Sorry folks, full scans will be available tomorrow. Hit that bandwith bogey.
1a. Background: Here is an actual copy of the lawsuit.
http://216.239.51.104/...
1b. And a reference to the request to Amend the lawsuit to include more Malicious Prosecution/Abuse of Process because of the "stalking" hearing where local NAACP President Gloria Timmons failed to appear at her first final hearing, then brought another one, then failed at that: The Judge properly ruled that she is a public figure and my actions were protected by the First Amendment. You can hear my professionalism and her lack thereof online at my website in the "stalking trial" audio. I recommend anyone criticizing me actually listen to that first but of course there I go "blawghorning" again. I'm comfortable with that if that's what someone wants to call it without even listening to it, fine.
http://www.christopherkingesq.com
The court has not ruled on the requested Amendment yet but clearly judicial economy would support an Amendment, no? It does arise out of the same common nucleus of operative fact, i.e. a continued pattern of abuse and lies initiated by Jaffrey (under suspension) Police Chief Dunn and Defendant Timmons, who "loved and supported me" until things got a lil' too hot:
http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/...
2. Here also is a Supplemental Motion supporting my theory about legal axioms as noted yesterday.
http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/...
3. Karma: Chief Dunn being under investigation for what is surely something ethical will be most interesting. That's all I can say until we receive our exculpatory materials pursuant to State v. Laurie, 139 N.H. 325 (1995); and Superior Court Rule 98 (which he already has violated for you keen readers). Meanwhile, I've got my posse out there in Jaffrey with their ears to the ground too. These are `white boys' who know and love me, hate what Chief Dunn is trying to do. Just talked to one of them this morning.
4. Prejudice: To pre-judge. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts. I know that there is quite a bit of pre-judging going around on this board. That's fine for what it's worth because it only shows that people are typically duty-bound to believe whatever a Court says. Thank goodness my investors, some of whom actually are establishment-level attorneys, Dig Deeper. But some people I know could not possibly have read too closely because all of the case captions I have provided relate to a civil case - not the criminal, and the arraignment video clearly shows both of my lawyers. So anyone who says I should not represent myself in the criminal case has not read carefully, or has not viewed the recommended (free) movie materials of the actual arraignment, etc., on the website, and that is what lawyers are supposed to do before commenting, right?
5. Lastly, on that visiting judge - the one that much to Lou Jacobs's surprise and Professor Gianelli's surprise ruled incorrectly on the "Dead Man's Statute" please note that I heard defense counsel tell him in chambers - I had entered the courtroom very quietly - that "oh, he's the one under probation," with a sneering tone, and the Judge said "oh, really," and there was more discussion involving my name and I could hear the names of the parties, too. You should have seen the look on the Defense lawyer's face when I was standing there when he walked into the courtroom. So I filed an ethics complaint and maybe sued him, too. I can't recall now. But it's all in the record for my documentary.
Dig Deeper.