nashua pd, ayotte, gop try for sanctions in kingcast ayotte appeal to cover their own dirt 12-1891

7/29/2019 Nashua PD, Ayotte, GOP try for sanctions in KingCast Ayotte Appeal to cover their own dirt 12-1891

1/13

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

_____________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT-APPELLANTS

MOTION TO STRIKE AND FOR SANCTIONS

AGAINST APPELLATS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE INSTANTER:

CORRECTED OMNIBUS REPLY BRIEF OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT

_____________________________________________________

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


2/13

2

MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION1

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

It is axiomatic that parties seeking sanctions in any

particular case must come to that case with clean hands.

Defendants do not, and they are wrong on the facts as well,

as seen in Section II. In point of fact as Plaintiff-

Appellant pointed out in his Memorandum in Support of his

Motion to file a Corrected brief (issued less than one

calendar day after he filed his Brief) he wrote:

Essentially, counsel for Nashua PD Defendants toldPlaintiff-Appellant that he was going to seek sanctionsagainst Plaintiff-Appellant, a common and abusive tacticused throughout this litigation ever since Plaintiff-Appellant exposed the fact that Magistrate Landya B.McCafferty never should have heard this case because sheand Defendant Ayotte BOTH worked UNDER Defense CounselJennifer Parent and Jack Middleton, and thats a fact.

The organization chart submitted in the Lower Court on

numerous occasions is now presented for this Courts

review. There is not one single Judge reviewing this case

who could honestly say that Appellant should not have been

informed of this relationship, and the abject failure in

this regard by all Defense counsel, coupled with Judge

Barbadoros insouciant comment that the Motion to Recuse

was totally without merit without any analysis

1Defendants-Appellant cite no Decisional law supporting their motionwhatsoever, because there isnt any.Plaintiff-Appellant has searchedLexis all day as surely as they did in the past 3 days after theirthreat. The threat was issued by Counsel Brian Cullen because he hasthe least amount of dirt in this case, but as the Court will see, inspecific detail, he too is without clean hands.


3/13

3

whatsoever complements and compounds the problem.

Magistrate McCafferty, once confronted with the series

other recusals, finally recused herself in the present case

in a terse one-sentence Order as other Judges recused

themselves without prompting whatsoever, something that

Plaintiff-Appellant has never seen in his life.


4/13

4

But thats not all. At another point in time Defense

counsel, falsely accused Plaintiff-Appellant of being

disbarred in order to put him down, when in point of fact

he was suspended from practice for a year. KingCast

directed Defense counsel to the federal conviction,

disbarment and apparent reinstatement of New Hampshire

lawyer Mike McLaughlin, currently of counsel with Shaheen &

Gordon to illustrate the difference.2

2 Defendants cry about the $150,000.00 figure that Plaintiff-Appellant

pointed out, but what they fail to realize is that $2,000.00 toPlaintiff-Appellant, unsubsidized by former Presidential cabinetmembers.. means more to him than that $150,000.00 ever will toDefendants, ahem.


5/13

5

In any event, Plaintiff-Appellant was compelled to

bring this attention to the Court and the related filing

was sealed.

And thats still not yet all: Despite counsels

implications that Plaintiff-Appellant does not know how to

comport himself before this Court, in recent history,

counsel for Nashua Defendants and/or his client were found

in contempt of Court because they dont want bad

information to come out. This happened in case no 1:05-CV-

00365, infra.

II. LAW AND ARGUMENT

First of all, there is no citation to case law

whatsoever in Appellees Motion. Thats because it is

ridiculous to start with. The Brief does NOT exceed the

word limitation, and that is all that matters. In point of

fact, the Corrected Brief actually contains the word count

from the first Brief, which is too high. Either way,

Counsel for Defendant should pay closer attention to the

rules before complaining.


6/13

6

As someone with a bit of trial and appellate

experience Plaintiff-Appellant knows how to read. And he

knows how to win.3

Second, Plaintiff-Appellant believes there may be

minimal typeface deviations, only because the source

material was not in Courier New typeface. Briefs are not

stricken because of minimal conformance; this is the

argument of a desperate Defendant.

Third, there are no allegations made against the

Nashua Police Department that were not raised in the Court

below. Defense Counsel claims there are without direct

reference whatsoever -- are but there are not. He simply

does not like the dirty laundry being aired in this Court,

but that is part of the reason we have this Court, to

review the things that are relevant that the lower Court

ignored, and that dirty laundry including the continued

arrests, beatings and macing of innocent civilians and

reporters, is germane as to why the Third Amended Complaint

should have been GRANTED. This is not rocket science, it is

simply Jurisprudence.

3 For the record, since Defendants have taken Plaintiff-Appellant totask, the facts are that Plaintiff-Appellant has won more criminaldefense trials than he lost, and he defeated his former employer, theOhio AGs Office, in proving that two policemen made his client a

victim of violent crime, after he won his clients criminal trials and

settled the Civil Action sounding in 42 U.S.C. 1983 and FirstAmendment issues. And thats a fact. See Ohio Court of Claims V96-61481at the end of this document. It was a landmark decision, much as thiscase will be regardless of its outcome.


