30 December 2018

KingCast, Mortgage Movies and How to Sue Facebook Say "Happy Anniversary Pepper!"

Pepper Underfoot the Australian Cattle Dog came into my life on 30 December 2016 the day after our baby Livi the Wonderdog was murdered by an idiot at what we discovered to be an illegal kennel. We fled our East Coast vacation and flew back to Seattle and, on a lark, decided to check NOAH for a suitable dog to join our family of Elisa, Fang Weatherwax and me at the time.

Life after Livi still remains painful at times. There's no two ways about it, litigation and other results notwithstanding. But Baby Pepper is such a joy to have around each and every day that I just can't love her enough. On a good day she gives me the same LOL.

You had Big Paws to fill Pepper, and you do it with class and distinction each and every day. I know Livi loves you honey.

-Dad.
 
 







29 December 2018

KingCast, Daarna, LLC v. Google, Seattle Law and Hastings Law Journal Argue: Congress Must Reign in the Expansive Section 230 Immunity.


BOOM!  Down Goes Facebook, Down Goes Facebook!
See Daarna, LLC v. Google §230 is not a bar to ToS lawsuit. 
Muuuahhhhh..... (subsequently she lost but it's a different set of operative facts)

Story Link: The Onion.... gotta love 'em.

Few people know that Facebook had to be forced to conduct a Civil Rights Audit by a wide consortium of Civil Rights and media groups, 79 to be exact. We are going to get there in just a minute but first you must know this from the David K. Lukmire Learned Treatise Can the Courts Tame the Communications Decency Act? (Lukmire = Counsel for Brennan Center for Justice/EFF Amicus in Microsoft v. United States + Facebook v. New York County District Attorney) So yah, I think he kinda sorta knows WTF he's talking about, right? Right. He's one of the most highly-regarded securities and Internet litigators in the entire Country, right. Right. And he and I agree, right. Right. Let's keep shit simple here.
The case for restricting the subject matter of section 230 immunity is equally strong...... One thing is for certain: unless courts narrow their interpretations of section 230, deserving plaintiffs will be without redress. 
As discussed, the statute should be interpreted in light of its language, which clearly sounds in defamation law. Allowing certain claims that are close to textbook defamation will help clear up whether the plaintiff has artfully pleaded garden variety tort claims in order to evade the proper boundaries of section 230. Courts should almost never dismiss other claims, such as allegations under civil rights laws or breach of contract claims, on section 230 grounds, for they are much too far removed from the tort of defamation. If those claims are meritless, they should be dismissed on the merits instead of by application of the statute. See also The Overexpansion of the Communications Decency Act Safe Harbor Hastings Note Vol 35 #3, January 1, 2013 by Joey Ou..... 
Accord Darnaa, LLC v. Google, Inc. Case No. 15-cv-03221-RMW If Plaintiff needs to clarify the contractual elements to his Complaint, or to add in all of the information gleaned since he filed his Complaint, the Ninth Circuit provides A "district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts." Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) 

Plaintiff's claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, however, is not precluded by § 230(c)(1) because it seeks to hold defendants liable for breach of defendants' good faith contractual obligation to plaintiff, rather than defendants' publisher status. Even though the claim is based on the same factual allegations as plaintiff's intentional interference claim, the source of defendants' alleged liability is different. The Terms of Service contain, as do all contracts, a covenant of good faith and fair dealing that defendants would not do anything to unfairly interfere with plaintiff's right to recover the benefits of the contract. Therefore, the court denies defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's implied covenant claim on the basis of § 230(c)(1). This court does not, however, need to reach the question of whether deliberately inflated view counts are "objectionable." Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to support its claim that defendants did not act in good faith, which is a requirement under § 230(c)(2) immunity. As acknowledged by defendants, "[r]emovals must still be 'in good faith,' so the provider must actually believe that the material is objectionable for the reasons it gives." Dkt. 34 at 13 n.4.
Now then where were we..... 
Sign-on letter #1 
We the undersigned 79 organizations are deeply concerned with the recent cases of Facebook censoring human rights documentation, particularly content that depicts police violence. This includes but is not limited to: the deactivation of Korryn Gaines' account, the removal of iconic photographs, reports of suppression of indigenous resistance, continued reports of Black activists’ content being removed, and the disabling of Palestinian journalists’ accounts following your meeting with the Israeli Prime Minister. It is critical that Facebook be a platform that supports the protection of human rights above all else and does not discriminately apply its policies on the basis of race, creed, national origin, gender, and/or sexual orientation. When the most vulnerable members of society turn to your platform to document and share experiences of injustice, Facebook is morally obligated to protect that speech.

