Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Crystal Cox Ninth Circuit Victory; Landmark Ruling, Big Victory for Bloggers and Neither Side Happy.

"Last month, an appellate court handed self-styled “investigative blogger” Crystal Cox a big victory in a lawsuit brought by two subjects of her posts -- Obsidian Finance Group, which consults with businesses in financial trouble, and its co-founder, Kevin Padrick.

The decision was hailed as a major victory for bloggers, but it turns out that neither side is happy with the court's opinion in the case: Both Cox and Obsidian are now seeking changes to the decision."

"The appellate panel said in its ruling that the trial judge should have told the jury to consider Cox's state of mind, including whether she acted with negligence, before awarding damages.

Judges typically issue such instructions when mainstream media outlets are sued for libel. Without that type of instruction, the jury could find that Cox defamed Obsidian simply by publishing a false statement, even if she believed the statement to be true.

The trial judge didn't think Cox was eligible for that jury instruction, given that he believed she lacked the characteristics of a journalist -- such as “education in journalism,” “proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest,” “creation of an independent product rather than assembling writings and postings of others,” and “contacting 'the other side' to get both sides of a story.”

But the appellate court made clear that bloggers need not satisfy any sort of checklist of journalistic credentials in order to receive the same protections as mainstream media. 

That portion of the ruling is considered a sweeping vindication of bloggers' rights."

"The dispute between Cox and Obsidian, however, has another wrinkle. After Obsidian complained about Cox's posts, she allegedly offered to help him clean up his online reputation for $2,500 a month. That allegation wasn't the basis of the lawsuit, but was reported on in the media while the case was pending.

What's more, the 9th Circuit referred to those allegations in its opinion, writing that Cox “apparently has a history of making similar allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction.” The only basis cited by the court for that statement was a Dec. 11, 2011 New York Times article.

She is now asking the 9th Circuit to revise its opinion by removing that sentence from its opinion. “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,” her attorney argues in papers filed with the court late last month."

"For its part, Obsidian also is asking the appellate court to reconsider its decision. Among other arguments, the company says that it should have been able to pursue libel claims for more than just one post. “Cox has repeatedly asserted that Plaintiffs are 'criminals' engaged in various specific crimes, including tax fraud, corruption, deceit on the government, money laundering, defamation, harassment, fraud against the government, and solar tax credit fraud,” the company's attorney writes in papers filed on Friday. “It is readily apparent that Cox does not mean her accusations in any loose, figurative, or hyperbolic sense. She is literally and seriously accusing plaintiffs of committing crimes, which is susceptible of being proved true or false.”

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals hasn't yet indicated whether it will reconsider its ruling."

Source of Above and Full Article

Voice for Voiceless Victims, Corrupt Blogger, or SEO Wizard? What about Sleazy Blogger, Extortionist, Racketeer, Bat Shit Crazy, and the other Gems that attorney, William Peacock Forgot?

WOW and this from the "Legal Professionals" ? Wonder if they "investigated" the ALLEGED Corrupt Blogger Batshit Crazy Crystal Cox ? Or just jumped on the defamatory bandwagon?

William Peacock thinks Crystal Cox is CORRUPT, or is he simply pointing out the injustices done to Crystal Cox who he says KNOWS the Law better then the Judge?  Well either way, it is NOW his First Amendment Right to publish this false statement should they be false, courtesy of Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox's Landmark Ruling for ALL bloggers, citizen journalists and whistle blowers to EXPOSE jackasses such as William Peacock.

Is William Peacock to lazy to study the true case and simply standing up for the unethical, corrupt, unconstitutional attorneys that Crystal Cox, SEO Wizard is Exposing? Is William Peacock so busy strutting around the barnyard that he cannot look into the FACTS before he writes up this jibberish? Oh well, each to their own, guess all is fair and equally protected now thanks to the Corrupt Blogger Crystal Cox, oh unless of course William Peacock KNOWS he is posting false information than he would have "Actual Malice" right? Hmmm

Ahh I am just flippin' Mr. Peacock some SHIT, other then the implication that I am a Corrupt Blogger, this is some pretty good stuff overall. And I do like how Corrupt Ones turns into "allegedly corrupt". :)

"Bloggers, Even Corrupt Ones, Get Same Protections as Journalists"

""As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable."

That's the money quote from Judge Andrew Hurwitz's opinion for the Ninth Circuit panel, which held that bloggers enjoy the same free speech protections as traditional journalists, and under Gertz v. Welch, cannot be liable for defamation absent proof of negligence regarding the truth of the allegedly defamatory material.

