KingCast v. Betty Lou McKenna Lawsuit Ints RFPs Admissions

IN THE KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURTSEATTLE, WASHINGTON

CHRISTOPHER KING, J.D. )A/K/A KINGCAST/MORTGAGE MOVIES17022 11TH Avenue ) CASE NO. _______________________Shoreline, WA 98155,

Plaintiff,

v. ) JUDGE __________________________

BETTY LOU MCKENNA,KENT COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDSIN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES )andHOLLY MALONEDEPUTY KENT COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS )555 Bay RoadDover, Delaware 19901andJOHN W. PARADEE, ESQ. )C/O PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A.1310 North King StreetWilmington, DE 19801 )

COMPLAINT

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This is a Court of General Jurisdiction vested with Authority to hear all Claims

asserted herein. Venue is appropriate as Plaintiff resides and is domiciled within

King County, where he routinely films Courtroom Hearings pursuant to his

Mortgage Movies Journal page.

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 King’s First Amendment Page and Mortgage Movies Journal.

1

3. Defendant Betty Lou McKenna was at all relevant times, and is the putative Kent

County Recorder of Deeds pending the ballot recount ordered on 23 December,

2014 extant to La Mar Gunn’s successful Petition Challenge to the Kent County

Recorder of Deeds Election.1 She is being sued in her Official and Individual

Capacities.

4. Defendant Holly Malone was and is at all relevant times, the Deputy Director of

Deeds to Defendant Betty Lou McKenna. She is being sued in her Official and

Individual Capacities.

5. Defendant John Paradee, Esq. is an area attorney and Partner at Prickett, Jones &

Elliott. He is not a State Actor but did consult and advise Defendant McKenna on

matters relative to the election and to First Amendment, Free Press conduct of

Plaintiff. He stated in a 30 December 2014 email to Plaintiff that he thinks this

whole thing makes him laugh.

FACTS

6. In early November, 2014 Plaintiff telephoned Defendants KcKenna and Paradee

specifically seeking interviews and commentary regarding potentially

Defamatory commentary that Defendants had circulated about La Mar Gunn, i.e.

claiming that he had unlawfully pedaled absentee ballots to an elder (Romaine

Whitcomb), and that he unlawfully personally conducted voter registration

drives at a local college. The phone calls made to Defendants’ voicemails are

preserved at the following YouTube link “La Mar Gunn Kent County Recorder

Election Challenge” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sphjqHQuNTA.

7. The absentee issue appears below as presented on the 8 November 20014

Journal Entry, “KingCast and Mortgage Movies Frown as La Mar Gunn gets his

Kent County Recorder of Deeds Election Victory stolen.”

1 The Court has ordered that the Department of Elections, rather than the Board of Canvass, conduct a recount. The Court specifically eschewed Defendant McKenna’s argument that the Court could not conduct inquiry into any malfeasance that may have occurred during the Board of Canvass recount because that recount occurred two days post hoc, whereas her limited reading construes “holding of an election” to mean “the same day of the election.” Ridiculous. The purported result on 29 Dec. 2014 was “a tie.” I wrote to Governor Markell in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92cEwptyHnI

2

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92cEwptyHnI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92cEwptyHnI

8. When neither Defendant returned a telephone call or sent an email, Plaintiff left

the comforts of his North Seattle residence and journeyed cameras in hand to

555 Bay Road, whereupon he was met with stern rebuke by Defendant Malone

on or about 25 November, 2014. Malone told him that he could not run any

video or recording equipment in the building pursuant to written policy.

3

9. Malone made two phone calls, ostensibly to Defendants McKenna and Paradee.

10. The purpose of these phone calls was to further the conspiracy to deprive

Plaintiff of the Rightful exercise of his State and Federally-Protected First

Amendment and Free Press Rights.

11. The Conspiracy was an agreement between the two State actors and their

Counsel (Paradee) to prevent Plaintiff from gleaning any information or video

that could prove harmful to Defendant McKenna, to the extent that they could.

12. After said phone calls she maintained her position with substantially increased

vigor, telling other employees that there is a policy prohibiting Plaintiff and

other similarly-situated reporters and members of the public from running

video or audio.

13. As witnessed by two other witnesses, Malone forbade Plaintiff from running

video in any portion of the building under threat of arrest.

14. On April 5, 2004, the Delaware Supreme Court issued its Administrative

Directive No. 155, which established a six-month trial court experiment, which

was originally scheduled to end on October 15, 2004. In this experiment, media

coverage was permitted in the Sussex Court of Chancery, and courtrooms in

New Castle, Kent and Sussex Counties. Broadcast of non-confidential, non-jury,

civil proceedings was permitted. Administrative Directive No. 155 was amended

on October 25, 2004, and the experiment was extended until May 16, 2005. On

November 29, 2005, Administrative Directive No. 155 was again amended, this

time extending the experimental period indefinitely.

