Monday, April 14, 2014

Crystal Cox Extortion. Crystal Cox Case. Crystal Cox Marc Randazza. Crystal Cox Obsidian Finance.

How Did the Allegation of Extortion come into the Obsidian v. Cox case? A bit on the Summit Bankruptcy, the Trial, Extortion, David Aman, Marc Randazza and More

Wednesday, April 9, 2014

DEMAND Transparency and Accountability. YOU are the NEWS. No Governing Body has a RIGHT to tell you what is NEWS. You see it, video it, know it, research it.. it is NEWS and it is also YOUR First Amendment RIGHT. "a Legitimate Journalist" as a Label is BULLSHIT plain and simple and a Violation of YOUR Rights, PERIOD.

"Currently being debated by the Senate, but rarely discussed on mainstream television, is the Shield Law. While on the surface it may seem to be rather innocuous, some of the language in it and its implications are quite problematic for journalists.

A Shield Law is a law which “provides statutory protection for the ‘reporters’ privilege’— legal rules which protect journalists against the government requiring them to reveal confidential sources or other information.”[1] Generally, this is a positive occurrence as journalists are much more able to conduct their work and bring information to public light if they do not need to worry about having to reveal their sources. While Shield Laws have occurred in the past, they have only been on the state level. This currently proposed Shield Law is the first one to reach the federal level and the main goal is to protect journalists from having to reveal confidential sources in federal cases.[2]
However, there are certain instances in which journalists will have to reveal sources, such as “(1) The party seeking disclosure has exhausted all reasonable alternative sources of the information; (2) The requested information is essential to resolving the matter; (3) Disclosure of the requested information would not be contrary to the public interest; and (4) In criminal cases, if the requesting party is the federal government, the government must show that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has occurred.”[3]
While overall it may seem like a good bill, there are a number of problems with this Shield Law, officially known as the Free Flow of Information Act of 2013. For starters, this law would “allow the government to seize reporters’ records without notifying them for 45 days – a period of time that could be renewed by a judge 45 additional days – if investigators convince a judge pre-notification ‘would pose a clear and substantial threat to the integrity of a criminal investigation.’”[4] This power of seizing records without notifying reporters was used most recently in regards to the Associated Press, when the federal government seized their phone records in May of last year, with the government only saying that “they were needed for investigation of an unspecified criminal matter.”[5] Oh yes! What transparency and accountability! Infringing upon the First Amendment rights of reporters and then only giving what is essentially a BS, purposefully vague explanation.
In addition to this, the government can force journalists to give up information in the name of national security.[6] This is quite worrying as the US government has time and time again been involved in operations of entrapment.[7,8] Due to this, they could potentially have a scenario where they create a case of entrapment, label it terrorism, and then force all journalists to give up information on any and all sources as well as seize their records under the guise of national security.
Yet in this current bill, not only can the government continue to engage in the above behavior, but they are also defining who is and who is not a journalist. Initially, the bill defined a journalist as “a person who has a ‘primary intent to investigate events and procure material’ in order to inform the public by regularly gathering information through interviews and observations” and added the stipulation that “The person also must intend to report on the news at the start of obtaining any protected information and must plan to publish that news.”[9] This seems to be rather fine as it would include mainstream and independent journalists. However, the situation became problematic when in September 2013, an amendment to the bill was proposed that- let’s just say- ‘more clearly’ defined who and who was not a journalist.
Kevin Gostolza of Firedoglake discussed this amendment last year and it would be appropriate to quote him now at some length:
A “covered journalist,” under the amendment, would be the following: an employee, independent contractor, or agent of an entity or service that disseminates news or information by means of newspaper; nonfiction book; wire service; news agency; news website, mobile application or other news or information service (whether distributed digitally or other wise); news program; magazine or other periodical, whether in print, electronic, or other format; or through television or radio broadcast, multichannel video programming distributor (as such term is defined in section 602(13) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 522(13)), or motion picture for public showing… That person must also have the “primary intent to investigate events and procure material in order to disseminate to the public news or information concerning local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest.” Or, that person should be engaged in the “regular gathering, preparation, collection, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting or publishing on such matters.” A person would also qualify as a “covered journalist” if they had experience in journalism and had “substantially contributed, as an author, editor, photographer, or producer, to a significant number of articles, stories, programs, or publications” in the past twenty years. As Feinstein said, it would “cover a legitimate journalist such as a Dan Rather who leaves his media entity and takes to publishing freelance stories on the web.”[10] (emphasis added)
Now, let’s begin to take those paragraphs apart and analyze them, bit by bit.
In the first paragraph, the law defines a journalist as “an employee, independent contractor, or agent of an entity or service that disseminates news or information” and then goes on to define the many mediums by which the news can be disseminated. Some of this language seems to be problematic. What exactly do they mean by “independent contractor?” Do they mean a freelancer? Do they mean someone like myself who researches and writes independently?"

