25 August 2019

KingCast Sees Facebook Lawyers Admit that Facebook Cannot Track Posters who Defame You and Delete their Accounts.

Fact: When white people sue for Defamation on Facebook they get sizable Judgments or Settlements. See Zerlie Charles v. Vickie D. Vest, Indiana Ct. App. No. 72A01-1706-SC-01252 (October 24, 2017) and Dial v. Hammond 15-CV-05383 N. Carolina Buncombe Superior (2015). Case settled for $500,000.00 (ABA Journal no less).
But alas, when I sue as a black man, despite being clearly defamed for YEARS, Facebook lawyers at Keker, Van Nest give me nothing but a runaround. Take a look. That's OK. We will soon be in front of Judge William H. Orrick on this. His Honor does not suffer corporate abuse gladly as noted in Wadler v. Custard Insurance, Inc. 17-CV-05840, Final Award coming 22 July 2019, or just 5 days after our Oral Argument you see in the above YouTube video.

We will let him determine whether or not a nigger has the same rights as these white survivors of Facebook Defamation. They are much more worried than I am I can guarantee you that.

Above is the transcript audio. Here is some background as to the simple questions I keep asking the four (4) lawyers at Keker, Van Nest and how they continue to avoid them. To wit, part of an email exchange that occurred late last night. 

By the way Counselors, it is called EXPEDITED DISCOVERY. Obviously you feel some sense of urgency to address these matters or you would not be writing me at 10:28pm.

So this is why you shouldn't drag your feet or fail to respond to me when I ask you simple questions, i.e. 

1) What day did Facebook notify the offending defamatory user account(s)?

2) What is wrong with providing me the information on Saturday, Sunday or Monday following the last due date of response, i.e. Friday, 23?
3) When will you provide me the User information given that you and your client are both already in possession of it for at least 21 days right?
4) Will you be available for a Meet and Confer on Monday, 26 August 2019 and if not what is your next available day, date and time to do so?

You and your client's niggardly responses in this regard I will not suffer gladly, and may I be so bold as to predict that Judge Orrick will not take too kindly to them either.

#clarity. Do with it what you wish.  I look forward to hearing from you as contemplated by our emails Saturday night and this Sunday morning.

IV.            Demands.
Defendant must be ORDERED to provide the user information for “Troy Frasier” as the
Defendant cannot provide any distinguishing rationale as to how it can provide the user 
information for “Lisa Marie” but not for “Troy Frasier” when Plaintiff provided them the 
same data inputs and facts and timeframe information. Defendant must then further 
provide the Court a detailed Affidavit as to Best Practices and Good Faith Due Diligence 
on the matter, 

Defendant must be ORDERED to provide the user information for “Facebook User” as well, 
because Defendant had all of the same information as in the other two examples. In the 
event the Defendant maintains that it cannot find any information they must then provide 
the Court a detailed Affidavit as to Best Practices and Good Faith Due Diligence on the 
matter, and admit to the Court, to the FCC and to the entire Free World that anybody can 
open a Facebook account, defame someone, shut down their account and walk away 
without a trace or any accountability whatsoever.
Respectfully submitted,
-The KingCaster

No comments: