KingCast v. McKenna 11 June 2015 Annotated Free Press First Amendment Transcript

1
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY

Note:
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * See Mortgage Movies Journal for the DE AG Advisory

CHRISTOPHER KING, J.D. d/b/a ) Opinion that banning cameras is extremely risky as the
KINGCAST/MORTGAGE MOVIES,
) law is evolving in a more permissive direction.
) Not with Cultural Hegemonist Robert B. Young as Judge.
Plaintiff,
) See also Pomykacz v. Village of West Wildwood
) See also Tisdale v. Gravitt
v.
) C.A. No. K15C-03-028 RBY
) So help me God Ive already won this case by showing
BETTY LOU McKENNA, HOLLY
) what jerks they are, but I am in it to win it with a
MALONE and JOHN W. PARADEE, ) Decision and we will go to SCOTUS.
ESQUIRE,
) There are virtually no journos with my background
an escrow attorney, First Amendment Trial atty
) as
and daily news reporter who do what I do. This is why
Defendants.
) Judge Young is downplaying all of that and trying to
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * keep someone like me silenced. I will not stand for it.
10
TRANSCRIPT
OF
CIVIL MOTIONS
11
12
Thursday, June 11, 2015

Kent County Courthouse
Dover, Delaware 19901
13
14
15
16
BEFORE:
THE HONORABLE ANDREA M. FREUD, Commissioner.
17
18
* * * * *
APPEARANCES:
19
CHRISTOPHER KING, Pro Se Plaintiff
20
JOSEPH S. SHANNON, Esquire, appearing on behalf

of Defendants Betty Lou McKenna and Holly Malone
21
22
PETER C. McGIVNEY, Esquire, appearing on behalf

of Defendant John W. Paradee, Esquire
23
CHRISTINE L. QUINN, RPR

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
1
2
June 11, 2015

Courtroom No. 5
2:00 p.m.
* * * * *
THE COURT:
Okay.
The remaining motions all
have to do with the same case.
versus McKenna, et al.
the three motions that are on that it makes sense to
address the motion for the stay of the proceedings
first.
10
11
MR. SHANNON:
THE COURT:
13
MR. SHANNON:
14
out of the courtroom.
15
Your Honor, Scott Shannon on
Stay of discovery, I guess.
THE COURT:
Mr. King was here.
back.
MR. SHANNON:
18
THE COURT:
I'm sorry?
I said we need to wait for him
to get back.
20
We will find out where he is.
21
MR. KING:
22
THE COURT:
23
He stepped
We need to wait for him to get
17
19
I think after my review of
behalf --
12
16
That would be King
Good afternoon, Your Honor.

Mr. King, I wasn't aware that
you weren't in the courtroom when I made my initial

remarks; so I will repeat them.
I have reviewed the three motions that are
pending in this matter, and it appears to me that it
would make the most sense to start with the motion --
I guess it would be the joint protective order.
it also a motion to stay the discovery?
First of all, why not start with my Motion to

primarily what that is? Compel, as it narrows the issue? Stay tuned
8
9
MR. SHANNON:
ultimately seeking.
Is
Is that
That is the relief that we are

It's two parts which would go
10
hand-in-hand.
11
discovery sought not be had, and as part of that,
12
that this litigation be stayed pending Judge Young's
13
consideration and disposition of the pending
14
dispositive motions.
15
The one being an order that the
THE COURT:
Well, my review of everything
16
leads me to conclude that we should address that
17
motion first.
18
MR. KING:
If I may, Your Honor, as a
19
preliminary matter of housekeeping, I had filed a
20
notice of media coverage, and in that notice, I cited
21
to the second revision of Administrative Directive
22
No. 155.
23
recently on the 29th day of November, 2005.
That was updated several times and most

THE COURT:
Mr. King, also as a preliminary
matter, I understand that you filed a notice of that,
but unfortunately, there is no motion that was
attached to it.
that was an issue until I was walking out the door to
go to lunch today.
been brought to my attention.
8
9
So I was completely unaware that
So it's not something that has
I can tell you that I have been doing this

for over 20 years, and to my knowledge, the Court has
10
never once, at any point in time, allowed any
11
recording of any procedure in the court.
12
that by the directives of the court for the Superior
13
Court policies that there are no video recording

That is not true.
equipment allowed in the courtroom.
Google Rule 155
14
15
I also know
So at this point in time, I'm not going to
16
allow any recordings because, based upon my
17
experience, that is not allowed.
18
I had to look it up, I do know that the Superior
19
Court rules forbid videotaping, television
20
broadcasting in criminal matters.
21
the practice in our court to not allow it in civil
22
matters as well.
23
In the limited time
Also, it's been
So at this point since I have not had any

time to do any further research on that, based upon
that, I'm going to deny that request.
MR. KING:
If I may just briefly to note my
objection for the record, Your Honor.
the request of the Bar" --
6
7
8
9
THE COURT REPORTER:
It states, "At
I'm sorry.
Could you
slow down?
MR. KING:
It states, "At the request of the
Bar Bench Media Conference, the Supreme Court
10
extended the experimental period to permit the
11
electronic news media to cover cases that might arise
12
in an extended experimental period."
13
THE COURT:
She cuts me off..
Mr. King, my understanding of
14
that rule -- and as I said, I have not done extensive
15
research on it -- but my understanding of that rule
16
is that applied only to Supreme Court oral arguments,
17
which is the only thing in the State where they're
18
currently allowed to have video recordings of it.
19
They do post that.
20
never been told otherwise by anyone -- there is no
21
recording in Superior Court or in any other court.
22
MR. KING:
23
may beg to differ.
As far as I know -- and I have
Point of fact, Your Honor, if I

I read the first version of 155,

1
2
Boom!
Before
I
can
even read it
and it specifically referenced -into the Record.
THE COURT: Mr. King, I've made my ruling.
3
4
5
MR. KING:
8
9
10
Please note my
objection for the record, Your Honor.

