Housing is a Civil Right

Housing is a Civil Right

Thursday, September 15, 2016

KingCast and Mortgage Movies See Cafe Aroma Landlord Dodge Nomad Northwest Walk Through.

See Cafe Aroma Shoreline.

Pardon my head cold nasal inflection in this video but I need to get this Truth out one year after the Grand Opening of Nomad Northwest.

In point of fact Angela you are a liar. Folks you can see the email I wrote to Ed right here and his nasty response all of a sudden right here.

You never said Ed was within his rights to talk to me this way at all, right after you all committed to the total rebuild and he got his free rehab for his leased premises. What you did was you talked to Elisa and me about what a jackass he was, and how sexist and misogynist he was, and you informed me that you were going to try to diplomatically address it when you sent me this email. And then you wrote Ed, as seen in this email just a couple of weeks after he went sideways on me, and you now have thrown not only me, but your partner Elisa under the bus by trying to play the high road on your video because you are afraid of litigation and the effect it would have on your family and you have now returned to quaffing their mediocre coffee and food products because it is convenient for you and your family.

I remember you told us on our couch that you just couldn't understand where you lost your balls, or huevos, but somewhere along the line you clearly did. It pains me to do this but I am warning you and your attorney about Perjury as the case moves toward filing. You know me well enough to know that I don't take any shit from anybody, especially someone who puts the screws to Elisa.

And for anybody else out here just ask the City how Ed and Cafe Aroma disgraced the pianos in the park program. They allowed a perfectly good piano to be trashed and then refused to offer the then-vacant Nomad space for the City to help refurbish pianos, some community players they are, right. The Truth will come out. The Truth will set you free.

1 comment:

  1. Dig this exchange, folks:

    Dear Attorney Pew:

    I am traveling right now but had to take time out of my day to address your client's purported concerns regarding a portion of an email sent to you by Ms. Bronstein.

    I am addressing only the film-making aspect of that email in which you wrote:

    Therefore and going forward, please be aware of your client's propensity for mistruth, as noted in Mr. King's recent video:



    This appears to be a recording of a private conversation without the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation. If so, that is prohibited under Washington law. See RCW 9.73.020(1)(b).


    I will now thoroughly disabuse you of that notion:

    First of all, you cited the wrong statute: RCW 9.73.020 to my knowledge has no sub parts and relates to the opening of a sealed letter. I believe you are attempting to refer me to RCW 9.73.030(1)(b) however your analysis is perfunctory and fails. You are hereby ORDERED to forward this email to anyone and everyone in the event that you move to strike it from YouTube. Not my first time in the video rodeo, counselor and I've never lost on an issue like this.

    At approximately 1:00 into the video Ms. Bronstein discusses the Agreement with Attorney David Cook in which it was known that there would be a camera present for the walk-through because that lying coward sexist, misogynist pig Ed Vogli failed to appear. Ms. Bronstein explained this directly in front of your client, who was silently filmed and not participating in the least, see the video capture below and see generally Hammond v. Dep't. of Licensing, 73 Wn. App. 758; 872 P.2d 61; 1994 Wash. App. LEXIS 168, April 18, 1994.

    As Steve was not present in the Leased Premises at any point in time until the walk through (the video establishes this fact) it was only logical to have a camera present, so your client should perhaps take up her purported issues with Attorney Cook..... who also refuses to answer simple questions about his level of representation by the way, see generally https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnk7JI-TvcM

    In short, your client willingly inserted herself into this video process as she was not part of the conversation. The conversation was between Ms. Bronstein (i.e. the financial muscle for most of this operation) and Steve, acting on behalf of the building owner. Nobody and No Thing compelled your client to speak to me when I told her she was going to be a witness at trial and it's her fault if she made any sort of Statement Against Interest or exposed herself as a liar.

    If you want to get into a video/fair use/First Amendment skirmish with me, Counselor, I'll willingly oblige you and we can make law here in Washington -- on video, in Court no less because that's what I do -- but really I think the major issue that needs to be addressed are the lies that Ed Vogli told your client and Ms. Bronstein.

    Best regards,