11 August 2014

KingCast and Mortgage Movies See Judges Watch as Foreclosure Mill Attorneys Threaten Depo Videographer with Security and Arrest.

September 2015 update:  I just emailed Luke Wozniak and I let him have it. They couldn't produce a witness at trial so he got it continued while he goes to Europe. Judge Lasnik boxed his ears a bit.
Dear Judge Lasnik: I want you to know how Luke Wozniak comports himself in general.
1 minute ago at 11:26 AM

Hi Luke, Got plans for Europe... enjoy your stay I'll catch you on the flip, bro.
6 minutes ago at 11:15 AM

Treat the witness with compassion....  you were warned in Lucero v. Bayview 2013-CV-0062 the other day. Good thing for you that Federal Court is not on video but that Transcript is available and it will show that you seem to have a difficult time bringing up a Veep to testify on your client's behalf.

If I see you later this month my friend, outside the courtroom, on a public street....  you can't flip me from Invitee or Licensee to Trespasser in a hot second.

Perhaps Judge Lasnik knew you were an abusive person from watching KingCast media LOL dude one way or another you will learn your place, Counselor. I'm just getting started with you.

You have a friend in Ferguson and all the other pricks who are trying to run homeowner attorneys out of business but you can't touch a journalist because I'm going to say whatever the hell I want to about you, to your face and on my journals, subject to Defamation of course. But thankfully your prior actions have given me plenty of latitude there because you were such a complete asshole toward me, and that's a fact. On record.  I don't know who the fuck you think you are, but you will not run that game with me, kid.

Feel free to show this to Judge Lasnik. If you don't, I will.



PS. I haven't been to Europe in a decade but my Croatian pals just came back..... They tell me they have confirmed proof that Jesus was black. So you better get good with him.

June 2015 update: These same attorneys tried to keep me out of Court and got schooled, yessir. I know that certain other attorneys are watching this space.

Update 18 August 2014 -- an email I sent to many people involved in this case. Check the thumbnail below showing RCO and NWTS assiduously following me as their lawyer Heidi Buck Morrison assiduously refuses to answer my simple question about why she told Attorney Ha Dao that she refuses to participate in Depositions where I am present.


I told you before -- as noted below -- that I am a reasonable man and I pose absolutely no threat to you that should make you justifiably refuse my presence at video depositions. But apparently there is something threatening about me, enough so that your co-counsel completely disrespected me last week.  And you are continuing in that vein by not answering my well-reasoned question. 

Please advise because obviously I can see you and your people are reading and so can anyone else for that matter because I am posting these three screen captures -- showing RCO, NWTS and FEI process servers at IP address reading assiduously -- on my journal page.
The issue isn't exactly going to go away Heidi because other lawyers will be using my services, and they will be much more likely to force your hand on this.  And when they do, and if you fight, the evidentiary trail is right here in these emails, and in that audio from last week.

Don't forget that for one minute.


UPDATE 13 August 2014:
Good Day to All:

I was notified today by someone who saw the video that Attorneys have been working with Dr. Karin Huffer to protect litigants who have been adversely affected by the traumatic stress incurred when dealing with pugilistic corporate lawyers:

To that end I'll tell you how it works even though the defense counsel have no say in it whatsoever:

The litigant is declared to have a form of PTSD. A Petition to the Court administration is made pursuant to the ADA to have a consultant present and run video. The video gives a sense of reassurance to the litigant and helps recall, among other things. The Court Administration of course has a non-delegable duty to accommodate, particularly when the accommodation is not overly burdensome.  Sounds just like my old Civil Rights/Employment cases, right.

And it works.

I am hereby attaching information from people affiliated with Dr. Huffer in BK showing where a confirmation court hearing was today -- hot off the presses -- rescheduled for October 8 because of the ADA request.  However the predicate 341 Creditors' meeting has been canceled and not rescheduled. 

Seems like folks are running from the cameras again, ahem.

And oh, by the way the answer to the question I know the Defense Counsel are asking is.... No. No you do not get to see anything or fight it because it is all protected by HIPAA.  So now your clients face fascinating predicament: Subject themselves to scrutiny by cameras in Federal Court (where I say they belong in the first place) or drop the case.


Note: High-paid lawyers engaging in conduct antithetical to the First Amendment and Fourth Estate. From my FB entry: Yep Robert, and they sit there and do it even though they know my background as a lawyer. Notice how McIntosh has no answer when I smoke him on the licensee issue. Zip. Zero. Zilch. For those who don't know the differences: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/rpt/2002-R-0365.htm 

I'll be sure to press a DVD of this event for every time they seek a Protective Order against me running video so that the Court can make an informed judgment. As Tony Montana said, "You f___ with me, you f_____ with the best!" Heck, I would encourage anyone to download and use it because as you can see by the Phelan Hallinan situation in NJ a couple of years ago this is a pattern and practice of foreclosure lawyers and "their buddies" to coin a phrase from Attorney Wozniak I overheard when he was having a go at Attorney Ha Dao. I never filed an ethics complaint there but there's not exactly a Statute of Limitations on such a thing and the evidence certainly is preserved, no spoliation going on here, LOL. Now then, that is the exasperated sigh of McCarthy Holthus' junior attorney Joseph MacIntosh. Why? I'll get there momentarily. 

I have been recording video depositions in Lucero v. Bayview for weeks now (see Affordable Video Depo and Mortgage Movies Journal (Vonnie McElligott) (Jeff Stenman) links), and so when the homeowner was being deposed she figured that I could video her deposition, given that the Defendant's own notice indicated that they have the right to video as well. So I appeared at the court reporter's office -- not run or controlled by any of the Defendants' counsel I might add -- where Attorney Wonziak objected. We worked it out between attorney Ha Dao, Attorney Omar Barraza and myself and I memorialized it looking out the window, noting that I would just hold the video in abeyance until the matter was briefed, simple. But then Routh Crabtree Olsen's Heidi Buck Morrison and McCarthy Holtus' Joe MacIntosh show up and Luckasz unilaterally renege on the promise, then threaten to call security on me as I am packing up, as the Court reporter will no doubt testify if necessary. 
But here's the fun part: In all the melee my DSLR was on from when I was starting to set up when we DID have authority. It was now in my backpack and you can hear parts of the conversation where both men threaten to call security on me. I tell them go right ahead and you'll catch a case for false arrest. Meanwhile they try to tell me I am not an invitee -- even though it's not even their premises so they have no right to try to make that claim. (I was probably a licensee for what it's worth). But they apparently are used to doing that sort of thing because too many courts allow them to get away with it. Anyway at a minimum I was a licensee and certainly not a trespasser so I told them all "I'm not scared of you." 

And I'm not. I was winning jury trials before any of these three could even pee straight and I will publicly say this right now: If you want to come after me for my actions today I say let's submit it to the court and get on with it because this is what little people like us have to do to protect ourself against these banksters and their attorneys who bully everyone and try to take control of things that aren't even theirs in the first place. You guys might try to bully weak attorneys or unrepresented homeowners but if you think you can bully me I am here to thoroughly disabuse you of that notion. 

I may even report you to the local bar so as I said, you will be well-advised to watch your tone. And oh, the last time some some dirty lawyers called security on a homeowner and me the security guards asked them "What the fuck is going on?"

1 comment:

Christopher King said...

The plot thickens: Now Heidi Buck Morrison says she won't attend at Depositions where I am present. I wrote black, errr... back:

To All:

I maintain my position that thrice threatening me with security while I was clearly packing up was completely uncalled for. At that point, after the renege on the Agreement to hold video in abeyance I was more concerned about going for a bike ride and playing with our new puppy than anything else.

With that in mind I must respectfully ask Attorney Buck-Morrison exactly why she will not consent to me being in a Deposition going forward. We have met on several occasions without incident, and I absolutely abhor violence against women or anyone else for that matter. My law school thesis was written in Feminist Jurisprudence by the way, and a founder of an education nonprofit in law school we preached education, responsibility and non-violence. http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2009/03/kingcast-presents-each-one-teach-one.html

If there is a concern about editorializing the Deposition then for the sake of argument I agree to use only quotations and actual testimony without my opinion, although I do ultimately believe I have full journalistic license to do so. As such, I am meeting you more than halfway here so I anticipate a principled response. Would she be so concerned if a 5'10" Caucasian male in a suit were running the video? I need to know.

Again, not one single court in hundreds of criminal or consumer cases has ever had a problem with me nor was there a problem with any of the Depositions I videoed with Attorney Dao as the Deponents swore that transparency was paramount. If transparency is paramount, then video is the best way to achieve that -- perhaps even better than posting the Deposition transcripts online as Attorney Stafne, Stopa, Weidner and others often do.

Please advise.