Sunteți pe pagina 1din 23

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT

KENT COUNTY DELAWARE


CHRISTOPHER KING, J.D.
A/K/A KINGCAST/MORTGAGE MOVIES
17022 11TH Avenue
_______________________
Shoreline, WA 98155,
Plaintiff,

v.
__________________________

) JUDGE

) CASE NO.

BETTY LOU MCKENNA,


KENT COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS
IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES
and
HOLLY MALONE
DEPUTY KENT COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS )
555 Bay Road
Dover, Delaware 19901
and
JOHN W. PARADEE, ESQ.
)
C/O PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A.
1310 North King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
And
UNKNOWN STATE AGENTS

)
)

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT1


JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.

This is a Court of General Jurisdiction vested with Authority to hear


all Claims asserted herein. Venue is appropriate as Defendants
work, reside and are domiciled in or near Kent County, which is

2.

where the unlawful conduct occurred.


THE PARTIES
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
Trial and has operated several politically and legally-charged online

1 All Defendants Counsel have graciously agreed to accept Service by tracked U.S.
Mail on behalf of their clients, thereby negating the Summons, Money Order to Sheriff
and Service copy requirements previously set forth by the Court in a 10 July 2015
letter to Plaintiff.

journals over the past decade, most notably Chris Kings First
3.

Amendment Page and Mortgage Movies Journal.


He has millions of website and movie hits, thousands of followers
and his work has appeared in alternative and major press. He does
not fancy himself so much a guerrilla as much as a trained

4.

journalist with a background as an attorney.


Plaintiff has shot and edited video inside Courtrooms, Registries of
Deeds and various public hallways and offices of public buildings in
at least six different states, for example in King County Registry of
Deeds, with U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte as an elected official in New
Hampshire, and Mary Beth Heffernan, former Massachusetts Public
Safety Director who is now a District Court Judge.
His intentions in this case were consistent with said prior efforts in
this regard.

Massachusetts Department of Public Safety


2011

King County Recorders Office 2014

(as offered in Summary Judgment but rejected by court).

Massachusetts AG Office 2011


On Joanna Marinova case

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rl4tS0W7RcQ
At Senator Kelly Ayottes Washington, DC Office 2010

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.
At Kelly Ayotte rally near the White Mountains 2010

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXlHu2002Vc
Face-to-face interview with Senator Ayotte in Nashua, New
Hampshire.
5.

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 Gunns successful
Petition Challenge to the Kent County Recorder of Deeds Election. 2
She is being sued in her Official and Individual Capacities.

6.

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.

7.

Defendant John Paradee, Esq. is an area attorney and Partner at


Prickett, Jones & Elliott. Baird, Mandalas et al. He is not a State
Actor but did consult and advise Defendant McKenna on

2 The Court ordered that the Department of Elections, rather than the Board of
Canvass, conduct a recount. The Court specifically eschewed Defendant McKennas
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.

matters relative to the election and to First Amendment,


Free Press (and Common Law) conduct of Plaintiff.3

8.

FACTS
In early November, 2014 Plaintiff telephoned Defendants KcKenna
and Paradee specifically seeking interview 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 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.
http://mortgagemovies.blogspot.com/2014/11/kingcast-andmortgage-movies-frown-as.html

3 Plaintiff has placed this crucial phrase in bold italics as the Court quoted only the
first part of para 5 at p.8 of an adverse ruling issued on or about 29 June, 2015. That
made it seem as if Plaintiff didnt know what he was talking about, but he most
assuredly does know what he is talking about.

9.

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

10.

policy.
Plaintiffs conduct would not have hindered, and did not hinder the
daily business functions of the Recorder of Deeds and he did not
seek to be in any rooms other than rooms in which the general

11.

public is allowed when the building is open.


There were no complaints or incident reports issued relative to
Plaintiffs conduct as a professional or as a purported guerrilla

12.

journalist.
Defendant Paradee finds all of these First Amendment and video

13.

access humorous. He wrote to Plaintiff that he makes [him] laugh.


Defendant Paradees position is antithetical to the position of the
State Attorney General Advisory Opinion of 1 April, 2011 Right of

14.

