Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
v.
__________________________
) JUDGE
) CASE NO.
)
)
2.
1 All Defendants Counsel have graciously agreed to accept Service by tracked U.S.
Mail on behalf of their clients, thereby negating the Summons, Money Order to Sheriff
and Service copy requirements previously set forth by the Court in a 10 July 2015
letter to Plaintiff.
journals over the past decade, most notably Chris Kings First
3.
4.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rl4tS0W7RcQ
At Senator Kelly Ayottes Washington, DC Office 2010
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLS0N_hH-cc
Here one of her constituents said that Ayotte Is pleasant and sweet and full
of shit.
At Kelly Ayotte rally near the White Mountains 2010
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXlHu2002Vc
Face-to-face interview with Senator Ayotte in Nashua, New
Hampshire.
5.
Defendant Betty Lou McKenna was at all relevant times, and is the
putative Kent County Recorder of Deeds pending the ballot recount
ordered on 23 December, 2014 extant to La Mar Gunns successful
Petition Challenge to the Kent County Recorder of Deeds Election. 2
She is being sued in her Official and Individual Capacities.
6.
Defendant Holly Malone was and is at all relevant times, the Deputy
Director of Deeds to Defendant Betty Lou McKenna. She is being
sued in her Official and Individual Capacities.
7.
2 The Court ordered that the Department of Elections, rather than the Board of
Canvass, conduct a recount. The Court specifically eschewed Defendant McKennas
argument that the Court could not conduct inquiry into any malfeasance that may
have occurred during the Board of Canvass recount because that recount occurred
two days post hoc, whereas her limited reading construes holding of an election to
mean the same day of the election. Ridiculous.
8.
FACTS
In early November, 2014 Plaintiff telephoned Defendants KcKenna
and Paradee specifically seeking interview and commentary
regarding potentially Defamatory commentary that Defendants had
circulated about La Mar Gunn, i.e. claiming that he had unlawfully
pedaled absentee ballots to an elder (Romaine Whitcomb), and that
he unlawfully personally conducted voter registration drives at a
local college. The absentee issue appears below as presented on
the 8 November 20014 Journal Entry, KingCast and Mortgage
Movies Frown as La Mar Gunn gets his Kent County Recorder of
Deeds Election Victory stolen.
http://mortgagemovies.blogspot.com/2014/11/kingcast-andmortgage-movies-frown-as.html
3 Plaintiff has placed this crucial phrase in bold italics as the Court quoted only the
first part of para 5 at p.8 of an adverse ruling issued on or about 29 June, 2015. That
made it seem as if Plaintiff didnt know what he was talking about, but he most
assuredly does know what he is talking about.
9.
10.
policy.
Plaintiffs conduct would not have hindered, and did not hinder the
daily business functions of the Recorder of Deeds and he did not
seek to be in any rooms other than rooms in which the general
11.
12.
journalist.
Defendant Paradee finds all of these First Amendment and video
13.
14.
Rel..., 2014 Del. Ch. LEXIS 273 (2014) because Del. Code Ann. tit.
29, 10001 provides that it is vital in a democratic society that
public business be performed in an open and public manner so that
the citizens shall have the opportunity to observe the performance
of public officials and to monitor the decisions that are made by
15.
such officials.
Malone made two phone calls, to the unknown Defendants, who
helped facilitate the conspiratorial plan to deny Plaintiff his common
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
23.
Affidavit.
These matters are of substantial concern because campaign deceit
is always a matter of public interest, because MERS documents are
subject to substantial litigation in Pennsylvania by Recorder of
Deeds Nancy Becker in which she is prevailing (16 F. Supp 3d. 535
2014), because there are also fraudulent documents in every
Registry of Deeds and because Candidate Gunn has, in recent
history, reported to Plaintiff that he was largely responsible for the
permanent de-commission of Notary Nikole Shelton, relative to
property that is situated within the jurisdiction of
24.
25.
26.
there was.
All Defendants, particularly Defendant Paradee knew that there was
no unwritten policy of any kind that would forbid any video
collection yet they colluded to give Plaintiff and other staff the
27.
28.
Note that the Delaware open meetings law even provides for video
29.
conferencing at 1006.
Ultimately, however, and contrary to the misinformed musings of
Betty Lou McKenna's Deputy Recorder, it turns out there is no
policy, written or unwritten, of banning cameras in the Kent
30.
31.
32.
10
CLAIMS
I.VIOLATION OF THE FIRST, FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AS PER POMYKACZ V. BOROUGH OF W.
WILDWOOD, 8 F. Supp. 2d 504 (2006) AND 42 U.S.C. 19834
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
May the Court take Judicial Notice that nothing chills a reporter more
than being threatened with arrest. Clearly in this instance the actions of all
Defendants, jointly and severally, with several Defendants acting under Color
of Law, violates the letter and spirit of the Law. As noted in Pomykacz v.
Borough of W. Wildwood, 438 F. Supp. 2d 504 (2006), Plaintiff has a right,
4 Plaintiff is aware that the Court has stated that it will not consider Constitutional
claims in this First Amended Complaint. However Plaintiff is also aware that the Court
somehow overlooked crucial Third Circuit law such as Pomykacz v. Borough of W.
