03 July 2015

KingCast & Mortgage Movies See Foreclosure Mill Attorney J. Will Eidson Run From Cameras During Inspection of a Public Document.... A Purported Deutsche Bank Original Note.

At bottom, watch a prior video involving Marilynn Shcolnik's remand after a dirty removal trick pulled by the banksters. See how shifty Attorney J. Will Eidson appears in that video? Well we saw it again yesterday. In a King County (Kent) Superior Court yesterday in Deutschebank v. Erickson 14-2-00426-5 KNT Judge Andrea Darvas Denied Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and permitted inspection of what is purportedly the original Note.  I know several things for fact:

A Note is a public document.

J. Will Eidson hates my cameras.

J. Will Eidson runs from my cameras every single time.

The signatures and authenticity of the Note are still not resolved.

Other Notes have been presented as authentic but found to be otherwise.
I am going to seek an advisory opinion from the Attorney General regarding inspection of a public document:  Having settled many a case in conference rooms I told the Bailiff that I had no problem staying away from a conference room if there is true conferencing going on. But that is not what was going on yesterday. What was going on yesterday was inspection of a public document, which could have been done in the hallway or courtroom. Whatever the case, it is my contention that that is not a private event when the inspection is occurring in a public building.  If this were a divorce case involving intricate private family details such as tax documents or estate planning I would not make this argument.... but again that is not the situation contemplated by yesterday's activities, so stay tuned. Here's how the letter will read:

Dear Attorney General Ferguson: I have provided your office crucial information regarding the illegal practices of Cal Western on prior occasion when I was working on mortgage mediations. That having been said, as a former Assistant Attorney General I have a great degree of respect for the 50 State AG offices and hope that you can review this situation as seen at this YouTube link and on the enclosed SD card and advise me as to whether inspection of a public document in a public building can ever be a private matter, such that both counsel have to agree to have a reporter present.

Given the state of America's foreclosure crisis and all of the fraud and deceitful practices that were in play, unbeknownst to me as an escrow attorney 13 years ago, I would hope that your office issue an advisory opinion that inspection of a public document in a public building is subject to the First Amendment principles of open media.  It is clear to me that what happened yesterday in the Kent Courthouse was and is a form of unlawful prior restraint.

Respectfully submitted,

Christopher King, J.D.

cc:  Judge Andrea Darvas

02 July 2015

KingCast and Mortgage Movies to File Amended Complaint in Kent County Delaware as Judge Young Apparently Rules No Constitutional Right to Ask Betty Lou McKenna a Question or Two on Camera.

I can't make this stuff up and the Truth is stranger than fiction. Video later after I review the ORDER. I just read the online docket to see that His Honor gave the Defendants a pass.  Below are my emails for today, which is also basically my Rule 59 Motion without some of the cases I will cite to. At bottom is the video from two weeks ago noting how security had my picture up for my 11 June Courthouse visit, because I am always a DBM... Dangerous Black Man in their eyes.   Their hatred of cameras is patently absurd.

So Judge Robert B. Young in Delaware Protects Defendants on Constitutional argument, and apparently says I don't have a Constitutional Right in Delaware to ask a couple of questions of high-ranking government officials with a camera. Well if that is the case do I have the right to do so without a camera? Surely I do. But most Courts these days are finding that a camera is the same as a pen and parchment.... as in Tarus, below. Here is the ACLU Amicus Brief by Attorney Jennifer Klear, whom I just included on the emails. Here are the emails:

To be clear, 

Courts are increasingly holding that there is no difference between a pen & paper and a video camera if used in an unobtrusive manner. 

So then for the Court to hold -- as it apparently did -- that I do not have a Constitutional Right to ask a question or two of a high-ranking public official with a camera is the same as saying I do not have a Constitutional Right to do the same with a pen and a notepad.

That just can't be right.  So just so the Defendants know what is coming down the pike, the Amended Complaint will cite to Tarusinfra, with a Common Law claim and it will include the equal protection issue because cameras were allowed in Newcastle County.  Look for that and my Rule 59 Motion as soon as I obtain and review the Court's 29 June 2015 ORDER that erroneously GRANTED "Judgment on the Pleadings," but which really was Summary Judgment...... even though I never got the Discovery I should have received, most importantly any opportunity to develop with the real policy is.


Delaware is in the Federal Third Circuit.  From several of my filings, see: 

Let’s go into New Jersey (Third Circuit) now to determine that KingCast is correct again, shall we? Tarus v. Borough of Pine Hill, 189 N.J. 497 (2007)(shattering all of those ancient notions in Whiteland Woods).

The common law therefore has evolved to embrace additional means for documenting public proceedings, not fewer. Over time, quill and parchment gave way to pen and pad; audio recording devices supplanted stenography.

The common law therefore has evolved to embrace additional means for documenting public proceedings--not fewer. See Higg-A-Rella, Inc. v. County of Essex, 141 N.J. 35, 52, 660 A.2d 1163 (1995) (finding that common law is flexible and can be adapted to advancing technology); Atl. City Convention Ctr. Auth., supra, 135 N.J. at 64, 637 A.2d 1261 ("The essence of the common law is its adaptability to changing circumstances."). Sudol, supra, [**1044] emphasized the need for the law to adapt to that recording evolution, [***25] and, in doing so, illustrated how the common law applies common sense: Suppose, for example, that the [local public body] had attempted to prohibit the use of pen, or pencil and paper, at the sessions held by them; such a measure would at once strike anyone as being an improper means of exerting official power, and the surprise and dissatisfaction generated by such an arbitrary rule would undoubtedly lead to a prohibition by the courts of such a foolish attempt to exercise governmental power. [Id. at 154, 348 A.2d 216 (quoting Nevens v. Chino, 233 Cal. App. 2d 775, 44 Cal. Rptr. 50, 52 (Dist.Ct.App.1965)).] Thus, over time, quill and parchment gave way to pen and pad; audio recording devices supplanted stenography.

And see:
Pomykacz v. Borough of W. Wildwood, 438 F. Supp. 2d 504 (2006), Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011),Iacobucci v. Boulter, 1997 U.S. Dist. Lexis 7010, No. CIV.A. 94-10531 (D.Mass, Mar. 26, 1997) . Accord Tarus v. Borough of Pine Hill, 189 N.J. 497 (2007)(shattering all of those ancient notions in Whiteland Woods).  AccordPeloquin v. Arsenault, 162 Misc. 2d 306 (1994) and Csorny v. Shoreham-Wading River Cent. Sch. Dist., 305 A.D.2d 83 (2003) (holding that blanket bans are unlawful.

The Iacobucci Court gets it:
“This case involves a small-town journalist, a small-town police officer,
and rights as grand as the Constitution itself.”

As such, he had a right to run video without fear of being arrested, unlike Plaintiff.


On Jul 02, 2015, at 04:02 AM, Christopher King <kingcast955@icloud.com> wrote:
I can't wait to get a copy of the Court ORDER on this so that I can preserve my Appeal Rights.  I must make certain that I don't waive them by filing my Amended Complaint.  There will be a Rule 59 Motion going out within the 10 days, and then if the Court denies that, there will be Appeals all the way to SCOTUS.  The Defendants had to know that the Court was going to give them a pass on this one or they would have settled. That's okay. The heat will return in subsequent Courts because there are simply too many cases in this Country that hold my favor.

The Court also DENIED my request for Oral argument on this case and my Motion for Reconsideration regarding Commissioner Andrea Freud's clearly wrong denial of video coverage based on Rule 155 was DENIED as well.

Also DENIED by implication were my Motions to Compel production of several key evidentiary matters as well as my Motion to Stay Proceedings until discovery is completed.

Interestingly, what was GRANTED was my Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint, which will largely be based on the fact that other counties allow cameras, at least Newcastle:


And I am going to add in a Common Law claim as well.  One of my cited cases held that even if there was not a Constitutional Right, that there is a Common Law Right.

I can't wait to see what happens the next time I'm in Delaware and go in there with my camera and they arrest me and I sue for wrongful arrest. That will be interesting, yessir.


So that which I can do in every other State I've been in, I cannot apparently do in Delaware, nice. At least not on a Constitutionally-protected basis.... is what I am assuming until I read the Decision.  The Court is apparently trying to send me down the Common Law path, which one of my cases sustained. Other Courts clearly disagree and sustain a Constitutional challenge.

As I said:

Rick Jensen doesn't seem to get it but Bill Gunlocke and Nancy Willing do. Fortunately, most Courts these days get it too. Pomykacz v. Borough of W. Wildwood, 438 F. Supp. 2d 504 (2006). In 2006, a federal district court in New Jersey decided the case of Pomykacz v. Borough of W. Wildwood, 438 F. Supp. 2d 504 (2006) · Pomykacz was a self-described “citizen activist” who expressed concern that a suspected romance between the town’s mayor and a police officer were leading to nepotism, conflicts of interest and preferential treatment. These suspicions led Pomykacz to “monitor” the two, which included taking photographs. 

Eventually she was arrested on charges of stalking, though the charges were downgraded to harassment. Pomykacz ended up filing suit asserting, among other things, that she was arrested in violation of the First Amendment retaliation for her monitoring activities. · On the night of October 7, 2002, on her way to Wildwood, Pomykacz drove past the borough municipal building and observed Officer Ferentz working on renovations while she was on duty. Later that night, after Pomykacz had returned from Wildwood, she photographed Officer Ferentz in the police headquarters. 7 Another police officer and [*508] Mayor Fox were also present in the police station at the time. According to Pomykacz, Mayor Fox came out of the building and began yelling at her. Pomykacz walked home without responding. 

U.S. District Judge Joseph E. Irenas noted, Pomykacz has put forth sufficient evidence that she was a concerned citizen who at times spoke her mind to Borough [*513] officials and other citizens about her concerns regarding the official conduct of the police department and the mayor. Such speech is clearly protected by the First Amendment. 14 See Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218, 86 S. Ct. 1434, 16 L. Ed. 2d 484 (1966) HN15o to the description of this Headnote.("a major purpose of [the First] Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs."); Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 484, 77 S. Ct. 1304, 1 L. Ed. 2d 1498 (1957) ("The protection given speech and press was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people."). 

That’s all she wrote, folks. Defendants have one case to Plaintiff’s 5 or 6.


Well apparently not. Stay tuned for a video as soon as I receive the ORDER. Presumably Discovery will reopen again at that point, or what?

Remember, we still don't know what the goddamn policy is, and all we have is their documented lie that there was a written policy because County Attorney Sherlock wrote me and said there was no goddamn written policy.

30 June 2015

KingCast Motorsports and Politics: Moving for Reduced Rate Parking for Motorcycles and Scooters!

Tanya Wenborg​ and I seem to be making headway with reduced rate motorcycle and scooter parking, and potentially more dedicated spots. It's a process, but we believe it is going to happen. We had our first scheduled meeting today, with Jennifer Samuels from Councilor Bruce Harrell​'s office, now on to Transportation Committee Chair/Councilor Tom Rasmussen and Vice Chair Mike O'Brien, with whom I definitely have a good rapport: I have run video with him regarding Seattle crime and he attended my forum on foreclosure and underwater homes. He's also an avid bicyclist and I love anything on two wheels that's for certain.
We are of course aided in our endeavor by way of other cities with like initiatives, notably Boston 2009 where I participated, and in PDX and San Francisco. Anyone knowing of other initiatives anywhere in the U.S. please let us know ASAP so we can gather the information from their websites.

It's really pretty simple: Government should encourage use of more efficient vehicles that leave smaller physical and carbon footprints. Ms. Wenborg and I speak on behalf of hundreds of area motorcyclists who value responsible efforts from City Hall on these matters. As a mountain biker I also appreciate the Councilor's efforts on the Cheasty Mountainbike/Pedestrian Trial Project and look forward to riding that soon!

29 June 2015

KingCast Motorsports at VME Vashon Tiddler Run 2015.

We start with the NX 250 Brothas!
Full stills later today, video later this week, I hope. Life gets busy.

These all have to be upsized later tonight, 
but of course you can click if you like for now, ciao.

Tiddler Run: It's the bees' knees!