31 July 2015

KingCast and Mortgage Movies Present: "Rogue Justice: Former Trial Attorney Trial Atty Rips Judge Robert B. Young in Delaware Free Press First Amendment Case of King v. McKenna."

Cross Post: Piggybank Blog

Well everybody's looking, including the State of Delaware so does that mean that AG Denn is actually going to call me now regarding my complaint, or it is Judge Young reading it and trying to figure out a way to make it all go away?

Note: For you Attorneys, my Rule 59 Motion is here, My First Amended Complaint is here, and I filed an identical Motion for Interlocutory Appeal. Links to many Court filings (including my First Amended Complaint) and the bogus Decision dismissing my Constitutional Claims are here.  AG Denn's feet of clay are noted here, and a nasty Motion Hearing Transcript is annotated here. Here is how other states handle it:  Pomykacz v. Borough of W. Wildwood, 438 F. Supp. 2d 504 (2006), Tisdale v. Gravitt, 51 F. Supp. 3d 1378 (2014), Gravitt v. Olens, (press release) 2015 Ga. App. LEXIS 490 (2015), Tarus v. Borough of Pine Hill, 189 N.J. 497 (2007), King v. McKenna, 2015 Del. Super. LEXIS 323 (2015), Iacobucci v. Boulter, (1st Cir. Ct. App 1999).

In this Revolutionary short film I invoke Peter Finch (Best Actor Award) from the 1976 Network classic as he stands and implores the American Public to stand up and say "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!"

The same goes for this situation in Delaware, where Rogue Justice reigns supreme compared to other area States, and Attorney General Matt Denn's office has failed to do anything more than send me one email regarding my complaint to the Civil Rights and Public Trust section. This even though his predecessor Beau Biden issued an advisory memorandum warning government official that banning cameras is done at substantial risk because the law is evolving in a more permissive fashion. Well it may be, but they certainly don't want some bike-ridin' hippie skinny little negro from Seattle to prove it. We're gonna Keep it Real here folks, and it just doesn't get any more Real than that. 

I also included some footage from successful Georgia Federal Plaintiff Nydia Tisdale's Deposition of Defendant Gravitt and a passage from the court hearing where GA AG Olens sued the government on her behalf for a public records violation when they shut down her cameras. In Delaware I couldn't even get meaningful discovery on what their policy is, nor could I run video in my Court hearing, in blatant violation of Rule 155. These people are complete rogues. How ironic that my first job as an AAG was that of Civil Rights law clerk.

I have friends in law school right now and believe me this video will be discussed in academia for years to come. Not my fault. All I wanted to do was to run a camera the same way I do everywhere else in the Country. I forgot to add to the movie the fact that Alderman Fred Teeboom and I changed First Amendment Law in Nashua, NH when I sent them a draft copy of my lawsuit. That's part of the reason the Mayor gave me that First Amendment Commendation you see in the video. 


Your Honor we are in the midst of a simple case that involves a journalist's right to run B-Roll video in a public building, and to ask a few questions of senior public officials at such building whilst running a camera. The same rights that any citizen has using a pen and paper, unless you want to argue that citizens don't even have those rights in Delaware.

Now you tell me what to do in your court and you point out where I have erred, so I will take this opportunity to tell you the same thing. That is the beauty and the value of the First Amendment and I will never let you or the Defendants forget it. When I walk into your court or Commissioner Freud's court I will give you all the professional courtesy that any lawyer could muster but I will not sit by idly when you in return give me less than that and cut me off in mid sentence when I'm proving you wrong, as did Commissioner Freud regarding cameras in the Court.

Your cultural hegemony is showing in your decision because your decision was not well-principled as we shall see momentarily, but I want you to know that this is not personal... I have been accused of making things personal in my legal career but really it is you who has done that now and I can prove it by showing your dereliction of duty.

So what I expect from you as an impartial jurist is that you will not merely malign me with the pejorative "guerrilla journalist" label that you have used toward me but that you dug up whilst ignoring the plain language of my complaint that referenced my experience as a daily and weekly newspaper writer and editor, Assistant Attorney General, First Amendment trial experience and experience as an escrow attorney.  You didn't even mention the name of my website in your 29 June 2015 Opinion, another clear attempt to marginalize me.

I respectfully decline to participate in that sort of gamesmanship, Your Honor.

Again, you claim to have decided this case on the pleadings but I never called myself a guerrilla journalist so that is your own unlawful bias manifest, creeping in like poison.

Perhaps the most glaring thing that you and the Defendants did was to ignore my then-strongest Federal District case of Pomykacz v. Village of West Wildwood in which a citizen journo was protected by the first amendment after repeatedly shooting public officials at their office at al times of the day and night. 

You then lied about the holding in the Iacobucci case in Massachusetts to say that the First Amendment was not implicated, when it clearly was implicated because he could have been lawfully arrested were it not for his lawful exercise of First Amendment Rights as a reporter.

You also ignored the Attorney General Advisory opinion from three years ago that specifically warned public employees that banning cameras is highly risky because the law is evolving in a more permissive fashion.  As a Jurist I shouldn't have to look that up for you.

And I'm sure you are scheming a way to avoid addressing Tisdale v. Gravitt, in which the Georgia AG Owens and Tisdale's attorneys both sued the government when they shut her cameras down at a public meeting. The Defendants in this case have argued all along that the older public meeting case of Whiteland Woods applies, well suffice it to say that the law is not as clear cut on the issue as you attempted to portray in your Decision. So if you want to say you choose not to follow those cases then by all means do so but don't you ever lie to me and expect me to take it sitting down. I wasn't raised to do that, Your Honor and I won't ever do that, Your Honor, so we understand each other.

In all of these cases, understanding the policy or policy in fact is the touchstone of analysis, yet you and Commissioner Andrea Freud also refused to allow me any discovery whatsoever as to what their policy is, or what their authority was, to deny me the right to run video even as Ms. Tisdale and her lawyer were running video of Defendant Gravitt in her case and putting it on youtube.

But if you want to keep Delaware squarely behind Georgia and Squarely behind NJ and Massachusetts with respect to these free press rights, then go right ahead and do so but don't you dare lie to me or the World public while you do it, and don't ignore what are clearly my strongest cases because I will call you out not only on appeal, but in the Court of public opinion.

Moving on from there you failed to analyse this case on a summary judgment standard even though there was crucial information in the Court file that tends to show the Defendants do not have a legal leg to stand on, most notably their reference to my free press Kelly Ayotte lawsuit, but Sir that case occurred when she was not a public official and the Court ruled that the particular venue was private. You don't have that situation here, and since that time I put it into the record that I routinely shoot Senator Ayotte in public and at her office in the nation's capitol and in NH.  That's not because she likes, me, it's because the First Amendment compels that she not arrest me or threaten to arrest me as the Defendants did in this case.

You also failed to address the fact that Supreme Court Rule 155 clearly refers to cameras in the trial courts, so I will have to sue the Supreme Court in Declaratory Judgment later this year on that.

I've spoken, Sir, whether you like it or not. It's a free country and I'll bear no compunction to do it again as I deem appropriate.  I look forward to a more principled future in this case, devoid of the sort of tortured logic and intellectual disingenuity displayed thus far.

28 July 2015

KingCast and Mortgage Movies See Delaware AG Matt Denn on the Hot Seat on Free Press First Amendment Camera Access to Elected Government Officials.

When in doubt, don't respond.... and definitely don't accept my Facebook friend request. To see how other states and former Delaware AG Beau Biden addressed this matter take a look right here. And read a disturbing Motion Hearing Transcript right here.
As posted to his YouTube page where it had better remain: 
Look: As a former AAG myself I believe Attorney Denn is a good guy. But his silence on my complaint involving the right to run video in a public building is stifling. All the Courts recognize this right in one way or another be it statutory, common law or Constitutional and Beau Biden's office has a memo I circulated stating public official ban cameras at their own risk. So I put it right out there and have heard nothing back in weeks, while a kangaroo court is ruining Justice in my Kent County Superior case of King v. McKenna et al. 

Check this out:
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
KingCast and Mortgage Movies Observe an East Coast First Amendment Battle Over Right to Film Public Officials: Pomykacz v. Borough of W. Wildwood, 438 F. Supp. 2d 504 (2006), Tisdale v. Gravitt, 51 F. Supp. 3d 1378 (2014), Gravitt v. Olens, (press release) 2015 Ga. App. LEXIS 490 (2015), Tarus v. Borough of Pine Hill, 189 N.J. 497 (2007), King v. McKenna, 2015 Del. Super. LEXIS 323 (2015). 