It fucking clearly says
THE COURT: Thank you.
Trial Courts.
6
7
I understand.
MR. KING:
Court.
I will certify with the Supreme
In a few weeks I am
suing for Declaratory
Judgment on this.
THE COURT: Thank you.
What jerks.
You may proceed with your motion.
MR. SHANNON:
May it please the Court, on
11
behalf of defendants, Beverly McKenna and Holly
12
Malone, my name is Scott Shannon.
13
In the presentation of defendants joint
14
motion for protective order -- although, I would ask
15
Mr. McGivney, who is here representing defendant,
16
John Paradee, an opportunity to speak to the extent
17
that he may wish to emphasize certain points on
18
behalf of his client that I may not touch on
19
adequately on behalf of Ms. McKenna or Ms. Malone.
20
In putting together the outline for my
21
argument today, Your Honor -- and I appreciate you
22
giving us the opportunity to go first.
23
argument actually addresses both the motion for

But my
protective order and motions to compel, if Your Honor
will entertain the argument that way, since to a
certain extent they are hand and glove.
after all, Mr. King's advising us of his intention to
file the motions to compel that prompted us to file
the motion for protective order, if that's fair
enough.
8
9
THE COURT:
It was,
Well, if -- depending upon how
we rule on a stay of discovery, if a stay of
10
discovery is granted, then I don't believe we need to
11
address anything else, and we can leave that to
12
another time until after any ruling on Judge Young's
13
order would come into place.
14
going to depend on how I rule on that, but depending
15
on how that goes, I don't think there is a need to
16
get to the merits of the other arguments today.
17
18
MR. SHANNON:
I have not -- it's
I will try to separate the
sugar from the salt then, as I present.
19
THE COURT:
20
MR. SHANNON:
Do as best you can.

Without repeating the
21
arguments that are made in our motion itself, which
22
points out that we have meritorious early dispositive
23
motions that are pending, that are based upon well

established Supreme Court case law and Third Circuit
case law that defines the scope of the First
Amendment privilege that Mr. King seeks to enforce,
that those cases, in fact, are not even disputed or
challenged by the plaintiff because they cannot be.
The scope of the First Amendment Right that
he seeks to enforce does not include all demand
access by any citizen to the bureaucratic functions
of government.
The requirement is that the
10
information be made public to the extent that it is
11
the function of government -- in this case Recorder
12
of Deeds -- that those deeds, which are on record,
13
the public have access to them.
14
I wasnt only coming to access records. I was

coming to ask a question of a senior staffer and
there is a narrowly-tailored requirement here
before they can shut my cameras down.
Mr. King appeared at the Kent County
15
Administrative Complex.
He asked for access to the
16
nonpublic office space for the purpose of filming.
17
That was denied.
18
space and to the public database through the computer
19
terminals that are made available for that purpose at
20
the Kent County offices.
21
also not disputed that Mr. King, in fact, retrieved
22
documents from that database and that he has
23
published those on his website.
He was given access to the public
That's not disputed.
It's
Those are included

in the motion.
So for the purposes of determining the
extent and scope of the right Mr. King seeks to
enforce, that issue is squarely in front of the judge
on dispositive motions.
my answer and opposition to Mr. King's cross-motion
for partial summary judgment is due tomorrow.
8
9
The final briefing of which
Now in the meantime, Mr. King is persistent

in pursuing discovery.
We have responded to three
10
complete rounds of discovery for Mr. King.
The first
11
set of interrogatories, request for documents,
12
request for admissions, a revised first set and a
13
second set. Commissioner Freud allowed them to get away without answering the simple question of what their
You are goddamn right I am persistent in obtaining Discovery because Judge Robert B. Young and
14
authority was to stop me, and what the goddamn policy is. This will haunt them on Appeal.
If I may for Mr. Paradee, Mr. Paradee has
15
responded fully to the revised first set and to the
16
second set.
17
In addition, there were affidavits from each
18
of the named defendants that were attached to the
19
dispositive motions that addressed the specific
20
claims going to the First Amendment Right, First
21
Amendment Right that Mr. King seeks to enforce.
22
23
When there are meritorious case dispositive

motions that are pending, as a matter of judicial

10
economy, in order to avoid the parties incurring
unnecessary expense and to discovery matters that
would be rendered moot, depending upon the outcome of
the decision, it is appropriate -- and the Court may
in its discretion order -- that the litigation be
stayed, that no further discovery be had in order to
save those costs.
find ourselves, Your Honor, procedurally.
That's the situation in which we
Substantively -- and this goes to the
10
discovery that is sought for which a protective order
11
is sought, and this may be where there is some
12
overlap with the motions to compel.
13
nature of the discovery that is sought.
14
It goes to the
Mr. King in his answer and opposition to our
15
motion for protective order describes himself as
16
being a member of the fourth estate, the media.
17
Accepting that is true, the media have no greater
18
rights under the First Amendment than a public
19
citizen, than anybody.
20
is made between the rights available to a member of
21
the media and a member of the general public.
22
would be the role of the fourth estate to seek out,
23
collect, and disseminate information.
There is no distinction that

But it
The role of
11
the Court is to define the scope of the right.
Mr. King seeks to confound the two, and the
proof of that is in the discovery that he seeks.
an example, he asks why Ms. McKenna did not return a
phone call he placed to her home phone.
response to that interrogatory would, in any manner,
define the scope of the First Amendment Right is not
explained.
As
How -- how a
Shes never at work.

I am allowed to call her ass at home to inquire about public matters.
This is simple shit, folks.
He asks who pays Mr. Paradee's fees.
That's
10
been addressed in the dispositive motions that he is
11
not paid by public funds.
12
funds.
13
He is not paid by public
He is not subject to the First Amendment.

Mr. King seeks the case captions for civil
14
actions against any defendant since 1994.
15
again, the issue here is the First Amendment Right he
16
seeks to assert.
17
that Mr. King as media, as fourth estate, would be
18
seeking to obtain assuming the right existed.
19
Well,
It's not to get to the information
And this, Your Honor, is where we believe
20
that the protective order is necessary.
21
again, the question before the Court is not what
22
allegations or what Ms. McKenna might have said about
23
the conduct of a campaign, election campaign.

Because,
The
12
issue before the Court -- and the only issue on which
Mr. King appears in his complaint -- is his assertion
of a First Amendment Right of on-demand

access to the
Text
bureaucratic function of government.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, United
States Supreme Court have repeatedly said that the
First Amendment does not compel government to provide
any information.
Freedom of Information Act.
That the First Amendment is not a

That there are only two
10
circumstances in which the First Amendment compels
11
access, criminal trials and legislative functions.
12
Imagine the chaos if any citizen at any time
13
could walk into any public office, executive
14
function, because where would it end, the governor,
15
the president, and say, "I'm a taxpayer.
16
public building.
17
I'm going to film you doing your work."
18
the scope of the right that is asserted.
19
litigation is to be kept within that scope, that's
20
21
This is a
I want to know what you're doing.
the discovery that should be permitted.
Now that's
If the
You cannot delimit First
Amendment Rights by
a parade of horribles.
This is bullshit.
The Court should not be subverted for the

Google Pomykacz v. Village of W. Wildwood, BOOM
22
purposes of the fourth estate of which Mr. King

Google Tisdale v. Gravitt, 2014, Boom!
23
claims to be a member of to allow him to get to the

13
information he was seeking in the exercise of his
First Amendment Right.
the outcome of the case dispositive motions is that
the Court determines as a matter of law that, in
fact, the scope of the First Amendment Right Mr. King
seeks to assert is not as expansive as he interprets
it.
8
9
Particularly, when and if,
So for these reasons, Your Honor, because

there is a meritorious case dispositive motion
10
pending, because the information sought is in no
11
manner germane to the information -- excuse me -- the
12
claim that has been made, we ask that the protective
13
order be entered, the request of the discovery not be
14
had, and litigation be stayed pending case
15
dispositive motions.
16
Thank you.
17
Do you have anything to add?
18
MR. McGIVNEY:
19
Peter McGivney on behalf of defendant, John
20
21
Just briefly, Your Honor.
Paradee.
Just to piggyback sort of off of what
22
Mr. Shannon was just saying, we believe that we
23
presented a meritorious defense in our motion to

14
dismiss motion for judgment on the pleadings.
our position that John Paradee is not a state actor
and, therefore, is a private citizen.
deprive anyone, let alone the plaintiff, of any
constitutional rights.
It's
He could not
The plaintiff's complaint can be broken down
into three claims.
The plaintiff wanted access to
the Recorder of Deeds, ability to operate cameras
there, and to compel answers directed at public
10
officials.
11
it will not determine whether or not he's suffered a
12
harm, which he claims in the complaint.
13
position that this motion for protective order motion
14
for stay is proper under Rule 26(c).
15
in litigation, it would be placing an undue burden
16
and significant expense and costs on the defendants
17
to engage in this type of discovery, especially given
18
the fact that all the plaintiff's claims are subject
19
to a motion to dismiss.
20
The discovery that he has filed to date
It's our
At this point
Finally, Your Honor, it's our position that
21
granting the motion for protective order motion to
22
stay, the plaintiff will not suffer any prejudice if

I did suffer prejudice because we dont even know what the policy is.
23
this motion is granted.
If our motions to dismiss

15
are denied, then the case can move forward with
discovery.
over.
If they are granted, then the case is
That's all I have.
THE COURT:
MR. KING:
Thank you, Your Honor.
Mr. King.
May it please the Court.
I would
like to first address several blatant misstatements
that were made by counsel.
Now, obviously, there is a little bit of
10
sugar with the salt here because we have to go into
11
the merits first off before we can address.
12
cited the merits in their filings; so I am going to
13
address the merits as well in this instance.
14
didn't cite to any cases just now.
15
cited to were the Woods case and the Cinelli case.
16
The Cinelli case --
17
THE COURT REPORTER:
18
MR. KING:
Okay.
I'm sorry.
They
They
What they
What case?
Cinelli, C-I-N-E-L-L-I.
The case
19
that they cited to in Pennsylvania -- and they like
20
to go to Pennsylvania for their law.
21
we're there, let's stop and remember that Nancy
22
Becker just successfully sued MERS in Pennsylvania
Well, while
Faulty documents are obviously a matter of substantial public concern.
23
over faulty and fraudulent documents in her registry.

