Legal Document Type: Legal Motion: OBJECTION TO PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND INJUNCTION

Case Information: Case 24SN-DR00104 | Status: Pending

Document Content:
OBJECTION TO PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND INJUNCTION
  COMES NOW Micheal Lawrence Salmon, and objects to Petitioner’s Motion for Contempt and Injunction on the following "grounds":
  
  I. VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS
  Petitioner’s motion was filed with a simultaneous request to shorten the response window to less than 24 hours, while I am under a court-imposed filing restriction. This results in a direct denial of procedural due process under the 14th Amendment and violates the standard established in Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank, 339 U.S. 306 (1950), which requires that notice be “reasonably calculated” to afford opportunity to respond.
  
  II. RETALIATION FOR PROTECTED SPEECH AND PETITION ACTIVITY
  The allegations stem directly "from":
  My constitutionally protected right to petition the government for redress (BE&K Constr. Co. v. NLRB, 536 U.S. 516),
  My public disclosure of government misconduct (NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449; NY Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254),
  And my efforts to expose procedural violations through lawful class action and speech activities (NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, 458 U.S. 886).
  This contempt motion is a thinly veiled act of retaliation, not a legitimate enforcement of court decorum.
  
  III. RECORDING WAS LEGAL UNDER KANSAS LAW AND CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED
  The recordings cited were made from Kansas, a one-party consent state (K.S.A. § 21-6101).
  No protective order was issued. No sealing of the hearing occurred.
  The court has no authority to enforce Missouri local rules extraterritorially.
  Courts have consistently upheld the right to record public officials (Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78; Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353).
  To punish me for lawful recording conducted in Kansas constitutes a conflict of laws violation and infringes upon my First Amendment rights.
  
  IV. THE COURT'S PRIOR INACTION CREATES ESTOPPEL AND BIAS
  I filed multiple emergency motions regarding parental alienation, GAL aba