Plaintiff

                       Defendants 

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

[The defendant alleges: Plaintiff alleges in vague terms that Patriot Media violated his constitutional rights and violated the provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 531.]

1. Here are some Supreme Court quotes on the subject of what constitutes a sufficient complaint, and its due process treatment:

Rule 8(f) says: 'All pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice.' And Justice Black reminded us, more than 30 years ago, in connection with an order adopting revised Rules of this Court, that the 'principal function of procedural rules should be to serve as useful guides to help, not hinder, persons who have a legal right to bring their problems before the courts.' Order adopting revised rules of S.Ct. of U.S. Mon. April 12, 1954 ........

A court faced with a motion to dismiss a pro se complaint alleging violations of civil rights must read the complaint's allegations expansively, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S. Ct. 594, 596, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1972), and take them as true for purposes of deciding whether they state a claim. Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322, 92 S. Ct. 1079, 1081, 31 L. Ed. 2d 263 (1972). Moreover, "the court is under a duty to examine the complaint to determine if the allegations provide for relief on any possible theory." onner v. Circuit Court of St. Louis, 526 F.2d 1331, 1334 (8th Cir. 1975) (quoting Bramlet v. Wilson, 495 F.2d 714, 716 (8th Cir. 1974)).

....... The decisive answer to this is that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a claimant to set out in detail the facts upon which he bases his claim. To the contrary, all the Rules require is "a short and plain statement of the claim" 8 that will give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. The illustrative forms appended to the Rules plainly demonstrate this. Such simplified "notice pleading" is made possible by the liberal opportunity for discovery and the other pretrial procedures established by the Rules to disclose more precisely the basis of both claim and defense and to define more narrowly the disputed facts and issues. 9 Following the simple guide of Rule 8 (f) that "all pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice," we have no doubt that petitioners' complaint adequately set forth a claim and gave the respondents fair notice of its basis. The Federal Rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits. Cf. Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 . .......

"All pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice." W.Va. R. Civ. P. 8(f). By adopting the Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court intended that all of these rules be construed liberally and fairly so as to seek justice for all of the parties involved.

[The defendant alleges: Plaintiff's Complaint cannot withstand scrutiny under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), as there are no valid legal theories of recovery to support the allegations of the Complaint.]

2. Under 12(b)(6) the defendant has an obligation "to prove", not merely proclaim, the nonexistence of any potentially viable legal theories. I would argue the defendant has not "proven" even the one legal theory it addresses (prosecution by an aggrieved individual under U.S.C. § 531) to be unviable, let alone "proven" the in-viability of other theories like 1983, RICO, or Common Law Enforcement of the terms of the franchise agreement[s] (PE2-3), which the defendant has not even referenced.

[The defendant alleges: The "claims" against Patriot Media are relegated to one incoherent paragraph, and there is no language in the sparse factual allegations of the Complaint from which any legal theories could be viable under existing law...

....Plaintiff recites in conclusory fashion a vague claim of suffering the denial of "American Civil Rights" and "the destruction of [his] constitutional rights" -- as if the mere invocation of the Constitution can cure the legal deficiencies underlying a factually deficient claim.]

3. These accusations by the Defendant Council slander accurate context, if not the truth. Through correspondence with defendant council made previous to the filing of this legal action (PE1), Defendant council has been provided extensive information regarding the precise nature of my allegations. In both that correspondence, and this complaint, the case record of New Jersey Superior Court docket No. MRS-L-218-06 was referenced as evidence.

[The defendant alleges: LEGAL ARGUMENT I. PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) BASED UPON HIS FAILURE TO STATE ANY COGNIZABLE CLAIMS UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED

...The Complaint should be dismissed as a whole because it does not set forth any factual bases which are capable of being comprehended which support any viable claims against Patriot Media.

...Even the most liberal reading of the Complaint fails to uncover a facially valid and supportable claim under any of the vague causes of action asserted by Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Complaint must be dismissed in its entirety.]

4. In brief: Congress has described "public access" television as an extension of the "public soapbox". The Supreme Court of the United States has acknowledged this First Amendment, free-speech, purpose and protected public access rights applying strict scrutiny in judging proposed limitations and oppressions. In this case there is substantial evidence that the plaintiffs "public access rights" have been deliberately and maliciously violated to affect a purpose directly opposite to the purpose of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The evidence will show that the defendant has committed overt and gross violations of the terms agreed to in franchise agreements(PE2-3), and that the defendant has certainly violated the intent of U.S.C. § 531, to aid and abet, if not willfully and maliciously cause, the destruction of plaintiff's constitutional rights.

5. These are not "Legal conclusions made in the guise of factual allegations" They are reasonably comprehended, supportable claims, that the defendant is fully aware of, and has a responsibility to appropriately answer.