16
That problem exists in all 50 states.
I shoot video across the country about these
matters in courtrooms across the country on a routine
basis.
attorney.
6
7
I was a title insurance producer, escrow

I have worked in major media for years.
now run my own operation.
There is a distinction between media and the
general public in many instances, particularly in
this case, where there is a Delaware Free Press
10
statute which did not roll off the lips of either of
11
my brothers just now.
12
First Amendment claim that we are reviewing before
13
the Court, and that's a crucial distinction.
14
Judge Robert B. Young issued his opinion without citing to any of

my professional background or even the name of my goddamn
website, i.e. Mortgage Movies.
That is a claim as well as the
My brothers have attempted to say that I
15
want some type of any-time access to these people.
16
That's not what is being sought.
17
sought at bottom, Your Honor, we can walk up and down
18
the ladder and scratch it all we want to, but the
19
bottom line is all I was seeking is:
What was being
May a reporter
This right here is simple: Obviously a reporter or a citizen has a right to ask a question with a pen and a pad;
therefore s/he has a right to do so with an unobtrsucive camera as well.
20
ask a high ranking public official a couple of
21
questions about her campaign and about false
22
statements she may have made in her campaign, as well
23
as a question or two about fraudulent documents that

17
1
2
may exist in her office.

Now, I'm not allowed to sit there all day,
but do I get a first blush?
Do I get an opportunity
to ask that question?
furthermore -- and I have two witnesses in this
courtroom today.
with me on the day in question.
to any private area.
whole time.
Of course, I do.
And
One of whom is La Mar Gunn who was

I didn't seek access
I was in the public foyer the
Judge Young tried to imply that I was trying to film in back areas
and private offices.
10
And the reason I called Betty Lou McKenna at
11
her home is because I know she's never at the office.
12
But when I called her at her home, I called her about
13
a matter which is clearly a matter of public concern
14
whether or not she made false statements, campaign
15
statements, about that man, La Mar Gunn.
16
Now, the defendants would like to drive a
17
wedge between -- let's put it another way.
The
18
defendants are trying to obfuscate the issue by
19
stating that, you know, they've stated in their
20
pleadings I'm trying to advance a claim on behalf of
21
La Mar Gunn or something like that.
22
what is happening here.
23
determine why they did what they did.
None of that is
I am seeking discovery to

18
The cases they cited to -- let's delve into
that because it's crucial to your understanding of
this case -- the Woods case.
who was there on behalf of a developer.
to run video.
hearing or something like that -- specifically passed
a resolution stating no cameras, okay, for one
meeting.
policy.
There was a gentleman

He was going
The governing body -- it was a zoning
He was denied at that meeting.

Okay.
There was a
The policy was repealed and found
10
unconstitutional because the public has a right to
11
video these meetings.
12
Okay.
Even in Woods they abolished the policy

banning cameras so he had a statutory right.
My Amended Complaint goes there.
But in that case, they cited to Cinelli in
13
Rhode Island, where I used to live.
14
school teacher was running video in the building
15
about issues of public concern.
16
checked the mortgage crises is an issue of public
17
concern.
18
19
20
In Cinelli, a
The last time I
I think all of us in this room know that.
So how is it --
Judge Young said that case pivoted on whether she was a public employee, which is
bullshit because the case held that she much as any reporter would have to
follow the same procedures as the general public for access during her nonworking hours. That is the key to this case.
And, Your Honor, we've come along way since

we studied communications in the '80s.
The new
Her Honor and I both have Communication Degrees. The difference is, she uses hers to oppress.
21
paradigm is reasonable access.
And that's where all
22
these cases wind up, reasonable access.
23
was seeking.
That's all I
I didn't want to go into the turns and

19
details of the office; just to ask a couple of
questions.
very clearly that I was going to ask a couple of
questions about false statements that were made about
Mr. Gunn, and that's why I called on the phone to
give them a courtesy to ask in the first place and
then I was going to video Mr. Gunn at a machine
pulling up a fraudulent document.
And then -- and I stated in my affidavit
This is how I wanted to project my

news story and unless I am disturbing
the functions of the office they
simply cannot stop me, period.
This is video footage that is done
10
everywhere across the country on a routine basis.
11
was denied that opportunity.
12
denied any opportunity whatsoever, and that is, as
13
you know, Your Honor, you studied communications.
14
It's overbroad.
15
any compelling governmental interest.
16
Point blank.
I was
It's not nearly tailored to reach
In Holly Malone's affidavit, she said that
17
her interest was to try to maintain the order of the
18
office.
19
the order of the office, so does every journalist.
20
We are there to ask a couple of questions and move on
21
our way, but I wasn't allowed to do that.
22
it was overbroad and not nearly tailored to reach any
23
compelling governmental interest.
I have better things to do than to disrupt

