Herein I warn Delaware AG Matthew Denn not to sleep with the political and judicial whores in Delaware who are intellectually disingenuous and light years behind New Jersey and Georgia on the crucial issue of reasonable access to run video of elected officials and government buildings.
Furthermore, I note that Delaware refuses to account for the amount of, and source of, legal funding for the legal defense of publicly-elected officials. Delaware could well be the dirtiest state in the Union.
KingCast v. McKenna vis a vis Tisdale v. Gravitt, 51 F. Supp. 3d 1378 (2014) --- $200K Settlement, ahem.Tisdale v. Gravitt, 51 F. Supp. 3d 1378 (2014)
As an initial matter, the Court agrees that Plaintiff has a First Amendment interest in filming public officials at a public meeting. Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000) ("The First Amendment protects the right to gather information about what public officials do on public property, and specifically, a right to record matters of public interest."). Prohibiting Plaintiff from video recording the meeting—even while permitting her to attend the meeting, take notes, or make audio recordings—impacted how she was able to obtain access to and present information about the City Council and its proceedings. See Blackston v. State of Ala., 30 F.3d 117, 120 (11th Cir. 1994).And to think I offered to settle my case for a paltry $12,500 and they rejected it! They are running around acting as if I don't know what I'm talking about when I've won several First Amendment Jury trials for Pete's sake.
Dear Attorney Weber, I just telephoned your co-counsel and I love your client's FB page!
Anyway, take a look at my First Amended Complaint and shake your head at what is going on in Delaware. I'll call you later but yes, your client and I have a lot in common. The Republicans kicked me out of a publicly-advertised rally too, but they covered it all up even though the Nashua Police were there on city time, no doubt. But nowadays Senator Ayotte knows better to prevent me from running video of her in public buildings as noted in the First Amended Complaint.
14 July Note: They got this up on Lexis already and on Leagle, take a look. See my post to Leagle's Facebook as well, in the thumbnail. I posted my comment to Leagle and it had damn well better show up soon. Read my comment to Leagle in the comments section. I will not be run over in this case, no way no Sir. I'm in it to win it, as I usually do on First Amendment cases going back to the early '90's.
Dear Attorney General Denn:
I am also calling AAGs Judy Oken Hodas and Kevin Maloney on this as they wrote the advisory opinion in 2011. As a former AAG myself I thought you might get a kick out of the fact that you have a Judge (and other high-ranking State employees) who doesn't seem to care too much about your advisory opinions. As such, I see that you have created a Civil Rights section to address Constitutional issues, well I will be filing a Complaint with that office come Monday.
What do these people have to hide so much that they threatened me with arrest, and then have a Judge do what Judge Young just did?
"The new Office of Civil Rights and Public Trust will largely be guided by public and state agency complaints about constitutional rights issues, housing and employment discrimination, educational rights of children, and the rights of Delawareans with disabilities."***********
Well guys I told you when I turned 50 this year I didn't want to be litigating this case for the next two years but your conduct, and that of Judge Young, indicates that such is our collective path. So here you go.
Video coming soon. Here is an excerpt from the Open Letter to Judge Robert B. Young.
2. Failed to address the Advisory Opinion by the Attorney General who wrote, in a 2011 Advisory Opinion: But in 2011, when everyone has a cell phone, and most cell phones have camera, even video, capability, that time has arrived. To attempt to ban recording is as pointless as trying to prevent citizens from taking notes.
CONCLUSION: The DOJ should advise its client public bodies that to outright prohibit any recording of public meetings is highly risky (emphasis added). The law is evolving in a more permissive direction.
To which I ask, why is Judge Young (and the Defendants) moving backwards?
Perhaps SCOTUS will help address this in a year or two.
The Court doesn't like my Title Descriptors so it is rejecting this document. So I renamed it simply a Rule 59 Motion for Relief from Judgment AND I filled a goddamn Rule 42 Motion for Leave to file an Interlocutory Appeal AND I sent in the $150 Jury Trial fee even though there's nothing at this point that is allegedly going to Jury.
Obviously some typos in the case caption and I have to specify what is different and I have to send multiple service copies but let me see if Defendants' counsel will agree to waiver and accept service on that......
I can't make this stuff up and the Truth is stranger than fiction. Video later after I review the ORDER. I just read the online docket to see that His Honor gave the Defendants a pass. Below are my emails for today, which is also basically my Rule 59 Motion without some of the cases I will cite to. At bottom is the video from two weeks ago noting how security had my picture up for my 11 June Courthouse visit, because I am always a DBM... Dangerous Black Man in their eyes. Their hatred of cameras is patently absurd.
