Judge Marco Hernandez
To Download Click Below
Cox has filed several Motions to Remove Judge Marco Hernandez, as is her legal and constitutional right and Defendant Crystal Cox has been DENIED over and over.
Why is Judge Marco Hernandez holding on so TIGHT? - To Protect Corruption in PORTLAND, that's Why. Thing is corrupt rulings against a penniless blogger are NOT going to PROTECT corruption, the TRUTH will RISE UP at some point.
Motion to REMOVE / RECLUSE
Judge Marco Hernandez
MOTION to REMOVE Judge Ann Aiken
Defendant Crystal Cox MOVES this court to REMOVE Judge Marco Hernandez from this case.
Defendant Crystal Cox MOVES this court to REMOVE Judge Ann Aiken from ALL aspects of this case.
Defendant Crystal Cox has a right to equal treatment under the Law.
The Law CLEARLY states that COX has a right REMOVE Judge Marco Hernandez from this case if she believes he is conflicted .
Not only does Cox “Believe” but COX has provided evidence to clearly show that Judge Marco Hernandez has discriminated against COX, painted COX out to be a criminal in a RULING to Deny a New Trial, and conspired with attorneys Marc Randazza and David Aman to defame, slander, intimidate, paint in false light and discredit COX.
Judge Marco Hernandez has denied Cox due process, unlawfully forced falsified evidence against COX, participated in Jury Tampering, forced COX to have a Jury of which PLAINTIFF did not legally request, made the Docket to defame Cox’s sources and those she is reporting on, put Cox’s life in danger, ruled COX make statements to incriminate herself off the record, and continues to deny Cox equal treatment and rule in AMAN’s favor no matter what he says, and no matter how illegal or outside of the law, rules of evidence and rules of procedure he is.
Judge Marco Hernandez is NOT above the Laws of the United States of America.
Judge Ann Aiken continues to NOT read any motion in this case and simply RULE over and over that Judge Marco Hernandez is not in conflict and DENY Cox a New Judge.
Judge Ann Aiken is protecting CORRUPTION in Portland Oregon.
There is no legal, lawful or credible reason for Judge Marco Hernandez to hold on so tight.
If this case is really about JUSTICE then why does there have to be a JUDGE put in to replace Haggerty and a JUDGE that refuses to RECLUSE and continually disobeys / violates his office as a PUBLIC SERVANT.
COX has a right to place a lien on Judge Marco Hernandez’s BOND, Cox is Denied.
Judge Marco Hernandez is protecting organized crime in Portland Oregon and in this case protecting Perkins Coie law firm and their involvement in the conflicts, bankruptcy code violations and unethical actions of the Summit Bankruptcy.
Judge Ann Aiken has not OBEYED her Oath of Office and looked into this case whatsoever. Even though it involved almost all of the Top Oregon Law Firms, as well as utility companies, financial companies, bankruptcy judge, politicians, and the local DOJ Trustee Office.
Judge Ann Aiken needs to be removed from this case and the TRUTH needs to be shown at all levels of what has really happened in this case and who it really involves.
Judge Aiken refuses to look into these matters, and simply STAMPS denied to my motions to remove Judge Hernandez. This is unlawful, as she has not even read the reasons why, she simply picks her colleague, a federal judge over the rights of the Citizens of the United States of America.
Defendant COX has been given information about Judge Aiken for years. Judge Ann Aiken is at the TOP for protecting CORRUPTION IN OREGON, that is a FACT.
Judge Marco Hernandez does not have a legal, ethical or constitutional right to make Defendant Crystal Cox’s LIFE, business, friends, family and quality of life the collateral damage to PROTECT the Oregon corruption she is reporting on.
Judge Marco Hernandez is a PUBLIC SERVANT and has a DUTY to expose Public Corruption and not to condone and protect it.
Judge Marco Hernandez is aware of crimes that have happened, yet Judge Marco Hernandez continues to IGNORE the actions of the Plaintiff and bullies, intimidates and paints COX out to be the criminal when CLEARLY Cox is exposing CORRUPT Judges, DOJ Trustees, Lawyers, Solar Companies, Utility Companies, Politicians, Finance Companies and more in the Summit Bankruptcy.