Public to Record Open Meetings of Public Bodies.


Further, Defendant Paradees position is antithetical to his recent
position in Ridgewood Manor II, Inc. v. Del. Manufactured Home

Rel..., 2014 Del. Ch. LEXIS 273 (2014) because Del. Code Ann. tit.
29, 10001 provides that it is vital in a democratic society that
public business be performed in an open and public manner so that
the citizens shall have the opportunity to observe the performance
of public officials and to monitor the decisions that are made by
15.

such officials.
Malone made two phone calls, to the unknown Defendants, who
helped facilitate the conspiratorial plan to deny Plaintiff his common

16.

law and constitutional Rights.


The purpose of these phone calls was to further the conspiracy to
deprive Plaintiff of the Rightful exercise of his State and Federally-

17.

Protected First Amendment and Free Press Rights.


The Conspiracy was an agreement between the two State actors,
their Counsel (Paradee) and the unknown parties to prevent Plaintiff
from gleaning any information or video that could prove harmful to

18.

Defendant McKenna, to the extent that they could.


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

19.

members of the public from running video or audio.


As witnessed by two other witnesses, Malone forbade Plaintiff from

20.

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


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 nonconfidential, 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

21.

amended, this time extending the experimental period indefinitely.


Plaintiff was compelled to leave without that which he came to get,
i.e. video inside of the building, including video of Candidate Gunn

at the fiche machines and a requested interview with Defendant


22.

Malone in lieu of the other Defendants.


Plaintiff made it clear to Defendants that he was there to briefly
question Malone or McKenna about false campaign allegations and
to obtain B-Roll footage of Candidate Gunn using the electronic
county fiche machines to pull up questionable or fraudulent
documents, as admitted by Defendant McKenna in her own

23.

Affidavit.
These matters are of substantial concern because campaign deceit
is always a matter of public interest, because MERS documents are
subject to substantial litigation in Pennsylvania by Recorder of
Deeds Nancy Becker in which she is prevailing (16 F. Supp 3d. 535
2014), because there are also fraudulent documents in every
Registry of Deeds and because Candidate Gunn has, in recent
history, reported to Plaintiff that he was largely responsible for the
permanent de-commission of Notary Nikole Shelton, relative to
property that is situated within the jurisdiction of

24.

Defendant McKennas office. See Appendix A.


Plaintiff made it clear that he was not present to run video in any
private cubicles or back offices, but that he demanded to run video
anywhere that the general public has foot access but was denied

25.

for no rational or lawful reason.


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

26.

there was.
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

27.

impression that there was.


All Defendants -- who will likely base their Defenses on public
meetings law -- particularly Defendant Paradee, knew that the
Attorney General had issued an Advisory opinion that read, in
pertinent part:
But in 2011, when everyone has a cell phone, and most cell
phones have camera, even video, capability, that time has

arrived. To attempt to ban recording is as pointless as trying to


prevent citizens from taking notes.
CONCLUSION: The DOJ should advise its client public bodies that
to outright prohibit any recording of public meetings is highly
risky. The law is evolving in a more permissive direction.
http://tinyurl.com/oz9bvlf

28.

Note that the Delaware open meetings law even provides for video

29.

conferencing at 1006.
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

30.

County Recorder of Deeds building.


A letter from attorney Mary E. Sherlock is pure evidence of

31.

Plaintiffs assertion as noted in bold italic, above (Appendix B).


Further, in the event there was an unwritten policy, said policy
would again violate the First Amendment to the United States,
Delaware Constitutions and Common Law Rights and Privileges and
the Delaware Open Meetings Law the even provides for videoconferencing, to the extent that Defendants may claim that video

32.

may be banned in public meetings.


Newcastle County understands, however, and allows stills and video
production with no hesitation. Attorney General Matthew Denn
hails from Newcastle.

10

CLAIMS
I.VIOLATION OF THE FIRST, FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AS PER POMYKACZ V. BOROUGH OF W.
WILDWOOD, 8 F. Supp. 2d 504 (2006) AND 42 U.S.C. 19834
Amendment I
Congress 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.
May the Court take Judicial Notice that nothing chills a reporter more
than being threatened with arrest. Clearly in this instance the actions of all
Defendants, jointly and severally, with several Defendants acting under Color
of Law, violates the letter and spirit of the Law. As noted in Pomykacz v.
Borough of W. Wildwood, 438 F. Supp. 2d 504 (2006), Plaintiff has a right,

4 Plaintiff is aware that the Court has stated that it will not consider Constitutional
claims in this First Amended Complaint. However Plaintiff is also aware that the Court
somehow overlooked crucial Third Circuit law such as Pomykacz v. Borough of W.
Wildwood, 438 F. Supp. 2d 504 (2006) that squarely holds that a person in Plaintiffs
Position has Constitutional Rights to be free from unlawful arrest and threats of
arrests. Therefore Plaintiff has no doubt but that the Court will grant his
contemporaneously-filed Rule 59 Motion and allow these claims to proceed toward
full discovery and trial.

11

protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States


Constitution, to participate in politics and to gather information about the
workings of government, and to use that information to express himself on
issues of political and governmental concern.
The actions of Defendants in this matter, in falsely representing the
state of the law and/or policy, and in maliciously threatening to arrest Plaintiff
and to charge him with criminal offenses, violated those rights, in that those
actions were baseless and were undertaken to chill and to discourage Plaintiff
from exercising his rights of political participation, and in punishment and in
retaliation for doing so.
The actions were taken under color of state law and constituted a
policy, pattern and practice and custom set up to conceal all matter of
malfeasance within the Office of the Recorder of Deeds.

12

II.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.
Plaintiff reiterates all that preceded in Claim I and asserts that
Defendants actions violate the Delaware Freedom of the Press Statute.
III.

42 U.S.C. 1985 CONSPIRACY


Plaintiff reiterates all that preceded in Claims I and II and states that all

Defendants known and unknown conspired to deprive Plaintiff of the equal


protection of the laws by chilling or discouraging his political and information
activities as a journalist or citizen-activist.
In furtherance of said conspiracy Defendants coordinated themselves
to shut down cameras after Plaintiff warned of his imminent arrival in
Delaware in the phone calls and in his journal entries.
IV.

VIOLATION OF PUBLIC RECORDS LAW, DELAWARE CODE TITLE 29

10001/6
Delaware already provides for video conferencing of public meetings at
10006. And as noted in a recent case championed by Defendant Paradee,
Del. Code Ann. tit. 29, 10004 requires that, excluding certain statutory
exceptions, every meeting of all public bodies be open to the public. Del.
Code Ann. tit. 29, 10001 provides that it is vital in a democratic society that
public business be performed in an open and public manner so that the
citizens shall have the opportunity to observe the performance of public
officials and to monitor the decisions that are made by such officials.
Plaintiff avers that the truest parallel in this instance are the citizen
journalist cases such as Iacobucci v. Boulter, 1997 U.S. Dist. Lexis 7010, No.
CIV.A. 94-10531 (D.Mass, Mar. 26, 1997), the Third Circuit case of Pomykacz

13

v. Borough of W. Wildwood, 438 F. Supp. 2d 504 (2006), however in this


instance as the unobtrusive camera is no different than a pen and paper, quill
and parchment such that the Delaware Attorney Generals Office opined that
any ban on cameras is very risky.

V.

COMMON LAW ACCESS VIOLATION PER TARUS V. BOROUGH OF PINE


HILL, 189 N.J. 497 (2007).
Plaintiff reiterates all that preceded in Claims I, II and III. The 2011

Delaware Attorney General Opinion sets the tone for this claim. It reads, in
pertinent part:
But in 2011, when everyone has a cell phone, and most cell phones
have camera, even video, capability, that time has arrived. To attempt
to ban recording is as pointless as trying to prevent citizens from
taking notes.
CONCLUSION The DOJ should advise its client public bodies that to
outright prohibit any recording of public meetings is highly risky. The
law is evolving in a more permissive direction.
With all due respect, another half-decade has passed after this
precatory language was issued. There is but no question that the Defendants
actions constitute a Common Law violation of a right that should be freely
given. From Tarus:
Commensurate with the use of video recording in society is its
intrinsic value in documenting events. Videotaping is a
legitimate way of gathering information for public dissemination
and can often provide cogent evidence Robinson v. Fetterman,
378 F.Supp.2d 534, 541 (E.D.Pa.2005). The combination of audio
and visual information also affords the most complete record of
public proceedings. Csorny v. Shoreham-Wading River Cent. Sch.
Dist., 305 A.D.2d 83, 89, 759 N.Y.S.2d 513 (2003) (Video
cameras provide the most accurate and effective way of
memorializing local democracy in action.) Thus, video cameras
present distinct advantages over other recording devices, and,
with improvements in technology, are no more disruptive than
pen and paper or audio tape recorder. - See more at:
In sum, we hold that, subject to reasonable restrictions,
members of the public have a common law right to videotape
municipal proceedings in New Jersey. Our conclusion is
supported by an interwoven tapestry of jurisprudence and policy
that demonstrates both the value of open government and the

14

right to document governmental proceedings. We thereby


reaffirm our common law commitment to open government
openly arrived at. Maurice River I, 187 N.J.Super. at 568, 455
A.2d 563 (paraphrasing Woodrow Wilson).5
The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed in part and
reversed in part. We hold that there is a common law right to
videotape municipal council meetings and conclude that
plaintiff's common law right was violated here. Because this
dispute was decided at the summary judgment stage, we
remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/njsupremecourt/1425005.html#sthash.XbmYhFLa.dpuf
VI.CIVIL CONSPIRACY
Plaintiff reiterates all that precedes in Claims I, II, III and IV and states
that the intentional, knowing conduct of the Defendants in conspiring to
threaten an unlawful arrest, constitute Civil Conspiracy.
VII.

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT EQUAL PROTECTION (NEWCASTLE)


Plaintiff may exercise his constitutional rights to run video and to take

pictures of a County Recorders office just down the road in Newcastle County.
Not only is that a material Constitutional violation, there isnt even any
rational basis for that sort of disparate treatment between the Counties.
DEMANDS
1.
2.

Immediate Declaratory Judgment.


Temporary Injunctive Relief against further or repeated

3.

transgressions.
Permanent Injunctive Relief against further or repeated

4.
5.

transgressions.
Compensatory Damages in Excess of $25,000.00.
Punitive Damages in an amount to be determined by Jury.

5 Plaintiff presupposes that Delaware is at least as progressive as New Jersey..


Time will tell.

15

JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff hereby demands that this Cause be heard by a duly-empaneled Jury
of appropriate size and composition. Payment for said Jury shall be deposited
in July, 2015.
________________________
Christopher King, J.D.
A/K/A KingCast/Mortgage Movies

16

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: _________________________________________

17

APPENDIX A

18

APPENDIX B

19

IN THE
SUPERIOR COURT
KENT COUNTY DELAWARE
CHRISTOPHER KING, J.D.
A/K/A KINGCAST/MORTGAGE MOVIES
17022 11TH Avenue
_______________________
Shoreline, WA 98155,
Plaintiff,

v.
__________________________

) JUDGE

) CASE NO.

BETTY LOU MCKENNA,


KENT COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS
IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES
and
HOLLY MALONE
DEPUTY KENT COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS )

20

555 Bay Road


Dover, Delaware 19901
and
JOHN W. PARADEE, ESQ.
C/O PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A.
1310 North King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801

)
)

PLAINTIFFS FIRST SET OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS


INTERROGATORIES
1.

State what authority that any Defendant had in telling Plaintiff that
he could not run video inside the Kent County Register of Deeds on
the one and only occasion when he arrived there and spoke with
Defendant McKenna.

21

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, swear that a true and accurate Courtesy copy of
this First Amended Complaint 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 15th day of July, 2015
________________________________
CHRISTOPHER KING, J.D.

22

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, swear that a true and accurate Courtesy copy of
this simple Interrogatory 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 15th day of July, 2015
________________________________
CHRISTOPHER KING, J.D.

23