31 January 2019

KingCast and How to Sue Facebook See Walmart Ignore Hateful, Threatening Racist Emails to Former Police Officer and Retailer.

A very important cross-post to How to Sue Facebook because they are racist as hell too.

Re: Racism involving Walmart Store #0301, 340 E. Meighan Blvd. Gadsden, AL. 35903. 

Daryll Triplett is a former Ohio Police Officer who along with his wife Lisa owns a black-centered haircare company Hair911, Inc. on a provider contract with Walmart. He also owns VH2 Networks, host of my TV show “Corruption Meets Camera” on which I detail the background for my current Facebook lawsuit that is at present headed for Oral Argument on video, 15 February 2019. There will be video.

Mr. Triplett claims that Walmart has ignored and failed to investigate threatening racist emails that erupted after a contractual dispute this winter. He is holding a press conference live on Facebook tomorrow at 3:30pm EST that will be streaming on my page as well, and the full show will be hosted on my channel, on YouTube and elsewhere.

One such email contains the following language: 

“You call or text this nigger love bitch......” [snip].

KingCast: Just the facts. 

A press conference will beheld at their corporate headquarters 6375Regency Parkway Suite 710 Norcross, GA. 30071, Friday, February1, 2019 at 3:30p.m. 

Parking in rear of building
email mediaenquiries to: Media@VH2.tv

Related Actions:
Univision Reports Racism.
ACLU Racism in Bozeman.
Walmart locking up black hair care products.

Related pending TV shows:  
Racism at Big5 Sporting Goods (settled).
New York Life racism cases old and new (some settled some pending).

29 January 2019

KingCast v. Facebook Opening to Oral Argument on Censorship, Corporate Hegemony and Racism.

Facebook Invite to Court Hearing 15 February 2019

Hot off the Presses:  Zucked: Waking up to the Facebook Catastrophe

But here’s the bizarre quirk of the Facebook dystopia, whose sheer perversity would have likely pleased Orwell: It’s all Big and no Brother. Our time and lives are the company’s only currency. Without our continued attention, Facebook quite literally has nothing, and its empire could be brought down with a feather. Now, blow.
When I walk into a Courtroom to make my case I don't come to play. I come to stick a knife right through the Defendant's jugular. Here's how it starts folks:

May it please the Court: Again first of all this Case is dedicated to my mother, the inimitable Betty Jean King who is part of this lawsuit as I shall explain further, so let’s all take a moment to Honor her because without her we would not be here in more ways than one: She’s the one who had the vision to tell me to “get a blog” 20 years ago. 


May it Please the Court:

I have given this Court everything it needs in order to make his client Do the Right Thing. Through my investigative efforts this abusive Internet juggernaut called Facebook has been exposed on every single point of Law that it has raised in its defense with case law and common sense in this Country and in Canada and using the words of one of their own Amicus Counsel and former VP of Diversity no less.

What the Court chooses to do with it is all down to you, Your Honor. 

The people seated behind me and I respectfully ask that you Do the Right Thing.
For far too long Mark Zuckerberg has been violating people’s rights in many ways and issuing false apologies and getting away with it while he built a multibillion dollar empire that is disproportionately supported by people who look like me, according to the Pew Charitable Trusts. This is done in a calculated move to maintain their white supremacy. It is up to you at this point – and only you – to hold this abusive empire up to scrutiny and to hold them accountable. 

Now then turning to the specific issues at hand…..

27 January 2019

KingCast and Mortgage Movies Observe Seattle Foreclosure Attorney Jill Smith Join Richard Jones in the Client Hall of Shame.

19 October 2019 Update:
Shelley Erickson received an in-depth letter from the Bar 
noting the laws she has broken and noting that they subpoenaed her too.
They are going to disbar her ass.
Wait for it. I'll post tomorrow.

It's tomorrow:
Just peachy. 

