CommunityMy FDLSeminal

Joe Miller and Kelly Ayotte: Two First Amendment-Hating GOP Peas in a Pod.

Scylla and Charybdis — Joe Miller and Kelly Ayotte: Planning Unconstitutional detention parties for Tony Hopfinger and Christopher King.

Good enough to be in the press pools for Governor Patrick and POTUS, and recognized by award-winning author Casey Sherman as a "not only a photographer but pretty good investigative journalist himself" but not good enough for Kelly Ayotte.

Well whaddya’ know, you got the Sarah Palin – Kelly Ayotte "Momma Grizzly" connection and now you have the Joe Miller – Kelly Ayotte GOP "burn the First Amendment" connection. I honestly don’t know which is worse, I think my situation is worse than Tony Hopfinger’s because my situation comes with State-Sanctioned abuse, whereas Mr. Hopfinger received a First Amendment smack-down from PRIVATE GOON squads and the police there actually came to his assistance.

The idiots in New Hampshire have it all backwards, like the fire police in Fahrenheit 451.

1. Alaska Dispatch.

2. Huff Post

3. My lawsuit and request for immediate Injunctive Relief for filing tomorrow morning, 20 Oct. 2010.

Watch this video to see how this Momma Grizzly protects women and cubs:

Momma Grizzly Kelly Ayotte lets police hurt women & children.,_NH_GOP_sued_for_Free_Press_violations.

All of the latest law I could find on Westlaw is there, and some of it is actually from New Hampshire. The Nashua Telegraph interviewed the lead lawyer from Mortgage Specialists v. Implode-Explode Heavy Industries 160 N.H. 227, 999 A.2d 184, 38 Media L. Rep. 1641?(2010), and he said he could not see any reason the GOP could do this to me. Not only am I a blogger, but I have written for a large daily and a statewide weekly, and my blog sites have been up for five (5) friggin’ years.

The strongest paragraphs from my suit:

"…..The Constitutional harms of not being able to adequately cover a news story, particularly a news story concerning one of the most pivotal elections in New Hampshire history are immense and irreparable. Not only is Plaintiff injured, but thousands of his current and future readers are derivatively harmed as well.

Plaintiff stands a phenomenal chance of success on the merits because the Defendants have already usurped the role of the Court to obtain a de facto Restraining Order or Injunction against Plaintiff, a black journalist. This Court must not grant imprimatur to such extra legal oppression and the election is but three (3) weeks away, time is of the essence. Hence this Motion for Injunctive Relief.

As the successful litigants aptly noted in Mortgage Specialists v. Implode Explode 160 N.H. 227, 999 A.2d 184, 38 Media L. Rep. 1641?(2010), (infra), New York Times v. U.S., 403 U.S. 713 (1971) is instructive as Justice Brennan noted:

So far as I can determine, never before has the United States sought to enjoin a newspaper from publishing information in its possession.

But the First Amendment tolerates absolutely no prior judicial restraints of the predicated upon surmise or conjecture that untoward consequences *726 may result.

Obviously when attempting to cover a political event, one cannot fairly or accurately publish about something they cannot witness. In the case at bar, the Defendants’ actions of preventing Plaintiff from observing the events, and even asking a question or two while the speaker is not on the podium accomplishes at the front door what the High Court deemed illegal at the back door: Unlawful Prior Restraint.

Defendant Ayotte:
1. Failed to comply with Right to Know Ethics Reporting requirements as noted by the Associated Press, “Review finds enforcement of NH Ethics Law lacking,” – no longer hosted by AP but hosted by Plaintiff, much to Defendant Ayotte’s chagrin.

2. Failed to see to it that the Statutorily-required RSA 91-A Right-to-Know Commission Report issued in 2006.

3. ALT+Control+Deleted all of her emails as New Hampshire Attorney General claiming to believe that RSA 91-A did not apply to them. The emails were reconstructed at substantial taxpayer expense. See item 6, infra.

4. KingCast v. Ayotte, Grafton 268, 2007 — Illegally withheld video dash cam from Corporal Bruce McKay’s cruiser.

5. Same-sex marriage – The Right to marry and have sex is countenanced by the Privacy Penumbras of the First Amendment. Defendant Ayotte signed a trendy vote against recognizing out-of-State marriages, only to discover that she didn’t even know that New Hamsphire law ALREADY recognized such marriages in the Civil Unions Law. There was a cryptic press release on the recantation, but that has apparently been ALT+Control+Deleted as well, leaving the Concord Monitor (3 June 2008 Editorial) and KingCast/Chris King’s 1st Amendment Page as two of the few media outlets who know of this fact and who openly publish it.

6. Ayotte campaign spokesman Jeff Grappone — called the Open records email lawsuit an "election-year stunt,” thereby further demonstrating the outright contempt that Candidate Ayotte has for the Judiciary, open Government and the First Amendment.

This short list of cases is important because it demonstrates Defendant’s Alt+Control+Delete attitude toward America’s most cherished Constitutional Amendment. The First Amendment is the ONLY Amendment that is required to defend the use of all of the other Amendments, and for that reason — and for all of the other reasons delineated in this Action – this Honorable Court must find for Plaintiff on the Requested Injunctive Relief and schedule the case for Jury trial on an accelerated calendar.

Respectfully submitted,

Christopher King, J.D.

Previous post

The Almighty dollar, not so much

Next post

Support for Paladino Collapses After Thuggish Clash With Reporter, Anti-Gay Diatribes