Constitutional Law

KingCast and Brian Jesseman lawsuit against Joe McQuaid to knock out the haters who misappropriated likeness in a False Light invasion of privacy.

By Christopher King

1. Here's the Complaint.
2. Here's the Motion for Injunctive Relief on evidence destruction.

The lawsuit is a lot more complex than I let on -- particularly in the area of sought relief. See Laface Records, LLC v. Does 1-5, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72225 (U.S. WDSD Michigan, Sept. 27 2007) at p. 3, 4.

PRAYERS FOR RELIEF

10. Plaintiffs seek an immediate bench order that Defendant is not to purge or to otherwise destroy any back up files, mirror files, hard drives, paper printouts or any potential discovery in this matter until it is resolved. See generally FTC v. Odysseus Mktg., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30230, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30230, April 19, 2006, Laface Records, LLC v. Does 1-5, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72225 (U.S. WDSD Michigan, Sept. 27 2007) at 3,4. See Plaintiffs? contemporaneously-filed Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief.

11. Plaintiffs seek a finding that:

a). Plaintiff Jesseman is entitled to immediate production of the IP address and for other postings issued by this person(s) regarding Bruce McKay, Liko Kenney or Gregory Floyd so that Petitioners may check for patterns of misconduct.

b). KingCast has standing to pursue the immediate production of the IP address as this is a public matter, see generally Union Leader v. City of Nashua, 141 N.H. 473, 475, 686 A.2d 310, 312 (1996) and Smith v. Town of Windsor, 386 F. Supp. 2d 374; 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19948; 34 Media L. Rep. 1222, June 24, 2005. While some LE and even Judges do not like what KingCast does with video, such is not the point: This is essentially a Right-to-Know case because the Union Leader is virtually a State Actor and in Right-to-Know Law cases, the plaintiff's motives for seeking disclosure are irrelevant. Id.

Full post as published by Chris King's 1st Amendment Page on February 14, 2008 (boomark / email).