Post on 04-Apr-2018
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 02909671.543.8085kingjurisdoctor@gmail.comPlaintiff pro se
7/29/2019 Final: Kelly Ayotte, GOP & Nashua PD take body blows in KingCast Reply Brief, 12-1891
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.
7/29/2019 Final: Kelly Ayotte, GOP & Nashua PD take body blows in KingCast Reply Brief, 12-1891
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.
7/29/2019 Final: Kelly Ayotte, GOP & Nashua PD take body blows in KingCast Reply Brief, 12-1891
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.
7/29/2019 Final: Kelly Ayotte, GOP & Nashua PD take body blows in KingCast Reply Brief, 12-1891
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.
7/29/2019 Final: Kelly Ayotte, GOP & Nashua PD take body blows in KingCast Reply Brief, 12-1891
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.
7/29/2019 Final: Kelly Ayotte, GOP & Nashua PD take body blows in KingCast Reply Brief, 12-1891
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.
7/29/2019 Final: Kelly Ayotte, GOP & Nashua PD take body blows in KingCast Reply Brief, 12-1891
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.
7/29/2019 Final: Kelly Ayotte, GOP & Nashua PD take body blows in KingCast Reply Brief, 12-1891
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.
7/29/2019 Final: Kelly Ayotte, GOP & Nashua PD take body blows in KingCast Reply Brief, 12-1891
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.
7/29/2019 Final: Kelly Ayotte, GOP & Nashua PD take body blows in KingCast Reply Brief, 12-1891
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.
7/29/2019 Final: Kelly Ayotte, GOP & Nashua PD take body blows in KingCast Reply Brief, 12-1891
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.
7/29/2019 Final: Kelly Ayotte, GOP & Nashua PD take body blows in KingCast Reply Brief, 12-1891
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
7/29/2019 Final: Kelly Ayotte, GOP & Nashua PD take body blows in KingCast Reply Brief, 12-1891
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
7/29/2019 Final: Kelly Ayotte, GOP & Nashua PD take body blows in KingCast Reply Brief, 12-1891
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.
7/29/2019 Final: Kelly Ayotte, GOP & Nashua PD take body blows in KingCast Reply Brief, 12-1891
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.
7/29/2019 Final: Kelly Ayotte, GOP & Nashua PD take body blows in KingCast Reply Brief, 12-1891
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.
7/29/2019 Final: Kelly Ayotte, GOP & Nashua PD take body blows in KingCast Reply Brief, 12-1891
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.
7/29/2019 Final: Kelly Ayotte, GOP & Nashua PD take body blows in KingCast Reply Brief, 12-1891
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.
7/29/2019 Final: Kelly Ayotte, GOP & Nashua PD take body blows in KingCast Reply Brief, 12-1891
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.
7/29/2019 Final: Kelly Ayotte, GOP & Nashua PD take body blows in KingCast Reply Brief, 12-1891
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.
7/29/2019 Final: Kelly Ayotte, GOP & Nashua PD take body blows in KingCast Reply Brief, 12-1891
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."
7/29/2019 Final: Kelly Ayotte, GOP & Nashua PD take body blows in KingCast Reply Brief, 12-1891
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.
7/29/2019 Final: Kelly Ayotte, GOP & Nashua PD take body blows in KingCast Reply Brief, 12-1891
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