That's true even if, as the court explicitly noted, the blogger "apparently has a history of making similar allegations and seeking payoff in exchange for retraction."

Crystal Cox: Voice for the Voiceless, or Corrupt Blogger and SEO Wizard

What takes Crystal Cox's case from interesting to fascinating is the blogger herself.

Cox will argue that she fights corruption online via her various blogs, and that she is only guilty of unearthing and publicizing the truth about the plaintiffs, Kevin Padrick and Obsidian Finance Group."

YOU betcha Crystal Cox is Exposing Corruption, nearly a decade now and still going. William Peacock may not have what it takes to actually dig up the truth, nor have any desire to do so. Oh well Believe what you must, the TRUTH remains to Be the TRUTH regardless of what One Believes. ~ Crystal Cox

"In fact, here's Crystal Cox in her own words:

New York Times article, cited by the Ninth Circuit, would beg to differ.

TheTimes' David Carr weaves a tale of a corrupt woman, with major SEO skills and hundreds of domains at her disposal, who launches character assassinations online.
In this case, she seized upon the bankruptcy of Summit Accommodators, an intermediary company in Bend, Oregon, that holds cash during property transactions. The company folded, executives were indicted, and Padrick was appointed as trustee.

Cox claims that Padrick and Obsidian were involved in bribery, tax fraud, money laundering, payoffs, theft, and more.
Carr, as well as Padrick and his attorney, claim that Cox offered to back off in exchange for payment."

Yeah COX did make an OFFER, as the RECORD shows OVER AND OVER, after COX was SUED for 10 Million Dollar and acting as her own attorney to STOP a LAWSUIT. Maybe back to law school would be a good idea for Weaselly, Whiny William Peacock.

Oh and don't forget to include all 5 eMails from that Settlement Communication instead of the ONE out of context that David Carr used to weave his scorcery. Oh and remember to include the over a dozen offers that Obsidian Finance Group made for Cox to pay them for her every First Amendment Protected word and to LIE to the courts about those inside the Summit Bankruptcy. ` Crystal Cox

"Bloggers Are Journalists Too
Who would've thought it? 
The allegedly corrupt blogger actually had a better grasp of the law than the judge, at least somewhat. As indicated, the Ninth Circuit joined a number of its sister circuits in holding that Gertz's requirement of negligence in defamation claims applies to nontraditional bloggers, as well as the institutional media.
Then again, after reviewing the blog post at issue, as well as, we can see how the judge was mistaken as to the merits of Cox's claims of being a journalist.
And though Cox represented herself initially, and had the better legal argument, by the time she reached the Ninth Circuit, she had even more capable representation, UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh, standing next to her.
"In this day and age, with so much important stuff produced by people who are not professionals, it's harder than ever to decide who is a member of the institutional press," Volokh told Reuters. He knows all about blogging, by the way: 
The Volokh Conspiracy is a legend in the blawgosphere.
Source of William Peacock's Article, Quote Above

And yes David Carr does weave a TALE of CORRUPTION. And a darn tootin' good one too. Some may even call it "DEFAMATION", or Slander.

And YES this is a flat out defamatory LIE. And yes David Carr and the New York Times is protected to lie about whoever they want and this CAN and WILL be used against you in a court of law, whether it is TRUE or Not. Oh and David Carr HAD actual malice as he interviewed Crystal Cox and he knew where to find the FACTS. David Carr of the New York Times decided he would "paint Crystal Cox in false light" as to make ALL whistle blowers, anti-corruption bloggers and citizen blogger the collateral damage of his KNOWINGLY posting false and defamatory statement to a third party regarding Crystal Cox.

Crystal Cox sued David Carr and For Now David Carr and 

the New York Times is CLEARLY above the Law.
Here is Legal Action Crystal Cox filed naming David Carr and the New York Times

No worries, David Carr and the New York TIMES are protected to flat out lie about whom ever they want to and they are above the Law and have NO Liability.
Crystal Cox RICO Filing naming  David Carr and the New York Times and More

Check out Crystal Cox's Ninth Circuit Motion to FIGHT Back against Journalists such as David Carr who paint bloggers that expose corruption out to be the ones who are indeed corrupt. Smoke and Mirrors.