They said
20
Boom!!!
They can't tell me how I'm supposed to run
my media.
picture of a document pulled up from the machine, I
can do that.
that document up himself for greater visual impact.
I'm well within my right to do that.
7
8
9
If I want to show a picture of a static
But I can also show Mr. Gunn pulling
This is simple.
Furthermore, Your Honor, let's get into the

specifics of what I asked for that they ignored.
They have since
dropped the Ayotte
argument, LOL..
Before I do that, I want to bring up the
10
Kelly Ayotte case they've cited to in a public
11
private distinction as to what I would like to do.
12
If you look, there are actual pictures and videos in
13
the pleadings, Your Honor, relative to the Kelly
14
Ayotte matter in which the Court ruled that was a
15
private event where I was trying to run video.
16
I had interviewed Joe Arpaio and Kelly Ayotte
17
declined.
18
was at a hotel, okay.
19
way, at that time, Your Honor, Kelly Ayotte was not
20
an elected official.
21
attorney general and a U.S. Senator, okay.
22
23
They said that was a private event.
Okay.
It
Since that time -- and by the
She was in between being a
In this instance, the defendants are both

publicly employed individuals 24/7, okay.

And since
21
the time that Ms. Ayotte has become elected, every
single time I go to her office -- and this is in the
pleadings -- they answer my question.
school grounds -- I have proof in the file that I
have gone to her office in Washington, D.C.
gone to her office in New Hampshire.
walk in and ask a question.
all day and disrupt the office, of course, you can
throw me out.
10
Be it on
I have
I'm allowed to
Now if I remain there
That's common sense, too.
Its all about common

sense folks.
That's why all my pleadings are entitled in
11
honor of Thomas Paine.
12
of society do we want to live in -- and I want to
13
finish the quote that the counsel pulled up about
14
unlimited access.
15
quote, it goes on to say that when the government is
16
hiding something in secrecy that makes things much
17
more suspect.
18
out about what they said about La Mar Gunn is because
19
that informs why they denied me access.
20
It's common sense.
What kind
You know, if you finish that
And the reason why I'm wanting to find
It's simple.
Now, what did I ask for that they didn't
21
mention just now.
I asked them -- and I quote --
22
because knowing what the policy is is important,
23
right?

22
"State what authority that any defendant has
had, at any point in time up to the 27th of November,
that indicates that video was verboten in the 555 Bay
Road building on or about November 25th, the only
day, date, and time that plaintiff was there."
You know what their response to that was?
"Objection.
and incapable of response."
This interrogatory is incomprehensible
I just asked what the policy is.
10
I'm entitled to know that.
11
so.
12
Obfuscatory bullshit response.

The Court let them get away with it.
But you know what?
I think
All the other cases said
We don't have a policy here.
What we have is an ad hoc policy
13
administered by Ms. Malone who, during all of this,
14
made two phone calls.
15
I believe I am entitled to a deposition to find out
16
about that.
17
To whom were those calls made?
And I have also put in the record, Your
18
Honor, just the other day when I responded in
19
replying to defendant Paradee's motion regarding the
20
compel, their memorandum and opposition to motion to
21
compel, I noted cases all throughout the country that
22
courts are reluctant to grant protective orders to
23
public defendants, you know, including Mayor

23
Giuliani, okay, because they're less argument.
There's a little bit of embarrassment.
hold weight.
That doesn't
As to whether or not they have dispositive
motions filed, I dismissed the emotional distress
claims.
mine are stronger based on their own case law when it
comes out.
ability of a journalist or a citizen to run video and
I have dispositive motions filed too, and
There is only one case that restricts the
10
that was at a prison.
11
are in a public building.
12
public path in that building.
13
We are not at a prison.
We
I didn't walk off the

I am not disruptive.
So the other questions were -- I ask why
14
defendant McKenna did not respond to my phone calls.
15
That's important because what's going on the
16
allegation that they're engaged in content based
17
discrimination, viewpoint based discrimination.
18
The First Amendment lies in the nuances,
19
Your Honor.
20
cases.
21
only one I lost.
22
know it well.
23
That's why I almost never lose these
As a matter of fact, the Ayotte case is the

The First Amendment is my life.
This is my ground.
And so I am entitled to know why they didn't

24
return the call because it might inform as to whether
or not they have a viewpoint based discrimination
against me; as opposed to say had my cousin, Mike
Wilbon, he's a big columnist for ESPN.
Okay.
This is viewpoint and

content-based
discrimination
If Mike walks in there and he says,
"Hey, I want to do a story about this gentleman here.
He is a famous basketball player and he used to work
here.
machine?"
Can I roll some footage of him next to a

Do we honestly think that the defendants
10
are going to say no?
11
Because it's a puff piece.
12
distinctions based on what you like and what you
13
don't like when you are a public official.
14
that up by being a public official.
15
But you can't make
You give
So I am not here to keep them at their
16
office all day.
17
questions.
18
Of course, they're not.
I just want to ask a couple of
Again: Just trying to ask a couple of goddamn questions here.
Now, the only couple of issues specifically
19
that I asked for, that I didn't get, include the case
20
captions for civil cases.
21
litigation question, Your Honor.
22
the point of the court or the defense to truncate my
23
discovery at this point.
Okay.
That's a common
You know, it's not
If I look back into those