Sunday, April 6, 2014

Crystal Cox Case, Obsidian Finance Group v. Blogger Crystal Cox. It is NOT ok, NOT Ethical, NOT Legal and certainly NOT constitutional for Judges to take pot shots at litigants and place unrelated criminal allegations made by a New York Times reporter, into YOUR Ninth Circuit Civil Court Appeal.

Folks, this Sentence in a NINTH Circuit, 3 Panel Judge Ruling
affects the Public at large in a MAJOR way.

"“Cox apparently has a history of making similar allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction"

Regardless of your "Opinion" of Crystal Cox BEING an Extortionist or not. This precedence is dangerous to all, and essentially will chill the speech of anti-corruption bloggers as they can be discredited and painted out to be criminals, as a "pot shot" in a Ninth Circuit ruling of a civil case brought against them for defamation and to essentially "shut them up".

It really is NOT ok for Judges to throw in "other" allegations, in a ruling. Allegations that were NOT a material factor, NOT of "the record" in the lower court case in which they are ruling on.

These criminal extortion Allegations, slipped into a ninth circuit civil case appeal, is not based in law, rights of due process, or constitutional rights. 

These Allegations, the Judges knowingly and noted, with credit, as coming from a New York Times journalist, of which their ruling had just gave that blogger and essentially all bloggers and citizens journalists equal rights to that New York Times journalist, as well as other institutional press journalists.

Ninth Circuit Judges; Judge Arthur L. Alarcón, Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr.,and Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz, took the opinion, rant and ramblings of New York Times Reporter as Factual Evidence and issued a ruling stating that Cox has a history of posting allegations and seeking a pay off for extraction, which is the felony crime of extortion and of which is NOT based in fact, not based in adjudication for the crime of extortion, not based in evidence or sworn testimony regarding the crime of extortion and having given Blogger Crystal Cox no due process or constitutional rights in the matter what so ever.

Regardless of your opinion of me, Crystal Cox, wouldn't you have to agree that these Judges should not have this right? Would you want this to happen to you? Would you want due process and for judges such as Ninth Circuit Judges; Judge Arthur L. Alarcón, Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr.,and Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz to OBEY the law and NOT violate your constitutional rights?

It is not about removing allegations of extortion, regarding me, Crystal Cox. I could care less, as I know the Truth about that, and it would be IMPOSSIBLE to remove this defamatory lie from the Internet, thanks to Attorneys David Aman and Marc Randazza and Judge Marco Hernandez, as well
as the 3 panel Ninth Circuit judges who threw in their two cents on the matter.

The ISSUE is about the FACT, that it is NOT Ok, not Ethical, not Legal and certainly not constitutional for Judges to do this to anti-corruption bloggers essential to instill fear in them and chill their speech, disguised as a ruling in favor of Free Speech and equal rights for those same bloggers.

That one sentence now means that any of you out there exposing corruption that the New York Times or other institutional press does not approve of, or say they are paid by the "bad guys" aKa the judges, politicians, and corporations you may be exposing

 a Bit on Crystal Cox's Motion to Rehear and Redact ~ Playlist of 2 (audio only)
Crystal Cox talks about her Motion to Rehear and a bit about her Case and the attorneys involved.


Links to Research the Motion to Rehear

Crystal Cox Ninth Circuit Petition for Rehearing filed by Eugene Volokh on January 31st, 2014.

Crystal Cox Wins First Amendment Court Victory for all Bloggers, Whistleblower and Citizen Journalists, then files a Motion to Rehear requesting a Redaction of Extortion allegations.

Auction of Appeal Rights?

Case Dockets, where the Plaintiff, Kevin Padrick and Obsidian Finance Group via their Attorney David Aman of Tonkon Torp Law Firm attempted to SEIZE Cox's right to appeal. Cox alleges that David Aman was given legal advice on this matter by Cox's former attorney Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group.

Hearing Transcript Day Before Obsidian v. Cox Trial (Page 16 shows Crystal Cox asking Judge Hernanez about Extortion allegations)

More on the Crystal Cox Case, Summit Bankruptcy, Extortion and More

Monday, March 24, 2014

Crystal Cox Extortion; When did, and how did EXTORTION become part of the 10 Million Dollar Lawsuit Filed against Blogger Crystal Cox

Playlist of 3 Videos Below

Hearing Transcript Day Before Obsidian v. Cox Trial

David Aman, Tonkon Torp Law Firm, Deposed Stephanie Studebaker DeYoung 3 YEARS before he Sued Blogger Crystal Cox. David Aman knew and knows that Crystal Cox never had actual malice, and in FACT was simply "reporting" the story that others were posting online, and had been for 3 years.

