Thursday, March 15, 2012
Marc Randazza Violates the Constitutional Rights of Domainer, Blogger Crystal Cox as Marc Randazza aids in Stealing Domain Names and Setting UP Blogger Crystal Cox. Marc Randazza is mad because Blogger Crystal Cox rejected him as her attorney, and bought a Dotcom with his Name in It.
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Marc Randazza, Free Speech Attorney STOMPS on First Amendment Rights of Blogger Crystal Cox. Marc Randazza, Crystal Cox WAR. First Amendment Attorney Marc Randazza on the Wrong Side of Free Speech in Obsidian Vs. Cox. Marc Randazza soon to Go to Portland Oregon to Give Marc Randazza Deposition AGAINST Blogger Crystal Cox in Domain Name Dispute.
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gertz_v._Robert_Welch,_Inc.
"Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States established the standard of First Amendment protection against defamation claims brought by private individuals.
The Court held that, so long as they do not impose liability without fault, states are free to establish their own standards of liability for defamatory statements made about private individuals. However, the Court also ruled that if the state standard is lower than actual malice, the standard applying to public figures, then only actual damages may be awarded.
The consequence is that strict liability for defamation is unconstitutional in the United States; the plaintiff must be able to show that the defendant acted negligently or with an even higher level of mens rea. In many other common law countries, strict liability for defamation is still the rule."
"Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States established the standard of First Amendment protection against defamation claims brought by private individuals.
The Court held that, so long as they do not impose liability without fault, states are free to establish their own standards of liability for defamatory statements made about private individuals. However, the Court also ruled that if the state standard is lower than actual malice, the standard applying to public figures, then only actual damages may be awarded.
The consequence is that strict liability for defamation is unconstitutional in the United States; the plaintiff must be able to show that the defendant acted negligently or with an even higher level of mens rea. In many other common law countries, strict liability for defamation is still the rule."
Monday, February 20, 2012
A "Vehicle of Information" Equal First Amendment Protections.
"In the case of Lovell v. City of Griffin (Ga.), Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes defined the press as, "every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.""
Source
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2012/02/first-amendment-protects-bloggers-too/280586
Source
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2012/02/first-amendment-protects-bloggers-too/280586
Monday, February 6, 2012
Judicial Review Board - A Judge Should Not Be Above the Law.
"First a case in point:
Before the Supreme Court of the United States is case # 09-7660 ,a civil case attempting to hold the Court to limits as defined by Constitutional and Statutory Law .
In the Eleventh Judicial District of Illinois , Woodford County ,in a civil case ,an individuals civil and constitutional rights were denied as the third judge in the case ,first two Judges were recused after review by the Judicial Review Board , did deny multiple requests to have all proceedings recorded ,did state that no motions or petitions as filed by the individual would be heard ,did illegally incarcerate the individual without regard to Habeas Corpus ,did knowingly ignore Illinois state statutes, and not only violated due process of Law ,but denied equal protection under the law.
Failure to obtain substantial Justice in state courts lead to suits being filed in Federal Court under Title 42 United States Code standard 1983 .This suit asks for Relief of all orders made in violation of the Law ,that Due Process of Law be allowed ,and further issue relief as the court deems appropriate .
The Federal District Judge in the Case stated that although the Court does not know the details of the case that a Judge performing Judicial Functions enjoys absolute immunity and further stated that a Jury would not be allowed in the case .
The appellate court without allowing a brief supported this order .While a Judge performing Judicial functions may enjoy Immunity ,denial of constitutional and civil rights are absolutely not a judicial function and conflicts with any definition of a Judicial function.
Response to denials were Motions to reinstate using the Constitutional Articles as a major Guide ,along with the Judges Oath of Office ,and canons of Judicial Code of Conduct .The responses also included page after page of case law where both appellate courts and the Supreme Court did hold judges accountable when their knowing and willing actions fell outside the boundries of their job description .
That failure to follow simple guidelines of their post makes a judge’s action no longer a Judicial act but an Individual act as the act represents their own prejudices and goals . Case Law also states that when a judge acts as a trespasser of the law , when a judge does not follow the law ,he then loses subject matter jurisdiction and the Judges orders are void ,of no legal force or affect .
In a limited government ,a government limited by the constitution, the violation of a citizens rights should never be justified due to the overriding government goals or objectives ,and that no branch of the government be allowed to extend it’s power beyond it’s legal limits .
The above issues are one of the outstanding reasons why the framers of the constitution installed Trial by Jury as the Seventh Amendment .In a government of the people is it not a threat to our way of life to allow Government actors to ignore the guidelines that define their power .
Also check out Stephen Ulrich's Motions regarding judicial immunity"
Source
http://www.caught.net/prose/suejud.htm
Before the Supreme Court of the United States is case # 09-7660 ,a civil case attempting to hold the Court to limits as defined by Constitutional and Statutory Law .
In the Eleventh Judicial District of Illinois , Woodford County ,in a civil case ,an individuals civil and constitutional rights were denied as the third judge in the case ,first two Judges were recused after review by the Judicial Review Board , did deny multiple requests to have all proceedings recorded ,did state that no motions or petitions as filed by the individual would be heard ,did illegally incarcerate the individual without regard to Habeas Corpus ,did knowingly ignore Illinois state statutes, and not only violated due process of Law ,but denied equal protection under the law.
Failure to obtain substantial Justice in state courts lead to suits being filed in Federal Court under Title 42 United States Code standard 1983 .This suit asks for Relief of all orders made in violation of the Law ,that Due Process of Law be allowed ,and further issue relief as the court deems appropriate .
The Federal District Judge in the Case stated that although the Court does not know the details of the case that a Judge performing Judicial Functions enjoys absolute immunity and further stated that a Jury would not be allowed in the case .
The appellate court without allowing a brief supported this order .While a Judge performing Judicial functions may enjoy Immunity ,denial of constitutional and civil rights are absolutely not a judicial function and conflicts with any definition of a Judicial function.
