IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY

CHRISTOPHER KING, d/b/a KingCast/Mortgage Movies,

) CASE NO. K15C-03-028

Plaintiff,
v.

) JUDGE YOUNG

BETTY LOU MCKENNA, HOLLY MALONE

and JOHN PARADEE, ESQ.

Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS REINSTATEMENT OF JURY TRIAL

AND RETENDER OF FEES and DEMAND FOR DUE PROCESS
TO BE HEARD ON THE MERITS
I.

The August 5 2015 Payment of Trial Fees for a Trial Scheduled

November 14, 2015 Should Not Result in a Draconian Bar to
Filing Further Memoranda in this Case.
Plaintiff hereby retenders the $150 Trial Fee along with a copy of all

documents heretofore rejected by this Court 1: Plaintiff paid his Trial Fee on or
about 5 August, 2015. Prior to that time, he never received any notice from
Judge Robert B. Young that the Trial Fee must be paid on or before 23 July
2015. In point of fact, that Court never took adverse action until a full week
later, and only after Plaintiff filed his Waiver of Jury Trial, noting that he feels
particularly unsafe in Delaware given the five (5) mysterious lynching
deaths/murders of black males that AG Denn claims were suicides.
Appendix A.
Meanwhile after mentioning these lynchings in a global email to supporters,
State employees, First Amendment attorneys and several high-powered area
attorneys Plaintiff received an email from Detective Hill in which he declined

1 Plaintiffs Notice of Jury Fee and Motion for Jury View (accepted 5 August

2015), Plaintiffs Waiver of Jury Trial, Plaintiffs Memorandum in Opposition to

Judgment on the Pleadings and Plaintiffs Memorandum in Support of Rule 59
Modification, Alteration, Adaption, Revamp or Refashion of the Courts 29 June
2015 Opinion, Plaintiffs Rule 60 Reply and Plaintiff Amended Memorandum in
Opposition to Summary Judgment.

to provide safety for Plaintiff if he came to the Forum State whilst

simultaneously threatening Plaintiff that he could be subject to prosecution
for the content of the emails that was alarming. Plaintiff, with notice, taped
the entire conversation and put it out for the World to hear on 6 August,
2015.
First Amendment Lawsuits Show Markell, AG Biden, AG Denn Coverup of Black Lynchings

http://mortgagemovies.blogspot.com/2015/08/caught-on-tape-kingcast-andmortgage.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QibeMFiaxgM

Only AFTER production of this video did the Court determine that
Plaintiffs filings were untimely and to be rejected. These filings mentioned
the lynchings, the lies by Judge Young about a major case (Iacobucci) and the
fundamental flaw of logic by the Court and Defendants in that they used
public meeting law to strike Plaintiffs Constitutional claims, now turn around
and claim that Tisdale is completely irrelevant because it is based on public

meeting law. Its complete nonsense. Here is the substance of what Plaintiff
stated, and it is all rock solid:
The point is, Defendants and the Court cannot have it both
ways: They claim that Tisdale is not relevant at para 6 of their
Memorandum because it involves a public meeting. But If public body/public
meeting analyses are inapplicable now, then they were inapplicable in the
first place -- and theres yet another compelling reason for the Supreme Court
of the United States to give this case a prompt Remand in the name of
Justice. Gotcha.
So now Defendants claim that public meeting analysis is not relevant
to Plaintiffs claims well then dang it that right there provides proof that the
Courts underlying rationale. Is wrong. Recall that the Court specifically
cited to Whiteland woods as particularly helpful and instructive.
Well come to find out that Plaintiff said this was not a public meeting
case, ab initio, while the Court was busy giving him the bums rush earlier: It
is the Pomykacz, Cirelli, Iacobucci and Glik cases and their progeny, including
Third Circuits Montgomery v. Killingsworth, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
7152 (January 22, 2015) that are most germane because they all involve
journalists filming public officials in and out of their offices.
Theres the a-ha moment of this entire case and Defendants offered it
up on a platter. That having been said, Plaintiff maintains his public
body/public meeting arguments in the alternative and points to the 11 th
Circuit Tisdale v. Gravitt, 51 F. Supp. 3d 1378 (N.D. Georgia 2014) case to
show that current Courts disagree with the ancient Whiteland Woods case.
Next, at para 8 they try to dismiss Peloquin, Tarus and Iacobucci by
stating that the Court already analyzed them in the prior order, but alas that
analysis was fundamentally wrong as proved by the newly-discovered Third
Circuit First Amendment 2015 cases :
Next, the Courts Patent Misrepresentation (read: lie) -- about
Iacobucci v.
Boulter, 1997 U.S. Dist. Lexis 7010, No. CIV.A. 94-10531 (D.Mass,
Mar. 26, 1997) is startling. Iacobucci specifically found that an
independent reporter has a protected right under the First

