IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NEW HAMPSHIRE CHRISTOPHER KING, J.D. ) a/k/a KINGCAST.NET, ) CASE NO. 2010-CV-501 Plaintiff-Petitioner, v. ) JUDGE PAUL BARBADORO FRIENDS OF KELLY AYOTTE, et al., ) MAGISTRATE LANDYA McCAFFERTY Defendants. PLAINTIFF·S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Now comes Plaintiff, pursuant to FRCP and Local Rules 15.1 to note that the recent actions of the Nashua Police Department demonstrate a clear pattern of unlawful animus, hostility threats of arrest and unlawful arrest toward the media and public citizens who engage in videotaping Nashua Police Personnel. In point of fact, a high-ranking Nashua LE who may be subject to a Bivens Action directly chastised one Michael J. Gannon during an apparently unlawful arrest on or about 1 July, 2011 with negative commentary because Mr. Gannon is prominently featured in several of Plaintiff·s online movies that are critical of Nashua area Law Enforcement. Said comments take Plaintiff·s belief well beyond the realm of speculation and into the realm of reality. Such conduct has no place in a Free and Civilized Society, particularly in New Hampshire ² the so-called ´Live Free or Dieµ State. Plaintiff urges the Court and all Defendants and Counsel to remember this. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Christopher King, J.D. _____________________________ Christopher King, J.D. http://KingCast.net -- Reel News for Real People 617.543.8085
7
Embed
Motion to file KingCast Senator Ayotte, GOP, Nashua PD Third Amended Complaint.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
8/6/2019 Motion to file KingCast Senator Ayotte, GOP, Nashua PD Third Amended Complaint.
They nonetheless came after him as he moved through the end of the parking lot
toward his car and arrested him after flip-flopping on the issue of whether he needed
to answer their questions. Said video has been posited with the Court in this case at
docket number___.
Similarly, during the ´Steakoutµ event the Nashua PD Defendants did in fact drive
Plaintiff out of the entire Crowne Plaza premises without any legal justification
whatsoever. Specifically, Defendant Hargreaves, operating with custom, policy
practice and tacit acceptance from Defendant Conley beforehand -- and explicit
acceptance from Defendant Conley after the fact ² never once retreated from his
position that ´It·s the entire premisesµ even after Plaintiff alighted from the Leased
Area. That unlawful and unprincipled conduct effectively chilled Plaintiff·s First
Amendment Rights as a reporter to gather his thoughts and to produce a story.
That sort of overzealousness has already led Plaintiff to Amend his Complaint and
to seek to Supplement the Record based on speculation and logical inference, but the
Mike Gannon issue takes the matter to a completely different level:
1. Five years ago Plaintiff was one of the lead online journalists during thenow-legendary harassment of Mike Gannon, after the Nashua PD confiscatedhis audio-video equipment and footage because he taped them harassinghim on his own front porch. Under Defendant Ayotte·s advisory ambit as theState·s Legal Leader-in-Chief, the case fumbled along as Nashua PD
Defendants prosecuted Mr. Gannon under an obscure provision of RSA 570even though the Police had no expectation of privacy, and were warned bypostings and verbally by Mr. Gannon that they were being recorded. Mr.Gannon·s claims against Detective Karlis were so strong that they could notbe overlooked and Karlis was punished in some fashion.1
2. After vigorous Internet pressure they nol-prossed the charges butapparently remain bitter to this day because three (3) days ago theyarrested Mr. Gannon as he was walking his dog, Shamus. Plaintiff hascontacted and interviewed witnesses and Mr. Gannon, who claim that aNashua Detective (who may soon be subject to a Bivens Action) beganverbally harassing Mr. Gannon for no reason, attacked him, maced him and
told him in a condescending tone ´You·re a YouTube Sensation.µ
3. May the record reflect that the only places in which Mr. Gannon Appears onYouTube are on Plaintiff·s videos that question the arrest of Dave Ridley orthat question the resolve of Defendant Hogan to vigorously prosecute Cody
1 Plaintiff has in fact issued an RSA 91A request for the videotapes that Nashua PD isillegally still holding. Attorney Cullen has taken the matter under advisement.
8/6/2019 Motion to file KingCast Senator Ayotte, GOP, Nashua PD Third Amended Complaint.
ago)You are correct in one thing: I do not assent to your ´motion to supplement therecord.µ The sole issue before the court is whether the police may enforce thetrespass statute. Your ever-expanding conspiracy theory notwithstanding, the
supplemental material you seek to put before the court has no bearing on that issue. Brian
Christopher K ing to Brian show details 9:14 AM (20 hoursago)
Oh I've got a lot of things right, and with direct comments about "YouTube" videos whoneeds theories when your clients give it up on a platter, the Motion to Supplement isnow a Motion for Leave to file a Third Amended Complaint.
Next time advise your clients to keep their hater mouths shut and you won't be in thispredicament.
Happy Independence Day.
**********************
Actions taken by Defendants during the pendency of a case may most certainly
be brought into the Case-in-Chief, and Courts must grant liberal leave to amend, yet
Plaintiff does not take this Motion lightly. In fact, he attempted to avoid requesting a
formal Amendment when he filed the Ridley video, instead seeking a form of Judicial
Notice or Supplementation to the Record. However at this point we must take Mr.
Gannon·s claims as true as he swore to this writer as if on Oath, and as this writer has
interviewed witnesses to the incident.
Contrary to the belief and naked implication of Defendants, there is no need to
wait for formal adjudication of these events before considering them in this instance.
If at some point there is a full adjudication of Guilt for Mr. Ridley and Mr. Gannon then
Defendants may address that in a Motion in Limine as we head toward a Jury Trial.
But right now, as it sits today, the conduct on the part of Defendants is
certainly suspect and may lawfully be considered in a Civil case.
In the alternative, to save time and Judicial Resources Plaintiff is more than
willing to agree to a Court Order that these additional factors are shall be considered