Well ain't that special?
After Plaintiff Erickson and a licensed Private Investigator tried for WEEKS 
to get Defendant Smith to respond -- even checking local hospitals for her and emailing...
She finally has someone accept Service of Process to avoid Default Judgment. 
That's mighty white of her.
Wow. Jill Smith is evading Service at this point in the opinion of a veteran investigator and process server. That's pretty ballsy conduct from an Attorney who still owes her client a shit-ton of money, right?  Talk about hubris. Talk about insouciance, just, wow. God it pains me to do this but she gets no favors from me even though I feel she's getting railroaded. They are separate issues.

I'll say this up front:  I have little to no doubt that Jill Smith is being railroaded by the Washington State Bar Association as far as her pending (allegedly imminent) Bar Suspension. 

I cannot confirm the duration of any alleged suspension but I have it on Good Faith by at least one of her clients and others that she's getting her ticket pulled for a term of at least a year.

I know the pain of a bullshit bar prosecution. I now how the Bar persecutes lawyers who challenge the establishment, especially when the banksters are involved. The only time I was found to have filed a frivolous Complaint in my lifetime involved a complaint when I sued my IOLTA bank for sex discrimination because of how they screwed with my client during her pregnancy and did everything they could NOT to accommodate her.

Judge David E. Cain was a Judge whom I remember seeing about town and he was going to work with me to get me in speaking events and all sorts of things like that. But when I sued that bank he turned around and slapped my black ass with the $5K fine and said it was ridiculous because Bethany's boss was a woman so it couldn't possibly be sex discrimination.

Everyone and their mother knows that is hardly a dispositive thing but he made it into one, and he allowed the Defendant, by and through one Robert Eblin, to file a gerrymandered Deposition in which she said "I wouldn't have a case" in response to a hypothetical question by him. The whole thing was complete shit, just as the whole thing about Scott Stafne was bullshit, the whole thing against Wendy Alison Nora is bullshit (I'm a co-plaintiff in her lawsuit against the State of Wisconsin and the Supreme Court and Office of Lawyer Regulation) and the whole thing against Attorney Smith is probably bullshit too. Eblin has probably retired as I don't see him as a listed attorney in the past year or so and he was a partner at Bailey Cavalieri so he's probably set. He can keep his blood money and his bullshit victories. That's why he aged so poorly since last I saw him in '99 or so. Shit I fucking look great. That's what good clean honest living will do for you. Elbin is only 2 years older than me.

Here's the rub: Not one of my issues ever involved client dissatisfaction of failure to perform or failure to return monies. Not. One. But Jill has this issue before her with at least one client, Shelley Erickson. Ms. Erickson and I go back a long way since I moved here and we along with Karen Pooley and many others were responsible for trying to make Seattle City Council sue MERS as many other government entities have done throughout the Country, including right next door in Multnomah County (Portland) and 11 other Oregon Counties. 

Anyway Attorney Smith acknowledged the debt but still has not sent any money, not even partial payment, so WTF???  Further, Ms. Erickson and I have tried to get any kind of itemized statement we could from Attorney Smith and we have failed resolutely. Smith says it was a flat rate case. I basically said to her that's bullshit. Provide proof of the hours you put in because it doesn't matter under Contract you still have to show what you did to deserve hanging on to the money and I don't believe she did much of anything, so that's sad. 

Compound that sadness with the fact that Attorney Smith does I believe have a life-impacting brain condition. I am more than sensitive to that as noted by my Reflection on my mother last month. 

But she still owes her client the money dammit. Notwithstanding that, I commented to this hateful blogger who is on a rant against Neil Garfield and Jill Smith: I basically said dude you're flat fucking WRONG because 3 year SOL does not compute in WA State anymore because Hoang holds that it's 6 years, not three. Let's see if he actually publishes my admonishment. 

1 Feb 2019 Upate: He did, and I'm wrong actually. We had a good vibe chat: 

Interesting. At first blush, I’d say the 9th Circuit flouted the express language of 15 USC 1640(e) which provides 1 year limit on offensive actions for violation of 15 USC 1635(f). However, reading the Huang v BOA opinion I see that Hoang demanded relief for contract violation under the Washington State Consumer Protection Act, and Washington State provides a 6 year limit for contract breach actions. So the opinion makes sense. Had Hoang sued under 15 USC 1640(e), the 9th Circuit would have upheld the dismissal.

