David Aman, Tonkon Torp sure is Making Tonkon Torp Law Firm Look Foolish. As David Aman, Tonkon Torp sues a blogger for information David Aman, Tonkon Torp knows is from another blog. David Aman is suing an investigative blogger to STOP transparency in Federal Bankruptcy Proceeding.

David Aman, Tonkon Torp Attorney for Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group is costing Oregon Tax Payers Plenty and all to hide the Truth of a 40 Million Dollar Bankruptcy. 

David Aman, Tonkon Torp Attorney for Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group is suing me for 10 Million Dollars for this Blog Post.  David Aman, Tonkon Torp knows my blogs, and the standard of practice in to which I post.  And David Aman knows that I link to my source blog, and David Aman of Tonkon Torp Law Firm and Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance knows the source blog as they have attempted to stop the blog from being up, have had courts remove videos and tried to intimidate and harass the blog author for years.

http://www.bankruptcycorruption.com/2010/12/kevin-padrick-of-obsidian-finance-group.html
10 Million Dollar Post - True or Not? Defamation or Not?

Now David Aman of Tonkon Torp Law Firm and Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group cannot sue the source blog due to some plea bargain, I believe, so they are suing me for information the know is not money, and making a mockery of the Oregon Court System Yet Again.

David Aman of Tonkon Torp Law Firm and Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group sued others in the Summit 1031 Bankruptcy to bully them from what I hear and David Aman of Tonkon Torp Law Firm and Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group sued the State of Oregon over Some Solar Tax law change that lost them jobs allegedly and now I am the latest victim of the wo is me, I can't make another billion from tax payers money.  David Aman of Tonkon Torp Law Firm and Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group seem to me to be costing the State of Oregon alot of money and are Accountable to No One.

David Aman, Tonkon Torp NEVER asked me to remove this post, nor did David Aman, Tonkon Torp provide me, Legally Defined as Media and an Investigative Blogger with any proof or information that proved this post to be false so that I may consider removing this post.  Oregon Retraction Laws are pretty cut and dried, he never asked and yet is suing me for 10 Million.  That post was not in David Aman, Tonkon Torp's original complaint that cried lost job worth 10 Million, yet WaLa now this post is the reason that poor bully, thug, attorney crony Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance lost his Bank VP Job? Is this real in any way?  It makes no rational Sense to me.

This blog post is true to the best of the information I have received, David Aman, Tonkon Torp Law Firm Portland Oregon knows that this post is based in fact, and that it is not my words but instead words from the blog I listed at the bottom of the post, along with my opinion of that information.

Yet somehow David Aman, Tonkon Torp has got a federal court in Oregon to use tax payers dollars and to take me to Trial for 10 Million Dollars when 10 Million Dollars I do Not Have and David Aman, Tonkon Torp refuses to provide any document that prove that the post is not true.  I have only my qualified source to go on, which I got from the source blog which as a standard of practice on my blogs I do on most all of my blog posts.  If the source information is inaccurate then suing me, is simply harassment as I am not the source information for that blog post.  Nor was I asked to Retract that Blog Post.

Also keep in mind the Blog Post David Aman, Tonkon Torp is suing me for on behalf of Obsidian Finance Group Oregon, Kevin Padrick, this post was NOT part of David Aman, Tonkon Torp's original complaint against me as to the reason that Kevin Padrick

http://www.bankruptcycorruption.com/2010/12/kevin-padrick-of-obsidian-finance-group.html

There is a whole lot of details behind the Summit 1031 Bankruptcy that Leon Simson, Tonkon Torp and David Aman Don't want YOU to Know, Do your Homework.

Judge Hernandez in my Oregon Civil Case thus far refuse to Sign a Conflict of Interest form to provide me assurance that there is No Conflict of Interest with David Aman nor Tonkon Torp Law Firm.  Oregon Law should be a matter of fact, and yet Anti-Slap Laws, Shield Laws and Retraction Laws seemed to be denied to me based on the fact that I am pro se and cannot afford an attorney and stated the laws as my defense in the wrong way.  I stated the Anti-Slap Laws in my first court response, yet seemingly because the law was not stated as a correct motion, well the law then does not apply to me.

The point of these Anti-Slap Laws, Shield Laws and Retraction Laws

It is shocking how far Obsidian Finance Group, Kevin Padrick, David Aman and Tonkon Torp Law firm will go, and how many laws they will twist in order to cover up the details of a 40 Million Dollar Bankruptcy.

