IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNEW HAMPSHIRE

CHRISTOPHER KING, J.D. )OWNER OF KINGCAST.NETCHRIS KING’S FIRST AMENDMENT PAGE ) CASE NO. 2010-CV-501131 Boston StreetSuite Three, )Boston, MA 02125,

Plaintiff-Petitioner,v. ) JUDGE PAUL BARBADOROKELLY AYOTTE, ESQ. )4 Tuckerwood Court,NASHUA, NH 03064 )

FRIENDS OF KELLY AYOTTE, ) MAGISTRATE LANDYA McCAFFERTY101 Charles StreetManchester, New Hampshire 03101, )

NEW HAMPSHIRE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE ) PLAINTIFF’S THIRD10 Water Street AMENDED COMPLAINTConcord, New Hampshire 03301, )

NASHUA REPUBLICAN CITY COMMITTEE, ) JURY DEMAND ENDORSED HEREON11 Concord StreetSuite Four, )Nashua, New Hampshire 03064,

)RYAN WILLIAMS,c/o NH Republican Committee, )

DI LOTHROP, )c/o Nashua Republican City Committee,

)DENNIS HOGAN, ESQ.c/o Nashua Republican City Committee,

)CITY OF NASHUA POLICE DEPARTMENT,

)POLICE CHIEF DAN CONLEYIN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES

LIEUTENANT JOHN FISHER )IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES

)OFFICER JAMES HARGREAVESIN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES0 Panther Drive )

1

Nashua, New Hampshire 03062,Defendants. )

I. Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction is conferred by way of 28 U.S.C. §1441(B), 28 U.S.C. §1331,

28 U.S.C. §$1446 and 2201. Further, given the significance of the harms

involved, Plaintiff does not object to Diversity Removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§1332(a).

II. The Parties

1. KingCast and Chris King’s 1st Amendment Page and Kelly Ayotte

Senate blog are owned and managed exclusively by Plaintiff, a

black former Assistant Attorney General and former 7-year resident

of New Hampshire with an Undergraduate Degree in

Communications, Rhetoric minor. He is a recent New England News

and Press (NENPA) guest panelist for their 2011 Annual Conference.

On 25 September, 2010 he joined the press pool for a Deval Patrick

rally in South Boston where he rolled video and took stills and made

a 14 minute movie showcasing, inter alia, GOP and Democratic

responses to his journalistic endeavors. On 16 October 2010 he

joined the press gallery at a Democratic Rally sponsored by the

White House.

2

3

The main portal and 1st Amendment pages have been up

and operating at the same web addresses for approximately

five (5) years. His blog has 20,700 profile views, and countless

page hits, in the millions.

He has worked as a reporter for the Indianapolis Star, as an Editor

with the Ohio Call & Post, and he holds a Nashua Mayoral Certificate

for First Amendment activity in the Public Interest.

State Legislators including State Rep. Paul Sorg and Edmond Gionet have

written Plaintiff at his blog with respect to issues on HB 1428 and SB154,

Bruce McKay Highway that was properly tabled.

Subject: RE: Please reject or table NH HB 1428 and reschedule public

hearing.

Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 20:58:22 -0500

From: "Gionet, Edmond" Edmond.Gionet@leg.state.nh.us

To: "Christopher King" kingjurisdoctor@yahoo.com

Thanks, I am glad you surfaced…. I was really upset when I found the

bill listed to be heard in my committee and who the sponsor was. I feel

like 99% of the responses I got to S--- C-- the bill. What a mockery. I

attended both funerals out of respect and found that if it hadn't been

3

for paid employees for the State, County and various town

governments at tax payers expense there would have been a small

attendance at Corporal McKay's funeral…..

He has also instigated a First Amendment Policy change at the Nashua School

Board, in which the Board changed a restrictive speech policy after Plaintiff

threatened to sue the School Board and City of Nashua in 2007. As noted in

Inj. Attachment 1.1

More recently, the Revere Journal twice published photographs of his

trial photography in the Dan Talbot Police Murder case, and WBZ used his

courtroom footage of the historic, record-breaking $1.8M anti-Semitic trial of

Scott Hyman v. Hemlock Association/Lakeville, Massachusetts as noted in Inj.

Attachment 1.

In September, 2010 in response to Defendants’ actions in threatening

to arrest him for his mere presence at the GOP Fundraiser event that was

open to the public, Phoenix Arizona New Times writer Stephen Lemons

opined:

1 Per Local Rule 15.1(b) Plaintiff is not incorporating these items into this Complaint per se, he is merely noting that these items are part of the record and known to all counsel for all Defendants.

4

If you ask me, journalism needs more Chris Kings......

Anyway, King's video is entertaining mainly because of what happens to him: A GOP hausfrau whacks his camera with a pamphlet; some Republican crone orders him out of the building; and the local cops force him to amscray under threat of arrest, even though he's credentialed and there are plenty of other media types there. The video's a tad long at 12 minutes-plus, but worth every second.

****************

2. Defendant Kelly Ayotte is the former New Hampshire Attorney General

and current U.S. Senator. During her term as New Hampshire AG she and

Jaffrey Police Chief Martin J. Dunn (since fired and affirmed by former NH AG

John Arnold) conspired to attack Plaintiff’s First Amendment Rights with a

series of failed prosecutions brought with racial and First Amendment animus

because he was a black man and strident NAACP Legal Chair of Southern New

Hampshire, exposing police abuse.

5

3. Defendant Friends of Kelly Ayotte is the registered nonprofit campaign

arm of newly-elected Senator Kelly Ayotte, Esq., who obviously maintains

ultimate control of said organization via actual, ostensible and implied

authority.2 Ayotte has previously recognized Plaintiff as an investigative

journalist, most notably when Ayotte and co-Defendants Town of Franconia

saw the Court ORDER the following in KingCast v. Kelly Ayotte et al., Grafton

2007-268: Regarding the video of the 5/11 dash cam.