[The defendant alleges: A. THERE IS NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION PURSUANT TO 47 U.S.C. § 531(e)

...Plaintiff is alleging that Patriot Media has violated 47 U.S.C. § 531(e), which provides, in pertinent part:

...[A] cable operator shall not exercise any editorial control over any public, educational or governmental use of the channel capacity provided pursuant to this section...

...Rather than conferring rights in any public citizen who may create a public access program, § 531(e) only describes prohibited actions of cable operators.]

6. Again the defendant attempts to cheat the truth by abusing context. The 25 words that complete the paragraph make the Congressional Intent, that free-speech rights be respected, crystal clear.

...except a cable operator may refuse to transmit any public access program or portion of a public access program which contains obscenity, indecency, or nudity.

7. At minimum, the defendant, has not "proven", as required by the purpose of this motion, it to be unreasonable to argue that § 531(e) is enabling legislation intended to make good on constitutional "guarantees"... and therefore appropriately used by the public to protect their rights.

[The defendant alleges: Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 286-287 (2001). "The judicial task is to interpret the statute Congress has passed to determine whether it displays an intent to create not just a private right but also a private remedy." Id. Determining congressional intent is a matter of statutory interpretation. Id. at 286. A court, therefore, must "begin [its] search for Congress's intent with the text and structure"

That presumption is bolstered by the absence of "rights-creating" language, which "explicitly confer[s] a right directly on a class of persons that include[s] the plaintiff in the case." Cannon v. Univ. of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 690 (1979)]

8. In the first place Sandoval explicitly doesn't apply in cases where discrimination (oppression) is willful and intentional--as is claimed in this cause of action--rather than incidental. In the second place, history demonstrates that local governments are a primary threat in the war against unconstitutional censorship, and ideological promotion, and it would make little sense that Congress intended that local bigots, rather than a disciplined Judiciary, should provide for the protection of fundamental constitutional rights.

[The defendant alleges: If arguendo Plaintiff did suffer a wrongful deprivation of access to such Public Access channel, his claim, if any, is against other parties, not Patriot Media. ]

9. This statement is irreconcilable with the law enforcement responsibilities assigned to Patriot Media in both the relevant franchise agreements (PE2-3).

[The defendant alleges: Moreover, even if such assumed deprivation could rise to an impairment of his Civil rights or loss of some constitutional protection (which it does not), ...]

10. This is an offensive trivialization intended to do nothing but patronize and insult the plaintiff. One can imagine that if "Patriot" Media had to live under its own fascism, and was arbitrarily, or maliciously, prohibited from advertising on any other channel but its own channel 8, that it would be claiming substantial "impairment" of its civil-rights.... and substantial damage.

[The defendant alleges: ...His claim is not against Patriot Media who by statute has no control over the channel at issue.]

11. By statute, and franchise agreement (PE2-3), Patriot media is obligated to respect, and protect, speech rights established by the United States Constitution. The facts clearly demonstrate a willful choice to do neither, and the plaintiff has the right, and responsibility as an individual with "standing", to prosecute for the damage done to him personally, and "the people's" constitution, as a result.

Regarding the "access" channel you have established through a franchise agreement with Mendham Township, be advised of this "legal" decision and its implications. http://inmendham.com/MvsM/T3o_c.htm

Obviously this Superior Court Judge did not understand "cable access television" and yet still had the arrogance to destroy this litigation. Under this unAmerican justice in New Jersey circumstances I have no alternative but to take this fight to a federal court. Unfortunately, this substantially added aggravation of having to fight-for-fair-fight has me in a take no prisoners frame of mind and seriously contemplating adding Patriot Media as a defendant in the federal litigation I intend to initiate in no more than a week.

Specifically, there are two aspects of your participation in the destruction of my constitutional rights that we need to immediately discuss.

First-- I would request that you send me an electronic copy of "the franchise agreement" between yourself and Mendham Township.... establishing the truth of the townships claim that Channel 25 is a "government dedicated" access Channel that has no requirement to be obedient to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution regarding the "public access" it provides.

Second-- there is the issue of this sentence from your "access" requirements to "Patriot 8" . "2. TAPES MUST BE SUBMITTED ON UMATIC, UMATIC SP, BETA OR BETA SP. ALL OTHER FORMATS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED OR CONVERTED."

This requirement OBVIOUSLY substantially disregards modern and readily available technology AND presents a substantial obstacle to "public" access. Considering that the Township of Mendham has a much more liberal standard regarding "format" a clear unevenness in accessibility is created. ie. Government supported local programming has access, Government disliked programming does not. Not exactly a circumstance a company called "Patriot" Media should be creating.

In short, I must established by the end of the week whether you are with me in my defense of the the First Amendment or whether you're "evil doing" against me through apathy or volition.

Please reply ASAP.