25
cases and I find patterns that the defendants are
engaged in, then that might be helpful.
for later.
to truncate my entire discovery path.
That's subject to motion in limine, not
THE COURT:
MR. KING:
THE COURT:
But that's
Mr. King.
Yes.
I, too, like common sense, and
I, too, like to go to the simple.
MR. KING:
10
THE COURT:
Yes.
Particularly this, because my
11
job is to handle routine nondispositive civil
12
motions, not the merits of a case.
13
started out with this motion for protective order.
14
So that's why I
When I was looking at this, it seemed to me
15
that the simple thing is should we -- based upon
16
these motions to dismiss that are filed that seem to
17
have -- been claimed to have merit and the fact that
18
this case does seem to be -- there is a lot of
19
different issues in it that properly should be
20
decided on the motions that are pending before Judge
21
Young.
22
at this point of discovery, pending the outcome of
23
Judge Young's ruling, at which time if he denies
What is the harm to you for granting the stay

26
their motion or grants yours, then we can go forward
with discovery at that point in time?
MR. KING:
Your Honor, the cases they cited
to, the Woods case and the Cinelli case that screams
from that all turn on policy.
Okay.
they answered that question --
Policy policy policy..

But Im not entitled to know..
And so the way
Do I need to read it back, Your Honor?
asked them, "What authority they have to deny my
access."
They couldn't answer it.
10
to know.
If they want to bring up cases that address
11
policy, then you live by the sword and you die by the
12
sword.
13
simple.
14
their policy is.
15
deposition and ask them why did you stop me from
16
doing that.
17
That is crucial
But you can't have it both ways.

That's common sense.
That's
I need to know what
I need to be able to sit down at
THE COURT:
Maybe I'm not making myself as
18
clear as I hoped too.
My question is:
19
if I grant a stay in the discovery until Judge Young
20
has ruled on his pending motions and don't address
21
the merits of your motion to compel or their specific
22
motions for a protective order today, just stay the
23
discovery so that there is no more discovery until

At this point
27
after Judge Young has made his ruling, what is the
harm?
MR. KING:
The harm is that I don't know
what the policy is, Your Honor.
cases that reference policy.
argument because I don't know what their policy is.
I can't strengthen my
Your Honor, if I may --
THE COURT:
9
10
They want to cite to
Is the briefing getting ready to
be complete?
MR. KING:
Yes, it is.
So -- but before
11
it's complete and over my objection, you know, I
12
filed myself a motion to strike their filing because
13
I'm not done with discovery.
14
you prove a First Amendment case, Your Honor, is to
15
show a policy and a deviation from the policy.
16
this instance, I don't have that.
17
massively handicapped.
18
That's a simple question.
19
had for doing what you did, and they turn around and
20
say they can't answer that.
21
THE COURT:
22
Any response?
23
MR. SHANNON:
One of the ways that
In
I have been
I'm entitled to have that.

State what authority you
That's ludicrous.
Thank you.
If I may, Your Honor.

28
Again I ask the Court's indulgence to give
Mr. McGivney the opportunity to respond on behalf of
his client to the extent I do not adequately address
or respond to the arguments made by Mr. King.
The policy argument is a red herring.
Either the First Amendment mandates the access
Mr. King seeks or it does not.
of a policy, nor even the terms of that policy, will
not create a First Amendment Right where none exists
The existence or not
10
and will not enlarge one assuming that one exists.
11
The policy is something entirely different.
12
threshold question here is whether or not that right
13
exists in the first place.
14
The
If I may, to address the two cases
15
referenced by Mr. King.
The Whiteland Woods versus
16
the Township of West Whiteland was heard by the Third
17
Circuit Court of Appeals.
18
policy of the Township Planning Commission that
19
prohibited video.
20
the Planning Commission was repealed was because the
21
policy conflicted with Pennsylvania's statutory
22
sunshine laws that mandated municipalities conduct
23
open meetings and allow access.
Mr. King refers to the
Well, the reason that policy of
It was an issue of

29
state statute.
Incidentally in 1991, while this case was
pending, that state statute was repealed and has not
been replaced.
Circuit Court of Appeals, the Third Circuit looked at
it and said, "This was a violation of state statutory
law, but it did not rise to the level of a
constitutional violation, because a state statute
does not confer a federal constitutional right."
When the matter went up to the Third
So
10
if a state statute does not confer a federal
11
constitutional right, it's kind of difficult to
12
conceive of how a policy of the Kent County Delaware
13
government could confer constitutional right, but
14
that's the argument Mr. King is
15
Well Federal Courts in NJ and GA

disagree. Pomykacz and Tisdale, supra.
making.And my Amended Complaint adds
Common Law and Statutory.
The second case to which he cited is
16
Cirelli.
It's not Cinelli.
It's Cirelli,
17
C-I-R-E-L-L-I.
18
Mr. King in the motions on the discovery motions
19
here, but he does bring it up in his -- at the
20
dispositive level, but I will just touch on it
21
briefly, if I may.
It's actually not referred to by
22
Cirelli was cited to in Whiteland Woods.
23
that case a -- it was either a school employee or

In
30
teacher, I believe it was, was -- believed that the
conditions of the school was such that the health of
the children was being affected, and she showed up
with a video camera to videotape conditions in the
school during the school day.
administrators told her that she could not do that.
The school
So she brought the suit asserting First
Amendment Right.
And the Court said -- in denying
her claim, the Court said that there is an interest
10
in the government in preventing the disruption of
11
government functions, and they are not required --
12
I'm paraphrasing now -- to give on-demand access.
13
That's as far as Cirelli went.
14
Bullshit. Read the case. She won on First