[KingCast] may copy the original video under supervision of

custodial police authority.4. Defendant New Hampshire Republican State Committee (GOP NH) is a

duly-chartered political party under the laws and treatises of the State and

Federal Governments and may be sued accordingly.

5. Defendant Nashua Republican City Committee (GOP Nashua) is a duly-

chartered political entity under the laws and treatises of the State and

Federal Governments and may be sued accordingly.

6. Ryan Williams is the GOP NH Communications Director who specifically

told Plaintiff “You are not a journalist” prior to ordering Plaintiff expelled from

the entire Crowne Plaza after conferencing with Defendant Hargreaves and

other GOP policy makers including Defendants Ayotte, Hogan and Lothrop.

7. Di Lothrop is the GOP Nashua Communications Director who

specifically told Plaintiff “You are not a journalist” prior to ordering Plaintiff

expelled from the entire Crowne Plaza after conferencing with Defendant

Hargreaves and other GOP policy makers including Defendants Ayotte, Hogan

and Williams.

8. Dennis Hogan is the Chair of the Nashua Republican City Committee

who immediately labeled Plaintiff a “troublemaker” and who falsely claimed

2 KingCast notes that Defendants have apparently waived their specious argument that Plaintiff is not a journalist, however Plaintiff is not deleting any of the content of his pleadings in this regard because GOP Communications Directors Di Lothrop and Brian Williams both openly used this fallacious argument as their front line of “reasoning” to expel him from the Joe Arpaio rally, even after he successfully interviewed Arpaio without incident. Defendant Ayotte has known Plaintiff to be a journalist for several years running. The “not a journalist” argument is pure subterfuge for unlawful racial bias based on perceived ideology that a black Civil Rights reporter would write a negative story.

6

to the Nashua Telegraph that Plaintiff actually left the GOP/Nashua Crowne

Plaza Joe Arpaio “Steak Out” (hereinafter, “Steak Out,” or “The Steak Out”)

willfully after Defendant Hargreaves, male Caucasian actually led three

Nashua Police Officers in driving Plaintiff out of the entire Crowne Plaza well

after he had left the Arpaio event room without any physical resistance

whatsoever.

9. Defendant Nashua Police Department is a duly-chartered municipal law

enforcement agency under the laws and treatises of the State and Federal

Governments and may be sued accordingly.

10. Defendant Dan Donley is the Nashua Police Chief who ratified all of the

illegal actions perpetrated by his Officers at the “Steak Out” as part of the

Department’s custom and policy, pattern, practice and training just as he

ratified Defendant Fisher’s illegal conduct in Gorsuch v. Fisher et al., NH Dist.

2010-CV-495.

11. Defendant James Hargreaves is the Nashua Police Officer who, inter

alia, led his two partners in driving Plaintiff out of the Steak Out and from the

entire Crowne Plaza under threat of arrest, under the direct orders of

Defendants Ayotte, Hogan, Williams, and Lothrop, all acting in Conspiratorial

Enterprise.

12. Defendant Lieutenant John Fisher is the Nashua Police Officer who,

inter alia, kept Plaintiff out of the VFW John McCain/Kelly Ayotte under threat

of arrest, under the direct orders of Defendants Ayotte, Hogan, Williams, and

Lothrop, all acting in Conspiratorial Enterprise. He also badgered Plaintiff as a

car backed up even though Caucasian people stood closer to the car, which

chilled Plaintiff’s First Amendment Rights to gather information and to pose

questions to Kelly Ayotte even while Plaintiff was following his directions,

standing on the sidewalk and trying to work.3

The Facts:

3 Fisher is of course also a named Defendant in Gorsuch v. Fisher et al., 2010-CV-495 also alleging that he told fibs about vehicular facts.

7

13. Defendant Friends of Kelly Ayotte is charged with Constructive

knowledge that Plaintiff is an investigative journalist because Ayotte provided

Plaintiff with the same set of press materials provided to the large area media

in the spring of 2007, see News Release and picture of Bruce McKay’s Tahoe

tracks bashing Liko Kenney’s car back 30 feet, as noted by Inj. Attachment

#3.

14. Defendant Friends of Kelly Ayotte is charged with Constructive

knowledge that Plaintiff is an investigative journalist because Judge Timothy

Vaughan ruled in 2008 that Plaintiff was entitled to review the actual dash

cam from Corporal Norman Bruce McKay’s cruiser in KingCast v. Ayotte et al.,

Grafton 2007-268, Inj. Attachment 2.

15. Defendants are charged with Constructive knowledge that other

journalists consider Plaintiff to be a journalist, including award-winning Author

Casey Sherman, Author of “Bad Blood: Freedom and Death in the White

Mountains,” a novel with forthcoming Hollywood screenplay directly

addressing Defendant Ayotte’s role in failing to conduct a proper

investigation into the tragic events of May 11, 2007. Sherman, Plaintiff and

retired Franconia Sugar Hill Police Officer Bradford Whipple contend Ayotte

was wrong to allow a multiple felon to go free in only 24 hours, as he has an

extensive criminal history that Ayotte did not disclose to the public, he was

on many drugs at the time, and he initially twice stated he never spoke to

Liko Kenney before shooting him, then later changed his statement.

Floyd, as a freed man, then continued on a well-established criminal

career and proceeded to threaten his neighbor, a small middle-aged woman,

with a gun and he now properly resides in NH State Prison where he recently

was served with a Complaint for Wrongful Death in the Franconia matter

before His Honor, Estate of Liko Kenney v. Floyd, 2010-CV-181. Floyd cannot

find counsel for that case.

8

Sherman states at this KingCast book launch video:

“…[O]ther people I have to point out tonight, people who literally helped with the book, Chris King, who is not only a photographer but a pretty good researcher and investigative journalist himself…..”

At page 203 Sherman writes:"...one cannot deny that he has had his share of success. King was responsible for uploading the Sarah E. arrest video onto YouTube and he also released many of the Liko-Kenney--McKay case documents on his Web site. He has been spurned by many so-called legitimate reporters, but Chris King has been a tenacious advocate for the Kenney family and a major thorn in the side of New Hampshire law enforcement."

