Thursday, October 29, 2009

KingCast provides lunch and more proof that Citibank lawyers are lying scumbags: The back of the check.

Yesterday's TOUCH Beat 106.1 MP3 download. Over lunch a few minutes ago (sushi lollipop with cucumber, tobiko tuna, crabstick and spicy mayo, plum wine) I had a great epiphany:

Citibank claims in their Position Statement that they did not know the identity of "the unidentified woman" and my "girlfriend" (quotes used by Respondent) who opened an account whereas I was not allowed to, but guess what:

1. Someone called in from yesterday's TOUCH Beat 106.1 FM radio show to remind me that they needed the same information from her as they did Derrick Gillenwater in order to open an account (picture ID, etc.) so they would have that on file if they just checked the dates and times of our visits, which they have had four months to do.

2. Her full legal name is written legibly on the back of Respondent's own Exhibit C tab.

Wherefore I openly declare that Attorney Sam Shaulson and Attorney Benjamin Velella are corporate scumbags who are insulting the intelligence of MCAD officials.

I don't say things like this lightly, you can call Porter, Wright's John Stephen and ask him, we disagreed on a case of corporate racism against U.S. Military Veteran Gregory S. Boatwright "I didn't call in here to argue with some nigger....." but we both conducted ourselves respectfully and did not insult anyone's intelligence. I settled that case handsomely, by the way.

-The KingCaster

KingCast receives Citibank Position Statement, it's just a gripe about my lawful use of the First Amendment.

King v. Citibank, MCAD 09BPA02502. Complaining Party hereby Petitions the MCAD to demand production of all relevant audio and video in this matter so that every allegation from both parties be made clear. The Respondent's Position Statement is weak; I issued this response in less than two (2) hours. Ninety Per Cent (90%) of it Respondent sour-griping because I called them racist pigs, which is a fair and lawful use of the First Amendment, the last time I checked. They take exception to the fact that I told them I would take them on a "hell ride," but that's exactly what is going to happen, and that is what is indeed happening. A legal "hell ride," as opposed to the illegal "hell ride" to which I was subjected.
Contrary to the naked assertions of Respondent's own counsel that the employee statements and video would substantiate their position, the Respondent failed to produce any video or employee statements, just naked hearsay assertions -- authored by licensed counsel Sam Shaulson, who should know better -- who was not a witness to any of it. May I remind the Commission of the exact words of Counselor Benjamin Velella and my attorney's response to same:MCAD 09BPA02502.

"Please be advised that we do have video from the South End Branch from March 24 that captures interaction between staff and your clients and have also taken statements from the affected employees."
"Sir, I couldn't care less about the self-serving employee statements. The proof is in the video from that day and all other days that you have maintained and that the court will compel you and your client to produce."

The prima facie case has been met, and as I will show, the proffered legitimate nondiscriminatory rationale is not worthy of credence and is more likely demonstrative of pretext for unlawful discrimination: Respondent opened an account for ____ of ____, a white woman, and did not open one for me, despite my specific request. Respondent pretends that Ms. _____ is not similarly-situated because:

a) she was not disruptive
b) the alleged acts of discrimination did not occur on the same day.

In response to a), there is absolutely no reliable proof -- despite the representations of Attorney Velella or other hearsay commentary by counsel for Defendant -- that Mr. Gillenwater or I were disruptive in the least. If we were, they could have and should have produced the Best Evidence to support that contention, i.e. the audio and video that they still have maintained. In point of fact, I ask that the MCAD compel production of same.

In response to b), the Respondent clearly needs a lesson in Civil Rights Law. A difference of a week between incidents is wholly insignificant when viewing a public accommodations case. If that were the case you could almost never have a public accommodations case, a housing case, an employment case or any other sort of Civil Rights case unless all of the acts of unlawful discrimination occurred on the same day, date and time. But I, as someone whose family was involved in the landmark litigation of Heights Community Congress v. Hilltop Realty 629 F. Supp. 1232; 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11264 (1983) proves, that is not the law, has never been the law, will never be the law, and there is no Good Faith Basis for the modification, extension or reversal of such law. Wherefore the Responding party should be sanctioned if they make that same argument as we reach Federal Court on a 42 U.S.C. 1981 case.


I have shown that the Respondent has failed to rebut the reasonable inference of unlawful discrimination with any viable, admissible evidence because they know their proffered rationale is bogus, per Texas Dep't. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981), citing McDonnell Douglas v. Green 411 U.S. 792 (1973) at 804-805.

At one point in the rambling response the Respondent infers that Mr. Gillenwater asking the Complaining Party if he could open an account in a "sarcastic manner" meant that the statement was not to be taken seriously. The sarcasm, however, was being directed at the Respondent for its reneging on its explicit promises -- most assuredly captured on video -- to cash the check in the FIRST PLACE. Moreover, if the 100+ pages of emails and blog entries about this case prove anything, it is that this case was being taken quite seriously, and obviously it is serious when there is a $24,500 check sitting before you that is not being cashed.

