Kashmir Hill of Forbes, David Carr of the New York Times, and David S. Aman Tonkon Torp Attorney Defamed Blogger Crystal Cox, with Actual Malice, Maliciously, Intentionally and they are protected by the LAWS that Do not APPLY to Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox.

How to File A Complaint with the State Bar Of Nevada

http://www.nvbar.org/content/file-complaint

http://www.nvbar.org/content/file-complaint-online

http://www.nvbar.org/content/attorney-discipline

http://www.nvbar.org/sites/default/files/attorney%20discipline.pdf

http://ag.state.nv.us/about/faqs/faq.html

Research, When a Judge Violates Your Rights and Is Obstructing Justice, you Can File a Writ of Mandamus to a Higher Court.

Writ of Mandamus Research Links and Examples


http://www.bwlap.org/publication/stream?fileName=writs.pdf
"The  commands a lower court to do something that it has neglected to do, which is clearly a duty required of them."

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-034.html

http://www.nevadajudiciary.us/images/advanceopinions/127nevadvopno66.pdf

http://www.nevadajudiciary.us/images/nvreports/1251-60.pdf

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

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/writ+of+mandamus

Example
http://www.nasddds.org/pdf/FloridaPetitionForWritOfMandamus.pdf

Investigative Bloggers SHOULD be Protected by the Same Laws as Traditional Journalists. The Ninth Circuit Crystal Cox Case, Obsidian V. Cox Appeal is Leveling the Playing Field. Journalists will No Longer Have Special Privilege just Because they say they do. Big Media Will No Longer have a Monopoly on Free Speech. And Every Citizen WILL be protected by the First Amendment Equally, not just traditional media. Read the Documents of the Obsidian Finance Group V. Crystal Cox Ninth Circuit Appeal and Understand the REAL Issues and FULLY understand why so many are desperate to STOP Blogger Crystal Cox from WINNING or even finishing her Ninth Circuit Appeal. The Crystal Cox Case is a Game Changer, and BIG Media, as well as their Attorneys are fighting it.

Obsidian Finance Group LLC v Crystal Cox Case. Ninth Circuit Appeal Opening Brief. Eugene Volokh, Crystal L. Cox Appeal. Obsidian Vs. Cox First Amendment Case.

Eugene Volokh, Crystal L. Cox Appeal. Obsidian Vs. Cox Appeal Opening Brief

Counter Defendants of Nevada Slapp Case, Free Speech Threat, District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL published defamatory statements with ‘actual malice,’ against counter Plaintiff Crystal Cox, yet they have NO LIABILITY and are above the LAW. Counter Defendants of District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL and Defendants of Rakofsky V. The Internet, Rule the Courts, Dominate the "legal blogsphere", and control the illusion of "Legal Commentary".

Counter Defendants and Alleged Co-Conspirators of District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL published defamatory statements with ‘actual malice,’ against counter Plaintiff Crystal Cox, meaning they had knowledge that the statements they were posting were false and they went ahead with reckless disregard of whether they were false or not and posted these defamatory false statement.  Times v. Sullivan, Nov. 30 Op. at 5, 1 ER 39. 

Counter Plaintiff Crystal Cox cannot recover damages without proof that Counter Defendant was negligent and Counter Plaintiff Crystal Cox may not recover presumed damages absent of proof of actual malice as in Gertz, 418 U.S. at 347.” Id. at 9, 1 ER 43.

Clearly in District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL Counter Defendants had actual malice, they posted FALSE STATEMENTS knowing the information was false, and therefore cannot hide behind the skirt of Gertz, and Times V. Sullivan as a reason, adefense to have defamed me, Counter Plaintiff Crystal Cox, Deliberately and with Actual Malice. And somehow have no liability what so ever.

There is clear, blatant and OBVIOUS proof that Counter Defendants were seriously, deliberately, negligent, and had blatant, boldly lit, obvious, ACTUAL MALICE.

Why are These Attorneys Above the Law? Why do these NPR Reporters, Forbes Journalists, Fraud File Investigators, New York Times Journalists, and Law Firms get a Free Pass to defame and to violate the laws they are allegedly there to defend, to report on, to investigate? Why do the laws not apply to them? Is it because I am Pro Se? Is it because they own the courts, or have mafia ties and other massive money and power behind them?

Seriously, it is Obvious they Defamed me cruelly, maliciously and yet they have no liability, and on top of that SUE me, and those connected to me and get judgments, rulings, injunctions for whatever they want; with no due process or constitutional rights for me, WHY?

Replace the Word Fascinating with CORRUPT. See the JUDGE was Protecting CORRUPTION in Portland Oregon. And so he PULLED a Rabbit out of His ASS and Said, ummm NOPE the Laws and Constitution Does not Apply to her CUZ ummm she is Ratting out my Friends and CO-Workers.

"The judge's opinion is fascinating because it suggests there is one law for journalists and another for citizens. He said:

"Although [the] defendant is a self-proclaimed 'investigative blogger' and defines herself as 'media,' the record fails to show that she is affiliated with any newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system. Thus, she is not entitled to the protections of the law."

That sounds like it's going to require a supreme court hearing at some stage. Cox, who runs several sites, including one called obsidianfinancesucks.com, plans to appeal, rightly saying: "This should matter to everyone who writes on the internet."

Source and Full Article
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2011/dec/07/blogging-usa?INTCMP=SRCH

Report Chilling Effects - STOP the Suppression of Free Speech. Sucks.com, are being STOLEN by Trademark Attorneys, WHEN Clearly they are First Amendment Protected Gripe Sites, Parody, Satire.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

"Medium of communication" is defined as including (but not limited to) "any newspaper, magazine or other periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system."

"I just spent the morning studying Obsidian Finance v. Cox (CV-11-57-HZ), the instantly famous case involving Crystal Cox. I have concluded the news stories focus on the wrong part of the case. It is the second portion that bloggers (and other writers) should be concerned about.

Crystal Cox is a blogger. She was sued for defamation by an attorney named Kevin Padrick, who had been appointed as a bankruptcy trustee, after Cox called Padrick a thug and a thief in one of her posts."

...

"Medium of communication" is defined as including (but not limited to) "any newspaper, magazine or other periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system." (O.R.S. 44.510(2).)

Judge Hernandez found that although Cox was a "self-proclaimed 'investigative blogger' and defines herself as 'media,' the record fails to show that she is affiliated with any newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system."

..

"It is the actual holding of the case, and how Judge Hernandez got there, that is of concern. He held "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."

Cox had asserted that she was "media," so the plaintiff would have had to prove she was negligent in her publication. Judge Hernandez ruled that Cox had not presented any evidence that a "self-proclaimed 'investigative blogger' is considered 'media' for the purposes of applying a negligence standard in a defamation claim, citing Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) 418 U.S. 323, 347 and Bank of Oregon v. Independent News (1985) 298 Or. 434, 445-446.

The judge found that Cox failed to introduce evidence 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 disclosure 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."

...

"..according to Obsidian Finance v. Cox (CV-11-57-HZ) if the defendant cannot prove she is a member of the media, and the plaintiff is a private person, and the publication does not involve a question of public concern (which is what Judge Hernandez found), the publication does not have First Amendment protection.

The bottom line is that regardless of the medium, when you start accusing people of committing crimes, you may get sued. And if you do get sued, you may not be able to require the plaintiff to prove you were negligent unless you are prepared to prove that you are at least as careful as a mainstream journalist."


Source of Post and Full Article
http://electriclawyer.typepad.com/electriclaw/2011/12/obsidian-finance-v-cox-the-oregon-blogging-case.html

Do Trials Come Down to Which Attorney they Like Best.