9

16. Defendants are charged with Constructive knowledge, via Plaintiff’s

blog and videos, that Masters in Criminal Justice website considers KingCast

and Chris King’s First Amendment Page to offer valuable public information,

ranking him at number 1, Inj. Attachment 1, to wit:

1. Chris King’s 1st Amendment Page: Here you can track criminal and other cases with Chris King, a New Hampshire blogger who reports with a tongue-in-cheek style.

2. ACLU Blog: Get updates on new measures, campaigns and issues that the American Civil Liberties Union is interested in.

17. Defendants are charged with Constructive and Actual Knowledge that

then-Mayor Bernard Streeter awarded Plaintiff with a Mayoral Commendation,

the City’s Highest Citizen Award, for his work in protecting the First

Amendment as noted at Inj. Attachment 1.

18. Defendants are charged with Constructive and Actual Knowledge that

Plaintiff is indeed a bona fide journalist yet they advanced an argument that

Plaintiff was not a journalist to provide a pretext for racial discrimination, and

using “race as proxy for ideology” as Plaintiff noted in his TRO Hearing of 2

November, 2010.4

19. Hogan did publicly identify Plaintiff as a “troublemaker,” a comment

that Plaintiff believes relates to Plaintiff’s successful campaign to change the

Nashua School Board First Amendment Policy as noted in the following 2007

email exchange between Hogan and Plaintiff when Plaintiff got the better of

the Nashua School Board and they changed a restrictive First Amendment

Covenant:

4 Plaintiff tendered a Motion for 18 U.S.C. §455 Recusal based on the substantial contacts between McLane, Graf and Magistrate McCafferty, who made every possible inference in favor of Defendants. Among other things, lead McLane Graf Attorney Jack Middleton was both McCafferty and Ayotte’s boss within the same approximate calendar year.

10

.

20. Nashua Police Defendants Pattern, Practice and ongoing Course of Conduct

Designed to Chill Expressive Petitioning First Amendment Activity: Dave Ridley/Ridley Report.

a) Nashua Municipal Defendant and Chief Conley have engaged in

unreasonable and unlawful retaliatory animus in Dave Ridley’s May 2011

arrest at the Nashua Radisson Hotel during a visit by Vice President Biden.

The facts will reveal, at a minimum, that Ridley interviewed several local

politicians, none of whom had a problem with his presence whatsoever,

similar to the way that Plaintiff interviewed Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff

Joe Arpaio at the GOP “Steak Out.” Nonetheless the Nashua PD issued him a

directive to leave, which he did, facing them and videotaping them as he left.

Nashua PD never told him he could not video them as he left and they never

gave him instructions that he had to turn away from them as he left.

11

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.

Plaintiff is shocked by the arrest, because without Nashua Police

Intervention Mr. Biden is not apt to arrest an Independent Journalist: Plaintiff

has in fact engaged in colloquy with Senator Biden about such touchy issues

as the Franconia Shooting Tragedy Coverup by Defendant Ayotte – with no

threat of arrest.

b). The arrest of Mr. Ridley was occasioned because he has aired several

videos critical of Defendants in the Case at Bar.

c) The unlawful arrest of Mr. Ridley was also occasioned because of a general

pattern and practice of Nashua PD to chill First Amendment reporting and

expressive conduct with which they don’t agree.

21. Nashua Police Defendants Pattern, Practice and ongoing Course of Conduct

Designed to Chill Expressive Petitioning First Amendment Activity: Michael J. Gannon.

a) Five years ago Plaintiff was one of the lead online journalists during the now

12

legendary harassment of Mike Gannon, after the Nashua PD confiscated his

audio-video equipment and footage because he taped them harassing him on

his own front porch. Under Defendant Ayotte’s advisory ambit as the Legal

Leader-in-Chief the case fumbled along as Nashua PD Defendants prosecuted

Mr. Gannon under an obscure provision of RSA 570 even though the Police

had no expectation of privacy, and were warned by postings and verbally by

Mr. Gannon that they were being recorded. Mr. Gannon’s claims against

Detective Karlis were so strong that they could not be overlooked and Karlis

was punished in some fashion.5

b) After vigorous Internet pressure they nol-prossed the charges but apparently

remain bitter to this day because three (3) days ago they arrested Mr.

Gannon as he was walking his dog, Shamus. Plaintiff has contacted and

interviewed witnesses and Mr. Gannon, who claim that a Nashua Detective

(who may soon be subject to a Bivens Action) began verbally harassing Mr.

Gannon for no reason, attacked him, maced him and told him in a

condescending tone “You’re a YouTube Sensation.”

c) May the record reflect that the only places in which Mr. Gannon Appears on

YouTube are on Plaintiff’s videos that question the arrest of Dave Ridley or

that question the resolve of Defendant Hogan to vigorously prosecute Cody

Eller, the young man who admitted he intentionally drove a 3,800lb

automobile into a 600lb. motorcycle. With a rider on it.6

d) Plaintiff provides the following visual aids for the Court’s edification.

5 Plaintiff has in fact issued an RSA 91A request for the videotapes that Nashua PD is still illegally holding. Attorney Cullen has taken the matter under advisement.6 Mr. Gannon and Plaintiff are both life-long motorcycle enthusiasts and riders.

13

14

15

b). The July 2011 arrest of Mr. Gannon was occasioned because of his

ongoing association with Plaintiff and because he has appeared in Plaintiff’s

videos critical of law enforcement in the Cody Eller and Dave Ridley cases.

The Detective basically admitted as much without using Plaintiff’s name.

c) The unlawful arrest of Mr. Ridley was also occasioned because of a general

pattern and practice of Nashua PD to chill First Amendment reporting and

expressive conduct with which they don’t agree.

16

The Original Violations Against Plaintiff.

