Friday, May 1, 2015
KingCast, Mortgage Movies, Malcolm X and Martin Luther King See Judge Monica Benton Uphold the First Amendment in Lost Note Case of Pooley v. Quality Loan Servicing Corporation & McCarthy Holthus.
I'm going to get to the specifics and substance of the case soon, and it involves a purportedly lost Note with a date uncertain for when an indorsement was issued on it, but for now you need to know that my First Amendment Rights as a Citizen, as a Journalist, and as a Citizen Journalist were somewhat imperiled today when I was called back into Honorable Monica Benton's Judicial Chambers where the following colloquy ensued:
"What are your credentials?"
"Well Your Honor I was a reporter for a large daily newspaper, and editor of a statewide daily before law school.... and I've been shooting these movies in courtrooms throughout the Country for 4 or 5 years now, and I've been covering this case already...." (I neglected to tell her I was an escrow attorney who worked for WAMU but that is noted in my Notice of Media Coverage, is is the fact that Joseph McIntosh and his buddies unlawfully threatened to have me arrested as seen in this video, Judges Will Watch as Foreclosure Mill Attorneys Threaten Depo Videographer with Security and Arrest).
"Well I haven't seen you with a camera in this case."
"Well Your Honor Judge Schubert has (one and two) and we and are are on great terms. He respects what I do and he said as much, I have that on video I recorded on prior occasion."
"I have some concerns about whether you are media."
"Well Your Honor even if my prior experience and background weren't enough as a journalist, I am still authorized as a public citizen to video these proceedings."
"Where is your website?"
"It's right there Your Honor," as I handed her my card.
"You might audio but I'm not certain that entitles you to video (Googling Pooley+Mortgage Movies after I had told her to Google Mortgage Movies) I'm at your website now and I see you have the hear/see/speak no evil monkeys and skeletons...."
"Well I believe it does, and if this Court cannot take any step that would infringe on my right to portray what I see as I see it, because that would be inimical to the First Amendment."
"We'll see about that. Have a seat in the Courtroom."
I didn't mention unlawful prior restraint per se but I find ironic the level of inquiry coming from a black Judge to a black man when both of us have Civil Rights backgrounds and I have experience in the industry and in courtroom video for the past 20 years, since the community was recording my trials as a Civil Rights lawyer.
I know she respects two of the same men that I do: Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. In point of fact images of both men adorn her courtroom wall. My Mortgage Movies theme picture is of course one of Dr. King's image and me, downstairs in the same courthouse.
I know she understands corporate malfeasance: She threw the proverbial book at Lycoming (USA Today feature -- Safety Last: Lies and Coverup), because their corporate malfeasance has killed many an innocent citizen. So while unlawful mortgage foreclosure does not carry the same certainty of death that a plane crash does, it does kill and psychologically maim millions. This is why Seattle City Council candidates attended a forum I conceived a year ago in honor of Phyllis Walsh, who committed suicide during a questionable foreclosure.
Bottom line is this: I'm not here to win any popularity contests. Kathy Salyer and Joe McIntosh pretty much hate my professional guts; ask me if I give a damn. I don't know or care how they feel about me otherwise because that's not relevant right now but no I don't foresee inviting them to my next Hawaii excursion, LOL. They could be great people outside of this milieu. But in this milieu I will lay down the law and I will not tolerate anyone threatening to curtail my rights to shoot video pursuant to Deposition arrangement or in a public building other than a U.S. Federal Courthouse, where Her Honor once presided.
Also, wait until you hear and watch what I told a judge nearly 20 years ago about video in the Court before I went on to win a First Amendment Jury Trial. Come to find out, I was right. You'll see. The video will be up tomorrow but I basically told him that it was unlawful Prior Restraint for the Court to be holding my video for the night so that my team could not review it.
"Mr. King I tried many cases and never had that opportunity," said the Court.
"Well that's too bad, Your Honor but I do.... this is the Modern Era."
The same issue of prior restraint came up today but I completely prevailed, so that's progress, right. But why wasn't this exchange conducted in Open Court as it usually is?