24 August 2019

Judge in Facebook #CDA 230 Immunity Lawsuit Issues Blazing Decision on Adhesion Clauses and Unconscionability.


May it Please the Court, on researching matters for a soon-to-be pending Motion to Compel, Plaintiff discovered new Law from His Honor’s Bench that may be instructive in this case. As such, Plaintiff respectfully asks Leave of Court to issue one last pertinent and short update to the last Supplemental Post-Hearing Update because he has become aware of an extremely related Opinion in Wadler et al v. Custard Insurance Adjusters, Inc, 17-CV-05840 (11 April 2018), Fees awarded five (5) days after Oral Argument in the case at bar, or 22 July 2019. The case involved clickwrap or adhesion-clause abuse in an unequal arms-length situation. Mark Zuckerberg alone is worth $85B.  Plaintiff is worth approximately $30,000.00 at the moment, or .0000003529% of that. From Wadler:
Procedural unconscionability occurs where a contract or clause involves oppression, consisting of a lack of negotiation and meaningful choice, or surprise, such as where the term at issue is hidden within a wordy document. Id. “California law treats contracts of adhesion, or at least terms over which a party of lesser bargaining power had no opportunity to negotiate, as procedurally unconscionable to at least some degree.” Bridge Fund Capital Corp. v. Fastbucks Franchise Corp., 622 F.3d 996, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010). 


Substantive unconscionability occurs where the provision at issue “reallocates risks in an objectively unreasonable or unexpected manner.” Lhotka, 181 Cal. App. 4th at 821 (citation omitted). “Substantive unconscionability focuses on the one-sidedness or overly harsh effect of the contract term or clause.” Id. at 824–25 (citation omitted).........

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff noted (Tr. 7-8)
So at this point, we come back from Facebook's comment. In sum, if you look at a thing like their hate speech guidelines, I clearly have not violated them. Anyone can see that.

But, if Facebook gets to put out this type of purported contract, and laugh at all of us while making billions off of our backs, what we have here is a completely illusory contract. And we have to go back to basic terms of statutory construction that you learned in law school. Congress did not intend for an absurd result to occur. But it's absurd what's been going on here.

The time has come for the prophylactic protections of the CDA §230 to be lifted, at least under the Facts of this specific case. It is a measure whose time has come – and gone – in a case such as this one.

Respectfully submitted,

_____________________
Christopher King, J.D.

22 August 2019

Facebook Lawyers at Keker Van Nest Cannot Answer a Simple Question on Defamation Abusers.


That's one of many Defamatory comments on the Platform about me.
But before we get to me, let's check on some legal precedent, shall we?

Davyne Dial is another victim of Defamation on the Facebook platform who needs to know this. Ms. Dial -- general manager of VPVM 103.7 Asheville -- was awarded $.5M for a single episode of Defamation on the Platform.   She now needs to know about how Keker, Van Nest can't even answer simple questions for 13 days running about the Defamation I sustained over the course of YEARS.....and further: 

Even then the lawyers won't give me a definite answer as to when they will provide the information I am owed pursuant to Law. Specifically 18 USC §2703(c). Naturally #Facebook notified one of the three accounts on 2 August, meaning that the last of 21 days for them to respond to the Subpoena expires on a Friday so I get to wait until the next business day of Monday to discover who they are. 

That's enough bullshit in and of itself, but then to have the same lawyers who couldn't give me an answer as to the date of notification then fail to promise me the information by Monday after I asked them what the holdup is, constitutes bullshit on top of bullshit and I am not going to stand for it. If I don't have my information by Monday close of business I will serve them a Motion to Compel and have them in front of Judge Orrick so fast it will make their heads spin. 
**************
 Counselors:

Tuesday morning 20 August at 9:10 a.m. I asked you a simple question:

Also, 

It is no secret that I feel getting information from you client regarding my defamer(s) has been tantamount to drawing blood from a stone. 

Wherefore, let's get a few things straight:

1.  Did your client send out information to the defamer Lisa Marie on 2 August, 2019 as indicated by Attorney HICKS and if so can we agree then that the time for production of User Information (or a Motion to Quash, etc) would be no later than Friday, 23 August as the expiration of the 21st day?

2. Does your client maintain its position that it cannot or will not locate information on "Facebook User" or "Troy Frasier?"

That is all for now.
 
………. I asked this in light of what my app developer shared with me. Again to be crystal clear what he said:

“That’s bullshit. If you delete an account they can go right back and activate it. That’s because they keep records.”

“They can identify any of their users from their IP Addresses. Even if the abuser bought a VPN they could probably track it.”

I then corrected a name typo yesterday (HICKS) as noted above.

Guys: There are three of you working the Federal Case at Keker. Surely one of you has some answers for me given that tomorrow appears to be the deadline on the Lisa Marie issue, and I say appears to be because the firmest answer I have received on the matter from Attorney Hicks despite numerous inquiry was

“….on or about August 2.” 

Please allow me to run through the timeline on this for absolute clarity:


6 August
G'Day Counselor,

I would appreciate an update sometime this week as to:

*Notification of the first ass-clown.
*Identification of the second ass-clown.

Thank you in advance,

C

**********
 
7 August
OK so the identified User has an active account?

On what day was Notice sent so I have my calendaring straight?

Thank you.
C

**********

8 August
Also, I had asked on what day was the Notice sent?

Thanks,
C
**********





9 August:

Dear Attorney Hicks:

OK so I remind you that I had asked what day the Notice was sent and I still need to know that. I believe I am entitled to know that. Please advise if you disagree.

**********
9 August
I believe it was on or about August 2, but I’ll need to confirm.

**********


With all due respect y’all have now had thirteen (13) days to confirm even the notice on the one account, not to mention the pending possibility of my filing a Motion to Compel on the others. 

So I am going to ask you one last time before I approach the Court: 
What day did Facebook send the notice and are you holding firm that Facebook cannot obtain the information on the other two accounts?

Thank you.

C

20 August 2019

Seattle Area Scientist Reviews KingCast v. Facebook and Concurs with Plaintiff and Facebook Amicus Counsel, IBM Chief of Policy and Others on CDA 47 USC §230 Immunity.


Look closely folks: Facebook capitulated.
LOL

First of all before we get to the letter written to the Court of this man's own initiative, this is the first draft of the thumbnail for my forthcoming app that I'll be discussing before my colleague Tony Doupé and his film class tomorrow, as I am wont to do over the years. Here's a series of Facebook discussions. Eventually I will teach film and media but for now all you need to know is that the app will help thousands of people effectively gain camera access to Courts that is all too-often wrongfully denied.



Actual Transcript reduced to audio.

Reaction from Courtroom observer + my commentary.


IBM post with Federalist Society's Ryan Hageman.

As submitted via email today to the Federal District Court and to my opposing Counsel from someone who has been following this case. Note that when you read the Transcript from Oral Argument in KingCast v. Facebook, 19-CV-1987 and other documents filed at this link you will see that Facebook’s own Amicus Counsel says the same exact thing, and so too does the Director of Policy at IBM. That’s all I have to say at this point.

********

Dear Court and Counsel:

I am a Seattle-based scientist working on noninvasive molecular diagnostics for cancer.  I have been following the 2019 case of King v. Facebook -- number 1987 -- and am writing to express my opinion, as it seems very timely and important.As I understand it, unlike a majority of companies in America, Facebook is currently empowered to violate its own contracts and terms of service with its users at its sole discretion, while enjoying significant immunity from law suits intended to seek redress.  In 2019, Facebook is one of the largest and most powerful companies ever to exist, and its capacity to wield influence is enormous.  Allowing it to continue to receive the special protections that were granted in the 1990's by the Communications Decency Act (CDA) when the internet was a fledgling industry, in the face of arguments like that of Mr. King, seems to be an indefensible position.  That Mr. King's postings on the Facebook platform have been selectively removed only when titled "How to Sue Facebook," however tasteful or not, resembles retaliation, seems like censorship of his First Amendment rights, and is not supported by Facebook's own terms of service.:


NOTE: Facebook as recently rescinded the ban:  Check the thumbnail carefully:

It sets a bad precedent to leave Facebook's broad immunity under the CDA the in-tact, and I urge you to consider revoking it.
*******
Wow.