22. The Kelly Ayotte Manchester Facebook Rally, allegedly open to the public.7

On or about 29 August, 2010 Defendant Kelly Ayotte and her Friends

hosted an official campaign event that was advertised on Facebook for the

entire Free World to see and to attend by invitation. All that was needed to

complete the contract was the Defendants’ acceptance of $10 from any

prospective attendee. Plaintiff attended, or attempted to attend as media,

and also offered his $10 attendance fee as civilian. The parking lot is subject

to substantial state and local licensing and permitting that presupposes legal

and ethical treatment of the public.

23. Defendant Ayotte, by and through her campaign office, conferenced

with her crew as she witnessed the intrepid black reporter and subsequently

threatened Plaintiff with arrest by several white men in a Conspiratorial

mandate. These men, including former U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier, put their

fingers in his chest and pushed him. Plaintiff, who was trying to operate a

camera at the time and who had not touched anyone of his own accord,

became fearful of his safety as would anyone.

7 Relevant, unedited raw footage from all four events is contained on a Conventionally-filed CD and at YouTube link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8bmL2lkC0g where comments have been disabled to assuage Defendants’ purported concerns about people like Terry from ArrestaJudgekit. This is to aid the Court in reviewing matters from remote locations and without taking the hard copy CD from Chambers or from the Office of the Clerk.

17

24. To compound matters, Monier then threatened to call the Manchester

police, who are known for beating civilians and settling 42 U. S.C. §1983

Actions after the victims endure plastic surgery.

25. These threats were captured and preserved on video, including Monier

threatening to call the Police while lying to Plaintiff and stating “this is private

property” as Plaintiff stood right smack in the middle of a PUBLIC

SIDEWALK.

26. Plaintiff, as a former LE Attorney correctly perceived Monier as working

under Color of Law as a high-ranking LE given his general presence and the

fact that he was working for a the recently-resigned New Hampshire Attorney

General. We are all 40 or 50-something years old now and we all know LE

when we see them. Moreover, no Civilian would have the unmitigated gall to

threaten to call the police like that. The actions complained of at the

Manchester FaceBook Rally were done unfairly and with unlawful racial

animus a substantial motivating factor.

27. The GOP Joe Arpaio “Steak Out,” Allegedly Open to the Public.8

On or about 12 September 2010 Defendants co-sponsored a GOP fundraiser

with embattled Arizona Sheriff Joe Apraio as keynote speaker. Once again all

that was necessary to complete a contract was acceptance of money. The

event was open to the public, as noted by the Nashua Telegraph’s Michael

Brindley in his 23 July 2010 story, GOP fundraiser features ‘America’s

toughest sheriff’

“Known for his practical no-nonsense approach to law enforcement, you’ll have a chance to meet this true American hero!” reads the promotional poster on the website. The event will be held at the Crowne Plaza Hotel. Tickets for the lunch are $45. For another $50, attendees will get a chance to meet Arpaio.

Arpaio’s career in law enforcement has gained recognition for other

8 Relevant, unedited raw footage from all four events is contained on a Conventionally-filed CD and at YouTube link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8bmL2lkC0g where comments have been disabled to assuage Defendants’ purported concerns about people like Terry from ArrestaJudgekit.

18

unique approaches, such as making inmates wear pink underwear, reinstating chain gangs and banning sexually explicit materials. His creation of “tent cities” has drawn criticism and legal challenges from human rights organizations. Arpaio has spoken out in favor of Arizona’s new immigration law, and Hogan agrees:

“From what I understand of it, I like it,” Hogan said.9

28. Plaintiff does not favor the Arpaio approach to law enforcement, and at

the Crown Plaza he conducted a professional interview of Mr. Arpaio in the

presence of other, larger media then attempted to ask Defendant Ayotte a

few questions. At such time Nashua GOP Secretary Karen Thoman spoke out

of turn and struck Plaintiff’s camera with a GOP flier, as Nashua Police

personnel stood by and did nothing to check her actions, instead

admonishing Plaintiff “not to touch anyone else,” as if he had struck Ms.

Thoman. The actions of Hargreaves and Thoman were done unfairly and with

unlawful racial animus a substantial motivating factor. Plaintiff, on video,

noted that he had not struck anyone and told Officer Hargreaves that he was

the victim.

29. On request, Plaintiff showed the Officer his New England News and

9 Arpaio’s office is under local and Federal investigation for Civil Rights abuses and for millions of missing dollars that were earmarked for prison upkeep and prisoner provisions. The allegation is that this money was actually spent on lavish junkets and the pursuit of undocumented workers in racist, fascist fashion that Ayotte and the other Defendants support. KingCast is here to document things like this, unlike the Union Leader who assiduously ignores it. Again, read the Steve Lemons column in the Phoenix New Times daily newspaper. Again, Mr. Lemons stated “Journalism needs more Chris Kings.”

19

Press Association membership card. Officer Hargreaves ignored him, and told

him he needed a ticket to attend. Plaintiff, following his instructions,

alternately offered to purchase a ticket either as member of the press or as

Civilian. Officer Hargreaves sent him to the podium/stage setup area as a

member of the media. Plaintiff complied.

30. During this time Plaintiff exchanged hugs and banter with GOP

Candidates Sandra Ziehm and Jennifer Horn, leaving his camera on the

podium, but just after Ms. Horn walked by Ryan Williams cornered him and

told him he was not a member of the press. Williams then spoke to Officer

Hargreaves and summonsed local GOP Official Di Lothrop, who then

specifically (and erroneously and Unconstitutionally) stated “You are not here

as a member of the press.” Defendants Williams and Lothrop did then order

the Nashua Police Officers to remove Plaintiff from the entire Crown Plaza,

under threat of arrest. 31. The Crowne Plaza is a place of public accommodation and is also

subject to substantial State and Local licensing and permitting that carries

with it as a matter of public policy the implied warranty that said permits and

licenses will not be used to promote unlawful racial or Unconstitutional

Conduct.