More on this Case Will continue to be Posted at
http://www.ancerhaggerty.com/
as Judge Ancer Haggerty was my Original Judge in this Case


Also Coming Soon
http://www.leonsimson.com/

AriOkano.com
AlbertKennedy.com
VickiBallou.com
Doni Marmaduke.com
RonaldGreenman.com
IngolfNoto.com
DarcyNorville.com
RyanBledsoe.com
TonkonTorpLawFirm.com
JohnStride.com

Got a Tip on any of these Tonkon Torp Attorneys?
eMail me Crystal L. Cox, Investigative Blogger
Crystal@CrystalCox.com 

Note:  My Source Post and others Like it are Still UP and Yet David Aman, Tonkon Torp is singling me out

http://www.oregonshyster.com/shyster/padrick.htm

http://www.summit1031bkjustice.com/?cat=53

Below is source information as in the 10 Million Dollar Post I am being Sued for, though Bully Attorney David Aman of Tonkon Torp Law Firm FOR Client Kevin Padrick Obsidian Finance Group .. .. KNOW that is NOT my information.. they Selectively Prosecute Me...

Source Details - Also Note in Source Details Much of it is over a Year Old, so  Attorney David Aman of Tonkon Torp Law Firm FOR Client Kevin Padrick Obsidian Finance Group is suing me now for the reposting as the original post is over a year old and past the Defamation Limitations, Plus  Attorney David Aman of Tonkon Torp Law Firm FOR Client Kevin Padrick Obsidian Finance Group KNOW that due to some other legal issue,  Attorney David Aman of Tonkon Torp Law Firm FOR Client Kevin Padrick Obsidian Finance Group .. cannot sue the source blogger - so  Attorney David Aman of Tonkon Torp Law Firm FOR Client Kevin Padrick Obsidian Finance Group sues me, Crystal L. Cox Blogger Instead.

1.  http://www.summit1031bkjustice.com/?p=2947

2.  Mark Neuman Deposition Pg 95 "I guess the other thing was -- Kevin -- Kevin led us to believe that he was bringing financial -- he had these financial partners with deep pockets, and that he could do -- bring in some money in the interim.  That was the last we ever heard of it."  http://www.summit1031bkjustice.com/?p=2650

3.  http://www.summit1031bkjustice.com/?p=2716

Around 12/7/08 – Kevin Padrick meets with Summit Principals – Well yes they did. Kevin Padrick was recommended to one of the Principals by a Bend Developer as a guy who could help solve Summit’s proplems.  You see Kevin Padrick met with the Summit principals in early December 2008. By talking with the Summit Principals about this meeting, it looks like Kevin was more than willing to help them with their liquidity crisis. Kevin Padrick said his company, Obsidian Finance Group, LLC, specialized in helping save distressed businesses like Summit Accommodators, Inc. Good news right? Kevin Padrick said he had financial partners with DEEP POCKETS who would help fund the short-term liquidity issues.

At this meeting, Summit Principals explained the business of short-term lending, told Kevin Padrick about the properties they were willing to hand over and about the $14 Million of cash that was in the Summit bank account. At no time during this meeting did Kevin Padrick even mention the words fraud, ponzi scheme, embezzlement, or illegal.

12/19/08 – end of December 2008 – Summit Principals gathered all the information and willingly gave it to there supposed saviors, Obsidian Finance Group. Ewan Rose, said thanks, we will get you our proposal within the week. No proposal was ever delivered.

Early February – Kevin Padrick makes a presentation to the Creditors’ Committee. What? Thought they were supposed to be getting the proposal to the CRO and Principals, NOT the creditors??? Jeez this stuff is so confusing.

4.  http://www.summit1031bkjustice.com/?p=2439

5.  http://www.summit1031bkjustice.com/?p=2415

6. http://www.summit1031bkjustice.com/?page_id=2682 -

Why hasn’t he released it when holding the Summit Principals’ interests’ will cost the Bankruptcy estate $200,000? See the calculations(Exhibit F9).  *****

7.  http://www.summit1031bankruptcy.com/2010/08/is-kevin-padrick-avoiding-taxes.html

8.  http://www.summit1031bkjustice.com/?p=2852

Summit 1031 Assets on 12/19/08 (Time of Filing Chapter 11 – Debtor In Possession Bankruptcy)

Cash                                                               $14 Million

Bond                                                              $10 Million

E&O                                                                $3 Million

Note Receivable Steve White                        $1.2 Million

Notes Secured by Real Property

and Summit Principal Real

Property Investments                                     $11.5 Million

Summit Principal Interests’

In Business Interest                                           $1 Million

Regulation of Speech on the Internet

http://www.stoel.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=831

EFF - Electronic Frontier Foundation

Links to Help you Learn More about your Blogger Rights

EFF Blog

https://www.eff.org/issues/ip-and-free-speech

https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property

https://www.eff.org/issues/ip-and-free-speech

https://www.eff.org/work

https://www.eff.org/about/board

https://www.eff.org/about/fellows

https://www.eff.org/about/advisoryboard

Posted Here by Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox
Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Are bloggers journalists?

" ARE bloggers journalists?

Sometimes. While this question is often asked in the mainstream media and on blogs, it does not frame the debate very well. You can use blogging software for journalism, and many bloggers do. But you can also use blogging software for other purposes. What makes a journalist a journalist is whether she is gathering news for dissemination to the public, not the method or medium she uses to publish. So the better way to frame the debate is: Can journalists blog?

Can journalists blog?

Of course! If you are engaged in journalism, your chosen medium of expression should not make a difference. The freedom of the press applies to every sort of publication that affords a vehicle of information and opinion, whether online or offline.

Why do we care whether someone is a "journalist"?

Some states have laws that specifically protect the speech and privacy rights of journalists. These can include reporter's shield laws and retraction statutes, fee waivers for Freedom on Information Act requests, even campaign finance laws.

What is the constitutional reporter's privilege?

Almost all the federal and state courts have found that state and federal constitutions provide a qualified privilege to allow journalists to keep private the names of their confidential sources and the unpublished information provided by the sources. This protects the anonymity of news sources and thus helps encourage the free flow of information.

How is the constitutional reporter's privilege qualified?

Courts have set forth a multi-factor balancing test for deciding the applicability of the constitutional reporter's privilege. Generally, the subpoenaing party must show that the material is unavailable despite exhaustion of all reasonable alternative sources, that there is a compelling and overriding interest in obtaining the information, and that it is clearly relevant to an important issue in the case. In the ordinary civil case, the privilege will prevent discovery.


Some courts have placed more severe restrictions on this First Amendment right in certain circumstances, such as criminal cases. The Reporter's Committee for Freedom of the Press has an excellent compendium of the reporter's privilege laws in every jurisdiction.

How do courts determine whether the constitutional reporter's privilege applies?

Courts use a test to determine whether someone invoking the reporter's privilege has the right to do it. A test used by many federal courts is whether that person intended to disseminate information to the public, and whether that intent existed at the inception of the newsgathering process (where "newsgathering process" can mean seeking, collecting, or receiving information from a source). Under this test, courts have provided the privilege to non-traditional journalists, including book authors and documentary filmmakers.

What is a state reporter's shield law?

More than 30 states have elected to provide protection for journalists over and above the protection afforded by the constitutional reporter's privilege. For example, through an initiative the people of California included a reporter's shield in the California Constitution. This shield provides "absolute protection to nonparty journalists in civil litigation from being compelled to disclose unpublished information." It may be "overcome only by a countervailing federal constitutional right." The California reporter's shield protects all persons "connected with...a newspaper, magazines, or other periodical publication," without limitation.

Is protecting journalists' sources important to the freedom of the press?

Yes. As the California Supreme Court acknowledged, "The press' function as a vital source of information is weakened whenever the ability of journalists to gather news is impaired. Compelling a reporter to disclose the identity of a source may significantly interfere with this news gathering ability; journalists frequently depend on informants to gather news, and confidentiality is often essential to establishing a relationship with an informant." (Mitchell v. Superior Court) "

Source of Post
https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/journalists/privilege

Online Defamation Law

"The Bloggers' FAQ on Online Defamation Law provides an overview of defamation (libel) law, including a discussion of the constitutional and statutory privileges that may protect you.

What is defamation?

Generally, defamation is a false and unprivileged statement of fact that is harmful to someone's reputation, and published "with fault," meaning as a result of negligence or malice. State laws often define defamation in specific ways. Libel is a written defamation; slander is a spoken defamation.

What are the elements of a defamation claim?

The elements that must be proved to establish defamation are:

1. a publication to one other than the person defamed;
2. a false statement of fact;
3. that is understood as
• a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
• b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.
  
4. If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual malice.

Is truth a defense to defamation claims?

Yes. Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim. But keep in mind that the truth may be difficult and expensive to prove.

Can my opinion be defamatory?

No—but merely labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This is determined in light of the context of the statement. A few courts have said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole, but they do look at the remark in context to see if it's likely to be seen as a true, even if controversial, opinion ("I really hate George Lucas' new movie") rather than an assertion of fact dressed up as an opinion ("It's my opinion that Trinity is the hacker who broke into the IRS database").

