Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
) JUDGE YOUNG
Defendants.
A.
2 The reason why Judge Young lied about this is set forth below, and Plaintiff provided
an uncontroverted drawing to buttress his argument.
corporate and State interests at stake here, let that be clear: Mere words
cannot convey the realm of injustice set forth by Judge Young and
Commissioner Freud. All of Plaintiffs Claims should proceed toward trial, and
all of his First Amended Complaint should have been considered but was not,
because of unlawful bias. Plaintiff was unlawfully denied by a rogue Judge
with a mission to suppress any and all relevant facts and law. It doesnt get
any clearer than this. Whatever happens or does not happen in the future
history of this case, anyone reading this Motion and Memorandum will see
the Truth about the racist, culturally hegemonic and oppressive bench and
general aura of racism that taints the entire state, as noted in Plaintiffs most
recent video,
3 And with respect to the man who was arrested in said video for questioning why
Dover DE police shot at Terrence Fletcher in a school zone:
http://www.delawarepolitics.net/the-shooting-of-terrance-fletcher-by-dover-policejustified/
Plaintiff will be producing another video for him encouraging him to seek counsel who
is not afraid of the Delaware Juggernaut in light of the law set forth Killingsworth and
Gaymon v. Borough of Collingdale, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93014 (July 17, 2015), infra,
noting that it is clearly lawful to video and to criticize public officials, just as in Glik,
which Judge Young also ignored. The gravamen is simply whether or not the
videographer is unreasonably interfering with official business, period.
Plaintiff has via overnight courier retendered the $150 Trial Fee along
with a copy of all documents heretofore rejected by this Court: Plaintiff paid
his Trial Fee on or about 5 August, 2015. Prior to that time, he never received
any notice from Judge Robert B. Young that the Trial Fee must be paid on or
before 23 July 2015. In point of fact, that Court never took adverse action
until a full week later, and only after Plaintiff filed his Waiver of Jury Trial,
noting that he feels particularly unsafe in Delaware given the five (5)
mysterious lynching deaths/murders of black males that AG Denn claims
were suicides. Appendix A.
Meanwhile after mentioning these lynchings in a global email to
supporters, State employees, First Amendment attorneys and several highpowered area attorneys Plaintiff received an email from Detective Hill in
which he declined to provide safety for Plaintiff if he came to the Forum State
whilst simultaneously threatening Plaintiff that he could be subject to
prosecution for the content of the emails that was alarming. Plaintiff, with
notice, taped the entire conversation and put it out for the World to hear on 6
August, 2015.
First Amendment Lawsuits Show Markell, AG Biden, AG Denn Coverup of Black Lynchings
http://mortgagemovies.blogspot.com/2015/08/caught-on-tape-kingcast-andmortgage.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QibeMFiaxgM
Only AFTER production of this video did the Court determine that
Plaintiffs filings were allegedly Out of Rule. These filings mentioned the
lynchings, the lies by Judge Young about a major case (Iacobucci) and the
fundamental flaw of logic by the Court and Defendants in that they used
public meeting law to strike Plaintiffs Constitutional claims, only now to turn
around and claim that Tisdale is completely irrelevant because it is based on
public meeting law.
This unlawful pattern trails back to the Court twice returning the SD
video card Offer of Proof previously submitted, showing Plaintiffs true modus
operandi when shooting video in a County Recorders Office, which is NOT to
go into private areas and such. But Judge Young, in light of his bias, simply
MUST whitewash the Record to make Plaintiffs position appear completely
untenable, when the Plain Trust is that his conduct is commonplace in every
other Jurisdiction in the Country. In. The. Country.
Reviewing Court can see where they have been completely disingenuous
to date).
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
of the United States to give this case a prompt Remand in the name of
Justice. Gotcha.
So now Defendants claim that public meeting analysis is not relevant
to Plaintiffs claims well then that conclusively provides proof that the
Courts underlying rationale. Is wrong and Plaintiff thanks Defendants for
pointing that out because they and the Court are so caught up in their lies
that they cant keep them straight. In any event, recall that the Court
specifically cited to Whiteland woods as particularly helpful and instructive.
10
Well come to find out that Plaintiff said this was not a public meeting
case, ab initio, while the Court was busy giving him the bums rush earlier: It
is the Pomykacz, Cirelli, Iacobucci and Glik cases and their progeny, including
Third Circuits Montgomery v. Killingsworth, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
7152 (January 22, 2015) that are most germane because they all involve
journalists filming public officials in and out of their offices.