32. Nashua PD Officer Hargreaves expressly told Plaintiff he was being

ejected from the event because of “the people running the event “ – which

was the New Hampshire and Nashua GOP. Hargreaves drove Plaintiff out of

the entire Crowne Plaza under threat of arrest even though the GOP did not

exercise dominion over the building, even though Crowne Staff said they

were not throwing Plaintiff out and even though Plaintiff told him on video,

“this is a place of public accommodation… I can chill here and get a

sandwich, right?” Hargreaves never retreated from his position and Plaintiff

felt compelled to leave or be arrested, his First Amendment Rights having

been unlawfully chilled.

33. Plaintiff telephoned City Committee Chair Dennis Hogan, Esq., and

asked for an apology as seen at Inj. Attachment 5. Hogan ignored him and on

20

information and belief contacted Conley, either on his own or by and through

his counsel, and decided to maintain the hard line, as in Connell v. Hudson,

733 F.Supp 465 (1990), when Plaintiff in that case asked for an apology and

was also rejected out of hand.

34. Plaintiff filed a two-page detailed complaint to Nashua City Attorney

Bennett, who ignored him. He abdicated his authority to Police Chief Conley

as noted by Nashua Telegraph Reporter Pat Meighan, as noted by Inj.

Attachment 6.

21

35. Plaintiff publicly noted that Attorney Bennett has a legal obligation to

advise the police on what the First Amendment Law is, and he forwarded an

email to the town legal department, however Bennett ignored that email as

well as noted by Inj. Attachment 6

36. Plaintiff filed a copy of the same, detailed Complaint to Nashua Police

Chief Conley, who on information and belief has not earned a Law Degree.

Conley cryptically denied the claim as did the Defendant Hudson Chief who

incurred liability after he ratified the actions of his Officers in Connell, supra,

after they pushed a freelance reporter too far. Conley, without any legal or

factual analysis whatsoever ratified the actions of James Hargreaves by

stating “Exonerated,” as noted in Inj. Attachment 6.

37. The Actions of the Defendants throughout this section were committed

unfairly and with unlawful racial animus a substantial motivating factor.

38. Plaintiff, who has successfully resolved prior First Amendment issues

with the City without litigation, brings this case before this Honorable Court

only as a last resort, and to reiterate the law set forth earlier this year by the

High Court in Mortgage Specialists v. Implode Explode 160 N.H. 227, 999

A.2d 184, 38 Media L. Rep. 1641(2010), holding that opinionated website

owners are journalists when they gather and disseminate information to the

public, which is exactly what Plaintiff does, almost daily.

22

39. The GOP John McCain Rally, ostensibly open to the Public and

Media.10

On 2 October 2010 The Defendants co-sponsored and coordinated a rally at a

VFW post 483. The event was once again publicly advertised, invited the

general public and requested an RSVP, an invitation to contract per 42 U.S.C.

§1981. Plaintiff did as asked, and submitted a copy of the RSVP request to the

Nashua Telegraph, which did then publish same on 1 Oct. 2010 in the Patrick

Meighan story, “Blogger files charge after rally removal.”

“Please advise, in writing, if there is any special press requirements equally applied to all media,” King wrote in an e-mail sent to Ayotte and to various others, including Telegraph reporters, as noted in Inj. Attachment 7.

In reviewing the raw footage of the day Plaintiff is seen telling Defendant

Fisher about the RSVP. Fisher reminds him that Defendants do not care and

will arrest him.38. Defendants ignored Plaintiff’s correspondence, but on

orders of the campaign, Nashua Police Lieutenant John Fisher greeted Plaintiff

almost immediately as he got off his motorcycle and told him “Mr. King you

are staying on the sidewalk.” Plaintiff inquired “I need to understand, to get it

straight, officer are there other media here?” to which Fisher replied “The

thing YOU need to understand is that YOU are not coming inside.”

40. At that precise moment the Nashua Telegraph’s Grant Morris, male

Caucasian walked outside and ran a video interview of Plaintiff documenting

the First Amendment Free Press violation that was published by the

Telegraph the following day. This is a pattern and practice of the GOP;

McCain ejected black reporter Stephen Price without explanation in

2008 while white reporters were allowed to stay.

41. Every other reporter at the rally, including white stringers without

direct ID badges from large media, was permitted to enter the rally. Plaintiff

met such white stringers and did discuss this matter with them.

10 Relevant, unedited raw footage from all four events is contained on a Conventionally-filed CD and at YouTube link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8bmL2lkC0g where comments have been disabled to assuage Defendants’ purported concerns about people like Terry from ArrestaJudgekit.

23

42. Defendant Fisher specifically told Plaintiff that he was acting on the

direct orders, and presumably in Conspiratorial fashion with Defendants GOP,

Ayotte and Friends of Ayotte as he stated in direct to inquiry from Plaintiff

“The campaign said you are not welcome here.”

43. The actions of all Defendants who concurred in this activity were

inspired by unlawful racial animus as a substantial motivating factor.

44. The Nashua VFW is subject to substantial State and Local Licensing

and Permitting that carries with it as a matter of public policy the implied

warranty that they will not be used to promote unlawful racial or

Unconstitutional Conduct.

45. Lieutenant John Fisher spoke out of turn as Plaintiff attempted to ask

Candidate Ayotte a question about Unconstitutional DNA testing, as the video

clearly shows other white people closer to a loud, backing car than Plaintiff.

Fisher admonished Plaintiff on the backing car and did further continue to

caution him to remain on the sidewalk, even though Plaintiff had never once

left the sidewalk.

46. One may clearly see that other white people were closer to the backing

car yet Fisher said nothing to them because he was too busy harassing

Plaintiff, such that Plaintiff was not able to ask another question of Candidate

Ayotte, thus his First Amendment Rights to speak AND to gather news were

at once chilled and trammeled. Of course as previously noted, Defendant

Fisher is being sued in this Court at this very moment for lying about a

vehicular incident more tragic in nature that resulted in the death of the

actual driver. Gorsuch v. Fisher et al. 2010-CV-495.

