Requests For Admission - Submit a Request for Admission to Ask Questions Before Trial

Requests For Admission

"A request for admissions (sometimes also called a request to admit) are a set of statements sent from one litigant to an adversary, for the purpose of having the adversary admit or deny the statements or allegations therein. Requests for admissions are part of the discovery process in a civil case. In the U.S. federal court system, they are governed by Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Contents   [hide]  1 Basic structure 2 Purpose of procedure 3 References 4 External links

[edit]Basic structure

A request for admissions is a list of questions which are similar in some respects to interrogatories, but different in form and purpose. Each "question" is in the form of a declarative statement which the answering party must then either admit, deny, or state in detail why he can neither admit nor deny the truthfulness of the statement (e.g. for lack of knowledge, etc.). This effectively puts the admissions in the form of true-false questions. For example, in a case involving an automobile accident, the plaintiff might include in his request a statement such as "Defendant Smith was driving a Blue Dodge Caravan on the morning of the accident". Under Rule 36(a)(5), the answering party may also object to the request, and state the reason for his objection, so long as the objection is not solely because the request would present a genuine issue of fact for trial.

Rule 36(a)(1) limits the types of requests to be limited to (A) facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either; and (B) the genuineness of any described documents. However, the rule places no limits on the amount of requests which may be made of either litigant. State court rules, however, may be more strict than this.

Notably, under Rule 36(a)(3), requests for admissions are automatically deemed admitted in U.S. federal courts if the opponent fails to timely respond or object. The opponent bears the burden of moving for relief from its failure to respond and providing a legitimate excuse for why it did not respond earlier. Some U.S. states have found in their experience that the federal rule is too harsh, and have reversed the burden so that the party propounding the RFAs must follow up with a motion to have RFAs deemed admitted.

[edit]Purpose of procedure

Requests for admissions help narrow the scope of the controversy by getting certain admissions or denials of issues relevant to the lawsuit on record before a trial takes place. While evidence introduced at trial can be rebutted, admissions which are on record must be taken as true unless the judge permits them to be withdrawn or amended. Thus, requests for admission can obviate the need for presentation of some evidence and make the actual trial shorter and more efficient.

Also, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have placed twenty-five questions per party limitations on the use of interrogatories, but there is no numerical limit in FRCP on the request for admissions (unless specified differently in Local Rules of the state, which most states do have)."

Source of Post and For More Information
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_admissions

http://www.millerandzois.com/Sample_Request_for_Admissions.html

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP)

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

Online Publishers and the Communications Decency Act

"

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act This page provides an overview of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ("Section 230"), an important federal law that provides legal protections to operators of websites and other types of interactive computer services. This page also collects information involving Section 230 from across the Citizen Media Law Project website. You will find background information on Section 230 as well as listings of recent blog posts, lawsuits, and news. Section 230 Basics: Section 230 grants interactive online services of all types, including news websites, blogs, forums, and listservs, broad immunity from certain types of legal liability stemming from content created by others. This immunity covers defamation and privacy claims, as well as negligence and othertort claims associated with publication. See the Risks Associated with Publication section of our legal guide for more information on the legal claims online publishers may face. You will not lose this immunity even if you edit the content, whether for accuracy or civility, so long as your edits do not materially alter the meaning of the original content. We analyze in detail the types of activites that are covered by Section 230 and those activities that fall outside its protections in the Online Activities Covered by Section 230 and Online Activities Not Covered by Section 230 pages of our legal guide. Section 230 does not apply to copyright infringement claims and other intellectual property claims. For information on protecting yourself from these types of claims, see the section on Protecting Yourself Against Copyright Claims Based on User Content in our legal guide. Of course, the list above is merely a summary of this important law. We have a lot more information on Section 230 in our legal guide. We suggest you begin by reading the page onImmunity for Online Publishers Under the Communications Decency Act or check out the resources we've compiled at the bottom of this page. Information on Section 230 in Our Legal Guide Publishing the Statements and Content of Others Immunity for Online Publishers Under the Communications Decency Act Online Activities Covered by Section 230 Online Activities Not Covered by Section 230"

Source of Post
http://www.citmedialaw.org/section-230

Communications Decency Act

"

Immunity for Online Publishers Under the Communications Decency Act This page provides some background on section 230 of the Communications Decency Act("Section 230") and highlights the types of claims and online activities it covers as well as the types of activities that might fall outside Section 230's immunity provisions. For general information on legal liability associated with publishing the content of others, see the section on Publishing the Statements and Content of Others in this guide. Background on Publisher and Distributor Liability Under standard common-law principles, a person who publishes a defamatory statement by another bears the same liability for the statement as if he or she had initially created it. Thus, a book publisher or a newspaper publisher can be held liable for anything that appears within its pages. The theory behind this "publisher" liability is that a publisher has the knowledge, opportunity, and ability to exercise editorial control over the content of its publications. Distributor liability is much more limited. Newsstands, bookstores, and libraries are generally not held liable for the content of the material that they distribute. The concern is that it would be impossible for distributors to read every publication before they sell or distribute it, and that as a result, distributors would engage in excessive self-censorship. In addition, it would be very hard for distributors to know whether something is actionable defamation; after all, speech must be false to be defamatory. Not surprisingly, the first websites to be sued for defamation based on the statements of others argued that they were merely distributors, and not publishers, of the content on their sites. One of the first such cases was Cubby v. CompuServe, Inc., 776 F.Supp. 135 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). CompuServe provided subscribers with access to over 150 specialty electronic "forums" that were run by third parties. When CompuServe was sued over allegedly defamatory statements that appeared in the "Rumorville" forum, it argued that it should be treated like a distributor because it did not review the contents of the bulletin board before it appeared on CompuServe’s site. The court agreed and dismissed the case against CompuServe. Four years later, a New York state court came to the opposite conclusion when faced with a website that held itself out as a "family friendly" computer network. In Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy, 23 Media L. Rep. 1794 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995), the court held that because Prodigy was exercising editorial control over the messages that appeared on its bulletin boards through its content guidelines and software screening program, Prodigy was more like a "publisher" than a "distributor" and therefore fully liable for all of the content on its site. The perverse upshot of the CompuServe and Stratton decisions was that any effort by an online information provider to restrict or edit user-submitted content on its site faced a much higher risk of liability if it failed to eliminate all defamatory material than if it simply didn’t try to control or edit the content of third parties at all. The Communications Decency Act  This prompted Congress to pass the Communications Decency Act in 1996. The Act contains deceptively simple language under the heading "Protection for Good Samaritan blocking and screening of offensive material": No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. Section 230 further provides that "[n]o cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section." Websites Covered by Section 230  Is an "interactive computer service" some special type of website? No. For purposes of Section 230, an "interactive computer service" means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server. Most courts have held that through these provisions, Congress granted interactive services of all types, including blogs, forums, and listservs, immunity from tort liability so long as the information is provided by a third party. As a result of Section 230, Internet publishers are treated differently from publishers in print, television, and radio. Let's look at these difference in more detail. Claims Covered by Section 230  Section 230 has most frequently been applied to bar defamation-based claims. In the typical case, a plaintiff who believes she has been defamed sues both the author of the statement and the website that provided a forum or otherwise passively hosted the material. Courts have held with virtual unanimity that such claims against a website are barred by Section 230. But immunity under Section 230 is not limited to defamation or speech-based torts. Courts have applied Section 230 immunity to bar claims such as invasion of privacy, misappropriation, and most recently in a case brought against MySpace (Doe v. MySpace, 474 F.Supp.2d 843 (W.D. Tex. 2007)), a claim asserting that MySpace was negligent for failing to implement age verification procedures and to protect a fourteen-year old from sexual predators. However, Section 230 explicitly exempts from its coverage criminal law, communications privacy law, and "intellectual property claims." In interpreting these exclusions, courts agree that Congress meant to exclude federal intellectual property claims, such as copyright and trademark, but they disagree whether state-law intellectual property claims (or claims that arguably could be classified as intellectual property claims, such as the right of publicity) are also exempted from the broad immunity protection Section 230 provides. Finally, Section 230 does not immunize the actual creator of content. The author of a defamatory statement, whether he is a blogger, commenter, or anything else, remains just as responsible for his online statements as he would be for his offline statements. Online Activities Covered by Section 230  Courts have consistently held that exercising traditional editorial functions over user-submitted content, such as deciding whether to publish, remove, or edit material, is immunized under Section 230. As one moves farther away from these basic functions, immunity may still exist, but the analysis becomes more fact-specific.  We analyze in detail the types of activites that are covered by Section 230 and those activities that fall outside its protections in the Online Activities Covered by Section 230 and Online Activities Not Covered by Section 230 pages of this legal guide. (We strongly advise that you review these pages if your activities extend beyond traditional editorial functions.) Summary  Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act grants interactive online services of all types, including blogs, forums, and listservs, broad immunity from tort liability so long as the information at issue is provided by a third party. Relatively few court decisions, however, have analyzed the scope of this immunity in the context of "mixed content" that is created jointly by the operator of the interactive service and a third party through significant editing of content or the shaping of content by submission forms and drop-downs. So what are the practical things you can take away from this guide? Here are five: If you passively host third-party content, you will be fully protected under Section 230. If you exercise traditional editorial functions over user submitted content, such as deciding whether to publish, remove, or edit material, you will not lose your immunity unless your edits materially alter the meaning of the content. If you pre-screen objectionable content or correct, edit, or remove content, you will not lose your immunity. If you encourage or pay third-parties to create or submit content, you will not lose your immunity. If you use drop-down forms or multiple-choice questionnaires, you should be cautious of allowing users to submit information through these forms that might be deemed illegal. To follow recent developments in the law concerning these immunity provisions, see ourSection 230 summary page, where you will find background on Section 230, links to our legal guide materials, and feeds showing recent legal threats from our database, blog posts, and news.

Source of Post
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/immunity-online-publishers-under-communications-decency-act

the affirmative defense of substantial truth.

"In a 1964 decision, the Supreme Court established that truth is an absolute defense against defamation.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). However, for parties involved in defamation suits, it is similarly important to know about the affirmative defense of substantial truth.

In a recent case, a Texas Court of Appeals found in favor of defendants who had posted a critical review of the plaintiff’s product online. David Rafes, Inc. v. Huml, 2009 Tex. App. (1st Dist. Oct. 29, 2009). In the suit, David Rafes alleged that Michael Huml and Slowboy Racing, Inc. published defamatory statements about Rafes’ business, Turbochargers.com.

The allegedly defamatory statements included Huml claiming that Rafe’s turbocharger was a “poorly manufactured turbo from China” that would “inevitably fail in a short amount of time” and that it was a “Chinese version us[ing] an inferior stainless in its composition.” Id. at 2. Among several defenses asserted by the defendants was that their statements were substantially true.

In order to bring a cause of action for defamation, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant:

published a statement about the plaintiff that was defamatory while acting with either actual intent or reckless disregard, i.e. malice (if the plaintiff was a public official or public figure) or negligence (if the plaintiff was a private individual) regarding the truth of the statement Id. at 13.

Generally, a defendant can defeat a libel claim by establishing that the published statement on which the action for libel is based is a true statement. Additionally, a defendant can defeat a libel claim by establishing that the statement at issue is substantially true. The Court explained that in order “[t]o determine if a publication is substantially true, we consider

whether the alleged defamatory statement was more damaging to plaintiff’s reputation, in the mind of the average person,
than a truthful statement would have been, and
[w]e look at the ‘gist’ of the publication to determine whether it is substantially true.”
Id. at 14.

The substantial truth standard has also been referred to as the “gist” test because, under this approach, only the “gist” of the statement in question must be true in order for the statement to be protected. As the Court explained, “[t]he defense of truth does not require proof that the alleged defamatory statement is literally true in every detail; substantial truth is sufficient.” Id. This doctrine protects certain false statements so long as any inaccuracies do not materially alter the dissemination of otherwise truthful speech.

The Huml Court decided in favor of the defendants, finding that the trial court had heard sufficient evidence to conclude that the plaintiff’s turbocharger was, as it concluded, a “bad product” and that the evidence “substantiat[ed] the ‘gist’ of the statements contained in the internet article regarding the production and manufacturing of the turbocharger.” Id.

The substantial truth defense is significant in that it provides defendants with a less stringent – and potentially less expensive – way to combat a libel suit.

If a defendant can show that the statement at issue is substantially true, it will hopefully be possible under the right circumstances for the defendant to have a motion for summary judgment granted (which will allow the case to be disposed of without going to trial). The doctrine is also important for libel plaintiffs because it notifies them that statements that criticize them need not be entirely true in order to be protected.

Comments/Questions: gdn@gdnlaw.com "

Source Of Blog
http://www.internetdefamationlawblog.com/2011/09/when-is-substantial-truth-an-adequate-defense-to-defamation.html

Oregon Shield Laws - Shield Law

"Oregon’s shield law, ORS 44.510 through ORS 44.540, provides broad protection for reporters and others against compelled testimony, production of evidence and searches.

This law protects people connected with, employed by or engaged in a medium of public communication, including print and broadcast media, books, periodicals, pamphlets, wire services or feature syndicates. The protection extends beyond information related to news and includes unpublished notes, out-takes, photographs, tapes or other information, regardless of whether it is related to published information.

