Crystal Cox Extortion Allegations; Anti-Corruption Blogger Crystal Cox FIGHTS BACK Against Extortion Allegations in Judicial Ruling

Anti-Corruption Blogger Crystal Cox FIGHTS BACK, against Federal Appellate Judges Stating;

“Cox apparently has a history of making similar allegations 

and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction”

Cox has not been found guilty by a court of law, had a formal investigation nor any kind of due process on extortion allegations. Therefore an esteemed, highly "reliable source" such as a 3 Judges on an Appellate Panel, should not make allegations of speculated crimes of the Defendant, especially quoting a New York Times journalist as the source of said opinion, or allegations.

I have NO ISSUE with those Speaking Critical of Me, that is your Constitutional Right.

I do not care about being personally Criticized, 

I care about

 Judges obeying the Law and obeying the 

Constitution of the United States of Amerca. 

It is one thing for a journalist and a blogger to have equal rights in reporting the news, this is important. However when corruption stories are told or "broke" by these outlets, the authorities then need to perform a formal investigation before a judicial ruling makes those same allegations, as a MATTER OF LAW and Legal Precedent.

I Don't Care Who Likes Me and Who Does Not. 

I care about our Judges obeying the Law, 
and Respecting our Constitutional Rights.

Speak Critical of me If You must, oh well. I need no support from the masses. This is a Spiritual mission for me. And I will not be silent as to this matter. If I am silent then all anti-corruption bloggers are easily silenced by overreaching Judicial Rulings that accuse them of bad or illegal behavior as a matter of law, in a court of law and with no judicial process, due process, in a court of law. And do so, seemingly, to cover up the very corruption in which those anti-corruption bloggers are exposing in the first place.

Crystal Cox via her attorney Eugene Volokh, UCLA Constitutional Law Profess filed a Motion to Rehear / A motion to REDACT the allegations against Cox that are hearsay and rumor maliciously reported by New York Times Journalist David Carr. 

To Read this Motion; Click Below

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkib1NraEFFb1Rac2M/edit

Eugene Volokh

A Few Quotes from Eugene Volokh's Motion to Rehear;

"A judicial assertion of misconduct by a named person, even a judicial assertion modified with the word “apparently,” might 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 civil justice 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.

Moreover, while the New York Times article does discuss Cox’s offering her consulting services to appellees in this case, it does not make any such allegations about other cases.

There thus seems to be no “history” of seeking money claimed in the article. The “history” that the column is positing appears to be only a history of Cox’s “making similar allegations.”

Unfortunately but unsurprisingly, some media outlets have not only repeated this sentence, but even omitted the term “apparently” in doing so.

The widely reprinted Reuters wire service, for instance, wrote, According to the court’s opinion, Cox has a history of making allegations of fraud and other illegal activities “and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction.”

Dan Levine, Blogger Gets Same Speech Protections as Traditional Press: U.S. Court, Reuters, Jan. 17, 2014, http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/‌17/‌us-usa-blogger-ruling-idUSBREA0G1HI20140117; see also, e.g., http://‌www.‌nbcnews.com/id/54102454/ns/technology_and_science-tech_‌and_‌gadgets/ (NBC News republication of the Reuters article).

Of course, some such media misstatements are inevitable. Still, they highlight the fact that, when a statement is made in a Court of Appeals opinion—with the authority such opinions possess—journalists might perceive the statement as a factual finding, and not just a report of what a newspaper column has alleged.

Judicial opinions are perceived as extraordinarily reliable sources of information.

This reliability stems from the assumption that statements in the opinion, especially statements that allege misconduct, generally rest on adjudicated facts.

Because of this, Cox respectfully requests that this particular allegation, which rests solely on a claim made in a newspaper column, be redacted from the opinion."

Link to "Motion to Rehear" Filed by Eugene Volokh;
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkib1NraEFFb1Rac2M/edit?usp=sharing

Crystal L. Cox, Online Statement regarding and in support of the Motion to Rehear, to Clarify or Redact Courts statement, “Cox apparently has a history of making similar allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction” and the surrounding media and corruption.
Click Below

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Sfa6KPy3ur6pBOcUF64CfvRFKM-n0ASMWhpUPC4G43Q/edit

Extortion was not part of the Lower Court Case, nor "of record". It has NO business in a Ninth Circuit Appellate Ruling when it was not a factor of the case, whatsoever.

This is where the proverbial rubber hits the road Folks. 

Crystal Cox has NEVER alleged criminal activity without documents, interviews, court hearings, court motions, and lot's of documented evidence posted on her blogs and linking to the source of that information. 

Yes, I cuss, yes I have my own style. NO I have not accused the innocent of "bad behavior" EVER. And I have never sought a pay off to retract any allegations nor will I ever. 

The goal, the mission per say, is to get criminal investigations and to give a voice to the victims of corrupt attorneys, judges, commissioners, corporations and corruption as a whole, that have documents of proof. Not to accuse innocents and ask for money. That is a LIE painted out by those who wish to silence me, and discredit the stories in which I am trying to draw attention to. 

