Forget about the fact that the Courthouse posted my picture in the days leading up to Thursday's evidentiary hearing that held that I am not even entitled to discover the policy or authority that the Defendants had to keep me from shooting video at the Kent County Registry of Deeds. That unlawfully prejudices my case because first amendment cases are won and lost in the nuances. We have to know what the purported policy is in order to flush out our arguments, it's simple.
Forget about the fact that Commissioner Andrea Freud wrongly denied me the right to run video of thursday's hearing and wrongly asserted that Rule 155 applied only to the Supreme Court. She didn't let me finish when I went on to say otherwise but there it is right there in front of your face, what part of TRIAL COURTS did she not get?
She and I both got our communications degrees in the 80's so she gets it and she knows what she's doing. She's being a gatekeeper in this instance and that's why I'm filing a Motion for Reconsideration to the Trial Court.
Delaware Way's Nancy Willing can't believe it, nor can Publisher/Editor Bill Gunlocke, who issued an Amicus Affidavit.
I never dreamed that a government would disallow basic camera access for a reporter to appear at a public building to ask a question or two of a public official or to generate b-roll footage. But that is precisely what Betty Lou McKenna, Governor Markell and Defendant John Paradee are saying. And when you arrive in town, 3,000 miles away to fight the Paradee family you are up against a wall. These guys are well-financed and very well connected you better believe it.
They stole an election already from La Mar Gunn after a total of four vote counts and they will steal my First Amendment and Free Press rights just as readily.
What is going on here is nothing more than an outright attack on the press. The Defendants and their 4 lawyers and support staff are trying to say that I am not a member of the fourth estate, but I have submitted decisional law that says otherwise, as well as specific case law that holds that a pro se independent journal
And of course their case law of Woods held in favor of a Statutory Right to run video, which parallels the Delaware Free Press Statute. None of the Defendants mentioned the Free Press case during Thursday's hearing and they made scant mention of it during their pleadings.
And all of that is echoed by the Cirelli case that afforded Constittutional protection for a teacher to take video and stills at a school as long as it was a matter of public concern and she was not doing it at times or in a manner that were unduly dirsuptive.
Come on folks this is all really just common sense.
Let's see if Judge Young agrees, because if he doesn't we're going up to SCOTUS on this.