26 May 2019

KingCast Ask.... Is Lewis Hamilton GOAT (Yet)?

Obviously we can never definitively answer that question because 
Michael Schumacher still leads in Championships and victories.

You can’t compare modern and older eras of anything. 
Ayrton’s brilliance was cut well short by mechanical failure. 

That having been said, no one can rationally say that he is not. He has many more years left at the top to surpass his Mercedes older brother Michael. And so, as I sat there at 30,000 feet this afternoon watching the last 15 laps of one of the most exciting finishes of any F1 race I have ever seen, I cried. Tears of joy for Lewis and tears of remembrance for Niki, my first childhood idol when I was 8 years old in 73.  Back then Lewis would have had a tough road to land a chair in a top-line car. Paul Newman and Willy T. Ribbs will tell you that (Watch Uppity).

But today there are fewer impediments thanks to Civil Rights activism and developing human culture thank God. So that fine young brother tucked his cornrows into his Niki hat and he tucked them into his lid too, with Niki’s name on the back of it for him to point to in victory the moment he exited his Mercedes. Niki helped make him the man and the race car driver that he is, and that brought the tears of beauty from me in honor of their relationship and for Niki’s presence in F1 in general..  I am so happy for Lewis I can never explain it. But I think most of you get it. My other race car driver idols are varied and several: Graham Hill, Mark Donohue, King Richard, Wendell Scott, Mario, AJ Foyt, Michele Mouton, Stig Blomqvist, Bobby Unser. 

Max Verstappen gave him everything he had at Monaco today…. And a bit too much when he overcooked that turn and took his line -- because of an earlier penalty this was basically a most unfortunate DQ for a brilliant race. I know he must be completely beside himself right now to go from second or first…. To nothing in such a momentous race.

Five World titles and looking strong for six. Michael Schumacher remains first on the all time list with 7 world titles, Argentinian Juan Manuel Fangio has won 5 while Alan Prost and Sebastian Vettel both have 4 titles each.

But today Lewis Hamilton was not to be denied. He did it for Niki.

23 May 2019

KingCast See Witnesses in Darrell Jones Wrongful Imprisonment Case Fight to Tell the Truth

I have watched this trainwreck of a case for 10 years now. I’ve won criminal trials. I was a State Attorney. At one point I believed in the integrity of the Judicial Process. That belief had largely evaporated long before the State’s expert witness failed to appear in this case, and long before Detective Smith’s Perjury went completely unpunished. 

I don’t know who they think they are fooling but they are not fooling me. 

Watch for this on 28 May on WGBH All Things Considered.

For those of us who have considered the folly of attempting to again prosecute Darrell Jones following his Wrongful Conviction release about 16 months ago... have I got a developing doozy for you:

First off, wait for my full interview with Mr. Jones tomorrow evening after I edit it down.

Second, remember that Mr. Jones was released from prison about 16 months ago after serving 32 years for the murder of one Guillermo Rodriquez (Pow). There was police perjury. There was racism in the Jury. There was a lawyer Ken Elias who was working with the cops as clients without divulging the relationships. There was a doctored or crash-edited video of an alleged identification by a then-prostitute who was hopped-up on drugs and looking for a fix.

And then, thankfully, there later came the Innocence Project on one of their first non-DNA cases to fight for Justice, freeing Mr. Jones on their first effort in time for him to return home for 2017 Christmas.

Now then, today:

Sources indicate that this trial -- which was moved from Brockton to a lighter shade of Plymouth for some reason -- is tainted by a rogue Judge who is browbeating witnesses into submission to make them reiterate what they may have stated 33 years ago. The problem is that the witnesses claim that they were under threat of duress at the hands of the police back then to make statements that might have been helpful to the State's case against Jones. From WBUR's Bruce Gellerman's story today:

[Edna] Duquette testified that Smith had threatened her with prison and said he'd take away her infant son if she did not identify a photo of Jones he showed her in a display.
Mr. Jones' lawyers are being so hamstrung by the conduct of Judge Cornelius J. Moriarty II that a Withdrawal Motion is going to be filed. At which point Mr. Jones is still entitled to a lawyer, folks. That's the 6th Amendment to the United States Constitution. But a Commonwealth Court that does not care about Police Detective Joseph Smith committing Perjury obviously does not care about any Rights that Darrell Jones has to effective Counsel. 

In essence, he is right back where he started from 33 long years ago. Says Jones,

"Now if you felt you were going to jail for trying to tell the Truth now, what position does that put you in? All of this warning and threatning about Perjury for them but nobody ever said anything to [Detective] Smith and he actually committed Perjury."
Says Judge Moriarty: 
"Perjury in a murder case is a serious offense and something this court does not take lightly," Moriarty said. 
Is that right Your Honor?  If it is so serious then why hasn't Detective Smith been charged with Perjury? Inquiring minds would like to know.

Stay tuned for the interview. 
It is a cry for Prosecutorial Transparency as seen in California and Connecticut and hopefully, beyond. 

MGL §66-10 Demand for Information on Plymouth County Prosecutor Jessica Kenny by Christopher King on Scribd

20 May 2019

KingCast Oral Argument to Slam Facebook on its 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss the Fraud, Racism and Breach of Contract Lawsuit.

Yah. I'll put it right on out there because I am completely transparent, unlike my opponent.

May it please the Court: 

Defendant has continued to attempt to play this case off as just another content-based claim that should receive short shrift from this Honorable Court.

Nothing could be further from the Truth.

To wit:  This is the first case of its kind that has a Party Admission from Defendant’s CEO with French President Emmanuel Macron that his company needs to be regulated on hate speech. Almost all of my suspensions were based on purported hate speech.

To wit:              This is the first case of its kind to incorporate actual claims of viable systemic Civil Rights issues against Defendant by 77 Civil Rights, media and legal associations including a boycott by the Country’s oldest Civil Rights Organization, the NAACP.

To wit:  This is the first case of its kind to incorporate legal tools of analysis provided by legal scholars including a Facebook Amicus lawyer that provide a legal framework for this Court to help regulate Defendant without engaging in imprudent Judicial Activism.

As such, your Honor, let us turn to the Learned Treatises of Attorneys David Lukmire and Ryan JP Dyer, with Attorney Lukmire first:

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.

This Court has previously hinted at the notion of a Contractual Bad Faith Breach in this type of litigation, and Plaintiff has argued not only about his account suspension in the first place, but as to how he was treated in the requested review of his suspensions as well, such as waiting two whole weeks for an update out of a four-week suspension. It’s ludicrous.

Accord Ryan JP Dyer Your Honor:

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

Turning the tide against a lawless no-man’s-land on the Internet starts with a reexamination of Congress’s intended scope of immunity and the implicit preemptive effect of section 230. Beginning with the presumption that Congress did not intend to preempt an entire field of traditional state police power, and after closely examining the textual components of section 230 as well as the legislative history, it soon becomes apparent that immunity is only applicable in a specific set of circumstances. In applying this analysis, courts could incorporate some form of objective bad faith determination to distinguish between websites that are furthering the purposes of section 230, as opposed to those that are merely posing as good Samaritans.[1]

Once again note the Good Samaritan issue because Plaintiff and scores of blacks have argued that Facebook is in no ways being a Good Samaritan in this case because our discussion of racism does not connote hate speech by any plausible objective – or even subjective – standard.

The time has come for Mark Zuckerberg to get his wish Your Honor: This Court can help start the regulation effort by declaring that the words that Plaintiff has used to describe being quote “treated like a nigger” simply do not denote or connote hate speech as defined by Defendant itself in its Terms of Service and in its training and policy materials.

In sum Your Honor, the Court and everyone watching can see that we are already well past a 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss. These are clearly issues for a Jury to determine.

Respectfully submitted,

Christopher King, J.D.

[1] Again, in case Defendant missed it, Plaintiff is arguing that Defendant is not acting in Good Faith in general, nor is it truly a Good Samaritan.

New Facebook Federal Lawsui... by on Scribd

15 May 2019

Q: OK KingCast since FB blocked your blogs, what is the latest on your Facebook lawsuit and when do you get to find out who that jerk is that keeps serially defaming you and how is Megan Rapinoe involved?

few words about the SI swimsuit issue and inclusion:
Just because something doesn't float your boat doesn't mean it's not legal or beautiful in its own right. Facebook needs to learn this and apply it.
As seen on my gutted FB page:

A:  I will know a lot more by 2:15 today after my 2:00 phone call with Counsel. 

1.  Defamation – Facebook claims that the lawsuit as currently pled for “subornation of Defamation” is actually holding them responsible for the Defamation even though I clearly stated otherwise. I have proposed to Amend my Complaint to add a John/Jane Doe as specific Defendant, and then obtain a Court Order to get Facebook to give up the IP addy, email address and other user information pursuant to the general formula for such things as noted in Dendrite v. Does because I was definitely harmed. I be like Megan Rapinoe, right.

2.  Major press and so-called alternative press – Continue to ignore the suit even as they read it all the time. 11,000 views on SCRIBD. 

Everything that is going on with Facebook right now in terms of undue influence, hegemony, racism and whether or not they are a publisher is all wrapped up into my lawsuit in a way that no prior Facebook lawsuit was. So they can keep on ignoring my black ass and I will keep on doing what I was born to do:  Challenge abusive authority and expose corruption. See Rapinoesupra.

3.  Judicial Notice of the USA Today story “Facebook While Black.” 
How can the Court NOT accept the article as proof of substantial controversy, at a minimum. And of Course I set the law right on out there for all the World to see. See Rapinoesupra.

I. Overview and Request for Judicial Notice of Mark Zuckerberg’s Instagram Party Admission.

First of all, in a Party Admission tweeted recently, Mark Zuckerberg stated with regard to hate speech (the purported basis for Plaintiff’s Facebook multiple Jail terms) that “This is an area where I believe companies should not make these decisions by themselves and there should be a public process with democratically elected governments.”[1]
Second, Plaintiff finds it laughable that the World’s largest communication portal that makes money from the posting and exchange of people’s personal and private information now has a problem admitting its own wretched excess. Particularly because three (3) days ago Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes flat out said it is time to break up Facebook and that:

"Facebook is a threat to our economy and democracy." "I feel a sense of anger and responsibility.”[2]

Defendant’s arguments are completely underwhelming and resonate as something the sandlot bully says when the smallest kid rises up and smotes him a blow across the noggin:
“Hey I got hurt!!!”
Too bad, so sad, hard cheese fella’. You have been hurting too many people for far too long to complain about Distributive Justice. 

II.            Law and Argument: Defendant’s Positions Debunked.

A.            The Website in Question is a Newspaper and is Presumed Reliable and its Reliability and the Underlying Claims Have not Been Challenged.

            Defendant tries to equate this news feature with private websites who hosted materials about data-breaching. 
Writes Defendant, “Courts routinely decline to grant judicial notice regarding materials published on private websites because “they are not inherently reliable.” Rollins, 338 F. Supp. 3d at 1032; see also id. at 1032-33 (“There are at least a trillion web pages on the Internet, and many of the documents within those pages are unsupported, poorly supported, or even false.”). 
Cute. It’s as if Defendant forgot that Plaintiff has a Pacer account as well, so let’s finish that paragraph shall we?
Of course, that does not make all of those documents inadmissible for all purposes. But they are not inherently reliable, and courts should be cautious before taking judicial notice of documents simply because they were published on a website. That is particularly so when a party seeks to introduce documents it created and posted on its own website, as Dignity does here. 