What is a statement of verifiable fact?

A statement of verifiable fact is a statement that conveys a provably false factual assertion, such as someone has committed murder or has cheated on his spouse. To illustrate this point, consider the following excerpt from a court (Vogel v. Felice) considering the alleged defamatory statement that plaintiffs were the top-ranking 'Dumb Asses' on defendant's list of "Top Ten Dumb Asses":
A statement that the plaintiff is a "Dumb Ass," even first among "Dumb Asses," communicates no factual proposition susceptible of proof or refutation. It is true that "dumb" by itself can convey the relatively concrete meaning "lacking in intelligence." Even so, depending on context, it may convey a lack less of objectively assayable mental function than of such imponderable and debatable virtues as judgment or wisdom.

Here defendant did not use "dumb" in isolation, but as part of the idiomatic phrase, "dumb ass." When applied to a whole human being, the term "ass" is a general expression of contempt essentially devoid of factual content. Adding the word "dumb" merely converts "contemptible person" to "contemptible fool." Plaintiffs were justifiably insulted by this epithet, but they failed entirely to show how it could be found to convey a provable factual proposition. ... If the meaning conveyed cannot by its nature be proved false, it cannot support a libel claim.

This California case also rejected a claim that the defendant linked the plaintiffs' names to certain web addresses with objectionable addresses (i.e. www.satan.com), noting "merely linking a plaintiff's name to the word "satan" conveys nothing more than the author's opinion that there is something devilish or evil about the plaintiff."

Is there a difference between reporting on public and private figures?

Yes. A private figure claiming defamation—your neighbor, your roommate, the guy who walks his dog by your favorite coffee shop—only has to prove you acted negligently, which is to say that a "reasonable person" would not have published the defamatory statement.
A public figure must show "actual malice"—that you published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth. This is a difficult standard for a plaintiff to meet.

Who is a public figure?

A public figure is someone who has actively sought, in a given matter of public interest, to influence the resolution of the matter. In addition to the obvious public figures—a government employee, a senator, a presidential candidate—someone may be a limited-purpose public figure. A limited-purpose public figure is one who (a) voluntarily participates in a discussion about a public controversy, and (b) has access to the media to get his or her own view across. One can also be an involuntary limited-purpose public figure—for example, an air traffic controller on duty at time of fatal crash was held to be an involuntary, limited-purpose public figure, due to his role in a major public occurrence.


Examples of public figures:

• A former city attorney and an attorney for a corporation organized to recall members of city counsel
• A psychologist who conducted "nude marathon" group therapy
• A land developer seeking public approval for housing near a toxic chemical plant
• Members of an activist group who spoke with reporters at public events

Corporations are not always public figures. They are judged by the same standards as individuals.

What are the rules about reporting on a public proceeding?

In some states, there are legal privileges protecting fair comments about public proceedings. For example, in California you have a right to make "a fair and true report in, or a communication to, a public journal, of (A) a judicial, (B) legislative, or (C) other public official proceeding, or (D) of anything said in the course thereof, or (E) of a verified charge or complaint made by any person to a public official, upon which complaint a warrant has been issued." This provision has been applied to posting on an online message board, Colt v. Freedom Communications, Inc., and would likely also be applied to blogs. The California privilege also extends to fair and true reports of public meetings, if the publication of the matter complained of was for the public benefit.

What is a "fair and true report"?

A report is "fair and true" if it captures the substance, gist, or sting of the proceeding. The report need not track verbatim the underlying proceeding, but should not deviate so far as to produce a different effect on the reader.

What if I want to report on a public controversy?

Many jurisdictions recognize a "neutral reportage" privilege, which protects "accurate and disinterested reporting" about potentially libelous accusations arising in public controversies. As one court put it, "The public interest in being fully informed about controversies that often rage around sensitive issues demands that the press be afforded the freedom to report such charges without assuming responsibility for them."

If I write something defamatory, will a retraction help?

Some jurisdictions have retraction statutes that provide protection from defamation lawsuits if the publisher retracts the allegedly defamatory statement. For example, in California, a plaintiff who fails to demand a retraction of a statement made in a newspaper or radio or television broadcast, or who demands and receives a retraction, is limited to getting "special damages"—the specific monetary losses caused by the libelous speech. While few courts have addressed retraction statutes with regard to online publications, a Georgia court denied punitive damages based on the plaintiff's failure to request a retraction for something posted on an Internet bulletin board. (See Mathis v. Cannon)


If you get a reasonable retraction request, it may help you to comply. The retraction must be "substantially as conspicuous" as the original alleged defamation.

