I never asked for the Summary Judgement that threw all those posts out, the Judge simply decided it was best for me, granted the Summary Judgement I did not ask for and threw the posts out suggesting they were so over the top no one would believe them. As you see in the Summary Judgement on this issue, from the Summer of 2011.
Judge Hernandez Said, "Defendant did not cross-move for summary judgment. However, given my conclusion, I gave notice in the July 7, 2011 Opinion that I intended to grant summary judgment for defendant "independent of the motion." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f)."
Source, Partial Summary Judgement
Also Keep in mind that NO Blog Posts were stated in the Complaint, and no Retraction was asked for. Here is my motion asking for the courts to make the Plaintiff tell me which posts, as I had thousands over 3 years.
I, Anti-Corruption Blogger Crystal Cox want bloggers who are reporting on the news, on corruption to have equality and not to be disgraced in the very court case that gives them Equality.
I, Crystal L. Cox, Stand for the Rights of All Citizen Journalists, Whistle Blower, Anti-Corruption Bloggers and the victims of the corruption they are reporting on, the news they are "breaking".
"A Quick Thought on Bloggers, Opinion, and Today's Ruling from the Ninth Circuit
Posted January 17th, 2014 by Jeff Hermes
"Earlier today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit released its decision in Obsidian Finance Group, LLC, v. Cox, No. 12-35238 (9th Cir. Jan. 17, 2014), a case involving defamation claims brought against a blogger who wrote about alleged financial improprieties in connection with a corporate bankruptcy.
The case was the subject of considerable controversy among defenders of Internet speech, after a federal district court judge in Oregon ruled that the blogger, Crystal Cox, was not entitled to First Amendment protection under the Supreme Court's decision in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974).
Gertz imposes a baseline negligence standard in defamation cases, but the district court held that Cox was not entitled to Gertz's protection because she was (a) not a journalist and (b) writing only about matters of private concern.
The statements were posted on obsidianfinancesucks.com, a website name that leads “the reader of the statements [to be] predisposed to view them with a certain amount of skepticism and with an understanding that they will likely present one-sided view points rather than assertions of provable facts.”