AT MY TRIAL PRACTICE WEBSITE . . . "You're Going to Use a Document in a Deposition? Be Sure to Read It First."
May 31, 2006 | Permalink
I would agree with all of those things and provide you the following case in point analysis, involving a criminal trial set for 12 June 2006, final pretrial tomorrow, 1 June 2006:
The State of NH obtained a continuance to obtain a copy of a Deposition that I took of Chief Dunn in a Civil Case last year, allegedly because I made incriminating statements about myself. The state actually tried to make me pay for a copy of it and provide it at my own criminal trial, but the Judge correctly ruled that the state had to obtain a copy.
So it did, now it refuses to file a copy with the Court or to provide one to my attorneys who have been working their butts off, largely pro bono for the past 12 months in an "attempted felony extortion" case stemming from me writing a Demand Letter to the Jaffrey NH police Chief Martin Dunn as legal director of Southern-Tier NH NAACP in 2004.
The depo. is nasty, with Chief Dunn and attorney Charlie Bauer acting like white men of privilege -- which they are -- actually laughing at a hate mail letter I got talking about the possibility of me getting my ass reamed in prison. I noted it on the record. There is much more that I won't go into in this space, but suffice it to say, if a Jury heard it or read it my criminal case would be over in 3 seconds flat and more people would be calling for Chief Dunn's resignation -- they've already tried to pay him to go away twice. Documented fact, folks:
In the underlying case, a black kid faced 3 drawn undercover guns and a visual body cavity search and was charged with "loitering," which he beat. No drugs or illegal weapons were found, and his white roomie, who told the police at the time that the two of them were waiting for his girlfriend to leave work, and who also lacked identification, was not hassled. I sent a Demand Letter for $65K to start off negotiations, which NAACP bylaws specifically authorize pre-suit negotiations. Little did I know at the time -- being untrained for the next 2 months -- that authority had to come from the CEO, but that does not a criminal make.
NAACP area President Timmons admits I violated no known bylaw and admits nor did I represent myself as currently-licensed attorney in the letter to Chief Dunn....
....using only "J.D." on the letterhead -- a subject of substantial discussion on this very board on prior occasion, 22 June 2005 to be specific:
Given that backdrop, here is a key issue to consider at pretrial. I propose the following syllogism, not bad for such an allegedly incompetent lawyer:
i. The State -- obviously based on representations by Chief Dunn -- believed that I made incriminating statements at his Deposition.
ii. The State is required to produce a copy of any statements issued by me that it intends to use against me at trial, as well as any excuplatory evidence, per Rule 98.
iii. Therefore the Deposition does not contain any incriminating statements and the entire Deposition is exculpatory because it shows Chief Dunn to be a goddamn liar -- which I have said all along.
In other fun news, my nemesis American Tower Corp., now is "plagued" by a damn Department of Justice securities fraud subpoena.
They fired me and two other law-degree-holding worker bees for complaining about corporate abuse.
Meanwhile, we are editing a new film that will show how the civil court acted toward me in wrongfully dismissing my Defamation case because I couldn't afford the Deposition, as well as an update on the school board situation in Columbus, Ohio -- where concerned parents have commissioned KingCast.net to document the fact that a known felon has attacked two children on school grounds, with a U.S. Marine and dozens of others ready to testify, but he has not been arrested nor issued a "no trespass" letter. Those who complain about Columbus Public Schools, it seems do receive no trespass letters. Nice.
christopher king |
May 31, 2006 at 08:40 AM
Sorry. Forgot the Good Part:
The civil court threw out my case against BOTH Defendants because I was unable to pay for the same Depo. transcript.
But why was that an issue:
Because Dunn's lawyer filed a motion to compel production of it.
And what was his rationale?
That the Depo. contained information damaging to me. Now we see that it doesn't -- or if it does, that whatever I said that was damaging is substantially outweighed by the antics of Dunn and his counsel. Thereby impeaching his credibility. Thereby making it exculpatory. Duh.
Anyway, in the Civil Case, apparently my right as a litigant to select which Depositions I choose to use is of no moment, huh? I see some Procedural and Substantive Due Process issues there, not to mention the fact that no evidentiary hearing was held on my inability to pay for the transcript vis a vis indigency.
New Hampshire: Live, Freeze and Die, negro.
christopher king |
May 31, 2006 at 11:00 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.