On the Matter of Blogger Crystal Cox being a "Media Defendant", Well Judge Marco Hernandez says that Blogger Crystal L. Cox did not bring any proof of being "Media". Thing Is I did bring Proof, and had filed motions for the prior year that proved I was and am a Medium of Communication, a Wire Service and well, If I am not a a medium of communication to the Public then how was defamation even a factor? Hmmmm..
Judge Marco Hernandez Says, "B. "Media" Defendant
Defendant next argues that she is "media" and thus, plaintiffs cannot recover damages
without proof that defendant was at least negligent and may not recover presumed damages
absent proof of "actual malice."
Gertz, 418 U.S. at 347; see also Bank of Oregon, 298 Or. at 445-46, 693 P.2d at 43-44 (when plaintiffs were not public figures, but defendant was "media," plaintiffs had to prove that defendants were negligent in publishing the challenged article).
Defendant cites no cases indicating that a self-proclaimed "investigative blogger" is
considered "media" for the purposes of applying a negligence standard in a defamation claim.
Without any controlling or persuasive authority on the issue, I decline to conclude that defendant in this case is "media," triggering the negligence standard.
Defendant fails to bring forth any evidence suggestive of her status as a journalist. For
example, there is no evidence of (1) any education in journalism; (2) any credentials or proof of
any affiliation with any recognized news entity; (3) proof of adherence to journalistic standards
such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest; (4) keeping notes of
conversations and interviews conducted; (5) mutual understanding or agreement of
confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources; (6) creation of an independent product rather than assembling writings and postings of others; or (7) contacting "the other side" to get both sides of a story. Without evidence of this nature, defendant is not "media."
Source of Above Quote, Judge Marco Hernandez's infamous Civil Rights Squashing Opinion from November 2011.
http://www.rcfp.org/sites/default/files/docs/20111208_164702_cox_opinion.pdf
So does a "Media Defendant" have to meet every one of those RULES to be Media? I certainly have fact checked and for several years, Blogs are a news entity, and I did disclose any conflicts that would apply. I kept notes for years, videos, documents, and conducted lots of interviews. I certainly did have, " (5) mutual understanding or agreement of
confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources;" AND Anti-Constitutional Judge Marco Hernandez DEMANDED that I Betray this Confidence, because He Said So, when he RULED that I provide years worth of communications and documentation from my source. Next, I would bet there is not one PERSON in the world that would not say I have a TRULY Independent Product. I Curse, I capitalize in odd places, I certainly have an "INDEPENDENT PRODUCT".
Then there is Number 7, "(7) contacting "the other side" to get both sides of a story." Why in the world would I need to talk with Kevin Padrick. I read sworn declarations from Kevin Padrick, lots of them, I read contracts he signed, I watched him in video at meetings, I read court documents, and I talked to Creditors, Investors, Insiders, and read lots of internal emails, documents and contracts. There was NO Need to Contact the "Bad Guy" and ask if he DID It. Blogs are Media, Blogs are a Medium to the Public and Bloggers do NOT in General Contact BOTH SIDES, they research BOTH SIDES and give links to that research.
A Bit about the Hearing the Day Before the Obsidian V. Cox Trial,
Judge Marco Hernandez Presiding.
Well "some rulings" have set a precedence that has chilled speech for all New Media, though Judge Marco Hernandez s "AFTER Ruling" in his denial for a New Trial, clarified what He Meant but JUST DID not SAY in his prior Ruling.
Next Judge Marco Hernandez goes into why these Rulings need wrapped up to make it easier for the next day Trial, and for the way the questions go at the "your deposition" (line 10).
A bit more about that Denial of Due Process, Criminal, Civil Rights Violating Depostion that took place right after this hearing in that very court room WITH NO COURT RECORDER.
http://www.judgemarcohernandez.com/2012/10/when-federal-judge-comes-into.html
http://www.judgemarcohernandez.com/2012/10/crystal-cox-obsidian-v-cox-how-my.html
.jpg)
Judge Marco Hernandez ILLEGALLY ordered Pro Se Defendant Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox to provide years worth of documentation that had NO Relation to the Blog Post that Crystal Cox was on Trial for, yet denied Pro Se Defendant Crystal Cox discovery that I requested that was in direct relation to Bankruptcy Laws, Tax Code, and that Exact Blog Post. And Judge Marco Hernandez denied me, Judge Marco Hernandez communications between pertinent parties that were relevant to that post, and communication documents proving that David Aman, Tonkon Torp Attorney conspired to intimidate, threaten and stalk me.
