Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Blogger Defamation Lawsuit; Blogger Rights Ninth Circuit; Supreme Court First Amendment; Crystal Cox v. Obsidian Finance Group LLC; Writ of Certiorari

Crystal Cox Blogger; Petition for a Writ of Certiorari; First Amendment, Free Speech, Defamation Lawsuit, Shield Laws, Retractions Laws; Crystal Cox v. Obsidian Finance Group LLC 13-9731

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES; Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal L. Cox; Supreme Court of the United States Filing;


"The Petitioner is an Activist Litigant making a stand for the rights of all Citizen Journalists, Anti-Corruption Bloggers."

Crystal Cox v. Obsidian Finance Group, LLC, et al; No. 13-9731

"INTRODUCTION

Petitioner requests this court to issue a ruling that requires the Ninth Circuit to redact criminal allegations of Petitioner in a Ninth Circuit civil court ruling dated January 17th, 2014, Obsidian v. Cox, Ninth Circuit Case Number; 12-35319; D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00057- HZ.

This issue is a matter that affects all members of the public.

Ninth Circuit Judges; Judge Arthur L. Alarcón, Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr.,and Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz, stated:

“. Cox apparently has a history of making similar
allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction.
See David Carr, When Truth Survives Free Speech, N.Y.
Times, Dec. 11, 2011, at B1. Padrick and Obsidian sent Cox
a cease-and-desist letter, but she continued posting
allegations. This defamation suit ensued.”

Defendant Crystal Cox has no history of posting anything online and seeking a retraction for a payment. This is not based in fact, and has NEVER happened, as the court record clearly shows.

Cox was never “determined” by any court to have posted allegation, then sought a retraction, then continued posting and was sued. This is factually incorrect. 

Cox alleges the Ninth Circuit violated her constitutional rights in alleging criminal activity and has stated in error, the events leading up to her defamation suit.

Cox asks this court to rule that criminal allegations be redacted from the Obsidian v. Cox Ninth Circuit ruling dated January 17th, 2014.

Petitioner Cox understands that it is at the sole judicial discretion of this court to hear this matter.  

Cox prays that this court will hear this matter as these judicial actions will potentially chill speech and violate the rights of other citizen journalists, whistleblowers and anti-corruption bloggers such as Cox.


QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Petitioner requests this court to decide the following questions:

Does Petitioner, Defendant, Litigants in a Civil Case have a Human Right, Constitutional Right, and right under U.S. Code to be Considered Innocent until Proven Guilty?

Do Ninth Circuit Judges have the legal authority to issue an opinion on criminal allegations in a civil case in which the criminal allegation is not a matter of record in the lower court, has not been adjudicated and is not a material factor of the case?

Does Petitioner, Litigants, in a Civil Case have a legal right to due process of law, in cases where Judges RULE that Litigants, such as petitioner have committed crimes of which Petitioner was not on trial for nor was a matter of record in the lower court ?

Do Ninth Circuit Judges have to find a Defendant Guilty of a Crime, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, or to have been Adjudicated of that crime in a U.S Court, BEFORE they rule that a litigant such as petitioner is guilty of this criminal behavior or criminal activities?

Do litigants, such as petitioner, have a Fourteenth Amendment Rights, Bill of Rights
and Due Process of Law Rights that have to be adjudicated for a crime before a Ninth Circuit Judicial Panel can issue an “opinion” in a highly publicized, higher court, esteemed ruling, regarding that alleged crime?

Do Ninth Circuit Judges have a lawful right to use a New York Times article as adjudicated fact and material evidence to issue a ruling that a litigant in a civil case is guilty of criminal activity?

Is it Lawful for Ninth Circuit Judges to use gossip, hearsay and the rantings of a New York Times Journalist as adjudicated fact, and use this as factual evidence in a Ninth Circuit Ruling?

Can the Court of Appeals Prejudice a Litigant with false and defamatory language in a ruling?  
Does a litigant have a right to have the language in the ruling challenged or reviewed by an independent Court, (for example, the Supreme or another Appellate Court not involved in the decision with the defamatory and legally abusive language that prejudices the rights of the litigant in rehearing) ?

Does the court have the right to defame and slander litigants and deny due process?

Do judges have the right to convict litigants of crimes in judicial rulings 
based on New York Times articles?

Do Judges have a right to deny due process in lower courts by issuing a ruling that convicts litigants of crimes, thereby prejudicing them with a jury of their peers, as they return to have a new trial?

Do judges involved in a slanderous, possibly criminally defamatory statement have a legal and constitutional right to rule on whether they rehear this issue of them acting inappropriately and unlawful in that very ruling?

Is it lawful and within the constitutional rights of a Defendant such as Petitioner, for a panel of judges to use a New York Times article to convict a litigant in a civil trial of a crime of which they have not been adjudicated of?"


" REASONS WHY THIS WRIT SHOULD ISSUE

To establish firm guidelines for all district court, judges and appellate courts that it is not constitutional, ethical nor lawful to render rulings that accuse litigants of criminal activity of which they have not had due process of law in regard to. To guarantee the rights, liberty, equality, freedom, due process rights, and free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution for all citizens, pro se litigants, anti-corruption bloggers, citizen journalists and whistleblowers alike. To guarantee the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of all. To guarantee the rights of due process and the Bill of Rights to all. To end extreme prejudice by local, state, and federal judges whom use their power and position to silence, intimidate, suppress speech, bully, paint in false light, slander and defame litigants who expose corruption in the judicial system and of whom they have extreme prejudice in regard to.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case involves wrongful, non-adjudicated allegations of criminal conduct made by Ninth Circuit Judges ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ against Petitioner, Defendant Cox and clearly violating her constitutional rights, human rights, and rights to due process, as a matter of law. ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ Stated that Petitioner Cox; " has a history of making similar allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction." 