I have personal and direct knowledge of the account being opened for Ms. _____ because she and I shredded the card when it came in the mail, but certainly Respondents have that relevant information in their system, just as they have the relevant videos in their system, but have failed to produce them, because they are lying.

Lastly, Respondent's cited case of Lizardo v. Denny's, Inc., 270 F.3d 94 (2001) is of no worth herein. In that case (involving folks who had come from a bar at 2:30 a.m. and were inebriated and loud and profane throughout) the Court found that the other Asians and African-Americans were indeed being treated fairly : "there were a number of minorities seated throughout the restaurant, including one other Asian American and several African Americans...." Id. at 100, and "We concur in the district court's analysis that the parties seated before them were not similarly situated. As discussed earlier, the groups were smaller in size and there is no evidence that any of these groups were seated at tables that could have accommodated the African American party of six." Id. at 104.

Nobody in this case was allegedly drunk and the ONLY profanity occurred by Respondent's own admission, at the door on the way out.(Fn). Therefore that would only leave loud or disrespectful activity, which again would have been captured on the video that Attorney Velella threatened to produce, but failed to produce, just as Respondent failed to produce any signed Affidavits or employee statements that would buttress their arguments.

As such, this case is much more akin to the Cracker Barrel line of cases. See US DOJ paper 04-288 (attached) in which the U.S. Justice Department settled with Respondent Cracker Barrel after allegations having been posited that they:

- allowed white servers to refuse to wait on African-American customers;

- segregated customer seating by race;

- seated white customers before African-American customers who arrived earlier;

- provided inferior service to African-American customers after they were seated; and

- treated African-Americans who complained about the quality of Cracker Barrel's food or service less favorably than white customers who lodged similar complaints.

For the foregoing reasons I respectfully request a finding of Probable Cause such that Respondent be compelled to provide the audio/video documentation that both Parties claim supports their respective positions.

Respectfully submitted,

Christopher King, J.D.

Fn: Respondent claims that Branch Manager Carlo Caramanna did not threaten to have me arrested and that he did not pick up the telephone to call 911 while I was standing at the teller window. Of course the highly-touted video and some sworn Affidavits would clear all of that up.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Citibank provides no videos to MCAD on case no. 09BPA02502 as KingCast prepares today's TOUCH 106.1 FM radio segment.

UPDATE: Hahahaa....12:52, spoke with MCAD and guess what, NO VIDEOS.

So they brag about the videos they have to my lawyer (in a letter I naturally filed with MCAD) then they fail to deliver any video whatsoever to substantiate their position.

Yep, I knew this would happen when I set up this post two days ago. No videos despite this 29 June 2009 promise from their lying, scumbag corporate counsel Attorney Benjamin Velella:
"What we will do is respond appropriately when you seek the legal redress that you have threatened to pursue."

Benjamin D. Velella
Vice President and Senior Counsel

....they indeed have not responded appropriately because they know they are a bunch of lying, scumbag racist pigs, just as my citibank blog suggests. Here's a hint Counselor: Getting off on the wrong foot with MCAD is deleterious to your client's best interests.

To remind everyone of what Citibank claimed and my lawyer's response:
MCAD 09BPA02502.

"Please be advised that we do have video from the South End Branch from March 24 that captures interaction between staff and your clients and have also taken statements from the affected employees."
"Sir, I couldn't care less about the self-serving employee statements. The proof is in the video from that day and all other days that you have maintained and that the court will compel you and your client to produce."

One would think they would have their act together to produce these videos, since they've only had about 4 months to do so since their lawyer wrote mine back on 18 June, 2009 and bragged about them ;)

I'll take these dirtbags for a ride they will never forget.

Sunday, October 25, 2009

KingCast says to Citibank on King v. Citibank, MCAD 09BPA02502: "Time's Up! Show us the videos, guys."

Citibank's response and Position Statement is due on 27 October 2009. In June, this was their response to my lawyer before we filed with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, and his response to them on what is now Docket No. MCAD 09BPA02502.
"Please be advised that we do have video from the South End Branch from March 24 that captures interaction between staff and your clients and have also taken statements from the affected employees."
"Sir, I couldn't care less about the self-serving employee statements. The proof is in the video from that day and all other days that you have maintained and that the court will compel you and your client to produce."

Y'all git yer popcorn ready. I'm definitely ready because the haterism and lies from Citibank is going to STOP as I told Governor Deval Patrick on Friday. Here's a radio segment from TOUCH 106.1 FM with me describing the case, linked in para. 2.

Friday, October 23, 2009

KingCast presents: A Day at the Westin with President Barack Obama supporting Governor Deval Patrick, and DP reading King v. Citibank MCAD Complaint.

Oh, yah it was a grand event, I love the profile pic I took of our Commander-in-Chief. Not bad without a tripod. YouTube coming later with entertainment and short speeches from the dais. Right now it's time to meet with another lawyer I work for and ride the 650R 'cos the rain it cometh tomorrow!

