25 November 2019

KingCast Sees Voncelle James Drops Bogus VA Whistleblower Peace Order Against Robert Bozgoz.


I'm filing a Bar Complaint on Judge Gelber. They will of course bury it but his complete hostility will not go unchallenged. In the process I will educate the Public as to yet another Problem Jurist. When you hear his tone towards Sue Bozgoz and me as ADA Advocates and material Fact Witnesses you will say "Who the hell does this guy think he is? He works for the taxpayers, at least allegedly." 
 #asshole. 

Background on this VA Whistleblower retaliation case vis a vis today's dismissal of bogus charges against former JAG Attorney Robert Bozgoz for "stalking" and "harassment" for trying to issue Service of Process on the VA's embattle manager Voncelle James.

One - Judge Dwyer.
Two -Big Pharma, Perjury & Voncelle James.

Me: 
Case dismissed video later today or tomorrow. Judge Rand L. Gelber was a real asshole of course once I told him I was an ADA Advocate and Material Fact Witness. We ordered the Audio.

None of this would have happened if Voncelle James had just accepted Service! Just another dirtbag who didn’t get everything he wanted. He saw what we were coming with and now all of a sudden Voncelle wants to dismiss the charges. It’s all her fault anyway if she had accepted Service of Process we wouldn’t be here. But when I passed her a copy of my Notice of Media Coverage she pushed it away and said "I don't know who you are!" 

Bullshit. You cited to my work in your bullshit Criminal Complaints about Mr. Bozgoz. You were staring me down from the moment you walked into Court today and going manic on your celly. 

Bozgoz: 
What is interesting is she gets 6 figures for her criminal acts. She is what other Whistleblowers call a VA “throwaway” at the end of the day, she knows the truth is out there. Like Lance (our Process Server) said, she is only doing these criminal acts because somebody is telling her she can.... Me: Yah. 

She falsely claimed Rob and I were personally defaming her. I have no idea what she is like personally and I don't care. Professionally to what I have seen by and through this litigation she's complete scum. Video loading shortly.

15 November 2019

Why Facebook is a Public Forum Subject to First Amendment Review for Fairness and Anti-Retaliation in King v. Facebook 19-CV-1987.


See also WBUR "Facebook and the First Amendment: Policing Free Speech on the Platform." Here.

"We don’t usually use sweeping terms such as Supreme Court and constitution to describe the operation of private companies, but here they seem appropriate. Internet platforms such as YouTube and Facebook have been called the modern public square. That description understates the platforms’ importance for the many people who use them in place of newspapers, TV stations, the postal service, and even money."
FROM KING V. FACEBOOK 2019-CV-1987


IV.      Judicial Economy Militates in Favor of reviewing a First Amendment claim in light of  New Cases, Pruneyard and its progeny.

"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation, must begin by subduing the freedom of speech" - Benjamin Franklin

            First of all Plaintiff means no disrespect to this Honorable Court in issuing a First Amendment Complaint, however the doctrinal developments in this area immediately prior to and after the Decision shed new light on the traditional Defense that Facebook is a truly a teflon entity when it comes to liability for its abusive and unethical activities. Plaintiff is merely requesting the Court to Amend the Pleadings to conform to the evidence and recently and currently developing law. There’s nothing unusual about that.
            Next, Davison v. Facebook, Inc., 370 F. Supp. 3d 621, 629 (E.D. Va.) was heard in Virginia and Virginia does not adopt a Pruneyard analysis when it comes to speech and private property/public venue[1] but California…. Does.  So this issue is far from clear-cut as Defendant wishfully believes and it should be addressed in this Court.
Next, Plaintiff finds it interesting that Defendant’s own cited case of Fed. Agency of News LLC v. Facebook, Inc 2019 WL 3254208, at *8 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2019) indeed cites to the very same Freedom Watch Case of Freedom Watch & Loomer v. Google et al., U.S. Ct. App. DC 19-730 (August 20, 2019) in which the Court of Appeals subsequently DENIED Summary Affirmance on this exact issue and others. Platintiff cites to it himself.  So the tide is turning and mark Plaintiff’s words:  Facebook’s days as a teflon entity are indeed numbered.