If you want to believe your favorite blogger or big media newspaper, go ahead, that is your free will and constitutional right.  However, if you really are a journalist, a researcher, and an Investigative Blogger then do your homework. Investigate the allegations I have posted against hundreds over the last 10 years. Investigate the entire Summit Bankruptcy case and make up your own mind. And investigate the extortion allegations, find factual evidence in all of this, DO NOT simply believe Forbes, the New York Times or in this case an overreaching Judicial Ruling that gives Equality to blogger while at the same time using a New York Times article to discredit, slander and accuse the blogger of criminal activiity.

I am asking for a retraction, as a matter of law and constitutional rights of ALL who expose corruption and are often put under extreme prejudice and duress by the very legal system they are claiming is corrupt in some way. 

I allege crimes that I truly have researched and truly do believe have been committed. And I do NOT ask for a payoff to retract those allegations that I 100% believe to be true. For over 9 years now, I have studied  inside tips,documents, court cases, videos, emails, hearings, and I have not alleged criminal activity that has nothing to back it up, NOT EVER. 

Nor have I accused people of crimes with nothing to go on at all. And CERTAINLY I have not give my life to exposing crime in order to seek a measly $2500 a month pay off to extort or blackmail the criminal (bad guy) I am earnestly trying to expose and get justice for their victims.  An email during a legal battle, sent in my Pro Se capacity as a settlement offer, is called extortion by the masses and is certainly NOT evidence against me, that is based in any kind of fact.

I have dedicated my life to this. I am penniless, live in Church housing and eat due to the generosity of the Church. I made this stand to fight for the victims of corruption and give power to the anti-corruption bloggers exposing corruption. To me this is a basic human right, a civil right and absolutely necessary in a truly Free society striving for Justice for All. 

I have given to much, witnessed so much suffering. And at this point I do not intend to let the lie stand in place of the Truth, to the best of my ability.

These crimes are happening, these victims, these stories are real, and I have not simply been half hazardly alleging or accusing innocent "victims. 

Asking for a Ninth Circuit Redaction is based in a Matter of Law and Constitutional Rights plain and simple. I ask this for the rights of all Citizen Journalists, Whistle Blowers, and Anti-Corruption Bloggers out there trying to expose corruption and being shut down by lawyers, judges and the judicial process as a whole.

If the Ninth Circuit Judges DENY this request for true equality as Matter of Law and Constitutional Rights, then they do. However, I have at least asked the question. And we will soon know if it is a Ninth Circuit Ruling / Judicial Opinion that the New York Times is FACT, is documented evidence that can be used against all people as a matter of LAW, with no fact checking by the Ninth Circuit as to the allegations made by a New York Times reporter.

If the Ninth Circuit Appellate court gives the New York Times this kind of power as a Matter of LAW and Constitutional Rights, then what good is this amazing ruling that levels the playing field for all Citizen Journalists, Whistle Blowers, and Anti-Corruption Bloggers, equal to that of the New York Times, Forbes, USA Today, Reuters and other high powered corporate media outlets.

If the Ninth Circuit Judges say its lawful for Federal Judges to accuse people of crimes in a Judicial Ruling, as a Matter of LAW, based on the New York Times saying so, well there you have it, then its LAW.

Blogger Crystal Cox, Ninth Circuit; Quotes from around the Blogsphere regarding the recent WIN for ALL Citizen Journalists, Whistle Blowers and Anti-Corruption Bloggers.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

"New Ninth Circuit Blogger Defamation Protection Case – Obsidian Finance Group v. Cox"

"This post is about the new Ninth Circuit Obsidian Finance Group v. Cox defamation/blogger case that people and businesses should know about as it is possible these days for almost everyone to widely broadcast statements and opinions.  You can also see the text version of this discussion posted below the following video.

Generally defamation is defined as a false statement of fact not opinion that is negligently made or that the person making the statement knew was false or had or should have had serious doubts about the truth of the statement.

This is a private alleged defamation case –meaning that Cox was not a journalist or a member of the institutionalized news media or press. You might be aware that different standards of proof may apply when the traditional news media or press is alleged to have committed defamation.

Importantly, the court held that it is the public-figure status of the plaintiff and the public importance of the statement at issue – not the identity of the speaker – that provides the First Amendment free speech protections.

The rights of the institutional media are no greater and no less than those enjoyed by other individuals engaged in the same activities.

The Court found that Cox’s alleged statements were of public concern essentially because they alleged a crime or defrauding investors, and the post was not solely in the interests of the speaker or her business audience, was published to the public at large, and was not like advertising.

This is important because the jury should have been instructed that it could not find Cox liable unless it also found that Cox acted negligently.

The Court further held that the trial court should have instructed the jury that it could not award presumed damages unless it found that Cox had acted with actual malice.