7/13

7

An award of sanctions for presenting scurrilous

material in an Appellant Brief must be awarded only under

the most abusive circumstances, made entirely devoid of any

plausible Good Faith Argument. It is a standard similar to

the one under which Attorney Cullen and/or his client was

found in Contempt in Federal Court.

That having been said, this is a case of immense

importance in the field of Journalism, and as such it is

particularly important that the Court grant Plaintiff-

Appellant the benefit of the doubt, particularly given what

happened to him already in the Lower Court with Defendant

Ayottes former bosses presenting to Magistrate Judge

McCafferty without informing KingCast.4

Therefore it is important that recent State

Politicians such as Mayor Streeter and Kevin Avard have

commended Plaintiff-Appellant and invited him to speak on

TV for the Free World to observe. As the Court may readily

see other material from a more remote journalist was

removed in the Corrected Brief, but the presence of a

Republican State Representative journalist concerned about

the matter is worthy of Judicial Notice, pure and simple.

4All of these attorneys were aware of this situation. Keep in mindthat the McCafferty issue is two-fold in complexity: Not only did JudgeMcCafferty work underneath Jack Middleton and Jennifer Parent arecent NH Bar President mind you so too did Kelly Ayotte within 12months of Judge McCafferty. The U.S. Supreme Court cannot and will notcondone that sort of nondisclosure because it is clearly inexcusable.


8/13

8

And if it is not, it also is not sanctionable, nor is

the reference to the Politico story in which Defendant

Ayotte admitted she had gone after Plaintiff-Appellant,

then awkwardly tried to mend her words. That is probative

of ill-intent, and that is why Counsel for Defendants try

to categorize the Politico story as being solely about

money, when Plaintiff-Appellant cited to it for several

reasons. But as with everything else in this case the

Defendants pick and chose what they want to hear,

disingenuous to the end.

As to Defendants whining about how much this case

costs, the Defendants would be well-advised to remember

Plaintiff-Appellants no-cost option to settle this case

before NENPA panel, as will be discussed at Oral Argument.

For that matter, Plaintiff-Appellant could more justly

complain about all of the time, money and resources he

expended when Defendant Ayotte went after him for no

lawful reason as NAACP Legal Chair, only to nol-pross the

case after Plaintiff-Appellant sat through voir dire with

former Hillsborough lead prosecutor David Horan as counsel.

They are nothing but bullies, and they hate the sand that

KingCast repeatedly throws in their face.

Sadly for them, hatred provides no grounds for

sanctions.


9/13

9

Further, the Court must be aware, as noted in the

Motion for Leave to File Corrected Brief Instanter, that

Plaintiff-Appellant made an attempt to resolve the issue

raised by Defense Counsel in the same way he promptly

addressed a prior Defamation allegation raised by Attorney

Cullen relative to Plaintiff-Appellants Journal page. The

bottom line in that instance, was this: Basically no matter

how much he huffed and puffed, Attorney Cullen and/or his

clients were indeed found IN CONTEMPT in FEDERAL COURT and

Attorney fees were awarded. And thats a fact.

In any event the exchange on this conflict is below,

and it shows a reasonable exchange, nothing sanctionable:


10/13

10

So in this case, in this particular issue, Plaintiff-

Appellant removed some of the material in dispute that

Defendant claims is immaterial (i.e. the Sunlight

Foundation information), while leaving information that

Plaintiff believes the Court must be aware of by way of FRE

201, such as a PARTY ADMISSION by Defendant Ayotte that she

went after KingCast.


11/13

11

III. CONCLUSION

This case has far-reaching implications and will

continue to unfold and to reverberate cross Americas First

Amendment landscape whether some chose to ignore it or not.

Plaintiff-Appellant told Defense Counsel straight out

that he has had enough of the sort of tactics that delay

and complicate this case. The Defendants all should have

conceded the 28 U.S.C. 455 issue but instead fought back

and threatened sanctions and huffed and puffed and still

ultimately WERE WRONG. They were wrong again in accusing

Plaintiff-Appellant of being disbarred. And they are wrong

yet again, here.

Lastly, as to a legitimate error, note that Plaintiff-

Appellant has also inserted direct citations to the Joint

Appendix, as seen as his TR designations. There is

nothing to see here, we need to move along toward Oral

Argument and a Decision on our way to the Supreme Court of

the United States.

Respectfully submitted,

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


12/13

12


13/13

13

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I the undersigned, solemnly swear that a true copyof this Memorandumwas signed and mailed to the Court and

that this version was electronically delivered on:7 February 2013 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.netBy and through Christopher King, J.D.

617.543.8085m

nashua pd, ayotte, gop try for sanctions in kingcast ayotte appeal to cover their own dirt 12-1891

Documents