28 July 2015

KingCast and Mortgage Movies See Delaware AG Matt Denn on the Hot Seat on Free Press First Amendment Camera Access to Elected Government Officials.

When in doubt, don't respond.... and definitely don't accept my Facebook friend request. To see how other states and former Delaware AG Beau Biden addressed this matter take a look right here. And read a disturbing Motion Hearing Transcript right here.
As posted to his YouTube page where it had better remain: 
Look: As a former AAG myself I believe Attorney Denn is a good guy. But his silence on my complaint involving the right to run video in a public building is stifling. All the Courts recognize this right in one way or another be it statutory, common law or Constitutional and Beau Biden's office has a memo I circulated stating public official ban cameras at their own risk. So I put it right out there and have heard nothing back in weeks, while a kangaroo court is ruining Justice in my Kent County Superior case of King v. McKenna et al. 

Check this out:
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
KingCast and Mortgage Movies Observe an East Coast First Amendment Battle Over Right to Film Public Officials: Pomykacz v. Borough of W. Wildwood, 438 F. Supp. 2d 504 (2006), Tisdale v. Gravitt, 51 F. Supp. 3d 1378 (2014), Gravitt v. Olens, (press release) 2015 Ga. App. LEXIS 490 (2015), Tarus v. Borough of Pine Hill, 189 N.J. 497 (2007), King v. McKenna, 2015 Del. Super. LEXIS 323 (2015). 

Further, I run video depositions. So does Ms. Tisdale. See how Georgia does it, she can depose her opponent on video but I can't even get any goddamn discovery as to what their fucking policy is.  Unreal. To hell with everyone responsible for this sort of violence against the First Amendment and Fourth Estate. I will hunt you down and expose you for the rest of your natural lives, because the First Amendment is the single most important thing that Americans own. Without it, you can't even get to the other Amendments. Think about it, people.

24 July 2015

KingCast v. McKenna Annotated Court Hearing Transcript on Mortgage, Foreclosure, Free Press, and First Amendment Issues. K15C-03-028 RBY, 2015 Del. Super. LEXIS 323 (2015).

Oh yah you can get your background and my Amended Complaint and several other documents including Judge Young's heavy-handed, hegemonic smack down on my First Amendment Free Press Rights here.

22 July 2015

A KingCast Goodnight to Mary E. Thatcher.

Mary E. Thatcher is a very special lady and one of my honorary grandmas. May you Rest in Peace Sister and thank you for all the smiles and the kind love that emanated from your presence every single time I saw you. We all miss you dearly.

21 July 2015

KingCast and Mortgage Movies Observe an East Coast First Amendment Battle Over Right to Film Public Officials: Pomykacz v. Borough of W. Wildwood, 438 F. Supp. 2d 504 (2006), Tisdale v. Gravitt, 51 F. Supp. 3d 1378 (2014), Gravitt v. Olens, 2015 Ga. App. LEXIS 490 (2015), Tarus v. Borough of Pine Hill, 189 N.J. 497 (2007), King v. McKenna, 2015 Del. Super. LEXIS 323 (2015).

Herein I warn Delaware AG Matthew Denn not to sleep with the political and judicial whores in Delaware who are intellectually disingenuous and light years behind New Jersey and Georgia on the crucial issue of reasonable access to run video of elected officials and government buildings.

Furthermore, I note that Delaware refuses to account for the amount of, and source of, legal funding for the legal defense of publicly-elected officials. Delaware could well be the dirtiest state in the Union.

Most of what you need to see is in this journal entry and in an upcoming video. For now you can listen to this video from 2:20 - 3:45 to get a feel for what's going on here but just 
know that every other case found either a Constitutional, statutory or common law right to run video of public officials. The Defendants are pressing onward in Delaware to say that I cannot avail myself of ANY of those rubrics. Why are they so hell bent you must wonder..... it is because they are dirty to the core, that's why. And they have a Judge in their corner.


Today's global email -- More proof of Judge Robert B. Young's Cultural Hegemony:

(email part two)
"I'm also blown away that Judge Young not only avoided mentioning ANY of my professional background stated in the Complaint, he found a way to issue a Decision that didn't even mention my website too!

He and the Defendants are basically gang-raping me, yessir.

