KingCast and Mortgage Movies Present.... Foreclosure: Dirty Hallway Court Video in Geary v. Quality Loan ING MERS et al Court of Appeals.

State & U.S. Courts read my journals 24/7. They might not say it, but I know it.

This is part one, which is more telling than the actual courtroom video in which the bench seems to take a different tack than the bench I observed in Bradburn v. Recon Trust. The actual courtroom video is coming soon, however. The thumbnail is the first paragraph of the Geary Appellate Brief. In this case we've got all the major players, some of whom screwed the pooch in an earlier case as described in this video. More pictures and video to follow in this space. Enjoy.

PS: Bishop, White Attorney Barbara Bollero, above, emphasizes that the Deed of Trust Act (DTA) allows for post-hoc recordings of crucial documents. Some would argue that the DTA is in and of itself, Unconstitutional. Watch as attorney Scott Stafne and I discuss that matter here. Also, hither Hooker?

http://livinglies.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/hooker-v-northwest-trustee-services-11-35534.pdf

http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2014/05/14/hooker-case-flirts-with-reality-9th-circuit/#comment-326369

1. 

   elexquisitor, on May 16, 2014 at 10:57 am said:

   @Gene – Hooker is a big deal because it is a federal court (that is not binding in states like CA, but may be considered) considering title issues, aka, the OR Deed of Trust Act (DTA). The Hooker case re-affirmed that ALL transfers must be recorded in order to foreclose non-judicially

   In Oregon, a trustee may conduct a non-judicial foreclosure sale only if:
   The trust deed, any assignments of the trust deed by the trustee
   or the beneficiary and any appointment of a successor trustee are
   recorded in the mortgage records

   There were several transfers in the MERS report that were not recorded in the county mortgage records, and so the non-judicial foreclosure was invalidated. As the purpose of MERS is to avoid recording fees, this essentially nullifies MERS in OR in the eyes of the feds.

They tried to shut me down! Here's Bishop, White letter to me and my response:

Dear Ms. Todakonzie:

I submitted a Notice of Media Appearance to the Court and have full authority to video on premises. As you and Attorney Bollero should know the presumption in Washington is for open Courts and the vigorous protection of First Amendment privileges. As to the video outside of the courthouse she was standing on public property with no expectation of privacy so I obviously have permission to shoot her there on the Broadway.

Further, I was a First Amendment specialist throughout my litigation career, and actually ran video of many of my personal trials nearly twenty (20) years ago. Watch me win a First Amendment case here and at bottom of this journal entry.

Lastly, I am at a loss to understand how or why Attorney Bollero could assume I was court personnel when I clearly identify myself as being involved with KingCast.net and Mortgage Movies. I even explained my role as a homeowner advocate and the fact that I was a closing attorney.

As such, I'm not removing anything. I had some sound issues in the courtroom due to a malfunctioning microphone but I can assure you as soon as I sound balance that audio it is going up as well.... that was a PUBLIC HEARING, and anyone can order a transcript for it. I've been down this road with many high-powered attorneys over the years and never lost once. Here's one example:

http://www.dmlp.org/threats/denner-v-boston-bob

If you all want to try your hand let me know and I'll send you my address for legal service, and you will face not only me, but likely a gaggle of supporting attorneys on Amicus. I just have to pick up the phone and they will be there. Any attempt to silence me will be at once underinclusive and overinclusive, not narrowly-tailored and not the least restrictive means toward any compelling governmental interest, but we can't even get to that analysis because I had permission and there was no reasonable expectation of privacy, ab initio.

Therefore I respectfully consider this matter as closed. Further, should your firm attempt to approach any web host or Google or YouTube I am instructing you to send them a copy of this unabridged email chain.

Sincerely,

Christopher King, J.D.

---

From: Ana Todakonzie [atodakonzie@bwmlegal.com]
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 1:15 PM
To: Chris King
Cc: Barbara L. Bollero; David A. Weibel
Subject: Geary v. ING Bank, et. al.

Mr. King,

Attached please find correspondence from attorney Dave Weibel on behalf of Ms. Bollero, who is out of office.

Ana Todakonzie |  Litigation