Response to denials were Motions to reinstate using the Constitutional Articles as a major Guide ,along with the Judges Oath of Office ,and canons of Judicial Code of Conduct .The responses also included page after page of case law where both appellate courts and the Supreme Court did hold judges accountable when their knowing and willing actions fell outside the boundries of their job description .
That failure to follow simple guidelines of their post makes a judge’s action no longer a Judicial act but an Individual act as the act represents their own prejudices and goals . Case Law also states that when a judge acts as a trespasser of the law , when a judge does not follow the law ,he then loses subject matter jurisdiction and the Judges orders are void ,of no legal force or affect .
In a limited government ,a government limited by the constitution, the violation of a citizens rights should never be justified due to the overriding government goals or objectives ,and that no branch of the government be allowed to extend it’s power beyond it’s legal limits .
The above issues are one of the outstanding reasons why the framers of the constitution installed Trial by Jury as the Seventh Amendment .In a government of the people is it not a threat to our way of life to allow Government actors to ignore the guidelines that define their power .
Also check out Stephen Ulrich's Motions regarding judicial immunity"
Source
http://www.caught.net/prose/suejud.htm
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
http://www.leitgebindustries.com/prose_caselaw.htm#vacatevoid
http://www.leitgebindustries.com/prose_caselaw.htm#vacatevoid
Friday, January 6, 2012
Eugene Volokh, Mayer Brown and Benjamin Souede (Angeli Law Group LLC file a Motion for a New Trial in Obsidian V. Cox, Free Speech Case out of Portland Oregon.
Free Speech, Shield Laws, Retraction Laws, Bankruptcy Courts, Bloggers Rights, Tonkon Torp Law Firm, Obsidian Finance Group, David Brown, Kevin Padrick, Patty Whittington, Ewan Rose, Kevin D. Padrick, Oregon Attorney General, Judge Marco Hernandez, Oregon Civil Lawsuit, Summit 1031 Bankruptcy, US Bankruptcy Trustee.
"Motion for New Trial in Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox
Eugene Volokh • January 5, 2012 2:08 am
Our local counsel Benjamin Souede (Angeli Law Group LLC) and I have just filed a motion for new trial in Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox.
As you may recall, the Nov. 30 opinion in that case concluded, among other things, that only members of the institutional media are entitled to certain First Amendment libel law protections.
The motion for new trial argues that the First Amendment applies equally to all who speak to the public, whether or not they belong to the institutional media. Here is Part I.A of our memorandum in support of the motion:
Even if plaintiffs were not public figures, defendant was still entitled to the protections of Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.
The Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment applies equally to the institutional press and to others who speak to the public: “We have consistently rejected the proposition that the institutional press has any constitutional privilege beyond that of other speakers.”
Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876, 905 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). In support of this holding, the Court favorably quoted five Justices’ opinions in a libel case — Dun &; Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749, 784 (1985) (Brennan, J., joined by Marshall, Blackmun, and Stevens, JJ., dissenting), and id. at 773 (White, J., concurring in judgment) — which expressly concluded 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 or organizations engaged in the same activities,” id. at 784 (a view expressly approved by Justice White, id. at 773).
And the Court in Citizens United went on to specifically mention that its “‘reject[ion]’” of any greater protection for the institutional press over other speakers stemmed partly from the realities of the Internet age: “With the advent of the Internet and the decline of print and broadcast media, moreover, the line between the media and others who wish to comment on political and social issues becomes far more blurred.” 130 S. Ct. at 905–06.
Indeed, the principle that the institutional press and others who speak to the public have the same First Amendment rights has been applied by the Court in case after case since the 1930s. See, e.g., Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 452 (1938) (stating that the freedom of the press “embraces pamphlets and leaflets” as well as “newspapers and periodicals,” and indeed “comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion”);
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 265–66 (1964) (applying the same First Amendment protection to the newspaper defendant and to the non-media defendants who placed an advertisement in the newspaper); Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964) (applying the rule of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan to a speaker who was not a member of the institutional press);
Henry v. Collins, 380 U.S. 356, 357–58 (1965) (same, where the speaker was an arrestee who conveyed statements to the sheriff and to wire services alleging that his arrest stemmed from a “diabolical plot,” Henry v. Collins, 158 So.2d 28, 31 (Miss. 1963));
First Nat’l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 782 n.18 (1978) (rejecting the “suggestion that communication by corporate members of the institutional press is entitled to greater constitutional protection than the same communication by [non-institutional-press businesses]”); Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663, 669–70 (1991) (concluding that the press gets no special immunity from laws that apply to others, including laws — such as copyright law — that target communication);
Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514, 525 & n.8 (2001) (concluding that, in deciding whether defendants could be held liable under statutes banning the redistribution of illegally intercepted telephone conversations, “we draw no distinction between the media respondents and [the non-institutional-media respondent],” and citing New York Times and First Nat’l Bank of Boston as support for that conclusion).
All the federal circuits that have considered the question have likewise held that the First Amendment defamation rules apply equally to the institutional press and to others who speak to the public. Flamm v. Am. Ass’n of Univ. Women, 201 F.3d 144, 149 (2d Cir. 2000); Avins v. White, 627 F.2d 637, 649 (3d Cir. 1980); Snyder v. Phelps, 580 F.3d 206, 219 n.13 (4th Cir. 2009), aff’d, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011); In re IBP Confidential Bus. Documents Litig., 797 F.2d 632, 642 (8th Cir. 1986); Garcia v. Bd. of Educ., 777 F.2d 1403, 1410 (10th Cir. 1985); Davis v. Schuchat, 510 F.2d 731, 734 n.3 (D.C. Cir. 1975). As the Second Circuit put it in Flamm, “a distinction drawn according to whether the defendant is a member of the media or not is untenable,” even in private-figure cases. 201 F.3d at 149.