What if I change the person's name?

To state a defamation claim, the person claiming defamation need not be mentioned by name—the plaintiff only needs to be reasonably identifiable. So if you defame the "government executive who makes his home at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue," it is still reasonably identifiable as the president.

Do blogs have the same constitutional protections as mainstream media?

Yes. The US Supreme Court has said that "in the context of defamation law, the rights of the institutional media are no greater and no less than those enjoyed by other individuals and organizations engaged in the same activities."

What if I republish another person's statement? (i.e. someone comments on your posts)

Generally, anyone who repeats someone else's statements is just as responsible for their defamatory content as the original speaker—if they knew, or had reason to know, of the defamation. Recognizing the difficulty this would pose in the online world, Congress enacted Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides a strong protection against liability for Internet "intermediaries" who provide or republish speech by others. See theSection 230 FAQ for more.
The vast weight of authority has held that Section 230 precludes liability for an intermediary's distribution of defamation. While one California court had held that the federal law does not apply to an online distributor's liability in a defamation case, the case, Barrett v. Rosenthal, was overturned by the California Supreme Court (EFF filed an amicus brief in this case)

Can I get insurance to cover defamation claims?

Yes. Many insurance companies are now offering media liability insurance policies designed to cover online libel claims. However, the costs could be steep for small blogs—The minimum annual premium is generally $2,500 for a $1 million limit, with a minimum deductible of $5,000. In addition, the insurer will conduct a review of the publisher, and may insist upon certain standards and qualifications (i.e. procedures to screen inflammatory/offensive content, procedures to "take down" content after complaint). The Online Journalism Review has anextensive guide to libel insurance for online publishers.

Will my homeowner's or renter's insurance policy cover libel lawsuits?

Maybe. Eugene Volokh's the Volokh Conspiracy notes that homeowner's insurance policies, and possibly also some renter's or umbrella insurance policies, generally cover libel lawsuits, though they usually exclude punitive damages and liability related to "business pursuits." (This would generally exclude blogs with any advertising). You should read your insurance policy carefully to see what coverage it may provide.

What's the statute of limitation on libel?

Most states have a statute of limitations on libel claims, after which point the plaintiff cannot sue over the statement. For example, in California, the one-year statute of limitations starts when the statement is first published to the public. In certain circumstances, such as when the defendant cannot be identified, a plaintiff can have more time to file a claim. Most courts have rejected claims that publishing online amounts to "continuous" publication, and start the statute of limitations ticking when the claimed defamation was first published.

What are some examples of libelous and non-libelous statements?

The following are a couple of examples from California cases; note the law may vary from state to state. Libelous (when false):

• Charging someone with being a communist (in 1959)
• Calling an attorney a "crook"
• Describing a woman as a call girl
• Accusing a minister of unethical conduct
• Accusing a father of violating the confidence of son

Not-libelous:

• Calling a political foe a "thief" and "liar" in chance encounter (because hyperbole in context)
• Calling a TV show participant a "local loser," "chicken butt" and "big skank"
• Calling someone a "bitch" or a "son of a bitch"
• Changing product code name from "Carl Sagan" to "Butt Head Astronomer"

Since libel is considered in context, do not take these examples to be a hard and fast rule about particular phrases. Generally, the non-libelous examples are hyperbole or opinion, while the libelous statements are stating a defamatory fact.

How do courts look at the context of a statement?

For a blog, a court would likely start with the general tenor, setting, and format of the blog, as well as the context of the links through which the user accessed the particular entry. Next the court would look at the specific context and content of the blog entry, analyzing the extent of figurative or hyperbolic language used and the reasonable expectations of the blog's audience.


Context is critical. For example, it was not libel for ESPN to caption a photo "Evel Knievelproves you're never too old to be a pimp," since it was (in context) "not intended as a criminal accusation, nor was it reasonably susceptible to such a literal interpretation. Ironically, it was most likely intended as a compliment." However, it would be defamatory to falsely assert "our dad's a pimp" or to accuse your dad of "dabbling in the pimptorial arts." (Real case, but the defendant sons succeeded in a truth defense).

What is "Libel Per Se"?

When libel is clear on its face, without the need for any explanatory matter, it is called libel per se. The following are often found to be libelous per se:
A statement that falsely:

• Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for crime;
• Imputes in him the present existence of an infectious, contagious, or loathsome disease;
• Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office, profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him general disqualification in those respects that the office or other occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with reference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits;
• Imputes to him impotence or a want of chastity.