            Unfortunately for Defendant, the Rollins concerns are not present here. This is the USA Today, the Nation’s largest newspaper. Clear-cut allegations of unfair treatments were made and Defendant was contacted for the story. Defendant had a full opportunity to ask for retractions or to in any way contradict the story. It did nothing of the sort.  Again: The heinous facts as alleged in that story have not been challenged in spite of their notoriety in the Country’s largest newspaper. In contrast see Perkins v. LinkedIn Corp., 53 F. Supp. 3d 1190, 1204 (N.D. Cal. 2014) in which case the Parties actually disputed whether or not a screenshot on a private website was authentic. Since there was a colorable dispute the Request for Judicial Notice was properly DENIED.[3]
Furthermore, the Standard in this Court is not demonstrably different from that of the California State Court or any other Court in the Country on this issue where Judicial Notice of Newspaper articles was GRANTED: Judicial notice of newspaper articles is proper under Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (h) ["Facts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy. (People v. Hardy (1992) 2 Ca1.4th 86, 174, fn. 24, see also Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Ca1.4th 383, 408 [judicial notice of controversy as evidenced by articles in the press].) 
See also Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting Broad Corp. (2002) 97 Call. App.4th 798, 807 n.5 taking judicial notice of news articles discussing the reality TV show “Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire?”; judicial notice granted to show matter of widespread interest and Hofmann Co. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemourse  Co (202 Cal. App. 3d 390 395 n.3; 1988) and Weingarten v. Block 102 Cal.App.3d 129, 137. 1980.

[1] Government intervention is possible. As will be shown shortly herein, and in the Dispositive Motion filings soon, under a proper analysis of the issues at hand this Honorable Court is vested with full authority to consider Plaintiff’s substantive arguments. See Macron, Facebook’s Zuckerberg meet amidst calls for Tighter Regulation, Reuters, 10 May 2019  (Appendix A).

[2] Opinion “It’s Time to Break Up Facebook” By Chris Hughes New York Times May 9, 2019. 
as republished at the two Plaintiff  blogs Defendant banned for “violation of Community Standards.”

[3] As to Defendant’s arguments that there is Hearsay in the newspaper story this may be true, however much of the information came from the subjects’ direct and personal observations and the last time Plaintiff checked, that is not Hearsay. Furthermore to the extent that there is any Hearsay the Defendant has not taken any action to contradict any of it, and the Court is free not to allow the elements of the story that are indeed, purely Hearsay as it deems appropriate.

13 May 2019

KingCast and Mortgage Movies Present: Ten Points of Light for Seattle City Council on the Homeless.

Note: I tweeted this @Seattle PD and @KUOW. The major and so-called alternative press will continue to ignore me even though I said "You Suck" just as did so many LE. 
Read the story.

1. I remember the day I trusted the press in this town and you on crime and homelessness and helping Seattle homeowners. 

2. Nick Licata and Kshama Sawant acknowledged the bank's criminal activity against homeowners and I made videos for her first campaign, for free. 

3. I made a video with Mike O'Brien and the man who got his ear bitten off. I thought it was an anomaly. It was not. 

4. Some of you and other candidates attended a forum I co-hosted with Michelle Darnell and SAFE about helping homeowners on mortgages because I was a closing attorney; I ran a title company and Michelle is one helluva paralegal. We worked on homeowner mediations together. I thought you cared. 

5. Then there was this Ed Murray. 

Tim Burgess: The slimiest politician I have ever known.

6. Well since then you ignored your own paid consultant about suing Mortgage Electronic Registration Services and Tim Burgess the slimiest politician I've ever met -- summarily shut her down even though Counties in oregon have successfully sued MERS. And I leaked the Audit when you were slow to produce it. And I successfully sued you to get the documents as to why you didn't sue MERS and all I get is a bunch of redactions. 

7. And the homeless problem continues unabated with homeless folks being shuffled around town right back to the same spots while many of them are either being abused and used for money or committing crimes themselves. 

8. And you have no clue or plan about what to do whatsoever. Everywhere we go we are under siege in this town and you are completely feckless. 