UCLA Constitutional Law Professor, Lawyer Eugene Volokh's Motion to Rehear / To Redact Extortion Allegations from Ninth Circuit Ruling, Click Below

Crystal Cox's Statement in Favor of Motion to Rehear, to Redact Extortion Allegations
Crystal Cox's Statement Regarding Her Ninth Circuit WIN

Attorney Marc Randazza Painting Cox out as an Extortionist;

What Drives Marc Randazza's Rage Against Blogger Crystal Cox

Blogger Crystal Cox and the Landmark Decisions Giving Blogs Equal First Amendment Rights as the USA Today, New York Times, Forbes and Other Big, well known Media Outlets

"In a landmark decision last month, a federal appellate court held for the first time that blogs enjoy the same First Amendment protection from libel suits as traditional news media."

"The purpose of the free press clause of the First Amendment was to keep an eye on people in power and maintain a check on corruption. Given the cutbacks in traditional media, bloggers have taken up the slack, serving as watchdogs with attitude. And of course, traditional reporters now blog daily, and prominent bloggers show up in traditional media.

Yet we still see a condescending and uninformed attitude from some lawmakers and judges who seem not to understand that digital and social media deserve the same respect as newspapers, magazines and broadcasters. There is still resistance to including bloggers in a federal shield law, and as recently as 2012 a federal court judge concluding
that “liking” a Facebook page was not protected free speech, a flawed decision overturned in September."

"Speech doesn’t get much more free than blogs and comments on websites, and long-established principles protecting opinion and hyperbole help to keep it that way. In this case, the Ninth Circuit upheld a lower court’s decision to toss out other libel claims against Cox, despite her assertions that her targets engaged in corruption, fraud, deceit, money laundering, harassment and illegal activity. She called them immoral “evil doers” and “thugs” and alleged that a hit man had been hired to kill her. The appellate court concluded that Cox’s post were so outrageous that no one would take them seriously and these hyperbolic attacks couldn’t be the basis of a lawsuit. Apparently it also helps to name your site “”

The decision in a nutshell: Bloggers saying libelous things about private citizens concerning public matters can only be sued if they’re negligent, and if you do decide to attack someone online, make sure you go over the top."

"Ironically, the federal court’s decision protecting bloggers was based on Gertz v. Welch, a landmark Supreme Court case now in its 40th anniversary year. In lieu of cake and candles, we have a brand new case applying the case’s landmark decision to the most contemporary of media.

As abusive and derisive as some bloggers may be, they’re direct descendants of the first generation of Americans, who used pamphlets and politically-driven newspapers to attack their political rivals. It was then that the nation’s founders ratified the First Amendment, paving the way for robust discussion of public issues, regardless of medium. That’s something worth celebrating."

Source of Quotes and Full Article

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

"Bloggers Gain First Amendment Rights" - To Bad it's that Sleazy Blogger Crystal Cox though who refused to SETTLE and fought for this Precedent for US ALL.

"When I started this blog almost three years ago, I wondered what would happen if someone decided to sue me for what I wrote. I’m careful to give sources and not get too radical in my words, but the right wing’s goal is to close down any dissention—and some of the them are millionaires and billionaires. A recent decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals helped set some of my concerns to rest.

Yesterday, the federal appeals court ruled in Obsidian Finance Group v. Cox that bloggers and the public have the same First Amendment protections as journalists when sued for defamation. Plaintiffs have to prove negligence to win damages if the issue is of public concern.

The lawsuit began when an Oregon bankruptcy trustee got riled when a Montana blogger wrote that the court-appointed trustee criminally mishandled a bankruptcy case. The appeals court ruled that the trustee was not a public figure because they are compensated by assets of the Chapter 11 estate they administer and not the government. Cases invoke a higher standard for public officials, requiring proof that the writer acted with malice. Because of the public concern decision, the negligence standard applied.

Gregg Leslie of the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press said the ruling affirms what many have long argued: Standards set by a 1974 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc., apply to everyone, not just journalists.

Bend attorney Kevin Padrick and his company, Obsidian Finance Group LLC, had sued blogger Crystal L. Cox, now living in Port Townsend (WA), after she accused them of fraud, corruption, money-laundering, and other illegal activities. In 2010 she wrote about one of the firm’s principals who was appointed as a bankruptcy trustee to a company that misappropriated client funds. She accused him of impropriety in advising the bankrupt firm."

"Cox originally acted as her own attorney, but UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh offered to represent her in an appeal after he learned of her case. Volokh said such cases usually end up settled without trial, and it was rare for one to reach the federal appeals court level. He said:

“It makes clear that bloggers have the same First Amendment rights as professional journalists. There had been similar precedents before concerning advocacy groups, other writers and book authors. This follows a fairly well established chain of precedents. I believe it is the first federal appeals court level ruling that applies to bloggers.”

Steven M. Wilker, lawyer for Padrick and Obsidian wrote, “We are evaluating our options with respect to the court’s decision.”