Further, I run video depositions. So does Ms. Tisdale. See how Georgia does it, she can depose her opponent on video but I can't even get any goddamn discovery as to what their fucking policy is.  Unreal. To hell with everyone responsible for this sort of violence against the First Amendment and Fourth Estate. I will hunt you down and expose you for the rest of your natural lives, because the First Amendment is the single most important thing that Americans own. Without it, you can't even get to the other Amendments. Think about it, people.

24 July 2015

KingCast v. McKenna Annotated Court Hearing Transcript on Mortgage, Foreclosure, Free Press, and First Amendment Issues. K15C-03-028 RBY, 2015 Del. Super. LEXIS 323 (2015).

Oh yah you can get your background and my Amended Complaint and several other documents including Judge Young's heavy-handed, hegemonic smack down on my First Amendment Free Press Rights here.

22 July 2015

A KingCast Goodnight to Mary E. Thatcher.

Mary E. Thatcher is a very special lady and one of my honorary grandmas. May you Rest in Peace Sister and thank you for all the smiles and the kind love that emanated from your presence every single time I saw you. We all miss you dearly.

21 July 2015

KingCast and Mortgage Movies Observe an East Coast First Amendment Battle Over Right to Film Public Officials: Pomykacz v. Borough of W. Wildwood, 438 F. Supp. 2d 504 (2006), Tisdale v. Gravitt, 51 F. Supp. 3d 1378 (2014), Gravitt v. Olens, 2015 Ga. App. LEXIS 490 (2015), Tarus v. Borough of Pine Hill, 189 N.J. 497 (2007), King v. McKenna, 2015 Del. Super. LEXIS 323 (2015).

Herein I warn Delaware AG Matthew Denn not to sleep with the political and judicial whores in Delaware who are intellectually disingenuous and light years behind New Jersey and Georgia on the crucial issue of reasonable access to run video of elected officials and government buildings.

Furthermore, I note that Delaware refuses to account for the amount of, and source of, legal funding for the legal defense of publicly-elected officials. Delaware could well be the dirtiest state in the Union.

Most of what you need to see is in this journal entry and in an upcoming video. For now you can listen to this video from 2:20 - 3:45 to get a feel for what's going on here but just 
know that every other case found either a Constitutional, statutory or common law right to run video of public officials. The Defendants are pressing onward in Delaware to say that I cannot avail myself of ANY of those rubrics. Why are they so hell bent you must wonder..... it is because they are dirty to the core, that's why. And they have a Judge in their corner.


Today's global email -- More proof of Judge Robert B. Young's Cultural Hegemony:

(email part two)
"I'm also blown away that Judge Young not only avoided mentioning ANY of my professional background stated in the Complaint, he found a way to issue a Decision that didn't even mention my website too!

He and the Defendants are basically gang-raping me, yessir.

Note how Judge Story started the Opinion in Tisdale v. Gravitt
"The facts in this case are largely undisputed. Plaintiff attended the City Council meeting planning to video record the proceedings to post on her website, AboutForsyth.com. Plaintiff set up her video camera and tripod in the center aisle of the auditorium in City Hall. (Defs.' Statement of Material Facts ("SOMF"), Dkt. [63-4] ∂ 4.)"
Compare and Contrast Judge Young's treatment of me from my Interlocutory and Rule 59 Appeals. The Rule 59 might be premature but better safe than sorry because I'm not missing any Appeals you better believe that:
I.                  Introduction and Proof of Unlawful Bias Against Plaintiff.[1]
                    The Court downplays Plaintiff right from the start of its 25 page Opinion:

Whilst claiming to issue its opinion based only on the Complaint and making all inferences in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court nonetheless opines that Plaintiff fancies himself  a “guerrilla” journalist.  “Plaintiff holds himself out to be a type of guerrilla-style journalist.”
But that purported belief is not stated anywhere in Plaintiff’s Complaint. For the Court, Defendants, law students, First and Fourth Amendment scholars and reviewing Court edification Plaintiff’s Complaint read, in pertinent part:
2. Plaintiff is a former daily news reporter and escrow attorney who has closed several dozen commercial real estate purchases and refinances. He has successfully tried several First Amendment Jury Trials and has operated several politically and legally-charged online journals over the past decade, most notably Chris King’s First Amendment Page and Mortgage Movies Journal. 