Stay tuned. More communication will be posted. The story of how Richard L. Jones screwed Karen Pooley in my opinion is here. I thought he was cool but really I see him now as a smarmy Lincoln Town Car driving bastard.

Also, Melissa Huelsman is a complete asshat too. Just.... the worst. I have no idea how her AVVO rating is so high when I know so many rational people who have been through the wringer with her. 

A KingCast Public Facebook Event: KingCast v. Facebook Censorship and DCA §230 Motion to Dismiss & Motion to Compel Hearing.

The final edit. Beyond the racism we are all being reduced to social and economic rank and used as mere chattel by "private" entities with powers they should not have. Facebook as it exists today is one of the most insidious, abusive entities the World has ever seen. Government regulation per First Amendment Standards in America is imperative. Period.

Now remember Nick Clegg is the current Facebook PR wonk.
He has publicly decried racism.... "It must be met with a steel fist."

Hot off the Presses:  Zucked: Waking up to the Facebook Catastrophe
But here’s the bizarre quirk of the Facebook dystopia, whose sheer perversity would have likely pleased Orwell: It’s all Big and no Brother. Our time and lives are the company’s only currency. Without our continued attention, Facebook quite literally has nothing, and its empire could be brought down with a feather. Now, blow.

Art by the inimitable Carla Elise
Direct link to Facebook event.

AAVE does not equal violence and Facebook has no Good Faith argument that I was engaged in Hate Speech when they banned me several times this past year. 

CRUCIAL UPDATE 28 January 2019: 
Immediately after posting much information about the hearing (see sample below) two friends of mine can no longer access their Facebook-owned accounts. These are white women fed up with white skin privilege and supporting me. 

One was Instagram and the other was Instagram as well as Facebook. One of these women was my partner for 5+ years and most of you know we have not spoken much in the past year but this issue has drawn us together, only for Facebook to try to dismantle it just as resigned Diversity VP Mark S. Luckie said they would. 

There's a third white woman who has been posting as well. Let's see what happens next. They are foul and racist and come time for that Hearing I am going to be on my A Game and let me tell you I am one sharp dude in a Courtroom. Don't miss it. My email to Facebook Attorney Josh Selig at Byrnes Keller Cromwell, LLP.

On Jan 28, 2019, at 05:02 PM, Christopher King wrote: Dear Attorney Selig: The fact that these activist women cannot access their Facebook and/or Instagram feeds immediately after posting about our Hearing strikes me as blatant Bad Faith retaliation or a bot that is canted against people like me and anyone else who espouses anti racist anti white supremacist agendas and the exercise of reasonable free speech on your client's platform to forward these agendas for the betterment of our World. 

I am amending my Complaint to include this activity as well as claims for Fraud and Gross Negligence. Please advise as to your client’s position immediately. 

Sincerely, Christopher King, J.D. 

As Violent Femmes' Gordon Gano would say, "They do it all the time... yeah, yeah...."
Just ask Didi Delgado. She says "Black Facebook users are having their accounts banned for speaking out against racism." Now Facebook is going to say "King you dropped your race claim under 42 USC §1981...."  That doesn't matter folks because the ToS and other FB materials for training make direct references to "nigger" etc. so I get to argue that they are breaching that standard willfully. I just don't get special damages based on race, get it? Got it. The Judge will get it, too I guarantee you that.

Rally to stand up for Free Speech on Facebook! 
Press Release: http://i65.tinypic.com/fwhysk.png 

Arrive at Courthouse by 10:30am please. Facebook claims that they have absolute immunity to censor whatever they want to but there is no basis for that as you will see in this hearing and in this video and blog

Legal docs against their Motion to Dismiss 


Facebook not only misappropriates your personal data, they practice rampant discrimination that has a disproportionate effect on voices of color both in the office and on the platform according to their own former VP of Diversity Mark S. Luckie. He wrote about it and Facebook removed his post

We are working on T-Shirts and lunch is on me. If you care about the future of Free Speech in this Country you need to join us and stand firm against this well-documented form of abuse. 

