Yesterday I authored a post about my relationship with Columbus political leaders
Bill Moss and Loretta Heard. This relationship is long-documented in courtroom testimony, school board testimony and video preserved by me and Columbus historian and videographer James Whitaker, a now 60 year-old black studies major from Ohio State University ('75) who has been monitoring the Columbus Court and political scene for a coupla' decades.
I was a frequent flier on Moss' radio show for Good Reason: I was a sharp attorney and not afraid of the burghers of Columbus, as Jerry Doyle - featured in a Freedom Forum article for winning a First Amendment viewpoint-based discrimination case that I started - will tell you in several videos at KingCast.net.
Someone, a black female attorney who does not like me or my style, spiked my tags with Moss and Heard's names on them. (More).
And someone else wrote in to say that I had fooled Moss and Heard into respecting me.
The second response is stupid, hateful and permissible. The first one merits permanent banishment from this Board.
It might be different if the Moss/Heard abuse was the first time, but it's happened on prior occasion as well, when the same individual admitted to spiking Zora Neale Hurston and Professor Lucy Hurston's names from a diary entry in which I included substantial information about the Hurstons - two women I greatly admire, one of whom (obviously Lucy) I interviewed at Norwalk CT's Festival of Words last weekend. I noted that she is a sociology major with substantial criminology background who thought it odd that 3 police officers should pull guns on a black man in Jaffrey, NH, conduct visual body cavity search of same, then charge him with loitering when his white friend had told the police that they were there to wait on his girlfriend at work - ipso facto not loitering.
As NAACP legal redress chair I wrote a Demand Letter to Jaffrey Police Chief Dunn, never said I was a licensed attorney to him and engaged in conduct ruled Constitutional in Arizona State v. Weinstein 898 P.2d 513 (1995).
NAACP expressly provides that pre-litigation negotiations are permissible -- of course two months after I wrote the letter they provided me with the training materials that say you have to have CEO approval, but of course I can show that I had written other letters that probably should have needed CEO approval to help Gloria Timmons' sister and co-workers at the Hartford, CT Board of Education, for example, and never got reprimanded for that, so whatever.
Also, you don't have to be a licensed attorney to be an NAACP legal redress chair as noted in this balanced news story from the Peterborough Transcript) and got indicted for Attempted Felony extortion. Along the way my detractors have told dozens of lies, including that I came to Willie Toney, and that they had no knowledge of an Ohio Law suspension that Professor and court-appointed monitor Louis A. Jacobs, Esq. noted involved racism, ignorance and reactionary politics," when in fact I had sent that information to Boston NAACP President Alkins and to Nashua, NH President Timmons - before Alkins sent it to Timmons again, all emails that I have preserved.
-----
Any way, Professor Hurston personally wrote me to say that she felt in "good company" on my blawg.
And guess what: The same black female attorney who just doesn't like my style spiked those names as well.
Here is what I wrote to Kos:
Come on, Kos. This piece clearly featured information about Columbus luminaries Bill Moss and Loretta Heard, and my relationshipw with them as substantiated by reams of video footage. Gxxxx7 had no goddamn right to remove those names, but she did. She needs to be removed and you bet I'm writing another special feature about her censoring ass tomorrow.
Fuck her. She cannot do that and you cannot allow for it.
Respectfully submitted,
-The Kirsanow Kid.
Christopher King <christopherkingesq@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear Kos:
Other Kossacks have agreed that even if my writing is hurried and sometimes hard to follow, I am definitely not a troll and definitely talking about substantive issues here on this board.
And they agree that Gxxxx7 should be banned for what she has done on my Zora Neal/Lucy Hurston and Arrested Activist Jerry Doyle diaries.
I offered not to report Gxxxx7 but this individual did it again, the irony being this time that it happened with regard to a former client of mine whose story has appeared in the damn Freedom Forum online newspaper!!!!
Unreal.
Please take Gxxxx7's privileges for a month.
Here's what I just wrote:
To all concerned, read my replies to Gxxxx7 in today's post and in the one regarding Zora Neale Hurston and Lucy Hurston. Not only has this individual added hateful tags, this individual has removed ALL of my tags and replaced them with "tag abuse."
I offered this individual a break after another Kossack noted the foul nature of such actions should result in banishment, but this individual has again persisted.
I'm going to Kos to request banishment for a month.
F*cking censorship on Daily Kos by someone who does not own the board, on a post involving the imprisonment of a man I successfully defended on censorship and First Amendment grounds. Uncanny.
Gxxxx7 has seen this board to its nadir.
------
Anyway, the State's prosecution is still in violation of a Court ORDER to provide a copy of the Deposition I took of Chief Dunn, wherein he and his attorney, Charlie Bauer, laugh at a hate mail letter that insinuates I'm going to get my ass reamed in prison.
And FWIW, Gloria Timmons is a pathological liar in my opinion:
She says she destroyed all of her emails so she never knew about the suspension issue or that Professor Jacobs said it involved "racism, ignorance or reactionary politics. But read this:
P.45
9 Q. I'm confused. What does [the event in your life] have to do with me sending you an e-mail about our relationship at the NAACP? A. [blankety-blank], and that day is upsetting to me, so anything on that day I automatically delete. Q. I've [blankty-blanked as well]. I can understand your pain on that without a doubt. I'm sorry for that loss.
But sadly, she didn't delete all of her emails. Check this email from her work on that day. Moreover, that/email I sent went not only to her private email addy; I sent it to the Nashua NAACP at large as well and they read that email "daily" according to Timmons' sworn testimony; so what the hell? Did all of them [blankety-blank] on that day, too? And this is somehow my fault and not the mark of reckless email retention or flat out lying?
She says she got outvoted to put me on the board, but read this juxtaposition of her email to me and the text of her Deposition testimony. I can personally tell you that there was no problem with me being appointed - as her email readily indicates. She is a liarhead, pure and simple and that's one reason the state keeps getting continuances on the criminal trial.
She says she did not tell Willie Toney, in an attempt to malign me in an interview in which she offered no help for his actual case, that "real lawyers don't just sue for $65,000.00, real lawyers sue for millions" when in point of fact I busted her cold with the audio of the tape she thought I didn't have. Here is the mp3 audio clip - not attached to my blawg for those of you who accuse me of seeking blawg traffic, and the relevant testimony:
145
8 Q. So it would be important to try to
9 protect that First Amendment?
10 A. I'm a veteran, yes.
11 Q. Okay. All right. So is there
12 anything where I'm engaging in fantasy about
13 winning this man's case?
14 A. I'm sure you did something good in
15 your life.
16 Q. Actually -- move to strike as not
17 responsive. I'm sure you have, too, but let
18 me ask you, is there anything that's driven
19 by fantasy by this document?
20 A. I'm sure you did something good in
21 your life.
22 Q. Okay. Thank you. For the record,
23 Ma'am, have you ever had any experience with
24 police abuse cases --
25 A. No.
146
1
2 Q. -- personally?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Okay. Let's move to 17. And
5 didn't you tell Willie Toney that real
6 lawyers don't just sue for 65,000, real
7 lawyers sue for millions?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Really?
10 A. I have the tape.
11 Q. So do I.
12 A. No. You don't.
13 Q. Yes, I do.
14 MS. PROULX: Did you say we're going
15 to an exhibit?
Well I do have the tape: It goes like this, at about 9:55 in:
"If you feel that your Civil Rights have been violated, normal legitimate lawyers don't go for 65 thousand, they go for really high they go for millions." At once she lies and shows her ignorance. Real lawyers may well start a case like this at $65K to see if they can get something done reasonably with someone with a drug/criminal history and no palpable/bodily injury. But equally as important, she told yet another lie and it's key under State v. Sands, 123 NH 570 (1983), Sands v. Cunningham 617 F. Supp 1551 (1985), State v. Hutchins, 144 NH 669 (2000) [Defendant's claim "nothing of a sexual nature happened"] potentially actionable, and State v. Gates, 17 NH 373 (1845).
Here's why Proulx catches the ethics complaint... per Rule 3.3 Candor toward the Tribunal and 3.4 Fairness to opposing Party and Counsel: Timmons says she had the tape. That means Proulx listened to the tape. And Proulx heard and read the Deposition Testimony yet still did nothing to correct Timmons but instead "orchestrated, assisted, counseled and tolerated the formulation of [an] inaccurate" discovery response, per Feld, supra -- which carried with it a one-year suspension from practice. Even though the State of New Hampshire will likely let her get away with it because they are too busy violating my Due Process Rights, that would equal mine!
That evil-eyed, lying-arsed hater is going down:
So Kos is left with a choice: He can either support the right of free speech within the confines of his Universe, which includes the right to use reasonable tags - and believe me, those tags were quite reasonable -- or he can support tyranny of the majority. Others on this board and other boards have clearly written supportive comments but I won't link to my blawg, lest another hater accuse me of pumping Kos for blawg hits, but I will tell you if you run a search there under "what people are saying" and "revolution will be televised" you will find it.
Lastly, nobody can rightly accuse me of improperly discussing my case publicly, considering the fact that WMUR, coincidentally represented by NAACP attorneys Orr & Reno - hosted an NAACP/Jaffrey love session that boosted copyrighted movie footage from my blawg and used it to portray me as a felon, before an audience of millions in the direct jury pool area.
Now I'm off to run some errands, such as issuing a response to yet another Motion to Dismiss my Civil suit for Defamation against the NAACP and Chief Dunn, and an evening with the muse. I'll try to check back, but I'm confident enough in what I wrote to read the responses at my leisure.
KingCast.net: Cameras in the courtroom since 1996 for 21st Century Civil Rights.