Judge Marco Hernandez has no lawful reason to keep RULING that he stay on this case.
Cox is filing a WRIT of Mandamus to the NINTH regarding this issue and other issues that Judge Marco Hernandez has simply DENIED with no merit based in law.
IT Is extremely clear that Judge Marco Hernandez has sought and succeeded at extreme retaliation against Defendant Crystal Cox, who is clearly a woman who saw an injustice and spoke out. Who is an investigative reporter who interviewed insiders, read and posted court motions, watched videos of inside meetings, read DOJ documents and emails, read massive court documents, and more, and did this over 3 years BEFORE COX was sued by Plaintiff.
There is no way that COX posted thousands to millions of blog posts about the corrupt actions of the PLAINTIFF and his attorney, to simply seek $2500 a month years later for yer 16 hour a day, year after year after year reporting on this story.
YET Judge Marco Hernandez allowed, IN VIOLATION OF THE RULES OF EVIDENCE, allowed PLAINTIFF’s corrupt attorney to use 1 email out of 5 between him and COX. Not between COX and the Plaintiff but attorney to attorney emails as COX was pro se. Judge Marco Hernandez helped, worked with, and aided and abetted Tonkon Torp to discredit COX in the media and court documents to protect their crimes worth 100’s of millions of dollars over decades.
Judge Marco Hernandez is using his public office to aid and abet CORRUPTION, and he is doing this willfully and knowingly as COX has given this court plenty of proof of corruption.
Judge Marco Hernandez violated the constitutional rights of Defendant Crystal Cox.
Judge Marco Hernandez maliciously and deliberately defamed, slandered and severely prejudiced Defendant Crystal Cox
Judge Marco Hernandez abused his power as a Federal Judge to use his court to attempt to silence a whistle blower, Defendant Crystal Cox who was reporting on what she believed, and still believes is an Oregon bankruptcy crime involving Summit 1031 Trustee Kevin D. Padrick.
Defendant Crystal Cox alleges that she brought enough evidence into this court to demand / to warrant an investigation into the actions of Tonkon Torp Law Firm, Sussman Shank Law Firm, Perkins Coie Law Firm, Obsidian Finance Group and bankruptcy trustee Kevin D. Padrick. Defendant Crystal Cox alleges that Judge Marco Hernandez abused his judicial power to cover up the crimes and unethical behavior of his friend, Judge Michael Simon.
Judge Marco Hernandez knew that Defendant Cox was not the only reporter speaking of the Summit Bankruptcy nor the only one speaking critical of Obsidian Finance Group, yet he ruled in the exact opposite of the TRUTH.
Judge Marco Hernandez deliberately, maliciously, willfully, neglectfully and with superior knowledge of the law violated the rights of Due Process of Defendant Cox and violated her Constitutional Rights.
Judge Hernandez has denied COX Oregon Retraction Laws, Anti-Slapp Laws, and even the First Amendment, this was to protect Oregon Corruption.
Judge Marco Hernandez did not even ALLOW COX to know what blog post she was sued on, until 6 months into the case, by then he claimed she had waited to long to use SLAPP laws, see the motion for a more definitive answer.
There is no reason based in law or common sense that COX would not have a right to even know what blog post she was sued 10 million for when she had hundreds of thousands of blog posts over 7 years at that time.
Judge Marco Hernandez completely violated the civil and human rights of Defendant COX, and her rights of Due Process, as well as her constitutional rights.
FEDERAL JUDGES ARE NOT ABOVE THE LAW.
There is no reason based in law or common sense for Judge Marco Hernandes to waste millions of court dollars over years, to sue a penniless blogger for a blog post for 10 million dollars of which COX was not even asked to REMOVE, this violated Oregon Retraction Laws, yet Judge Hernandez defends his unlawful, unconstitutional position though flat out WRONG, to the bitter end.
COX did not REQUEST, ask for NOR Want a Summary Judgement, yet Judge Hernandez took matters into his own hands and forced one on COX to make her blog posts on corruption look NOT TRUE.