Amendment and state law to videotape public meetings and the

events that occurred in the hallways of a public building.
But read p17 FN 47 of the courts Opinion where Judge Young tries to
limit the holding to Fourth Amendment Grounds he writes:
(holding rested upon whether Officer had probable cause to arrest
video reporter for recording public event, implicating the Fourth
Amendment)
.. the problem is, one does not get to the Fourth without the First, as
noted by the Iacobucci Court, again, so simple as other courts concur: From
Iacobucci (cited in Glik, infra).
In the next decade, the SJC narrowed this definition of disorderly
conduct to encompass only activities not implicating the lawful
exercise of a First Amendment right. .
and
Boulter's repeated demands that Iacobucci cease recording do not
change the disorderly conduct calculus. A police officer is not a law
unto himself; he cannot give an order that has no colorable legal basis
and then arrest a person who defies it. So it is here: because
Iacobucci's activities were peaceful, not performed in derogation of any
law, and done in the exercise of his First Amendment rights
(emphasis added lest the Court and Defendants miss it again)
Boulter lacked the authority to stop them. Id at 678.
(emphasis added to protect against the sort of intellectual disingenuity
that has plagued this case, as noted in the following video on Plaintiffs
YouTube channel, which is approaching 2,500 subscribers and 2M
views.
And quite frankly, for the coup de gras, the Third Circuit Federal Judges
who outrank Judge Young understand it as well so Judge Young should
recognize that it cited Iacobucci and Glik just this year prior to Plaintiff filing
suit. The fact of the matter is, if a citizen in the Third Circuit is entitled to
politely criticize a police officer during the prosecution of his or her duties,
then Plaintiff had dang well better be permitted to ask a couple of polite
questions at the County Recorders Office. See Montgomery v.
Killingsworth, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7152 (January 22, 2015).
In Iacobucci v. Boulter, the First Circuit concluded that the plaintiff,
Iacobucci, had a First Amendment right to film local government
officials who were conducting public business in a public building. 193

F.3d 14, 25 (1st Cir. 1999). Iacobucci was arrested after he refused to
stop filming several town commissioners while they were discussing
the possible approval of an applicant's building permit. Id. at 18.
Charged with disorderly conduct and disrupting a public assembly,
Iacobucci spent four hours in custody, though the charges were later
dismissed. Id. Iacobucci initiated a 1983 suit in which he claimed
false arrest and excessive force. Id. After losing in the trial court, the
arresting officer appealed, contending he was entitled to qualified
immunity on those claims. Id. at 21-22. Rejecting that argument, the
First Circuit held that Iacobucci's "right to act as he did without being
arrested for disorderly conduct" was clearly established at the time of
his arrest. Id. at 24. In so holding, the First Circuit found that
"Iacobucci's activities were peaceful, not performed in derogation of
any law, and done in the exercise of hisFirst Amendment rights." Id. at
25.
Peaceful criticism of a police officer performing his duties in a public
place is a protected activity under the First Amendment. As the Court
established in City of Houston, Texas v. Hill, "the First
Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and
challenge directed at police officers." 482 U.S. 451, 461, 107 S. Ct.
2502, 96 L. Ed. 2d 398 (1987). This type of speech is necessary to
protect and preserve because "[t]he freedom of individuals verbally to
oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one
of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation
from a police state." Id. at 462-63.

Accord Gaymon v. Borough of Collingdale, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93014 (July
17, 2015).
In contrast, qualified immunity was rejected for the remaining First
Amendment claim because "peaceful criticism of a police officer that
neither obstructs an investigation nor jeopardizes a police officer's
safety has strong social value, serving as a valuable check on state
power, and is therefore protected under the First
Amendment." Killingsworth, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7152, 2015
WL 289934, at *8 (citing Gentile v. State Bar of Nev., 501 U.S. 1030,
1034, 111 S. Ct. 2720, 115 L. Ed. 2d 888 (1991) ("There is no question
that speech critical of the exercise of the State's power lies at the very
center of the First Amendment.").7
***********
II.

Judge Youngs Unlawful Bias:

He Assumed Facts Not in the

Record.
First of all it is pretty obvious as noted on prior occasion that Judge
Young ignored all of Plaintiffs professional accomplishments and even the
description as set forth on the Pleadings to malign Plaintiff as a guerrilla
journalist. But thats not in the Record. What is in the Record, is this:
THE PARTIES
2. Plaintiff is a former daily news reporter and escrow attorney
who has closed several dozen commercial real estate
purchases and refinances. He has successfully tried several
First Amendment Jury Trials and has operated several
politically and legally-charged online journals over the past
decade, most notably Chris Kings First Amendment Page and
Mortgage Movies Journal.
That is what Plaintiff holds himself out to be as noted in the Complaint
and thats all the Court claimed to be reviewing, so the pejorative guerrilla
nomenclature is reflective of the short shrift that this Plaintiff ultimately
received from the Court. Further, Plaintiff did provide the Court with excerpts
and materials from his website and such description comports with the
information on his website -- which was not once mentioned by the Court.
The Mortgage Movies Journal description has read this way for several years
now:

Mortgage Movies Journal

Christopher King has worked in residential and corporate
real estate in various capacities for the past fifteen
years, clearing title, filing zoning applications and
reviewing wireless tower contracts. He and his
associates are now teaming to provide video coverage
of America's imploding Mortgage market. All images
video and text subject to copyright.
Mortgage Movies Journal
Christopher King has worked in residential and corporate real estate
in various capacities for the past fifteen years, clearing title, filing
zoning applications and reviewing wireless tower contracts. He and
his associates are now teaming to provide video coverage of
America's imploding Mortgage market. All images video and text
subject to copyright.
So in the first instance, Plaintiff is not a guerilla; he is a professional
journalist as well as a mortgage industry professional who has made
hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars for the banking/mortgage
industry.
But going into the substance, there is more. Much more. As dictated
by several cases set forth below some of which were ignored or
misrepresented in the dismissal of Plaintiffs Original Complaint (i.e.
Pomykacz, Iacobucci and Glik) -- there is simply no plausible way that this
case can be decided on the Pleadings. This time around if the Court and
Defendants actually respond to what Plaintiff wrote, we may be able to create
a record that is actually usable by a reviewing Court. Let us commence then,
in light of the below drawing evincing the fact that Plaintiffs attempted
conduct in no ways threatened employee privacy or the function of the office:

That is because the only items downstairs in the public area is a public
foyer, a guard desk, a service desk at which Defendant Malone stood alone,
and a public hallway leading to the back room where several public kiosks are
situated. As such, if the Court is at all interested in Truth and Justice, it would
stop hiding behind facts not alluded to in the Pleadings. To wit: Plaintiff was
not seeking access to Interior offices or to film employees of the Recorder
of Deeds in their cubicles. SEE Plaintiffs drawing on page 8.
The Review of Plaintiffs initial and Amended Complaint will reveal that
Plaintiff never sought nor implied such access. (29 June Opinion pp. 14-15, Fn
42). The Court assumed facts not in the Record in order to help
Defendants squash this case, and Plaintiff is most certainly entitled
to point that out to this Court and to the Reviewing Courts.
At this point then it is incumbent of Defendants to use photographs,
video or blueprints to disprove Plaintiff on this point. That is how the burdens
of persuasion and proof work, the last time Plaintiff checked when he was
busy winning First Amendment trials and changing First Amendment Law and
receiving Mayoral Commendations in Senator Kelly Ayottes home state of
New Hampshire, where he routinely photographs Ayottes Office, which is not
a public body or public meeting either. See Appendices B and C and a
picture of Plaintiff in the office of the elected official, just like Betty Lou
McKenna except with a lot more power, prestige, pomp and circumstance! 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rl4tS0W7RcQ

2 For the Record, Plaintiff reminds Defendants and the Court as to how Defendants
raised Kelly Ayotte in Defense until he published these video captures. Yep. The
Worlds biggest backpedal.

III.

Conclusion.
Plaintiffs filings must be accepted, and this unlawful pattern trails back

to the Court twice returning the Offer of Proof previously submitted, showing
Plaintiffs true modus operandi when shooting video in a County Recorders
Office, which is NOT to go into private areas and such. There is a whole New
World beyond Delaware, whether Judge Young and the Defendants appreciate
it or not. And it is Plaintiffs Job to expose it, which he will be doing with
alacrity in the coming days, months and years. And in Sum, Thomas Paine is
still rolling in his grave, abated ever so slightly with the promise that Plaintiff
will stir some Common Sense into the Delaware Way.

Respectfully Submitted,
_____________________________________________
CHRISTOPHER KING, J.D.
kingcast955@icloud.com
mortgagemovies007@gmail.com
http://affordablevideodepo.com
http://mortgagemovies.blogspot.com
617.543.8085m
206.299.9333f

10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, swear that a true and accurate Courtesy copy of
this document was sent via email and via Tracked U.S. Mail to:
Joseph Scott Shannon, Esq.
Art C. Arnilla, Esq.
1220 North Market Street
5th Floor
P.O. Box 8888
Wilmington, DE 19899-8888
and to:
John A. Elzufon, Esq.
Peter McGivney, Esq.
300 Delaware Avenue,
Suite 1700
P.O. Box 1630
Wilmington, DE 19899
This 17th Day of August, 2015
________________________________
CHRISTOPHER KING, J.D.

11

APPENDIX A

12

13

APPENDIX B

14

15

16

17

18

APPENDIX C
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rl4tS0W7RcQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLS0N_hH-cc
Here one of her constituents said that Ayotte Is pleasant and sweet and full

of shit.

19

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXlHu2002Vc

APPENDIX D

20

21