9. There is a homeless bloke named Lucky, he's behind the Lowes at 130th near Aurora. He is being hassled by City contractors. Call off the dogs folks. He's about the only Good Thing in that area, keeping things clean and running out the riffraff. 

10. You folks in TV land just google Mortgage Movies Journal or I am KingCast on Facebook URL or Christopher King watch everything I just told you because Major press and what passes for alternative press in this town certainly won't take you where I will. I know this because I used to work for major press.

Respectfully submitted and just doing the work my Momma loved me to do, _______________________________
Christopher King, J.D.

11 May 2019

KingCast Reflections on 5/11 and Mother's Day.

Some of the trees that Liko planted in his special place. 
Roughly translated Liko means "Little bud."
Today is an epic day in American History. Twelve years ago, 2 days before Mother's Day the culmination of years of police abuse and taunting and threatening of people in the Franconia area of NH White Mountains came to an end when Liko Peter Kenney shot and killed Franconia Corporal Norman Bruce McKay. The shooting happened after McKay had violated 7 or 8 protocol designed to de-escalate the situation.

This Mother's Day weekend is epic for me because it is the first one without my mother's physical presence. Even though she was bedridden with an increasingly prevalent form of Frontal Dementia for the past 5 years and unable to speak much at all for the past 8 years, the difference is palpable. I don't cry about it often -- I had about 10 years to do that off and on since the preliminary diagnosis set it -- but I did last night. Tears of joy at everything my Mom brought to this World, and the fact that she was always a favored Den Mother for a reason. I got to have the perfect Den Mother for all of my Life, and I'm forever grateful.

Michele takes a private World approach to Life and I respect her wishes. I also know that she is thankful for all of the Joy that Liko brought to her World and I can only hope that when she cries, she cries tears of Joy.

Every Mother's first and best wish is for her children to be happy. Betty King got to see that. While I may not be fully where I want to be in life, I am happy with the things I have done, the people I have helped and the places I am going.

Liko's Mom was not so fortunate, and she will likely never return to Franconia not only because of Liko's death at that hands of a multiple felon, but because of the coverup that preceded it and continued after it.

I do know however that Liko and Caleb had a plan before Liko was murdered, and the plan was to get out of Franconia, to get out West and really enjoy life free from the reign of terror that Bruce McKay imposed on people he didn't care for. So for at least a few moments of his young life, he was in an Absolutely Good Place, and Micky Dehram has publicly noted.

I also know that my screenplay partner and I are going to tell Liko's story: The real way, with all of the important legalities put to bear, no bullshit like that huckster Casey Sherman is attempting. Read the family statement.  We have a few things in front of that first, but it is going to happen. I'll leave it at that for now.

God Bless all the Mothers in this World for carrying us, and for everything you did after that as well.


-The KingCaster
Yes, Liko also owned an E28 BMW. He was a very smart kid, 
he knew at 25 that it is one of the best cars ever made.
I drove it to the Littleton Courthouse to retrieve the Court files
that prove Casey Sherman is full of shit.

Circle of Stones: The Liko Kenney Story.

08 May 2019

KingCast, Facebook Founder Chris Hughes, Texas Senator Bryan Hughes and National Review Writer David French Concur: Facebook Must be Regulated to a First Amendment Standard.

Says Hughes in yesterday's (9 May 2019) NYTimes.
"Facebook is a threat to our economy and democracy."
"I feel a sense of anger and responsibility."

I told their lawyers at Keker, Van Nest:
"Babylon a go fall."

From Texas Tribune and Breitbart's story on Proposed Texas Bill 2373
In a committee hearing, Hughes stated: “Senate Bill 2373 tries to prevent those companies that control these new public spaces, this new public square, from picking winners and losers based on content. Basically, if the company represents, ‘We’re an open forum and we don’t discriminate based on content,’ then they shouldn’t be able to discriminate based on content.” 
Exactly. They are patently disingenuous and have admitted being a Publisher anyway.

From the National Review story  "The First Rule of Social-Media Censorship Is That There Are No Rules."