Which thereby leads the public at large, media and the lower court in her pending $10 Million dollar Civil Case, to believe that Cox has been under investigation by authorities and found guilty of the crime of extortion or blackmail. As it is ILLEGAL to make allegations and seek a payoff to retract those allegations. Cox prays this Court orders the Ninth Circuit to redact the above statement.

Petitioner Cox alleges that it is not fair, ethical, equitable in rights, constitutional, nor appropriate as a matter of law and rules of procedure for Ninth Circuit judges or District Court Judges to state unrelated allegations, rumor and speculation in an esteemed higher court ruling, that is published to the world and affects the life of Petitioner forever, as well as affects all whistleblowers, citizen journalists and anti-corruption bloggers like her. Petitioner Cox alleges that it is an abuse of power and process, and an extreme violation of her human and civil rights, for Judges to use hearsay and rumors as adjudicated fact in an esteemed, higher court process, and to seek revenge, retaliate, and use extreme prejudice against Petitioner and litigants like her by using a prestigious court ruling to paint Petitioner in false light, slander and defame Petitioner and cause her a lifetime of irreparable harm. 

Petitioner alleges that it is the duty of Ninth Circuit judges to report anyone they deem a danger to the public. If ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ believe Cox to have a history of extortionate or blackmailing conduct, then it is their duty as public servants to order a criminal investigation by the proper authorities and it is NOT their duty, nor legal right to simply, flat out state, that Cox has a history of these criminal actions and thereby defame and slander Cox and put her under extreme prejudice as she heads back to the lower court Pro Se to face a $10 Million dollar civil court proceeding.
Petitioner and bloggers, whistleblowers, citizen journalists like her, face extreme prejudice in the courts, as they are oftentimes exposing judges, attorneys and people in powerful positions such as CEO’s and Politicians. This court ruling, essentially gives the rights to all Judges at every level of our court system, and essentially all institutional press “traditional journalists” to simply accuse litigants of crimes, activities, or unethical behavior, based on gossip and hearsay of an institutional press journalists such as Kashmir Hill of Forbes or David Carr of the New York Times, and have that be stated in a Ninth Circuit ruling as adjudicated fact. Petitioner alleges that it violates her constitutional rights and the rights of those who engage in the same online activity as her, for Judges to essentially take “pot shots”, add in gossip and hearsay into a ruling and thereby slander, defame and ruin the life of the litigant. 

Especially in cases such as the petitioner where she faces a retrial in a $10 million dollar civil case where she is indigent and cannot afford an attorney and this criminal accusation prejudices her lower court ruling before the trial even begins.

Petitioner alleges that allowing Ninth Circuit judges to state arbitrary allegations and accusations in authoritative higher court opinions, will potentially chill the online speech of all bloggers, whistleblowers, citizen journalists. As they will fear the same thing happening to them. This is a critical first amendment issue. And a critical issue of due process laws, the fourteenth amendment, civil rights and human rights. Petitioner alleges that she has a constitutional right to due process in the criminal justice system and that it violates her constitutional rights for higher court, esteemed judges to rule on matters of her alleged criminal activity BEFORE she has been adjudicated or under investigation by the proper courts and legal procedure in the criminal justice system. These accusations by Ninth Circuit judges prejudice the litigants such as petitioner in the re-trial at the D.C. level and put them under extreme prejudice in all matters of their life, even things as simple as renting a home or getting a job. 

Those researching litigants such as petitioner find a higher court ruling, issued by esteemed judges in a powerful position of which the public at large deems to be of the utmost authority, in which accuses the litigant of criminal activities, of extortionate behavior. 

This is a violation of Petitioners rights of due process and constitutional rights, as she now faces extreme prejudice, hate, inequality and duress in all aspects of her life. She is deemed a criminal, when she has not had due process in the criminal justice system. This precedence now makes it so that judges everywhere can do this same thing to essentially punish, retaliate against whistleblowers, citizen journalists and anti-corruption bloggers. Does Petitioner, Defendant, Litigants in a Civil Case have a Human Right, Constitutional Right, and right under U.S. Code to be Considered Innocent until Proven Guilty? 

Petitioner alleges that she has a constitutional right for it to be proven, as a matter of law, "beyond a reasonable doubt" that she is guilty of a crime, before Judges are allowed, by law, to state those allegations in a court ruling, a court opinion. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial. In civil litigation, the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. There was neither in the Ninth Circuit appeal of Obsidian v. Cox. Petitioner Cox alleges that Judges must have “Clear and Convincing Proof” beyond a reasonable doubt BEFORE they are, by law allowed to state such allegations in a higher court ruling. Cox was not on trial for crimes or civil matters involving allegations, investigations or even a cause of action regarding posting content or allegations of others online and then seeking a payoff to remove those allegations, (aKa Extortion or Blackmail). 

Cox was on trial for defamation, and that this was the only cause of action. 

There was no "seeking a payoff" to remove allegations, as a material factor of Obsidian v. Cox nor a factor in this case what so ever, therefore it was not a matter of record and cannot legally be brought into the Ninth Circuit proceeding, and certainly not, as a matter of law and constitutional rights, be stated in a Ninth Circuit court of appeals ruling, opinion. 
Petitioner Cox alleges that her Due Process of Law, Fourteenth Amendment Rights, and her rights under the Bill of Rights, have been violated by Judges accusing her of criminal activity in rulings / opinions in civil cases of which these crimes have nothing to do with. Cox alleges this is retaliation for her exposing corruption that involves judges, and people with financial and political power. Petitioner Cox alleges that she has a fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one's life, liberty, or property. 