Wildwood, 438 F. Supp. 2d 504 (2006) that squarely holds that a person in Plaintiffs
Position has Constitutional Rights to be free from unlawful arrest and threats of
arrests. Therefore Plaintiff has no doubt but that the Court will grant his
contemporaneously-filed Rule 59 Motion and allow these claims to proceed toward
full discovery and trial.
11
12
10001/6
Delaware already provides for video conferencing of public meetings at
10006. And as noted in a recent case championed by Defendant Paradee,
Del. Code Ann. tit. 29, 10004 requires that, excluding certain statutory
exceptions, every meeting of all public bodies be open to the public. Del.
Code Ann. tit. 29, 10001 provides that it is vital in a democratic society that
public business be performed in an open and public manner so that the
citizens shall have the opportunity to observe the performance of public
officials and to monitor the decisions that are made by such officials.
Plaintiff avers that the truest parallel in this instance are the citizen
journalist cases such as Iacobucci v. Boulter, 1997 U.S. Dist. Lexis 7010, No.
CIV.A. 94-10531 (D.Mass, Mar. 26, 1997), the Third Circuit case of Pomykacz
13
V.
Delaware Attorney General Opinion sets the tone for this claim. It reads, in
pertinent part:
But in 2011, when everyone has a cell phone, and most cell phones
have camera, even video, capability, that time has arrived. To attempt
to ban recording is as pointless as trying to prevent citizens from
taking notes.
CONCLUSION The DOJ should advise its client public bodies that to
outright prohibit any recording of public meetings is highly risky. The
law is evolving in a more permissive direction.
With all due respect, another half-decade has passed after this
precatory language was issued. There is but no question that the Defendants
actions constitute a Common Law violation of a right that should be freely
given. From Tarus:
Commensurate with the use of video recording in society is its
intrinsic value in documenting events. Videotaping is a
legitimate way of gathering information for public dissemination
and can often provide cogent evidence Robinson v. Fetterman,
378 F.Supp.2d 534, 541 (E.D.Pa.2005). The combination of audio
and visual information also affords the most complete record of
public proceedings. Csorny v. Shoreham-Wading River Cent. Sch.
Dist., 305 A.D.2d 83, 89, 759 N.Y.S.2d 513 (2003) (Video
cameras provide the most accurate and effective way of
memorializing local democracy in action.) Thus, video cameras
present distinct advantages over other recording devices, and,
with improvements in technology, are no more disruptive than
pen and paper or audio tape recorder. - See more at:
In sum, we hold that, subject to reasonable restrictions,
members of the public have a common law right to videotape
municipal proceedings in New Jersey. Our conclusion is
supported by an interwoven tapestry of jurisprudence and policy
that demonstrates both the value of open government and the
14
pictures of a County Recorders office just down the road in Newcastle County.
Not only is that a material Constitutional violation, there isnt even any
rational basis for that sort of disparate treatment between the Counties.
DEMANDS
1.
2.
3.
transgressions.
Permanent Injunctive Relief against further or repeated
4.
5.
transgressions.
Compensatory Damages in Excess of $25,000.00.
Punitive Damages in an amount to be determined by Jury.
15
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff hereby demands that this Cause be heard by a duly-empaneled Jury
of appropriate size and composition. Payment for said Jury shall be deposited
in July, 2015.
________________________
Christopher King, J.D.
A/K/A KingCast/Mortgage Movies
16
VERIFICATION
Plaintiff solemnly swears that all factual representations herein are accurate
and true to the best of his recollection and issued with absolute Good Faith.
DATE: _______________________________________
________________________________________________
Christopher King, J.D.
A/K/A KingCast/Mortgage Movies
_________________________________________________
NOTARY
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: _________________________________________
17
APPENDIX A
18
APPENDIX B
19
IN THE
SUPERIOR COURT
KENT COUNTY DELAWARE
CHRISTOPHER KING, J.D.
A/K/A KINGCAST/MORTGAGE MOVIES
17022 11TH Avenue
_______________________
Shoreline, WA 98155,
Plaintiff,
v.
__________________________
) JUDGE
) CASE NO.
20
)
)
State what authority that any Defendant had in telling Plaintiff that
he could not run video inside the Kent County Register of Deeds on
the one and only occasion when he arrived there and spoke with
Defendant McKenna.
21
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, swear that a true and accurate Courtesy copy of
this First Amended Complaint was sent via email and via Tracked U.S.
Mail to:
Joseph Scott Shannon, Esq.
Art C. Arnilla, Esq.
1220 North Market Street
5th Floor
P.O. Box 8888
Wilmington, DE 19899-8888
and to:
John A. Elzufon, Esq.
Peter McGivney, Esq.
300 Delaware Avenue,
Suite 1700
P.O. Box 1630
Wilmington, DE 19899
This 15th day of July, 2015
________________________________
CHRISTOPHER KING, J.D.
22
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, swear that a true and accurate Courtesy copy of
this simple Interrogatory was sent via email and via Tracked U.S. Mail
to:
Joseph Scott Shannon, Esq.
Art C. Arnilla, Esq.
1220 North Market Street
5th Floor
P.O. Box 8888
Wilmington, DE 19899-8888
and to:
John A. Elzufon, Esq.
Peter McGivney, Esq.
300 Delaware Avenue,
Suite 1700
P.O. Box 1630
Wilmington, DE 19899
This 15th day of July, 2015
________________________________
CHRISTOPHER KING, J.D.
23