Theres the a-ha moment of this entire case and Defendants offered it
up on a platter. That having been said, Plaintiff maintains his public
body/public meeting arguments in the alternative and points to the 11 th
Circuit Tisdale v. Gravitt, 51 F. Supp. 3d 1378 (N.D. Georgia 2014) case to
show that current Courts disagree with the ancient Whiteland Woods case.
Interestingly, in Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment para 8
they try to dismiss Peloquin, Tarus and Iacobucci by stating that the Court
already analyzed them in the prior order, but alas that analysis was
fundamentally wrong as proved by Iacobucci as well as the newly-discovered
Third Circuit and First Circuit (NY) 2015 First Amendment cases. As Plaintiff
stated in prior Memoranda:
Next, the Courts Patent Misrepresentation (read: lie) -- about
Iacobucci v.
Boulter, 1997 U.S. Dist. Lexis 7010, No. CIV.A. 94-10531 (D.Mass,
Mar. 26, 1997) is startling. Iacobucci specifically found that an
independent reporter has a protected right under the First
Amendment and state law to videotape public meetings and the
events that occurred in the hallways of a public building.
But read p17 FN 47 of the courts Opinion where Judge Young tries to
limit the holding to Fourth Amendment Grounds he writes:
(holding rested upon whether Officer had probable cause to arrest
video reporter for recording public event, implicating the Fourth
Amendment)
.. the problem is, one does not get to the Fourth without the First, as
noted by the Iacobucci Court, again, so simple as other courts concur: From
Iacobucci (cited in Glik, infra).
In the next decade, the SJC narrowed this definition of disorderly
conduct to encompass only activities not implicating the lawful
exercise of a First Amendment right. .
and
11
12
13
Accord Gaymon v. Borough of Collingdale, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93014 (July
17, 2015).
In contrast, qualified immunity was rejected for the remaining First
Amendment claim because "peaceful criticism of a police officer that
neither obstructs an investigation nor jeopardizes a police officer's
safety has strong social value, serving as a valuable check on state
power, and is therefore protected under the First
Amendment." Killingsworth, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7152, 2015
WL 289934, at *8 (citing Gentile v. State Bar of Nev., 501 U.S. 1030,
1034, 111 S. Ct. 2720, 115 L. Ed. 2d 888 (1991) ("There is no question
that speech critical of the exercise of the State's power lies at the very
center of the First Amendment.").7
There is yet more 2015 Iacobucci Analysis, this time from New York. See
Higginbotham v. City of New York, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62227 (May 12 2015)
The Court concludes, however, that the right to record police activity in
public, at least in the case of a journalist who is otherwise unconnected
to the events recorded, was in fact "clearly established" at the time of
the events alleged in the complaint. When neither the Supreme Court
nor the Second Circuit has decided an issue, a court "may nonetheless
treat the law as clearly established if decisions from . . . other
circuits [*23] 'clearly foreshadow a particular ruling on the
issue.'" Terebesi v. Torreso, 764 F.3d 217, 231 (2d Cir.
2014) (quoting Scott v. Fischer, 616 F.3d 100, 105 (2d Cir. 2010)); see
also Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074, 2084, 179 L. Ed. 2d 1149
(2011) (requiring, in the absence of controlling authority, "a robust
'consensus of cases of persuasive authority'" (quoting Wilson v. Layne,
526 U.S. 603, 617, 119 S. Ct. 1692, 143 L. Ed. 2d 818 (1999))).
By November 2011, the First, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits had all
concluded that the right exists. So had a number of district courts.
See Pomykacz v. Borough of West Wildwood, 438 F. Supp. 2d 504, 51213 (D.N.J. 2006) (denying summary judgment in
a First Amendment retaliation claim involving a plaintiff who was
arrested for repeatedly photographing a police officer);Robinson v.
Fetterman, 378 F. Supp. 2d 534, 541 (E.D. Pa. 2005) (holding that the
plaintiff's "recording the activities of Pennsylvania state troopers as
they went about their duties on a public highway" was protected by
the First Amendment);Alliance to End Repression v. City of Chicago, No.
74 C 3268, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6342, 2000 WL 562480, at *21 (N.D.
Ill. May 8, 2000) (holding that "taking photographs of the police" was
"First Amendment conduct"); Connell v. Town of Hudson, 733 F. Supp.