Judge Koh’s Order in Fed. Agency of News LLC v. Facebook, Inc does not cite to Pruneyard or California Law, but rather to Lloyd and Landgon v. Google, 474 F.Supp.2d 622 (2007).[2] Langdon is a case that in Internet terms is ancient history. In 2007 Facebook was barely a household name. The intervening twelve years have completely changed the character of breath of Facebook and the Court’s rationale – also reiterated in Prager Univ. v. Google LLC 2018 WL 1471939 (another Judge Koh Decision) is just flat out wrong on a Pruneyard analysis because Facebook is totally a public forum. It is the core function of the thing in itself. It is used by politicians World Wide. It is used by Billions of people who exchange political and social thoughts, dreams, and desires on the world’s largest social media platform and as such, Plaintiff challenges this Court to recognize the obvious error of Judge Koh’s reasoning.


Her Honor also cited to Lloyd Corp., Ltd. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551 (1972) but Lloyd is inapposite here because the holding in Lloyd was that there has been no dedication of petitioner's privately owned and operated shopping center to public use so as to entitle respondents to exercise First Amendment rights therein that are unrelated to the center's operations.. To the contrary, it is patently obvious in this case the Facebook’s entire platform exists for the dissemination of speech!


That is a complete 180-degree about-face that leads to the obvious conclusion that Facebook is indeed, a public forum as Justice Kennedy intimated as “the modern public square.” With respect to Fn.4 see Fashion Valley Mall v. NLRB 42 Cal 4th 850 (2007) citing Schwartz-Torrance Investment Corp. v. Bakery & Confectionery Workers’ Union (1964) 61 Cal.2d 766 (1964) (following Marsh)

We recognized that peaceful picketing by a labor union “involves an exercise of the constitutionally protected right of freedom of speech.” (Id. at p. 769.) We rejected the shopping center’s argument that its right to “the exclusive possession and enjoyment of private property” outweighed the union’s right to picket: “Because of the public character of the shopping center, however, the impairment of plaintiff’s interest must be largely theoretical. Plaintiff has fully opened his property to the public.” (Id. at p. 771.) 
Has not Facebook “fully opened its property to the public?” That is the sine qua non of its very existence so Her Honor is quite incorrect. Accord Ralphs Grocery Co. v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 8, No. S185544 (Dec. 27, 2012) citing Pruneyard: A privately owned shopping center may constitute a public forum under the state Constitution because of ―the growing importance of the shopping center‖ (Pruneyard, at p. 907) as a place for large groups of citizens to congregate‘ and to take advantage of the numerous amenities offered there, and also because of the public character of the shopping center, which is a result of the shopping center‘s owner having fully opened his property to the public (id. at p. 910 & fn. 5).

Recall that it was Defendant who wanted to have this case heard in a California Court, the home of Pruneyard, so Defendant lives by the sword and dies by the sword. As noted by Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute Director Jameel Jaffer, Esq. relative to the successful lawsuit against President Trump for blocking dissenters on Twitter in Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-5205 (S.D.N.Y.), No. 18-1691 (2d Cir.): https://www.vox.com/2018/11/19/18103081/first-amendment-facebook-jameel-jaffer-freedom-speech-alex-jones-decode-podcast-kara-swisher

“Facebook has its own First Amendment rights here,” Jaffer said. “It expresses them by ejecting Alex Jones from the platform. I think none of that would raise difficult questions if it weren’t for Facebook’s scale. It’s the fact that Facebook is so big and that Facebook arguably controls the public square or arguably controls a large segment of the public square.” 
 “That’s when I think free speech advocates start to get nervous about Facebook excluding people from the platform, especially when there’s an argument that they’re excluding people on the basis of viewpoint,” he added. “You can think whatever you want to about Alex Jones, but I worry not about Alex Jones, but about the next person or the next year. Who is it that Facebook is going to be excluding next year?”[3] 
Accord Packingham v. North Carolina 137 S. Ct. 1730 (2017) Justice Anthony Kennedy, in full rhetorical mode, referred to the internet as "the modern public square." Id. at 1737. See Harvard Law Review 131 Harv. L. Rev 233 (Nov. 10, 2017).

 Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan faulted the North Carolina statute as “a prohibition unprecedented in the scope of First Amendment speech it burdens,” invalidating it as an impermissible limit on lawful speech. The Court reiterated the “fundamental” First Amendment principle “that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more. Packingham, 137 S. at 1737.


The Court also counseled “extreme caution before suggesting that the First Amendment provides scant protection for access to [the] vast networks” of the internet, “[t]he forces and directions” of which “are so new, so protean, and so far reaching that courts must be conscious that what they say today might be obsolete tomorrow. Id. at 1736.