And while the Ninth Circuit has not specifically discussed the question, it has indeed cited Gertz even where a non-institutional-press speaker was involved. See Newcombe v. Adolf Coors Co., 157 F.3d 686, 694 n.4 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing Gertz for the proposition that a “private person who is allegedly defamed” must show “that the defamation was due to the negligence of the defendant,” in a case where the defendant was not a media organization).
Moreover, the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning with regard to the First Amendment newsgatherer’s privilege is instructive for First Amendment cases more generally. In Shoen v. Shoen, 5 F.3d 1289 (9th Cir. 1993), the Ninth Circuit confronted the question whether the newsgatherer’s privilege applies only to the institutional press or also extends to book authors.
Plaintiffs argued that a person who was writing a book “has no standing to invoke the journalist’s privilege because book authors are not members of the institutionalized print or broadcast media.” Id. at 1293.
But the Ninth Circuit expressly rejected that view. It found “persuasive” “the Second Circuit’s reasoning” that “it makes no difference whether ‘[t]he intended manner of dissemination [was] by newspaper, magazine, book, public or private broadcast medium, [or] handbill’ because ‘“[t]he press in its historic connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.”’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting von Bulow v. von Bulow, 811 F.2d 136, 144 (2d Cir. 1987), which in turn quoted Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 452 (1938)).
And the Ninth Circuit concluded that “[h]ence, the critical question for deciding whether a person may invoke the journalist’s privilege is whether she is gathering news for dissemination to the public,” id., not whether she is working for the institutional media.
The same reasoning applies to the First Amendment defamation law rules, which are even more clearly secured by First Amendment precedents than are the First Amendment journalist privilege rules. See, e.g., McKevitt v. Pallasch, 339 F.3d 530, 531–32 (7th Cir. 2003) (taking the view that the Supreme Court’s First Amendment precedents do not in fact recognize a newsgatherer’s privilege).
Anyone who — like defendant — is disseminating material to the public is fully protected by the First Amendment precedents, whether or not she is a “member[] of the institutionalized print or broadcast media.”
Moreover, the Supreme Court cases cited above did not turn on whether the defendants were trained as journalists, were affiliated with news entities, engaged in fact-checking or editing, disclosed conflicts of interest, kept careful notes, promised confidentiality, went beyond just assembling others’ writings, or tried to get both sides of a story.
But see Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox, 2011 WL 5999334, *5 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2011) (concluding that the defendant was not protected by Gertz because “[d]efendant fails to bring forth any evidence suggestive of her status as a journalist,” and that, “[f]or 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”). The First Amendment fully protects the partisan polemicists in Citizens United v. FEC, the political activist in Bartnicki v. Vopper, the self-interested bank in First Nat’l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, the disgruntled defendant in Henry v. Collins, the elected district attorney in Garrison, the activists in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, and the Jehovah’s Witness pamphleteers in Lovell v. City of Griffin. It equally fully protects defendant.
In footnotes from a few cases from 1979 to 1990, the Court did leave open the possibility that some of its First Amendment defamation rules would only apply to the institutional press. See, e.g., Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 20 n.6 (1990). And a few other courts, including the Oregon Supreme Court, expressly held that such First Amendment defamation rules, and especially the Gertz v. Robert Welch protections, apply only to the institutional press. See, e.g., Wheeler v. Green, 593 P.2d 777, 784–85 (Or. 1979).
But while the Oregon Supreme Court’s decision establishes what Oregon state libel law is, it is the judgments of the United States Supreme Court that are controlling on the First Amendment question. The United States Supreme Court has never held that the institutional press enjoys such extra rights.
All the federal courts of appeals that have considered this question have specifically held that the institutional press lacks any such extra rights. And the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United expressly closed the door that the earlier footnotes left open, making clear that a speaker’s First Amendment rights do not turn on whether she is a member of the institutional press."
Source of Post Quote and More
http://volokh.com/2012/01/05/motion-for-new-trial-in-obsidian-finance-group-llc-v-cox/
Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal L. Cox, Investigative Blogger, Motion for New Trial
Obsidian V. Cox - New Trial Motion. Eugene Volokh, Benjamin Souede
Free Speech, Shield Laws, Retraction Laws, Bankruptcy Courts, Bloggers Rights, Tonkon Torp Law Firm, Obsidian Finance Group, David Brown, Kevin Padrick, Patty Whittington, Ewan Rose, Kevin D. Padrick, Oregon Attorney General, Judge Marco Hernandez, Oregon Civil Lawsuit, Summit 1031 Bankruptcy, US Bankruptcy Trustee.
"Motion for New Trial in Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox
Eugene Volokh • January 5, 2012 2:08 am
Our local counsel Benjamin Souede (Angeli Law Group LLC) and I have just filed a motion for new trial in Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox.
As you may recall, the Nov. 30 opinion in that case concluded, among other things, that only members of the institutional media are entitled to certain First Amendment libel law protections.
The motion for new trial argues that the First Amendment applies equally to all who speak to the public, whether or not they belong to the institutional media. Here is Part I.A of our memorandum in support of the motion:
Even if plaintiffs were not public figures, defendant was still entitled to the protections of Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.
The Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment applies equally to the institutional press and to others who speak to the public: “We have consistently rejected the proposition that the institutional press has any constitutional privilege beyond that of other speakers.”
Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876, 905 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). In support of this holding, the Court favorably quoted five Justices’ opinions in a libel case — Dun &; Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749, 784 (1985) (Brennan, J., joined by Marshall, Blackmun, and Stevens, JJ., dissenting), and id. at 773 (White, J., concurring in judgment) — which expressly concluded 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 or organizations engaged in the same activities,” id. at 784 (a view expressly approved by Justice White, id. at 773).
And the Court in Citizens United went on to specifically mention that its “‘reject[ion]’” of any greater protection for the institutional press over other speakers stemmed partly from the realities of the Internet age: “With the advent of the Internet and the decline of print and broadcast media, moreover, the line between the media and others who wish to comment on political and social issues becomes far more blurred.” 130 S. Ct. at 905–06.