Judge Marco Hernandez repeatedly VIOLATED the Lawful Rights of Pro Se Defendant Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox, with No Accountability.
Pro Se Defendant Crystal Cox did NOT Claim a Secret Source. Shield Laws should have applied and Judge Marco Hernandez should NOT have asked for documentation unrelated to the blog post I was on trial for. This was discriminating and NOT based in Law, or Rules of Procedure.
Line 13 has Judge Marco Hernandez demanding that I Pro Se Defendant Crystal Cox, give information regarding anyone who ever paid me for internet marketing. Though I was not on trial for anything related to this demand. This was UNLAWFUL, Unconstitutional. I Refused.
Number (5) Above in the Reasons Judge Marco Hernandez says I am not Media says one criteria is a "mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources"
Page 5 goes into Judge Marco Hernandez demanding that I provide David Aman with a Customer Client list for my "reputation" services, when this had nothing to do with the Lawsuit, nor the blog post in any way. If Judge Marco Hernandez wanted to put me on Trial for these "activities" then a separate complaint would have to have been filed that listed this as an issue. No such complaint exists. Judge Marco Hernandez ordered me to disclose all services I provide that have anything to do with reputation management. Judge Marco Hernandez illegally met in private with Tonkon Torp Attorney David Aman, where they discussed that I was GUILTY of Extortion, and they conspired against me. I got wind of these at my court ordered deposition.
Judge Marco Hernandez had no right to ask for those documents in this Trial, and at the same time now allow disclosure of information that I asked for that was pertinent to the blog Post I was on Trial for and communications where by my life and livelihood were in danger, by the Plaintiff's Attorney David S. Aman.
Judge Marco Hernandez unlawfully ordered Defendant Crystal Cox to produce documents that had NO Relevance to the Lawsuit, the Blog Post of Material Fact in Obsidian V. Cox, yet THREW out over 500 pages, and 4 videos of PROOF of where the Blog Post SOURCE was taken. See I, Pro Se Defendant Crystal Cox did not claim a SECRET Source, I Gave the Source Documentation, with VIDEOS and this was THROWN OUT.
Here is a Link to Those Documents
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/111075477/Exhibit-520-Statement-of-Source-of-Blog-Post
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/107076940/Obsidian-V-Cox---Trial-Documents-Blogger-Crystal-Cox-Was-Denied-into-Court
Of course Page Line 19, Pro Se Defendant Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox Protests and I claim that I am media. And I let Judge Marco Hernandez know that I did NOT bring the Demanded Documentation, as its impossible in part and unconstitutional in part. It is violating the rights of my sources, and
Line 16, see this where the Shield Law should factor in for a Blogger, I SHOULD not have to give 3 years worth of emails, this is Private Communications, Protected Communications, Privileged Communications.
See I refused to Give all this Private Communication from my Sources, so Mr. Aman, Tonkon Torp Attorney, Page 8 Line 19, says, "Your Honor, the one that is somewhat related is the shield law. " SOMEWHAT RELATED, Really? Its very related to the previous discussion, and I claimed the Shield Law as a Defense among others.
So, An Oregon Attorney, David S. Aman, is concerned over Shield Laws Applying to Blogger Crystal Cox who is exposing David Aman and His Law Firm Tonkon Torp, as well as his Client, Kevin Padrick Obsidian Finance Group. So Portland Oregon Tonkon Torp Attorney David Aman OBJECTS to the Shield Law Applying to Pro Se Defendant Blogger Crystal L. Cox. And Oregon Judge Marco Hernandez, Grants this Wish, by RULING that Shield Laws do not Apply to Pro Se Defendant Blogger Crystal L. Cox.