24

47. No one was intimidated or concerned by Plaintiff’s physical presence at

the VFW Rally. In fact, Veteran David Leonard, out of Rumney, spoke freely

with him and a young white stringer initiated conversation with him, standing

next to a middle-aged white Republican in almost the exact spot where Kelly

Ayotte and John McCain were standing moments later where Magistrate

McCafferty incorrectly ruled that Defendant Ayotte was in some kind of

reasonable apprehension. As seen in the video, these women are smiling with

Plaintiff and conversing freely, even initiating conversation for Pete’s sake.

25

48. The Actions complained of in this Section were committed

unfairly and with unlawful racial animus a substantial motivating factor.

26

49. The Publicly-Advertised Election Eve Rally, Portsmouth.11

After Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint the Defendants largely

recognized their unlawful ejectments from places of Public Accommodation

could not continue so as such they allowed him in to the Popovers

Coffeehouse but they still interfered -- Under Color of Law -- with Plaintiff’s

First Amendment Right to Gather News and to ask questions of Defendant

Ayotte.

50. To wit, a very large black man under the employ of Ayotte et al. (the

only other black person Plaintiff has seen in all four Ayotte/GOP events)

continually talked to Plaintiff while he was attempting to run video, while

Stephen Monier, in Conspiratorial fashion, continued to lie by stating “quit

bumping me” as he also lied at the Facebook Rally when he said “this is

private property, do you want me to call the Manchester police,” while

Plaintiff stood on a public sidewalk. The entire time Plaintiff was present the

Defendants acted in concert to deny him the privileges held by the white

camera team from WMUR who was equidistant.

51. This screen capture shows that once again Plaintiff is being hassled by

persons operating under color of law12 despite the fact that he is

“equidistant” from the other reporter and cameraman, male Caucasian.

Plaintiff’s index finger is seen indicating the disparate treatment that is in

substantial part the product of unlawful racial animus.

11 Relevant, unedited raw footage from all four events is contained on a Conventionally-filed CD and at YouTube link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8bmL2lkC0 where comments have been disabled to assuage Defendants’ purported concerns about people like Terry from ArrestaJudgekit.12 As noted previously, Defendant Ayotte and Stephen Monier were both on temporary leave from high-powered government positions but to Plaintiff or to any reasonable observer these people were operating under color of law.

27

52. The Actions complained of throughout the entire Complaint,

are the byproduct of pattern, plan and practice of unlawful racial

bias that has been applied by Kelly Ayotte and her witnesses against

Plaintiff and other strident black males for the past half-decade:

a) Kelly Ayotte, tinged by unlawful racial animus, did bring NH Hillsborough Superior Case 2005-E-430, an Unauthorized Practice of Law case against Plaintiff as NAACP Legal Chair without any basis in New Hampshire Law.13 Plaintiff had written a simple Demand Letter, which he signed as “Christopher King, J.D.” (not Christopher King, Esq. which to some could arguably indicate a current license to practice depending on the context) regarding a black man named Willie Toney who faced three (3) drawn guns and a visual body cavity search for LOITERING, a charge he beat pro se.

The applicable Statute read:

311:1 Right to Appear, etc. – A party in any cause or proceeding may appear, plead, prosecute or defend in his or her proper person, that is, pro se, or may be represented by any citizen of good character. For the purposes of this section, a citizen shall be presumed to be of good character unless demonstrated otherwise.

Plaintiff was a duly-licensed Notary Public and therefore a person of good character, ipso facto. Further, Plaintiff’s conduct was squarely protected by established Case Law including, but not limited to, NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963).

13 May the Court and Defense Counsel take Judicial Notice that the NAACP is the United State’s oldest Civil Rights organization, dedicated to forwarding the concerns of people of color. Its mission statement at the time involved using the media to make America aware of racial oppression, so it was indeed another racial First Amendment scuffle that predicated the “acrimonious history” between Plaintiff and Defendant Ayotte as Magistrate McCafferty noted.

28

b) Kelly Ayotte, tinged by unlawful racial animus, coordinated with, and assented to the failed prosecution of Plaintiff for Attempted Felony Extortion based on the same common nucleus of operative facts. Plaintiff Demanded a Jury Trial in that matter and went through voir dire, but the State instead nol-prossed the case so that Plaintiff could not sue for Malicious Prosecution. Jaffrey Police Chief Martin Dunn was fired and his Prosecutor, Bill Albrecht, resigned under a pending Ethics Investigation.

c) Kelly Ayotte, Prosecutor Albrecht and Martin Dunn did, tinged by unlawful racial animus, bring such cases after repeated requests from Plaintiff to come before them and the Grand Jury to explain the relevant law but they all ignored him.

d) Kelly Ayotte, tinged by unlawful racial animus in her attempts to punish Plaintiff, did in fact violate the Rules of Civil Procedure as determined by Hillsborough County Superior Court Judge Groff, 6 October 2006.

e) Kelly Ayotte, tinged by unlawful racial animus, did in fact file Case No. 430 before she gave Plaintiff a copy of an audiotape crucial to her alleged case, violating principles of the Best Evidence Rule, Procedural Due Process and Substantive Due Process.

f) Kelly Ayotte, tinged by unlawful racial animus, did in fact file Case No. 430 before she gave Plaintiff a copy of a CD crucial to her alleged case, violating principles of the Best Evidence Rule, Procedural Due Process and Substantive Due Process.

g) In said case Kelly Ayotte never was compelled to answer any of Plaintiff’s requests for Admission or Proposed Stipulations and Findings of Fact, however she did dismiss the case immediately after Plaintiff filed said Proposed Stipulations as part of his Memorandum Summary Judgment.

h) Kelly Ayotte, tinged by unlawful racial animus, did in fact file and maintain Case No. 430 and did argue newly-enacted law, specifically then HB 1768 vis a vis Chapter 311, in direct contravention of ex post facto principles of Constitutional Law, the case was dismissed with no finding of liability.