Indeed, the principle that the institutional press and others who speak to the public have the same First Amendment rights has been applied by the Court in case after case since the 1930s. See, e.g., Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 452 (1938) (stating that the freedom of the press “embraces pamphlets and leaflets” as well as “newspapers and periodicals,” and indeed “comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion”);
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 265–66 (1964) (applying the same First Amendment protection to the newspaper defendant and to the non-media defendants who placed an advertisement in the newspaper); Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964) (applying the rule of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan to a speaker who was not a member of the institutional press);
Henry v. Collins, 380 U.S. 356, 357–58 (1965) (same, where the speaker was an arrestee who conveyed statements to the sheriff and to wire services alleging that his arrest stemmed from a “diabolical plot,” Henry v. Collins, 158 So.2d 28, 31 (Miss. 1963));
First Nat’l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 782 n.18 (1978) (rejecting the “suggestion that communication by corporate members of the institutional press is entitled to greater constitutional protection than the same communication by [non-institutional-press businesses]”); Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663, 669–70 (1991) (concluding that the press gets no special immunity from laws that apply to others, including laws — such as copyright law — that target communication);
Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514, 525 & n.8 (2001) (concluding that, in deciding whether defendants could be held liable under statutes banning the redistribution of illegally intercepted telephone conversations, “we draw no distinction between the media respondents and [the non-institutional-media respondent],” and citing New York Times and First Nat’l Bank of Boston as support for that conclusion).
All the federal circuits that have considered the question have likewise held that the First Amendment defamation rules apply equally to the institutional press and to others who speak to the public. Flamm v. Am. Ass’n of Univ. Women, 201 F.3d 144, 149 (2d Cir. 2000); Avins v. White, 627 F.2d 637, 649 (3d Cir. 1980); Snyder v. Phelps, 580 F.3d 206, 219 n.13 (4th Cir. 2009), aff’d, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011); In re IBP Confidential Bus. Documents Litig., 797 F.2d 632, 642 (8th Cir. 1986); Garcia v. Bd. of Educ., 777 F.2d 1403, 1410 (10th Cir. 1985); Davis v. Schuchat, 510 F.2d 731, 734 n.3 (D.C. Cir. 1975). As the Second Circuit put it in Flamm, “a distinction drawn according to whether the defendant is a member of the media or not is untenable,” even in private-figure cases. 201 F.3d at 149.
And while the Ninth Circuit has not specifically discussed the question, it has indeed cited Gertz even where a non-institutional-press speaker was involved. See Newcombe v. Adolf Coors Co., 157 F.3d 686, 694 n.4 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing Gertz for the proposition that a “private person who is allegedly defamed” must show “that the defamation was due to the negligence of the defendant,” in a case where the defendant was not a media organization).
Moreover, the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning with regard to the First Amendment newsgatherer’s privilege is instructive for First Amendment cases more generally. In Shoen v. Shoen, 5 F.3d 1289 (9th Cir. 1993), the Ninth Circuit confronted the question whether the newsgatherer’s privilege applies only to the institutional press or also extends to book authors.
Plaintiffs argued that a person who was writing a book “has no standing to invoke the journalist’s privilege because book authors are not members of the institutionalized print or broadcast media.” Id. at 1293.
But the Ninth Circuit expressly rejected that view. It found “persuasive” “the Second Circuit’s reasoning” that “it makes no difference whether ‘[t]he intended manner of dissemination [was] by newspaper, magazine, book, public or private broadcast medium, [or] handbill’ because ‘“[t]he press in its historic connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.”’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting von Bulow v. von Bulow, 811 F.2d 136, 144 (2d Cir. 1987), which in turn quoted Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 452 (1938)).
And the Ninth Circuit concluded that “[h]ence, the critical question for deciding whether a person may invoke the journalist’s privilege is whether she is gathering news for dissemination to the public,” id., not whether she is working for the institutional media.
The same reasoning applies to the First Amendment defamation law rules, which are even more clearly secured by First Amendment precedents than are the First Amendment journalist privilege rules. See, e.g., McKevitt v. Pallasch, 339 F.3d 530, 531–32 (7th Cir. 2003) (taking the view that the Supreme Court’s First Amendment precedents do not in fact recognize a newsgatherer’s privilege).
Anyone who — like defendant — is disseminating material to the public is fully protected by the First Amendment precedents, whether or not she is a “member[] of the institutionalized print or broadcast media.”
Moreover, the Supreme Court cases cited above did not turn on whether the defendants were trained as journalists, were affiliated with news entities, engaged in fact-checking or editing, disclosed conflicts of interest, kept careful notes, promised confidentiality, went beyond just assembling others’ writings, or tried to get both sides of a story.
But see Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox, 2011 WL 5999334, *5 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2011) (concluding that the defendant was not protected by Gertz because “[d]efendant fails to bring forth any evidence suggestive of her status as a journalist,” and that, “[f]or 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”). The First Amendment fully protects the partisan polemicists in Citizens United v. FEC, the political activist in Bartnicki v. Vopper, the self-interested bank in First Nat’l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, the disgruntled defendant in Henry v. Collins, the elected district attorney in Garrison, the activists in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, and the Jehovah’s Witness pamphleteers in Lovell v. City of Griffin. It equally fully protects defendant.
In footnotes from a few cases from 1979 to 1990, the Court did leave open the possibility that some of its First Amendment defamation rules would only apply to the institutional press. See, e.g., Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 20 n.6 (1990). And a few other courts, including the Oregon Supreme Court, expressly held that such First Amendment defamation rules, and especially the Gertz v. Robert Welch protections, apply only to the institutional press. See, e.g., Wheeler v. Green, 593 P.2d 777, 784–85 (Or. 1979).
But while the Oregon Supreme Court’s decision establishes what Oregon state libel law is, it is the judgments of the United States Supreme Court that are controlling on the First Amendment question. The United States Supreme Court has never held that the institutional press enjoys such extra rights.