Yet Cox was not given notice of the crimes alleged, nor a way to present her side. 

Cox was not given due process, as a matter of law and constitutional rights and Cox has thus lost her life as she knew it, her liberty and has lost personal property in this matter. The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment asserts that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." 

This amendment restricts the powers of the federal government and applies only to actions by it. Petitioner Cox was not given due process, and was simply ruled guilty of criminal activities, with a New York Times article as material evidence in the matter and was thereby “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,declares,"[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (§ 1). Yet petitioner Cox was not given due process in the criminal justice system nor has Cox been adjudicated for or even under investigation for the crime of extortion, yet high court judges accused Cox of extortionate behavior in a ruling of a civil case, a defamation case, unrelated in it’s material fact, evidence and testimony to the crime of extortion and to of having “a history of making similar allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction.”, which is essentially the felony crime of blackmail, or extortion. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has also been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in the twentieth century to incorporate protections of the Bill of Rights, so that those protections apply to the states as well as to the federal government. 

Thus, the Due Process Clause serves as the means whereby the Bill of Rights has become binding on state governments as well as on the federal government. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is intended to protect individuals such as Petitioner from arbitrary actions by state as well as federal governments, which includes the arbitrary actions of an esteemed higher court judicial panel in accusing petition and future litigants like her, of criminal activity of which was not a material factor in her case, and was simply hearsay by a traditional journalist of the institutional press, in this case a New York Time journalist, David Carr.

Due process requires that the procedures by which laws are applied must be evenhanded, and in this case there was severe prejudice and inequality and Cox has thereby suffered harm, and wishes this court to remedy this ruling to protect future anti-corruption bloggers, citizen journalists and whistle blowers such as herself. Petitioner Cox alleges that, under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, and other human rights and civil rights laws, and constitutional amendments, that the actions of these judges deprived her of "fundamental fairness" and of Civil Rights under the Due Process Clause. 

And now has the potential to do so to ALL future anti-corruption bloggers, citizen journalists and whistle blowers such as herself. 

And with this gives far reaching, unconstitutional powers to the institutional press and traditional journalists to publish gossip, hearsay and allegations and have Ninth Circuit judges and judges across the land, use these traditional journalists “opinion”, “writings”, “allegations” as adjudicated facts, hard and fast evidence, and sworn testimony that gives them the right to issue opinions and rulings that flat out accuse litigants such as petitioner of criminal activity of which they have not had due process of law in regard to. The Bill of Rights contains provisions that are central to procedural due process. 

These protections give a person a number of rights and freedoms including the right to be told of the crime being charged; the right to cross-examine witnesses; the right to be represented by an attorney; freedom from Cruel and Unusual Punishment; and the right to demand that the state prove any charges Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

Petitioner Cox was deprived of these rights, as Judges simply portrayed to the world she was guilty of criminal acts without having due process and without being told of the crime being charged; the right to cross-examine witnesses; the right to be represented by an attorney; freedom from Cruel and Unusual Punishment; and the right to demand that the state prove any charges Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. The Decision of the Ninth Circuit to allow statement of non-adjudicated criminal accusations to be put into a ruling in a civil case, whereby the litigant has not had due process for those allegations is Clearly Incorrect. Ninth Circuit Judges ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ erred in stating that Cox had a history of these criminal activities and erred in stating the New York Times as their evidence of fact and material facts of law. Petitioner Cox alleges that Ninth Circuit Judges do not have a lawful, constitutional right to issue an opinion on criminal allegations in a civil case in which the criminal allegation is not a matter of record in the lower court, has not been adjudicated and is not a material factor of the case. Petitioner Cox alleges that she was denied a legal right to due process of law in this ruling that slandered and defamed her, and painted her in false light, thereby affecting the rest of her life. Petitioner Cox alleges that Ninth Circuit Judges ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ did not find Cox guilty of these allegations beyond a reasonable doubt nor did they adjudicate Cox, charge Cox with these allegations nor use adjudicated facts in issuing their judicial authority (opinion), (ruling). 

And that it was an error to rule that Cox had a history of such criminal actions when Cox was not allowed due process and constitutional rights regarding these allegations. Petitioner Cox alleges that Ninth Circuit Judges ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ violated her Fourteenth Amendment Rights, Bill of Rights and Due Process of Law Rights by alleging Cox committed these criminal actions of which she had not been charged by a lower court nor the criminal justice system, as a matter of law. Petitioner Cox alleges that Ninth Circuit Judges ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ prejudiced her substantial rights, and this was not a harmless error as Cox now faces extreme hate, prejudice, slander and defamation and has a other judicial proceedings that are now prejudiced against her. If Ninth Circuit Judges ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ believed Cox to have committed theses Criminal acts, they SHOULD go through due process of law. Judges are NOT above the law.



CONCLUSION
I Pray that this esteemed panel, this court, send a clear message to the Ninth Circuit, and essentially all Appellate Judges and all judges across our court system, that it is not ok, not ethical, not constitutional nor lawful to ad lib, make criminal allegations, introduce new case information into the appeal process, slander and defame litigants, and abuse the power of their process and esteemed role to retaliate against whistleblowers, citizen journalists, and anti-corruption bloggers in every town in the United States and essential the world. The Obsidian v. Cox, Ninth Circuit ruling is known well, worldwide and is the most prominent case to date of a blogger making a court rule on whether a blogger has rights equal to a journalist when it comes to the First Amendment, Shield Laws, Retraction Laws and Free Speech Rights. 