Note how Judge Story started the Opinion in Tisdale v. Gravitt
"The facts in this case are largely undisputed. Plaintiff attended the City Council meeting planning to video record the proceedings to post on her website, AboutForsyth.com. Plaintiff set up her video camera and tripod in the center aisle of the auditorium in City Hall. (Defs.' Statement of Material Facts ("SOMF"), Dkt. [63-4] ∂ 4.)"
Compare and Contrast Judge Young's treatment of me from my Interlocutory and Rule 59 Appeals. The Rule 59 might be premature but better safe than sorry because I'm not missing any Appeals you better believe that:
I.                  Introduction and Proof of Unlawful Bias Against Plaintiff.[1]
                    The Court downplays Plaintiff right from the start of its 25 page Opinion:

Whilst claiming to issue its opinion based only on the Complaint and making all inferences in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court nonetheless opines that Plaintiff fancies himself  a “guerrilla” journalist.  “Plaintiff holds himself out to be a type of guerrilla-style journalist.”
But that purported belief is not stated anywhere in Plaintiff’s Complaint. For the Court, Defendants, law students, First and Fourth Amendment scholars and reviewing Court edification Plaintiff’s Complaint read, in pertinent part:
2. 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 Trials and has operated several politically and legally-charged online journals over the past decade, most notably Chris King’s First Amendment Page and Mortgage Movies Journal. 

That is what Plaintiff holds himself out to be as noted in the Complaint and that’s all the Court claimed to be reviewing, so the pejorative “guerrilla” nomenclature is reflective of the short shrift that this Plaintiff ultimately received from the Court. Further.....

*********** (email part one)

Dear AG Olens:

I am a former AAG myself, following the start of my career as editor of a statewide weekly newspaper and reporter for a large metropolitan daily.

Please review my pending First Amended Complaint:

......vis a vis your vigorous defense of Open Government, in which you were affirmed in part last week in Gravitt v. Olens, 2015 Ga. App. LEXIS 490 (2015).  I feel confident you will prove that Defendant Gravitt ordered Reporter Tisdale's cameras silenced.

Attorney General Olens is a long-time advocate of open government. In 2012, he championed the first overhaul of Georgia’s Open Meetings and Open Records Acts in over a decade, which were signed into law with sweeping approval by the Georgia General Assembly. The revised sunshine laws are more user-friendly and provide tougher penalties for violations. Additionally, the updated law allows the Attorney General to bring civil actions for violations of the sunshine laws. This lawsuit marks the first civil action brought by the Attorney General under the revised law.

I lived in Georgia 5-7 years ago when we contracted with AT&T doing legal review, zoning and permitting for some of the infrastructure your office no doubt uses every day. At any rate the Delaware AG's office seems to agree with you, the Georgia District Court and the NJ District Court in Pomykacz but the Defendants and Judge Young are slamming me right into the ground and making it sound as if I have no clue what I am talking about.  Of course I know what I'm talking about, I've won First Amendment Jury trials and even in law school I authored much of the successful Supreme Court brief in State v. Lessin:

So in addition to the lawsuit I filed a Complaint with the AG's office of Civil Rights and Public Trust because the Law should be the same here as it was in Georgia in Tisdale v. Gravitt as the Court noted in Granting Partial S/J for the same reasons I sought it.

"While no United States Supreme Court, Eleventh Circuit, or Supreme Court of Georgia case explicitly recognized a First Amendment right to film city council meetings, the case law that existed in April 2012 recognized a general right to film public officials, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. The Eleventh Circuit recognized in Blackston v. State of Ala. that a restriction on filming in public meetings “touche[s] on expressive conduct protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.” 30 F.3d 117, 120 (11th Cir. 1994) (addressing a prohibition that may not have been “content-neutral”). Plaintiff identifies other Eleventh Circuit cases involving free speech rights to film public officials. See, e.g., Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 2000) (recognizing “a First Amendment right, subject to reasonable time, manner and place restrictions, to photograph or videotape police conduct”); WSB-TV v. Lee, 842 21 Case 2:12-cv-00145-RWS Document 92 Filed 09/30/14 Page 21 of 41 AO 72A (Rev.8/82) F.2d 1266 (11th Cir. 1988) (recognizing reporters’ First Amendment interest in gathering and reporting news relating to rumors of a sherriff’s use of inmate labor on private property). The First Amendment protects filming public officials, and the Court finds that “broad, clearly established principle” to control the facts of the situation in this case."

"Second, the Court considers whether the policy against filming, announced by Mayor Gravitt, “affirmatively command[ed]” that the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights occur. Jett, 491 U.S. at 737. While this is ordinarily an issue for the jury’s determination, the Court finds here that no reasonable jury could find that the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights was not caused by Defendants’ policy against filming. See Allen, 121 F.3d at 646. Mayor Gravitt “instructed that the camera be removed from the Council chamber.” (Defs.’ SOMF, Dkt. [63-4] ¶ 10.) “In response to the Mayor’s directive,” Police Chief Tatum moved Plaintiff’s camera and he and Deputy Police Chief Cook “escorted” Plaintiff out of the room. (Id. at ¶ 15-28.)"

Lastly Plaintiff Tisdale asserted in her Motion for S/J, as I asserted, that Iacobucci was indeed grounded on First Amendment law, while Judge Young incorrectly said it wasn't so that he could railroad me out of Court:

"Thus, Judge Dorrough’s actions touched on expressive conduct protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.”); Iacobucci v. Boulter, 193 F.3d 14, 25 (1st Cir. 1999) (filming public officials in the public area of a public building was “done in the exercise of [Plaintiff’s] First Amendment rights”)."