That is what Plaintiff holds himself out to be as noted in the Complaint and that’s all the Court claimed to be reviewing, so the pejorative “guerrilla” nomenclature is reflective of the short shrift that this Plaintiff ultimately received from the Court. Further.....

*********** (email part one)

Dear AG Olens:

I am a former AAG myself, following the start of my career as editor of a statewide weekly newspaper and reporter for a large metropolitan daily.

Please review my pending First Amended Complaint:

......vis a vis your vigorous defense of Open Government, in which you were affirmed in part last week in Gravitt v. Olens, 2015 Ga. App. LEXIS 490 (2015).  I feel confident you will prove that Defendant Gravitt ordered Reporter Tisdale's cameras silenced.

Attorney General Olens is a long-time advocate of open government. In 2012, he championed the first overhaul of Georgia’s Open Meetings and Open Records Acts in over a decade, which were signed into law with sweeping approval by the Georgia General Assembly. The revised sunshine laws are more user-friendly and provide tougher penalties for violations. Additionally, the updated law allows the Attorney General to bring civil actions for violations of the sunshine laws. This lawsuit marks the first civil action brought by the Attorney General under the revised law.

I lived in Georgia 5-7 years ago when we contracted with AT&T doing legal review, zoning and permitting for some of the infrastructure your office no doubt uses every day. At any rate the Delaware AG's office seems to agree with you, the Georgia District Court and the NJ District Court in Pomykacz but the Defendants and Judge Young are slamming me right into the ground and making it sound as if I have no clue what I am talking about.  Of course I know what I'm talking about, I've won First Amendment Jury trials and even in law school I authored much of the successful Supreme Court brief in State v. Lessin:

So in addition to the lawsuit I filed a Complaint with the AG's office of Civil Rights and Public Trust because the Law should be the same here as it was in Georgia in Tisdale v. Gravitt as the Court noted in Granting Partial S/J for the same reasons I sought it.

"While no United States Supreme Court, Eleventh Circuit, or Supreme Court of Georgia case explicitly recognized a First Amendment right to film city council meetings, the case law that existed in April 2012 recognized a general right to film public officials, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. The Eleventh Circuit recognized in Blackston v. State of Ala. that a restriction on filming in public meetings “touche[s] on expressive conduct protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.” 30 F.3d 117, 120 (11th Cir. 1994) (addressing a prohibition that may not have been “content-neutral”). Plaintiff identifies other Eleventh Circuit cases involving free speech rights to film public officials. See, e.g., Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 2000) (recognizing “a First Amendment right, subject to reasonable time, manner and place restrictions, to photograph or videotape police conduct”); WSB-TV v. Lee, 842 21 Case 2:12-cv-00145-RWS Document 92 Filed 09/30/14 Page 21 of 41 AO 72A (Rev.8/82) F.2d 1266 (11th Cir. 1988) (recognizing reporters’ First Amendment interest in gathering and reporting news relating to rumors of a sherriff’s use of inmate labor on private property). The First Amendment protects filming public officials, and the Court finds that “broad, clearly established principle” to control the facts of the situation in this case."

"Second, the Court considers whether the policy against filming, announced by Mayor Gravitt, “affirmatively command[ed]” that the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights occur. Jett, 491 U.S. at 737. While this is ordinarily an issue for the jury’s determination, the Court finds here that no reasonable jury could find that the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights was not caused by Defendants’ policy against filming. See Allen, 121 F.3d at 646. Mayor Gravitt “instructed that the camera be removed from the Council chamber.” (Defs.’ SOMF, Dkt. [63-4] ¶ 10.) “In response to the Mayor’s directive,” Police Chief Tatum moved Plaintiff’s camera and he and Deputy Police Chief Cook “escorted” Plaintiff out of the room. (Id. at ¶ 15-28.)"

Lastly Plaintiff Tisdale asserted in her Motion for S/J, as I asserted, that Iacobucci was indeed grounded on First Amendment law, while Judge Young incorrectly said it wasn't so that he could railroad me out of Court:

"Thus, Judge Dorrough’s actions touched on expressive conduct protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.”); Iacobucci v. Boulter, 193 F.3d 14, 25 (1st Cir. 1999) (filming public officials in the public area of a public building was “done in the exercise of [Plaintiff’s] First Amendment rights”)."