Dear Dr.. XXXX, as a layperson, you get it. Thank you for reading my blog!  I can't continue on the thread as it is not a legal document but I thank you for your support and make one small distinction:

There is technically no First Amendment violation. There are cases where public officials violate First Amendment Rights by snubbing people but that's not exactly the case before us and Facebook remains technically a private company regardless of its nature as the World's largest public utility.

I will be happy to take this up with you in further detail offline and again, thank you for following.

Sincerely,

Christopher King, J.D.

**********
Thank you for the distinction.  Nevertheless, I hope that the platform will be made as egalitarian as possible.

Best regards,
xxx

Meanwhile the August 2019 installment of the Civil Rights Audit doesn't say jack shit about dark people specifically being slammed for Hate Speech but does mention conservatives.  

Content Policies: Although Facebook values free expression, it also wants to ensure that users feel welcome and safe on the platform. To that end, Facebook has established “Community Standards” governing which types of content are prohibited from the platform. Conservative interviewees identified concerns in the following areas: 

1. Hate Speech Designations: On this front, interviewees’ concerns stemmed both from the notion of having a “hate speech” policy in the first place and from unfair labeling of certain speech as “hate speech.” Interviewees often pointed out the highly subjective nature of determining what constitutes “hate”—an assessment that may be subject to the biases of content reviewers. The term “hate speech” is itself controversial, insofar as it may incorrectly ascribe motive in many cases.

16 August 2019

KingCast Motorsports Presents: First Look and Drive 1984 Euro Porsche 944 2.5.


Actually BBS are perfect on here. Runs PERFECTLY. Euro car. Hi-Comp pistons, Koni adjustable. Headers. Decat. Dansk exhaust. 911SC seats. Has perfect dash carpet too. And unlike many ROW cars it has a sunroof. For Pepper of course 😂 

New tires and alignment spark plugs, wires, cap and rotor went through the brakes new lower control arms and sway bar bushings

15 August 2019

KingCast Presents: Christopher Teel Rape Trial Updates and Coverage.


I'm quite certain I'll be bringing you much more footage than major press. I see Christopher Teel is no longer sporting the once-haughty smirk that graced his prior mugshot photo. In my opinion this multiple criminal is finally going to be locked away for quite some time. 

An expert report on him is due to the Prosecutor's later this month, with yet another Rape Trial continuance to 23 September. I'll be there with cameras drawn.
Seattle: Infested by crime and criminals.


But don't worry Chris. You need this. You want this. 
Here is some Backstory
Lindsey Steele documentary video with Chris Rufo "The Wrong Narrative."

13 August 2019

Facebook Wants to Continue our Case Management Conference. Here's what I told them:

Here's what I told them: Sue Facebook suefacebook007@gmail.com Mon, Aug 12, 8:22 PM 15 hours ago to William, Matan, Paven 

Obviously the Court is busy. I’m also quite certain His Honor is taking a long, hard look at this one. Just my $.02 but what do I know I’ve only defeated Kelly Ayotte on 3/4 of the cases in which we tangled. 😎

******* 

Dear Counselors, I am still not inclined to agree to punt the CMC but I will do so with the following Stipulation that you share this email with the Court as my response. First of all, on the Merits I do not believe that Facebook is going to walk away from this clean. We were all at the same Hearing and we all know the areas of concern that the Court heard and is deliberating on: 

Your client cannot possibly avail itself of a content-based defense when they allow one blog but not the other, with the same exact content. And that shadows all of their treatment of me. 

Second, as to the Rule 26 Expedited matters in which your client claims they can only identify one of the three User Accounts, I have discussed this with an industry professional who develops apps for the Apple Store. Thus, from my new app & web developer: 

“That’s bullshit. If you delete an account they can go right back and activate it. That’s because they keep records.” “They can identify any of their users from their IP Addresses. Even if the abuser bought a VPN they could probably track it.” 

In short, I am not agreeing to the continuance for any reason to do with your client. I am doing it solely to allow the Court to focus on the Merits during this time. 

