Motion to file KingCast Senator Ayotte, GOP, Nashua PD Third Amended Complaint

8/6/2019 Motion to file KingCast Senator Ayotte, GOP, Nashua PD Third Amended Complaint.

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/motion-to-file-kingcast-senator-ayotte-gop-nashua-pd-third-amended-complaint 1/7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNEW HAMPSHIRE

CHRISTOPHER KING, J.D. )a/k/a KINGCAST.NET, ) CASE NO. 2010-CV-501

Plaintiff-Petitioner,

v. ) JUDGE PAUL BARBADORO

FRIENDS OF KELLY AYOTTE, et al., ) MAGISTRATE LANDYA McCAFFERTYDefendants.

PLAINTIFF·S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Now comes Plaintiff, pursuant to FRCP and Local Rules 15.1 to note that the

recent actions of the Nashua Police Department demonstrate a clear pattern of

unlawful animus, hostility threats of arrest and unlawful arrest toward the media and

public citizens who engage in videotaping Nashua Police Personnel. In point of fact, a

high-ranking Nashua LE who may be subject to a Bivens Action directly chastised one

Michael J. Gannon during an apparently unlawful arrest on or about 1 July, 2011 with

negative commentary because Mr. Gannon is prominently featured in several of

Plaintiff·s online movies that are critical of Nashua area Law Enforcement.

Said comments take Plaintiff·s belief well beyond the realm of speculation and

into the realm of reality. Such conduct has no place in a Free and Civilized Society,

particularly in New Hampshire ² the so-called ´Live Free or Dieµ State. Plaintiff urges

the Court and all Defendants and Counsel to remember this.

Respectfully submitted,

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





During the pendency of this case, the Nashua Police Department has seen fit to

arrest area journalist Dave Ridley of ´The Ridley Report.µ Plaintiff filed a Motion to

Supplement the Record that is currently pending before this Court because not only is

Mr. Ridley a member of the press, everyone at Nashua PD knows that he has

questioned the Defendants in several of his online short films. As such, it is a logical

inference that there was unreasonable and unlawful retaliatory animus behind his

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

Plaintiff is shocked by this, because without Nashua Police Intervention 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 ² with no threat of arrest.

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.µ 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.



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 at

docket number___.

Similarly, during the ´Steakoutµ event the Nashua PD Defendants did in fact drive

Plaintiff out of the entire Crowne Plaza premises without any legal justification

whatsoever. Specifically, Defendant Hargreaves, operating with custom, policy

practice and tacit acceptance from Defendant Conley beforehand -- and explicit

acceptance from Defendant Conley after the fact ² never once retreated from his

position that ´It·s the entire premisesµ even after Plaintiff alighted from the Leased

Area. That unlawful and unprincipled conduct effectively chilled Plaintiff·s First

Amendment Rights as a reporter to gather his thoughts and to produce a story.

That sort of overzealousness has already led Plaintiff to Amend his Complaint and

to seek to Supplement the Record based on speculation and logical inference, but the

Mike Gannon issue takes the matter to a completely different level:

1. Five years ago Plaintiff was one of the lead online journalists during thenow-legendary harassment of Mike Gannon, after the Nashua PD confiscatedhis audio-video equipment and footage because he taped them harassinghim on his own front porch. Under Defendant Ayotte·s advisory ambit as theState·s Legal Leader-in-Chief, the case fumbled along as Nashua PD

Defendants prosecuted Mr. Gannon under an obscure provision of RSA 570even though the Police had no expectation of privacy, and were warned bypostings and verbally by Mr. Gannon that they were being recorded. Mr.Gannon·s claims against Detective Karlis were so strong that they could notbe overlooked and Karlis was punished in some fashion.1

2. After vigorous Internet pressure they nol-prossed the charges butapparently remain bitter to this day because three (3) days ago theyarrested Mr. Gannon as he was walking his dog, Shamus. Plaintiff hascontacted and interviewed witnesses and Mr. Gannon, who claim that aNashua Detective (who may soon be subject to a Bivens Action) beganverbally harassing Mr. Gannon for no reason, attacked him, maced him and

told him in a condescending tone ´You·re a YouTube Sensation.µ

3. May the record reflect that the only places in which Mr. Gannon Appears onYouTube are on Plaintiff·s videos that question the arrest of Dave Ridley orthat question the resolve of Defendant Hogan to vigorously prosecute Cody

1 Plaintiff has in fact issued an RSA 91A request for the videotapes that Nashua PD isillegally still holding. Attorney Cullen has taken the matter under advisement.



Eller, the young man who admitted he intentionally drove a 3,800lbautomobile into a 600lb. motorcycle. With a rider on it.

2

Plaintiff provides the following visual aids for the Court·s edification:

2 Mr. Gannon and Plaintiff are both life-long motorcycle enthusiasts and riders.



A copy of the Dvorak Uncensored story from 2006 and a copy of the YouTube

picture from KingCast Cody Eller activist video tile with Mr. Gannon·s likeness

prominently displayed. Clearly the case can be made that Defendants are retaliating

against Mr. Gannon as part of a pattern and practice, with malice aforethought, and

relating to the activities of Plaintiff.

As such, the following Sunday morning (3 July 2004) colloquy between Defense

Counsel Brian Cullen and Plaintiff yielded the following:



Brian Cullen to me show details 8:48 AM (20 hours

ago)You are correct in one thing: I do not assent to your ´motion to supplement therecord.µ The sole issue before the court is whether the police may enforce thetrespass statute. Your ever-expanding conspiracy theory notwithstanding, the

supplemental material you seek to put before the court has no bearing on that issue. Brian

Christopher K ing to Brian show details 9:14 AM (20 hoursago)

Oh I've got a lot of things right, and with direct comments about "YouTube" videos whoneeds theories when your clients give it up on a platter, the Motion to Supplement isnow a Motion for Leave to file a Third Amended Complaint.

Next time advise your clients to keep their hater mouths shut and you won't be in thispredicament.

Happy Independence Day.

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

Actions taken by Defendants during the pendency of a case may most certainly

be brought into the Case-in-Chief, and Courts must grant liberal leave to amend, yet

Plaintiff does not take this Motion lightly. In fact, he attempted to avoid requesting a

formal Amendment when he filed the Ridley video, instead seeking a form of Judicial

Notice or Supplementation to the Record. However at this point we must take Mr.

Gannon·s claims as true as he swore to this writer as if on Oath, and as this writer has

interviewed witnesses to the incident.

Contrary to the belief and naked implication of Defendants, there is no need to

wait for formal adjudication of these events before considering them in this instance.

If at some point there is a full adjudication of Guilt for Mr. Ridley and Mr. Gannon then

Defendants may address that in a Motion in Limine as we head toward a Jury Trial.

But right now, as it sits today, the conduct on the part of Defendants is

certainly suspect and may lawfully be considered in a Civil case.

In the alternative, to save time and Judicial Resources Plaintiff is more than

willing to agree to a Court Order that these additional factors are shall be considered

and taken into consideration via Judicial Notice.

Respectfully submitted,

Documents

Motion to file KingCast Senator Ayotte, GOP, Nashua PD Third Amended Complaint