All the federal courts of appeals that have considered this question have specifically held that the institutional press lacks any such extra rights. And the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United expressly closed the door that the earlier footnotes left open, making clear that a speaker’s First Amendment rights do not turn on whether she is a member of the institutional press."
Source of Post Quote and More
http://volokh.com/2012/01/05/motion-for-new-trial-in-obsidian-finance-group-llc-v-cox/
Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal L. Cox, Investigative Blogger, Motion for New Trial
Obsidian V. Cox - New Trial Motion. Eugene Volokh, Benjamin Souede
Free Speech, Shield Laws, Retraction Laws, Bankruptcy Courts, Bloggers Rights, Tonkon Torp Law Firm, Obsidian Finance Group, David Brown, Kevin Padrick, Patty Whittington, Ewan Rose, Kevin D. Padrick, Oregon Attorney General, Judge Marco Hernandez, Oregon Civil Lawsuit, Summit 1031 Bankruptcy, US Bankruptcy Trustee.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Shellee Hale - Too Much Media vs Hale. Too Much Media sure does not look up and up to me. Time to Investigate "Too Much Media" .. Shellee Hale, Too Much Media, John Albright, Charles Berrebbi
Shellee Hale - “The New Jersey Supreme Court decision is a final decision,”
“States are... essentially free to provide whatever protective guidelines they wish to reporters.”
Much More Coming soon on the Shellee Hale, Too Much Media, John Albright, Charles Berrebbi case and tons of indepth investigation on the real story behind Too Much Media, John Albright, and Charles Berrebbi. We Need investigative reporting from passionate people NOT paid to tell us that story, it is the only REAL News We Have...
Links on the Shellee Hale Case
"After defendant Hale was exposed through her computer to “cyber flashers” using web cameras, she looked into how technology was used to abuse women and decided to investigate the online adult entertainment industry. Hale claims that she spoke with government officials, attended industry trade shows, interviewed people, and collected information from porn web blogs. In 2007, Hale created a website called Pornafia, which was intended to be an online news magazine and bulletin board for the public to exchange information about criminal activity within the adult entertainment industry. Pornafia was never fully launched, however. Instead, Hale posted comments on other sites’ message boards. One of the message boards, Oprano, provided an online platform for people to post unfiltered comments relating to the industry. Most of the content of Oprano was open to anyone with Internet access.
Plaintiff TMM manufactures software known as NATS, which adult entertainment websites use to keep track of access to affiliated websites and determine what commissions are due the referring sites. In late 2007, Hale’s investigation focused on reports of a security breach of the NATS database, which potentially exposed personal information of customers who believed they had signed up anonymously for pornographic websites. Hale claims she conducted a detailed probe of the breach, including talking with sources on a confidential basis. She posted multiple entries on Oprano’s message board suggesting that TMM had violated New Jersey law, had profited from the breach, and its principals had threatened people who questioned their conduct, including one of her confidential sources. "
http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/docs/20110607_153605_toomuchmedia_v_hale.pdf
http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=852&doc_id=207361
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20NJCO%2020110608000T.xml
http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nj/Media-a0964-09.pdf
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/too-much-media-llc-v-hale
http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/2010/04/too-much-media-llc-v-hale-no-l2736-08.html
http://bigjournalism.com/tag/too-much-media-v-shellee-hale/
http://heartland.org/policy-documents/too-much-media-llc-v-shellee-hale-decision
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/07/us-newjersey-shield-idUSTRE7565Q520110607
http://www.silha.umn.edu/news/Summer2011/StateShieldLaws.html
Got a Tip on "Too Much Media" or John Albright, Charles Berrebbi ? eMail me, Crystal L. Cox Investigative Blogger Crystal@CrystalCox.com
“States are... essentially free to provide whatever protective guidelines they wish to reporters.”
Much More Coming soon on the Shellee Hale, Too Much Media, John Albright, Charles Berrebbi case and tons of indepth investigation on the real story behind Too Much Media, John Albright, and Charles Berrebbi. We Need investigative reporting from passionate people NOT paid to tell us that story, it is the only REAL News We Have...
Links on the Shellee Hale Case
"After defendant Hale was exposed through her computer to “cyber flashers” using web cameras, she looked into how technology was used to abuse women and decided to investigate the online adult entertainment industry. Hale claims that she spoke with government officials, attended industry trade shows, interviewed people, and collected information from porn web blogs. In 2007, Hale created a website called Pornafia, which was intended to be an online news magazine and bulletin board for the public to exchange information about criminal activity within the adult entertainment industry. Pornafia was never fully launched, however. Instead, Hale posted comments on other sites’ message boards. One of the message boards, Oprano, provided an online platform for people to post unfiltered comments relating to the industry. Most of the content of Oprano was open to anyone with Internet access.
Plaintiff TMM manufactures software known as NATS, which adult entertainment websites use to keep track of access to affiliated websites and determine what commissions are due the referring sites. In late 2007, Hale’s investigation focused on reports of a security breach of the NATS database, which potentially exposed personal information of customers who believed they had signed up anonymously for pornographic websites. Hale claims she conducted a detailed probe of the breach, including talking with sources on a confidential basis. She posted multiple entries on Oprano’s message board suggesting that TMM had violated New Jersey law, had profited from the breach, and its principals had threatened people who questioned their conduct, including one of her confidential sources. "
http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/docs/20110607_153605_toomuchmedia_v_hale.pdf
http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=852&doc_id=207361
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20NJCO%2020110608000T.xml
http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nj/Media-a0964-09.pdf
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/too-much-media-llc-v-hale
http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/2010/04/too-much-media-llc-v-hale-no-l2736-08.html
http://bigjournalism.com/tag/too-much-media-v-shellee-hale/
http://heartland.org/policy-documents/too-much-media-llc-v-shellee-hale-decision
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/07/us-newjersey-shield-idUSTRE7565Q520110607
http://www.silha.umn.edu/news/Summer2011/StateShieldLaws.html
Got a Tip on "Too Much Media" or John Albright, Charles Berrebbi ? eMail me, Crystal L. Cox Investigative Blogger Crystal@CrystalCox.com
Sunday, December 18, 2011
David Carr, New York Times: Take A Deeper Look at What the New York Times, David Carr and Forbes is Saying and Support the Victims and NOT the Criminals.
