Constitutional Law

KingCast Sunshine Week post #5: A damn fine brief for KingCast/Brian Jesseman v. Union Leader.

By Christopher King

Okay. It's only 6:41p so it's not late night yet but when it is the line will be RIGHT HERE. I've got a ton of Gloucester Fire litigation to address tonight for tomorrow's attachment hearing, but meanwhile visit Smoking Gun and chew on John Doe (Fuzzy Zoeller) v. Josef Silny et al., Miami-Dade 07-04167 CA 15 bringing the same claims that Mr. Jesseman will bring once he has the contact information he needs.

CONCLUSION

The Court is well within its rights to grant the requested relief and to find that KingCast has standing to bring this Action and it matters not whether Defendants, the Court or the State of New Hampshire dislike KingCast. The production and investigation of News is not a popularity contest but is instead part of the duties incumbent of the Fourth Estate.

As such, The Court proved that when it called KingCast ?nonsense? in 2006 (video right here) but still issued the correct ruling to allow KingCast to broadcast from Court, a decision that has now been essentially codified by the New Hampshire Supreme Court ? a fact that Attorney Sullivan is well aware of because he presided at the event. See his client?s own 14 January 2008 story at "NH bids to make courts current with technology." See Attachment 3.

KingCast respectfully asserts that its position, and that of Brian Jesseman is correct in this case as well. And for the foregoing reasons, all sought relief should be GRANTED forthwith.

Respectfully submitted.....

PS: I wrote a better brief than Bush Toady Peter Kirsanow for my father, and won many of the most important issues of the KingCast v. Ayotte/Franconia litigation, so for some reason I tend to think I'm actually a decent lawyer.

Full post as published by Chris King's 1st Amendment Page on March 19, 2008 (boomark / email).