V. Conclusion: Evil and Insidious. 


Put simply, this must become the New Standard. This comports with His Honor’s Decision in Wadler, supra, although it is actually an even higher standard. If an objective observer can look at the facts of any particular case and determine that the conduct of an ISP has become retaliatory and evil and insidious then there is grounds to determine not only that they have committed a retaliatory breach, but that they have crossed the First Amendment threshold as well Per Knight, supra, Packingham, supra, and potentially Freedom Watch/Loomer, supra as that case develops. 


There is no reason for this Court to lag behind however. Now is the time to make the natural doctrinal movement forward as warranted in California by Pruneyard on the First Amendment Claim and by Wadler on the Retaliatory Breach Claim. 


 For the time being there are boundaries on Facebook or Twitter speech. Plaintiff does not agree that there should be any such boundaries short of actual physical threats but for the purposes of this litigation he agrees that these boundaries are sacrosanct. That being said, when the victim of Facebook’s unlawful retaliation is perpetually banned for conduct that is clearly not in violation of such boundaries when the User is criticizing Facebook a Court is free to protect the User at Law and at Equity. 


 If Facebook will punish a white woman with the power of Senator and Candidate Elizabeth Warren, supra, and we have seen the blatant racism against blacks on campus and on the platform, supra, then Facebook can – and did – unlawfully retaliate against a small unimportant nigger such as Plaintiff, and it has come time for these abusive corporate behemoths to learn that they no longer wield their power in such an ungainly and oppressive manner. 


Plaintiff’s job as a litigant here is to point out socially and legally relevant issues pertaining to the evils that Facebook fastidiously foists upon our society each and every day in the hopes that this Honorable Court will indeed recognize that there are ways in which Facebook can indeed be found liable because the status quo has created a monster of immense proportions… a monster so ugly that its own co-founder noted that it “poses a threat to our Democracy” whether the Eric Goldmans of the World and other largely white male Facebook apologists care to acknowledge it or not, it is a fact. Time will tell. The whole scheme and infrastructure is just….. wrong. And the whole Country knows it. 


Respectfully submitted, 

Christopher King, J.D. 
Dated: 13 November 2019



[1] See Collins v. Shoppers’ World, citation unavailable.
Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute, working with the American Civil Liberties Union, brought an action in Virginia Circuit Court, asserting that the guarantee to free speech and expression contained in the Virginia Constitution protected Collins' right to engage in political speech connected with an election at privately-owned shopping centers that are open and available to the public.

[2] This is significant because an individual State, may, under its own auspices, afford greater Constitutional protections than granted in the Federal Scheme, but it may not afford less. California affords more. Regardless, Judge Koh’s rationale is also wrong for other reasons explained herein.

[3] Jaffer successfully sued President Donald Trump over Facebook First Amendment issues. This is the next shoe to drop, and given the fact that the DC Court of Appeals is reviewing First Amendment Claims and DENIED summary affirmance we all know it is only a matter of time. That time has come and this Court must take a stand given the clear-cut law of Packingham v. North Carolina 137 S.Ct 1730 (2017), Pruneyard and progeny.

14 November 2019

KingCast Sees New York Life Slammed on Racism Lawsuit in Boston Federal Court Today: I Told You So.


Just the facts:

Ketler Bossé (EEOC #6D-2016-00110) 
Jon Sugick, 2017-CV-10211 (ED Mich)
Eugene Mitchell 2017-CV-1200 (SDNY) 
Clifford Marks 18-cv-00327 Burns v. NY Life 97-CV-04559 
Bent v. NYLife 98-CV-00887 

Sugick ordered to Arbitration. 
Mitchell settled. 
Marks in settlement 18 Nov. 

Ketler Bossé EEOC #6D-2016-00110, 1:19-cv-00016 (2019). 
I'll post the full Decision soon or you can pay for it yourself right here

Wednesday, November 13, 2019 
23 pgs order 
Order on Motion to Dismiss Wed 4:08 PM ORDER denying 9 Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Stay Proceedings and Compel Arbitration. For the foregoing reasons, as well as those stated in plaintiff's briefing, defendants' motion to compel arbitration, and stay these proceedings (document no. 9) is DENIED, and defendants' motion to dismiss (document no. 9) is DENIED. 
So Ordered by Judge Steven J. McAuliffe. Answer Follow Up on 11/27/2019. (lw)

Here's your back story about the Moulinyan Moment that this man had to deal with. 