15. Plaintiff was compelled to leave without that which he came to get, i.e. video

inside of the building, including a requested interview with Defendant Malone in

lieu of the other Defendants.

16. All Defendants, particularly Defendant Paradee knew that there was no written

policy of any kind that would forbid any video collection yet they colluded to

give Plaintiff and other staff the impression that there was.

17. All Defendants, particularly Defendant Paradee knew that there was no

unwritten policy of any kind that would forbid any video collection yet they

colluded to give Plaintiff and other staff the impression that there was.

4

18. Ultimately, however, and contrary to the misinformed musings of Betty Lou

McKenna's Deputy Recorder, it turns out there is no policy, written or

unwritten, of banning cameras in the Kent County Recorder of Deeds

building.

19. A letter from attorney Mary E. Sherlock is pure evidence of Plaintiff’s assertion

as noted in bold italic, above (Exhibit 1).

20. Further, in the event there was an unwritten policy, said policy would again

violate the First Amendment to the United States and Delaware Constitutions.

21. The aforementioned conduct of the Defendants, jointly and severally,

foreseeably and proximately caused Plaintiff substantial emotional hardship and

consternation, such injury continuing into the foreseeable future.

THE LETTER

5

CLAIMS

I. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

Clearly in this instance the actions of all Defendants, jointly and severally, with

several Defendants acting under Color of Law, and with a duty to protect the media from

insidious attacks against the First Amendment, shocks the conscience of any reasonable

person and violates the letter and spirit of the Law.

II. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS


several Defendants acting under Color of Law, and shocks the conscience of any reasonable

person and violates the letter and spirit of the Law.

III. VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AS PER 42 U.S.C. §1983

Amendment ICongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


several Defendants acting under Color of Law, violates the letter and spirit of the Law.

IV. VIOLATION OF DELAWARE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, ARTICLE 1 SEC. 5 AS PER 42

U.S.C. §1983

§5. Freedom of press; evidence in libel prosecutions; jury questions.Section 5. The press shall be free to every citizen who undertakes to examine the official conduct of men acting in a public capacity; and any citizen may print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. In prosecutions for publications, investigating the proceedings of officers, or where the matter published is proper for public information, the truth thereof may be given in evidence; and in all indictments for libels the jury may determine the facts and the law, as in other cases.


several Defendants acting under Color of Law, violates the letter and spirit of the Law.

6

DEMANDS

1. Immediate Declaratory Judgment.

2. Temporary Injunctive Relief against further or repeated transgressions.

3. Permanent Injunctive Relief against further or repeated transgressions.

4. Compensatory Damages in Excess of $25,000.00.

5. Punitive Damages in an amount to be determined by Jury.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands that this Cause be heard by a duly-empaneled Jury of

appropriate size and composition.

________________________Christopher King, J.D.A/K/A KingCast/Mortgage Movies

VERIFICATION

Plaintiff solemnly swears that all factual representations herein are accurate and

true to the best of his recollection and issued with absolute Good Faith.

DATE: _______________________________________

________________________________________________Christopher King, J.D.A/K/A KingCast/Mortgage Movies

_________________________________________________NOTARY

MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: _________________________________________

7



Plaintiff,

v. ) JUDGE __________________________


PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF RULE 26 DISCOVERY REQUESTS

INTERROGATORIES

1. State why Defendant Malone told Plaintiff he could not run video in the 555 Bay Road building otherwise known as the Kent County Register of Deeds.

2. State who told Defendant Malone that Plaintiff he could not run video in the 555 Bay Road building otherwise known as the Kent County Register of Deeds.

3. State who told Defendant Malone that video was impermissible in the 555 Bay Road building otherwise known as the Kent County Register of Deeds.

4. State who told Defendant Malone, prior to 1 November, 2014 that video was impermissible in the 555 Bay Road building otherwise known as the Kent County Register of Deeds.

8

5. State whether John Paradee told any Defendant or any employee at in the 555 Bay Road building otherwise known as the Kent County Register of Deeds that video was impermissible in said building.

a) If the answer to the foregoing is in the affirmative state to whom the communication was made, the manner of the communication and approximate date and time of the communication.

6. State what authority that any Defendant has had, at any point in time up to 27 November 2014 that indicates that video was verboten in the 555 Bay Road building otherwise known as the Kent County Register of Deeds that video was impermissible in said building.

7. State who made the initial, any subsequent and final Decision(s) that Plaintiff could not run video in the 555 Bay Road building otherwise known as the Kent County Register of Deeds.

8. State whether Plaintiff would have been permitted to run video had he worked for a major news network, i.e. CNN.

9. State why Defendant McKenna did not respond to the early November, 2014 telephone calls made by Plaintiff.

10. State why Defendant Paradee did not respond to the early November, 2014 telephone calls made by Plaintiff.

11. State who pays Defendant Paradee’s fees in conjunction with his representation of Defendant McKenna.

12. Provide case captions for any Civil Action against any Defendant since 1994.

9

The preceding interrogatories are pattern interrogatories, which the undersigned certifies are in compliance with King County Local Rule 33. In accordance with Washington Superior Court Rules 26 and 33, please answer each of the following interrogatories separately, fully, in writing and under oath. Each answer must be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to you permits after reasonable inquiry, including the information possessed by your attorneys or agents. If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, answer it to the extent possible.

The answers are to be signed by the person to whom they are addressed and must be served on all parties within thirty (30) days after the service of the interrogatories unless these interrogatories were served upon you along with the service of the summons and complaint in which case the answers must be served within forty (40) days.

Respectfully submitted,

_____________________________________________CHRISTOPHER KING, [email protected]@gmail.comhttp://affordablevideodepo.comhttp://mortgagemovies.blogspot.com617.543.8085m206.299.9333f

10

http://[email protected]/

http://affordablevideodepo.com/

mailto:[email protected]




Plaintiff,

v. ) JUDGE __________________________


PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF RULE 26 DISCOVERY REQUESTSREQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

1. Provide a copy of any and all documents that any Defendant relied on in telling Plaintiff that he could not roll video in the 555 Bay Road building otherwise known as the Kent County Register of Deeds.

2. Provide a copy of any and all documents that any Defendant provided to Plaintiff at any point in time from 1 October 2014 to 27 December, 2014.

3. Provide copies of any and all checks, vouchers or other documentation that shows payments made to Defendant Paradee were made in conjunction with his representation of Defendant McKenna.

4. Provide copies of any and all checks, vouchers or other documentation that shows payments made to Attorney Mary E. Sherlock relative to her evaluation of Plaintiff’s FOIA/Title 29 Public Records Request in which she noted that there “is no written policy.”

5. Provide any documents that purport to prove that La Mar Gunn engaged in any illegal, amoral, immoral or other malum prohibitum during the campaign for County Recorder of Deeds, and by that I mean, not inclusively, any improper voter registration drives, any improper courting of absentee votes by elders, or anything else.

11

Respectfully submitted,

_____________________________________________CHRISTOPHER KING, [email protected]@gmail.comhttp://affordablevideodepo.comhttp://mortgagemovies.blogspot.com617.543.8085m206.299.9333f

12







Plaintiff,

v. ) JUDGE __________________________


PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF RULE 36 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS

Plaintiff requests that you admit to the following facts pursuant. If you deny any one of the following, you are to state with particularity the basis for said denial and to attach to your denial supporting documentation. You are required to fully respond to these Requests no later than thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of these interrogatories, to the undersigned . The Instructions and Definitions found in Complainant’s Interrogatories apply here.

1. Admit that Defendant Holly Malone telephoned Defendant Paradee while Plaintiff stood in the lobby area with his cameras.

2. Admit that Defendant Holly Malone telephoned Defendant McKenna while Plaintiff stood in the lobby area with his cameras.

3. Admit that Defendant Paradee made the Decision to tell Holly Malone that Plaintiff was not entitled to roll video in the 555 Bay Road building otherwise known as the Kent County Register of Deeds.

4. Admit that Defendant McKenna made the Decision to tell Holly Malone that Plaintiff was not entitled to roll video in the 555 Bay Road building otherwise known as the Kent County Register of Deeds.

13

5. Admit that Defendant McKenna’s campaign claimed that La Mar Gunn engaged in an improper voter registration drive.

6. Admit that Defendant McKenna’s campaign claimed that La Mar Gunn improperly courted absentee votes by elders, specifically that he had an absentee ballot in his hand in this photograph:

7. Admit that no Defendant has any proof that La Mar Gunn engaged in any improper voter registration drives.

8. Admit that no Defendant has any proof that La Mar Gunn engaged in any improper conduct with regard to absentee ballots.

Respectfully submitted,_____________________________________________CHRISTOPHER KING, [email protected]@gmail.comhttp://affordablevideodepo.comhttp://mortgagemovies.blogspot.com617.543.8085m206.299.9333f

14





KingCast v. Betty Lou McKenna Lawsuit Ints RFPs Admissions

Documents

Transcript of KingCast v. Betty Lou McKenna Lawsuit Ints RFPs Admissions