Of course, context can still matter. If you respond to a post you don't like by beginning "Jane, you ignorant slut," it may imply a want of chastity on Jane's part. But you have a good chance of convincing a court this was mere hyperbole and pop cultural reference, not a false statement of fact.

What is a "false light" claim?

Some states allow people to sue for damages that arise when others place them in a false light. Information presented in a "false light" is portrayed as factual, but creates a false impression about the plaintiff (i.e., a photograph of plaintiffs in an article about sexual abuse, because it creates the impression that the depicted persons are victims of sexual abuse). False light claims are subject to the constitutional protections discussed above.

What is trade libel?

Trade libel is defamation against the goods or services of a company or business. For example, saying that you found a severed finger in you're a particular company's chili (if it isn't true). "

Source of Defamation Law Post and Lots More Information

http://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation

Defamation Law: The Basics - Defamation Defense, Public Figures have a Higher Burden of Proof.

"There is always a delicate balance between one person's right to freedom of speech and another's right to protect their good name. It is often difficult to know which personal remarks are proper and which run afoul of defamation law.

The term "defamation" is an all-encompassing term that covers any statement that hurts someone's reputation. If the statement is made in writing and published, the defamation is called "libel." If the hurtful statement is spoken, the statement is "slander." The government can't imprison someone for making a defamatory statement since it is not a crime. Instead, defamation is considered to be a civil wrong, or a tort. A person that has suffered a defamatory statement may sue the person that made the statement under defamation law.

Defamation law, for as long as it has been in existence in the United States, has had to walk a fine line between the right to freedom of speech and the right of a person to avoid defamation. On one hand, people should be free to talk about their experiences in a truthful manner without fear of a lawsuit if they say something mean, but true, about someone else. On the other hand, people have a right to not have false statements made that will damage their reputation. Discourse is essential to a free society, and the more open and honest the discourse, the better for society.

Elements of a Defamation Lawsuit

Defamation law changes as you cross state borders, but there are normally some accepted standards that make laws similar no matter where you are. If you think that you have been the victim of some defamatory statement, whether slander or libel, then you will need to file a lawsuit in order to recover. Generally speaking, in order to win your lawsuit, you must show that:

Someone made a statement;
that statement was published;
the statement caused you injury;
the statement was false; and
the statement did not fall into a privileged category.
To get a better grasp of what you will need to do to win your defamation lawsuit, let's look at each element more closely.

The Statement -- A "statement" needs to be spoken, written, or otherwise expressed in some manner. Because the spoken word often fades more quickly from memory, slander is often considered less harmful than libel.

Publication -- For a statement to be published, a third party must have seen, heard or read the defamatory statement. A third party is someone apart from the person making the statement and the subject of the statement. Unlike the traditional meaning of the word "published," a defamatory statement does not need to be printed in a book. Rather, if the statement is heard over the television or seen scrawled on someone's door, it is considered to be published.

Injury -- To succeed in a defamation lawsuit, the statement must be shown to have caused injury to the subject of the statement. This means that the statement must have hurt the reputation of the subject of the statement. As an example, a statement has caused injury if the subject of the statement lost work as a result of the statement.

Falsity -- Defamation law will only consider statements defamatory if they are, in fact, false. A true statement, no matter how harmful, is not considered defamation. In addition, because of their nature, statements of opinion are not considered false because they are subjective to the speaker.

Unprivileged -- Lastly, in order for a statement to be defamatory, it must be unprivileged. Lawmakers have decided that you cannot sue for defamation in certain instances when a statement is considered privileged. For example, when a witness testifies at trial and makes a statement that is both false and injurious, the witness will be immune to a lawsuit for defamation because the act of testifying at trial is privileged.

Whether a statement is privileged or unprivileged is a policy decision that rests on the shoulders of lawmakers. The lawmakers must weigh the need to avoid defamation against the importance that the person making the statement have the free ability to say what they want.

Witnesses on the stand at trial are a prime example. When a witness is giving his testimony, we, as a society, want to ensure that the witness gives a full account of everything without holding back for fear of saying something defamatory. Likewise, lawmakers themselves are immune from defamation suits resulting from statements made in legislative chamber or in official materials.

Higher Burdens for Defamation -- Public Officials and Figures

Our government places a high priority on the public being allowed to speak their mind about elected officials as well as other public figures. People in the public eye get less protection from defamatory statements and face a higher burden when attempting to win a defamation lawsuit. "

Source and More Information
http://injury.findlaw.com/defamation-libel-slander/defamation-law-made-simple(1).html

Shield Laws Defined. Shield Law Information.