This is a massive human rights and civil rights issue, as now all who expose corruption and break news, report on what is really happening in small towns, big cities and essential everywhere, have the same rights in the courtroom as does traditional journalists and the institutional press aKa big media. Therefore it is imperative that this ruling does not be tainted with giving those same traditional journalists of the institutional press, super powers to have that same blogger alienated, outcast, painted in false light, prejudiced in other court proceedings, and have the world at large believe them to be a criminal and therefore not taken serious that in which they are exposing or reporting on. This ruling that gave equality, seemed to have took it away in the very same ruling. Petition Cox has NEVER, not even once in her life, posted anything online with the intention of seeking a payment for a retraction. 

Cox has NEVER asked for money to remove anything she has posted online, and yet Ninth Circuit Judges ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ are claiming, in a Ninth Circuit ruling that Cox has a “History” of doing such actions, seriously criminal, unconstitutional and unethical action. 

As if Cox has a pattern and history of illegal, unethical behavior, of which there is NO History or Pattern. If these judges are allowed to put these unsubstantiated, unadjudicated, extremely biased and prejudice criminal allegations into a ruling in a civil case, then this will chill the speech of those in the future wishing to, wanting, or trying to expose corruption in their area of expertise, town, or state.

In Truth Petitioner Cox has dedicated her life, lost everything and been under extreme threats, retaliation, and extreme prejudice for nearly a decade, all because she did the right thing and stood up for others, for strangers and used her internet marketing skills to give voice to the victims of corrupt detectives, county commissioners, judges, cops, politicians, real estate companies, banks, finance companies, and victims of human trafficking, pedophilia, rape, and severe abuse.
Cox was RULED guilty of a crime of which she was not on trial for, was not adjudicated for and was not under investigation for. A crime that was NOT a material factor in Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal Cox. 

It is not legal, due process, nor constitutional for these judges to have stated these false, unadjudicated allegations. Petitioner respectfully request that the Ninth Circuit Court amend its opinion to withhold the sentence that now says, Cox apparently has a history of making similar allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction. See David Carr, When Truth Survives Free Speech , N.Y. Times, Dec. 11, 2011, at B1. 

A judicial assertion of misconduct by a named person, even a judicial assertion modified with the word “apparently,” could be based on the record in a case, or on authoritative findings by another court. But it ought not be based on a newspaper column, which was written without the benefit of cross-examination, sworn testimony, or the other safeguards of the judicial process. 

The claims in the columnist’s assertion are neither facts found by a fact finder nor facts subject to judicial notice under Fed. R. Evid. 201. Adding this statement to the Obsidian v. Cox ruling dated January 17th, 2014 is Legally Flawed and Has Far-Reaching Consequences, and is thereby Warranting Review in This Case. This issue affects all who are reporting news, all citizen journalists, all victims of corruption at every level and all whistleblowers. 

If a Ninth Circuit panel can rule that any individual has committed crimes without that person having been investigated or given due process for those allegations, and use a New York Times article as evidence of those crimes, then this potentially affects every citizen in the United States and is a very important issue for all lawmakers, citizens, and the judicial process as a whole.
The Court should grant the petition. "  

Source of Crystal Cox Blogger Supreme Court Filing


Crystal Cox, Free Speech Case fighting to Equal rights of bloggers, Citizen Journalists, Whistleblowers as New York Times, Forbes and other traditional, mainstream media.

To Read the writ of certiorari Filing by Crystal Cox, Pro Se, Click Below
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yBV1MgaxPbjqoYxC3op2241oidez4pEW2WJ2P-Lg8Hk/edit

UCLA, Law Professor, Attorney Eugene Volokh 
Motion to Rehear Click Below

http://www.scribd.com/doc/204438383/Eugene-Volokh-Motion-to-Rehear-Obsidian-v-Cox

Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal L. Cox; 

Supreme Court of the United States Filing;
Crystal Cox v. Obsidian Finance Group, LLC, et al; No. 13-9731

No. 13-9731

Crystal Cox, Petitioner
v.
Obsidian Finance Group, LLC, et al.

Docketed: April 16, 2014

Lower Court: 
United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

  Case Nos.: (12-35238, 12-35319)
  Decision Date: January 17, 2014
  Rehearing Denied: March 5, 2014

Apr 8 2014 Petition for a Writ of Certiorari and 
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. 
(Response due May 16, 2014)

Attorneys for Petitioner:
Crystal L. Cox P.O. Box 2027
Port Townsend, WA  98368
Party name: Crystal Cox
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/13-9731.htm



Crystal Cox on Why she Filed Motion to Rehear in the Ninth Circuit
(Playlist of 2, Audio OnlyCrystal Cox on Motion to Rehear)




Crystal Cox, Obsidian v. Cox Update March 12th, 2014


How Extortion Entered into the Obsidian Finance v. Crystal Cox Case, 
and a bit about the Summit Bankruptcy Case



Other Links for Updates

https://certpool.com/dockets/13-9731

Crystal Cox First Amendment Case

More on the Crystal Cox Blogger; Crystal Cox First Amendment Case, 
Equality of Bloggers; Ninth Circuit Appeals WIN for ALL Citizen Journalists,
 Anti-Corruption Bloggers, and Whistleblowers

http://www.crystalcoxcase.com/

http://ninthcircuitcrystalcoxappeal.blogspot.com/


More on Obsidian Finance Group




Petition for a Writ of Certiorari; 
Supreme Court of the United States Filing; 
Crystal Cox v. Obsidian Finance Group LLC 13-9731


First Amendment, Free Speech, Defamation Lawsuit, Shield Laws, Retractions Laws; Crystal Cox v. Obsidian Finance Group LLC 13-9731; Crystal Cox Blogger; Petition for a Writ of Certiorari;

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

Judge Marco Hernandez, a Portland Oregon Judge, RULED that the First Amendment Does NOT apply to "one" blogger, an anti-corruption blogger, exposing corruption in "his neck of the woods", Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox.

