Prosecutor deals dirty in State v. King

[Christopher King]

Oh, yeah, baitin' switchin' and courting the Keene Sentinel reporter to lunch. Watch the role that technology plays in proving how he duped me into leaving behind a 99% certain Not Guilty finding on a Jury Trial for Felony Extortion into now facing two counts of misdemeanor crimes that may be tried to the Bench that would result in my never getting a damn law license again if Judge Arnold convicts:

http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2006/06/kingcast-presents-trojan-horse-duped.html

But as I note in a subsequent post,

"KingCast Presents NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963):"

http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2006/06/kingcast-presents-naacp-v-button-371.html

Sheet Metal Workers' v. Mohawk Chemical et al. 1998 WL 519585 Ohio App. 5 Dist., 1998 noted:

"...the [Button] Court held that the NAACP had a First Amendment right to advise nonmembers and hire attorneys to represent nonmembers, in order to protect rights afforded by the Constitution."

Duh. I was gonna' bust this at what was supposed to be trial in my direct testimony and watch Prosecutor Albrecht's eyes glaze over, but I guess now is as good a time as ever. And of course I'm going to have lawyers take the stand to prove that I courted them to take Willie Toney's police abuse case. I've already got the contemporaneous 17 Dec. 2004 notes from one such lawyer on my desk right now. Here's the damn oral argument in Button.

So they wanna' convict me for doing precisely what the NAACP at least used to do when it had sack(m), huevos(f)?

Negro please.

[KBCraig]

I could care a lot more if he'd bother explaining what is going on without so much "cute" writing. Most of his "this will explain it all" posts are links to something that doesn't explain it, at all.

I usually refuse to work harder at reading than someone does at writing. In this case, Chris does work at his writing, and he writes well... if you already know what he's talking about. If you don't, he doesn't communicate well, at all. I really don't feel like wading through the rap to decipher the facts of his case.

Kevin

[Christopher King]

I think this is pretty clear:

I was legal redress director for the NAACP Nashua area. A black man faced 3 drawn police guns and a visual body cavity search and was charged with "loitering," which he beat.

I drafted a Demand Letter and networked area attorneys to participate in his defense. They were conflicted or felt not enough damages. No one said the 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims were frivolous.

I got indicted for attempted felony extortion and the indictment spoke of my license suspension from Ohio, which I contend is irrelevant, mostly because I wasn't practicing law pursuant to NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963) which notes that:

"the NAACP had a First Amendment right to advise nonmembers and hire attorneys to represent nonmembers, in order to protect rights afforded by the Constitution."

If I advised the victim, "sit still, we're going to try to help you, but if we can't you'll need to get a lawyer," how am I guilty of any crime, theft, extortion, anything....

I came to [the lexis board] because on the criminal board another poster mentioned Button and wrote:

"In other words, the succesfull argument was not that it was legal for a non-lawyer to practice law, but that what was being done was not practicing law at all."

Richard

-------------

And I do believe that these two posts on Button "explain it all," with a copy of the notes from one of the would-be referral attorneys.

http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2006/06/kingcast-presents-not-guilty-by-naacp.html

http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2006/06/kingcast-presents-naacp-v-button-371.html

Now as for the fact that the Keene Sentinel couldn't get it right (regarding w'happened with these two new charges) I hope I can communicate that right here:

http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2006/06/kingcast-presents-sentinel-horan-file.html

If not, just wait for the movie.

Peace.

[Christopher King]

Lastly, how would it affect getting licensed again?

When you've already been dinged and noted as a rebel, Courts are loathe to let you back in, even if you catch anything more than a traffic violation.

I've worked for the State as a lawyer. Trust me on this.

I hope these two posts were not too "cutesy" or "rappy."

I can deliver prose in deadpan style rather well, so if that it what is necessary in this application that is the way it will be.

Peace.

[d_goddard]

Welcome, Chris.

You will find that clear, effective communication does require that you know your audience. When your audience is largely unknown, it is best not to presume any familiarity with your subject matter. For example, I suspect few if any of us are familiar with a 'Demand Letter'. What is that? What does such a letter seek to accomplish? Is it a petition for the redress of some grievance? For another example, you mention "42 U.S.C. 1983 claims"; what are those claims, in basic layman's terms, and how do they relate to the case against the person you were assisting?