However Cox’s blogs on Plaintiff’s Illegal and Unethical Actions ARE TRUE.
Just because Judge Marco Hernandez does not believe PLAINTIFF should be investigated that does not mean that Plaintiff did not do what COX claims via massive research, interviews, hearings, and source documentation.
Judge Marco Hernandez granted Pro Se Defendant Crystal L. Cox a Summary Judgement of which she did not ask for, nor had Cox been advised to if this was in her best interest. Cox had no rights in this Ruling. Cox had not been told blog posts she was sued over, then when Cox was told, she was Denied Oregon Retraction laws, and denied Anti-SLAPP Laws, both unconstitutionally and outside of law, Cox alleges.
This motion ended with the following; “The Court will promptly set a telephone scheduling conference to establish a case schedule for trial. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 23rd day of August , 2011”. Defendant Cox was let to believe that this was a bench trial, Cox was duped. Cox moves this court to order that Tonkon Torp law firm pay Cox for irreparable harm caused to Cox by deliberate actions of Tonkon Torp Law Firm that clearly were outside of law.
No motion was filed Demanding a Jury Trial, yet COX was FORCED to have a Jury Trial. This has caused Cox irreparable harm. As David Aman, unlawfully, unethically manipulated the jury by using a forced deposition of Cox incriminating herself from the day before as Ordered off the record by Judge Marco Hernandez to talk about her SEO business which was of No material factor in the case and on that day Aman said to Judge Hernandez, you know why Judge, Judge Hernandez said yes, then ordered me to speak on these unrelated matters, and thus proving they had private counsel. This was used to coerce the Jury.
Also the hearing, the day before the trial, Judge Hernandez was asked by Defendant Cox, as the record shows, if David Aman was allowed, as a matter of law to introduce the email that Aman alleged was extortion. Hernandez said it was not admissible, yet Obsidian Finance Group Attorney, David Aman entered the email into the jury in the closing statement and coerced them, outside of law that Cox was a criminal and therefore they ruled $500,000 more against Cox then even asked, as Aman had manipulated them with false facts and erroneous evidence.
Having a Jury trial instead of a bench trial, has caused Cox irreparable harm and Cox moves this court to remove Hernandez and to issue sanctions upon Tonkon Torp Law Firm for this clear and obvious violation of law and local rules. Sanctions that reward Cox with monetary compensation for massive irreparable harm to Defendant Crystal Cox.
Judge Marco Hernandez has violated Judicial Canons in this case over and over.
“Canon 1. A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary
[1.1] Deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends upon public confidence in the integrity and independence of judges.
The integrity and independence of judges depends in turn upon their acting without fear or favor.
Although judges should be independent, they must comply with the law, including the provisions of this Code. Public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary is maintained by the adherence of each judge to this responsibility. Conversely, violation of this Code diminishes public confidence in the judiciary and thereby does injury to the system of government under law. “
Judge Marco Hernandez has not acted with integrity and independence in this case from the start and continuing now 4 years later.
Judge Marco Hernandez has violated Canon 2.
A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities
Judge Marco Hernandez has not avoided Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities.
(A) A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that
promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
Judge Marco Hernandez has not complied with nor respect the law nor the Civil Rights of COX. He has not promoted public confidence nor acted with integrity or impartiality.
[2.2][2A] The prohibition against behaving with impropriety or the appearance of impropriety applies to both the professional and personal conduct of a judge.
Because it is not practicable to list all prohibited acts, the proscription is necessarily cast in general terms that extend to conduct by judges that is harmful although not specifically mentioned in the Code. Actual improprieties under this standard include violations of law, court rules or other specific provisions of this Code. The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge’s ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality and competence is impaired. “
Judge Marco Hernandez has violated Judicial Cannons and the Due Process and Constitutional Rights of Defendant Crystal Cox.
Judge Marco Hernandez is NOT impartial.
Judge Marco Hernandez has NOT acted with Integrity.
Judge Marco Hernandez has VIOLATED All of Judicial Canon 3
A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Impartially and Diligently
(B) Adjudicative responsibilities.
(l) A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it. A judge shall not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor or fear of criticism.