i) Kelly Ayotte, tinged by unlawful racial animus, did ignore Plaintiff’s Complaint when an all-white mortgage company forged his name to a mortgage and sent it off to a certain bank for funding, a clear-cut case of Wire Fraud.

j) Kelly Ayotte tinged by unlawful racial animus, did ignore Plaintiff’s Complaint letter on behalf of a minority storeowner who was the victim of False and Deceptive Business Practices put in place by “Vericomm Leasing,” even as other attorneys have sought and obtained Class Action status against this company, see Pludeman v. Northern Leasing Systems, 2008 NY Slip Op 04183 (2008). The class was certified on 24 April 2009, 2009 NY Slip Op 51290U and Plaintiffs won in June, 2011.

k) Kelly Ayotte, tinged by unlawful racial animus, did attempt to ignore Plaintiff when she issued her press packs in the Franconia shooting tragedy

29

cover up, in which she, inter alia, used the third and last version of shooter Gregory Floyd’s story in clearing him of any wrongdoing whatsoever in 24 hours, to say that he spoke with Liko Kenney before he shot him in the head and neck, killing him. See Case No. 2010-CV-181 before His Honor.

30

l) Kelly Ayotte’s friend, security advisor and now cabinet member Stephen Monier, tinged by unlawful racial animus, did unreasonably and unlawfully portray one Ralph Holder as a fugitive from Justice, which prompted Holder (who holds a high-ranking security clearance as Senior Passport Analyst for U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) to issue a Cease and Desist Letter and to file a lawsuit before this Court.

m) Any one or two of the aforementioned issues could constitute an honest mistake, but when viewed over the course of time they represent a design, pattern and practice of illogical activity that a Jury may find predicated on unlawful racial animus. The aforementioned issues go well beyond general incompetence and dereliction of duty and stand as substantial proof that Kelly Ayotte is operating out of an illegal bias against a strong black investigative journalist and Civil Rights activist.

V. CLAIMS AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF

FIRST AMENDMENT FREE PRESS CLAIMS; VIOLATIONS OF THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES AND NEW HAMPSHIRE CONSTITUTIONS BY AND THROUGH PART 1, ARTICLE 22.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Freedom of the Press; Right to Gather Information, Unlawful Prior Restraint

A) UNLAWFUL PRIOR RESTRAINT

B) UNLAWFUL VIEWPOINT-BASED DISCRIMINATION

C) UNLAWFUL CONTENT-BASED DISCRIMINATION

D) VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. 1983 – The actions of the Nashua Police

Department rise to Constitutional violations as the law in this

specific factual circumstance was clearly established. If the Police

cannot push a reporter out of the way in a public area as noted in Connell,

supra, they cannot:

a) interfere with a reporter who is not violating any orders nor may they

b) push a reporter all the way out of a place of public accommodation either

as a reporter or as a male, black. In Connell Chief NH District Court Shane

Devine cited Channel 10, Inc. v. Gunnarson, 337 F. Supp. 634 (D.Minn. 1972):

The stipulated facts clearly indicate that the general public was present and, in fact, an affidavit shows one member of the public was standing beside plaintiff Anderson. Defendants have made no claim before this court that Anderson was in an improper place and it seems clear that employees of the news media have a right to be in public places and on

31

public property to gather information photographically or otherwise.

32

Moreover, the law set forth earlier this year by the High Court in Mortgage

Specialists v. Implode Explode 160 N.H. 227, 999 A.2d 184, 38 Media L. Rep.

1641(2010), held that opinionated website owners are journalists when they

gather and disseminate information to the public, which is exactly what

Plaintiff does, almost daily, for the past five (5) years. Defendants knew full

well Plaintiff was a journalist but could not publicly tell him on camera “it’s

because your black and representing minority interests.” Moreover, NAACP v.

Thompson, 648 F.Supp. 195 D.Md.,(1986) specifically held that persons in

Plaintiff’s position must be allowed to attend publicly-advertised political

rallies that occur on property subject to state and local permitting, as noted

by Justice William Rehnquist:

It bears repeated emphasis that we do not have under

consideration the property or privacy rights of an individual

homeowner or the proprietor of a modest retail

establishment.  A handful of additional orderly persons

soliciting signatures and distributing handbills in connection

therewith, under reasonable regulations adopted by defendant

to assure that these activities do not interfere with normal

business operations ... would not markedly dilute defendant's

property rights. Pruneyard at 78, 100 S.Ct. at 2039 (citations omitted).

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Racial Discrimination – Violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981

All of the resistance to Plaintiff is steeped in unlawful racial

discrimination.

On information and belief Defendant Ayotte, Defendant Friends of Kelly

Ayotte and GOP Defendants were all involved with the Manchester Facebook

rally, and all of them agreed in conspiratorial alliance, to eject Mr. King

because he represents a strident black man looking for answers and

questioning Kelly Ayotte about sensitive issues as the major press fails to do.

They ejected King even though he offered to pay his money to the event and

to come in even without a camera, just as the white people did on the same

day date and time.

33

Defendants, Acting in Concert and with unlawful racial animus

manifest, id eject Plaintiff from the Joe Arpaio rally even though he had

interviewed Mr. Arpaio without any problem whatsoever, and was standing at

the podium amongst at least a dozen white reporters.

Also in particular at the Joe Arpaio rally, “Hargreaves,” -- a white police

officer -- watched a white woman strike Plaintiff’s camera and did nothing to

her, said nothing to her and instead asked Plaintiff for his press identification.

A police officer of color sadly observed the situation as Di Lothrop and

Officer Hargreaves ejected Plaintiff, and he glared at his co-workers:

34

When Plaintiff provided the identification the white officer Hargreaves

then quipped “just don’t touch anyone else,” to which Plaintiff, on video, told

him “Officer I didn’t touch anybody, she struck my camera you saw

it, right?”

