Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Constitutional Law Blogs -> Chris King's 1st Amendment Page

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Constitutional Law

: Chris King's 1st Amendment Page

KingCast open letter to Daniel Pearl Freedom of Press Act author Adam Schiff and President Barack Obama regarding Senator Kelly Ayotte Free Press lawsuit; Wikipedia coverup & censorship.

By Christopher King

ADVERTISEMENTS

Dear Honorable Statesman Schiff and President Obama:

I am honored to write you and pleased that you share the same commitment to Free Press as I do. The Daniel Pearl Freedom of Press Act is a crucial development on the International landscape, yet it is somewhat ironic that we take basic Free Press principles for granted here in the U.S.. The Democrats have been quite reasonable when it comes to me, as noted in my press picture at the Obama/Deval Patrick rally and at an earlier Deval Patrick rally (watch the video) but there are problems coming from the Republicans and Tea Party people:

Here is an entry I filed on Wikipedia today after some people on Wikipedia seemed unsure as to why it is important that all reporters are granted access to publicly-advertised political rallies that are held on commercial property subject to substantial State and Local licensing and regulation. GOP and Tea Party racists and haters of Free Press cannot selectively deny media access on viewpoint and race-based criteria pursuant to NAACP v. Thompson, 648 F.Supp. 195 D.Md.,(1986), as I noted on this Statewide Public Access television program Capitol Access TV Episode 142. Meanwhile, Wikipedia removed this post in an act of outright censorship:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Ayotte

===Free Press===

The Nashua Telegraph is the State's second-largest newspaper according to Wikipedia. The newspaper noted that Christopher King "KingCast.net" was escorted out by the police at a GOP/Joe Arpaio rally after he attempted to interview Kelly Ayotte at a publicly-advertised political rally. Mr. King has sued Friends of Kelly Ayotte, New Hampshire and Nashua GOP and Nashua Police Department for being refused admittance to that event and two other GOP events. The case is before the New Hampshire Federal District Court. Among the legal questions the suit could potentially raise is whether a private gathering that vigorously seeks media coverage can bar or expel some reporters but not others. http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/887281-196/blogger-sues-ayotte-others-over-access.html

Direct link to Plaintiff's lawsuit in KingCast v. Friends of Kelly Ayotte, GOP and Nashua PD, U.S. Dist. NH 2010-CV-501, and direct links to Plaintiff's Memoranda in Opposition to some rather specious Motions to Dismiss. Videos are embedded in the documents and at the end of the Memoranda hosted on wepapers.

Direct link to Plaintiff's 28 U.S.C. �455 Motion for Disclosure as Defense Counsel Jack Middleton was Judge Landya B. McCafferty's boss and Kelly Ayotte's boss, as a founder of McLane, Graf et al. It is widely believed that this firm, which donated generously to Senator Ayotte in her campaign run, also directly helped Her Honor in her ascension to the Bench that occurred earlier this year. This association was not disclosed to Plaintiff when it certainly should have been, particularly as outgoing Magistrate Judge Muirhead -- himself a McLane, Graf Disciple -- served as a mentor to Judge McCafferty in the transition. That doesn't smell right, but then again neither does the fact that Kelly Ayotte won't disavow any support she receives from online house of hate "Niggermania," who said my case "smells like a nigger," watch the video.

Read these threatening emails from Defense Counsel and my response set them on their tuchii; note that they tried to remove Jack Middleton from the chain but I put him right back in there.

Perhaps these are some of the reasons why U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan's staff is following my Tweets and well they should: This case is headed straight for them. As someone who has worked for the government as an Assistant Attorney General and as someone who has written for and edited large and medium-sized daily and weekly newspapers I will not be denied my Fundamental Right to attend and report, and to gather and to disseminate information just as the Plaintiff's won in NAACP v. Thompson, 648 F.Supp. 195 D.Md.,(1986).

Here are the Defendants' cited cases that don't amount to a hill of beans. They are not on point and wholly irrelevant to the factual and legal backdrop of this case:

For example, on the First Amendment claims Nashua PD cites to State v. Dupuy, 118 N.H. 848 (1978), a case that does not involve political rallies at which some members of the media were allowed but not others. Dupuy was a trespasser at a nuclear power plant -- not a political rally attended by other invited reporters. And Defendant's cited case of Kay v. NH Democratic Party, 821 F.2d 31 (1st Cir. 1987) fails because Kay was attempting to barge in and take a place on the podium, and Plaintiff already agrees that such activity is not supported by law. Again, in the political context the NAACP cases are most instructive, and the same exact holding would be contemplated by Invisible Empire of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Maryland Chapter v. Town of Thurmont, MD. 700 F.Supp. 281 (1998).

Lastly, here is the YouTube video relative to the myopic efforts of Wikipedia to eliminate any discussion of Senator Ayotte's stance on Free Press.

Update: The wikstupidia tools are at it again. This time it is yet another excuse when someone following the issue (whom I only met last month) who agrees with me attempted to post to the "talk" forums, a place where they put things they hope will go away. They locked this individual out for a whole MONTH because s/he dared to support the KingCast position, and s/he assured me that no zombie programs were used at all, just a concerned citizen trying to post.

Another would-be poster (Fourth Estate) sent me these attempts to edit but the vermin scumbag hypocrite sellouts removed all of this as well. This all begs the question: Who is really running the Internet and who is paying or threatening or influence-peddling wikipedia to bury this issue?

Full post as published by Chris King's 1st Amendment Page on December 25, 2010 (boomark / email).