Twitter, Facebook, et al. need transparent, viewpoint-neutral, First Amendment-based content policies. 

Yes folks that Day is going to come, and this lawsuit is all part of it whether they like it or not. Writes French:
"I have long argued that social-media companies should voluntarily adopt First Amendment–based speech policies. A First Amendment analysis does not mean “anything goes,” but it does mean that rules and regulations restricting speech must be viewpoint-neutral. Harassment, incitement, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress are speech limitations with viewpoint-neutral definitions, and one of the fastest ways to violate the First Amendment is with selective enforcement even of viewpoint-neutral rules."
Bingo!  That is exactly what I have been preaching for more than a year now, and that is why the Trump supporters started sharing my blog links, whereupon Facebook immediately decreed that they are "in violation of community standards."  It's all in the lawsuit below.  I argue that this is Retaliatory Breach of Contract. Stay tuned.

As to my Reply Memorandum in Support of Injunctive relief as to the asshole who keeps Defaming me I just wrote them... now keep in mind I’m battling not one but two partners and a Senior of Counsel set of Attorneys:

8:22 PM (0 minutes ago)

Also, as to your repeated attempts to bring extraneous matter into this case regarding any losses I had: I think that backfired.

Have any of you lost a case? Of course you have.

Have you won more than you lost? Probably.

Well guess what: So have I. Shall I start fling notices with the Court about cases YOU lost?

With that, I thank you kindly for your respectful litigation stance going forward.

Best Regards,

Christopher King, J.D.
(Just tired of the bullshit).

02 May 2019

KingCast Presents: A Stern Warning to Facebook Attorneys at Keker Van Nest et al: Stick to the Facts.

What I think about Facebook. What many people think about Facebook. That is an opinion. What Attorney Hicks misstated was a material fact, a Term of Art. I'm not having any of it.

Dear Attorney Hicks, After your client failed to properly file a Notice of Presentation to the Court pursuant to CR 54(f)(2) the Court issued a Final Order that was, of course, appealed. I made you directly aware of same contemporaneously. 

Contrary to your naked and false commentary in your email to me earlier today, the Order says absolutely NOTHING about “frivolity.” I have attached a copy for your review in case you missed it. As you should be aware through your vast Trial and Litigation Experience, Courts issue Attorney Fees in the absence of frivolous conduct all the time. 

Furthermore, you are aware that I cited to several cases holding that Sanctions were NOT appropriate in similar circumstances where, in my case, Defendant has made it clear it would not provide Discovery while filing a Motion for Protective Order. Your client will see many more cases in support in accordance with the timelines dictated by the Washington State Appellate Process. 

So then, as you are wont to advise me about paying off that Court Order before proceeding with this case, I doubt you have any legal support for your contention: All you are doing is continuing your client’s modus operandi of denigrating the negro, as I have noted on prior occasion. I won't tolerate any of that, Sir.  Should you even try to tell this Honorable Court that there was a finding of frivolity I will immediately move for Sanctions based on Candor Toward the Tribunal. 

And I will strongly advise that you stick to the facts of this case, and not the facts as you wish they were. 


Christopher King, J.D

Dear Attorney Hicks, 

Lastly -- at least until I receive your client's Motions -- I will assume that Facebook is also contesting any and all responsibility to provide any information as to the person or persons who have clearly Defamed me on several calculated occasions as you have not responded to my inquiry on that. I look forward to your client's rationale and legal arguments on that. 

Enjoy your weekend. 

Christopher King, J.D.


4 May 2019

Plaintiff’s Argument-in-Chief
Dear Attorney Hicks:

In the interest of open full and fair communication – which your client definitely does not favor – I am going to openly present to you exactly what I am going to argue to the Court on the substantive matters we are addressing in this case. This way you don’t have to continue to misrepresent anything, ok? OK then.

Subject to my stern warning to you on prior occasion, I am not going to be addressing any notion that I have engaged in “frivolous” conduct about an unrelated case that did expressly DID NOT address any of the underlying merits we are about to address now. That having been said:

First of all, In no prior case did a Court have any reliable indicia of unlawful discrimination. 

Second, In no prior case did a litigant present the learned Treatise of Facebook Amicus Counsel noting that the Act is overbroad and must be “tamed” and not applied to issues of Contract or Civil Rights.

Third, In this case everything Plaintiff claims has to be taken as true at this point for Motion to Dismiss and/or for Motion for Summary Judgment. We will analyze what that means in terms of Race and Contractual claims. With regard to race, this means that Mark S. Luckie is correct when he says that racism has stained the platform and the workplace, and that users are not being treated fairly or equally on the basis of race.

The Court must ask itself as a matter of basic and heightened statutory deconstruction:

Did Congress intend for such an absurd result, i.e. that a set of privileged predominately white males can create and monopolize the largest speech platform in the history of mankind, then intentionally discriminate against blacks and their issues?

And did Congress then intend to say that it is permissible for these same privileged predominately white males then ignore blacks when other users on the platform stalk them and Defame them, or should Defendant be compelled to produce the account information of the Defaming agent under a Dendrite v. Does analysis?

If the Court sustains your Motion then Congress clearly has more work to do.

And if the Court sustains my analysis – and that of Attorney Lukmire – then Facebook clearly has more work to do.

Either way I will not be tolerating any abuse or misrepresentations from you or your client. 

Christopher King, J.D. 

Dear Attorney Hicks: 

Your continued rumination on an implied threat of sanctions don't scare me. And it's also a great case I am going to use in my Appeal because basically all that happened there was I filed my Motion to Compel 2-3 days early. 

So rather than your client seeking appropriate relief, I will be seeking appropriate relief pursuant to: Wiremold v. Thomas & Betts, 3:16-CV-02133 (D. Conn).  
The person seeking the stay bears the burden of establishing good cause for staying discovery. Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. LY USA, Inc., 676 F.3d 83, 97 (2d. Cir. 2012) (citing Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706-08 (1997)). The filing of a dispositive motion does not automatically constitute good cause for a stay of discovery. See, e.g., United Rentals, Inc. v. Chamberlain, 3:12-CV-1466 CSH, 2013 WL 6230094, at *3 (D. Conn. Dec. 2, 2013); Hollins v. U.S. Tennis Ass’n, 469 F. Supp. 2d 67, 78 (E.D.N.Y. 2006). Certainly then, the anticipation of filing a motion to dismiss does not warrant staying the conference and planning required to initiate the discovery process. 
Enjoy the balance of your weekend. 
Christopher King, J.D.

California Attorney General to Investigate Facebook False and Deceptive Business Practices Under Bus & Prof. §17535 and §17203.

What I think about Facebook. What many people think about Facebook. That is an opinion. What Attorney Hicks misstated was a material fact, a Term of Art. I'm not having any of it.
Dear Attorney General Becerra:

There seems to be some confusion about my complaint: I am not asking you to represent me, at all. I am asking you to protect the Rights of the Citizens who use a California-based Internet juggernaut by the name of Facebook, much the same way as the District of Columbia AG has done as noted by my pals at Politico.

Aattorney general sues Facebook for failing to protect user data

Now that we are clear on that point please advise me as to your intentions.
Respectfully submitted,
Christopher King, J.D.

A Bus & Prof. §17535 and §17203 Complaint was filed today with California Attorney General Xavier Becerra. It references the pending Civil Lawsuit King v. Facebook 19-CV-1987 and reads, in pertinent part:

Briefly describe the resolution you are seeking. 
"..............The Attorney General needs to investigate this Company with an eye toward regulation in general, and some of that may fall under a multidisciplinary approach with the FCC and FTC. In specific the facts regarding how Facebook treats black users who discuss racism indicate a Fraudulent Premise by Respondent to regulate Hate Speech when in point of fact they are intentionally being overbroad and silencing black users who discuss Civil Rights and racism......"