The white police officer James Hargreaves refused to acknowledge

Plaintiff’s comment and to add insult to injury Defendant Hargreaves

forced Plaintiff from the entire Crowne Plaza under threat of arrest and he did

it at the behest and unlawful conspiratorial plan and direction established

with Defendants Ayotte and GOP.

*************

35

At the VFW event Plaintiff RSVP’d as required, yet Kelly Ayotte, the

GOP and John McCain saw to it that he, as the sole black reporter, was denied

access. McCain

has a history of such activity as noted in this Complaint. The RSVP provides

for a contractual agreement in a 42 U.S.C. §1981 analysis.

Defendants’ conduct unlawfully targeted a black man in a place of

public accommodation, and set up terms of engagement that were unequal

to him in comparison to his white counterparts as noted in Plaintiff’s

Objections to the Report and Recommendations issued by Magistrate

McCafferty on 2 November, 2010.

*************

At the Newburyport rally there was no contractual relationship

contemplated and hence no 42 U.S.C. §1981 claim shall issue.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Conspiracy Under 42 U.S.C. §1985

Plaintiff restates and alleges once again all previous allegations and states

that All Defendants worked together in acknowledged Conspiracy to Deprive

Plaintiff of Rights and Privileges owed to him:

1) as a journalist protected by the First Amendment and

2) as a black person protected by 42 U.S.C. §1981 by agreeing at each and

every event to disturb him as much as possible and to deny access offered to

other white reporters.

36

PENDANT CLAIMS

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTIONViolation of RSA 354-A:16 Equal Access to Public Accommodations is a Civil Right.

The Statute reads, in pertinent part: “The opportunity for every individual to have equal access to places of public accommodation without discrimination because of age, sex, race, creed, color, marital status, physical or mental disability or national origin is hereby recognized and declared to be a civil right.”

Plaintiff notes by way of the attached video that he was well away from The Steak Out and the leased GOP area, yet and still Defendant Hargreaves, with the unlawful and racially-motivated conspiratorial agreement of all other named Defendants, drove Plaintiff out of the entire Crowne Plaza Hotel despite Plaintiff’s clear admonition “I’m all set guys, this is no longer the event….. this is a place of public accommodations.”In their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, GOP Counsel Gordon MacDonald was not truthful to the Court when he wrote in a Motion to Dismiss: “To the extent police were involved, it was simply to enforce trespass laws…..” because there is simply no way that Plaintiff was trespassing in the Crowne Plaza lobby. One would hope that he was unaware of that fact at the time, but then what would that say about Nashua PD for failing to tell him the Truth? That does not bode well either way.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Common Law Assault

Testimony will reveal that the Officers of the Political Defendants did all

approach Plaintiff in a menacing and threatening manner, and did put their

hands on him as he tried to roll video. He was placed in serious apprehension

for his safety.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Defendants’ repeated threats to arrest a reporter in the prosecution of his

duties, is conduct that shocks the conscience of any reasonable person or

juror.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTIONNegligence plead in the Alternative

Each of the acts complained of herein were willful, wanton and malicious, and

displayed a callous disregard for and deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs’

37

rights under state law, the New Hampshire State Constitution, and the United

States Constitution, causing him and his readership substantial and

irreparable ongoing harms. In the alternative, they were committed out of

Negligence and careless disregard for the law and Plaintiff’s rights.

DEMANDS

WHEREFORE PLAINTIFF SEEKS:14

1. Declaratory Judgment that the Defendants did violate Plaintiff’s First Amendment and Free Press Rights on some or all three delineated occasions at a nonresidential building or area open to the general public, with state or local licenses or permits involved.

2. Declaratory Judgment that the Defendants did violate Plaintiff’s Right to Contract on the same basis as whites on some or all of the three delineated occasions, at a nonresidential building or area open to the general public, with state or local licenses or permits involved.

3. Immediate Injunctive relief to the extent that the Defendants are restrained and forbidden to threaten arrest to Plaintiff in the a priori sense; they must wait until Plaintiff breaches the Peace by disturbing the essential functions of any future rally, in a nonresidential building or area open to the general public, whenever state or local licenses or permits are involved.

4. Immediate Injunctive relief against any racial discrimination such that Plaintiff is allowed to attend any function where white journalists are permitted, in a nonresidential building or area open to the general public, where substantial state or local licenses or permits involved, i.e. bars, hotels, shopping malls, function halls and restaurants.

5. Assignment of a Police Detail to ensure that Plaintiff is allowed reasonable access to any and all publicly-noticed events held by the Defendant Political entities and Candidate in a nonresidential building or area open to the general public, whenever state or local licenses or permits are involved.

6. And order that Police are not to speak to Plaintiff or to otherwise hassle him as long as he is following their orders.

7. Assessment of Compensatory Damages in an amount to be determined by a duly-empaneled Jury.

14

38

8. Assessment of Punitive Damages in an amount to be determined by a duly-empaneled Jury.

9. Assessment of any and all Equitable relief as this Court deems appropriate, including but not limited to a public statement to be drafted by the Parties that they have reached accord in this situation as contemplated by the prevailing First Amendment Law noted herein.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby requests that this Cause be heard before a duly-empaneled Jury of appropriate size, on an expedited docket.

/s/ Christopher King, J.D._________________________

Christopher King, J.D.Plaintiff

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Christopher King, J.D._____________________________Christopher King, J.D.http://KingCast.net -- Reel News for Real People617.543.8085

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I the undersigned, solemnly swear that a true copy of this Third Amended Complaint

was electronically served on Independence Day, 4 July 2011 with Applicable Waivers of Summons to immediately follow to:

Jennifer Parent and Jack Middleton, Esq.City Hall Plaza900 Elm Street

Manchester, NH 03101

Gordon MacDonald, Esq.Nixon Peabody LLP

900 Elm StreetManchester, NH 03101

Brian Cullen, Esq.

39

10 East Pearl StreetNashua, NH 03060

/s/Christopher King, J.D.__________________________________

KingCast.netBy and through Christopher King, J.D.

617.543.8085

40