Unfortunately, there is a dark side to the story. Cox’s interest in the bankruptcy of Summit Accommodators, an intermediary company that holds cash to complete property exchanges, came from the daughter of one of the four senior executives charged with defraud clients of millions. Padrick went after the woman’s father, and Cox blamed the trustee of using inside information and illegal measures to get rich while he was trying to restore his clients’ investments. According to Padrick, Cox ruined him."


Oh and Crystal Cox is SLEAZY because the Philly Law Blog ( sleazy, unethical lawyers) and a New York Times Reporter says SO. WOW. Dig Deep folks, the TRUTH is there for those who can read.

Sunday, February 9, 2014

Comment on Bob Garfields NPR, on the Media Site begs the Question, Why did Marc Randazza file a Civil Suit and WIPO claim for cybersquatting when Crystal Cox had attacked his wife and toddler and extorted him, which is a Felony? Things that make you say, Hmmm.

"A.C. Senray
I certainly admire Marc Randazza's commitment to free speech rights. But I'm a little bit confused by his refusal to bring claims against Crystal Cox. Is he arguing that the First Amendment should overwhelm any kind of action, civil or criminal, for defamation, invasion of privacy, harassment, or racketeering? It seems like Randazza might have a plausible claim for any of these things or more, all based on the content of Cox's speech. While I am a free speech advocate, I think all these kinds of claims are valid. Why did he think he could assert only a domain name cybersquatting claim against her?

Jan. 26 2014 11:22 AM"


Well, A.C. Senray, you see, Marc Randazza LIED and has NO CASE for Extortion, so he wants the Civil Courts to take his word and simply RULE that Cox is an Extortionist, based on no evidence because HE SAYS SO.

More on What Drives Riddler Randazza and his Over the Top, "doth protest too much" RANT and hate campaign against Blogger Crystal Cox.

Bob Garfield is Flat Out Lying About Crystal Cox and Defaming, Slandering, and Retaliating Against Crystal Cox. Why Does Marc Randazza wait two years and Counting to file Criminal Charges against Crystal Cox for EXTORTION if he is so accurate, factual and PROUD?

NPR, on the Media Bob Garfield Continues to Flat OUT Lie about Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox, based on NO Factual Evidence whatsoever and only the word of Hypocritical, Lying, Defaming, Retaliating, Asshole Porn Attorney Marc Randazza.

The Latest from Blathering, Lying, Slandering Bob Garfield of NPR's On the Media.

So Bullshit Bob of NPR Says; " Crystal Cox is out to tarnish her "Targets' "

Wow, scary, Crystal Cox is out to tarnish her "Targets", so NPR, Forbes, New York Times.. when they report the "news" it is reports, facts, and when Crystal Cox reports Corruption, rants, raves and reviews that is "Tarnishing her Targets" ? Seems a bit hard to believe to me, but the
n again I am Crystal Cox and so I am a bit prejudice.

David Carr and Marc Randazza, among other controlled media, Judges, and Attorneys TARGETED Crystal Cox, and Cox fought Back as hard as she could, and is still fighting. Bob Garfield of NPR is a LIAR Liar, non-factual, kiss ass, pants on fire.

Bob Garfield Flat OUT Lies, with no accountability whatsoever. Crystal Cox has no online reputation "Racket" Marc Randazza is a Flat Out Liar, and NPR's Bob Garfield eats up every bit of bullshit Randazzle is shoveling out.

 Bullshit Bob of NPR Says; "Cox had asked Randazza to Represent her in Court Pro BONO". Ummm Really, sure that is the right story their Bob? That is NOT True, Check your Facts. I agreed to a conference call to discuss it and Marc Randazza told me not to appeal, took my inside information and files and then went to the opposition to make a deal that I knew nothing about the details, told all at the first amendment bar he represented me and was letting my deadline to appeal expire. Want some Facts BOBBY, you may have to actual read, study and do some real investigative reporting, I am just not sure you are up for it.

Look Deeper Bullshit BOB

I did not register domain names to "retaliate" against Marc Randazza not representing me. I FIRED the lying, bullying, gang stalking, perjuring, male chauvinist asshole Marc Randazza. I started blogs to expose his bullying, his connections to organized crime in the porn industry, to expose his support of pedophiles, to expose his bullying and threatening whistleblowers, to report on tips I received about Marc Randazza and to review him as a lawyer and his law firm, in hopes to save his future victims, the real "TARGETS" of the Saga.