ONE overreaching Oregon Judge SHOULD Not be 
the Gatekeeper of the United States Constitution.
What happened after the Obsidian v. Cox verdict is nothing short of a LYNCH mob against one woman, an anti-corruption blogger giving voice to victims of corrupt judges, law enforcement, attorneys and government agencies.

What happened inside this jaw dropping, constitutional rights violating case is still, to this day, seemingly, a mystery to the public at large, as it does not really make sense, as a matter of law.

Let's discuss a few things regarding the Obsidian v. Cox case and the RULING by a federal judge in Portland Oregon that deemed "ONE" woman outside of the rights of free speech laws, shield laws, retraction laws, anti-slapp laws and the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

A Portland Oregon Judge, Judge Marco Hernandez RULED that blogger Crystal Cox was not "Entitled" to Constitutional Rights, First Amendment Protection, and that she, and she alone, was the only Blogger that could not have "Journalist" "status" by Law.

Some bloggers can be protected under the law and constitution, says Judge Marco Hernandez, Portland Oregon Judge, just not this blogger, Crystal Cox reporting on Corruption in Portland Oregon.

Kind of makes you wonder what is so special or so "bad' about this one blogger, this one woman, that the First Amendment does not apply to her, and that she alone cannot be given equal rights to those of traditional reporters and journalists or those "special rights" given to "recognized news entity" as Judge Marco Hernandez calls traditional media outlets.

"The essence of a prior restraint is that it places First Amendment protected speech under the
personal censorship of one judge. (Bernard v. Gulf Oil Co., 619 F.2d 459, 486 (5th Cir. 1980)
(State v. Globe Commc’ns, Corp., 622 So.2d 1066, 1073, (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), aff’d 648 So. 2d
110 (Fla. 1994)"

Judge Marco Hernandez RULED that Crystal Cox did not have First Amendment Rights, even though she is a citizen of the United States.

There were no First Amendment considerations for Defendant Crystal Cox.  Judge Marco Hernandez violated the rights of due process of Crystal Cox, and violated her Constitutional Rights. Judge Marco Hernandez SHOULD not be above the laws that U.S. citizens pay him to uphold.

Judge Marco Hernandez SHOULD be liable for the damage he has done to the life, assets, quality of life and business of investigative blogger Crystal L. Cox.

It is a FACT that the First Amendment Applies to 
anti-corruption blogger Crystal L. Cox, PERIOD.

Judge Marco Hernandez needs to be held accountable and cannot simply decide he does not "approve" or like a pro se litigant and therefore violate her lawful and constitutional rights.

The FBI, Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney General SHOULD make an example of Judge Marco Hernandez, in that a judge cannot override law based on his own personal opinion of a pro se litigant, a Judge cannot accuse a litigant in a CIVIL CASE of criminal behavior in a public ruling that thereby defames and ruins the life of the litigant without the rights to a trial, to due process, to LAW.

Judge Marco Hernandez is NOT above the Law and has no legal right to simply claim a litigant in his court is guilty of a crime, nor to imply such, without a proper and lawful investigation into the manner and a prosecution for the crime of that litigant.

Judge Marco Hernandez also ruled that retraction laws, shield laws and anti-slapp laws did not apply to this "one" blogger. Why? 

Well there were the now infamous 7 reasons that blogger Crystal Cox seemed to have failed to "prove" she was a journalist, though they are not LAW, not constitutional rights and even though there is no standard as to how many if any of those 7 need to be in place for the "law" to give EQUAL free speech rights to a blogger that traditional reporters and journalists have.

The retraction law clearly applies to new media, to bloggers and to Crystal Cox, then a resident of Montana, now a resident of Washington State, and whom published that "one" blog post while a resident of Boulder Colorado. Yet Judge Marco Hernandez RULED that Retraction Laws did not apply to this "one" blogger.

Oregon Law should not have been all that applied and it SHOULD be prudent, at best, that a federal judge would not want years of tax payers dollars, a costly trial, hearings, court time and years of tax payer money spent on litigation where by the Plaintiff had not even "asked" that defendant to remove (retract) the blog post that allegedly caused the problem, nor had the Plaintiff even supplied a specific blog post in which was a issue to the Plaintiff, or their business.

It is clear that Judge Hernandez ruled outside of LAW, and 
without consideration of the constitutional rights of blogger Crystal Cox. 

It is clear that Judge Marco Hernandez discriminated against blogger Crystal Cox, a Pro Se Litigant and favored top law firms, judges, DOJ trustees, utility companies, Senators, financial companies and lawyers in his jurisdiction.

It is clear the CONSTITUTION does apply to blogger Crystal Cox, that there is no LAW regarding the standards and practices of Journalists nor a license to be a journalist, yet Judge Hernandez ruined the life of Crystal Cox by accusing her of criminal activity in a ruling to deny a new trial in a CIVIL CASE, this is UNACCEPTABLE behavior in a free and democratic society.