In addition, you should be aware that while most of us are sympathetic to anyone persecuted by Law Enforcement (assuming the peerson has not initiated the use of force or fraud on another individual), many of us have a rather negative opinion of the NAACP. This is because we view the NAACP as an organization that seeks to use government force to achieve its generally laudable goals -- and that is a tactic which we never endorse.

For example, many of us (myself included) feel it should be perfectly legal for an employer to intentionally discriminate on any basis whatsoever -- including based on race. Now, most of us (again, myself included) do not feel that discriminating against black people is moral. We do believe, however, that the free market is better-equipped to punish discrimination than the government is. Indeed, I believe it is patently immoral and unconstitutional for government to regulate any business' hiring preferences, no matter how reprehensibly racist they may be.

[Christopher King]

Thanks for the input!

I would say that I hate the NAACP for slightly different reasons:

Basically, when they are supposed to stand up to government or big business abuse, I find that they are all too-often in bed with them, including the paramilitary and with American Tower Corporation.

I believe government has a place to enforce anti-discrimination laws because contrary to what is set forth by the media, Civil Rights cases are no goldmine and frivolous cases get nowhere. Problem is, that worthwhile cases often get thrown out with the bathwater.

Some of my biggest sanctions in Ohio came from my zealous representation of a pregnant white female.

Irony in my current situation is that former Jaffrey Police Chief's (Phillips) daughter-in-law is a friend of mine, lost her job fighting for me and the cause of justice at American Tower -- a company now facing a Department O' Justice subpoena for securities fraud. Meanwhile you may know they twice tried to pay Chief Dunn to go away but he is unemployable, in part because of people like me who put his business out on Internet Main Street.

Anyway, a Demand Letter can take many forms and is an instrument of redress, and 42 U.S.C. 1983 is the mechanism by which liability attaches to a state entity for violating a Civil Right such as those enumerated by the Constitution. 

Here is my affidavit regarding w'happened last week, soon to be followed this morning by the Motion I spent last evening preparing. There also are a few choice comments about my days as a government attorney-knave.

http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2006/06/kingcast-naacp-jaffrey-chief-dunn.html

Peace.

[d_goddard]

Thanks for taking the time to clarify the legal issues at play here.
It is useful to better understand the law, for the same reasons it's good to understand how a car engine works -- that knowledge can serve you well, when things are not running smoothly!

42 U.S.C. 1983 looks (to my admittedly amateur and intrained eye) like a very important piece of law. It seems to say that if somebody deprives you of the rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, then you can take 'em to a court for Justice to be done.
Amen to that!

I believe government has a place to enforce anti-discrimination laws

Yes, this is where our opinions are going to differ.

"Anti-discrimination" laws are inherently discriminatory, inherently fascist, and have no place in a free society. In my opinon, legislators who promote such legislation violate their oath to defend the Constitution, and should at minimum be ejected from office. Indeed, I believe anyone who aids and abets such legislation should be held accountable under 42 U.S.C. 1983 -- and yes, that includes you

[president]

"Anti-discrimination" laws are inherently discriminatory, inherently fascist, and have no place in a free society. In my opinon, legislators who promote such legislation violate their oath to defend the Constitution, and should at minimum be ejected from office.

The Constitution is inherently discriminatory, inherently fascist, and has no place in a free society.

[Christopher King]

Well guys here's the thing about the Constitution:

As originally drafted it was totally the product of a discriminatory power structure; by and for the elite of a newborn country.

Then the Bill of Rights was tacked on, allegedly to protect the little people.  Like it or not, as a trained attorney the only practical way to fight the system is by working within it, trying to make the government accountable when companies and the government show a pattern of unlawful discrimination.

Realistically we see that it doesn't work that way, that's why we are moving toward film as the medium of exposure.  Watch for the Internet -- itself a military by-product -- to start being more restrictive toward efforts like mine.

Mark my words on that.

Peace.