The Court then cited Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011), just as I did.......


OK so in my AG complaint I'm waiting with bated breath

Will AG Denn renounce his statement......

CONCLUSION The DOJ should advise its client public bodies that to outright prohibit any recording of public meetings is highly risky. The law is evolving in a more permissive direction.

.....or will he find that it somehow does not apply in my case, period?

19 July 2015

KingCast and Mortgage Movies See Wells Fargo Caught on Video with Two Bogus Allonges and No Proof of Title.

Cross-post: Piggybank blog.
First of all, some public officials and Judges absolutely hate my videos and declare that I clearly have no Constitutional Rights to make any parts of them in government offices. I reference my ongoing lawsuit (more at Piggybank blog) against Betty Lou McKenna in this video because to the North and to the South, Federal District Courts have squarely SLAMMED the Defendants and Judge Robert B. Young on that matter, so we're headed to SCOTUS, nothing they can do to stop it. Right now we're into Rule 59 and Interlocutory Appeal Motions and I have Amended my Complaint to include statutory and common law claims.  This is important because once they get rid of people like me, there are precious few mainstream or internet journos who do what I do. In fact, I can't think of one journo who has my background and who does exactly what I do on a consistent basis.

Next, there are Wells Fargo's unlawful refusals to negotiate HAMP agreements and I was involved in Mediations in Seattle where they took not one not two but now three Bad Faith certifications in the Mediation process. I worked one of them and ran video on the others. A person who wrote Neil Garfield mentioned Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (673 F.3d 547) but out here in the 9th circuit we can do that one better, because we have Corvello v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 728 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. August 8, 2013), citing Wigod, and Corvello involved a pair of plaintiffs, one written HAMP violation and one oral HAMP violation. 

Next, here is an excerpt from a letter I wrote Wells Fargo several months ago. They continue to stonewall and obfuscate as noted in the video. It's completely insane:


Dear Ms. McCullough Messrs. Eppley and Anderson:

We haven’t heard a thing from you since we wrote you several weeks ago on the purported lost note affidavits.  As I said then and as I will say again, 

I would like to call your attention to my observation about Lost Note Affidavits here in Washington that I came to consider just after I sent my first letter of the day:

The Allens challenge reliance upon these cases as inconsistent with In re Weisband, 427 B.R. 13 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2010). The bankruptcy court in In re Weisband indeed held that an allonge attached to a Note would not be sufficient to transfer the Note from DHMC to DLJ because an indorsement in blank must appear on the face of the note and not on an attached  [**17] page. But as the bankruptcy court noted, that holding is of no moment in this case, since here the allonge was superfluous because the Note contained an endorsement in blank on its face

……. Based on its analysis of available law, the bankruptcy court determined that the Lost Note Affidavit, with the endorsement in blank appearing on its face, was sufficient to replace the original Note. We find no error in this conclusion. Once it was  [**19] established that the Note was endorsed in blank, the Note became a bearer instrument:...

The letter from Mr. Eppley states that the undated blank indorsement Maureen Bodine allonge is the one that was attached to the Deed of Trust as it was assigned from Deep Green to Wachovia. 

That is because if Wells Fargo relies on the OTHER allonge – the one that is not indorsed in blank but rather to Wachovia Bank, N.A. – the Note no longer becomes Bearer Paper and *poof* there goes Wells Fargo’s Standing to Foreclose.

This all dovetails with the hot water that Wells Fargo finds itself in regarding the fix-it manual that is currently being reviewed in New York over the strenuous objection by Wells Fargo. Judge Drain was not pleased: http://nypost.com/2015/01/31/ny-federal-judge-slams-wells-fargo-for-forged-mortgage-docs/

16 July 2015

KingCast Presents: Ballard Backfire Moto Night #56.

Just a quick helmet cam ride video coming along with these pictures. 
Again, a beautiful experience.
Older Backfire vids and pics are here.

And on a Lighter Note, KingCast/Mortgage Movies See Livi the Derp Win the Seattle Times 2015 Pet Selfie Contest!

Here is a link to the 19 July 2015 
Six winners + one Grand Prize winner.