465, 471 (D.N.H. 1990) (holding that the police's interest in securing an
accident scene did not outweigh the plaintiff's right to photograph the
scene, and rejecting the defendants' qualified immunity
argument); Channel 10, Inc. v. Gunnarson, 337 F. Supp. 634, 638 (D.
Minn. 1972) (recognizing the right of a newsman to film a crime scene
14
from any location to which the general public had access, unless he
unreasonably interfered with or endangered the police).
15
16
17
ii.
18
From Higginbotham (in addition to prior citation noting the proper analysis of
Pomykacz):
Certainly, the right to record police activity in a public space is not
without limits, and some uncertainty may exist on its outer bounds. For
instance, it may not apply in particularly dangerous situations, if the
recording interferes with the police activity, if it [*26] is surreptitious,
if it is done by the subject of the police activity, or if the police activity
is part of an undercover investigation. As alleged, however,
Higginbotham's conduct falls comfortably within the zone protected by
the First Amendment.
The complaint alleges that he was a professional journalist present to
record a public demonstration for broadcast and not a participant in
the events leading up to the arrest he was filming. There is nothing in
the complaint suggesting that his filming interfered with the arrest.
Accordingly, and in light of the case law consensus described above, a
reasonable police officer would have been on notice that retaliating
against a non-participant, professional journalist for filming an arrest
under the circumstances alleged would violate the First Amendment.
......This is why Judge Young had to fashion Plaintiff as a "guerrilla journalist"
and completely ignore the professional acumen specifically stated in the
complaint. And that is unlawful, hegemonic and potentially racist bias.
***********
But going into the substance, there is more. Much more. As dictated
by several cases set forth below some of which were ignored or
misrepresented in the dismissal of Plaintiffs Original Complaint (i.e.
Pomykacz, Iacobucci and Glik) -- there is simply no plausible way that this
case can be decided on the Pleadings. This time around if the Court and
Defendants actually respond to what Plaintiff wrote, we may be able to create
a record that is actually usable by a reviewing Court. Let us commence then,
in light of the below drawing evincing the fact that Plaintiffs attempted
conduct in no ways threatened employee privacy or the function of the office:
That is because the only items downstairs in the public area is a public
foyer, a guard desk, a service desk at which Defendant Malone stood alone,
and a public hallway leading to the back room where several public kiosks are
situated.
19
4 For the Record, Plaintiff reminds Defendants and the Court as to how Defendants
raised Kelly Ayotte in Defense until he published these video captures. Yep. The
Worlds biggest backpedal.
20
While playing lip service to deciding the case on the Pleadings lets
review what the Court actually did:
First he put the Plaintiff physically in an interior office near
employees cubicles in order to make it appear that Plaintiffs case and
arguments are unreasonable.
That is because in reality -- the only items downstairs in the public
area is a public foyer, a guard desk, a service desk at which Defendant
Malone stood alone, and a public hallway leading to the back room where
several public kiosks are situated. As such, if the Court is at all interested in
Truth and Justice, it would stop hiding behind facts not alluded to in the
Pleadings. To wit: Plaintiff was not seeking access to Interior offices or to
film employees of the Recorder of Deeds in their cubicles. SEE Plaintiffs
drawing, supra. The Review of Plaintiffs initial and Amended Complaint will
21
reveal that Plaintiff never sought nor implied such access. (29 June Opinion
pp. 14-15, Fn 42).
III.
handling of this case. A reasonable person could conclude that Judge Youngs
latest attack is because of videos such as this one:
Former Trial Attorney Rips Judge Robert B. Young
in Delaware Free Press First Amendment case.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Emq8pn6O34w
22
Even if Judge Young claims that this particular decision was not of his
making, there is enough before us to clearly demonstrate that he has not
maintained any air of neutrality in this case, and as such, he must recuse
himself.IV.
23
Respectfully Submitted,
_____________________________________________
CHRISTOPHER KING, J.D.
kingcast955@icloud.com
mortgagemovies007@gmail.com
http://affordablevideodepo.com
http://mortgagemovies.blogspot.com
617.543.8085m
206.299.9333f
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, swear that a true and accurate Courtesy copy of
this document 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.
24
25
APPENDIX A
26
27
APPENDIX B
28
29
30
31
32
APPENDIX C
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rl4tS0W7RcQ
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.
33
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXlHu2002Vc
APPENDIX D
34
35