Letter #2 18 January 2017 
This pattern of censorship represents a double standard, one that seems to be addressed only through direct activist intervention or significant media attention. We believe more can be done to ensure every Facebook user has the ability to engage on the platform without harassment or undue censorship.

Letter #3 18 December 2018. Equally troubling are your claims over the years that problems with the platform or the company’s approach have been inadvertent, and that, per a statement quoted in the article, “our entire management team has been focused on tackling the issues we face.” What is now clear, however, is direct evidence of malicious and calculated campaigns to undermine Facebook’s critics.

May the Record reflect that Plaintiff is definitely a Facebook critic, and when he last complained about Facebook "gunning down niggers because we are dropping like flies" Defendant put me in Facebook Jail on 13 December 2018 failed to follow up on his purported "Appeal" from 15 - 27 December (and onward) as clearly seen in the large thumbnail from my 24 December 2018 entry. That is unprecedented, unmitigated Bad Faith as contemplated by the Statute and this Honorable Court has full authority to address it, right here and right now. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel must be GRANTED and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss must be summarily DENIED.


*******
Something's gotta give. 
Congress did not intend to give protections to companies who invite and condone racism, then deny the victims the right to speak on it. This is a case of First Impression because no other §203 case involves widespread credible accusations of Bad Faith, supported by a black former VP of Diversity.

My point is to consider the basic principles of statutory construction: 

Legislators do not intend for an absurd result to occur.  The Trial Court has full authority to rule in Plaintiff's favor on this specific case given the floodgates of hate mail that Facebook continues to receive from scores of legitimate Civil Rights and social groups alleging Bad Faith, including the Center for Media Justice and all of its allies. Read letters to Facebook here. Read more on this issue in David Lukmire's excellent piece, "Can the Courts Tame the Communications Decent Act? The Reverberations of Zeran v. America Online. The Note calls for careful situational Bad Faith analysis based on the Defendant's (mis)conduct, a reasonable approach or else the Good Faith clause in the Statue means nothing.



From right here in SeattleThe Communication Decency Act Gone Wild: A Case for Renewing the Presumption Against Preemption (2014 Seattle University JD Candidate Ryan JP Dyer).

The first courts to apply section 230 inferred an exaggerated statutory meaning and intent to the statute’s immunity-granting provision, rarely reexamining the basis of those findings. Several early courts have crafted various frameworks to exempt section 230 immunity; however, they have done so through a more limited analytical framework, focusing on section 230’s mechanics and definitions.73 Courts have yet to delve deeper into an analysis of the preemptive intent Congress envisioned for section 230. This is especially troubling given the increasing frequency that section 230 immunity is invoked in non-defamation contexts and the preemptive effect that necessarily follows other state civil and criminal laws...... On its face, section 230’s entire focus is on immunizing good faith publishing functions. 117 Nevertheless, courts’ overly broad application of section 230(c) consistently ignores the inherent distinction between publishing and distribution and instead applies blanket immunity to a broad range of claims. 118 [KingCast Says: BINGO]

********

As such, we have to question whether CDA 47 U.S.C. §230 Good Samaritan protections should apply in a context where an entity like Facebook can remove posts that are clearly not hate speech and otherwise disparately treat an identifiable class of people -- blacks. Former FB Diversity VP Mark S. Luckie was correct when he stated that Facebook has a black people problem inside and out. And they are definitely going to have a problem with me in this Court, and up through the highest State Court and the U.S. Supreme Court on this case if necessary. This is war.  From the very prescient 2013 Hastings Note.

X. Conclusion 

In 1997, the United States Supreme Court realized that the Internet has become "a unique and wholly new medium of worldwide human communication."127 Twenty-five years later, we are still dealing with the repercussions of their decision to leave section 230 immunity intact.'28 


The idea that the Ilnternet will organically self regulate has past. As the ninth circuit held in Batzel v. Smith, "there is no reason inherent in the technological features of cyberspace why First Amendment and defamation law should apply differently in cyberspace than in the brick and mortar world."'29 Congress must reign in the expansive section 230 immunity. 


When Zeran was decided, the Ilnternet was at its infancy, now with twenty-five years of experience, it must be overturned. ISPs and websites must be held as distributors and cannot violate the FHA. In order not to hinder growth or innovation, such designations can be limited to those websites that garner financial benefits from thirdparty content. However, action must be taken.