Keep in mind that this federal judge WOULD have the power to open an investigation against Crystal Cox for the allegation of the crime of Extortion, however, instead of doing so and giving Crystal Cox due process of LAW, Judge Marco Hernandez simply declared anti-corruption blogger Crystal L. Cox guilty, in the denial of a new trial order from a Federal Judge in an Official Capacity, thereby denying the rights of Crystal Cox to due process of law and thus Crystal Cox was deemed guilty by society as a whole. This act has caused irreparable harm to Crystal Cox, of which Judge Marco Hernandez and the Portland Oregon Courts SHOULD be liable to every extent of the laws of the United States of America.

Judge Marco Hernandez never filed a criminal complaint, never initiated an investigation regarding the Extortion allegation and simply stated Cox guilty of such, and therefore ruined the life, business, quality of life, and business of blogger Crystal Cox, completely outside of due process of law. Judge Marco Hernandez made Crystal Cox the Collateral Damage in attempting to protect corruption in Portland Oregon.

What Judge Marco Hernandez did not count on is that blogger Crystal Cox is SERIOUS about ethics, morals, constitutional rights, law and protecting the victims of corruption. 

Crystal Cox has not given up on speaking out about her rights, the rights of all citizen journalist and whistle blowers, nor has Cox given up on exposing those involved in illegal, unethical, immoral and shady dealings surround the Summit Bankruptcy and the iViewit Technology theft.

Who is protected under the First Amendment as a Blogger? 
Who does the Shield Law Apply to and Why?

Read this recent Article Below regarding bloggers and First Amendment Rights
http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/lindsey-graham-isn-t-sure-if-bloggers-deserve-first-amendment-protection-20130605

Keep in mind the massive attack against ONE Blogger to take away her rights of due process, shut down blogs, steal online content, bypass the First Amendment all together, and attempt to exclude this ONE person from Law and Constitutional Rights was simply because 3 lawyers and one judge ( Judge Marco Hernandez, Marc Randazza Attorney, David Aman Attorney, and Kevin Padrick Attorney) did not like her "ethics" or "standards".  Another words they wanted to protect corruption and to SHUT Crystal Cox up, they FAILED.

Crystal Cox has remained dedicated to exposing THEM and corruption in general and to protect the Free Speech rights and Constitutional Rights of ALL Anti-Corruption bloggers big and small, ALL whistle blowers, ALL Citizen journalist and the public at large. Despite losing her business, her home, having constant threats and duress, being homeless, penniless and publicly defamed constantly.

For More information and Articles on the Crystal Cox Cas
https://www.facebook.com/CrystalCoxCaseFreeSpeechRightsForBloggers

More on the "Reason" Cox is "Allegedly" not to be deemed a "Journalist" by Law

Judge Marco Hernandez Ruling States:
"Defendant fails to bring forth any evidence suggestive of her status as a journalist."

It is not law, nor a prerequisite of constitutional rights to have a "status" of "journalist" in order for the First Amendment or the LAW to apply to you. "Defendant" did not need, as a matter of LAW, to "bring forth" evidence of "status as a journalist".

2.5 Million Dollars is A LOT of money, that, on top of what Judge Marco Hernandez accused Crystal Cox of and put Crystal Cox through, is completely outside of law, constitutional rights and the due process that Cox is and was entitled to, as a matter of LAW.

There is no law or licensing procedure in place to be legally determined "media" nor to be a "journalist", as a matter of law. A large network of blogs is CERTAINLY a "medium of communication" to the "public", that is an undeniable FACT.

There are no standards, ethics, legal status or licensing in any way that is required by LAW to be "deemed" a "journalist", and therefore protected by the U.S. Constitution and the laws in place to protect traditional media reporters.  So, how in the world can a Portland Oregon Judge, simply state that the laws that protect traditional "journalists" and "recognized media entities" simply, do not apply to "ONE BLOGGER", because he personally alleges that she has no standards and ethics, ya know, like the rest of those "REAL" journalists do and are therefore entitled to First Amendment Protection, Retraction Law Protection, Shield Law Protection and Bill of Rights Protection.

Judge Marco Hernandez simply, and with complete disregard of the LAW, made the life, family, friends, business and quality of life of this one, anti-corruption blogger, Crystal L. Cox, collateral damage in his protection of corruption in Portland Oregon.

Big media, such as Fox News, Forbes, the New York Times and more,happily joined in to discredit Crystal Cox, intimidate her, and paint Cox out to be a criminal in an attempt STOP Crystal Cox from her Ninth Circuit Appeal and from receiving any support what so ever that would end their monopoly on Free Speech, their Reporters Privilege and their above the law abuse of the shield law.

High profile First Amendment Porn Attorney Marc J. Randazza of Randazza Legal Group joined the lynch mob, and set out to sabotage Crystal Cox's Appeal to the Ninth Circuit, and joined in painting blogger Crystal Cox in false light in attempt to make her look like a criminal and thereby discredit her online media, chill her free speech, shut down her blogs, and all to protect the best interest of the "big boys" in the porn industry. And with complete disregard of due process of law and the constitutional rights of Crystal Cox, whom he had been acting as her attorney.

Porn Attorney Marc Randazza's goal was to simply sweep the Crystal Cox case under the proverbial rug, so that the "mess she made" would not affect his clients in the Porn Industry. Marc Randazza acted unethically and outside of the law and rights of Crystal Cox. Cox is fighting back in multiple courts in order to protect others from being irreparable harmed by Marc J. Randazza and Randazza Legal Group as she has been.