Best regards,
GARY MOSHER

On April 21st I received this reply... from lawyers... ugh.

STRIKER, TAMS&DILL
TWO PENN PLAZA EAST NEWARK, NEW JERSEY 07105
(973) 491-9500 Fax: (973)491-9692
TWO PENN PLAZA SUITE 1500 NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10021
(212) 432-9180

DENNIS C. LINKEN
Direct: (973)491-3839
dlinken@strykertams.com
Please Reply to: Newark

April 20, 2006

Dear Mr. Mosher:

Our office represents Patriot Media & Communications CNJ, LLC ("Patriot" or the "Company"). We are in receipt of a copy of your e-mail dated April 17, 2006 to Patriot with regard to the access channels provided to the Township of Mendham in accordance with Patriot's cable television franchise.

Let me first address your question as to the technical access requirements posted on Patriot's website. Unfortunately, the Company's web site is indeed outdated in that regard, as you indicate. However, I am happy to advise that Patriot has added DVD-R to the list of acceptable formats. Although the web site doesn't specify this, it has been the Company's policy for around two years. Patriot is currently correcting its web site with this more up to date information.

As you are aware, Patriot does provide the Township of Mendham with an educational access channel and a governmental/public access channel. Please note, however, that managerial and operational control over those channels rests solely with the Township of Mendham. Patriot Media has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with regard to the operation of those channels, including any determinations as to what programming is shown. Rather, the channels are entirely at the Township's disposal and it may utilize them at their discretion. Thus, I would respectfully direct you to the Township for any questions as to the airing of programs on the Township's access channels.

As a public document, the franchise agreement is normally available through the Township. If, however, you are unable to obtain a copy from them, please let me know and I will be happy to forward a copy to you.

I trust this letter has been responsive and thank you once again for writing to Patriot.

Very truly yours,
Dennis C. Linken

cc: David Keenan, Production Manager

Cablevision shall provide and maintain, without charge for its use, a designated public, educational and governmental (PEG) access channel ("PEG access") for use by residents and institutions of the Township. This channel may only be used for non-commercial programming. Cablevision shall be responsible for developing, implementing, interpreting and enforcing reasonable rules for PEG access channel use, in accordance with applicable law.

Cablevision shall also provide the Township with a one time grant of forty thousand dollars ($40,000.00) to be applied toward the purchase of PEG access equipment such as cameras, editing, and playback devices. The Township shall, in its discretion, be permitted to use such grant toward the purchase of other telecommunications related services from Cablevision in lieu of purchasing PEG access equipment. Cablevision further agrees to provide the Township with an additional ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) at the end of year five of the franchise, measured from the effective date of the agreement. The Township shall be permitted to use said additional funds in the same manner as the initial grant provided thereto by Cablevision. The PEG access grants by the Company to the Township shall not in any way be "passed through" to subscribers as a separate line item on subscribers' bills.

The Township agrees that Cablevision shall retain the right to use the PEG access channel, or portion thereof, for non-PEG access programming, during times when the Township is not utilizing the channel for purposes of providing PEG access programming. In the event that the Company uses said PEG access channel for the presentation of such other programming, the PEG programming shall remain the priority use and the Company's rights with respect to using the channel for non-PEG programming shall be subordinate to the Township's provision of PEG access programming on such channel.

==========================PE3

SECTION 16. Public. Educational and Governmental Access. Cablevision shall provide and maintain, without charge for its use, a composite public, governmental and educational access channel ("PEG access") for exclusive use by the residents and institutions of the Borough, except as hereinafter set forth. This channel may only be used for non-commercial programming. Cablevision shall be responsible for developing, implementing, interpreting and enforcing reasonable rules for PEG access channel use, in accordance with applicable law.

Cablevision shall also provide the Borough with a grant of $55,000 upon issuance of the Certificate of Approval from the BPU to be used by the Borough in connection with the development and maintenance of PEG access. This grant shall be in addition to any franchise fees to be paid to the Borough pursuant to this Franchise. Any grants by the Company to the Borough shall not in any way be "passed through" to subscribers as a specific line item on subscribers' bills.

The Borough agrees that Cablevision shall retain the right to use the PEG access channel or portion thereof, for non-PEG access programming, during times when the Borough is not utilizing the channel for purposes of providing PEG access programming. In the event that the Company uses said PEG access channel for the presentation of such other programming, the PEG programming shall remain the priority use and the Company's rights with respect to using the channel for non-PEG programming shall be subordinate to the Borough's provision of PEG access programming on such channel.

The Company shall use reasonable efforts to publicize, promote and otherwise encourage properly qualified persons to use access cablecasting time. The Company shall do so by a variety of means including: announcements, workshops, seminars and other instructional programs, such as training designated individuals or community groups how to properly and effectively utilize the video, studio and other recording equipment in the most efficient manner.