23 January 2019

KingCast presents: A Word About Racism vis a vis Serena's Australian Open Defeat 2019

I just stopped reading the comments because it there was so much rampant racism going on. I said:

All of you fucking wypipo were just looking for Serena or the press to say ANYTHING about sexism or racism and when it didn't come, you still kept on. That makes YOU the fucking POS not Serena and not the media. Just the facts motherfuckers. GFY. The rampant hate I see in these threads is just disgusting. Go eat a dick all of you. Wow.

12 January 2019

KingCast Says Cyntoia Brown's Clemency Speaks to Marginalization of Young Women, Misogyny and Racism.

This is a great feature on it. You know damn well she got maxed out too because the "victim" was a male, white. Do I feel sorry for him? Marginally. I believe the dude knew she was a 16 year-old. 

Come on man (and all you other users of high-school aged girls), grow the fuck up will ya?  Ugh.

PS: My family is from Tennessee. I've been there many a time and one of my sisters lives there now. I say "Go Governor.... you Did the Right Thing!"

Grindr Case Highlights Other Flaws in DCA §230.

I had never heard of Grindr until yesterday.  But now I see that Matthew Herrick, his lawyers and I have a common foe: Bogus overbroad interpretation of 47 U.S.C. §230. Herrick v. Grindr highlights yet another flaw in 47 U.S.C. §230: My understanding is that a known spoofer ran amok and caused this guy all kinds of holy hell (fake sexual request) but Courts are still laboring under the false interpretation that these ICP's have absolute immunity in every circumstance. 

Mark my words: Those days are drawing to a close, and KingCast v. Facebook is all part of that mix as well. I'm nobody's media darling but my deal is real and legal scholars concur even if they're not chomping at the bit to file Amicus briefs in my case.

As I tweeted yesterday: 
Why #Facebook is not Immune from Suit on DCA §230 or Limitation of Liability 

Legal docs and blog site are linked in the video. It's a different legal theory than #Grndr but either way §230 has got to stop.

My legal theory as seen below is along these lines:

Darnaa v. Google: 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. 

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. 

And See David Lukmire's excellent piece, Can the Courts Tame the Communications Decency Act? The Reverberations of Zeran v. America Online. Attorney Lukmire has written Amici Briefs alongside and in support of Facebook and Microsoft: He is an Industry expert: 

 Second, before deciding whether an online entity is immune because of the type of entity it is or the type of role it played in disseminating illegal content, courts should consider whether section 230 should apply based on the theory of liability advanced by the plaintiff. 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. 

Carrie Goldberg cracks me up. I called her office yesterday after reading her twitter summary: F*ck your overbroad reading of CDA §230.  That calls for a toast and a ride on Bella. Sorry Pepper, no sidecar.

10 January 2019

Why Facebook is not Immune from Suit on DCA §230 or Limitation of Liability.

Samantha Bee just nailed it. Mark Zuckerberg has been a thieving POS all of his life.

My email to everyone involved follows:

Good Day to All. 

I had promised my opposing Counsel Attorney Selig a video this week (he makes a cameo) with a working title of "Denigrate the Negro: The Facebook Way." Well in the end that is the subtext but the larger text is indeed the final title of "Why Facebook is not Immune to suit under section 230 or limitation of liability." 

In this video I promote the high-powered lawyers who agree with me that Facebook does not enjoy unfettered or absolute immunity from suit under several different theories of Law. David K. LukmireRyan J.P. Dyer from Seattle. They both wrote Learned Treatises on it. Mark S. Luckie, the former VP of Diversity for Facebook whose statements alone provide enough evidence to get past Summary Judgment against Facebook for defrauding and disfranchising its black employees and users. The Color of Change. The NAACP. The Center for Media Justice

All of these individuals and associations, and the 79 other ones who signed on the CMJ to DEMAND a Facebook Audit all completely agree with me, and a Jury is entitled to see that and make its own determination. 

To my supporters: Sit down, turn everything else off and just watch this video for 15 minutes to understand the depth of what is going on here and what can be done with corporate behemoths who have too much power and control over our speech. So visit the website, watch the video and drop a little sumpthin' in the GoFundMe when I set it up later today. 