David Carr and Kashmir Hill are NOT Telling the Whole Truth and Nothing But.
Do Not Simply Believe the New York Times, David Carr and Forbes because they are bigger then me, and more Established. David Carr of the New York Times has an agenda to keep down New Media and David Carr of the New York Times has an Agenda to keep Woman in their place.
David Carr of the New York Times and Kashmir Hill of Forbes Seem to think it prudent to NOT print my side of the story regarding the now "infamous" email. And David Carr and Kashmir Hill have no accountability, and David Carr keeps attacking my character though a Judge and Jury already has "punished" me. Why? Is David Carr the Eye for an Eye Police? Well this is to attack all bloggers, and to avoid doing research on the real story, of the real crimes. David Carr is a Lazy, Ignorant Journalist.
David Carr and Kashmir Hill get to claim protection under laws that don't apply to bloggers. So David Carr and Kashmir Hill can legally say what they want about me, set me up, post flat out lies and have no accountability, as they demand accountability from me. Of which a Judge and Jury has already handed out.
David Carr and Kashmir Hill simply take the word of Kevin Padrick and his Attorney David Aman, who were both involved in the Summit Bankruptcy. David Carr and Kashmir Hill need to discredit me so that my accusations are not taken serious. Thing is the Department of Justice, FBI, and all other authorities ignore the real details of the bankruptcy courts and guys like Kevin Padrick have no oversight what so ever, even though they claimed they did. The Summit Bankruptcy should be VOID from the Start. Kevin Padrick worked for the company that went bankrupt to help them Form a Plan of Reorganization, this is a signed contract between Summit and Obsidian Finance Group and then Kevin Padrick was a Trustee working on the other side, against them.
David Carr and Kashmir Hill seem to NOT want to Read anything and claim that Kevin Padrick has no one else that has had an issue with him, and has not been in any other similar situation. The Truth is the Summit Bankruptcy had an Objection to the Fees filed by several insiders, in this there were emails between the Department of Justice Trustee, between David Aman and Robert Opera - one of the attorneys involved and Opera suggested issues of deferred gain, there was also tax exhibits and tons more and I had read this over and over, it was a public document and had been online for years, the court would not accept this as a source even though it was a source and that was the truth. The Truth seemed to be irrelevant. Here is the Objection to the Fees in the Summit Bankruptcy.
http://www.obsidianfinancesucks.com/2011/12/judicial-proceeding-objection-to.html
..has David Carr and Kashmir Hill read any of the documents?
Internal Emails In the Objection to Fees, has David Carr and Kashmir Hill read any of the documents?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CwWgyxFNljyhDmrl8-YfDfNuRKPtDmcwUw7-LNDLysU/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1
eMails between Jeanette Thomas, Perkins Coie and Mark Neuman Summit
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fu2PsbRCqT3XSwYeSyfD2WRh256dbnM-maLnqy5XK_Y/edit?hl=en_US
... has David Carr and Kashmir Hill read any of the documents?
David Aman, Tonkon Torp was involved in the Summit Bankruptcy and in my Case David Aman represented Kevin Padrick to not only defend Obsidian and silence me, but also to protect Tonkon Torp Law Firm and their Involvement. David Aman had knowledge of deferred gain issues and ignored it.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1J4dSs5S2e-B3cZjiT7AZ8-aoxse0qoTEhHxSzMzwmX4/edit?hl=en_US
Here is the Deposition of Summit Principal Mark Neuman
http://www.obsidianfinancesucks.com/2011/12/summit-accomodators-mark-neuman.html
...has David Carr and Kashmir Hill read any of the documents?
Here is the Contract Obsidian Finance Had with Summit, the Debtor BEFORE they HAD to go bankrupt, AFTER calling Obsidian Fnance Group, Kevin Padrick to Help them so they did not have to go bankrupt.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O_Et0IHaUuQnAnQ9nblox4mzJxc_GIP_wuUF3vA-9-s/edit?hl=en_US
.... has David Carr and Kashmir Hill read any of the documents?
Below is a Meeting in Video, of Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group with Summit, who later became the Debtor and Kevin Padrick later became the Trustee working against his own client, Kevin is on the far Right.
http://www.youtube.com/user/KevinPadrick
...has David Carr and Kashmir Hill read any of the documents?
Other Documents of Source ... has David Carr and Kashmir Hill read any of the documents?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ayq9PQ6a32_I-AdvLAlBS9HcxWvXIcTK1lsEMA7clQ8/edit?hl=en_US
Kevin Padrick Rejecting Offers...has David Carr and Kashmir Hill read any of the documents?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IAH9w9wBVAMG6dCaGXIsRkZkLDApo1osDdH-x1ZxYIY/edit?hl=en_US
Summit Press Release...has David Carr and Kashmir Hill read any of the documents?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zYfrM_1XnQwcao3i4wZJhB8aXyPoJb_oLh1j5PEPUSo/edit?hl=en_US
Also a Third Party Blog was My Source and the Judge said that was irrelevant, as I was responsible for if it was true and all bloggers do that. My case a perfect example, thousands of you reposted the Seattle weekly article and it had information that was WRONG. Your all liable under this judgement. Third Party blogs are protected but not for me.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C8c37jl8cwkfLvcbm_bKnm3lpsfz4SfrHePPjcvB83s/edit?hl=en_US
David Carr ignores that HomeStreet Bank in Washington filed an Objection to the Fees Against Kevin Padrick also, with Claims of Conflicts with Miller Nash and Over Billing, Summit is not an Isolated case and none of it was my story.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tstf6BAeXFHFmMaFodmURp6uUDWm6U1SqeqBu2HgSvw/edit?hl=en_US
Lake County Oregon has a Group to Fight Back and Obsidian Finance Group is at the center of this battle, here is one of the letters from the Oregon Solar Development Battles.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gFKNVdnKvPUkHo3WUjxvyxUN4mCaMXpeuqXy7W9fV2c/edit
...has David Carr and Kashmir Hill read any of the documents?
