. I
misspelled -- or I misidentified the building in the
first round, and they turned around and said, "Oh, we
don't know what you're talking about." So, of
course, I had to file an amended revised set of first
discovery requests. You know, they could have just
said, "Okay. We believe you're referring to this
building, Mr. King, you know, watch your typos."
But, no, they played the game. That's what increased
some of this litigation from the get-go.
Then when His Honor said -- oh, there were
more applications for relief that I filed. Well, you
know what those are? Those are pictures that a
citizen sent me from Lancaster County where cameras
are allowed. So we have an equal protection argument
pending as well. So, yes, I absolutely filed another
request for relief seeking to amend my complaint to
include equal protection argument. I can get it down
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MacBookOutright gamesmanship all along.
-
36
CHRISTINE L. QUINN, RPROFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
the street, but I can't get it here. That's not even
a rational basis, Your Honor, for a flatout denial
that I received here.
And I have to know what the policy is. If
there is one thing that this Court has to grant me
right now is the right to ask them, "What is your
knowledge of the policy." That's all.
THE COURT: Thank you.
I have reviewed all the documents that were
filed on these motions and considered the arguments
today. As I said earlier, I do like to keep things
simple. It seems to me that there are a number of
issues in play at this particular juncture in this
case. There has been a lot of discovery. There's
been a lot of motion practice. And there are pending
motions to dismiss that have been briefed, and
therefore, there is nothing that would be -- no
discovery that could be added to that particular
motion, those particular motions at this point in
time.
So it appears to me that the most sensible
thing to do would be to stay the discovery pending
the outcome of the motion to dismiss at this point in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MacBook
MacBook
MacBook
MacBook
MacBookAnd you can go to Hell, Mr. KingI am protecting my people on the Plantation.
-
37
CHRISTINE L. QUINN, RPROFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
time. And if that motion is denied, obviously
discovery could proceed forward. And at that time,
we would have to determine whether or not the
questions that have been asked in either side are
relevant or calculated to disclose relevant
information at trial under those standards.
So for today's purposes, I will grant
defendants' motion to stay discovery. As far as the
protective order and the merits of that and the
merits of Mr. King's motion to compel, I'm not making
a ruling on either of those today. I'm just going to
stay any discovery until the resolution of the
dispositive motion on the motion to dismiss pending
before Judge Young. If we need to address those at a
future date, we can do so then.
Thank you.
MR. KING: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. SHANNON: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: The Court is in recess.
(Whereupon, the proceedings in the above-
entitled matter were concluded.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
-
38
CHRISTINE L. QUINN, RPROFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
C E R T I F I C A T E
I, CHRISTINE L. QUINN, an Official Court
Reporter of the Superior Court of the State of Delaware,
do hereby certify the above and foregoing pages, 3
through 37, to be a true and accurate transcript
of the proceedings therein indicated on Thursday,
June 11, 2015, as was stenographically reported by me
and reduced to computer-aided transcript under my
direct supervision, as the same remains of record in
the office of the prothonotary in the Kent County
Courthouse, Dover, Delaware.
This certification shall be considered null and void if
this transcript is disassembled in any manner by any
party without authorization of the signatory below.
/s/ Christine L. Quinn CHRISTINE L. QUINN
July 9, 2015_____________ Date
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23