Next, Line 13, we have Judge Marco Hernandez say, "It Doesn't Apply"
THERE You Have It, Just Like That. Bloggers Speech is CHILLED, Blogs are NOT Media, Blogs are not Covered by the Shield Law, Just Like That.Then Mr Aman Says, "Thank You, that was the only question" and Mr. Nice Guy, Corrupt, Unconstitutional Judge Marco Hernandez says "Thank You". Isn't that Sweet, such politeness as they STOMP on the First Amendment Rights of ALL Citizens in One 3 Word Sentence by Judge Marco Hernandez ~ "It Doesn't Apply" . Bullshit, the Shield LAW Certainly DOES Apply to Blogger Crystal Cox and so Does Retraction Laws.
Page 10, line 9 of the hearing transcripts discusses "if" Pro Se Defendant Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox takes the stand then all those blog posts factor in, so they cohearsed me to NOT Take the Stand. I was Misled, and this would have brought in actual malice. Judge Marco Hernandez and the Plaintiff's Attorney David Aman conspired against Pro Se Defendant Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox the whole time. Private Meetings and Conversations of which were Off the Record, and Pro Se Defendant Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox had no way of knowing. This violated my RIGHTS, was against the Law and is CRIMINAL for Both Judge Marco Hernandez and David Aman, Tonkon Torp Attorney. I found out the day of my forced deposition OFF THE RECORD.
Keep in Mind Obsidian V. Cox NEVER should have went to Trial as Anti-Slapp Laws and Oregon Retraction Laws SHOULD Have Applied. Below is a Bit more Regarding Judge Marco Hernandez protecting corruption and denying Pro Se Defendant Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox the use of Oregon Retraction Laws
http://www.judgemarcohernandez.com/2012/10/so-in-state-of-oregon-retraction-laws.html
http://www.judgemarcohernandez.com/2012/02/oregon-retraction-laws-do-apply-to-me.html
Link to the Ruling, where Judge Marco Hernandez discusses Oregon Retraction Laws starting on page 2.
http://www.rcfp.org/sites/default/files/docs/20111208_164702_cox_opinion.pdf
The Hearing the Day Before the Obsidian Finance Group V. Cox Trial, discusses Oregon Retraction Laws, page 6 line 22 discusses the Retraction Laws, Judge Marco Hernandez simply flat out says ""Her motion to allow the defense to move forward is denied". And that was That, no Reason, and certainly NOT Based in Law, just he says so, and whoop There it Is. ..
God Hernandez ruining lives to Protect Portland Oregon Corruption.
Even though in a few sentences above Judge Marco Hernandez demands that I show all emails and documents of communication about my serves, and well all that was to show my "intent" right, which is state of mind right, then SHOCKER, page 6 line 3, Actual Malice DOES NOT APPLY.. what a Crock.
Don't Forget Line 6 where Absolute Privilege is DENIED. More on that Topic
http://www.judgemarcohernandez.com/search?q=absolute+privilege
Page 6 Line 8-10, sums it up for the Defenses that Ms. Cox was Hoping and Wishing would actually make the Laws Relevant to Obsidian V. Cox, gee darn, Guess NOT.
In this Pre Trial Hearing, Pompous Ass Judge Marco Hernandez Says, "I think that takes care of the defenses that Ms. Cox is intending on raising or was hoping to be able to raise as part of this trial"
SO there you have IT. Done Deal. The Law DOES not Apply To BLOGGER Crystal Cox. There is no mention that its because I have no Ethics, or Journalistic Standards, and no mention of that "tasty sum" I wanted in my Settlement Communication, Corrupt, Unethical, Discriminating, Civil Rights Violating Judge Marco Hernandez was saving this OTHER SET of reason for the Denial of a NEW TRIAL.
New Trial Denied, the Opinion and Order of Judge Marco Hernandez, Dated 2/27/2012, Document 123 of Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal Cox brings up NEW Reasons why Pro Se Defendant Crystal Cox is NOT Media. Seems that "tasty sum" is a requirement of Media Status.
