Você está na página 1de 5


NET, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FRIENDS OF KELLY AYOTTE, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ) ) ) ) ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED CASE NO.12-1891 LOWER CASE NO. 2010-CV-501

PLAINTIFFS REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY TARGETED TO ELUCIDATE CRUCIAL ISSUES IGNORED BY THE LOWER COURT Now Comes Plaintiff-Appellant to briefly address Defendants collective Memorandum in Opposition. First, on the naked and disingenuous assertion that Plaintiff-Appellant is interposing this Motion for delay: The issue in this case has been money, not time. Defendants conveniently ignored the fact that Plaintiff-Appellant filed a Motion for Leave to File this Appeal Instanter until he could financially recuperate from a move that was occasioned by an emergency and through no fault of his own. The Lower Court, as usual, joined in the fray by disingenuously indicating that Appellants gross income was $22,000.00/month, seizing on a typographic error. When asked to provide findings of fact and conclusions of law with an eye toward cited IFP case law the Court refused to do so. Moreover, Appellant has never shied away from filing anything, including the Third Amended Complaint that was wrongfully Denied after the Nashua Police wrongly arrested indie journalist Dave Ridley at a political function very similar to the one at Crowne Plaza and he was found Not Guilty of Trespass. Continuing to manifest First Amendment hatred Nashua PD maced and attacked KingCast friends Pamela Reynolds and Mike Gannon after Mr. Gannon was seen videotaping two Nashua Detectives. The Nashua Police, in beating Mr. Gannon, made disparaging remarks about his YouTube presence, 90% of which is occasioned by and through KingCast.net highlighting the prior First Amendment violation when they seized his home video tapes of L.E. wrongdoing at his own home.

Ms. Reynolds was found Not Guilty of all charges and is suing Nashua PD, and Mr. Gannon, fresh out of cancer surgery and a month-long induced coma, will be pressing forward as well in this pattern and practice nightmare.1 Second, on the merits, this case is nothing like Myles v. Women & Infants Hosp., 504 A.2d 452 (Rhode Island 1986), which is precisely why Appellant distinguished the two cases because he is NOT going on a fishing expedition to garner evidence against third parties to initiate more litigation. As noted: Plaintiffs request must be granted unless there is evidence of some sort of fishing expedition aiming to obtain information to initiate an entirely different complaint against someone not a party to the original action. See Myles v. Women & Infants Hosp., 504 A.2d 452 (Rhode Island 1986). The trial justice pointed out that plaintiff was seeking to invoke Rule 27(b) for a purpose for which it was not designed. He stated that the purpose of the rule is to preserve and perpetuate testimony pending appeal for future use and that it was not designed to permit a plaintiff to obtain new evidence that would then serve as a basis for a second malpractice suit. Furthermore, the trial justice found that denial of the motion would not defeat the interests of justice because the lack of a finding in the pathology report concerning recanalization was a speculative and an insufficient reason to warrant an extension of time for plaintiff to depose the pathologist. We agree. But in this case the parties are all the same and the information is in the publics best interests to ensure that the free and critical press is allowed to attend publicly-advertised events at places of public accommodation pursuant to NAACP v. Thompson, 648 F.Supp. 195 D.Md.,(1986), Pruneyard v. Robbins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980). Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, 407 U.S. 163 (1972). Note that Defendants steer clear of addressing the areas of testimony that are clearly salient and that should be allowed in order to complete the appeal such that the Court have ALL of the relevant information at its fingertips, and there is no time like the present to get to it. Again for the Courts edification the expected areas include:

The last issue on the Third Amended Complaint included the fact that Defendant Ayottes office issued an un-retracted statement to the media and to other members of Congress that Appellant had filed frivolous lawsuits against Defendant Ayotte when there has been no such finding of fact or law to that effect. In fact if anything it was Ayottes actions toward Appellant over the course of time that were arguably frivolous. The fact that these lies were made in the context of seeking and obtaining tens of thousands of dollars for her legal fund is all the more contemptible.