" Definition

A shield law is a law that gives reporters some means of protection against being forced to disclose confidential information or sources in state court. There is no federal shield law (although a limited one has been passed by the House and awaits a Senate vote as of July 2008), and state shield laws vary in scope. In general, however, a shield law aims to provide the classic protection of, "a reporter cannot be forced to reveal his or her source" law.

Thus, a shield law provides a privilege to a reporter pursuant to which the reporter cannot be forced by subpoena or other court order to testify about information contained in a news story and/or the source of that information.

Several shield laws additionally provide protection for the reporter even if the source and/or information is revealed during the dissemination of the news story, ie., whether or not the source or information is confidential. Depending on the jurisdiction, the privilege may be total or qualified, and it may also apply to other persons involved in the news-gathering and dissemination process as well, such as an editor or a publisher. "

"The issue of whether or not journalists can be subpoenaed and forced to reveal confidential information arose in 1972 with the United States Supreme Court case Branzburg v. Hayes. Paul Branzburg was a reporter for The Courier-Journal in Louisville, Kentucky and wrote an article about the drug hashish. In creating the article, he came in contact with two local citizens who had created and used the drug. Because their activity was illegal, Branzburg promised the two individuals that he would not reveal their identities. After the article was published, Branzburg was subpoenaed by a local grand jury and ordered to reveal the identity of his sources. Branzburg refused and cited the provisions for freedom of the press from the First Amendment of the Constitution, in his defense.

The case eventually reached the US Supreme Court, where the court decided in a five to four decision that the press did not have a Constitutional right of protection from revealing confidential information in court. The court acknowledged, however, that the government must "convincingly show a substantial relation between the information sought and a subject of overriding and compelling state interest."[1] While this ruling did not set a precedent for journalistic rights in court, it did define a more stringent set of requirements for when a journalist could be subpoenaed in court."

Source of Post and more information on Shield Laws

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_laws_in_the_United_States

Is a Blogger a Journalist? Am I a Journalist with Hundreds of Blogs and Legally Defined as "Media".

"Statutes affording a privilege to journalists not to disclose in legal proceedings confidential information or sources of information obtained in their professional capacities. 

Journalist Shield Laws

Journalist shield laws, which afford news reporters the privilege to protect their sources, are controversial because the privilege must be balanced against a variety of competing government interests such as the right of the government to apprehend criminals and to prevent the impairment of Grand Jury investigations.

Still, most states have enacted such laws, based on the First Amendmentguarantee of Freedom of the Press. There is no federal journalist shield law, however, because the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to interpret the First Amendment as mandating a news reporter's privilege.

There is a long history behind the current state statutes that provide a privilege for journalists to protect the sources of their information. Benjamin Franklin's older brother James was jailed for refusing to reveal the source of a story he published in his newspaper. The first reported case, however, was not until 1848 when a reporter was jailed for Contempt of the Senate for refusing to disclose who had given him a copy of the secret proposed treaty to end the Mexican-American War (Ex Parte Nugent, 18 F. Cas. 471 [Cir. Ct. D.C.]). Similar conflicts between a reporter's desire to keep sources confidential and the demands of the courts or legislatures for disclosure continued throughout the nineteenth century. During the early 1900s, journalists repeatedly were brought to the witness stand to reveal their sources in the growing number of news stories about labor unrest and municipal corruption.

These early conflicts led to the advancement of several legal theories that justified the reporter's refusal to disclose. For example, reporters maintained that they were acting pursuant to a journalistic code of ethics, that their employers would not let them reveal their sources, that they were relying on the Privilege against Self-Incrimination, and that the forced disclosure of sources amounted to the taking of proprietary information. However, the courts did not widely accept any of these theories because the Common Law did not recognize reporters' privilege.

Legislatures were more receptive to the journalists' plight, and the states began to enact privilege statutes, albeit slowly. In 1898, Maryland became the first state to enact such a privilege, and 33 years later, New Jersey was the second state to do so. By 1973, half of the states had followed suit. Legislatures enacted their statutes under various theories, such as the claim that the public interest in the free flow of information is useless without a journalist's right of access to information, and that journalists must rely on confidential informants to gain access to information. Legislatures also accepted the argument that journalists are entitled to privilege rights in their professions, similar to those of doctors, lawyers, or clergy. Critics point out that the professional privilege of doctors, lawyers, or clergy belongs to the client, not the professional; it is the client's right to assert the privilege and withhold information. Critics also contend that journalists are not in a service business like other professionals who are afforded privileges.