Finally, using a three-part test the Court determined that viewed as a whole the statements were not actionable assertions or impressions of objective fact as compared to opinions, figurative or hyperbolic language, or sufficiently factual in nature or susceptible of being proved true or false.

Thus, the Ninth Circuit confirmed some defenses and benefits for bloggers. But of course many of these types of cases present questions of fact to be determined by the jury where the outcome can be different in each case.

Cases involving alleged defamation are on the rise. You need to be careful with what you say.

That’s it for now.

Dave Tate, Esq.

Blog posts and videos emphasizing new developments, people’s actions, the crossover in legal, risk, governance, business, accounting and other topic areas, and what it means. Please follow this blog by clicking “Follow” to the left, and you can find my LinkedIn, Twitter and other connections by clicking on the “About This Blog, Me, And My Connections” link above and to the left. Enjoy. Dave Tate, Esq. (and inactive CPA)."

Source

http://tatetalk.com/2014/02/18/new-ninth-circuit-blogger-defamation-protection-case-obsidian-v-cos/

BLOGS are the ONLY Media those Exposing Corruption Have ~ Says, Blogger Crystal Cox

Blogger Crystal Cox says; Anti-Corruption Bloggers, Citizen Journalists and Whistle Blower Bloggers having equal rights in our courts as that of traditional media, institutional press is a Human Right, a Civil Right and CRUCIAL to a truly FREE society.

"The US Court of Appeals decision should make blogging as well as social media in the Philippines more alive. Freedom is power. But as Uncle Ben told Spiderman, “With great power comes great responsibility"

"Two weeks ago the Ninth Circuit ruled in the case of Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal Cox that even though someone might not write for the “institutional press,” they’re entitled to all the protections the Constitution grants journalists."

"The latest decision by a United States court on the case of blogger Crystal Cox does not say bloggers are journalists as bannered in the Atl
antic.com Lawyer Harry L. Roque’s analysis of the decision is more accurate: “Bloggers enjoy the same protection as journalists.”

Two weeks ago the Ninth Circuit ruled in the case of Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal Cox that even though someone might not write for the “institutional press,” they’re entitled to all the protections the Constitution grants journalists.

Judge Andrew Hurwitz said, “the Court expressly noted that ‘we draw no distinction between the media respondents and’ a non-institutional respondent.’”

This is a reversal of December 2011 by a federal judge in Oregon, U.S. District Judge Marco Hernandez who said Cox, who styled herself as “an investigative blogger,” was not a journalist and cannot claim the protections afforded to mainstream reporters and news outlets.

The case stemmed from the online articles by Cox against Obsidian Finance Group LLC. She reportedly called Obsidian lawyer Kevin Padrick a “thug and a thief” during the handling of bankruptcy proceedings by him and Obsidian Finance Group LLC.

Roque, in his commentary carried by VERA Files, said the dilemma is the differing definition of who is a journalist: “For instance, the United States Congress, in a draft of a Federal shield law, defines a journalist as ‘one who works for a traditional media organization for pay or gain’, a definition adopted as well by the UNESCO. This will exclude bloggers altogether from the protection of the proposed shield law.

On the hand, the Human Rights Committee in its General Comment, defines ‘it is a function shared by wide variety of actors, including professionals full time reporters and analysts, as well as bloggers and others who engage in forms of self-publications in print, on the internet, or elsewhere’”.

But, Roque said, “all these miss the point. There is protection accorded by the bill of rights not just to freedom of the press, but to freedom of expression in general. The normative values of these two freedoms are identical: to discern the truth and to facilitate “open, robust and even virulent discussion of public issues”. If both freedoms have the same normative content, why should the courts distinguish between an input to the market place of ideas coming from one who earns a living by it and one who does so anyway as a public duty?

“The US Court of Appeal’s decisions, in my view, correctly refused a distinction between institutional media and bloggers because to recognize such would also violate the equal protection clause. This is another constitutional guarantee that those similarly situated will be treated alike. Had the court limited the protection of freedom of expression to professional journalists alone, it would send the message that only professional journalists can contribute to the public debate on public issues. This is contrary to the basic tenet that freedom of expression is a human right and not just a right of journalists.

“In any case, the fact that journalists are paid and bloggers are not does not constitute a real basis for distinction. In Abrams, Holmes wrote;’the true test of truth is the power of a thought to be accepted in the market place of ideas’. Certainly, Holmes did not write that only paid journalists could contribute to this market.”

Blogging now is not limited to blogsites but also cover microblogging which includes social media – Facebook and Twitter- that have enormous following in the Philippines.

The US Court of Appeals decision should make blogging as well as social media in the Philippines more alive. Freedom is power. But as Uncle Ben told Spiderman, “With great power comes great responsibility.”

Source and Full Article
 http://www.ellentordesillas.com/2014/01/29/roque-bloggers-enjoy-same-protection-as-journalists-2/#sthash.sAOJSznA.dpuf  "