IN THE SUPERIOR COURTKENT COUNTY DELAWARE

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)AndUNKNOWN STATE AGENTS )

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT[footnoteRef:-1] [-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. ]

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 where the unlawful conduct occurred.THE PARTIES2. 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 journals over the past decade, most notably Chris Kings First Amendment Page and Mortgage Movies Journal. 3. 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 journalist with a background as an attorney.4. 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=rl4tS0W7RcQAt Senator Kelly Ayottes Washington, DC Office 2010

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLS0N_hH-ccHere 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=lXlHu2002VcFace-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.[footnoteRef:0] She is being sued in her Official and Individual Capacities. [0: 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.]

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 matters relative to the election and to First Amendment, Free Press (and Common Law) conduct of Plaintiff.[footnoteRef:1] [1: 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.]

FACTS8. 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-and-mortgage-movies-frown-as.html

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 policy.10. 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 public is allowed when the building is open.11. There were no complaints or incident reports issued relative to Plaintiffs conduct as a professional or as a purported guerrilla journalist.12. Defendant Paradee finds all of these First Amendment and video access humorous. He wrote to Plaintiff that he makes [him] laugh.13. Defendant Paradees position is antithetical to the position of the State Attorney General Advisory Opinion of 1 April, 2011 Right of Public to Record Open Meetings of Public Bodies.14. 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, 10001provides 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.15. Malone made two phone calls, to the unknown Defendants, who helped facilitate the conspiratorial plan to deny Plaintiff his common law and constitutional Rights.16. 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.17. 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 Defendant McKenna, to the extent that they could.18. 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.19. As witnessed by two other witnesses, Malone forbade Plaintiff from running video in any portion of the building under threat of arrest. 20. 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 waspermitted 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.21. 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 Malone in lieu of the other Defendants.22. 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 Affidavit. 23. 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 Defendant McKennas office. See Appendix A.24. 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 for no rational or lawful reason.25. 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.26. 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.27. 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 conferencing at 1006.29. 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. 30. A letter from attorney Mary E. Sherlock is pure evidence of Plaintiffs assertion as noted in bold italic, above (Appendix B).31. 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 video-conferencing, to the extent that Defendants may claim that video may be banned in public meetings.32. Newcastle County understands, however, and allows stills and video production with no hesitation. Attorney General Matthew Denn hails from Newcastle.

CLAIMSI.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. 1983[footnoteRef:2] [2: 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.]

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.

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, 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.

II.VIOLATION OF DELAWARE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, ARTICLE 1 SEC. 5 AS PER 42 U.S.C. 19835. 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 CONSPIRACYPlaintiff 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 10001/6Delaware 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 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 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).[footnoteRef:3] [3: Plaintiff presupposes that Delaware is at least as progressive as New Jersey.. Time will tell.]

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/nj-supremecourt/1425005.html#sthash.XbmYhFLa.dpuf

VI.CIVIL CONSPIRACYPlaintiff 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.

DEMANDS1. 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 DEMANDPlaintiff 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

VERIFICATIONPlaintiff 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: _________________________________________

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

IN THE SUPERIOR COURTKENT COUNTY DELAWARE

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)

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.

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 Street5th FloorP.O. Box 8888Wilmington, DE 19899-8888

and to:

John A. Elzufon, Esq.Peter McGivney, Esq.300 Delaware Avenue,Suite 1700P.O. Box 1630 Wilmington, DE 19899

This 15th day of July, 2015

________________________________CHRISTOPHER KING, J.D.

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 Street5th FloorP.O. Box 8888Wilmington, DE 19899-8888

and to:

John A. Elzufon, Esq.Peter McGivney, Esq.300 Delaware Avenue,Suite 1700P.O. Box 1630 Wilmington, DE 19899

This 15th day of July, 2015

________________________________CHRISTOPHER KING, J.D.

1