Here is Crystal Cox's Legal Complaint Against Marc Randazza and Alleged Co-Conspirators

Nevada RICO
http://ia601608.us.archive.org/5/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.92918/gov.uscourts.nvd.92918.1.1.pdf

Florida Malpractice
http://www.plaintiffcox.com/2013/06/crystal-l-cox-v-randazza-legal-group.html

It is Your Constitutional Right to have "Choices" in your "NEWS"

It is a human right, a civil right to have CHOICE in what "news" source you gather "information" from.  You have a constitutional right to news sources other then BIG Media paid by advertisers, corporations, politicians and those who control the version of the "news" that the public at large has access to.

For example, blogs are the ONLY media outlet in which those exposing corruption have.  Most newspapers small and large will not report the true story for fear of retaliation, legal action, death threats, and their own life being ruined.

It is of MASSIVE importance for online media, anti-corruption bloggers, citizen journalists, and whistle blowers to have the same protection under the law as traditional reporters, journalists and Big Media. Without this protection, society is subject to only have the option of the news fed to them by large corporations, politicians, and ad based news outlets.

It is important to a free society, as a whole, 
to have choices in their news. 

News has become a "product", it is created and Sold via ad dollars. It is a clear violation of anti-trust to wipe out competition by suing the competition, suppressing online media, and stripping online media and bloggers of equal protection under the law. It is very important to all of society that there remain independent researchers who are reporting the news from their sources, there own experience, tips they receive, news they personally witness and truly independent investigations of news events.

In fact, it is an anti-trust violation to take away the choice of the consumer and monopolize the industry. This is clearly pointed out in blogger Crystal L. Cox's Anti-Trust Lawsuit against Kashmir Hill Forbes Reporter and the New York Times. Click Below to read that Case Filing.
http://ia801701.us.archive.org/24/items/gov.uscourts.cand.265997/gov.uscourts.cand.265997.1.0.pdf

In the now infamous 7 Reasons that Judge Marco Hernandez, Portland Oregon Judge claims Crystal Cox does not have "journalist" status, he goes on to say:

"For example, there is no evidence of

"(1) any education in journalism; "

There is no law that an education in journalism is required by law, the Bill of Rights or the Constitution of the United States in order for a citizen, an independent blogger (or free press publisher), to have EQUAL rights to traditional journalists, media or reporters. 

Judge Marco Hernandez's ruling has, in essence chilled the speech of anti-corruption bloggers, online free press, citizen journalists and whistle blowers in fear of retaliation from those they are reporting on.

"(2) any credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity; "

It is not a statute of US Law, the Constitution of the United States of America, nor of the Bill of Rights, that a citizen prove they are affiliated with a "recognized" news entity, in order for the laws that apply to a "recognized news entity", traditional reporters, to apply to that citizen. Judge Marco Hernandez COMPLETELY side stepped the laws of the United States, and violated the constitutional rights of Blogger Crystal L. Cox, as a matter of LAW.

(3) proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest;

First of all, "proof of adherence to journalistic standards" is not a statute of US Law, the Constitution of the United States of America, nor of the Bill of Rights and should NOT have been a determining factor in a civil trial for defamation regarding a blogger (publisher) of online media reporting on a $40 Million Dollar VERY public Oregon Bankruptcy Case. 

Secondly, it is a CLEAR Fact that blogger Crystal Cox has and had the ability to "edit"

It is also a fact that Cox was not asked to edit nor change any fact on any blog post. 

Crystal Cox, Montana anti-corruption blogger was not asked to retract anything, and was simply sued for 10 million dollars in an Oregon Court. It is an obvious FACT that Crystal Cox could and can edit any blog post at any given moment in time, if asked to do so, or court order to do so. If Crystal Cox is given the facts and told which blog post is an issue for the Plaintiff.

Thirdly, Crystal Cox CERTAINLY did engage in the act of "fact-checking" to the best of her ability and had done so for 3 years when the Plaintiff sued her.  Crystal Cox had been reporting on the Summit Bankruptcy case for 3 years and Plaintiff fully knew this fact, as the Plaintiff and his attorney David Aman, "deposed" Stephanie DeYoung, one of Crystal Cox's sources in August of 2009, in video, and asked her who Crystal Cox was and why she thought Crystal Cox was reporting on the Summit Bankruptcy case.

Crystal Cox had read internal emails with the DOJ, read FBI press releases, spoke with investors and creditors, interviewed insiders, emailed insiders, read hearing transcripts, listened to hearing audios, read court filings and motions, read the massive amount of news and blogs that were discussing the very high profile Summit Bankruptcy, and Cox even heard Kevin Padrick's own words from videos of him at meetings, signed declarations and testimony, motions signed by him, 

Crystal Cox had "fact checked" to the best of her ability and did so for 3 years when Plaintiff, all of the sudden, Sued Cox with no retraction request, no blog post named in the complaint and from their completely violated the rights of due process and the constitutional rights of Anti-Corruption Blogger Crystal Cox.

Fourth, blogger Crystal Cox had  no need to disclose a conflict of interest, as Cox had NONE. Crystal Cox was not involved in the Summit Bankruptcy, had no money involved, no assets or property connected to this 1031 Exchange Company, nor had Cox, in any way a "connection" to Summit or anyone involved in Summit when she began reporting on the Summit Bankruptcy. 

Judge Marco Hernandez Ruling Goes on to Say more reasons that the First Amendment, the Laws of the United States do not seem to apply to this "One" Blogger:

(4) keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted;

This is false, my blogs held many notes, some conversations were recorded with permission of participants, pages and pages of notes were taken from each call, massive amounts of emails were also notes, ALL of these were something that the Plaintiff had no legal right to, even though Judge Marco Hernandez RULED that Crystal Cox must give all notes, emails, phone records and conversations to those she was exposing to be participating in corruption, Crystal Cox refused and this is why Cox used the shield law as a defense. Cox did not claim the shield law because she had some "secret source", as Seattle weekly had reported. 