Judge Marco Hernandez says, "I specifically instructed defendant that she could raise her legal arguments "regarding her status as 'media,' application of retraction statutes, privilege, actual malice, and Padrick's status as a public figure," in her "trial memorandum, due on November 22, 2011." I Defendant Crystal Cox did this to the best of my Ability, I am and was a Medium of Communication Plain and Simple, a FACT.
Judge Marco Hernandez says, "She filed no jury instructions." AND Judge Marco Hernandez says, "Defendant failed to submit any proposed jury instructions, failed to expressly object to
any of the instructions that were given, and failed to expressly object to the failure to give an
instruction, despite being given the opportunity to do so ...". As seen in the transcripts of the hearing the day before the Trial, I did not understand what Judge Marco Hernandez wanted formerly, I was Pro Se, I let Judge Marco Hernandez know that I did not fully understand and I objected to what I did understand. Judge Marco Hernandez discriminated against Pro Se Defendant Crystal Cox.
Judge Marco Hernandez says, "(1) throughout the trial the party argued the disputed matter with the court" regarding exceptions. I did argue the disputed matter, the transcripts do show this.
As Judge Marco Hernandez affirms on page 6, I did raise the issue in the Trial Memorandum, I did not know I had to raise the issue again. I was denied the use of what I "raised" in the Trial Memorandum, why in the world Object Again and Again when I was DENIED.
Regarding Media Status in the Opinion Denying a New Trial.
"B. Discussion
Defendant ably raised several relevant legal issues in her trial memorandum.
She repeatedly referred to herself as media which she contended insulated her from defamation lawsuits. Dkt #81 (Def.'s Tr. Mem.) at pp. 1-2. She alleged that the issues of the blog post were of public interest and that plaintiffs were public figures. Id. at p. 2 (e.g., "Defendant is media and . . . the issue of this blog post is of public interest, and is about a Public Figure, and is on a public forum."); see also id. at p. 5 (arguing that plaintiffs were public figures). She claimed protection under the First Amendment. Id. at p. 6. She also argued that there was no proof of actual malice and thus, she was immune from liability. Id. at p. 4. She expressly cited New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). Id. at p. 5.
Although defendant sufficiently raised these issues in her trial memorandum, as with
most pro se litigants, defendant's arguments required some interpretation and clarification.
Thus, while the argument that she was "media" appeared to be most directly related to her position that certain state statutes immunized her from liability, her reliance on the First Amendment suggested that the "media" argument also pertained to the standard of liability required on the defamation claim. In an effort to comprehensively address her arguments, I construed them to raise as many First Amendment issues as I could identify based on her trial memorandum.
Additionally, plaintiffs' trial memorandum squarely raised these issues in the context of
determining the appropriate standard of liability."
I, Pro Se Defendant Crystal Cox also gave over 500 pages with my Trial Memorandum, my Trial Documents, Explaining each defense in detail, these documents were thrown out.
My Trial Memorandum was Limited to 10 Pages.
Top of Page 8
Judge Marco Hernandez Says,
" 1. The defendant communicated a fact about the plaintiffs;
2. What the defendant communicated was false and defamatory;
3. The defendant published the communication to a third person;
4. The third person reasonably understood both that the communication
was about the plaintiffs and had a defamatory meaning; and
5. The defendant's communication damaged the plaintiffs."
What is Judge Marco Hernandez talking about really?
How in the world did I communicate a fact if I had no "Medium to the Public" and therefore the Shield Law and Retraction Law did not apply to me, Blogger Crystal Cox? If I "Published" to a third person, then I am a Publisher RIGHT? Still the Retraction Law and Shield Laws do not apply? WHAT, Really?
And who is this mysterious, "third person" that "reasonable understood"? Was it the PUBLIC? Was my Blog Post a "Medium of Communication" to the Public? Hmmm..
Oh and last but not least, number 5. See the Plaintiff was protected by Judge Marco Hernandez and did not have to prove any damage at all. They just told big daddy Judge Marco Hernandez that they suffered millions in damages and wala got a 2.5 Million Dollar Judgement from a Penniless Blogger.
oh and "Padrick" is a Public Figure and "Padrick" and Obsidian Finance ARE of Public Interest and very much so of Public Concern. The Summit Bankruptcy and surrounding victims and lawsuits were very much PUBLIC and very High Profile. That is a No Brainer.