Christopher King JD ‏ @kingcastcamera 

#Facebook lawsuit proves bad faith #censorship. No §230 protection for Bad Faith Censorship @markzuckkchs16 

Brandeis Brief 

https://tinyurl.com/y7yft4bo 
blog 
https://howtosuefacebook.blogspot.com/ 
Roku TV show 
https://tinyurl.com/y896use4 


24 December 2018

A New Facebook Lawsuit Business Card.

My new #facebook #censorship #lawsuit #HR7363 business card. I'll be hiring folks to pass them out. If media wants to ignore this case because I'm not the Chosen One then I'll make my own media and put it in the hands of the Common Folk where it will indeed resonate. Boo! 

Meanwhile check out this continued Bad Faith to the current 13 December 2018 Facebook Jail Term: 


About your post Dec 13 
We removed one of your posts because it doesn't follow the Facebook Community Standards. We created our standards to help make Facebook a safe place for people to connect with the world around them. Please read the Facebook Community Standards to learn what kinds of posts are allowed on Facebook. Meanwhile FB gunned down another nigger 

Your reply Dec 13 
You let us know you don't think your post should be deleted. We're reviewing your post Dec 13 Someone will be taking another look at this post. 

Update on your post Dec 13 We reviewed your post again and it doesn't follow our Community Standards. 

Your Reply Dec 14 As clearly noted in materials I have filed in KingCast v. Facebook, Inc, King County CASE NO. 18-2-28075-3SEA Facebook's own public materials on Hate Speech and the "Hard Questions" memo by By Richard Allan, VP EMEA Public Policy clearly indicate that context and intent is crucial and that people in a protected class can use words that might be considered derogatory to others. In this post it is unequivocally clear that I am complaining about Facebook racism even if a reviewer did not know about this case that much would still be obvious by looking at my page for any context clues whatsoever. Please reinstate my privileges immediately or it will only further damage your position in Court as being overly eager to shut down black activists as I had just finished detailing in this Brandeis Brief: 
https://www.scribd.com/document/392343705/Facebook-Faces-Lawsuit-on-Community-Guidelines-Terms-of-Service-ToS-and-Racism-per-42-U-S-C-1981 

I need this escalated to Monika Bickert or Richard Allan IMMEDIATELY. 

Very Truly Yours, 
Christopher King, J.D. 
https://howtosuefacebook.blogspot.com/ 

We're reviewing your post Dec 14 
We'll send an update once our review team has taken another look...... 

Note: It is now 27 December 2018 and no further review or response has occurred whatsoever, in spite of (or because of?) the fact that I have notified their local Counsel Byrnes Keller Cromwell's Joshua B. Selig about this. I asked him if his client was still reviewing the matter and all he said was "no word."

Whatever guys. Best of Luck dealing with my Bad Faith arguments as to DCA 47 U.S.C. §230 guys. Meanwhile I'll be sharing this with hundreds of law students throughout the Country so that all of the brightest new legal minds can review..... along with the legislators who are hovering as well. Note: It is now 27 December 2018 and no response whatsoever. 

22 December 2018

Facebook ToS Censorship Free Speech Lawsuit: A KingCast Virtual Visit with Brandeis Law School and a Real Visit at the Seattle Stranger

And so it just occurred to me the other day, how can I file a Brandeis Brief on one hand and forget to share it with its namesake institution on the other?

So that came to pass in a few tweets today.

Conversely, it had long occurred to me to reach out to the Seattle Stranger because they have previously covered the issue of racism and selective enforcement of Facebook's purported Terms of Service in the feature "Is Facebook Silencing Black Activists with Racism Bots?" 

I have publicly thanked them for being the primary force behind the Facebook/Google political ad legal smackdown that these two Internet juggernauts took last week to the tune of $450K.  Facebook since took a powder on the whole thing.

Prior to yesterday I have telephoned, emailed and tweeted any Stranger writer who has worked on a Facebook ethical or legal issue. From time to time I have reminded them that I have worked at an Alt Press (Cleveland Edition) edited a weekly (Ohio Call & Post) written for a daily (Indianapolis Star), and won First Amendment Civil Rights Trials (one such video - "KingCast, unlike AG or Senator Kelly Ayotte, actually wins First Amendment trials) + Michael Isreal v. Rhodes and Hensley (Ohio Court of Claims found two cops made my client a victim of violent crime) (Jury View prep video). 


Further, my cases have been featured by Small Press (Columbus Alive) and Large Press (Chicago Tribune Mike Royko, my idol, RIP).


Stay tuned on that one over the next few days. I'll be sharing my email to their Managing Editor Leilani Polk and making a video over the Holidays with an update. I'll be posting a video six (6) days from now on Friday, 28 December 2018, the same day that the Court is to rule on my Motion for Reconsideration on emotional harm that is part of the Brandeis Brief itself.

