Monday, January 27, 2014

Crystal Cox Ninth Circuit, Obsidian v. Cox Appeal; Investigative Blogger Monica Foster; "Exclusive Interview with Crystal Cox post her Ninth Circuit VICTORY for independent Bloggers"

Originally Posted at http://pornnewstoday.com/pnt/?p=7417 ~ a blog exposing organized crime in the Porn Industry that affects all levels of society.

Below is Quoted from Crystal Cox Interview with Monica Foster of RandazzaNews.com and PornNewsToday.com 

Monica Foster, Anti-Corruption Blogger
"Monica Foster commentary: As of January 17, 2014
Reuters.com reported that a Federal Appeals court ruled Investigative Blogger and Journalist Crystal Cox and the multitude of other bloggers throughout the United States are entitled to the same free speech protections as a traditional journalist and cannot be liable for defamation (unless found to have acted negligently).
This court ruling is particularly important due to us living in an era of of which independent bloggers are responsible for a vast amount of the online news and information produced.
Crystal Cox has chosen to grant PornNewsToday.com an exclusive interview in regards to her Ninth Circuit court victory:

Crystal Cox, Port Townsend Washington, January 18th Interview;
What Does this Ninth Circuit VICTORY Mean to You?
First of all I want to say congratulations to ALL those out there using the internet to expose corruption, give voice to victims, report the “real news” By the People for the People, and using the internet to heal others and share information on natural cures. Now you have Equal Rights in a Court of Law for what you do. KEEP on Doing It.


The power of New Media is our Divine Gift, 
our Constitutional Right, and our Savior as a Society.
This Ninth Circuit WIN is for ALL Citizen Journalists, Investigative Bloggers, AntiCorruption Bloggers and Whistleblowers.
Those reporting on corruption in our courts do not have a voice other than blogs. It is imperative in our times that Citizen Journalists, Investigative Bloggers, AntiCorruption Bloggers and Whistleblowers have equal rights to those in traditional media. Otherwise corruption and greed that violates human rights, will continue to be rampant, and the lives of the victims of corruption will continue to suffer in every way.
This WIN levels the playing field and those reporting on corruption in their town, their expertise, their personal research now have equal rights to protection under the law. This means that Traditional Journalists and Big Media can no longer have a Super Power to distort the news, post fake facts simply to support ad dollars, politicians and corporations, as a matter of law.
Oftentimes when bloggers expose corruption, those bloggers are stripped of their rights within the very judicial system they are reporting corruption on. This WIN ends this, at least, in theory, and in a higher court judicial ruling. The public at large will decide what they want to believe and from whom. However, now bloggers reporting on the story ALL have an equal say, as a matter of LAW and Constitutional Rights.
I am elated at the breathing room this gives ALL those out there Exposing Corruption in our Judicial System who are being silenced daily by corrupt judges, lawyers and the judicial process as a whole. This WIN gives them a Voice, gives them POWER. And for me personally, that is the true WIN, that is the Victory, that I dedicated so much of my life for.
That “one” small voice not being heard, exposing documents and proof of corruption, now, has equal rights to the biggest institutional media out there, and this is a HUGE human rights and civil rights victory, in my opinion. This Win ENDS the Monopoly of Free Speech Big Media has unconstitutionally held for so long, as a matter of LAW.
This WIN is very exciting and relieving to me, personally, as I have held onto to this appeal in the face of extreme adversary. I have been threatened to stop the appeal. I have been harassed, gang stalked, stripped of all money and business opportunity I have had my appeal rights attempted to be auctioned off by a Portland Oregon Sheriff via the shenanigans of my former attorney Marc Randazza and the Plaintiff’s Attorneys David Aman and Steven Wilker. I have lost everything I knew to be my life before all of this in every way, and have been put under constant attack and duress for several years. I may not have survived, had it not been for the constant friendship, support and hope of Pastor John Collins of the Bringing Back God Church in Bristol TN.
As my attorney Eugene Volokh said, cases like this “usually end up settled without trial, and it was rare for one to reach the federal appeals court level.”  I was offered 15 settlements and I held on to this precedent for the highest and best of ALL. And now I have given all I have known to be my life to do it, which I am proud of.

Having this Ninth Circuit Appeal WIN for all Citizen Journalists, Whistleblowers and Anti-Corruption bloggers, for me, makes it all worth it. Having this legal precedent for all those out there trying to have a voice and expose corruption, is a huge relief for me.
I am Grateful. Now Bloggers, Citizen Journalists, and Whistleblowers have the same Speech Protections As Traditional Press, Traditional Journalists, as a matter of LAW.
This court ruling is the first of it’s kind. It is the first federal appeals court level ruling that applies
specifically to bloggers and it is a VICTORY for ALL online speakers. This WIN finally makes it legally clear that bloggers have the same First Amendment rights as professional journalists.

This is powerfully important and long overdue. Now news, as we knew it, traditional mainstream news, no longer has any special privilege, as it should be.

Many bloggers reporting on corruption and on issues of natural health cures, AntiCorruption Bloggers, Citizen Journalists and Whistleblowers, are in fear of their life, or being sued and having no way to survive and take care of their family, being jailed or even killed. This is very real, and this WIN will empower them to step out into the light and to keep exposing corruption and talking about known cures. This WIN is a Landslide Victory for Human Rights, for Civil Rights. 
So Speak Up Folks, Tell your Story, Tell the TRUTH and keep on fighting corruption judges, attorneys, county commissioners, senators and more.
This WIN is POWERFUL for all those out there reporting on the real news, as its happening on the ground, in real life and not “news entertainment” we are fed by the corporate machine.
Now those reporting what is really happening, bloggers, have equal rights as traditional journalists and long established “institutional media”, in a court of law and this LEVELS the playing field of the TRUTH.


Do you feel a sense of relief with the $2.5 Million Judgment

 (at least temporarily)  Off Your Back?
Folks, the money is of no value to me personally, as I have lost everything and continue to be a pauper, as a way of life now. It is no real relief to me as in this moment of time I live in church housing and eat from church donations, thank God for Pastor John Collins and the Bringing Back God Church.
Since the original verdict, I have been sued by my original attorney Marc Randazza for millions in his attempt to CENSOR me. And well, I am not so naive as to think I won’t get another corrupt judgement with my New Trial in Portland with as much corruption as there is in Portland.
However, I do not intend to stop exposing corruption, New Judgement or Not.
I had 15 offers out of the $2.5 Million Judgement, settlement offers. I made one to them in the first week, and it included an email they have now used in part to defame me and paint me out as a criminal. I could have got out of this long ago. This is a sacred, divine and spiritual mission for me. It is a calling, fate if you will. I held out for this appeal ruling to give a voice to ALL who Expose Corruption and ALL who give advice on, educate on and have cured themselves with natural cures and alternative medicine. 

I deliberately, to the best of my ability, forced the lower court to rule on my rights as a blogger regarding the First Amendment, Retraction Laws, Shield Laws, and AntiSlapp laws, in order to help all those I was fighting to give a voice to; those who expose corruption with the power of blogs; New Media and get shut down by local judges protecting local corruption.
I lost my home, most all of my belongings, vehicles, money, businesses, family ties, friends and currently have no income and live in church housing. If it were not for Pastor John Collins of the Bringing Back God Church in Bristol TN I would be in a homeless shelter or who know what, so no, I am not feeling much “relief” over the judgement temporarily going away, however I am VERY grateful and blessed.
Do you intend on representing yourself or will you get an attorney for your New Trial?
I have no money, no income and very little resources for even printing and mailing documents at this point in time. However, I fully intend to represent myself in the New Trial and all motions leading up to the day of the trial.
What are your Plans Moving Forward
I will continue to do the best I can at using the power of new media to expose what I feel is illegal and unethical activity in the Summit Bankruptcy as well as the many other cases I report on, as I have done for over a decade now. Including the biggest technology theft case in the world regarding theiViewit Technology and inventor Eliot Bernstein.
I have reported on the iViewit case for over 4 years now and I will continue to report on iViewit and keep all elements of corruption in the iViewit Technology case front and center online, in new media until they get JUSTICE.
Also I am soon starting a Spiritual Church in Port Townsend Washington called Bringing Back Goddess, and hope to create a way to help even more people spiritually, emotionally, physically and empower as many people as possible in every way possible.
What are your plans in regards to the New Trial?
There are many elements to this depending on what move the Plaintiff makes next and how busy the Oregon courts are to set a trial date. However, I fully intend to do my best at proving that I did not nor do have actual malice. As I still Fully believe Obsidian Finance Group and Trustee / Attorney Kevin D. Padrick violated bankruptcy code and breach of contract laws in their dealing with the Summit Bankruptcy and the Summit Principals.
Also I was not the one to allege tax issues, so I intend to depose the insiders, such as David Aman, Robert Opera and other attorneys involved to prove that they were the ones who alleged tax issues. This on top of the documents of emails and other internal documents showing that the tax issue was raised by others and reported on by Stephanie DeYoung, bankruptcy whistleblower and I picked up her story.
I intend to depose the Department of Justice trustee, Pamela Griffith to question her past connections and conflicts of interest with Kevin Padrick and with Leon Simpson of the Tonkon Torp law firm that I believe led to Kevin Padrick getting this VERY lucrative paying trustee job, that, in fact, attorneys inside the bankruptcy, as the records show, clearly pointed out that appointing a trustee was NOT in the best interest of the investors and creditors involved in the bankruptcy.
Steven Hedberg of Perkins Coie law firm who used to work under Kevin Padrick at Miller Nash law firm, is believed that have helped Kevin Padrick to get the job that turned on his own clients and made him a whole lot of money, and I intend to depose him.
Judge Michael Simon is a friend of Judge Marco Hernandez, whom neither were federal judges in Portland until after Obsidian Finance Group filed their lawsuit against investigative blogger Crystal Cox. Judge Michael Simon is a Portland power player, along with his wife Senator Suzanne Bonamici.
Michael Simon was a Perkins Coie attorney during the Summit Bankruptcy and made a massive amount of money liquiding Summits assets. Michael Simon also worked closely with Kevin Padrick regarding the $30 Million Dollar Umpqua Bank settlements, which was in media nationally at the time as well as SEC and banking reports. BOTH Michael Simon and Kevin Padrick made millions on that as far as I understand. Meanwhile the real estate consumers were stuck in limbo and in investments that they could not get out of or sell because Kevin Padrick FROZE Everything until he got a commission on it,including small accounts of children of investors.
Keep in mind, AGAIN, that Summit HIRED Obsidian Finance Group to “HELP THEM” to restructure debt, and instead of this, Kevin Padrick and Obsidian Finance Group took the $100,000 fee for this, used their clients sacred, lawfully protected inside information, files, software, secrets and all that they had gained about their “Clients” the Summit Principals, and used this against their own clients in what I believe is a Massive breach of contract and violation of their clients rights. And I also believe this made Kevin Padrick an insider, by law, by bankruptcy code and that it was never legal for Kevin Padrick to be the Trustee in the Summit Bankruptcy, thereby nullifying every action he made as TRUSTEE of the Summit Bankruptcy.
Also keep in mind that as trustee Kevin Padrick got 15% of everything he brought into the estate, so WOW 15% of 30 Million and that was ONLY on the Umpqua bank settlement, there were over 30 million, I believe of other assets liquidated, as well as massive amounts of 1031 exchanges held up, and all those real estate liquidations STALLED until Kevin Padrick’s commission was in place.
When a 1031 Exchange is held up this is directly connected to IRS Code Law, hence the allegations of issues with taxes.
There were also insurance companies sued by Kevin Padrick and any insider who tried to speak out, he sued, got criminal complaints against or bullied them into submission, into silence.
Kevin Padrick did “control” the mainstream media surrounding the Summit Bankruptcy, and he had his version of what Summit did, so strong in media that this was used against his former clients in their indictments and prison terms. All because they hired Kevin Padrick and Obsidian Finance Group to “HELP THEM” restructure debt.
One of my insiders, and a whistle blower to the unethical and what I believe to be illegal activities surrounding the Summit Bankruptcy was falsely incarcerated in a mental hospital to keep her from talking to me or reporting on the bankruptcy. She was heavily drugged and mistreated and I believe was never meant to come out of the Sageview, Cascade Health Center in Bend Oregon of which Obsidian Finance Group Patricia Whittington was on the board.
Kevin Padrick and David Aman, Tonkon Torp lawyer seemed to have massively violated HIPAA laws and certainly human rights laws, in my “Opinion”.
Stephanie DeYoung stood up for the investors and creditors of the Summit Bankruptcy, and yes stood up for her father Summit Principal Mark Neuman, maybe a bit too much, however, she reported on the inside story in great detail, including videos of meetings that Obsidian Finance Group and Kevin Padrick had with the Summit Principals before he turned on them and got the appointment of bankruptcy trustee due to connection with the DOJ trustee and the attorney for the Creditors Committee Steven Hedberg of Perkins Coie law firm.
For this speaking out and posting documents and videos of FACT, Kevin Padrick ruined her life. He attempted to get criminal complaints against her for videoing a public meeting. He, I believe, was part of her being false hospitalization against her will. He bullied insiders, sued them and was a powerful tyrant in the Summit Bankruptcy. What Kevin Padrick wanted he got. Except he could not find a way to SHUT UP the blogger who was reporting on Stephanie’s story. And so after 3 years of my reporting on the Summit story, he finally sued me in order to bully me to SILENCE, and I never buckled to his bullying and evil.
All this has changed Stephanie’s life forever, and is a HUGE reason I never called her to the stand in my first trial. She is strong enough now and I fully intend to call Stephanie DeYoung as a witness as well, in my New Trial.
Kevin Padrick has a “history” of those inside bankruptcy cases filing objections to his fees, Summit was not the only one, there was also the Homestreet Bank’s legal filings. There is a lot more to Kevin Padrick’s dirty dealings and high finance conflicts of interest that the Public has yet to digest. I intend to keep getting this information in the search engines in easy to digest chunks, until he is investigated by the authorities. 

I have never stopped reporting on Obsidian Finance Group and Kevin Padrick and giving voice to their victims, and I don’t intend to STOP now. And if something should happen to me, well my blogs live on, as well does the TRUTH surrounding the Summit Bankruptcy and the dirty dealings of Obsidian Finance Group and Kevin Padrick.
I also intend to file attorney general complaints and department of justice complaints regarding what I feel is illegal and unconstitutional actions in the Summit Bankruptcy by Obsidian Finance Group and by Trustee / Attorney Kevin D. Padrick, as well as his attorney David Aman and the Tonkon Torp Law Firm and many others involved.
I intend to rewrite information regarding Obsidian Finance Group and Kevin Padrick, as well as the Tonkon Torp law firm, in a way the public can understand all they have been involved in over this and within the Oregon utility, solar credits, timber and other industries.
As well as the fact that David Brown of Obsidian is a registered lobbyist and all the details of this as well. So, I do not intend to back down at EXPOSING Obsidian Finance Group or Principals David Brown and Kevin Padrick as well as VP Patricia Whittington, to the best of my ability. And I do intend to depose, and call as witnesses, as many players of the Summit bankruptcy at my new trial as I can.
What are your comments in regards to the jury saying that the post was false?
I do not believe that the jury had enough evidence to determine if the post was FULLY false. There is NO WAY that the post in it’s entirety is false, and if every word is false then it is NOT my words, this information is documented from sources inside the bankruptcy, including the Department of Justice.
All the Jury had to go on was the opinion of one Portland CPA, a paid witness for the Plaintiff. A CPA who did not know the inner workings of the Summit Bankruptcy. I did not even testify on my own behalf at the trial because David Aman and Judge Hernandez deceived me, they led me to believe that my emails about a settlement, the ones now called “extortion” would hurt my case and that if I testify on my own behalf, these emails will come in, if I don’t testify, the emails will not come into evidence. Then in the closing statement David Aman introduced the emails and turned the civil trial into criminal accusations.
Do you have a Statement regarding what the Plaintiff’s Attorney said to the AP press?
“An attorney for Padrick said in an email that while they were disappointed in the ruling, they noted the court found “there was no dispute that the statements were false and defamatory.” “Ms. Cox’s false and defamatory statements have caused substantial damage to our clients, and we are evaluating our options with respect to the court’s decision,” wrote Steven M. Wilker.
I, Crystal Cox, DO dispute that the statements were fully false and defamatory. This could not be a point of appeal because it was not preserved in the lower court due to David Aman, Tonkon Torp lawyer and Judge Hernandez deceiving me in my trial, as I was Pro Se and had never been sued before, little own represent myself in a trial of this magnitude.
That does not change, that I certainly DO dispute that the statements were “false and defamatory”.
Also, as to their alleged drop in business, if this were true, it would be a good thing. For the point of exposing them is, at least in part, is to warn future clients that may have the same thing happen to them as did the Summit Principals.
However, I highly doubt they lost money, that same year they made massive money on contracts with Portland General Electric and Pacific Power, as well as many other massive multimillion dollar deals. Kevin Padrick was appointed to the board of First Federal in a Joseph Stilwell takeover attempt. They have their hands in billions and have not suffered financially due to me telling the truth about their dirty dealings, only ego blows to their corporate power trip.
Was Marc Randazza Your Original Attorney?
Just after my original trial, on December 6th 2011, Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law Professor and Constitutional Rights lawyer called me and asked if I was open to him representing me upon appeal to the Ninth Circuit, I said I was open to this and we agreed that I would keep my options open as he was not sure about clearance from Mayer Brown, the law firm he would partner with or work under in this case, and he had to get local Oregon counsel as well.
In the meantime, an investigative blogger, Michael Spreadbury, whom had wrote on my blogs for years and is an anticorruption blogger, citizen journalist and whistleblower, regarding massive corruption in the State of Montana, had contacted Marc Randazza in order to help me with my appeal as he saw that Marc Randazza was a high profile First Amendment attorney and thought this would be a good fit. He contacted Marc Randazza, and we ended up on a conference call on December 10th 2011. Note, I bought MarcRandazza.com that very day to do PR on my own case.
At this time Marc Randazza discussed my strategy, my intentions and left the conversation with him asking for all my files and documents so that he could assess if I had preserved the proper elements for an appeal, and rightfully so. And he also said he may have a conflict of interest with the Media Bloggers Association of whom he represented and so he would get back to me on whether he had further interest in taking my case or representing me. However, he said that if he did take the case he would need at least around $5000 for filings, motels and expenses, if he took the case Pro Bono.
Also on this first call, Marc Randazza told me he did not think I should appeal, as this may harm me and others seeking First Amendment protection.
A couple of weeks later, Eugene Volokh contacted me and told me that if there was anything he could do to help my attorney Marc Randazza, to let him know. I said, I did not have a contract with Marc Randazza and had not told Marc Randazza he was my attorney. I asked Eugene how he heard that and apparently Marc Randazza told members of the First Amendment Bar that he was, in fact, representing me.
Eugene told me that Marc had put time and energy into the matter and was negotiating a deal with the Plaintiff and that it was fine if I chose Marc, as his interest was for the best outcome for all and he would help as much as possible. Eugene had only good things to say about Marc Randazza, as is Eugene’s style, now that I know him a bit better.
After this I quickly FIRED Marc Randazza as my attorney and told him that he did not represent me going forward. He claimed to be fine with this, and said to let him know if I needed anything as he felt my appeal was important and would be involved if need be.Later that same day, Marc Randazza emailed me and said he had thought it over and he would represent me on my appeal. I was not happy about this behavior, as he had already been representing me, already acting as my attorney, presenting deals to the Plaintiff on my behalf of which I had no idea what they were, and so as far as the record goes, YES, Marc Randazza, was my original attorney in the negotiations of my appeal and acting as my attorney in negotiations with the Plaintiff and in telling the First Amendment bar that he, indeed, was my
attorney.
So there I was, clock ticking on my time to file an appeal and Marc Randazza had not got back to me but he was negotiating a deal, allegedly on my behalf and he was running off other potential attorneys that may want to represent me on my Ninth Circuit Appeal Pro Bono.
I had just FIRED Marc Randazza, though he committed to representing me on my Ninth Circuit Appeal and had no firm commitment from Mayer Brown yet that Eugene Volokh could represent me. I made the stand, and told Eugene that I had decide I would ONLY appeal if he represented me. As I wanted Eugene Volokh to be the voice on this important social matter for all bloggers.
Eugene Volokh never talked down to me, mistreated me, disrespected me in any way, ever. He communicated clearly and when he disagreed with my point of view, we discussed it intelligently and respectfully. He never stuck me in the back sit and never once tried to censor me in any way. I CHOSE Eugene Volokh as that was my Spiritual Guidance for the greater good of all Citizen Journalists, Whistleblowers, and AntiCorruption Bloggers.
After this Marc Randazza retaliated, he conspired with the Plaintiff’s attorney David Aman to set me up for extortion, they both met with Judge Hernandez either in person or on the phone and convinced him I had tried to extort them, this was then used in my first appeal filing when, with my attorney, I filed for a motion for a new trial. I was then branded as an extortionist. From that point Marc Randazza used the CZECH courts and WIPO to defame me and paint me out to be a criminal in worldwide publications over domain names I own with his name in them to, originally, do PR on my own case where he was to be my attorney.
Marc Randazza sued me to CENSOR me and shut down massive blogs that were speaking of him critically and telling my experience with the case. Marc Randazza has violated my First Amendment rights over and over and has abused his power in the courts to do so.
Marc Randazza has used his power and influence over media and the courts, for years, to ruin my life, my health, my business, endanger me, outcast me, paint me in false light and consume my quality of life by putting me under daily, constant duress.
What is your response to the allegations of extortion and blackmail?
I have never extorted anyone. I have never posted anything online with the intention of seeking a payoff of any kind. I have no criminal complaints regarding extortion or blackmail.
The Ninth Circuit Judges said that I, have a “history of making similar allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction”’. And they cite a New York Times article by David Carr as their legal authority on the matter. This is FALSE and slanderous.
I DO NOT have a “history of making similar allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction”’. It is unethical, unlawful and unconstitutional for Judges to use court opinions to slander, defame and attempt to discredit AntiCorruption Blogger Crystal Cox and other investigative bloggers, whistleblowers, and citizen journalists out there exposing corruption.
It is unethical, unlawful and unconstitutional for Judges to use a New York Times article as FACT and legal findings to somehow prove that Crystal Cox has a history of such actions.
Especially in a legal opinion that gives Equality to bloggers such as Crystal Cox that are EQUAL to New York Times Journalist David Carr.
David Carr and the New York Times no longer have a “special right” that is superior to Crystal Cox as a blogger, yet Judges take David Carr’s words of Crystal Cox’s “alleged” history as FACT. Even though there is no fact, no due process, no investigation and no documented proof, or legal finding as to this allegation.
David Carr and the New York Times CLEARLY defamed Crystal Cox and with actual malice. David Carr interviewed Crystal Cox and he knew that she had no investigation, no trial, no due process for the allegations by the Plaintiff that they were “Extorted” or somehow Blackmailed.
I, Crystal Cox has NEVER had a criminal complaint regarding blackmail or extortion. I have never been under investigation for blackmail or extortion. I have NEVER “made allegations of corruption and fraud and then sought a payment for retraction”.
I, Crystal Cox have over a thousand AntiCorruption Blogs and online media. Crystal has been exposing corruption for over a decade and has NEVER sought payment to stop seeking JUSTICE for the victims of such corruption.
Crystal Cox has no criminal history, no history of seeking payoffs for a RETRACTION of ANYTHING. Crystal Cox has NEVER receive payment to retract any blog post or other online comments, reporting, news, articles or “mediums of communication”.
I remains dedicated to giving a voice to victims of corrupt courts, judges, lawyers, law firms, commissioners, corporations and more.
I have NEVER Sought or Received a Payoff in Exchange for a Retraction of information that I have reported on, this is False information put out there by the attorneys involved in the corruption I was reporting on, as well as Big Media such as the New York Times and Forbes.
I fully stand, Proudly, in defense of the victims of Kevin Padrick AND Obsidian Finance Group, to the best of my ability.
I have NEVER posted Fraud and Corruption allegations to SEEK Payment for a RETRACTION, this is NOT True and is something Big Media, Judges, and Lawyers hold on to, in order to attempt to paint me, an anticorruption
blogger out as the “Bad Guy”.
I still fully believe that Kevin Padrick and Obsidian Finance Group acted illegally and unethically in the Summit Bankruptcy. And I fully believe that Kevin Padrick abused his position as the financial advisor to Summit, and even more so as a Trustee in a role, on the opposite “side” of his clients.
How do you think this case will impact digital and online media in the future?
This will be a great relief to ALL bloggers, citizen journalists and whistleblowers and they will feel free to report on the very same issues as mainstream media, as well as to have the FREEDOM to “break the news” that traditional media refuses to report on.
I would also like to say;  “Thank You Pastor John Collins and the Bringing Back God Church, Bless you ALL for hearing me, feeding me, clothing me, housing me, giving me hope and spiritual inspiration daily throughout this fight.” 

For More information on Pastor John Collins and the Bringing Back God Church 
To Hear Pastor John Collins Sermons
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/pastorjohncollins/2014/01/22/bringing-back-god--there-is-hope

Crystal L. Cox, Investigative Blogger
Free Speech Advocate
Anti-Corruption Blogger
Spiritual Advisor
Real Estate Consumer Advocate
ReverendCrystalCox@Gmail.com 



Source of Crystal Cox Decision, Crystal Cox Ninth Circuit Appeal Post


More on the Crystal Cox Ninth Circuit Case Media


More on the Crystal Cox Case


More on the Summit Bankruptcy Case




Ninth Circuit Crystal Cox Facebook Page
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Crystal-Cox-Case/494183300677065

Posted by at No comments:

Crystal Cox Ninth Circuit; "Is there any surprise that the legacy media HATES the bloggers, and wants them NOT to have any protections?" "Wow, what an amazing, crystal clear victory for the blogger!"


"By California Lawyer | Friday, January 24, 2014 at 4:23 pm What First Amendment protections are afforded a blogger sued for defamation? This was the question presented recently in a case just decided in the most liberal appellate court jurisdiction in the USA, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The issue was one of first impression, and is a critically important legal decision in light of the emergence of bloggers and the alternative media. It is of obvious concern to anyone that blogs, like Mr. TF, all the guest posters and contributors here, too, so an in depth discussion is warranted."

"So, naturally, a pointed question must be asked, if we as a group are going to have any rights to stand up and say what we want without fear of crippling lawsuits that will chill our very free speech rights and squelch our dissent big time: “what, if any, legitimacy should be given to bloggers?”

The previous argument, advanced by the monopolistic legacy media,, witnessing their slow and inexorable demise, was that bloggers get no special protection, because they are nobody’s. Pure and simple. Only journalists–that is, credentialed elite from the nation’s liberal/progressive indoctrination camps, err, universities–get First Amendment protections, not some blogger or bloggers hammering away on mommy’s computer in the basement.

Bloggers, naturally, felt otherwise."

"Is there any surprise that the legacy media HATES the bloggers, and wants them NOT to have any protections? 

Keep reading.

So, the confrontation finally resulted in a trial, then an appeal. See, if a blogger gets sued for defamation, and settles, there is NO LEGAL PRECEDENT, AND NO DEFINITIVE RULING. 

The ONLY way the case law changes is when a blogger courageously steps up and commits to having a jury decide the case, and thereafter, if one or both decide to formally appeal the case to the appellate court. Naturally, the stakes are high, and stacked heavily against the blogger.

There is NO huge news organization backing the blogger, so absent a kind soul volunteering his or her time, there usually is no chance for the blogger. But every now and then, there is a case that attracts some attention, and a volunteer steps from the shadows.

That is exactly what happened recently."

"Hotly contested at trial of this issue was the legal standard that should govern a claim of defamation when the lawsuit involved a blogger and supposed matters of public concern. The blogger, Ms. Cox, raised two First Amendment arguments:

(1) Because the alleged false statement involved a matter of public concern, then Padrick and his company had to prove BOTH the blogger’s negligence (negligence is a legal concept that means a person had a duty to act reasonably under the circumstances, but did not; typically the argument is asserted that the person “knew or should have known” the statement was false, but published it anyway), AND that they could not recover PRESUMED damages absent proof that the blogger acted with ACTUAL MALICE (actual malice is SUPER DIFFICULT to prove, because it requires a showing that the blogger KNEW the post was false or acted with reckless disregard of its truth or falsity);

(2) Ms. Cox, the blogger, also argued that Padrick and Obsidian were public figures [bankruptcy trustee and his company], and as public figures, the blogger argued that Padrick and Obsidian were required to prove that Cox made the statements against them with actual malice.

The trial judge rejected Ms. Cox’s legal arguments. The trial judge felt that ““Padrick and Obsidian were not required to prove either negligence or actual damages because Cox had failed to submit “evidence suggestive of her status as a journalist.” [citations]. The [trial judge] also ruled that neither Padrick nor Obsidian was an all-purpose public figure or a limited public figure based upon Padrick's role as a bankruptcy trustee, finding that they had not injected themselves into a public controversy, but rather that Cox had “created the controversy.””

In short, the trial judge REJECTED the notion that blogger is entitled to any sort of journalistic protection.

Does that not sound like the same, tired meme from the legacy media, trying to protect the crippled, failing fiat ponzi scheme of the broken federal reserve system? Entrenched, legacy bureaucrats protecting THEIR tired, worn system at all costs, is that not readily apparent? Newspapers? What’s that? Blogging?

We ARE IT, and it is time the old school judges and legacy media embrace us."

After closing arguments, the judge read the law to the jurors. This part of the trial is known as jury instruction. The judge told the jury that under Oregon law, “"Defendant's [the blogger, Ms. Cox’s] knowledge of whether the statements at issue were true or false and defendant's intent or purpose in publishing those statements are not elements of the claim and are not relevant to the determination of liability.” The judge also told the jury that "plaintiffs [Obsidian and Padrick] are entitled to receive reasonable compensation for harm to reputation, humiliation, or mental suffering even if plaintiff does not present evidence that proves actual damages . . . because the law presumes that the plaintiffs suffered these damages."


So, what happened, is that proof that the statement was made was all that was required, and it matter not one bit whether Ms. Cox knew or should have known of the falsity of the statement. Secondly, the most galling part, is that neither Obsian or Padrick had to prove any harm at all.

The law “presumes”–legal gobbledygook for “makes up out of thin air because we say so”– that Obsidian and Padrick had suffered harm and therefore, the jury only has to make up a number out of thin air which they can guess at and which has no basis at all in fact. Kind of like fiat FRN’s come to think of it . . .


With that legal set up, there should be no surprise: the jury found against the blogger, and awarded substantial compensation in favor of Padrick and Obsidian.


Following the trial, Ms. Cox made some arguments in front of the trial judge, pointing out that it was wrong for the court to instruct the jury as it did, that is, by failing to tell the jury that Ms. Cox was entitled to certain First Amendment protections “including requiring plaintiffs to establish liability by proving that [she] acted with some degree of fault, whether it be negligence or 'actual malice."'

The trial judge also rejected the blogger’s arguments that a showing of fault was required because the defendants were public figures and that the blog post referred to a matter of public concern," and thus concluded that a showing of fault was not required to establish liability, and that presumed damages could be awarded.


So, the only options were to pay the huge verdict or appeal the jury verdict and the judge’s instruction based on application of an incorrect legal standard.


At this point, also, the blogger managed to attract the attention of a UCLA law professor, who helped her in the effort to appeal the trial court’s ruling. [“Though Cox acted as her own attorney, UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, who had written an article on the issue, learned of her case and offered to represent her in an appeal.”

"In the appeal, Volokh admitted both that (1) the blog post contained an assertion of fact which (2) the jury correctly concluded was false and defamatory. The appeal was only based on the trial court’s incorrect legal rulings that “liability could be imposed without a showing of fault or actual damages and . . .Padrick and Obsidian were not public officials.”


Naturally, Obsidian and Padrick wanted the verdict upheld. 

They asserted various arguments. First, they argued that only the “institutional press”–that is, the legacy, mainstream media–were afforded protection under a negligence standard.
What they were arguing is that BECAUSE the blogger was NOT mainstream press, then Obsidian and Padrick did not have to prove the blogger’s fault. They claimed that defamation against a blogger was governed by a standard of strict liability, that is, they claimed they only had to prove that the false statement was made, and voila, winner winner chicken dinner!


Not so fast said the Court. Gertz did instruct that there was a need to shield "the press and broadcast media from the rigors of strict liability for defamation" [citation], but the Court in this case said: “holding in Gertz sweeps more broadly.”


The court said this:

“Like the Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit has not directly addressed whether First Amendment defamation rules apply equally to both the institutional press and individual speakers. But every other circuit to consider the issue has held that the First Amendment defamation rules in Sullivan and its progeny apply equally to the institutional press and individual speakers. [citations] We agree with our sister circuits.”


“The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond just assembling others' writings, or tried to get both sides of a story. As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable: "With the advent of the Internet and the decline of print and broadcast media . . . the line between the media and others who wish to comment on political and social issues becomes far more blurred." Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 352.

In defamation cases, the public-figure status of a plaintiff and the public importance of the statement at issue--not the identity of the speaker-provide the First Amendment touchstones.”


The Court then delivered a stunning victory to the blogger: 

“We therefore hold that the Gertz negligence requirement for private defamation actions is not limited to cases with institutional media defendants.”


This means that a private, basement-dwelling blogger or contributor, cannot be successfully sued under a strict liability standard, that is, for simply making the false statement of fact. 

Instead, the blogger must be shown to have made the statement on the basis that the blogger knew, or should have known of the falsity of the statement.

This is a HUGE victory for internet bloggers on this point alone.


But, like any case, there was not just one argument. Obsidian and Padrick also argued that there was another reason why jury’s verdict should stand under the strict liability standard that the trial court applied [thus making their case easier to prove because there was no requirement of proving fault of the blogger in making the statement].

Obsidian and Padrick argued that the negligence standard, requiring them to prove fault, only arose, unlike here, in the context of defamation involving matters of public concern. They argued, that Obsidian and Padrick were not engaged in such matters of public concern, and thus, they should NOT have to prove fault. They argued that strict liability thus applied, and that they should win because they proved the false statement was made, even though they did not prove that the false statement was made by the blogger who knew or should have known the statement was false.


The 9th Circuit opinion, citing many other examples, disagreed with Obsidian and Padrick’s analysis that the blogger’s statement was about a purely private matter involving nothing of public concern [“Cox’s allegations in this case are similarly a matter of public concern.”] The Opinion summarized WHY the blogger’s statement involved a matter of public concern:


“Padrick was appointed by a United States Bankruptcy Court as the Chapter 11 trustee of a company that had defrauded its investors through a Ponzi scheme. That company retained him and Obsidian to advise it shortly before it filed for bankruptcy.

The allegations against Padrick and his company raised questions about whether they were failing to protect the defrauded investors because they were in league with their original clients.”


This “public concern” rationale protects all sorts of potentially defamatory statements. Any one of us already has expressed statements relating to gold and silver being manipulated on the COMEX, about knowing stooges helping perpetrate the massive fraud and manipulation, that there are those in the pocket of the fraudsters who actively make their living spouting the constant stream of lies about gold and silver manipulation, etc.

We should all rejoice at the 9th Circuit’s opinion, since at this point, it is beyond dispute that what we talk about here, metals, manipulation, currencies, central banking, all of it, are matters of public concern. Even that evil man JC is fair game for comment, because he actively is involved in the dialogue supporting the ongoing manipulative schemes. We all now have some protections that before we did not have.


In delivering another stunning victory to the blogger, on the issue whether the statement involved a matter of public concern, the Court said this:


“Because Cox's blog post addressed a matter of public concern, even assuming that Gertz is limited to such speech, the district court should have instructed the jury that it could not find Cox liable for defamation unless it found that she acted negligently. See Gertz, 418 U.S. at 350. The court also should have instructed the jury that it could not award presumed damages unless it found that Cox acted with actual malice. Id. at 349.”


Wow, what an amazing, crystal clear victory for the blogger!


The Court did give Obsidian and Padrick a slight victory, of no real consequence, because the Court found that neither Obsidian nor Padrick were public officials. The blogger argued that “the jury therefore should have been instructed that, under the Sullivan standard, it could impose liability for defamation only if she acted with actual malice. [citation].” The Court disagreed. To this is a big , because the victories on the other arguments meant that the Court had no choice but to reverse the judgment and send it back to the trial court.


The Opinion wiped out the huge judgment for Obsidian and Padrick, and requires them to once again, have a trial, in front of a jury, where the trial judge has to instruct the jury that the jury can only find the statements defamatory IF Obsidian and Padrick PROVE that the blogger knew or should have known the statement was false. That is a very difficult standard to prove, far harder than a strict liability standard, which has no such requirement at all.


What will happen at the re-trial? Well, first, will there even BE a retrial under this heightened standard that Obsidian and Padrick must meet?

Who knows. If there is a re-trial, what evidence will Obsidian and Padrick bring to bear on the question as to the fault of the blogger in making the statement?

How can they prove Ms. Cox knew the statement was false? 

How can they prove that she should have known the statement was false?

Isn’t it more likely that Ms. Cox was spouting an opinion based on inferences of wrongdoing, which means that there is proof that she had some basis to make her statement, or, in other words, there is at least some evidentiary basis to support her defense to the defamation claims, unlike what she faced in the earlier trial where the only defense was that she did not make the statement at all?


More realistically, Obsidian and Padrick will slink off into the distance and never appear again. How many thousands of dollars did Obsidian and Padrick spend, for naught, on this case taking the blogger to trial?

What an utter waste of time and money, only to end up with the blogger not only winning, but convincingly so, and paving the way for the rest of the blogging community to enjoy freedom in posting with lessened fear of being sued! Hooray is what I say!


I have been wanting to weigh in on this concept for a long time, and I thank TF for bringing this case to my attention. He graciously agreed to allow me to offer up this analysis, and I thank him profusely for the opportunity to be of service."

Source of Post
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3115701/posts




More on the Crystal Cox Ninth Circuit Case Media


More on the Crystal Cox Case


More on the Summit Bankruptcy Case




Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)