Page 9 Line 34, Judge Marco Hernandez Says, "Neither Padrick nor Obsidian Finance were government employees. Neither was elected or appointed to a government position." this is NOT True, as a Federal Judge, and the Department of Justice Appointed Kevin Padrick as Trustee, he was not appointed by a Private Entity. He was appointed by a Federal Entity.
In regard to the Media Defendant Issue in the New Trial Denial, Judge Marco Hernandez Says,
"2. "Media" Defendant
It is important to note that defendant's argument at the time of trial, as plaintiffs and I
understood it, was that because defendant was "media," she was entitled to certain First
Amendment protections, including requiring plaintiffs to establish liability by proving that
defendant acted with some degree of fault, whether it be negligence or "actual malice."
Accepting defendant's argument at face value, I understood it to contain two elements: (1) that
she is "media," and (2) that her status as "media" alone triggered a fault element in the
defamation claim. Because I found the First Amendment cases on the fault issue to be a bit
"murky," I resolved her argument by addressing only the first element and concluding that on the
record before me, defendant failed to show she was "media" because she cited no relevant case law and because she did not possess any characteristics traditionally associated with the media.
Nov. 30, 2011 Op. at p. 9. In my discussion, I did not state that a person who "blogs" could never be considered "media." I also did not state that to be considered "media," one had to possess all or most of the characteristics I recited. Rather, I confined my conclusion to the record defendant created in this case and noted that defendant had presented no evidence as to any single one of the characteristics which would tend to establish oneself as a member of the "media."
In addition, the uncontroverted evidence at trial was that after receiving a demand to stop posting what plaintiffs believed to be false and defamatory material on several websites, including allegations that Padrick had committed tax fraud, defendant offered "PR," "search engine management," and online reputation repair services to Obsidian Finance, for a price of $2,500 per month. Ex. 33. The suggestion was that defendant offered to repair the very damage she caused for a small but tasteful monthly fee. This feature, along with the absence of other media features, led me to conclude that defendant was not media.
Ok Lets break down the Above BULLSHIT from a Federal Judge in Portland Oregon, Judge Marco Hernandez.
Above Judge Marco Hernandez seems to be discussing issues that were raised and relevant at the "Trial", then jumps into the Real Reason that I, xxx am allegedly not media which is a bit OFF from his original reasons.
See it Turns out that a Blog "can" be considered media, but just not a Blogger with hundreds of blogs, hundreds of thousands of posts, a TRULY Independent Product, an agreement to NOT Disclose my sources information, editing capabilities and ALL sides of the story. Not a blogger whom independently interviewed, researched and reported on the Summit Bankruptcy for years prior to being sued.
Judge Marco Hernandez Says, "In my discussion, I did not state that a person who "blogs" could never be considered "media." BULLSHIT you did Too. Judge Marco Hernandez said that a blog was not a Medium of Communication and therefore did not qualify for Retraction Laws.
Judge Marco Hernandez Says, " I also did not state that to be considered "media," one had to possess all or most of the characteristics I recited. Rather, I confined my conclusion to the record defendant created in this case and noted that defendant had presented no evidence as to any single one of the characteristics which would tend to establish oneself as a member of the "media." ~ Judge Marco Hernandez CLAIMS that I, Pro Se Defendant Crystal Cox did not Meet any of those 7 criteria to be a media defendant, and other then journalism school and affiliation with a "recognized" news entity, I Met them ALL.
Judge Marco Hernandez Says, "defendant had presented no evidence as to any single one of the characteristics". Really Judge Marco Hernandez, NOT ONE, are you Sure, Not EVEN ONE Single Characteristic, REALLY?
What a Flat out LIE by a Federal Judge. Obviously, any Fool can see that I do have an Independent Product, YOU Can't Deny That. I did protect my sources Confidential Emails as per agreed. I do have editing capabilities, I have years of notes, emails, videos and more in my gathering process and I certainly did prove this to you, Judge Marco Hernandez So admit it Judge Marco Hernandez you are protecting Portland Oregon's Elite Law Firms, Judges, Attorneys and Corporations. And you, Judge Marco Hernandez, have made my Life, quality of Life, business and future the collateral damage of your protecting them.