The statutes protect reporters from being compelled to disclose: (1) a source of information obtained in the course of work, regardless of whether the information has been published; and (2) unpublished information obtained or gathered in the course of work. Reporters also are protected from searches of their papers, effects or work premises, unless there is probable cause to believe the reporter has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.

The protection is not limited to situations where a relationship or pledge of confidentiality exists. The protection is not lost if the reporter: (1) disclosed the information, source or related information elsewhere; or (2) ceases to be connected with, employed by or engaged in a medium of public communication.

STATUTORY EXCEPTIONS:

There are exceptions and limitations in the statute. It does not apply to: (1) utterances by a government official or employee within the scope of his or her governmental function; (2) political publications subject to certain Oregon laws regulating political advertising and publications; or (3) the content or source of allegedly defamatory information, in a civil action for defamation where the defendant bases a defense on the content or source of the information.

INFORMANT’S CONSENT:

If the source of the information offers himself or herself as a witness, it is deemed to be a consent to the examination of a reporter or other protected person on the same subject. This provision has not been interpreted or explained in a published Oregon court decision. But it seems obvious that the provision should not affect the shield on anything other than the informant’s communication with the reporter or other protected person. The reporter or other protected person could argue this provision does not dissolve the reporter’s right to refuse to disclose (even as to the informant’s communication with the reporter), because the shield law is a right, not merely a privilege, for confidential communication. In raising this argument, the reporter may argue for state and federal constitutional protection for freedom on the press and against nonessential compelled disclosure.

PROTECTION OTHER THAN OREGON’S SHIELD LAW:

The Oregon shield law protects against Oregon state legislative, executive or judicial officers or bodies. It may govern in federal court if the pending case or proceeding is a civil action and the evidence pertains to an element of a claim or defense to which Oregon law controls. (See rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.)

However, the Oregon statute will not control in some federal proceedings and usually will not apply at all to proceedings in other states. There is no broad federal shield law for reporters. Some states do not have a shield law either.

An important case development is the recognition by many courts that reporters have a “qualified privilege” against being compelled to give evidence, unless the party seeking the evidence proves that compelling disclosure is essential to the case and the information cannot be obtained elsewhere.

Most of these courts base the privilege in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution or in state constitutional protections for freedom of the press and the free flow of information, which would be impaired by forcing reporters to become witnesses or require them to reveal unpublished information.

The Washington Supreme Court adopted a common law qualified privilege to preserve confidential news sources or confidential information, unless the party seeking the information shows that his or her claim is meritorious, the information sought is necessary or critical to the suit or defense, and a reasonable effort has been made to obtain the information elsewhere. In Washington state courts, this doctrine applies in civil and criminal cases.

A reporter who is not a party to the action will receive the greatest protection under the privilege. A reporter who is a defendant in the action will receive less protection. A reporter who is a plaintiff will receive little or no protection. (Clampitt v Thurston county, 98 Wn2d 638,658 P2d 641 (1983); state v Rinaldo, 102 Wn2d 749, 689 P2d 392 (1984).

Elsewhere, several states and federal courts approved the reporter’s qualified privilege in civil cases; some approved it in criminal cases; and some approved it for “qualified” protection of not only information received in confidence but also non-confidential, unpublished information.

In criminal cases, the defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial may overcome the shield law and qualified privilege.

While there is no broad federal shield law for reporters, there is a federal statute forbidding government offices or employees investigating or prosecuting a crime to search for or seize any work product of someone “reasonably believed to have a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, broadcast or other similar form of public communications in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce.” The statutes has exceptions and forbids only searches, not subpoenas. (Privacy Protection Act of 1980, P.L. 96-440, 42 U.S.C. sections 2000aa et seq.).

In addition, the U.S. Department of Justice has published a formal policy to minimize Justice Department subpoenas or interrogation, indictment or arrest of news media members or subpoenas of their telephone toll records.

These guidelines are not law but demonstrate an intent by the Justice Department to discourage investigative and prosecutorial activities against the news media. Administrative disciplinary action may be taken if the guidelines are violated. (42 U.S.C. section 2000aa-12; Code of Federal Regulations, Title 28, section 50.10)."

Quote of Source
http://www.open-oregon.com/media-guide/chapter-15-oregons-shield-law/

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

Affirmative Defense

Affirmative Defense - True But Here is Why ...

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

Federal Rules of Procedure

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

Discovery Deposition Tips

http://www.carollawsonpa.com/pdf/discovery_by_deposition.pdf

http://www.gourwitzandbarr.com/node/22

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deposition_(law)

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