Amendment grounds.
How Mr. King is reading it for just the
15
opposite proposition that the result of Cirelli was
16
that this teacher could walk into the school any time
17
she wanted to and film, it's not there in the case,
18
Your Honor.
It's simply not there in the case.
No, but she was allowed to film at any time the public was entitled to be there, dammit.
19
That Mr. King has repeatedly asserted that
20
he is entitled to ask these questions of Ms. McKenna,
21
of Ms. Malone, that he is entitled to sit them down
22
and take their deposition, that he's entitled to find
23
out why Ms. McKenna did not call him back, he claims

31
to have that entitlement under the First Amendment of
the Constitution.
not for Mr. King to get that information.
purpose of this litigation is to determine whether or
not, as a matter of law, the First Amendment entitles
him to get that information.
distinction.
8
9
10
It's a clear
I am still entitled to ask her why she didnt answer my question and whether she had any support for
her false campaign allegations against La Mar Gunn.
She does not have to answer that either but I am entitled to ask her, at her office,
with a pend and a pad and/or a camera. So simple.
the motion for protective order be granted, that

discovery not be had, and litigation be stayed.
I don't know if Mr. McGivney has anything to
add.
13
14
MR. McGIVNEY:
15
The
For that reason, Your Honor, we do ask that
11
12
The purpose of this litigation is
Your Honor, again, I will try
to be brief.
16
It's our position that the matter before the
17
Court here today is the discovery issues with the
18
case.
19
the Press issues those are under consideration by
20
Judge Young.
21
tomorrow with Mr. Shannon filing his answering brief
22
and responding to the plaintiff's motion for partial
23
summary judgment.
The First Amendment and Delaware Freedom of
The briefing for those issues closes

32
1
2
THE COURT:
I have a question.
Has the
briefing been completed on the motion to dismiss?
MR. McGIVNEY:
It has, Your Honor.
What we have so far in this case, Your
Honor, as far as discovery goes and the need to stay
the case and to enter a protective order, the
plaintiff initiated this litigation by filing six
discovery requests to my client and to Mr. Shannon's
clients.
Between the dates of May 19th and May 20th,
10
the plaintiff filed eight separate applications for
11
relief with the Court.
12
On May 21st, Judge Young entered an order
13
stating that he would not consider any more of the
14
plaintiff's Thomas Paine motions to uphold our
15
dispositive motions in abeyance.
16
Since that date, the plaintiff has filed ten
17
more applications for relief.
18
The lack of restraint with the filings and the
19
discovery requests and the motion practice, it makes
20
it very clear why this protective order and the
21
motion to stay should be granted.
22
23
That's as of June 4th.
Again, I bring the Court's attention to the

fact that the plaintiff will not be prejudiced if the

33
case is stayed.
If the motions to dismiss are
denied, then the case can move forward.
now, the Court needs to maintain control of the
docket while the motions to dismiss are being
considered.
That's all I have.
THE COURT:
MR. KING:
THE COURT:
10
MR. KING:
As of right
Mr. King.
I'll be brief, Your Honor.
Thank you.
In the first instance with
11
respect to defendant Paradee, we all know that
12
private persons can be found in conspiracy to violate
13
civil rights laws.
14
time.
Okay.
That's 1985.
It happens all the
But Judge Young said just the opposite but we all know he is wrong.
15
But let's get back to the issues of the two
16
cases again, because they want to stay in the merits
17
when they want to stay in the merits and get off when
18
they want to.
19
are very important.
20
But it's very important.
The merits
The Woods case, okay, it didn't rise to a
21
level of constitutional depravation because there was
22
a policy, even if it was for that one meeting.
If
23
you read the Woods case carefully, that's why.
All

34
1
2
right.
Furthermore, Woods was not a reporter.
There was no allegation that he was a reporter
exercising the First Amendment Right of a reporter to
gather and to disseminate news.
distinction of crucial importance.
for the developer.
dealing with the Sunshine Act.
That is a
He was working
He was just a guy there at the -Okay.
Now -- and again speaking of statutory to
10
statutory, remember they still have never addressed
11
the Delaware Free Press issue.
12
talk about that.
13
Legislature didn't just create that out of thin air.
14
It's there.
They don't want to
But it's there for a reason.
The
And they have no response to that.
Same as the First Amendment. But as I say the Amended Complaint adds Common Law and Statutory Claims.
15
Now, Cinelli or Cirelli, that case, Your
16
Honor, I know if you read the pleadings I am not
17
arguing unfettered access.
18
argue for it either.
19
it's reasonable.
20
And Cirelli does not
The gravamen is whether or not
Okay.
And by all intents and purposes, by
21
everything we have in the record, my request was
22
reasonable.
23
know, when can a reporter ask a public official a
I wasn't unruly.
I walked in.