These racists took a beat down today and I love it. Many years ago I was a Plaintiff against American Tower Corporation and an European white girl and I fought for Justice in a neighboring New England Courthouse. I can't speak to the outcome but I can tell you that the DOL socked them for some decent pocket change because of a letter that I personally wrote on behalf of my trainees... and most of them were white, BTW so there was plenty of corporate abuse to go around. 

As usual, I was the only one this case for YEARS. Eugene Mitchell's case settled last year, fact. And let's not forget about Jon Sugick and Clifford Marks' cases either. Read the lawsuit I'll update you soon.

Racist and otherwise abusive corporate entities such as Facebook are not good for this Country.  I can't wait for the Jury Trial if NYLife dares to go there because I will be planted up outside that Courthouse with my favorite Zeiss lens and my trusty old Canon to ask a few questions of Counsel and witnesses that's much is certain.

Racist New York Life Slammed in Federal Court in Ketler Bosse v. NYLife 19-CV-016-SM by Christopher King on Scribd

12 November 2019

King v. Facebook 19-CV-1987 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss: Facebook and Counsel Denigrate Negroes and Retaliate Against Dissenters.

DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF, CHRISTOPHER KING, J.D. 

I the undersigned being first duly sworn, solemnly aver as follows: 

1. I have read the Declaration of Facebook Counsel William Hicks in which he decried my affirmative statement that my end game – much like that of U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren and many others – is to see Facebook regulated and its speech policies changed; 

2. I did not make any misstatement of Law or Fact in my email to him in which I also stated that in my opinion, Facebook is “full of shit;” 

3. However, I note that said Counsel in one fell swoop issued a material misstatement of Law and Fact to me when he stated on Thursday, 2 May 2019 that I had engaged in “frivolous” conduct that required me to pay Attorney Fees in the State Court case out of Seattle prior to initiating suit in this Honorable Court. He wrote: 
It is premature at this time to engage in a Rule 26(f) conference, especially because you still have failed to pay the judgment entered by the King County Superior Court as a sanction for your frivolous motion practice in that case. You should pay the outstanding judgment in Washington before proceeding with a substantially similar case in California. 
4. There is no precept of Law requiring me to pay anything on that case prior to filing in this Honorable Court; 

5. Further, there was no Finding of Fact or Law that I engaged in any “frivolous” conduct whatsoever; 

6. As such, I view this conduct as yet another extension of Defendant Facebook’s ongoing corporate culture of abuse against dissenters, particularly but not limited to black dissenters as exists on the Campus and on the Platform according to the Party Admission of then VP of Diversity Mark Luckie as well as last week’s anonymous statements by current blacks at Facebook as noted in the USA Today that is addressed in my Memorandum in Opposition to Facebook’s Motion to Dismiss: Denigrate the Negro is their modus operandi.....[SNIP] 

And I'm the one who is allegedly frivolous or abusive?  Bullshit.  I'm not misstating obvious clear-cut law or facts but Facebook Counsel sure as hell did.

Much more to follow Wednesday evening, 13 November 2019.

09 November 2019

A Veterans' Day Open Letter to Tucker Carlson on Veterans Abuse by Corrupt Judge Amy Berman Jackson.



Dear Messrs Carlson and Hoft:

I read your coverage with rapt interest.

Amy Berman Jackson (and two other Judges) have all been complicit in covering up VA Whistleblower abuse to an extent that it violates any and all notions of fairness. She held pecuniary interests that may have required for recusal and still refuses to be forthright about those, as some of our videos and the Bozgoz family Court filings have clearly shown. But she refuses to deny them or to say what her current financials are. She just stated "those are old and unverified."

Meanwhile, a whistleblower who has survived and settled her case with the VA after being gaslighted (Jamie Fox) will be reaching out to you along with the Bozgoz family shortly.

I am a former government lawyer and the Bozgoz family ADA Advocate, and I am appalled.

It all sort of started, or at least heated up when Voncelle James, a black supervisor, denied overtime assignments to a white former JAG Attorney Robert Bozgoz in an act of unlawful Reverse Discrimination. After he questioned that his life got turned upside down and she ordered him back to work despite the recommendations of his board-certified attending physician. Attorney Bozgoz had a stroke. His brother died of a stroke. But the VA doesn't care, not one bit. The abuse continues unabated.

The VA started leaking personal information about Robert and his wife Lieutenant Colonel Margaret Sue Bozgoz.  She is Mr. Bozgoz' ADA Advocate and both of them have sustained incredible levels of retaliation and the cornerstone of all of it is a bunch of fake criminal charges brought against them relating to their lawful attempts to effectuate Legal Service of Process against Voncelle James using their son Lance.  James lied and said that Ms. Bozgoz was present (she was not) and that she had weapons in her car (she does not). Since then the government and two other judges Zuberri Williams and Debra L. Dwyer have been complicit in more transgressions.