Also..... Facebook's days as we know it are numbered. Be it from Minnesota's Senator Amy Klobuchar or be it from Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert with HR 7363 repealing blanket protections on 47 USC §230 Facebook is going to be regulated, and it should end up going to a true First Amendment standard, none of this Big Brother bullshit. My lawsuit is smack on.


20 December 2018

KingCast and Mortgage Movies: Second Amended Complaint in Nora, King and Rinaldi v. State of Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation and Wisconsin Supreme Court.



The Second Amended Complaint is down at bottom. First check out my Reply Brief as to Defendant Stephanie L. Dykeman evading service. Yah the Process Server got to her house, car in driveway, lights on, purse on table and then deadly silence after he knocks on the door. This from a distinguished very white member of the bar, nice. But that's a Wells Fargo Attorney for ya. When they're not shoving your camera around (Mark Rattan) or calling someone a nigger (Drug-snorting Howard Apgar, Esq phone interview) they are evading Service of Process. 

Stephanie L. Dyke by the way definitely lied about how she could ascertain that Defendant Rattan's hand never touched mine from across the room when we are both claiming dibs on a camera that is 3" long. Yep.  It's all disgusting but true.

 


The original journal entry from 23 March, 2017.
Since that time the OLR has punished Attorney Nora and called her a threat to Law
Whilst giving Attorney Mark Rattan a slap on the wrist and "diversion plan"
for attacking a professional videographer who was following all of the rules of Court.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmYatdpIlSU (edited with background)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nJ7XjK37C4 (raw video part one -- setting the rules)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4_E3X_E9yo (raw video part two -- the attack)
http://mortgagemovies.blogspot.com/2017/03/kingcast-and-mortgage-movies-see-rude.html

Take time and watch these videos of Wells Fargo Attorney Mark Rattan attacking me when I was minding my business lawfully recording a Court Hearing. The Hearing was in my opinion part of a dog'n'pony show for yet anther run at attorneys who defend homeowners against wrongful foreclosure; it is happening all over America.  As a former residential closing attorney  I founded Mortgage Movies Journal with hundreds of Court and court-related videos over the past eight years to document the issues.


This is a lawsuit that alleges criminal racketeering on the part of the entire legal establishment in Wisconsin, MN. The allegations are that these entities are basically driven by the whimsy of the bankster attorneys because the Bar Association/Office of Lawyer Regulation never investigate fraudulent conduct on the part of the bank attorneys and selectively target homeowner attorneys and independent journalists who get in their way because we threaten to expose mass corruption.


By the way, you might think that the Wisconsin Association of African-American Lawyers would be interested in this one, right?  I've won Civil Rights trials when I practiced and I got this white guy attacking me to cover up abuse of a Civil Rights-minded white female attorney in Wendy Alison Nora, right?

Negative. He told me to get the hell outta town and that he was "worse" than Mark Rattan's lawyer Terry Johnson, his former boss at Von Briesen. Don't believe me? Read the emails but remember this: His new boss Dana Sachs I support waaaay over Scott Walker, because Scott Walker and that Judge Juan B. Colas support fraudulent banisters 24/7. Maybe Dana can use my video right?

Now we see the back story as to why I got booted out of that hearing: Because I cover corruption like no one else in the Country, with cameras in courtrooms 24/7 that's why.
  



An Open Letter to Facebook Lawyers on Censorship, Political Ad Disclosures and Forced Internet Tracking.

Note: I see Facebook will stop running political ads in Washington. Great work on the Stranger's part. Now I am going to visit them to inquire why they have not covered my lawsuit.

Facebook rough patch; Question on Stipulation vs. Amended Complaint 
1 minute ago at 9:30 AM
Great Morning Attorney Selig,





I guess I can say it couldn't happen to a nicer group of folks:
Freedom from Facebook campaign 24/7.

And I'm sure I'm missing a few but hey there's something new every day with Facebook right.

Anyway, are you willing to stipulate to try my current facebook jail sentence at trial, subject to your client's dispositive motions (which would of course include the current facebook jail).  Otherwise I can splice up an Amended Complaint and get it filed with the quickness. All I need to avoid that is an agreement between us in email now and that's good enough for me instead of engaging a bunch of legal machinery.