Clearly Blogger Crystal Cox met at least ONE "single one of the characteristics".
Judge Marco Hernandez Says, "In addition, the uncontroverted evidence at trial was that after receiving a demand to stop posting what plaintiffs believed to be false and defamatory material on several websites, including allegations that Padrick had committed tax fraud, defendant offered "PR," "search engine management," and online reputation repair services to Obsidian Finance, for a price of $2,500 per month. Ex. 33. The suggestion was that defendant offered to repair the very damage she caused for a small but tasteful monthly fee. "
Now this NEW Reason that I, Pro Se Defendant Crystal Cox am NOT MEDIA, was not a Prior Reason. See this would be an "Intent" thing right, or factor in Actual Malice? And we can't have The question being, did I Post thousands of blog posts for
I certainly did OBJECT, and there was no "uncontroverted evidence", EVIL, Unconstitutional Judge Marco Hernandez and Plaintiff Tonkon Torp Attorney, David S. Aman set me up, as I did object to the extortion accusation, the hearing transcripts show this. The Trial Transcripts show this.
Note that Exhibit 33 was entered into Obsidian V. Cox in the Closing Statement. It was thrown at me out of left field after I was told it would not enter the case, therefore I was not prepared with the rest of the EMAILS in that Settlement Communication to defend myself of this accusation. I was not prepared because I had asked the day before about these emails, I had even filed a motion asking the courts to make David Aman, Tonkon Torp Attorney stick to the facts of the case and STOP accusing me of Extortion, this was denied the day before Obsidian V. Cox, and I was told I was not being accused and if I was to Plead the Fifth, this is in the Transcript. Then WOW now this Exhibit 33 is the reason I am not MEDIA. That is Flat out BULLSHIT and Cover Ups.
The transcripts from the Hearing before the Obsidian V. Cox Trial, clearly shows me, Pro Se Defendant Crystal Cox claiming that I am being excused of Extortion and asking if these emails, these exhibits that I objected to would be allowed. It was clear to me that Exhibit 33 would not be allowed. See if I knew it would be, I would have brought the surrounding emails to this Settlement Communication in which was EMAILED in my Pro Se Capacity AFTER a 10 Million Dollar Lawsuit was filed against me and in order to STOP years of Litigation. Exhibit 33 was also emailed a month after a Legal Threat was emailed to me while I was living in Boulder Colorado, and where I posted the blog post that was a Material Fact in Obsidian V. Cox.
Judge Marco Hernandez Says, "after receiving a demand", see folks this is Judge Marco Hernandez admitting that I had received a Legal Threat, and Judge Marco Hernandez knows that In My Pro Se Capacity I emailed an offer to negotiate a Cease Fire, to STOP the Lawsuit. This was several emails and was a Settlement Offer made by me, Pro Se Defendant Crystal Cox in my Pro Se Capacity after a Legal Threat, and After a 10 Million Dollar Lawsuit was filed.
It is BULLSHIT to suggest that I posted thousands of Posts for years of my life, was NEVER asked to Retract ONE of them, then I get a Cease and Desist, a Legal Threat, and then I make a Settlement Offer and all of the SUDDEN, 3 years, 7 days a week exposing the details of the Summit Bankruptcy and giving voice to the victims, ALL OF THE SUDDEN, this was all done from the start to one day get $2500 a month. That is ridiculous, and it is NOT "tasty" as Ignorant, Archaic Judge Marco Hernandez claims.
Search Engine Reputation Companies such as Reputation.com charge $10,000 a keyword per month to provide Search Engine Reputation Services. The Offer I made was NOT to REMOVE ANYTHING, which was clearly stated in the very next email to the Plaintiff's Attorney David S. Aman, which he illegally and purposely left out of his Exhibit 33 and his Defaming me and inciting a Lynch Mob with giving that ONE email, out of context to Big Media, AFTER winning a $2.5 Million Dollar Judgement.
All Emails in that Settlement Offer, in my Pro Se Capacity
http://obsidianfinancesucks.blogspot.com/2012/04/crystal-cox-extortion-allegations.html
I was not offering to Repair the Damage I Caused, I clearly told the Plaintiff's Attorney that I would not Remove anything for this negotiated amount. Also, internal emails and legal filings of the Summit Bankruptcy told of Tax Fraud, I simply got the story found. Judge Marco Hernandez has dramatized the Settlement Communications between Counsel and has the world believing that I, Pro Se Defendant Crystal Cox is a Criminal. Meanwhile Judge Marco Hernandez IGNORED massive proof of Violations of Bankruptcy Law by the Plaintiff. And it is also a falsehood that I caused the damage to the Plaintiff's Reputation. There was massive media on the deals of Obsidian Finance Group and Kevin Padrick, and many others bitching about them for years. Judge Marco Hernandez was NOT telling the TRUTH on this Matter Either.
Judge Marco Hernandez set me up for the Crime of Extortion in a Civil Trial.
When you research the Settlement Communication you could say that the Plaintiff wanted me to Fix the Damage he Caused, as clearly they were guilty, and it was NOT me accusing them. Yet they offered that if I LIE about the Summit Insiders and they would let me out of a 10 Million Dollar Lawsuit. Is this Extortion? 10 Million Dollar is a lot more "tasty sum" then $2500 a month.
More Information Regarding Obsidian V. Cox Settlement Communications and CRIMINAL Extortion Accusations by a Federal Judge, Judge Marco Hernandez and the Plaintiff's Attorney in a CIVIL Trial.
http://www.crystalcoxcase.com/2012/11/settlement-communication-of-obsidian-v.html
Even If you Believe that I, Pro Se Defendant Crystal Cox is a Criminal, how in the world is that related to whether I am a Media Defendant in that Blog Post. If you think I am a Criminal then shouldn't that play out in a Criminal Trial and not be thrown into a denial for a new trial in a civil case???? Use Your Brain READER.
The Whole World knew For Years that my Source was Stephanie Studebaker DeYoung as well as other insiders of the Summit Bankruptcy and the Court Documents that accompanied this VERY High Profile, High Dollar Bend Oregon Bankruptcy of a 1031 Exchange Company.
The Plaintiff's Attorney David S. Aman of Tonkon Torp Law Firm, was involved in the corruption I am STILL Alleging regarding the Summit Bankruptcy. David S. Aman, Deposed Stephanie Studebaker DeYoung 3 Years Prior and asked her about me Blogger Crystal Cox.
Here is that exact Question from Plaintiff's Attorney David S. Aman of Tonkon Torp Law Firm to Stephanie Studebaker DeYoung under oath August of 2009, years before Plaintiff Sued Blogger Crystal Cox.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZz1kGkpNTk&feature=youtu.be
More on the Topic of David Aman Deposing Stephanie DeYoung Regarding Crystal Cox
http://www.davidaman.info/2012/10/years-before-in-conflict-of-interest.html
The Plaintiff's Attorney David S. Aman of Tonkon Torp Law Firm also knew for years that my source was a Judicial Proceeding, an Objection to the Fees and Court Filings of a Federal Bankruptcy Proceeding.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/98076240/David%20Aman,%20Tonkon%20Torp%20for%20Obsidian%20Finance%20Group%20Trustee%20Kevin%20Padrick
More on the Objection to Fees Topic
http://www.objectiontofees.com/
More Research Regarding Public Figures, Myths of Obsidian V. Cox and More
http://www.obsidianfinancesucks.com/2012/11/eric-p-robinson-cuny-graduate-school-of.html
Here is a Link to the BULLSHIT, Not Based in Law, Flat out Lies and Gibberish of Judge Marco Hernandez in his Denial of a New Trial for Pro Se Defendant Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox who was and is dedicated to exposing his buddies Judge Michael Simon, Perkins Coie Law Firm, Steven Hedberg, Sussman Shank Law Firm, Tonkon To
New Trial Denial by Corrupt Judge Marco Hernandez aiding and abetting Portland Oregon Corruption and Defaming, Ruining Lives and Setting Lynch Mobs after Blogger Crystal Cox for exposing Corruption in his "neck of the woods".
http://ia700403.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.ord.101036/gov.uscourts.ord.101036.123.0.pdf
You Assholes do not get to Take People Down, Steal their Money, put them in jail, set them up and ruin them with NO Accountability, NOT ON MY WATCH.
.jpg)
Click Before for the New Trial Motion Filed by Defendant's Camp
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/110393912/Obsidian-V-Cox---New-Trial-Motion--Eugene-Volokh-Benjamin-Souede
Response / Opposition for a New Trial From Plaintiff's Camp. Some VERY Lame Reasons, and Flat Out Lies and Gibberish by David S. Aman, Tonkon Torp Attorney
http://www.volokh.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ObsidianOpposition.pdf
Final Brilliant Response from Defendants Camp
http://ia600403.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.ord.101036/gov.uscourts.ord.101036.121.0.pdf
EFF Support of New Trial
http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2012-01-11-EFF%20Amicus%20in%20Support%20of%20Cox%20Motion%20for%20New%20Trial.pdf
A Denial of a New Trial, where Judge Marco Hernandez is rattled at all the bad press coming at him, so Judge Marco Hernandez says what he meant was, bloggers can be Journalists, and blogs can be covered under the shield law, he just does not like this ONE Blogger Crystal Cox because she is exposing his friend Judge Michael Simon and his Corruption Fraternity Buddies who are Elite Law Firms, Corporations, Attorneys and Judges in Portland Oregon.
Is it Lawful for Judge Marco Hernandez to RULE that Pro Se Defendant Blogger Crystal Cox is NOT Media because of the reasons he alleges, which he says in the Denial for a New Trial, however, in the Actual Trial Judge Marco Hernandez did not RULE that because I had no Journalist Standards and Offered a Tasty Fee for Services in a Settlement Communication, that this was his reason for the Shield Law not applying to Pro Se Defendant Blogger Crystal Cox.
When the WORLD Got Mad at Judge Marco Hernandez, suddenly in the Denial for a New Trial the Reason became different and more about my alleged Criminal Activity, when I was on Trial for a Civil Matter. Does this Make Sense?
Click here for More Regarding Obsidian V. Cox Settlement Communications and Extortion Accusations.
http://www.crystalcoxcase.com/2012/11/settlement-communication-of-obsidian-v.html
Judge Marco Hernandez Ruling, Official Opinion, the Day Before the Obsidian V. Cox Trial
http://www.rcfp.org/sites/default/files/docs/20111208_164702_cox_opinion.pdf
"The following transaction was entered on 11/30/2011 at 4:03 PM PST and filed on 11/30/2011
| Case Name: | Obsidian Finance Group, LLC et al v. Cox |
| Case Number: | 3:11-cv-00057-HZ |
| Filer: | |
| Document Number: | 95 |
Docket Text:
OPINION: Based on the evidence presented at the time of trial, I conclude that plaintiffs are not public figures, defendant is not "media," and the statements at issue were not made on an issue of public concern. Thus, there are no First Amendment implications. Defendant's other defenses of absolute privilege, Oregon's Shield Law, Oregon's Anti-SLAPP statute, and Oregon's retraction statutes, are not applicable. See 13-page opinion attached. Signed on 11/30/2011 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. Copy of opinion mailed and emailed to defendant. (mr)"
OPINION: Based on the evidence presented at the time of trial, I conclude that plaintiffs are not public figures, defendant is not "media," and the statements at issue were not made on an issue of public concern. Thus, there are no First Amendment implications. Defendant's other defenses of absolute privilege, Oregon's Shield Law, Oregon's Anti-SLAPP statute, and Oregon's retraction statutes, are not applicable. See 13-page opinion attached. Signed on 11/30/2011 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. Copy of opinion mailed and emailed to defendant. (mr)"
Posted Here by
Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox
Crystal@CrystalCox.com
More Information At
http://www.crystalcoxcase.com/
http://www.obsidianfinancesucks.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment