Federal Judge Protects Dirty State Judge Who Ejects Reporters: A Call for Qualified Immunity

More judges hating free press.  Judges hide behind Absolute Immunity even when it does NOT apply.

Check out this First Amendment Free Press lawsuit headed to the Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit.

https://www.scribd.com/document/346803750/King-et-al-v-Stanley-Rumbaugh-2-17-CV-0031-Declaration-and-Rule-59-Motion-on-Bogus-Dismissal-of-Free-Press-GR-16-lawsuit

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

                                                       CASE No. 2:17-CV-0031                 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RULE 59(a)(1)(b) or (e) RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

OVERVIEW THE COURT’S MATERIAL MISGIVINGS

The Problem with the Court’s Decision of 6 April 2017 is that it is based on three or more essential fallacies discussed in Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice (Docket ___) and his Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions filed contemporaneously with this Motion after 27 days of Safe Harbor Notice to Defendant and Counsel.

To wit: 

“Accepting all facts alleged in the Complaint as true…. The Court agrees with Defedant that his actions were in the performance of a quintessential judicial function and that he therefore is immune from suit in this case. On this ground alone Plaintiffs’ claims are rightly dismissed.” (Order at 12).

False. The Record reveals that the Court at no time engaged in ANY analysis of Administrative vs. Judicial capacities. There mere fact that a Judge sits on the bench whilst functioning does not ipso facto mean that he or she is engaged in Judicial activity, as noted in Section IV, infra. A Judge can order lawyers to be haled into court and threatened, and he or she may order a young lady sterilized but those are different actions involving people who are substantively involved with the Court as actual or potential litigants. Before that very Court. Plaintiffs on the other hand, are NOT potential litigants and thuse their conduct is not one of a Judicial nature before the Court. They are more akin to law clerks or court employees seeking administrative relief.

To wit:

“Plaintiff King did not state he was a member of the news media.” (Order at 2).

“The subsequent requests by Plaintiff King to film in the Courtroom did not give Defendant any reason to believe that he was a member of the news media as opposed to a colleague of Plaintiff Brown.”[1]

                  False.  Paras 8 – 10 of the Complaint clearly read:

8. Plaintiff King and Plaintiff Brown are Western Washington area journalists who routinely run Courtroom and other video pertaining to the fallout from America’s 2008 financial/mortgage crisis.

9. The two of them have worked together on several projects since King moved to Seattle in 2013.
10. Neither of them has been subject to reprimand or sanctions regarding their in-Court or out-of-Court news coverage.
11.  

The mention of both Plaintiffs clearly contemplates “journalism” and “news coverage” so in point of fact the Court is NOT reading the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, yet there is more, as noted in Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice and Notice of Fraudulent Defense (Docket 23). Let us review the pertinent passage:

********

3.              Judicial Notice and Lie #2.

In addition to the Judicial Notice of the scheduled hearing that Defendant and his lawyers are trying to hide by omission there is also the fact that they try to claim that Plaintiff did not notify them of his media purpose in an email. The email is contained at Appendix A.

From Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff King’s First Amended Complaint:

King’s emails prior to the hearing made no claim he wanted to make a recording as “news media” but only that he had “run Courtoom video throughout the County” as a business and was “request[ing] access as well” because “you have denied by colleague Wally Brown camera access ….” Dkt. 1-2 at 2-4, 11-18.

Not so fast. There is a thing called the Rule of Completeness folks: That email also contained two direct links to other First Amendment activity, including the following colloquy before Judge Monica Benton.

http://mortgagemovies.blogspot.com/2015/05/kingcast-mortgage-movies-malcolm-x-and.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVNVyijeQKU

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, as 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 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 run 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.”

Upon which First Amendment access as a reporter was GRANTED. [2]

But of course Counsel for Defendant fraudulently withholds that crucial information as provided to them, and misleads the Court in violation of Rule 3.3 Candor to the Tribunal because Plaintiff King’s email clearly referenced news coverage consistent with the mandates of GR 16.

*********