The defense responded to James “James Freeman” Springer’s (Freeman) second amendment complaint on Wednesday in his lawsuit against New Mexico’s Seventh District Courts.
Echoing our reporting on the second amended complaint, the defense pointed out that Freeman’s second chance at amending his complaint essentially added three new paragraphs and corrected his previous numbering, leaving the document essentially identical to his previous amended complaint.
As that amended complaint had been previously roundly criticized by both the defense and Judge Margaret Strickland for failing to state a claim, failing to provide evidence and for speaking in broad accusations and terms without offering specifics to how Freeman’s rights were violated, the new motion to dismiss echoes the same sentiments as the previous motion to dismiss.
Essentially, the motion to dismiss indicates that Freeman feels his rights were violated in broad accusations against the Seventh District Court without giving the court grounds to issue relief.
Contrary to his claims, Freeman has demonstrated the ability to circumvent and ignore the ruling that prevents him from entering court facilities in the Seventh District at will, he has yet to demonstrate how this action has caused him harm.
His latest accusations, that the Court conspired with YouTube to report his videos taken in violation of the court orders, offered no proof of the conspiracy nor did he suffer harm as most of the videos – except the ones he willingly removed – are still on the service.
He has also demonstrated that he can record hearings in the Seventh District at will, and in violation of the district wide ban on recording that applies to all citizens, and has not been treated differently than anyone else in the punishment for disruption of the Court system.
Also maintained in the defense’s response is that the Court is a limited public forum and public access can be limited. Freeman still has full access to services in the Court facilities if he is accompanied by a law enforcement escort. Signs are posted as to the rules of the buildings and Freeman has not cited reasoning why he should be exempt from the rules he disagrees with other than he disagrees with them.
The defense is seeking a complete dismissal of Freeman’s Claims.
Tip Jar
ReallyCoolNews is a free daily publication devoted to the First Amendment Auditing community. If you’d like to support the publication/help keep the author fed/help support his animals, we offer the following ways to contribute:
CashApp: https://cash.me/$reallycoolsite
Paypal: https://paypal.me/ReallyCoolSite?country.x=US&locale.x=en_US
GoFundMe: https://gofund.me/b8144e31
Critter Fund: https://www.amazon.com/registries/gl/guest-view/1GACKBD5N136L
Buy Jim Something: https://www.amazon.com/registries/gl/guest-view/2BKN32QZLN1OD
Donations go towards keeping the lights on, feeding critters, improving the site and paying site hosting costs and future upgrades.
Share this:
- Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)