SUMMATION AND EXPECTED AREAS OF TESTIMONY AND DOCUMENT PRODUCTION Plaintiff-Appellant served Discovery Requests that were unlawfully ignored and not enforced by the trial court. The Plaintiff now seeks to conduct discovery consistent with the following concerns relating only to named Defendants: Nashua Police Chief Conley: The number of meetings or any communication held with GOP Nashua and GOP New Hampshire officials in which access to media was discussed and his recollections of these meetings. Further, the issue of payment, Plaintiff will seek to have Defendant Conley bring any and all payment records for the Crowne Plaza and VFW Hall events to determine whether private parties or the taxpayers paid for the coverage of these events. Nashua Police Sergeant Hargreaves The number of meetings or any communication held with GOP Nashua and GOP New Hampshire officials in which access to media was discussed and his recollections of these meetings. Also why he stated to Plaintiff just dont strike anyone else, and also why he threatened Plaintiff with arrest AFTER he had left the leased premises and clearly told them This is no longer the event, this is a place of public accommodation. Nashua Police Officer John Fischer Why was he singling Plaintiff out for being too close to a backing car when other white people were clearly closer to the car. Who at the campaign told him that PlaintiffAppellant was not allowed in and when? Dennis Hogan: Nashua Republican City Committee Chair. His knowledge of the GOP policy on journalist access, vis a vis why he decided to grant entrance to Plaintiff-Appellant at the Crowne Plaza, and whether he received notice to expel Plaintiff and if so from whom and why? Did he receive any directives from Ryan Williams or Kelly Ayotte or Nashua PD. Why was Appellants RSVP denied at Crown Plaza after he secured it. Ryan Williams: GOP Communications chair. His knowledge of the GOP policy on journalist access, vis a vis why he decided to expel Plaintiff. Everything he remembers about our conversation and why he asked me to leave the Joe Arpaio Steak Out at Crowne Plaza. Why was my RSVP denied at VFW Lodge after I secured it. Kelly Ayotte: When and why did you decide that Plaintiff-Appellant was not entitled to attend your campaign events. Did John McCain influence your decision not to allow PlaintiffAppellant to attend the RSVP VFW event to which Plaintiff reserved his presence? Were you aware that John McCain had recently ejected Stephen Price, the only black reporter at one of his events, without explanation? What is the GOP policy on journalist access vis a vis why you decided to expel Appellant. State why you never investigated any possible racism in the Willie Toney matter in Jaffrey.

Third, the Defendants arguments regarding how Motions to Dismiss are judged on the Pleadings is not really germane here. That Court made wrong decisions up and down the line, commencing with the decision not to inform Appellant about the history of relations between Judge McCafferty, Kelly Ayotte and Attorneys Parent Middleton Attorneys who should all have known better given Her Honors position on the NH Bar Ethics Committee and Attorney Parents election as NH Bar President. What is germane is that it is now up to this Court to correct the mistakes of the Lower Court, not to repeat them again. Since Discovery would help the Court in its determination the Court should exercise plenary powers to order the Discovery. Fourth, regarding the proper Court for filing, Plaintiff-Appellant is of the belief that this Court has Jurisdiction to entertain this Motion. In the event that it does not, the Motion will be filed with the District Court as well, and then this Court may exercise jurisdiction to review the inevitable denial2 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291. See Shore v. Acands, Inc., 644 F.2d 386 (5 Cir. 1981). This Court can see by the expected areas of testimony that this is a very serious case in which the Lower Court lost its way.

If a Court wont allow a reasonable Third Amended Complaint or issue Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law after it erroneously claims that Appellant earned $260,000.00 then it is certainly not likely to entertain a Rule 27b Motion.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I the undersigned, solemnly swear that a true copy of this Reply Memorandum was Electronically delivered on 26 October, 2012 to: Jennifer Parent and Jack Middleton, Esq. City Hall Plaza 900 Elm Street Manchester, NH 03101 Gordon MacDonald, Esq. Nixon Peabody LLP 900 Elm Street Manchester, NH 03101 Brian Cullen, Esq. 10 East Pearl Street Nashua, NH 03060 /s/Christopher King, J.D. __________________________________ KingCast.net By and through Christopher King, J.D.