Oregon's Retraction Statute

"OREGON’S RETRACTION STATUTE:

Truth is an absolute defense to an action for defamation; if the statement is true, a media defendant cannot be liable for publishing it. The Oregon legislature, however, has provided another way for a media defendant to attempt to insulate itself from some of the damages that might result from a defamatory statement.

Oregon’s Retraction Statute, ORS 30.150-30.175, provides that a plaintiff may not recover so-called general damages (damages which are not measurable by proof of a specific monetary loss. In the context of defamation, general damages are designed to compensate the plaintiff for the harm to reputation -a harm which is not measurable in a money loss.) unless a correction or retraction is demanded but not published.

Otherwise, the only way a plaintiff might recover general damages is if he or she can prove that the media defendant actually intended to defame him or her — a very high standard to meet. Even in that situation, the publication of a correction or retraction may be considered to mitigate the plaintiff’s damages.

The retraction procedure allows an allegedly defamed person or his or her attorney to make a written demand for correction or retraction that must be delivered to the publisher of the statement — either personally, by registered mail, or by certified mail, return receipt requested — at the publisher’s place of business or residence within 20 days after the defamed person first becomes aware of the defamatory statement.

The demand for retraction must specify which statements are false and defamatory and request that they be corrected or retracted. In addition, the demand may refer to the sources from which the true facts may be accurately ascertained. The publisher then has two weeks after receiving the demand for retraction to investigate the demand and determine whether to publish a correction or retraction.

The retraction must appear in the first issue published, or first broadcast made, after the expiration of the two-week deadline. The content of the retraction should substantially state that the defamatory statements previously made are not factually supported, and that the publisher regrets their original publication.

Finally, the correction or retraction must be published in substantially as conspicuous manner as was the defamatory statement. In other words, a retraction regarding an article that appeared in the front page of a newspaper should not run in the classifieds section.

Publishers and broadcasters would generally be wise to consider publishing corrections or retractions, even when the demand suffers from a procedural defect, because the retraction statute provides a relatively cost-free method of eliminating a potential plaintiff’s claim for general damages.

Oregon courts have held that the retraction statute does not violate the Oregon constitution and that it applies only to publishers and broadcasters, and not to individual defendants whose statements happened to be published or broadcast.

In a case entitled Schenck v. Oregon Television, Inc., the Oregon Court of Appeals recently decided that each time an allegedly defamatory statement is republished, the defamed person is allowed a two-week opportunity to demand retraction. In the Schenck case, a television station broadcast a news report in October 1993 that contained an allegedly defamatory statement about the plaintiff. In March of 1994, the same report was re-broadcast.

Although he was aware of the October 1993 broadcast, the plaintiff did not demand a retraction until April 11, 1994, within 20 days after the March 1994 broadcast.

The Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff’s demand for retraction was not untimely — notwithstanding the fact that he had actual knowledge of the defamatory statement five months earlier — because “each publication is a discrete tort.”

Source of Post
http://www.open-oregon.com/media-guide/chapter-12-defamation/

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