The sources of Cox's blogs was PUBLIC knowledge and had been for 3 years. 

What Cox wanted to protect was the DEMAND that she give the Plaintiff aKa, the "Enemy" and the subject of her corruption reporting, all the emails, notes, phone records and information of any kind from sources, to the very people she was claiming to be corrupt. Crystal Cox wanted to protect the rights of her sources, and Judge Hernandez did not want Crystal Cox to do this. The Plaintiff made settlement offers that asked that Crystal Cox incriminate her source for crimes they did not commit, and to state they committed acts that they did not. Crystal Cox wanted to, and DID protect the legal and constitutional rights of all of her sources.

Crystal Cox certainly did have a record of conversations and interviews, and this, AGAIN, is not a matter of law and should not have been a factor in whether blogger Crystal Cox "deserved" equal protection under the law or the U.S. Constitution.

"(5) mutual understanding or agreement of
confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources;"

Number 5 is SHOCKING, at Best. 

Judge Marco Hernandez ORDERED blogger Crystal Cox to produce all records of conversation, all recordings, phone calls, emails, notes of any kind between me and all of my sources regarding the Summit Bankruptcy. So here he is saying that Crystal Cox is not protected under the First Amendment nor does Crystal Cox have protection under the same laws as traditional journalists, and "recognized media entities", and ONE main reason is that Cox did not have "mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources". 

This is FALSE.

For one, the agreements I had or did not have with ALL my sources, were and are my private information between me and my sources and is not subject to review by the opposition in a defamation case. Two, Judge Hernandez RULED that I was to violate any agreements and turn over all notes, emails, documents, files, phone records with ALL sources to the opposition, the Plaintiff in the case. Yet at the same time claimed I had no agreement and this is why I cannot, by law, have "journalist" status.  

This was a violation of the rights of my sources, violation of my rights and clearly outside of the LAW. So, how in the world could this "mutual agreement" or confidentiality disclosure have anything to do with whether the laws that protect traditional journalist and "recognized news entities" applied to me, Crystal Cox or not. And how is it lawful to DEMAND that I give this "confidential" disclosure data to the Plaintiff in this case and his attorney, ALL whom I was reporting was involved in unethical and corrupt actions in the Summit Bankruptcy?

"(6) creation of an independent product
rather than assembling writings and postings of others; or "

There is not one person, anywhere, who would not agree that I, Crystal Cox have an Independent Product. How in the world is this a determining factor in RUINING my life because I Dared EXPOSE Corruption in the State of OREGON?

If Judge Marco Hernandez thinks that my "product" aKa "blog posts" are not an "independent product", then he must believe, as a matter of law, that I did not write the information on my hundreds of blogs I had at that time, but simply re-posted what others had wrote. Yet, if so, then why sue me for defamation, why not sue all those other blogs? 

Also Judge Hernandez ruled that the Summit Bankruptcy was not of "public concern", and David Brown Co-Owner of Obsidian Finance Group also stated under oath that I, blogger Crystal Cox was the only one discussing the case. This was not TRUE, however, as it was Oregon's biggest bankruptcy case and had victims in 5 states, over 100 victims aKa creditors and investors. And had a whole lot of media and blogger coverage, as the record clearly shows.

So, that nasty blogger Crystal Cox, who allegedly set out to defame and extort, was simply "assembling writings and postings of others" and did not have her own "independent product" ?  Really? 

Does this seem true to you reader? 

I mean come on, I called him a thug and a thief, I curse, I capitalize in those crazy, odd places. I go "over the top" in my language and I don't have an "independent product" ? 

Well I say that is another flat out FALSEHOOD by a Federal Judge protecting corruption in Portland Oregon and making ALL citizen journalists, free press, online media, whistle blowers and new media publishers, the collateral damage of his free speech suppressing, Anti First Amendment RULING against Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox.

"(7) contacting "the other side" to get both sides of a story.
Without evidence of this nature, defendant is not "media."

First of all, this "evidence" is NOT required as a matter of law and constitutional rights.

Secondly, COX is media in her massive online presence PERIOD, as a matter of definition and fact. And Crystal Cox had and has a very strong, very large, dominating "medium of communication", aKa media. Judge Marco Hernandez would have you believe that Crystal Cox has no "medium of communication" and is thereby not legally "media", YET somehow defamed an Oregon Lawyer so badly in 3 weeks, that she had to pay him 1.5 million dollars and his company, Obsidian Finance Group another 1 Million. ( the date of the blog post was December 25th 2010 and the Lawsuit was filed January 14th 2011, the threat of the lawsuit claiming millions in loss was December 22nd 2010)

This case is riddled with fraud, filled with violations of due process, is a serious abuse of power and is a civil and human rights violation against blogger Crystal Cox an in turn ALL citizen journalists, online journalists, investigative reporters, whistle blowers and citizens of the United States of America.

source
http://www.rcfp.org/sites/default/files/docs/20111208_164702_cox_opinion.pdf


Judge Marco Hernandez SHOULD be recalled, and indicted for his participation in protecting CORRUPTION among Portland Oregon Judges, top Law Firms, high profile lawyers, utility companies, DOJ Trustees, financial companies and more.

How much more do you need to SEE to understand that this JUDGE was Protecting CORRUPTION in Portland Oregon and in essence made ALL online media, bloggers, citizen journalists, whistle blowers, and new media journalists collateral damage.

This one Judge, spread FEAR among those exposing corruption and single handily CHILLED the Speech of those Exposing Corruption in their neck of the woods, around the WORLD.