Housing is a Civil Right

Housing is a Civil Right

Friday, July 31, 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.

Tuesday, July 28, 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. 
and

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.

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, 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.

that




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:
  
THE PARTIES 
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?


Sunday, July 19, 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/

Thursday, July 16, 2015

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 :)

Monday, July 13, 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.