You
35
question at her office in the middle of the day?
I don't have that right, we are all doomed.
If
Now let's talk about the multitude of
pleadings that they are getting at.
One of the
reasons, Your Honor, I had to file more discovery
requests is because they engaged in gamesmanship.
Outright gamesmanship all along.
misspelled -- or I misidentified the building in the
first round, and they turned around and said, "Oh, we
don't know what you're talking about."
So, of
10
course, I had to file an amended revised set of first
11
discovery requests.
12
said, "Okay.
13
building, Mr. King, you know, watch your typos."
14
But, no, they played the game.
15
some of this litigation from the get-go.
16
You know, they could have just
We believe you're referring to this
That's what increased
Then when His Honor said -- oh, there were
17
more applications for relief that I filed.
Well, you
18
know what those are?
19
citizen sent me from Lancaster County where cameras
20
are allowed.
21
pending as well.
22
request for relief seeking to amend my complaint to
23
include equal protection argument.
Those are pictures that a
So we have an equal protection argument

So, yes, I absolutely filed another
I can get it down

36
the street, but I can't get it here.
a rational basis, Your Honor, for a flatout denial
that I received here.
That's not even
And I have to know what the policy is.
If
there is one thing that this Court has to grant me
right now is the right to ask them, "What is your
knowledge of the policy."
That's all.
THE COURT:
Thank you.
I have reviewed all the documents that were
And you can go to Hell, Mr. King

I am protecting my people on the Plantation.
10
filed on these motions and considered the arguments
11
today.
12
simple.
13
issues in play at this particular juncture in this
14
case.
15
been a lot of motion practice.
16
motions to dismiss that have been briefed, and
17
therefore, there is nothing that would be -- no
18
discovery that could be added to that particular
19
motion, those particular motions at this point in
20
time.
21
As I said earlier, I do like to keep things

It seems to me that there are a number of
There has been a lot of discovery.
There's
And there are pending
So it appears to me that the most sensible
22
thing to do would be to stay the discovery pending
23
the outcome of the motion to dismiss at this point in

37
time.
discovery could proceed forward.
we would have to determine whether or not the
questions that have been asked in either side are
relevant or calculated to disclose relevant
information at trial under those standards.
And if that motion is denied, obviously

And at that time,
So for today's purposes, I will grant
defendants' motion to stay discovery.
As far as the
protective order and the merits of that and the
10
merits of Mr. King's motion to compel, I'm not making
11
a ruling on either of those today.
12
stay any discovery until the resolution of the
13
dispositive motion on the motion to dismiss pending
14
before Judge Young.
15
future date, we can do so then.
I'm just going to
If we need to address those at a
16
Thank you.
17
MR. KING:
18
MR. SHANNON:
19
THE COURT:
20
(Whereupon, the proceedings in the above-
21

The Court is in recess.
entitled matter were concluded.)
22
23

38
1
2
C E R T I F I C A T E
3
4
I, CHRISTINE L. QUINN, an Official Court
Reporter of the Superior Court of the State of Delaware,
do hereby certify the above and foregoing pages, 3
through 37, to be a true and accurate transcript
of the proceedings therein indicated on Thursday,
June 11, 2015, as was stenographically reported by me
10
and reduced to computer-aided transcript under my
11
direct supervision, as the same remains of record in
12
the office of the prothonotary in the Kent County
13
Courthouse, Dover, Delaware.
14
15
This certification shall be considered null and void if
16
this transcript is disassembled in any manner by any
17
party without authorization of the signatory below.
18
19
/s/ Christine L. Quinn

CHRISTINE L. QUINN
20
21
July 9, 2015_____________
Date
22
23


KingCast v. McKenna 11 June 2015 Annotated Free Press First Amendment Transcript

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

KingCast v. McKenna 11 June 2015 Annotated Free Press First Amendment Transcript

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

1

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * See Mortgage Movies Journal for the DE AG Advisory

Thursday, June 11, 2015

CHRISTOPHER KING, Pro Se Plaintiff

JOSEPH S. SHANNON, Esquire, appearing on behalf

PETER C. McGIVNEY, Esquire, appearing on behalf

CHRISTINE L. QUINN, RPR

June 11, 2015

The remaining motions all

have to do with the same case.

versus McKenna, et al.

the three motions that are on that it makes sense to

address the motion for the stay of the proceedings

out of the courtroom.

Your Honor, Scott Shannon on

Stay of discovery, I guess.

Mr. King was here.

We will find out where he is.

We need to wait for him to get

I think after my review of

That would be King

Good afternoon, Your Honor.

you weren't in the courtroom when I made my initial

CHRISTINE L. QUINN, RPR

remarks; so I will repeat them.

I have reviewed the three motions that are

pending in this matter, and it appears to me that it

would make the most sense to start with the motion --

I guess it would be the joint protective order.

it also a motion to stay the discovery?

First of all, why not start with my Motion to

That is the relief that we are

discovery sought not be had, and as part of that,

that this litigation be stayed pending Judge Young's

consideration and disposition of the pending

The one being an order that the

Well, my review of everything

leads me to conclude that we should address that

If I may, Your Honor, as a

preliminary matter of housekeeping, I had filed a

notice of media coverage, and in that notice, I cited

to the second revision of Administrative Directive

recently on the 29th day of November, 2005.

That was updated several times and most

CHRISTINE L. QUINN, RPR

Mr. King, also as a preliminary

matter, I understand that you filed a notice of that,

but unfortunately, there is no motion that was

that was an issue until I was walking out the door to

been brought to my attention.

So I was completely unaware that

So it's not something that has

I can tell you that I have been doing this

never once, at any point in time, allowed any

recording of any procedure in the court.

that by the directives of the court for the Superior

Court policies that there are no video recording

So at this point in time, I'm not going to

allow any recordings because, based upon my

experience, that is not allowed.

I had to look it up, I do know that the Superior

Court rules forbid videotaping, television