Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Constitutional Law Blogs -> Chris King's 1st Amendment Page

Constitutional Law

: Chris King's 1st Amendment Page

Hillsborough Judge Lynn dodges relevant law and dismisses KingCast/Jesseman v. Union Leader, as I figured he would as to him, KingCast is "Nonsense."

By Christopher King

In a Decision dated 25 March 2008 Judge Robert Lynn dismissed the lawsuit against the Union Leader for the identity of the tool who committed a Forgery, False Light Invasion of Privacy and Misappropriation of Likeness. Lynn, who has previously stated that KingCast is "nonsense" -- watch him right here when he says to me, he says, "I don't need to hear from you!" -- dismissed the case ostensibly for two reasons:

1. Brian Jesseman's Affidavit did not define "excusable neglect" for missing one hearing on a preliminary injunction -- not a trial on the merits, mind you -- while never even citing the Law. Here is his Affidavit I will put it on Scrbd.com. The Court ignored the fact that the man had the flu and was at the wrong exit in Manchester, thinking he was meeting me there and not Nashua after he drove down from 2.5 hours away early the night before then went home after he couldn't find me. Judges don't usually throw cases out for that, at an Injunction hearing, any attorney will tell you that. You get a warning and move on, ball in play.

2. KingCast does not have standing. Fine. It was a Good Faith stretch given the facts of the case, and I can deal with that because when the identity of the tool is finally discovered, I will have all the Standing to investigate anyone involved that I need. Just ask KingCast v. Ayotte Defense Counsel Kelly Ayotte one, two and Daniel Mullen one, two.

Union Leader's web host had best save those records and I am going to notify them and the Union Leader of such fact, lest they risk spoliation of evidence issues in the future. The Defendant can wait for this case to greet them again, because:

The Court made no ruling whatsoever on the fact that misappropriation and False Light Invasion of Privacy does indeed exist in New Hampshire, contrary to the legally incorrect assertions of Defendant Union Leader as proved in Jane Doe v. Friendfinder et al, CV-07-286-JL. While that post was written after the Decision, we had already proved the Union Leader wrong in this post from 26 March 2008 , citing Howard v. Antilla, 294 F.3d 244 (1st Cir 2002).

And here's the weird thing was, I was in the Courthouse on Friday, and they said that no Decision had been rendered. At any rate, this was a heavy-handed Decision that also ignored the specific and well-recognized premise that cases ought be heard on the Merits whenever reasonable, which is particularly disturbing because the case involves someone who is likely affiliated with NH LE violating the law in a way that should result in their termination.

But again, it's not on the merits. Even though the case was tossed, we've got all the law and the facts we need, and Brian Jesseman will not miss any more hearings when he refiles the case.

They can run but they can't hide. Next week I'll be reviewing that original Bruce McKay 5/11 dash cam with my crew and a fomer LE.

Namaste.

Full post as published by Chris King's 1st Amendment Page on April 03, 2008 (boomark / email).