The Court then cited Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011), just as I did.......


OK so in my AG complaint I'm waiting with bated breath

Will AG Denn renounce his statement......

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.

.....or will he find that it somehow does not apply in my case, period?

19 July 2015

KingCast and Mortgage Movies See Wells Fargo Caught on Video with Two Bogus Allonges and No Proof of Title.

Cross-post: Piggybank blog.
First of all, some public officials and Judges absolutely hate my videos and declare that I clearly have no Constitutional Rights to make any parts of them in government offices. I reference my ongoing lawsuit (more at Piggybank blog) against Betty Lou McKenna in this video because to the North and to the South, Federal District Courts have squarely SLAMMED the Defendants and Judge Robert B. Young on that matter, so we're headed to SCOTUS, nothing they can do to stop it. Right now we're into Rule 59 and Interlocutory Appeal Motions and I have Amended my Complaint to include statutory and common law claims.  This is important because once they get rid of people like me, there are precious few mainstream or internet journos who do what I do. In fact, I can't think of one journo who has my background and who does exactly what I do on a consistent basis.

Next, there are Wells Fargo's unlawful refusals to negotiate HAMP agreements and I was involved in Mediations in Seattle where they took not one not two but now three Bad Faith certifications in the Mediation process. I worked one of them and ran video on the others. A person who wrote Neil Garfield mentioned Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (673 F.3d 547) but out here in the 9th circuit we can do that one better, because we have Corvello v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 728 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. August 8, 2013), citing Wigod, and Corvello involved a pair of plaintiffs, one written HAMP violation and one oral HAMP violation. 

Next, here is an excerpt from a letter I wrote Wells Fargo several months ago. They continue to stonewall and obfuscate as noted in the video. It's completely insane:


Dear Ms. McCullough Messrs. Eppley and Anderson:

We haven’t heard a thing from you since we wrote you several weeks ago on the purported lost note affidavits.  As I said then and as I will say again, 

I would like to call your attention to my observation about Lost Note Affidavits here in Washington that I came to consider just after I sent my first letter of the day:

The Allens challenge reliance upon these cases as inconsistent with In re Weisband, 427 B.R. 13 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2010). The bankruptcy court in In re Weisband indeed held that an allonge attached to a Note would not be sufficient to transfer the Note from DHMC to DLJ because an indorsement in blank must appear on the face of the note and not on an attached  [**17] page. But as the bankruptcy court noted, that holding is of no moment in this case, since here the allonge was superfluous because the Note contained an endorsement in blank on its face

……. Based on its analysis of available law, the bankruptcy court determined that the Lost Note Affidavit, with the endorsement in blank appearing on its face, was sufficient to replace the original Note. We find no error in this conclusion. Once it was  [**19] established that the Note was endorsed in blank, the Note became a bearer instrument:...

The letter from Mr. Eppley states that the undated blank indorsement Maureen Bodine allonge is the one that was attached to the Deed of Trust as it was assigned from Deep Green to Wachovia. 

That is because if Wells Fargo relies on the OTHER allonge – the one that is not indorsed in blank but rather to Wachovia Bank, N.A. – the Note no longer becomes Bearer Paper and *poof* there goes Wells Fargo’s Standing to Foreclose.

This all dovetails with the hot water that Wells Fargo finds itself in regarding the fix-it manual that is currently being reviewed in New York over the strenuous objection by Wells Fargo. Judge Drain was not pleased: http://nypost.com/2015/01/31/ny-federal-judge-slams-wells-fargo-for-forged-mortgage-docs/

16 July 2015

KingCast Presents: Backfire Ballard Moto Night #56.

Just a quick helmet cam ride video coming along with these pictures. 
Again, a beautiful experience.
Older Backfire vids and pics are here.

And on a Lighter Note, KingCast/Mortgage Movies See Livi the Derp Win the Seattle Times 2015 Pet Selfie Contest!

Here is a link to the 19 July 2015 
Six winners + one Grand Prize winner.

Grrrrrr........ I am Livi hear me Roar!!!  (Sorry Helen)

The story runs on Sunday but here's the upload link with all the contestants :)

13 July 2015

KingCast and Mortgage Movies see Nasty Free State Montessori Process Server Threaten a Parent Holding a Camera, Try to Run Him Over and Play the Race Card.

Talk about a real piece of work this guy is. He shows up on someone's property, doesn't provide his name, drives toward him on his own driveway to threaten him with a 3,400 pound weapon, and smacks his hand that was holding a telephone camera. 

I believe the school is being very aggressive with parents and stuffing them with purported bills to keep them on their heels in a pre-emptive strike of sorts, because they are suffering financially and will probably leave the Country soon. It's nasty. 

More on this later but I just needed to get this movie up, ASAP.  I've also taken the liberty of contacting the American Montessori Society and several area Montessori schools.