So Judge Robert B. Young in Delaware Protects Defendants on Constitutional argument, and apparently says I don't have a Constitutional Right in Delaware to ask a couple of questions of high-ranking government officials with a camera. Well if that is the case do I have the right to do so without a camera? Surely I do. But most Courts these days are finding that a camera is the same as a pen and parchment.... as in Tarus, below. Here is the ACLU Amicus Brief by Attorney Jennifer Klear, whom I just included on the emails. Here are the emails:
On Jul 02, 2015, at 04:02 AM, Christopher King <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
I can't wait to get a copy of the Court ORDER on this so that I can preserve my Appeal Rights. I must make certain that I don't waive them by filing my Amended Complaint. There will be a Rule 59 Motion going out within the 10 days, and then if the Court denies that, there will be Appeals all the way to SCOTUS. The Defendants had to know that the Court was going to give them a pass on this one or they would have settled. That's okay. The heat will return in subsequent Courts because there are simply too many cases in this Country that hold my favor.The Court also DENIED my request for Oral argument on this case and my Motion for Reconsideration regarding Commissioner Andrea Freud's clearly wrong denial of video coverage based on Rule 155 was DENIED as well.Also DENIED by implication were my Motions to Compel production of several key evidentiary matters as well as my Motion to Stay Proceedings until discovery is completed.Interestingly, what was GRANTED was my Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint, which will largely be based on the fact that other counties allow cameras, at least Newcastle:
MOTION DATE DOCKETED: JUNE 2, 2015 PRO SE PLAINTIFF KINGS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT IN LIGHT OF CONSTITUTIONAL EQUAL PROTECTION CONFLICT BETWEEN THE COUNTIES OF LANCASTER AND KENT DELAWARE PROPOSED ORDER CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ACCEPTED BY: TRANSACTION ID: 57317939And I am going to add in a Common Law claim as well. One of my cited cases held that even if there was not a Constitutional Right, that there is a Common Law Right.I can't wait to see what happens the next time I'm in Delaware and go in there with my camera and they arrest me and I sue for wrongful arrest. That will be interesting, yessir.************So that which I can do in every other State I've been in, I cannot apparently do in Delaware, nice. At least not on a Constitutionally-protected basis.... is what I am assuming until I read the Decision. The Court is apparently trying to send me down the Common Law path, which one of my cases sustained. Other Courts clearly disagree and sustain a Constitutional challenge.As I said:Rick Jensen doesn't seem to get it but Bill Gunlocke and Nancy Willing do. Fortunately, most Courts these days get it too. Pomykacz v. Borough of W. Wildwood, 438 F. Supp. 2d 504 (2006). In 2006, a federal district court in New Jersey decided the case of Pomykacz v. Borough of W. Wildwood, 438 F. Supp. 2d 504 (2006) · Pomykacz was a self-described “citizen activist” who expressed concern that a suspected romance between the town’s mayor and a police officer were leading to nepotism, conflicts of interest and preferential treatment. These suspicions led Pomykacz to “monitor” the two, which included taking photographs.Eventually she was arrested on charges of stalking, though the charges were downgraded to harassment. Pomykacz ended up filing suit asserting, among other things, that she was arrested in violation of the First Amendment retaliation for her monitoring activities. · 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 photographed Officer Ferentz in the police headquarters. 7 Another police officer and [*508] Mayor Fox were also present in the police station at the time. According to Pomykacz, Mayor Fox came out of the building and began yelling at her. Pomykacz walked home without responding.U.S. District Judge Joseph E. Irenas noted, Pomykacz has put forth sufficient evidence that she was a concerned citizen who at times spoke her mind to Borough [*513] officials and other citizens about her concerns regarding the official conduct of the police department and the mayor. Such speech is clearly protected by the First Amendment. 14 See Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218, 86 S. Ct. 1434, 16 L. Ed. 2d 484 (1966) HN15o to the description of this Headnote.("a major purpose of [the First] Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs."); Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 484, 77 S. Ct. 1304, 1 L. Ed. 2d 1498 (1957) ("The protection given speech and press was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.").That’s all she wrote, folks. Defendants have one case to Plaintiff’s 5 or 6.************Well apparently not. Stay tuned for a video as soon as I receive the ORDER. Presumably Discovery will reopen again at that point, or what?Remember, we still don't know what the goddamn policy is, and all we have is their documented lie that there was a written policy because County Attorney Sherlock wrote me and said there was no goddamn written policy.