To my detractors: Do whatever you gotta' do. I'll still be here. 

I did avoid saying nigger in any fashion in the video though -- even though Facebook claims that it is permissible in my situation -- lest they find another reason to put me back in jail or down-throttle me in some fashion.

Funny thing is, at least Facebook is consistent. They continue to stick it to black folks even after a Civil Rights Audit was foisted upon them. I am consistent too. I still keep winning public access and information lawsuits and one of my cars is the exact same BMW model I drove twenty years ago when I won cases then. So be it.

The plate got flashed out. It reads CIVL RTS.

Facebook Faces Lawsuit on C... by on Scribd

07 January 2019

Former Facebook Diversity VP Mark S. Luckie Describes Black Facebook Engagement; KingCast Files a Motion to Compel Reply and Opposes 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss.

Note: Appendix A of the filing (Memo in Opp to 12b6 Motion to Dismiss) shows how their very first move was to try to attack my past cases, when most of those cases involved someone white in America trying to say that I was in some ways a Dangerous Black Man. 

Facebook has the same hateful corporate ethos. Mark Luckie wrote about it and got his post taken down. Now Facebook lawyers (Byrnes Keller Cromwell's Partner Josh Selig) have attempted to carry out The Plan in my case. I am going to shove it right back down their collective throats at Oral Argument with a black fist raised in the air. That narrative is tired. Oh-so-tired.

Black people on Facebook 
Black people are one of the most engaged demographics on Facebook… 

Black people are far outpacing other groups on the platform in a slew of engagement metrics. African Americans are more likely to use Facebook to communicate with family and friends daily, according to research commissioned by Facebook. 63% use Facebook to communicate with family, and 60% use Facebook to communicate with friends at least once a day, compared to 53% and 54% of the total population, respectively. 70% of black U.S. adults use Facebook and 43% use Instagram, according to the Pew Research Center. 55% of black millennials report spending at least one hour a day on social networking sites, 6% higher than all millennials, while 29% say they spend at least three hours a day, 9% higher than all millennials, Nielsen surveys found. 

Black people are driving the kind of meaningful social interactions Facebook is striving to facilitate. Black people are finding that their attempts to create "safe spaces" on Facebook for conversation among themselves are being derailed by the platform itself. Non-black people are reporting what are meant to be positive efforts as hate speech, despite them often not violating Facebook’s terms of service. Their content is removed without notice. Accounts are suspended indefinitely. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-s-luckie/facebook-is-failing-its-black-employees-and-its-black-users/1931075116975013/ 

KingCast says: Thus, the group of people who disproportionately drive the Facebook bus still sit on the back of the bus; nothing has changed since Rosa Parks.

06 January 2019

Facebook Selection of Venue Clause: Out of the Frying Pan, Into the Fire.

Because the allegedly inflated view count associated with "Luv ya" is not "otherwise objectionable" within the meaning of Section 230(c)(2), YouTube is not entitled to immunity from Plaintiffs' contract or tortious interference claims…… Song fi Inc. v. Google, Inc.

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….Darnaa, LLC v. Google.  

......These Plaintiffs lost their cases but NOT BASED ON IMMUNITY. And they lost on Summary Judgment so for Facebook to try a Motion to Dismiss is arguably Rule 11 Material. I just may go there. Stay tuned. 
Whatever guys.  Here is the Canada case I reference in the letter. Drouez v. Facebook.

On the second step, the majority9 held that the plaintiff did in fact establish strong reasons not to enforce the forum selection clause. Those reasons include: 

*Facebook's terms of use constitute a contract of adhesion that is the result of unequal bargaining power between a global corporation and an individual consumer10 

*freedom to contract should not effectively deprive consumers of a remedy when claims arise;11 

*the claim seeks to enforce quasi-constitutional privacy rights of British Columbians:12

B.C. courts are in a better position to adjudicate claims based on a B.C. statute;

Facebook offered no evidence that a California court would actually hear the claim; and it would be more convenient for Facebook to make its records available for inspection in British Columbia than it would be for the plaintiff to travel to California.14

Facebook Faces Lawsuit on C... by on Scribd