Very Truly Yours, Christopher King, J.D 

Facebook Censorship CDA 47 ... by Christopher King on Scribd

KingCast Warns Casey Sherman, John Stimpson and David Wedge on False Light Defamation, see Ruffin-Steinback v. DePasse, 82 F. Supp. 2d 723 (E.D. Mich. 2000).


First of all, I have reason to believe that Greg Floyd is back in North Country, walking around and hanging out at Dutch Treat and talking about how he is going to be willing to shoot someone for #45. These are rumors, but rumors from someone who has proved to be accurate about a lot of things in the past while I was actually busy suing the town and former AG Kelly Ayotte and winning information while Case Sherman sat back and watched. It was before I had my YouTube channel but the videos are here at Franconia511 Channel.
Anyway here is the case. You may recall that I have warned Casey Sherman and the rest of his posse about telling lies on Liko Peter Kenney, specifically whether or not Bruce McKay and his jack-booted buddies from neighboring jurisdictions had Probable Cause to arrest him and beat the shit out of him. Officers Cox and Ball, of course. See State v. Wright 03-CR-109, and State v. Miller 03-CR-012, 103, 029 in the link below.

Careful, sustained research clearly showed that Casey is full of shit. Of course he also refused to appear at a book signing for "Bad Blood: Freedom and Death in the White Mountains." And of course he also refused to appear for a classroom lecture series unless paid $1,000.00 as noted by Professor George McNeil, who appears in my website for Circle of Stones: The Liko Kenney Story that we are launching into after another pending movie gets wrapped first.

Anyway guys, don't fuck with me. That's all. And as noted, your bullshit scab-labor movie "Franconia Notch" (IMDb) should never get distribution and I'll be right there with our lawyers and citing this case if and when you do. BTW folks, Casey already scoured my blog as the best source of information on everything when he wrote his book and gave me lots of left-handed praise and pretended that I "gave [him] some help when the trail ran cold."

I came across this tidbit because I was listening to Eddie Kendricks yesterday. If you know much about music you can then see how this happened.......and fully understand the nexus. Keep on Trucking Baby. Keep. On. Trucking.

2. Johnnie Mae Mathews Johnnie Mae Mathews (Mathews) was the first manager or agent of the Temptations, when they were known as Otis Williams and the Distants. In the particular scene of the mini-series that forms the basis of Mathews' claims of defamation and false light invasion of privacy, Mathews is depicted driving up to the Temptations in a brand new Cadillac with the words "Otis Williams and the Distants" painted on the side. She produces a large roll of money and intimates that the money represents amounts earned by the Temptations through their performances. 
When the members of the group ask to be paid, however, disagreement surfaces, and the conversation, as well as the relationship between Mathews and the Distants/Temptations, is depicted as ending with Mathews placing all of the money in her bosom and driving away in the Cadillac. The implication of the scene is that *733 Mathews never returned the money or the car, and that both belonged to the Temptations. Mathews contends that the incident involving the Cadillac did not occur as depicted and, as a result, alleges false light invasion of privacy and defamation. 
In her Second Amended Complaint, Mathews also alleges defamation by implication. The sole basis for defendants' motion to dismiss this claim is a procedural argument. Defendants content that Mathews failed to plead the defamation claims with particularity as required by Michigan law. See, e.g. MacGriff v. Van Antwerp, 327 Mich. 200, 204-205, 41 N.W.2d 524 (1950); Royal Palace Homes v. Channel 7 of Detroit, 197 Mich.App. 48, 56-57, 495 N.W.2d 392 (1992). 
At a hearing held on October 4, 1999, both parties viewed the scene described above, and Mathews was directed to file an amended complaint setting forth the alleged defamatory content of that scene. On October 18, 1999, Mathews filed a Second Amended Complaint setting out the allegedly defamatory content of the scene and quoting verbatim from the scene. See Second Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 48, 49. This Second Amended Complaint renders defendants' procedural argument moot. Defendants having presented no other arguments in favor of summary judgment or dismissal, their motion to dismiss Mathews' defamation, defamation by implication and false light invasion of privacy claims is denied.