Grrrrrr........ I am Livi hear me Roar!!!  (Sorry Helen)

The story runs on Sunday but here's the upload link with all the contestants :)

13 July 2015

KingCast and Mortgage Movies see Nasty Free State Montessori Process Server Threaten a Parent Holding a Camera, Try to Run Him Over and Play the Race Card.

Talk about a real piece of work this guy is. He shows up on someone's property, doesn't provide his name, drives toward him on his own driveway to threaten him with a 3,400 pound weapon, and smacks his hand that was holding a telephone camera. 

I believe the school is being very aggressive with parents and stuffing them with purported bills to keep them on their heels in a pre-emptive strike of sorts, because they are suffering financially and will probably leave the Country soon. It's nasty. 

More on this later but I just needed to get this movie up, ASAP.  I've also taken the liberty of contacting the American Montessori Society and several area Montessori schools.

09 July 2015

KingCast, Seattle Used Bikes and the Fusebox Present: Bardsley's Badass Barbecue July 2015!

Yah there's video. Good luck if I can get to it.
We all do what we can, with what we've got :)

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.

14 July Update:
I emailed the Court and all Counsel with my observations that mere possession of a Note is not enough, and that Attorney Eidson cannot testify. Read the comment section including a reference to prior deceitful acts committed by his firm (through Partner John Glowney no less) and a look at Feltus v. U.S. Bank, 80 S. 3rd 375 (2012).

13 July 2015 Update1:
As to Her Honor's stated concern about applying law and facts that may be technically out of Rule, it is now my understanding that Chase admitted they acquired only servicing rights. I don't even have to pull up case law on that because we all know it exists, but I will tomorrow.  

13 July Update 2:  
J. Will Eidson tells me a categorical lie, i.e. that he "does not hate my cameras" in direct response to my question "why do you hate my cameras."  If he does not hate my cameras why did he slam the door on my last week then, during inspection of a purportedly 9 year-old Note that looked like it was printed yesterday. No weathering, no crimped edges, nothing. Pristine. And they won't allow for date testing because it would "damage or degrade" the Note.

He said he wouldn't talk about the case so I asked him if he was aware that Decisional case law throughout the Country is holding that homeowners have a right to challenge the Chain of Title, and he again said "I'm not discussing the case," and I again said "we're speaking in the abstract, Sir....." 

I am also aware that a homeowner most certainly can challenge Assignments of Mortgage First Circuit Cosajay v. MERS C. A. No. 10-442-M, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160294 (Rhode Island 2013) and Culhane v. Aurora. As an aside, it is virtually impossible to find the Cosajay Appellate Court Decision reversing Judge McConnell online...  funny isn't it? Imagine that. I'll post it soon. Also, the Wright's social security numbers are on the Trust documents as a condition precedent. So how in the hell can Courts continue to allow the banks to use us as pawns in some kind of twisted life-scale chess game?

I also asked him how JP Morgan obtained the Note in 2008 if it was in a Trust in 2006. Neat trick, that.

Same ol' same ol.  Video coming.  But you can clearly see by his cheery visage that he just loves my cameras.

8 July update from Ms. Erickson:  The blank unendorsed note is what Valerie states proves is now a securities fraud instrument good or fake. The prospectus of the trust states it has to be endorsed into the trust. It says to send it in blank and then deposit it into the trust along with the assignment, that never happened and stayed on county records in Long Beach name until Rebecca Dietrich, a Chase employee signed by power of attorney for DBNTC seven years after the trust closed. 

I have long wondered about this because a Note can't be in two places at once, think about it. I know there is some Decisional law on this so I'll start looking into it. I think Erbobo v. Wells Fargo touches on this.

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.

Herein I warn Delaware AG Matthew Denn not to sleep with the political and judicial whores in Delaware who are intellectually disingenuous and light years behind New Jersey and Georgia on the crucial issue of reasonable access to run video of elected officials and government buildings.

Furthermore, I note that Delaware refuses to account for the amount of, and source of, legal funding for the legal defense of publicly-elected officials. Delaware could well be the dirtiest state in the Union.


16 July Note: Boom!  -- An independent journalist in Georgia got $200K when they stopped her cameras, proving, ipso facto, that Georgia leads Delaware on this crucial issue. More at Piggybank blog. I told those bastards a long time ago we are going to SCOTUS for what they did to me. Let it be known that Georgia and Alabama provide great Constitutional protections to independent journos as opposed to Delaware and its Courts. I telephoned AG Denn's office about the Complaint I filed with his Civil Rights/Public Trust yesterday but have not heard back. Time for another call, this one taped.