*******
Lastly, as noted above and by Mark S. Luckie, your client obviously has no clue about black culture, does not truly respect black culture and has no idea how to deal with us. I'm going to help them understand one thing about black culture if it's the last thing I do and that is this:  If you disrespect a black man's mother you are going to pay for it.  It's a line you don't cross Counselor. So while your client may have legally dodged Contempt you cannot dispute the fact that they knew full well they were denying me the right to discuss my mother's passing when they had no business suspending my account in the first place.

Best Regards,

Christopher King, J.D.




ADDENDUM ON REFLECTION OF YEARS OF COURT VIDEOS:

Oh, it gets better. Or worse.

I’ll go even deeper on you Josh. Much of the Internet is of course owned and managed by white men of privilege and the negroes and other wannabes who suck up to it in hope of redemption for their sorry souls.

POLITICO is Yellow Journalism.

For example, to wit: The way that Politico dismissed my Complaint (link below) about one-term neocon Kelly Ayotte was yet another byproduct of the white Internet mafia. She and that racist pug Joe Arpaio booted me out of a publicly-advertised event and their buddies even slapped my cameras and laughed about it. Watch the video and look at Joe looking at me. What an ass that guy. You know they made pugs from wolves, but that's another story.

And here is the Politico yellow journalism story "Kelly Ayotte's $120K Nightmare story" that they ran was when Ayotte twice kicked me out of Kelly's publicly-advertised campaign events and they even got Joe McCain (RIP) to go along with it. Watch the "Mexican Standoff video that is part of my TV show trailer. Even U.S. Veterans were disturbed about the way I was treated.

They and "reporters" Scott Wong and Manu Raju are lame reporters on a leash. 

They wrote:
Ayotte dismissed the suit as 'frivolous,' and a federal judge largely agreed. 

Well... Frivolous is a Term of Art folks. Too bad the Court never found anything I did to be "frivolous" because it would have been too obvious given the incestuous relationships involved with the current Chief Judge. Not that mentioned any of that at all mind you.  Ayotte and crew actually had dressed Nashua PD at the "private" event, which would be an oxymoron, you morons. Ask your lawyers. Yet they still labeled it "frivolous" in their tag line

My Appellate Brief clearly proves otherwise.
Politico actually knew the real facts that the Court ignored and yet they refused to mention them, including then Magistrate-cum-Article III Judge Landya B. McCafferty having worked for the same damn law firm (McLane Middleon) as Defendant Ayotte without disclosing that in Open Court or to me at any point in time. That's basic bias 101 and then it was rubber-stamped by my CWRU '78 Law School Alum Edmund Sargus. Watch the movie folks, it's all right there for ya when I forced her little backdoor recusal, now she's Chief Judge. Nice. It's basically like, "fuck you nigger we got this. Pack it up and go home."  I did for awhile. Now I'm back with these Facebook fucktards such is life.
*********
Now as to Sargus, at bottom we both were Assistant Attorneys General (he was Special Counsel at the same time I was an AAG law clerk and then lawyer) because his daddy was a Senator but anyway the proof is all right here because I am quite thorough.The corruption runs deep.
Now correct me if I am wrong (I never am) I believe Ms. Landya  is now the Chief Judge of NH Federal District Court. Whatever, she and her pals still violated basic Rules of Ethics point blank and I memorialized it and will continue to do so. None of you scare me. I am an American and I will speck my educated Truth. Educated at the same law school as Judge Edmund Sargus, that would be (and is) Case/Gund School of Law was top 50 when I graduated.

The Federal Court was Complicit.

Here's the best part: The Court already knew all of the dirty connections because of Jack Middleton’s cozy relationship with the Court and not only was he Kelly and Landya’s boss he was my opposing Counsel and again no one told that to my black ass any of that.

But I figured it out: Jack Middleton's law firm donated to Kelly's Senate Campaign, heavily. Enough for now but believe me I've got more. 
*********
Anyway I know you dug back on me 20 years or so.... so you must have dug back more recently than that too, right.  Right. You know fully what I do and what I am capable of and your client proceeds at its own substantial peril, which is fine with me. See you at Trial Counselor. Exactly how much of that you think you can keep out of the Record or from getting to a Jury remains to be seen. But you're welcome to try, it's a free Country. Sort of.

This is for Betty. 

I’ll grind it out. And so will you, right next to me my amigo. Nothing personal, I can assure you. 
I like you actually and as I said earlier in my Rule 408 letter we could have had a beer. At this point however, there is simply no thing in this World that your client can say or do to me that can hurt me.  Everyone knows that Facebook is a POS. I warned you about client control didn't I? 

Yes, I did.

Your Move, Counselor. I'll get most of this to a Jury one way or another, white Internet mafia or not.

Best regards,

The Spook Who Sat by the Door.