David Aman of Tonkon Torp is the Attorney for Kevin Padrick and Obsidian Finance Group. Who Crystal Cox alleged was part of the Summit Bankruptcy Corruption, as was other Tonkon Torp attorneys such as Leon Simson who was connected to Pamela Griffith, Department of Justice Trustee, and Steven Hedberg of Perkins Coie, who allegedly all worked at Miller Nash together and in other law firms over the years.

Here is the David Aman Deposes Whistleblower Stephanie DeYoung and asks about the "intentions" of Blogger Crystal Cox.

Eliot Bernstein Interviews Whistleblower Stephanie DeYoung
While Hospitalized against Her Will by her Husband Bret DeYoung.

Part One

Part Two


Thursday, March 6, 2014

Crystal Cox Case Citiing; USA v. Barrett Lancaster Brown

12-35238 Obsidian Finance Group, LLC, et al v. Crystal Cox;

Crystal Cox Cited in USA v. Barrett Lancaster Brown, "MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT, Defendant BARRETT LANCASTER BROWN files this motion to dismiss Count 1 and Counts 3–12 of the Indictment.

"However, First Amendment protection is not contingent on whether the
speaker is “a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities, engaged in
conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond just assembling others’ writings, or tried to get both
sides of a story.” Obsidian Fin. Grp., LLC v. Crystal Cox 740 F.3d 1284, 1291 (9th Cir. Jan. 17,
2014) (applying First Amendment protection to blogs). "

Wednesday, March 5, 2014

Powerful Portland Trustee Loses on Appeal

"By Michael FullerThe Underdog Lawyer ®

Today, for the first time in history, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appealsconferred First Amendment protections to bloggers accused of defamation.

Powerful Portland Trustee Loses on Appeal

In 2011, Portland District Judge Marco Hernandez chose to deny blogger Crystal Cox protections under the Constitution because she was not a formal press member.

Cox had been sued for defamation after blogging about Oregon bankruptcy trustee Kevin Padrick and his investment company, Obsidian Finance Group.

Padrick retained prominent Portland lawyer David Aman of Tonkon Torp LLP, and obtained a $2.5 million verdict against Cox, who represented herself at trial.

Judge Hernandez instructed the jury that Padrick should prevail at trial, even if his lawyer failed to prove Cox acted with any degree of fault.

Today's Opinion Sets First Amendment Precedent

Today, the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that Cox's failure to submit evidence that she was a journalist did not strip her blog of First Amendment protections.

The opinion is the first of its kind in the Ninth Circuit, which covers Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, and Montana.

After Trial Loss, Blogger Gained Allies

Cox's loss at trial shocked many in the legal blogging community, and she quickly gained support from an all-star team of appellate lawyers on appeal.

After prevailing in court, Padrick took the bold legal maneuver ofattempting to terminate Cox's appeal by purchasing her appellate rights at sheriff's sale.

Key among Cox's allies was UCLA First Amendment professor Eugene Volokh, who assisted Portland firm Angeli Law Group LLC pro bono in filing an initial motion to stay in district court.

On January 15, 2013, Judge Hernandez granted Cox's motion to stay the proposed sheriff's sale.

The case, Obsidian Finance Group, LLC et al v. Cox, is nowremanded back to Oregon district court for a new trial.


As a free speech law blogger, I rejoiced when I read Judge Hurwitz's opinion. Thank you, thank you, thank you, professor Eugene Volokh and Benjamin Souede!

Pigs Get Fat; Hogs Get Slaughtered.

Maybe the second time around, Padrick and his lawyer will avoid going "scorched earth" on a mentally impaired judgment-proof out-of-state pro se blogger.

Had Padrick been more reasonable in his legal positions in the first instance, he might have still won a monster verdict, and avoided this embarrassing reversal.

The first I actually heard of this case was Padrick's seemingly evil attempt to liquidate Cox's right to appeal on the Volokh Conspiracy a year ago.

The "Free Speech Notice" on my website was a direct result of Judge Hernandez's holding.

Say what you will about Citizens United, I thought it interesting the panel was so heavily persuaded by it in this pro-consumer opinion.

“We have consistently rejected the proposition that the institutional press has any constitutional privilege beyond that of other speakers.”
Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 352 (2010)."