Judge Marco Hernandez has been coerced, swayed and part of clamor about Cox’s alleged extortionate behavioe. He has even went so far as to insinuate COX’s GUILT of this, without an investigation or Adjudicated Facts, in a Federal JUDICIAL RULING.
This is AGAINST THE LAW and a Violation of the Civil Rights of Cox as well as Due Process Rights and Constitutional Rights.
(2) A judge shall require order and decorum in proceedings before the judge.
(D) Disciplinary responsibilities.
Judge Marco Hernandez has not acted with decorum, he has conspired with THUGS, with Marc Randazza porn attorney and Pedophile supporter, human trafficking support and conspired with David Aman to get the WORLD to hate a female blogger speaking out about THEIR illegal, immoral, corrupt and unconstitutional actions as attorneys and officers of the court.
(1) A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that another judge has committed a substantial violation of this Part shall take appropriate action.
Judge Marco Hernandez KNOW that Judge Michael Dunn acted unlawful in the SUMMIT Bankruptcy, he has read the proof, on this very Docket.
Judge Marco Hernandez knows that Judge Michal Simon was involved in violations of public trust working with TRUSTEE (PLAINTIFF) Kevin Padrick who had no lawful right under bankruptcy code, an in breach of contract with his clients SUMMIT to be a TRUSTEE.
Judge Marco Hernandez is protecting other Judges who acted illegal and unethical in this case.
(2) A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that a lawyer has
committed a substantial violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility shall take
Judge Marco Hernandez KNOWS that Plaintiff’s attorney David Aman has substantially violated of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Judge Hernandez has known this for years, yet does nothing, says nothing and allows AMAN to continue to be an officer in this court.
Cox has filed motions to remove AMAN and pointed out what AMAN has done to endanger Cox’s life, intimidate COX, defame and slander COX and ruin her life and Judge Marco Hernandez continues to SUPPORT this Lawyer and he violated Judicial Cannon 3 by not taking ANY appropriate action whatsoever.
Judge Marco Hernandez KNOWS that attorney Marc Randazza has extremely violated Cox’s rights, and he does nothing. He simply believed the attorneys over the word of Defendant COX and over PROOF OF ANY KIND, with no investigation and without respect for the law or even a conscience or any morals, RUINED Cox’s life in RULINGS that painted COX out as Evil, or the bad guy, and guilty of things she did not do.
A federal judge does not have a free for all right to take pot shots at litigants for completely unrelated activity that is not adjudicated fact, yet Judge Marco Hernandez did this to Defendant Cox over and over again.
(3) Acts of a judge in the discharge of disciplinary responsibilities are part of a judge's judicial duties.
(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned
Judge Marco Hernandez’s IMPARTIALITY has been reasonably questioned over and over again and still this court keeps him in this position to PROTECT PORTLAND CORRUPTION.
[3.11][3B(6)(e)] A judge may delegate the responsibilities of the judge under Canon 3B(6) to a member of the judge’s staff. A judge must make reasonable efforts, including the provision of appropriate supervision, to ensure that Section 3B(6) is not violated through law clerks or other personnel on the judge’s staff. This provision does not prohibit the judge or the judge’s law clerk from informing all parties individually of scheduling or administrative decisions.
[3.21][3E(1)] Under this rule, a judge is disqualified whenever the judge’s impartiality might
reasonably be questioned, regardless whether any of the specific rules in Section 3E(1)
apply. For example, if a judge were in the process of negotiating for employment with a law
firm, the judge would be disqualified from any matters in which that firm appeared, unless the disqualification was waived by the parties after disclosure by the judge.
It is clear that COX had a right to Disqualify Judge Hernandez, and yet COX is DENIED over and over.
COX again moves this court to REMOVE / Disqualify / Recluse Judge Marco Hernandez, as is Defendant Cox’s clear and convincing unalienable RIGHT.
[3.22][3E(1)] A judge should disclose on the record information that the judge believes the
parties or their lawyers might consider relevant to the question of disqualification, even if the judge believes there is no real basis for disqualification. “
Crystal L. Cox
(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;