I Told Their Story, it Was not My Story. I wanted to get them heard and to protect others it was or may happen to in the future. David Carr and Kashmir Hill have NOT read any of the documents? Nor does David Carr and Kashmir Hill have any interest in the facts, truth or my side. David Carr and Kashmir Hill will be sued by me, Pro Se Blogger Crystal Cox Soon, as David Carr and Kashmir Hill are protecting the Criminals and Protecting the Foothold of Big Media and I DO NOT APPROVE.
Here was my Statement of Source NOT allowed into the Trial
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HTDv8q9eaMKzZ_8UhKwqhaEs89r6fB6csC5MRRzXZmE/edit?hl=en_US
Here is the Trial Documents I Gave to Show the Source of that One Blog Post
http://www.obsidianfinancesucks.com/2011/12/in-obsidian-v-cox-i-provided.html
So instead of Investigating the Crimes I write about ,and there are tons, they investigate me. They are scouring my bank accounts, calling my clients, setting me up for alleged criminal activity and basically sending a lynch mob after me, and nothing I can do really but wait for it. As David Carr continues his rampages to discredit me and even have me a lesson for teens to talk about in New York Schools, all the while Ignoring my side of the story even though he talked to me. And David Carr ignores that I am not the one accusing Kevin Padrick of these Indiscretions and action, I am simply writing about those who are.
There will be much more on other people, companies that have issue with Kevin Padrick and Obsidian Finance Group at the Link Below, I will add more over time, though David Carr says I am the only one with a Beef regarding Kevin Padrick and Summit. I have tons of documents and information, have for YEARS.
Do Not Simply Believe the New York Times, David Carr and Forbes because they are bigger then me, and more Established. David Carr of the New York Times has an agenda to keep down New Media and David Carr of the New York Times has an Agenda to keep Woman in their place.
David Carr of the New York Times and Kashmir Hill of Forbes Seem to think it prudent to NOT print my side of the story regarding the now "infamous" email. And David Carr and Kashmir Hill have no accountability, and David Carr keeps attacking my character though a Judge and Jury already has "punished" me. Why? Is David Carr the Eye for an Eye Police? Well this is to attack all bloggers, and to avoid doing research on the real story, of the real crimes. David Carr is a Lazy, Ignorant Journalist.
David Carr and Kashmir Hill get to claim protection under laws that don't apply to bloggers. So David Carr and Kashmir Hill can legally say what they want about me, set me up, post flat out lies and have no accountability, as they demand accountability from me. Of which a Judge and Jury has already handed out.
David Carr and Kashmir Hill simply take the word of Kevin Padrick and his Attorney David Aman, who were both involved in the Summit Bankruptcy. David Carr and Kashmir Hill need to discredit me so that my accusations are not taken serious. Thing is the Department of Justice, FBI, and all other authorities ignore the real details of the bankruptcy courts and guys like Kevin Padrick have no oversight what so ever, even though they claimed they did. The Summit Bankruptcy should be VOID from the Start. Kevin Padrick worked for the company that went bankrupt to help them Form a Plan of Reorganization, this is a signed contract between Summit and Obsidian Finance Group and then Kevin Padrick was a Trustee working on the other side, against them.
David Carr and Kashmir Hill seem to NOT want to Read anything and claim that Kevin Padrick has no one else that has had an issue with him, and has not been in any other similar situation. The Truth is the Summit Bankruptcy had an Objection to the Fees filed by several insiders, in this there were emails between the Department of Justice Trustee, between David Aman and Robert Opera - one of the attorneys involved and Opera suggested issues of deferred gain, there was also tax exhibits and tons more and I had read this over and over, it was a public document and had been online for years, the court would not accept this as a source even though it was a source and that was the truth. The Truth seemed to be irrelevant. Here is the Objection to the Fees in the Summit Bankruptcy.
http://www.obsidianfinancesucks.com/2011/12/judicial-proceeding-objection-to.html
..has David Carr and Kashmir Hill read any of the documents?
Internal Emails In the Objection to Fees, has David Carr and Kashmir Hill read any of the documents?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CwWgyxFNljyhDmrl8-YfDfNuRKPtDmcwUw7-LNDLysU/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1
eMails between Jeanette Thomas, Perkins Coie and Mark Neuman Summit
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fu2PsbRCqT3XSwYeSyfD2WRh256dbnM-maLnqy5XK_Y/edit?hl=en_US
... has David Carr and Kashmir Hill read any of the documents?
David Aman, Tonkon Torp was involved in the Summit Bankruptcy and in my Case David Aman represented Kevin Padrick to not only defend Obsidian and silence me, but also to protect Tonkon Torp Law Firm and their Involvement. David Aman had knowledge of deferred gain issues and ignored it.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1J4dSs5S2e-B3cZjiT7AZ8-aoxse0qoTEhHxSzMzwmX4/edit?hl=en_US
Here is the Deposition of Summit Principal Mark Neuman
http://www.obsidianfinancesucks.com/2011/12/summit-accomodators-mark-neuman.html
...has David Carr and Kashmir Hill read any of the documents?
Here is the Contract Obsidian Finance Had with Summit, the Debtor BEFORE they HAD to go bankrupt, AFTER calling Obsidian Fnance Group, Kevin Padrick to Help them so they did not have to go bankrupt.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O_Et0IHaUuQnAnQ9nblox4mzJxc_GIP_wuUF3vA-9-s/edit?hl=en_US
.... has David Carr and Kashmir Hill read any of the documents?