Yes I personally handed Governor Patrick this MCAD Complaint, MCAD 09BPA02502. By 27 October Citibank will have to provide the videos they claim to have that show why they refused to open a bank account for me to cash a check for Mr. Gillenwater, while they DID open a bank account for my Caucasian girlfriend to do the same. Time's ticking guys, I look forward to discussing the case on Wednesday at 5:30 during my usual "KingCast Cases" slot at TOUCH 106.1 FM, the fabric of Boston's Black Community.

PS: Remember, President Obama sued Citibank for racism.

Friday, October 9, 2009

KingCast says "Hey Citibank, keep on accusing me of being a dangerous black man, you'll get yours in the end."

Citibank, what a bunch of jerks.

Anyway, this is one of the moments I've been waiting for since I conceived of it two years ago, getting Robert Taylor's Law enacted. The Senator's Office telephoned me to see what my thoughts were on a concession to raise the standard on reporting to make it a life or health issue only, to which I agreed. I don't really care if a landlord has a hole in a screen and the building is out of code on that.

I do care if the building has, for example, only one egress for someone like Robert Taylor, who died because of it. The Lorraine litigation, which was my brainchild, is pending a decision on Summary Judgment brought by both sides. One way or another, or both, Robert Taylor cannot die in vain:
Hey, Chris; S. 1813 will be having its hearing next Thursday, October 15, at 1:00 p.m. in Hearing Room A-1. Feel free to bring anyone you want to testify; I believe we’re sending a press release out in the next few days to let everyone else know.

Skip from the Small Property Owners’ Association, which is the relevant landlord lobby group, called today with some concerns about the bill. Some of them go to the heart of the bill and are things we wouldn’t consider changing, but I want to talk to you about one of the others, so if you can give me a call in the next couple of days to talk about it, I’d appreciate it.



Daniel Pawson
Legislative Director
Office of Senator Bruce E. Tarr

Thursday, October 8, 2009

KingCast KingCast hosts TouchFM radio segment discussing racism at Citibank and "Bad Blood" Franconia double homicide.

The 25 minute show segment is below, but for now here is veteran Franconia LE (and U.S. Intelligence officer -- for real -- not like what Gregory Floyd claimed he was) Brad Whipple's 4-minute phone call to the station this morning. As noted, Casey Sherman will be rescheduled because his publisher had booked him on a RI Fox TV show this morning.

Here is part one and part two (Citibank) and part three (Franconia). I will put them on YouTube for quicker access after I learn the conversion process. It was too short to really delve in to Franconia so that will come in a subsequent interview, and there will be updates on the Citibank case when the bank issues its Position Statement and ALL of the relevant audio-visual materials. I sincerely doubt that MCAD is going to accept anything less than that, especially since their cock-sure lawyer boasted about having such purportedly damning videos in his possession.

More YouTube video of Casey Sherman, Brad Whipple and Yours Truly.

Crucial: See why we are conducting an independent analysis of the audio files in this post: You cannot hear any of the Gregory Floyd shot sequence even though the back seat mic was on the whole time. And there are moments of silence and several odd "clicks" in the audio sample, to boot. That sequence, if found, could tell us if Floyd, Floyd Jr. and Caleb Macaulay were telling the Truth when they all said Floyd shot Liko without saying one word, through the raised passenger seat window of Caleb Macaulay.

Somehow (thankfully former) NH AG Kelly Ayotte's official version has Floyd talking to Liko and all of that -- which is what Floyd LATER said in his interview -- and which is contradicted by the only other two witnesses. Ayotte of course is unavailable for comment, but it will hit her like a Mack Truck in her specious Senate bid.

KingCast to publicly speak on new book "Bad Blood" and racism complaint against Citibank.

Here's a good Boston Globe story about Boston's TouchFM 106.1. Great image of Musiq Soulchild and Mary J. Blige, BTW.

Y'all come in with whatever you've got: Well-reasoned insights or ad hominem diatribe, whatever it is that you think you need to say, tune in here with your wireless devices, iPhones, Blackberrys, PCs, Macs (my choice) and get it off your chest. Casey Sherman, veteran Franconia and Sugar Hill Officer Brad Whipple and I are doing just that as well, as you can see in the YouTube videos.

At 8:30 a.m. I will be discussing allegations of racism in banking and King v. Citibank, MCAD 09BPA02502. Read the MCAD Complaint here.

Meanwhile I'm busy getting the mysteriously-fragmented back seat mic audio analysed and getting the Bimmer ready to head over to NY wine country for the weekend for a quick fall vay-kay.

Monday, October 5, 2009

Dear Attorney Velella: You got your wish, now let's see Citibank's position statement in MCAD 09BPA02502.

You have now probably been served with a copy of the Complaint.

You now have 21 days in which to respond on behalf of your client, Citibank.

You have a total of 25 extension days as well, but you shouldn't need those because you have the video tapes to show how inappropriately I was acting, as you boasted to my lawyer.

I've spoken with the folks at MCAD, and they too, look forward to receipt of any and all videos in which I appear. It will do you no good to produce a snippet or segment of one visit because they will ask for all of them. Get your red slippers out, click your heels and I'll see you in Court.


-Christopher King, J.D.