The states that did enact journalist shield laws generally enacted them in a hasty manner, resulting in many different types of laws that often did not provide adequate protection. As a result, journalists began to rely instead on the theory that the First Amendment freedom of the press supports the journalist privilege.

In the late 1960s, with the trial of the Chicago Eight, a group of antiwar activists, the reporters' privilege entered a new era of heightened public awareness and controversy. A large number of press subpoenas were issued in that case, perhaps as a result of the growing adversarial stance taken by journalists who, during the Vietnam War, had become increasingly skeptical of government officials.

In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the argument of reporters' privilege. In Branzburg v. Hayes,408 U.S. 665, 92 S. Ct. 2646, 33 L. Ed. 2d 626, the Court held that news reporters do not have a right under the First Amendment to refuse to appear or testify before a grand jury. The Court stated that the burden on newsgathering in not allowing reporters' privilege was not sufficient to override the compelling public interest in law enforcement and effective grand jury proceedings. Lower courts that interpreted this decision did so narrowly. For example, they tended to limit the scope of the privilege to investigations before grand juries.

Following the Supreme Court decision, Congress, in 1975, passed Federal Rule of Evidence 501 concerning privileges. Under this rule, privilege as outlined in state law is to be applied in all civil actions and proceedings. Legislative History behind the enactment of Federal Rule of Evidence 501 indicates that Congress intended it to provide qualified reporters' privilege. A number of problems have arisen, however, concerning the scope and application of this privilege.

One such dilemma is determining to whom the privilege applies. Unlike other privileged professionals, journalists are not licensed or certified in any manner. Many state statutes attempt to define a journalist as one who communicates via newspaper, is employed by a newspaper, or whose communication is classified as "news." The question then becomes whether books, magazine articles, or pamphlets are encompassed in the definition of a newspaper. Some of the broader state statutes do cover these media. Most state statutes also protect television and radio broadcasts, although some limit protection to "news" programs. In addition, some courts have held that documentary films should be included in the scope of the privilege protection.

Another question is how the term news should be defined. Statutes seldom define the term, and some commentators are not convinced that an adequate definition can be devised. Presumably poetry or works of fiction are not news, but it is a more difficult question when considering sensationalism or gossip. Some legal scholars advocate avoiding consideration of the supposed worth of the communication and making the privilege available to those who generally acquire information for public dissemination.

Another important issue that arises under state statutes that protect only the journalist's sources is whether a "source" can only be a human informant or whether it can include a book, document, tape recording, or photograph. These and many other issues have led to varying court decisions based on the particular state statute and facts before the court. "

"shield laws n. statutes enacted in some states which declare that communications between news reporters and informants are confidential and privileged and thus cannot be testified to in court. This is similar to the doctor-patient, lawyer-client or priest-parishioner privilege. The concept is to allow a journalist to perform his/her function of gathering news without being ordered to reveal his/her sources and notes of conversations. In states which have no shield law, many judges have found reporters in contempt of court (and given them jail terms) for refusing to name informants or reveal information gathered on the promise of confidentiality.""
Source of Quote, Post Above
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Shield+Laws

According to Sources David Aman, Tonkon Torp Law Firm, Oregon Attorney on Behalf of Obsidian Finance Kevin Padrick has sued many to silence information on the Summit 1031 Bankruptcy.

David Aman, Tonkon Torp Law Firm, Oregon Attorney on Behalf of Obsidian Finance Kevin Padrick, according to my source and belief, has sued several insiders, investors, secretaries in order to silence inside details of the Summit 1031 Bankruptcy.

Is this True?  Do you have any information on David Aman, Tonkon Torp Law Firm, Oregon Attorney on Behalf of Obsidian Finance Kevin Padrick suing in order to stop the transparency of an Oregon Bankruptcy Case?

Were you sued by David Aman, Tonkon Torp Law Firm, Oregon Attorney on Behalf of Obsidian Finance Kevin Padrick in regard to the Summit 1031 Bankruptcy out of Bend Oregon? If you were sued by David Aman, Tonkon Torp Law Firm, Oregon Attorney on Behalf of Obsidian Finance Kevin Padrick, please eMail your Story to me Crystal@CrystalCox.com.

Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Being Sued by David Aman, Tonkon Torp Law Firm, Oregon Attorney on Behalf of Obsidian Finance Kevin Padrick accused of Defamation for Posting Information given to me by Sources, Insiders, and Whistleblower Tipsters in the Summit 1031 Case. eMail Me and Get Heard ~ NoW !!!

Crystal@CrystalCox.com