KingCast v. McKenna vis a vis Tisdale v. Gravitt, 51 F. Supp. 3d 1378 (2014) --- $200K Settlement, ahem.Tisdale v. Gravitt, 51 F. Supp. 3d 1378 (2014)
As an initial matter, the Court agrees that Plaintiff has a First Amendment interest in filming public officials at a public meeting. Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000) ("The First Amendment protects the right to gather information about what public officials do on public property, and specifically, a right to record matters of public interest."). Prohibiting Plaintiff from video recording the meeting—even while permitting her to attend the meeting, take notes, or make audio recordings—impacted how she was able to obtain access to and present information about the City Council and its proceedings. See Blackston v. State of Ala., 30 F.3d 117, 120 (11th Cir. 1994).
And to think I offered to settle my case for a paltry $12,500 and they rejected it! They are running around acting as if I don't know what I'm talking about when I've won several First Amendment Jury trials for Pete's sake.

Dear Attorney Weber, I just telephoned your co-counsel and I love your client's FB page!

Anyway, take a look at my First Amended Complaint and shake your head at what is going on in Delaware. I'll call you later but yes, your client and I have a lot in common. The Republicans kicked me out of a publicly-advertised rally too, but they covered it all up even though the Nashua Police were there on city time, no doubt.  But nowadays Senator Ayotte knows better to prevent me from running video of her in public buildings as noted in the First Amended Complaint.


14 July Note: They got this up on Lexis already and on Leagle, take a look. See my post to Leagle's Facebook as well, in the thumbnail. I posted my comment to Leagle and it had damn well better show up soon.  Read my comment to Leagle in the comments section. I will not be run over in this case, no way no Sir. I'm in it to win it, as I usually do on First Amendment cases going back to the early '90's.

Dear Attorney General Denn: 

I am also calling AAGs Judy Oken Hodas and Kevin Maloney on this as they wrote the advisory opinion in 2011. As a former AAG myself I thought you might get a kick out of the fact that you have a Judge (and other high-ranking State employees) who doesn't seem to care too much about your advisory opinions. As such, I see that you have created a Civil Rights section to address Constitutional issues, well I will be filing a Complaint with that office come Monday. 

What do these people have to hide so much that they threatened me with arrest, and then have a Judge do what Judge Young just did? 
"The new Office of Civil Rights and Public Trust will largely be guided by public and state agency complaints about constitutional rights issues, housing and employment discrimination, educational rights of children, and the rights of Delawareans with disabilities." 

Well guys I told you when I turned 50 this year I didn't want to be litigating this case for the next two years but your conduct, and that of Judge Young, indicates that such is our collective path. So here you go. 

Video coming soon. Here is an excerpt from the Open Letter to Judge Robert B. Young.

2. Failed to address the Advisory Opinion by the Attorney General who wrote, in a 2011 Advisory Opinion: But in 2011, when everyone has a cell phone, and most cell phones have camera, even video, capability, that time has arrived. To attempt to ban recording is as pointless as trying to prevent citizens from taking notes. 

CONCLUSION: The DOJ should advise its client public bodies that to outright prohibit any recording of public meetings is highly risky (emphasis added). The law is evolving in a more permissive direction. 

To which I ask, why is Judge Young (and the Defendants) moving backwards? 

Perhaps SCOTUS will help address this in a year or two.

The Court doesn't like my Title Descriptors so it is rejecting this Rule 59 Motion. So I renamed it simply a Rule 59 Motion for Relief from Judgment AND I filled a Rule 42 Motion for Leave to file an Interlocutory Appeal AND I sent in the $150 Jury Trial fee even though there's nothing at this point that is allegedly going to Jury.

The Court doesn't like my Title Descriptors so it is rejecting this document. So I renamed it simply a Rule 59 Motion for Relief from Judgment AND I filled a goddamn Rule 42 Motion for Leave to file an Interlocutory Appeal AND I sent in the $150 Jury Trial fee even though there's nothing at this point that is allegedly going to Jury.

Obviously some typos in the case caption and I have to specify what is different and I have to send multiple service copies but let me see if Defendants' counsel will agree to waiver and accept service on that......

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.