Bob Garfield FLAT OUT LIES Over and OVER. I did not own those domain names before I asked if he knew anyone that would hire me, that is absurd, this was after my judgement and after the New York Times, David Carr already accused me of Extortion. Plus the email Marc Randazza claims is extortion was sent before those names were bought expect which was bought to do PR on my case if he were to represent me.  And later given to Porn Industry insiders to used in their investigative blogs exposing Marc Randazza and his organized crime clients in the Porn Industry. Marc Randazza threatened them, and post insuations of death and the make and model of their car, so out of fear they gave the naem back to me, Marc Randazza sued me, threatened me, bullied me and I STOOD UP TO MARC RANDAZZA.

Bob Garfield has the word of Marc Randazza and so he is clearly and obviously, with actual malice harassing Crystal Cox and painted, her, me out to be a Criminal.

Hey Bob, ask Randazza to GROW A SET and file a Criminal Complaint, oh unless he is the real criminal and has NO EVIDENCE to back up his slanderous, defamatory, hate crime, bullying bullshit blather.

Crystal Cox NEVER EVER offered to Drop a blog post for a price to Marc Randazza, there is NO Fact in that statement what so ever. NPR, Bob Garfield is above the law and can terrorize and lie about whomever he wants to, with no accountability what so ever.

Attorney Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group flat out LIES to NPR and it is taken as Fact and Spouted on NPR. And this is "protected speech"? WOW !!!

And Wa Wa, this blogger attacked my toddler and I am so spineless, I sue her though she has no money and oops forget to call the cops or FBI over her "ALLEGED" attack, of which I have no proof of. That's more like it Riddler Randazzle. LIAR LIAR Pants on FIRE.

Ya, I offered to do PR, asked if he knew anyone, so what. He had been my attorney, I fired him, he acted fine about it. He told me good things about me and what I do. He acted as if he did not believe I was an extortionist and even complimented me on my skills so ya after I chose another attorney, I asked if he needed marketing. He then retaliated and attacked me because I would not do what he demanded. I stood up to him. After this I got tips over and over and decided to buy more names and expose Marc Randazza for  what he does to his "TARGETS".

"Cox" NEVER offered to Clean Up a Mess I Made. That is Bull, and has NO bearing of TRUTH or Fact what so Ever. I Expose Corruption and I DO NOT remove my stand against corruption. I give victims of corruption a VOICE. I WILL expose Corruption, and I will NOT buckle at retaliation, nor will I remove my "allegations" for a "tasty fee" or any other kind of FEE.  I have been at it for nearly a decade on thousands of "people" and "companies" not victims and I have never EVER took money to take a blog post down, PERIOD.

Source of NPR Blathering, Defaming, Slandering, Flat OUT Lies.

Crystal Cox Fights Back Against Extortion Allegations in Ninth Circuit Ruling via Attorney Eugene Volokh and a Motion to Rehear, Redact Allegations.

Crystal Cox names Bob Garfield and NPR in Lawsuit

Nevada RICO naming Bob Garfield NPR

NOTE; Crystal Cox wants authorities to Investigate. 
Marc Randazza and his Judge Buddies Do NOT

So who is it that Does not want the Attorney General involved and an Investigation by Authorities?? Well Crystal Cox wants an investigation, Marc Randazza does NOT.

Crystal Cox wanted a Criminal Investigation and asked the Court to Investigate Marc Randazza and his abuse of Crystal Cox and her informants. 

Crystal Cox also asked to enjoin the attorney general. Crystal Cox wanted due process of law for the extortion allegations, what she got was judges and attorneys ganging up on her and flat out stating Crystal Cox’s guilt without Cox being on trial for or under investigation for Extortion and thereby given due process in the criminal justice system.

Motion Requesting to Investigate Marc Randazza

Marc Randazza is afraid of an investigation and “protests”, all the while accusing Cox of extorting him, which is a crime, so why object to enjoining the attorney general and an investigation?

Investigation DENIED by Judge Gloria Navarro

Motion to Enjoin Attorney General

Order Denying to bring in the Attorney General, gee and isn’t Cox involved in Felony Extortion and yet Marc Randazza and Judge Gloria Navarro, though their ethical duty, don’t want authorities or criminal investigations?? Hmmmm

Take a Look at this information. Marc Wants an unconstitutional preliminary injunction he got, to serve as criminal evidence against his target, victim, Crystal Cox, in a Ninth Circuit Civil ruling NOT about extortin.

More on the Lies and Blather of Marc Randazza

Also Check Out for More about Randazza
(blog by Porn Industry Insider / Investigative Blogger Monica Foster)