After yet another criminal hearing before her, she did not allow Lt. Colonel Bozgoz to read into the record in her first objection as to why lawful Service of Process can NEVER constitute a criminal act. You can see by the videos that everything was lawful about the attempted Service of Process that Ms. Bozgoz rejected. 
Publication is verboten!

Then after she finally read the law into the case the Court clerk produce an audio that failed to contain the objections and stamped them as nonpublic. I promptly told the Court director I am going to be posting that audio at my discretion because that is a First Amendment violation. There's not government police exception or trade secret or rape victim involved in this case, other than the raping of Lady Justice that is patently evident. 

KingCast Sees Black Facebook Employees Still Complain: Facebook Empowers Racism Against Its Employees of Color.


My email to my distribution chain including the Yellow Journalist Law Professor and Facebook bootlick Eric Goldman:

Yah...... Whether I win my Facebook Oral Arguments or not I'm putting this new USA Today article in my cases.

"Facebook still has a black people problem. And a problem with individual contributors who are not white."

Boom! That goes straight into my arguments as to Retaliatory Breach of Contract as well as the argument against Sanctions on me in the Seattle case that y'all can come and observe in the Court of Appeals. I'll let you know the date, probably in January.
“We may be smiling. We may post on Instagram with industry influencers and celebrities. We may use the IG ‘Share Black Stories’ filter and be featured on marketing pieces. We may embrace each other and share how happy we are to have the opportunity to work with a company that impacts nearly three billion people,” the anonymous memo says. “On the inside, we are sad. Angry. Oppressed. Depressed. And treated every day through the micro and macro aggressions as if we do not belong here.”
......That's because we don't. Facebook just uses niggers to make money from us, and that's a fact. Facebook is the biggest POS company, ever. And I am putting it all into the Record regardless of the outcome.

While eating breakfast, two white employees asked me to clean up after their mess. I am a program manager. I told my manager about the incident. She told me I need to dress more professionally. 

I spoke at a regular team meeting and gave my opinion about a topic I am a subject matter expert on. I was told after the meeting by the manager that I was disrespectful for speaking at this meeting, that my opinion was not wanted, that I was being arrogant in sharing that opinion, and not to speak at any future meetings unless called upon. 

Also: Facebook failing African-American and Hispanic women too.
Alysha Light, founder of public relations agency Flight PR, says there's no shortage of African-American and Hispanic women in Silicon Valley, but they don't get approached by technology companies or their recruiters. "They all have LinkedIn pages, strong networks. They’re out there," she said. "Black and Latina women aren’t hiding from Silicon Valley."
Just a bunch of abusive evil Silicon Valley not-so-subtle racists from Sandberg and Zuckerberg all the down the corporate ladder and across to their Ku Klux Klan brothers and sisters throughout the relative industries. They even hate a lot of white people too. Just an Evil Empire all around and one day it will indeed fall. 

I'll be cheering from the Mountaintop.

23 October 2019

"Appalling and Disgusting...." KingCast Applauds as Ohio Congresswoman Joyce Beatty Rips Mark Zuckerberg a New One on Civil Rights and More.


Listen
"You work with civil Rights because of the number of lawsuits you've had....."

"Did you review the packet that was sent to you from this Committee.... Obviously that's a no."

"Who's on the Civil Rights Task Force?"
"Sheryl Sandberg is the person who....
"What Civil Rights [chuckle]....We all know Sheryl Sandberg has no background in Civil Rights. I know Sheryl well and there isn't anything about Civil Rights in her background and so you're going to have to come better than THAT."

"Do you not know who the firm is [handling your Civil Rights?]...that you employ for Civil Rights is?

"How could you not know....and this is what's so frustrating to me. It's almost like you think this is a joke. When you have ruined the lives of many people, discriminated against them."

"Do you know what the percentage of African-Americans are on Facebook compared to the majority (repeated)."
"I don't know because we don't collect the races percentages."
"Well I have it right here from the Pew Charitable Trusts report that was sent to you. So maybe you just don't read a lot of things that deal with Civil Rights or African-Americans. I have a lot of questions that I am going to send to you that I can't get through today and I want an answer because this is appalling and disgusting to me, and I yield back."

Unbelievable. One day Babylon a go fall. It must. It's only a matter of time folks.