Below is a Meeting in Video, of Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group with Summit, who later became the Debtor and Kevin Padrick later became the Trustee working against his own client, Kevin is on the far Right.
http://www.youtube.com/user/KevinPadrick
...has David Carr and Kashmir Hill read any of the documents?
Other Documents of Source ... has David Carr and Kashmir Hill read any of the documents?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ayq9PQ6a32_I-AdvLAlBS9HcxWvXIcTK1lsEMA7clQ8/edit?hl=en_US
Kevin Padrick Rejecting Offers...has David Carr and Kashmir Hill read any of the documents?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IAH9w9wBVAMG6dCaGXIsRkZkLDApo1osDdH-x1ZxYIY/edit?hl=en_US
Summit Press Release...has David Carr and Kashmir Hill read any of the documents?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zYfrM_1XnQwcao3i4wZJhB8aXyPoJb_oLh1j5PEPUSo/edit?hl=en_US
Also a Third Party Blog was My Source and the Judge said that was irrelevant, as I was responsible for if it was true and all bloggers do that. My case a perfect example, thousands of you reposted the Seattle weekly article and it had information that was WRONG. Your all liable under this judgement. Third Party blogs are protected but not for me.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C8c37jl8cwkfLvcbm_bKnm3lpsfz4SfrHePPjcvB83s/edit?hl=en_US
David Carr ignores that HomeStreet Bank in Washington filed an Objection to the Fees Against Kevin Padrick also, with Claims of Conflicts with Miller Nash and Over Billing, Summit is not an Isolated case and none of it was my story.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tstf6BAeXFHFmMaFodmURp6uUDWm6U1SqeqBu2HgSvw/edit?hl=en_US
Lake County Oregon has a Group to Fight Back and Obsidian Finance Group is at the center of this battle, here is one of the letters from the Oregon Solar Development Battles.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gFKNVdnKvPUkHo3WUjxvyxUN4mCaMXpeuqXy7W9fV2c/edit
...has David Carr and Kashmir Hill read any of the documents?
I Told Their Story, it Was not My Story. I wanted to get them heard and to protect others it was or may happen to in the future. David Carr and Kashmir Hill have NOT read any of the documents? Nor does David Carr and Kashmir Hill have any interest in the facts, truth or my side. David Carr and Kashmir Hill will be sued by me, Pro Se Blogger Crystal Cox Soon, as David Carr and Kashmir Hill are protecting the Criminals and Protecting the Foothold of Big Media and I DO NOT APPROVE.
Here was my Statement of Source NOT allowed into the Trial
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HTDv8q9eaMKzZ_8UhKwqhaEs89r6fB6csC5MRRzXZmE/edit?hl=en_US
Here is the Trial Documents I Gave to Show the Source of that One Blog Post
http://www.obsidianfinancesucks.com/2011/12/in-obsidian-v-cox-i-provided.html
So instead of Investigating the Crimes I write about ,and there are tons, they investigate me. They are scouring my bank accounts, calling my clients, setting me up for alleged criminal activity and basically sending a lynch mob after me, and nothing I can do really but wait for it. As David Carr continues his rampages to discredit me and even have me a lesson for teens to talk about in New York Schools, all the while Ignoring my side of the story even though he talked to me. And David Carr ignores that I am not the one accusing Kevin Padrick of these Indiscretions and action, I am simply writing about those who are.
There will be much more on other people, companies that have issue with Kevin Padrick and Obsidian Finance Group at the Link Below, I will add more over time, though David Carr says I am the only one with a Beef regarding Kevin Padrick and Summit. I have tons of documents and information, have for YEARS.
...David Carr and Kashmir Hill have NOT done their Homework, and have defamed me, accused me of criminal activity and posted false information on an email that was between TWO Attorneys, I was Pro Se.. You Will get to defend this in court .. David Carr and Kashmir Hill ..
Quantum Case in this Same Court
Conflict of Interest Form that Judge Hernandez Refused OVER and OVER to Sign in my case
The Tiffany Craig Case, Yet for Me None of this Applied
This Blog was online and still is
There is lots more information on Summit then Me, I simply got their story found in the search engines. I hope to Sue Forbes and the New York Times for Endangering my Life and Defamation. As regarding their version of that email they are accusing me of a crime, giving me no Criminal Attorney and not posting my side. There were surrounding emails and it was a "Cease Fire" "Negotiation" between 2 attorneys as I was Pro Se. There is lots more to it. However David Carr and Kashmir Hill are protected to ruin my life further and gather a lynch mob for something the "bad guy" told them happened, that did not happen quite that way.
Summit Bankruptcy Filing
More Documents of the Case Will be at
Also to Examine in depth Every mistake that David Carr has ever possibly made, mis-quotes, flat out lies, inspiring a lynch mob, ruining lives without facts and more.. Coming Soon..
Note: Any documents you cannot find on this page and want email me Crystal@CrystalCox.com. My main source was the Objection to the Fees in Summit and Mark Neuman, Summit Principals Deposition if you want those and can't find them email me. I was always telling the victims story and the angle David Carr of the New York Times is Running With, as Well as Forbes is FLAT Wrong. I will also soon be posting my story in an easier to understand format, also I will be making demands of the New York Times and Forbes, and at some point file lawsuits against them. I have tons of information, videos and documents if you want the Truth or you can just run with Forbes and New York Times, but remember even if I was guilty of a crime, which I am not, but if I was, then how would that have anything to do with if that post was true or NOT?
Think for Yourself.
Do your Homework.
.. NEVER Ever Believe the discriminating illiterat David Carr and Kashmir Hill ..
Crystal L. Cox
a Big Fan of Reading..
Investigative Blogger..
.. NEVER Ever Believe the discriminating illiterat David Carr and Kashmir Hill ..
Crystal L. Cox
a Big Fan of Reading..
Investigative Blogger..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)