Qualified Privilege and Absolute Privilege APPLY to Blogger Crystal Cox. I have been a real estate broker owner for over a decade, I first wrote on the Summit Bankruptcy becase ALL real estate agents MUST know about 1031 Exchange Laws, and potential client liabilities. I have always had a justifiable motive.

"

Privilege and malice

Privilege provides a complete bar and answer to a defamation suit, though conditions may have to be met before this protection is granted. 

Privilege is any circumstance that justifies or excuses a prima facie tort. It can be said that privilege recognizes a defendant's action stemmed from an interest of social importance - and that society wants to protect such interests by not punishing those who pursue them. Privilege can be argued whenever a defendant can show that he acted from a justifiable motive. 

While some privileges have long been recognized, the court may create a new privilege for particular circumstances - privilege as an affirmative defence is a potentially ever-evolving doctrine. Such newly created or circumstantially recognized privileges are referred to as residual justification privileges.

There are two types of privilege in the common law tradition:

• "Absolute privilege" has the effect that a statement cannot be sued on as defamatory, even if it were made maliciously; a typical example is evidence given in court (although this may give rise to different claims, such as an action for malicious prosecution or perjury) or statements made in a session of the legislature (known as 'Parliamentary privilege' in Commonwealth countries).
• 
  
• "Qualified privilege" may be available to the journalist as a defence in circumstances where it is considered important that the facts be known in the public interest; an example would be public meetings, local government documents, and information relating to public bodies such as the police and fire departments. Qualified privilege has the same effect as absolute privilege, but does not protect statements that can be proven to have been made with malicious intent.
• 
  

[edit]Other defences

Defences to claims of defamation include:

• Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true are generally treated the same as true statements; however, the court may inquire into the reasonableness of the belief. The degree of care expected will vary with the nature of the defendant: an ordinary person might safely rely on a single newspaper report, while the newspaper would be expected to carefully check multiple sources."
  

Source and More Information

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

The Summit Bankruptcy was highly publicized. It was involvoing a 1031 Exchange company which is in regard to a Tax Code. Also the Summit Bankruptcy had lawsuits with major insurance companies and with Umpqua Bank. Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox certainly did have Qualified Privilege. This was and continues to be a matter of Public Concern.

I have been a real estate broker owner for over a decade, I first wrote on the Summit Bankruptcy becase ALL real estate agents MUST know about 1031 Exchange Laws, and potential client liabilities. I have always had a justifiable motive.

Blogger Crystal Cox had Absolute Privilege, this is a Matter of Law and a Matter of Fact.

Judge Marco Hernandez acted in conspiracy with Oregon Attorney David Aman in order to cover up corruption in Oregon. And to protect Judge Michael Simon and countless others involved in the Summit Bankruptcy Scandal.

"New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964),[1] was a United States Supreme Court case which established the actual malice standard which has to be met before press reports about public officials or public figures can be considered to be defamation and libel[2];"

"Alabama law denied a public officer recovery of punitive damages in a libel action brought on account of a publication concerning their official conduct unless they first make a written demand for a public retraction and the defendant fails or refuses to comply, so Sullivan sent such a request.^[1] The Times did not publish a retraction in response to the demand. Instead it wrote a letter^{[citation needed]} stating, among other things, that "we ... are somewhat puzzled as to how you think the statements in any way reflect on you," and "you might, if you desire, let us know in what respect you claim that the statements in the advertisement reflect on you".^[1] Sullivan did not respond but instead filed this suit a few days later. He also sued four black ministers mentioned in the ad, specifically Ralph Abernathy, S.S. Seay, Sr., Fred Shuttlesworth, andJoseph Lowery. Sullivan won $500,000 in an Alabama court judgment.^{[citation needed]"}

Source and More Information
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan

Journalists enjoy certain protections in a number of states - so-called "reporter's shield" laws.

"Journalists enjoy certain protections in a number of states - so-called "reporter's shield" laws. Under these shield laws, journalists are allowed, to a degree that varies by state, to withhold from discovery certain unpublished information and the identities of sources. However, at this time there is no shield statute at the federal level. Also varying by state is the definition of "journalist" as it applies to the shield law. In addition, journalists enjoy the protection of a higher burden of proof that is required to sustain libel actions against them by public figures. This generally requires a plaintiff to show actual malice by the journalist."


Source of Post
http://www.mntechlaw.com/liability.html