tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36047752738367223502024-02-19T09:11:37.850-08:00Ninth Circuit Crystal Cox AppealBLOGS are the ONLY "Medium of Communication" those Exposing Corruption Have. START a BLOG, Expose Corruption. You are Media; You are a Journalist, Speak Up, Post Facts, Documents and Proof. ~ You No Longer Have to Fear the MONOPOLY of FREE Speech in which Institutional Press has so long held. ~ News By the People for the People, BLOGS.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18284777010940950448noreply@blogger.comBlogger213125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3604775273836722350.post-52702606167296945532022-10-07T00:21:00.000-07:002022-10-07T00:21:08.539-07:00Hero Dictionary: Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox - Wikipedia. Reverend Crystal Cox Port Townsend Washington Landmark, First of it's Kind Free Speech Case. <p> <span style="font-size: medium;">"Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox is a 2011 case from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon concerning online defamation. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Plaintiffs Obsidian Finance Group and its co-founder Kevin Padrick sued Crystal Cox for maintaining several blogs that accused Obsidian and Padrick of <b>corrupt and fraudulent conduct. </b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The court dismissed most of Cox's blog posts as opinion, but found <b>ONE</b> single post to be more factual in its assertions and therefore defamatory. For that post, the court awarded the plaintiffs $2.5 million in damages. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">This case is notable for the court's ruling that Cox, as an internet blogger, was not a journalist and was thus not protected by Oregon's media shield laws,</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">[1] although the court later clarified that its ruling did not categorically exclude blogs from being considered media and indicated that its decision was based in part upon Cox offering to remove negative posts for a $2,500 fee.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">[2] In January 2014 the Ninth Circuit Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's judgment awarding compensatory damages to the bankruptcy trustee.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">[3] It also ordered a new trial on the blog post at issue.[3]</span></p><h2 style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border-bottom-color: rgb(162, 169, 177); border-bottom-style: solid; border-image: initial; border-left-color: initial; border-left-style: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-top-style: initial; border-width: 0px 0px 1px; box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; font-family: Jost; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 0.6em; outline: 0px; overflow: hidden; padding: 0.5em 0px 0.17em; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="mw-headline" id="Background" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: large;">Background</span></span></h2><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Obsidian Finance Group is a financial advisory firm which was managing the <a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Bankruptcy" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;" title="Bankruptcy">bankruptcy</a> of Summit 1031, a <a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Real_estate" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;" title="Real estate">real estate</a> company. Crystal Cox is a self-proclaimed "investigative <a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Blog" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;" title="Blog">blogger</a>" who maintained the <a class="mw-redirect" href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Blogs" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;" title="Blogs">blogs</a> obsidianfinancesucks.com, summit1031sucks.com, and bankruptcycorruption.com, amongst various others. </span></p><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;">On her blogs, Cox accused Obsidian and its co-founder Kevin Padrick of committing <a class="mw-redirect" href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Tax_fraud" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;" title="Tax fraud">tax fraud</a>, paying off the media and politicians, intimidating and threatening <a class="mw-redirect" href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Whistleblowers" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;" title="Whistleblowers">whistleblowers</a>, and engaging in various other illegal activities in their handling of the bankruptcy. Cox repeatedly claimed that her investigations would expose Obsidian and Padrick's corruption. </span></p><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;">In response, Obsidian and Padrick brought suit against Cox for <a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Defamation" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;" title="Defamation">defamation</a>, asserting that all of Cox's claims were false and damaging Padrick's reputation.<span class="reference" id="cite_ref-jul7_op_4-0" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-jul7_op-4" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">[4]</a></span><span class="reference" id="cite_ref-aug23_op_5-0" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-aug23_op-5" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">[5]</a></span></span></p><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><h2 style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border-bottom-color: rgb(162, 169, 177); border-bottom-style: solid; border-image: initial; border-left-color: initial; border-left-style: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-top-style: initial; border-width: 0px 0px 1px; box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; font-family: Jost; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 0.6em; outline: 0px; overflow: hidden; padding: 0.5em 0px 0.17em; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="mw-headline" id="Procedural_history" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Procedural History</span></span></h2><div><span class="mw-headline" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></span></div><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The court initially intended to dismiss the defamation claims against Cox. To establish a defamation claim, the alleged defamatory material must be asserting a fact that can be proven true or false, as opposed to merely stating an opinion. </span></p><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />The court held that even though Cox's allegations of fraud and corruption are technically assertions of fact, they appeared on obviously biased blogs and Cox made no attempt to provide <b>supporting evidence</b>.<br /><br />The court ruled that in the context of Cox's ranting, hyperbolic blog posts, the allegations are unlikely to be taken as fact by any of her audience. As a result, the court held that Cox's right to voice her opinions was protected by the</span><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><a class="mw-redirect" href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/First_Amendment_of_the_United_States_Constitution" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; font-size: large; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;" title="First Amendment of the United States Constitution">First Amendment</a><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><span style="font-size: large;">and that her statements could not be considered defamation.</span><span class="reference" id="cite_ref-jul7_op_4-1" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-size: large; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-jul7_op-4" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">[4]</a></span></p><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;">However, after plaintiffs</span><b><span style="font-size: large;"> submitted additional blog posts for review</span></b><span style="font-size: medium;">, the court found</span><b><span style="font-size: large;"> one post</span></b><span style="font-size: medium;"> to be more factual in tone and content than the others. </span></p><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The post delved into the details of Summit's bankruptcy filing and tax liability, and made specific accusations against Obsidian and Padrick for lying on tax filings and stealing money. The court allowed the defamation claim on </span><span style="font-size: large;"><b>this one particular post to move forward.</b><span class="reference" id="cite_ref-aug23_op_5-1" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-aug23_op-5" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;"><b>[5]</b></a></span></span></p><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;">A trial was held on November 29, 2011, and the jury ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding Obsidian and Padrick $2.5 million in damages.<span class="reference" id="cite_ref-main_op_6-0" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-main_op-6" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">[6]</a></span><span class="reference" id="cite_ref-ars_7-0" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-ars-7" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">[7]</a></span></span></p><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><h2 style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border-bottom-color: rgb(162, 169, 177); border-bottom-style: solid; border-image: initial; border-left-color: initial; border-left-style: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-top-style: initial; border-width: 0px 0px 1px; box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; font-family: Jost; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 0.6em; outline: 0px; overflow: hidden; padding: 0.5em 0px 0.17em; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="mw-headline" id="Opinion_of_the_Court" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Opinion of the Court</span></span></h2><div><span class="mw-headline" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></span></div><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;">After the trial, on November 30, 2011, the court issued an opinion clarifying some of its pre-trial oral rulings.<span class="reference" id="cite_ref-main_op_6-1" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-main_op-6" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">[6]</a></span></span></p><h3 style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; font-family: Jost; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 0.3em; outline: 0px; overflow: hidden; padding: 0.5em 0px 0.17em; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span id="Oregon.27s_shield_and_retraction_statutes" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><span class="mw-headline" id="Oregon's_shield_and_retraction_statutes" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Oregon's shield and retraction statutes</span></span></h3><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Cox had claimed that her allegations against Obsidian and Padrick were based on evidence from a secret <a class="mw-redirect" href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Journalism_sourcing" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;" title="Journalism sourcing">source</a>, and she refused to name her source citing <a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Shield_laws_in_the_United_States" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;" title="Shield laws in the United States">media shield</a> protection.<span class="reference" id="cite_ref-seattle_1-1" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-seattle-1" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">[1]</a></span> Under Oregon's media shield laws, any person involved with a "medium of communication to the public" did not have to reveal the source of their information, where "medium of communication" is defined as "including but not limited to" a list of traditional modes of media such as newspapers, magazines, television, and so on.<span class="reference" id="cite_ref-ors_510_8-0" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-ors_510-8" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">[8]</a></span> </span></p><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The court did not specifically decline to interpret the statutes to include bloggers as "media", rather holding that based on the facts of the case, Cox was not affiliated with any of the enumerated mediums, had no indicia of reliability as a journalist, and thus she did not qualify for the media shield laws.<span class="reference" id="cite_ref-main_op_6-2" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-main_op-6" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">[6]</a></span></span></p><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Additionally, the court held that even if Cox could be considered "media", she would still not qualify. Oregon's media shield does not apply in a civil defamation lawsuit, where the defendant has asserted "a defense based on the[...] source of allegedly defamatory information."<span class="reference" id="cite_ref-main_op_6-3" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-main_op-6" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">[6]</a></span><span class="reference" id="cite_ref-ors_510_8-1" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-ors_510-8" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">[8]</a></span></span></p><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Cox also tried to assert immunity under Oregon's retraction statutes, which state that general damages for defamation could only be awarded if the plaintiffs had sought a <a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Retraction_in_academic_publishing" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;" title="Retraction in academic publishing">retraction</a>, which Padrick had not. </span></p><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The court again held that Cox did not qualify because her blogs and practices did not fall under any of the<b> traditional modes of media</b> specifically enumerated in the statute.<span class="reference" id="cite_ref-main_op_6-4" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-main_op-6" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">[6]</a></span><span class="reference" id="cite_ref-ors_215_9-0" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-ors_215-9" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">[9]</a></span></span></p><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><h3 style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; font-family: Jost; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 0.3em; outline: 0px; overflow: hidden; padding: 0.5em 0px 0.17em; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="mw-headline" id="First_Amendment_issues" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #990000; font-size: x-large;"><u>First Amendment issues</u></span></span></h3><div><span class="mw-headline" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Cox asserted that because the plaintiffs are public figures and because she blogged about a matter of public concern, <a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;" title="First Amendment to the United States Constitution">First Amendment</a> protections are triggered. As a result, to prove defamation, <a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Actual_malice" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;" title="Actual malice">actual malice</a> on Cox's part must be shown. "Actual malice" would require that Cox had knowledge of the truth and knowingly disregarded the facts, instead of simply making a false assertion of facts on her blog. Ultimately, the court held that neither Obsidian or Padrick were public figures, stating that the Summit 1031 bankruptcy Cox blogged on was neither controversial nor newsworthy, and Cox was the only person trying to publicize the issue. As a result, actual malice did not need to be proven by the plaintiffs.<span class="reference" id="cite_ref-main_op_6-5" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-main_op-6" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">[6]</a></span></span></p><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><h3 style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; font-family: Jost; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 0.3em; outline: 0px; overflow: hidden; padding: 0.5em 0px 0.17em; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="mw-headline" id="Media_protections_to_defamation" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: large;">Media Protections to Defamation</span></span></h3><div><span class="mw-headline" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Cox also asserted that even if the plaintiffs weren't public figures, in order for the plaintiffs to claim damages, they must prove actual malice because she is a "media" outlet. Here, the court again held that Cox did not qualify as "media". In its reasoning, the court cited her lack of a journalism degree, lack of affiliation with traditional media outlets, lack of adherence to journalistic standards such as fact-checking and fair coverage, and the absence of Cox writing any original material rather than assembling the works of others. As such, the plaintiffs could seek damages without any further evidence of actual malice.<span class="reference" id="cite_ref-main_op_6-6" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-main_op-6" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">[6]</a></span></span></p><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><h2 style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border-bottom-color: rgb(162, 169, 177); border-bottom-style: solid; border-image: initial; border-left-color: initial; border-left-style: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-top-style: initial; border-width: 0px 0px 1px; box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; font-family: Jost; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 0.6em; outline: 0px; overflow: hidden; padding: 0.5em 0px 0.17em; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="mw-headline" id="Reactions_and_status_after_district_court_ruling" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: large;">Reactions and status after district court ruling</span></span></h2><div><span class="mw-headline" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="mw-headline" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The holdings in this case re-ignited a public discussion over whether bloggers should be considered journalists and entitled to the same protections.<span class="reference" id="cite_ref-debate_10-0" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-debate-10" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">[10]</a></span> Cox suggested that this case "should matter to everyone who writes on the Internet" and that if she "[doesn't] win [her] appeal, we all lose".<span class="reference" id="cite_ref-seattle_1-2" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-seattle-1" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">[1]</a></span><span class="reference" id="cite_ref-seattle_2_11-0" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-seattle_2-11" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">[11]</a></span> Padrick responded by saying that "the concept of media [would be] rendered worthless [...] if anyone can self-proclaim themselves to be media". </span></p><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Padrick also pointed out the real damage done to his reputation and business by Cox, and stated his belief that he would have won the case even if Cox had been considered </span><span style="font-size: large;"> "media".</span><span class="reference" id="cite_ref-seattle_2_11-1" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-size: large; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-seattle_2-11" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">[11]</a></span><span class="reference" id="cite_ref-nyt_12-0" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-size: large; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-nyt-12" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">[12]</a></span><span class="reference" id="cite_ref-forbes_13-0" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-size: large; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-forbes-13" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">[13]</a></span><span style="font-size: large;"> <br /><span style="white-space: nowrap;"><br /></span></span></p><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Cox's motion for a new trial was denied. Currently, Cox is seeking to appeal the judgment, citing First Amendment grounds. Obsidian has filed a motion to seize and sell Cox's right to appeal to help satisfy its $2.5 million judgment, on the grounds that Cox's appeal right is intangible personal property subject to seizure. Cox is attempting to block the seizure to proceed with the appeal.<span class="reference" id="cite_ref-15" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-15" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">[15]</a></span><span class="reference" id="cite_ref-16" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-16" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">[16]</a></span><span class="reference" id="cite_ref-17" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-17" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">[17]</a></span></span></p><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><h2 style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border-bottom-color: rgb(162, 169, 177); border-bottom-style: solid; border-image: initial; border-left-color: initial; border-left-style: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-top-style: initial; border-width: 0px 0px 1px; box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; font-family: Jost; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 0.6em; outline: 0px; overflow: hidden; padding: 0.5em 0px 0.17em; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="mw-headline" id="United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circuit_ruling" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: large;">United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling</span></span></h2><div><span class="mw-headline" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;">After granting Cox motion for appeal a unanimous three-judge panel of the <a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circuit" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;" title="United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit">Ninth Circuit Court</a> issued its judgement in <i style="box-sizing: border-box;">Obsidian Finance Group LLC and Kevin Padrick vs. Crystal Cox</i> (2014) on January 17, 2014.<span class="reference" id="cite_ref-Arthur_L._Alarcón,_Milan_D._Smith,_Jr.,_and_Andrew_D._Hurwitz_3-2" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-Arthur_L._Alarc%C3%B3n,_Milan_D._Smith,_Jr.,_and_Andrew_D._Hurwitz-3" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">[3]</a></span></span></p><h3 style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; font-family: Jost; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 0.3em; outline: 0px; overflow: hidden; padding: 0.5em 0px 0.17em; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="mw-headline" id="Judgement_summary_and_First_Amendment_defamation_impact" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Judgement summary and First Amendment defamation impact</span></span></h3><h4 style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; font-family: Jost; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 0.3em; outline: 0px; overflow: hidden; padding: 0.5em 0px 0.17em; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="mw-headline" id="Judgement_summary" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Judgement summary</span></span></h4><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;">A court summary produced by court staff summarized the Ninth Circuit ruling as follows:</span></p><blockquote class="templatequote" style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px 40px; vertical-align: baseline;"><p style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's judgment awarding compensatory damages to a bankruptcy trustee on a defamation claim against an Internet blogger. The panel extended the principle held in <i style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Gertz_v._Robert_Welch,_Inc." style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;" title="Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.">Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.</a></i>, 418 U.S. 323, 350 (1974), that the First Amendment required only a "negligence standard for private defamation actions", is not limited to cases with institutional media defendants. The panel further held that the blog post at issue addressed a matter of public concern, and the district court should have instructed the jury that it could not find the blogger liable for defamation unless it found that she acted negligently. The panel held that the bankruptcy trustee did not become a "public official" simply by virtue of court appointment, or by receiving compensation from the court. The panel remanded for a new trial on the blog post at issue, and affirmed the district court's summary judgment on the other blog posts that were deemed constitutionally protected opinions.<span class="reference" id="cite_ref-Arthur_L._Alarcón,_Milan_D._Smith,_Jr.,_and_Andrew_D._Hurwitz_3-3" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-Arthur_L._Alarc%C3%B3n,_Milan_D._Smith,_Jr.,_and_Andrew_D._Hurwitz-3" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">[3]</a></span></span></p></blockquote><h4 style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; font-family: Jost; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 0.3em; outline: 0px; overflow: hidden; padding: 0.5em 0px 0.17em; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="mw-headline" id="First_Amendment_defamation_impact" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;">First Amendment defamation impact</span></span></h4><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The issue whether First Amendment defamation rules apply equally to both the institutional press and individual speakers has never been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.<span class="reference" id="cite_ref-Arthur_L._Alarcón,_Milan_D._Smith,_Jr.,_and_Andrew_D._Hurwitz_3-4" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-Arthur_L._Alarc%C3%B3n,_Milan_D._Smith,_Jr.,_and_Andrew_D._Hurwitz-3" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">[3]</a></span> </span></p><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;">But every United States appeals court which addressed this issue concluded<span class="reference" id="cite_ref-18" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-18" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">[18]</a></span><span class="reference" id="cite_ref-19" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-19" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">[19]</a></span><span class="reference" id="cite_ref-20" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-20" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">[20]</a></span><span class="reference" id="cite_ref-21" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-21" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">[21]</a></span><span class="reference" id="cite_ref-22" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-22" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">[22]</a></span><span class="reference" id="cite_ref-23" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-23" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">[23]</a></span><span class="reference" id="cite_ref-Arthur_L._Alarcón,_Milan_D._Smith,_Jr.,_and_Andrew_D._Hurwitz_3-5" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-Arthur_L._Alarc%C3%B3n,_Milan_D._Smith,_Jr.,_and_Andrew_D._Hurwitz-3" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">[3]</a></span> that the First Amendment defamation rules in <i style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;" title="New York Times Co. v. Sullivan">Sullivan</a></i> (1964) and its progeny case <i style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Gertz_v._Robert_Welch,_Inc." style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;" title="Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.">Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.</a></i> (1974) apply equally to the institutional press and individual speakers.<span class="reference" id="cite_ref-Arthur_L._Alarcón,_Milan_D._Smith,_Jr.,_and_Andrew_D._Hurwitz_3-6" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-Arthur_L._Alarc%C3%B3n,_Milan_D._Smith,_Jr.,_and_Andrew_D._Hurwitz-3" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">[3]</a></span><span class="reference" id="cite_ref-CNS20140117_24-0" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-CNS20140117-24" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">[24]</a></span> The Ninth Circuit followed this trend with its January 2014 ruling by holding that a blogger is entitled to the same free speech protections as a traditional journalist and cannot be liable for defamation unless he acted negligently.<span class="reference" id="cite_ref-Reuters_20140117_25-0" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-Reuters_20140117-25" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">[25]</a></span> The court essentially said journalists and bloggers are one and the same when it comes to the First Amendment.<span class="reference" id="cite_ref-FAC20140124_26-0" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-FAC20140124-26" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">[26]</a></span> </span></p><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The court ruling is also a novelty because for the first time <span class="reference" id="cite_ref-FAC20140124a_27-0" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-FAC20140124a-27" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">[27]</a></span><span class="reference" id="cite_ref-CNS20140117b_28-0" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-CNS20140117b-28" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">[28]</a></span> an appeals court ruled that a <a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Blog" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;" title="Blog">blogger</a> is entitled to the same free speech protections as a traditional journalist and cannot be liable for defamation unless the blogger acted negligently.<span class="reference" id="cite_ref-Reuters_20140117_25-1" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-Reuters_20140117-25" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">[25]</a></span></span></p><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The three judge panel of the <a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circuit" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;" title="United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit">Ninth Circuit</a> ruled<span class="reference" id="cite_ref-Arthur_L._Alarcón,_Milan_D._Smith,_Jr.,_and_Andrew_D._Hurwitz_3-7" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-Arthur_L._Alarc%C3%B3n,_Milan_D._Smith,_Jr.,_and_Andrew_D._Hurwitz-3" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">[3]</a></span> ruled that liability for a defamatory blog post involving a matter of public concern cannot be imposed without proof of fault and actual damages.<span class="reference" id="cite_ref-Reuters_20140117_25-2" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-Reuters_20140117-25" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">[25]</a></span> Bloggers saying libelous things about private citizens concerning public matters can only be sued if they're negligent i.e. the plaintiff must prove the defendants negligence – the same standard that applies when news media are sued. </span></p><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The federal appellate court thus essentially said that journalists and bloggers are one and the same when it comes to the First Amendment<span class="reference" id="cite_ref-FAC20140124_26-1" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-FAC20140124-26" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">[26]</a></span> and, in the words of <a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Eugene_Volokh" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;" title="Eugene Volokh">Eugene Volokh</a>, a professor at the UCLA School of Law, that nonprofessional press, especially bloggers, "for First Amendment purposes, have the same rights as others do, as for example the institutional media does."<span class="reference" id="cite_ref-CNS20140117_24-1" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-CNS20140117-24" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">[24]</a></span></span></p><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The unanimous three-judge panel rejected the argument that the negligence standard established for private defamation actions by the U.S. Supreme Court in <i style="box-sizing: border-box;">Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.</i> only applied to "the institutional press."<span class="reference" id="cite_ref-CNS20140117_24-2" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-CNS20140117-24" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">[24]</a></span> "The Gertz court did not expressly limit its holding to the defamation of institutional media defendants," Judge Andrew Hurwitz wrote for the three-judge panel. "And, although the Supreme Court has never directly held that the Gertz rule applies beyond the institutional press, it has repeatedly refused in non-defamation contexts to accord greater First Amendment protection to the institutional media than to other speakers."<span class="reference" id="cite_ref-CNS20140117_24-3" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-CNS20140117-24" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">[24]</a></span> </span></p><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.44; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Hurwitz wrote: "The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was 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. … In defamation cases, the public-figure status of a plaintiff and the public importance of the statement at issue -- not the identity of the speaker -- provide the First Amendment touchstones."<span class="reference" id="cite_ref-THR20140117_29-0" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox#cite_note-THR20140117-29" style="background: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0645ad; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">[29]</a></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Source and Full Document with Lots of Links</b></span></p><p><span id="docs-internal-guid-d1fcbf70-7fff-9894-9c7f-f9cbdbe7f63b"><a href="https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-size: large;">https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox</span></span></a></span></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3604775273836722350.post-16972722098625658922021-07-14T09:21:00.000-07:002022-10-07T00:14:18.885-07:00Reverend Crystal Cox's Attorney Eugene Volokh Files Appeal to Ninth Circuit called the Judges out on accusing Cox of a Crime in a Civil Case<p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-size: large;">“Eugene Volokh files motion asking Ninth Circuit for Redaction of Allegations of Crystal Cox </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-large; white-space: pre-wrap;">Blogger Crystal Cox, through her attorney Eugene Volokh, UCLA Constitutional Law Professor files a motion requesting the court to withhold allegations of Cox having a history of seeking a payoff in exchange for retraction.”</span></p><p><span id="docs-internal-guid-caf00fba-7fff-34db-c5f2-67d119774fcc"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.prlog.org/12276893-eugene-volokh-files-motion-asking-ninth-circuit-for-redaction-of-allegations-of-crystal-cox.html" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">https://www.prlog.org/12276893-eugene-volokh-files-motion-asking-ninth-circuit-for-redaction-of-allegations-of-crystal-cox.html</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></span></span></p><p><span><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></span></p><p><span><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></span></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3604775273836722350.post-3683607856764163572021-03-02T13:02:00.001-08:002022-05-24T15:53:16.704-07:00The Crystal Cox Case is a Game Changer. NOW you are MEDIA as a Matter of Law and Higher Court Precedent"<b>What the Crystal Cox case means for digital media</b><br />
<br />
The case, which threatened to turn a great deal of business journalism into a crime, made its way to the California Court of Appeals. In 2006, the court ruled against Apple and for the websites. Journalism was also a winner.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKwOyV6Qn0GmpUSUR7RjQpuJlw6IKrkCM-eI0cBXh4Cceq2Yk-89IPodMdCmvJFr7jyVW7sf_zxxyeR-PFANRnpEY56feguzEzQrsCvRaNBhZpf8k_z_kYAQTcAhvEBRp7CVQebg9-5B60/s1600/Crystal+Cox+Court+Case+-+Blogger+Crystal+Cox.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKwOyV6Qn0GmpUSUR7RjQpuJlw6IKrkCM-eI0cBXh4Cceq2Yk-89IPodMdCmvJFr7jyVW7sf_zxxyeR-PFANRnpEY56feguzEzQrsCvRaNBhZpf8k_z_kYAQTcAhvEBRp7CVQebg9-5B60/s1600/Crystal+Cox+Court+Case+-+Blogger+Crystal+Cox.jpg" /></a><br />
That affair came to mind this week when a federal judge in Oregon, ruling in a libel case, came to a different conclusion. In deciding that blogger Crystal Cox's blistering attack on an investment firm and its co-founder was defamatory, he said <b>she was not a journalist and therefore could not keep her source's identity secret under that state's shield law. </b>Even if she had met that standard, he wrote, she'd still have had to divulge the identity of her source for the post.<br />
<br />
In reaching that conclusion, the judge relied on wording in the law that makes no mention of digital media. And, following a laundry list of what he considered acceptable journalistic credentials and practices, he concluded she met none of his criteria and therefore was not part of the news media."<br />
<br />
Source and Full Article<br />
<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/dec/08/crystal-cox-case-digital-media" target="_blank">http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/dec/08/crystal-cox-case-digital-media</a><br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: blue;">BLOGS are MEDIA. And Bloggers NOW have Equal Rights as a Matter of Law because of the Crystal Cox Case Ninth Circuit Win.</span></b><br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3604775273836722350.post-70407122742205827622021-01-11T15:03:00.000-08:002021-03-25T01:32:34.359-07:00"Bloggers entitled to same free speech protections as traditional journalists"" <b><span style="color: blue;">Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Andrew Hurwitz issued an opinion in Obsidian Finance Group, LLC. v. Cox. </span></b> His opening line was as follows:<br /><br />
“This case requires us to address a question of first impression: What First Amendment protections are afforded a blogger sued for defamation?”<br /><br />
This<b><span style="font-size: large;"> important new decision</span></b> involved a blog post by blogger Crystal Cox, in which she accused a financial firm and its bankruptcy trustee of tax fraud. At the trial court level, the judge rejected Cox’s First Amendment arguments concerning the liability standards that should govern the case, reasoning that she had <span style="color: blue;"><b>“failed to submit evidence suggestive of her status as a journalist.”</b></span><br /><br />
However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision, holding that:<br /><br />
<b>“The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities…As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, A First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and others speakers is unworkable.”</b><br /><br />
The court then went on to quote some of the only rational language (in my opinion) from Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission:<br /><br />
“With the advent of the Internet and the decline of print and broadcast media…the line between the media and others who wish to comment on political and social issues becomes far more blurred.”<br />
<br />The Ninth Circuit ultimately held that Cox should get a new trial and <b><span style="color: blue;">the distinction between bloggers and traditional reports is irrelevant in this context. </span></b><br />Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor who represented Cox, noted the importance of this decision in the era of online content:<br /><br />
“In this day and age, with <b>so much important stuff produced by people who are not professionals</b>, it’s harder than ever to decide who is a member of the institutional press.”<br /><br />
So what are some of the other important takeaways for online commentators out there?<br /><br />
The court reaffirmed that opinions which employ “figurative and hyperbolic language” that cannot be proved as true or false are constitutionally protected.<br /><br />
Additionally, “while ‘pure’ opinions are protected by the First Amendment, a statement that ‘may imply a false assertion of fact’ is actionable.” So while opinions are usually protected as free speech, if you are making a factual claim, you should be able to provide evidence to support your claim. For example, if you write a review on Yelp that a restaurant charged your credit card $10 more than what you signed for on your receipt, then you should be able to support this claim with a copy of the receipt and your credit card billing statement. <br /><br />However, regardless of what precautions someone takes, anyone can file a lawsuit for any reason, even if it’s entirely without merit. Luckily for those of you in about half of the states, anti-SLAPP laws have been enacted to help you get those meritless suits dismissed relatively quickly and painlessly."<br />
<br />
Source<br />
<a href="http://www.casp.net/uncategorized/bloggers-entitled-to-same-free-speech-protections-as-traditional-journalists/" target="_blank">http://www.casp.net/uncategorized/bloggers-entitled-to-same-free-speech-protections-as-traditional-journalists/</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3604775273836722350.post-90518563230713693032021-01-10T14:14:00.000-08:002021-03-25T01:33:31.174-07:00The Crystal Cox Case is a Landmark Decision and it is a Game Changer for all New Media."Bloggers Gain First Amendment Victories But Still Face Issues in Online Journalism<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: blue;">Bloggers achieved a significant victory when the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held on Jan. 17, 2014 that First Amendment protections in defamation lawsuits extend to bloggers. </span></b><br />
<br />
In April 2014, a Florida appellate court held that bloggers were entitled to pre-suit notices for defamation suits under Florida law. Although the victories are welcome news to online content producers everywhere, the jailing of an Alabama blogger has raised questions and concerns among free speech advocates. Online speakers may still have obstacles to overcome before courts fully recognize that First Amendment protections apply to them.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Ninth Circuit Recognizes First Amendment Protections for Bloggers</b></div>
<br />
On Jan. 17, 2014, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that bloggers receive the same First Amendment protections as institutional media in defamation lawsuits. <b>Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox</b>, 740 F.3d 1284 (9th Cir. 2014).<br />
<br />
The case involved a dispute between Kevin Padrick, a principal with Obsidian Finance, a firm that advises financially troubled businesses, and Crystal Cox, a self-described investigative blogger. In 2008, Obsidian began working with Summit Accommodators, which was considering filing for bankruptcy.<br />
<br />
A bankruptcy court appointed Padrick as Chapter 11 trustee once Summit filed reorganization paperwork. Shortly thereafter, Cox began posting accusations of criminal activity carried out by Padrick and Obsidian in their work with the Summit bankruptcy on several different websites, including “obsidianfinancesucks.com.” After sending a cease-and-desist letter that Cox did not comply with, Padrick and Obsidian filed a defamation suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.<br />
<br />
The district court held that only one blog post could be interpreted as containing a statement of fact, and could proceed to trial. Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox, 812 F. Supp. 2d 1220 (D. Or. 2011).<br />
<br />
The remaining blog posts were considered constitutionally protected opinions because they did not contain provable statements of fact. Cox also claimed protection under Oregon’s journalist’s shield law, but District Judge Marco A. Hernandez held that she did not meet the definitions of who can receive protection as laid out by the state statute. (For more information on Cox’s shield law claims, see “Defamation Lawsuits Pose Threat to Journalists as Online Communication Complicates First Amendment Analysis” in the Spring 2012 issue of the Silha Bulletin).<br />
<br />
Cox also made First Amendment arguments that the liability standards should be governed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc, 418 U.S. 323 (1974). In Gertz, the Supreme Court held that a private plaintiff needs to show only negligence to recover actual damages from a media defendant.<br />
<br />
But a plaintiff can only recover presumed or punitive damages upon a showing that a media defendant acted with “actual malice,” meaning that the statements were made with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of the truth. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. Cox argued that, under Gertz, Padrick and Obsidian carried the burden of proving her negligence in order to recover actual damages for defamation.<br />
<br />
Cox also argued that Padrick and Obsidian must show that she acted with actual malice to receive presumed damages. Judge Hernandez dismissed these arguments, stating that Cox had not proven that she was a journalist. Therefore, the protections of Gertz did not apply to her.<br />
<br />
Cox also contended that Padrick and Obsidian were public figures. Under the New York Times v. Sullivan and the Gertz rulings, public figures are required to prove actual malice before they may recover any type of damages. New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). The district court judge once again dismissed this argument, stating that Padrick and Obsidian had not made themselves public figures by becoming involved with a public controversy. Rather, Cox had created the controversy.<br />
<br />
At the conclusion of the trial, a jury returned verdicts in favor of Padrick and Obsidian. Cox moved for a new trial, which the district court denied. Cox then appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the district court had ruled incorrectly on the liability standards and Padrick’s and Obsidian’s public figure status. Padrick and Obsidian filed a cross-appeal contending that the jury should have considered their defamation claims relating to the other blog posts.<br />
<br />
In a unanimous decision, the Ninth Circuit panel reversed the district court’s judgment against Cox. The court held that Gertz’s liability rules were not limited only to situations that involved traditional media defendants. The opinion by Judge Andrew Hurwitz explained that although the Supreme Court has never ruled that the Gertz standard applied to others besides institutional media, the Court’s language in the opinion also did not limit the ruling to institutional media alone. Hurwitz wrote, “[the Supreme Court] has repeatedly refused in non-defamation contexts to accord greater First Amendment protection to the institutional media than to other speakers,” citing several cases in which the high court declined to create a distinction between members of the press and the general public.<br />
<br />
As a result, the court agreed with other circuits that “the First Amendment defamation rules in Sullivan and its progeny apply equally to the institutional press and individual speakers.” The court also noted that trying to create a distinction between institutional media and other communicators was very difficult.<br />
<br />
Therefore, the court said that the key First Amendment factor under Gertz in defamation cases was not the identity of the speaker. Rather, “the public-figure status of a plaintiff and the public importance of the statement at issue” are the key First Amendment considerations. Through this rationale, Cox, as a blogger, was entitled to the same liability standards that traditional forms of media received under the First Amendment.<br />
<br />
In addition to determining that Sullivan and Gertz protections apply to the general public, the appeals court also rejected the argument that Gertz was limited to defamation cases involving matters of public concern. Hurwitz wrote that even if Gertz was limited to such a situation, Cox’s blog posts concerned public matters qualifying for protection. However, the appellate court rejected Cox’s argument that Padrick and Obsidian became public officials because a bankruptcy court appointed them to oversee Summit’s affairs and provided compensation to them. The court also held that Cox’s remaining blog posts were clearly opinions. The panel concluded its decision by granting Cox’s request for a new trial.<br />
<br />
Several First Amendment advocates and advocacy organizations praised the Ninth Circuit’s ruling. UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, who represented Cox during the appeals process, told Associated Press reporter Jeff Barnard for a Jan. 17, 2014 article that <span style="color: blue;"><b>the decision “makes clear that bloggers have the same First Amendment rights as professional journalists.” </b></span><br />
<br />
Volokh also noted that the decision followed similar court rulings that granted First Amendment protections to other writers and book authors, although this ruling appeared to be the first to grant protection to bloggers. In the same article, Gregg Leslie, the legal defense director for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP), said the ruling confirmed the fact that Gertz was “not a special right to the news media.”<b><span style="color: blue;"> Rather, it applied to everyone. “So it’s a good thing for bloggers and citizen journalists and others,”</span></b> Leslie said.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: blue;">In a Jan. 24, 2014 commentary, First Amendment Center President Ken Paulson called the Ninth Circuit’s ruling a </span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-size: large;">“landmark decision.”</span> </span><span style="color: blue;">Paulson noted that given the growing financial constraints on traditional news media, many bloggers had taken on the role of the watchdog of people with power. The Ninth Circuit’s holding that bloggers deserve the same protections as traditional media was <span style="color: #cc0000;">“something worth celebrating.”</span> </span></b><br />
<br />
On the same day, Jim Rosenfeld, Ambika K. Doran and Jeremy A. Chase, attorneys with the firm Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, called the decision <b><span style="color: blue;">“a major win for individuals who blog, share, tweet, and otherwise publish their views online.” </span></b><br />
<br />
The attorneys explained that the panel’s language provided First Amendment protections to all speakers regardless of affiliation with institutional media.<br />
<br />
As a result, the attorneys said, <b>“an individual blogger, website operator or social media users speaking publicly on the Internet enjoy the same First Amendment protections from defamation claims as traditional media publishers.”</b><br />
<b><br /></b><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkITNoHNxo9iW0xOQGz3xWd9Me0nlDe2oqjNlyLFnTenHmdwRFu1yolSZqnVRTaq6J74ejjQ__Ii6zLhEc-p3f2wHD279mVzgN_kIwM6mzhSH1i_cP0vwGSrkBF0iCUVWypCqL4ez8UqC7/s1600/First-Amendment.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="179" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkITNoHNxo9iW0xOQGz3xWd9Me0nlDe2oqjNlyLFnTenHmdwRFu1yolSZqnVRTaq6J74ejjQ__Ii6zLhEc-p3f2wHD279mVzgN_kIwM6mzhSH1i_cP0vwGSrkBF0iCUVWypCqL4ez8UqC7/s320/First-Amendment.jpg" width="320" /></a>Nevertheless, some observers have noted that the case may not be a total victory. In a Jan. 17, 2014 post, Digital Media Law Project director Jeff Hermes wrote that although the court rightly decided the case, he was concerned that the court’s statements seemed to suggest that the reason Cox’s speech was protected in some blog posts was because few people could reasonably believe that content on blogs.<br />
<br />
Hermes wrote that such assumptions about online content could devalue factual speech in the name of protecting it. “Respecting speech means evaluating it on its merits, instead of assuming that it has none,” he said."<br />
<br />
Source<br />
<a href="http://silha.umn.edu/news/WinterSpring2014/SILHACENTERBloggersFirstAmendmentUniversityofMinnesota.html" target="_blank">http://silha.umn.edu/news/WinterSpring2014/SILHACENTERBloggersFirstAmendmentUniversityofMinnesota.html</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3604775273836722350.post-31969389848146144202020-12-15T21:42:00.000-08:002021-03-25T01:32:08.937-07:00THE REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, Obsidian v. Cox Case Citing Page 14THE REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, July 2016<br />
<br />
MARK BOAL, et al.,<br />
Plaintiffs,<br />
v.<br />
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et<br />
al.,<br />
Defendants.<br />
<br />
Case No. 2:16-CV-05407-GHK-GJS<br />
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE<br />
THE REPORTERS<br />
COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM<br />
OF THE PRESS AND 36<br />
MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS IN<br />
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’<br />
EX PARTE APPLICATION<br />
[Notice of Motion and Motion and<br />
[Proposed] filed Concurrently<br />
Herewith]<br />
Date: August 29, 2016<br />
Time: 9:30 a.m.<br />
Judge: Honorable George H. King<br />
<br />
Click Below to Read Filing<br />
<a href="https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/amici-curiae-brief.pdf" target="_blank">https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/amici-curiae-brief.pdf</a><br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3604775273836722350.post-89667527342935303682020-09-15T13:19:00.000-07:002021-03-25T01:34:09.162-07:00You are now Media as of a Matter of Law Due to the Crystal Cox Case. So, start a blog, tell your story, report the news in your town, area of expertise or news you know."Bloggers = Media for First Amendment Libel Law Purposes<br />
<br />
<div style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 22.5px; margin-bottom: 1.2em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-indent: 20px; vertical-align: baseline;">
So holds today’s <a href="http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/01/17/12-35238.pdf" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; color: #1982d1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><i style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Obsidian Finance Group v. Cox</i> (9th Cir. Jan. 17, 2014)</a> (in which I represented the defendant). To be precise, <b><span style="color: blue;">the Ninth Circuit concludes that all who speak to the public, whether or not they are members of the institutional press, are equally protected by the First Amendment.</span></b> To quote the court,</div>
<blockquote style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #444444; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22.5px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 10px 20px 10px 50px; position: relative; quotes: none; vertical-align: baseline;">
<div style="background: transparent; border: 0px; color: black; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 1.2em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-indent: 20px; vertical-align: baseline;">
"The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was 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. As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable: “With the advent of the Internet and the decline of print and broadcast media … the line between the media and others who wish to comment on political and social issues becomes far more blurred.”<i style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Citizens United</i>, 558 U.S. at 352. In defamation cases, the public-figure status of a plaintiff and the public importance of the statement at issue — not the identity of the speaker — provide the First Amendment touchstones."</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 22.5px; margin-bottom: 1.2em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-indent: 20px; vertical-align: baseline;">
I think that’s right, not just as a matter of First Amendment principle but also as a matter of history and precedent (as I documented at length in <a href="http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/press.pdf" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; color: #1982d1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><i style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Freedom for the Press as an Industry, or for the Press as a Technology? From the Framing to Today</i>, 160 U. Pa. L. Rev. 459 (2012)</a>). The specific legal issue that the Ninth Circuit was confronting in this passage, by the way, is whether all who speak to the public are equally protected by the <i style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.</i> rules, which are that</div>
<ol style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22.5px; list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 30px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<li style="background: transparent; border: 0px; list-style-type: decimal; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">libel plaintiffs suing over statements on matters of public concern must prove that the defendant was negligent about the falsity of the statement, and</li>
<li style="background: transparent; border: 0px; list-style-type: decimal; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">libel plaintiffs suing over statements on matters of public concern and seeking presumed or punitive damages (as opposed to identifiable compensatory damages) must prove that the defendant knew that the statement was false or recklessly disregarded the possibility that it was false.</li>
</ol>
<div style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 22.5px; margin-bottom: 1.2em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-indent: 20px; vertical-align: baseline;">
But the court’s reasoning reaches the First Amendment more broadly, and correctly so (again, see the <i style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Freedom for the Press as an Industry, or for the Press as a Technology?</i> article, which sets out the historical evidence). Note, though, that the court’s reasoning is limited to <i style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">First Amendment</i> protections; it doesn’t discuss state or federal statutes that provide extra protection to the “media” or to other subsets of speakers."</div>
Source<br />
<a href="http://volokh.com/2014/01/17/bloggers-media-first-amendment-libel-law-purposes/" target="_blank">http://volokh.com/2014/01/17/bloggers-media-first-amendment-libel-law-purposes/</a><br />
<br />
Obsidian v. Cox ~ Ninth Circuit Blogger First Amendment Case<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3604775273836722350.post-6893862048030201742020-07-15T14:23:00.000-07:002021-03-25T01:33:11.883-07:00YES the First Amendment DOES apply to Anti-Corruption Bloggers, Citizen Journalists and Whistleblowers. Don't let a DIRTY Judge tell you any different. Stand UP for your RIGHTS."Bloggers enjoy First Amendment protection against libel suits<br />
<br />
"A website that castigates others as “evil doers” and “thugs” has exactly the same First Amendment protection as USA TODAY and the New York Times – and that’s a good thing.<br />
<br />
In a landmark decision on Friday, a federal appellate court held for the first time that blogs enjoy the same First Amendment protection from libel suits as traditional news media.<br />
<br />
At issue were the blog posts of Crystal Cox, who accused Bend, Oregon attorney Kevin Padrick and his firm Obsidian Finance Group of misconduct in connection with his role as a trustee in a bankruptcy case. A jury awarded the plaintiffs $2.5 million in damages.<br />
<br />
But the U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit saw things differently, deciding that Cox’s allegations were matters of public interest and to sue her successfully, Padrick would have to prove her negligence – the same standard that applies when news media are sued.<br />
<b><span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></b>
<b><span style="color: blue;">“The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist,” Judge Andrew Hurwitz wrote.</span></b><br />
<br />
While the Supreme Court has previously observed that the lines between traditional news media and native web content have become blurred, this makes the first time that federal appellate court has essentially said that journalists and bloggers are one and the same when it comes to the First Amendment.<br />
<br />
But we already knew that. 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.<br />
<br />
And of course, traditional reporters now blog daily, and prominent bloggers show up in traditional media.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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 “obsidianfinancesucks.com.”<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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."<br />
<br />
Source<br />
<a href="http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/bloggers-enjoy-first-amendment-protection-against-libel-suits" target="_blank">http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/bloggers-enjoy-first-amendment-protection-against-libel-suits</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3604775273836722350.post-61540206074014560642020-07-07T20:00:00.000-07:002021-03-25T01:37:41.532-07:00Yes First case of it's Kind. Landmark case. NO Crystal Cox had NO history of seeking payoff for retractions. NOT one. Not Ever."a<br />
Appeals court overturns defamation award against blogger<br />
A panel of 9th Circuit judges rules that bloggers have the same 1st Amendment protections as traditional news media.<br />
January 17, 2014|By Maura Dolan<br />
Email<br />
Share<br />
<br />
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court unanimously overturned a defamation award against a blogger Friday, ruling that 1st Amendment protections for traditional news media extend to individuals posting on the Web.<br />
<br />
"The protections of the 1st Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities," Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz wrote for a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.<br />
<br />
The panel said its holding was the first of its kind within the 9th Circuit, though other circuit courts have held that individuals have the same free speech rights as the news media.<br />
<br />
"This case is the first one from a federal court of appeals that specifically protects the rights of bloggers," said UCLA constitutional law professor Eugene Volokh, who represented blogger Crystal Cox on appeal."<br />
<br />
Source<br />
<a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/17/local/la-me-blogger-1st-amendment-20140118">http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/17/local/la-me-blogger-1st-amendment-20140118</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3604775273836722350.post-89139050229059617982020-03-19T08:53:00.002-07:002020-03-19T08:53:49.808-07:00The Crystal Cox Free Speech Case was the First of It's Kind, a Case which gave Equal Free Speech Rights to ALL online Speakers, to that of the Highest Paid Journalist in the Wealthiest of Publications."<b>Bloggers Get Same Speech Protections As Press: 9th Circ.</b><br /><br />
By Michael Lipkin<br />
<br />
Law360, Los Angeles (January 17, 2014, 5:49 PM ET) -- Bloggers and others who speak on issues of public concern are entitled to the same free-speech protections as traditional journalists, a Ninth Circuit panel ruled Friday, finding a trustee that a blogger had criticized for its role in a real estate bankruptcy needed to show the blogger had acted negligently.<br />
<br />
Writing for a unanimous panel, U.S. Circuit Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz reversed part of a lower court decision that found <b>Obsidian Finance Group LLC did not need to show fault to establish liability against blogger Crystal Cox</b>. <br /><br />Cox had accused Obsidian of tax fraud in its role as trustee in a real estate bankruptcy case, and was hit with a $2.5 million defamation verdict in 2011 over her posts.<br />
<br />
But <b>the trial court erred</b> in not granting Cox certain First Amendment protections, the panel ruled Friday, citing U.S. Supreme Court cases that held the institutional press did not have greater constitutional privileges than other speakers.<br />
<br />
<b>“As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable,”</b> the opinion said. “In defamation cases, the public-figure status of a plaintiff and the public importance of the statement at issue — not the identity of the speaker — provide the First Amendment touchstones.”<br />
<br />
According to Obsidian's January 2011 complaint, Cox accused Obsidian of tax fraud when it collected and liquidated the assets of investment company Summit Accommodators, calling Obsidian trustee Kevin Padrick a “thug and a thief hiding behind the skirt tails of <b>a corrupt unmonitored bankruptcy court system</b>.”<br />
<br />
Cox argued that the distinction between anyone who shares information with the public and traditional print and broadcast media has blurred, entitling any such speaker to be protected from defamation suits unless it can be proved that they acted negligently. Because the district court judge did not inform the jury about the negligence requirement, Cox is entitled to a new trial, Friday’s decision said.<br />
<br />
“The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, [was] 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,” the opinion said.<br />
<br />
Obsidian had also argued that it did not need to prove negligence because Cox’s blog posts did not involve a public concern. But the court ruled that Cox wrote to readers at large about issues of public importance.<br />
<br />
<b>“The allegations against Padrick and his company raised questions about whether they were failing to protect the defrauded investors because they were in league with their original clients,”</b> the opinion said.<br />
<br />
Cox’s attorney praised the decision for finding <b>the First Amendment protects bloggers as much as it does professional reporters.</b><br />
<br />
“The First Amendment protects all who use ‘the press,’ in the sense of the printing press and its technological heirs, and not just the few who are members of the business that we now call ‘the press,’" said Eugene Volokh, an academic affiliate at Mayer Brown LLP and founder of the popular legal blog The Volokh Conspiracy.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, an attorney for Obsidian claimed Cox had a history of seeking payoffs in exchange for retracting similar allegations, according to the opinion, and that Cox had admitted her post was untrue. (Sidenote here by Crystal Cox, I never admitted such, the courts took it to this stage. I have always and do alway claim Kevin Padrick was Corrupt and defrauded investors, as well as lot's of unspeakable crimes. Also there was Never a History of COX, me, seeking a payoff to remove my reporting. See Also my appeal of my win, at this link<br /><a href="https://ninthcircuitcrystalcoxappeal.blogspot.com/2014/02/blogger-crystal-cox-through-her.html">https://ninthcircuitcrystalcoxappeal.blogspot.com/2014/02/blogger-crystal-cox-through-her.html</a> Whereby my attorney, at my DEMAND, sought to hold the Ninth Circuit Judges in my case, accountable for their False Claims against me in a their high court Ruling. I lost this appeal, however, as an activist litigant, I made the point as far as I see it. Also check out, <a href="https://ninthcircuitcrystalcoxappeal.blogspot.com/2014/12/it-is-not-ok-for-judges-to-accuse-you.html" target="_blank">https://ninthcircuitcrystalcoxappeal.blogspot.com/2014/12/it-is-not-ok-for-judges-to-accuse-you.html</a><br />
<br />
Now Back to Mayer Brown Press Release<br />
<br />
“Ms. Cox's false and defamatory statements have caused substantial damage to our clients, and we are evalu ating our options with respect to the court's decision,” Steven Wilker of Tonkon Torp LLP said.<br />
<br />
Judges Andrew D. Hurwitz, Arthur L. Alarcon and Milan D. Smith Jr. sat on the panel for the Ninth Circuit.<br /><br />
Obsidian is represented by Steven Wilker, Robyn Aoyagi and David Aman of Tonkon Torp LLP.<br /><br />
Cox is represented by Eugene Volokh of Mayer Brown LLP.<br /><br />
The cases are Obsidian Finance Group LLC et al. v. Crystal Cox, case number 12-35238 and 12-35319, in<br />
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.<br />
<br />
Source, Mayer Brown Law Firm Press Release 2014<br />
<a href="https://www.mayerbrown.com/-/media/files/news/2014/01/bloggers-get-same-speech-protections-as-press-9th/files/bloggers-get-same-speech-protections-as-press-9th/fileattachment/bloggers-get-same-speech-protections-as-press-9th.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.mayerbrown.com/-/media/files/news/2014/01/bloggers-get-same-speech-protections-as-press-9th/files/bloggers-get-same-speech-protections-as-press-9th/fileattachment/bloggers-get-same-speech-protections-as-press-9th.pdf</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3604775273836722350.post-54023266946896343792019-12-29T16:08:00.000-08:002019-12-29T16:08:05.868-08:00Cited in massive legal cases, taught in Law School. The First of It's Kind Obsidian v. CoxThe First High Court RULING affirming that BLOGGERS have Equal Rights as ALL Journalists.<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3604775273836722350.post-36222440421365432172019-12-29T16:06:00.000-08:002019-12-29T16:06:01.631-08:00"Why a U.S. court ruled bloggers and journalists should be equally protected" ~ Obsidian Finance Group v. Cox"Bloggers should enjoy the same legal protection as journalists.<br />
<br />
Harry Roque Jr.<br /><br />
This was the recent ruling of <b>the U.S. Court of Appeals in the case of Obsidian Finance Group v. Cox.</b><br />
<br />
In the aforementioned case, <b>Crystal Cox, an American blogger, claimed that Obsidian finance company was guilty of tax fraud.</b><br />
<br />
The U.S. District Court earlier found Cox guilty of defamation and awarded the finance company US$ 2.5M in damages. The lower court issued its ruling<b> anchored on the assumption that, since Cox is a blogger and not a journalist, a complainant in a defamation suit is entitled to the presumption of “legal malice or a presumption that the defamatory statement is presumed malicious</b>.”<br />
<br />
Further, Cox, as a “mere” blogger is not entitled to invoke the definition of actual malice established in <b>the New York Times vs. Sullivan</b> case. The 1964 US Supreme Court ruling set the precedent for the rule that journalists can only be held liable for false information if they knew of its falsity or in utter disregard of the same. Ten years after Sullivan, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in <b>Gertz v. Robert Welch </b>that the First Amendment required only <b>a “negligence standard for private defamation actions.”</b><br />
<br />
The First Amendment refers to an amendment to the Constitution of the U.S. that <b>guarantees the right to free expression that includes freedom of speech, freedom of the press; or the right of the people to peaceful assembly, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.</b><br />
<br />
By ruling that bloggers are entitled to the same protection as journalists, the US Court of Appeals covering the jurisdiction of California ruled that the case involved an intersection between Sullivan and Gertz “an area not yet fully explored x x x in the context of a medium of publication—the internet—entirely unknown at the time of those decisions.”<br />
<br />
Citing the U.S. Supreme Court, the Appellate Court ruled:” that a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable: “With the advent of the Internet and the decline of print and broadcast media. . .the line between the media and others who wish to comment on political and social issues becomes far more blurred.”<br />
<br />
The dilemma is precisely because of a lack of precision on who are, in fact, in the law defined as journalists. In fact, a separate definition on who a journalist is indicates a lack of consensus even from those who profess to practice the profession.<br />
<br />
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 excludes bloggers altogether from the protection of the proposed shield law.<br />
<br />
On one hand, the Human Rights Committee in its General Comment, defines it as “a function shared by a 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.”<br />
<br />
But outside the definition of who a journalist is, the actual distinction between a regular media outfit and bloggers is the existence of a hierarchy of editorial controls to ensure accuracy in the news and fairness in commentary. This is why traditional journalists themselves sometimes scoff at the notion that “just about anyone can be a journalist.”<br />
<br />
In fact, Philippine jurisprudence even distinguishes between the amount of latitude given to the media in making factual errors depending on whether it is a “weekly” or a “daily,” with the latter being given wider latitude for mistakes.<br />
<br />
All these miss the point, though. There is protection accorded by the bill of rights not just to freedom of the press, but to freedom of expression in general.<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
The U.S. 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.<br />
<br />
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 <b>freedom of expression is a human right, not just a right of journalists.</b><br />
<br />
In any case, the fact that journalists are paid and bloggers are not does not constitute a real basis for distinction.<br />
<br />
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. — KDM, GMA News<br />
<br />
Prof. Harry L. Roque, Jr. is an Associate Professor at the UP College of Law and the chairperson of the Center For International Law."<br />
<br />
<br />
American blogger Crystal Cox already won the case against a U.S. ... the U.S. Court of Appeals in the case of <b>Obsidian Finance Group v. Cox</b>.<br />
<br />
Source of Free Speech Legal Case WON by Blogger Crystal Cox of Port Townsend Washington<br />
<a href="https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/opinion/content/347461/why-a-u-s-court-ruled-bloggers-and-journalists-should-be-equally-protected/story/" target="_blank">https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/opinion/content/347461/why-a-u-s-court-ruled-bloggers-and-journalists-should-be-equally-protected/story/</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3604775273836722350.post-58253678100975763202019-12-29T12:10:00.001-08:002019-12-29T12:10:05.955-08:00UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE IN SUPPORT OF THE APPELLANTS AND REVERSAL<span style="font-size: large;">"More recently, the Ninth Circuit recognized that <span style="color: blue;">“the protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the [party] was 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.” </span>Obsidian Financial Group, LLC v. Cox, 740 F.3d 1284, 1291 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 2680 (2014). </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">It pointed out that<span style="color: blue;"> “a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable: ‘With the advent of the internet and the decline of print and broadcast media . . . the line between the media and others who wish to comment on political and social issues becomes far </span></span><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">more blurred.’”</span><span style="font-size: large;"> <br /><br />Id. at 1291 (quoting Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 558, U.S. 310, 352 (2010)). As one court wrote in recognizing the constitutional rights of citizens to record police in public, developments in technology <b>“make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status.”</b> Glik, 655 F.3d at 84. "</span><br />
<br />
Source<br />
<a href="https://www.aclupa.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/amicus_brief_of_rutherford_institute_-_103116_.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.aclupa.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/amicus_brief_of_rutherford_institute_-_103116_.pdf</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3604775273836722350.post-5781563115244173082019-12-28T07:25:00.000-08:002019-12-28T07:25:09.975-08:00"Urban Legends of the Bill of Rights: First Amendment""You’ve heard that the Bill of Rights protects group rights - you heard wrong.<br />
<br />
Every right protected in the Bill of Rights is an individual right. There is no such thing as a collective right or a group right under the Founders’ Constitution. Every right - the free exercise of religion, speech, press, assembly, petition, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to be free from unreasonable searches, the right to a trial by jury, the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, etc. - is<b><span style="font-size: large;"> a right that belongs to every individual American</span></b>. It belongs to him as an individual and not because he is a part of a favored group.<br />
<br />
You’ve heard that churches have religious liberty rights because they are churches - you heard wrong. <br />
<br />
The fact that <b>constitutional rights are individual rights</b> is clarifying in a number of ways. For instance, churches do not have religious liberty rights because they are churches. They have religious liberty rights because every individual in them has religious liberty rights.<br />
<br />
Newspapers do not have the right to freedom of the press because they are newspapers. They have the right to freedom of the press because every reporter who works for one does.<br />
<br />
This, by the way, answers the question about whether bloggers or Facebook posters or Tweeters have freedom of the press rights even though they are not <b>professional journalists </b>or members of the institutional press. Of course they do.<br />
<br />
Every individual American possesses the right to publish his opinions in any form whether he gets paid to do it or not. A blogger has exactly the same right to freedom of the press as a reporter for the New York Times.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Amazingly, even the 9th Circuit nailed this in 2014 when they ruled in the<span style="color: blue;"> Obsidian v. Cox case that blogger Crystal Cox</span> was entitled to the First Amendment right to freedom of the press. "As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable." </span></b><br />
<br />
This is why the Court was certainly correct in its Citizens United ruling, which authorized corporations to engage in electioneering.<br />
<br />
The reason is simple: associations are simply associations of a whole bunch of individuals who possess the constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of political speech. Because every member of an association possesses an individual right to freedom of speech, then the association does too because members of the association do not forfeit fundamental constitutional rights just because they work in concert with other individuals who have the same right.<br />
<br />
Said the Court, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."<br />
<br />
It might be added that churches constitutionally have exactly the same constitutional right. A church consists of an association of individuals who have the right not only to the freedom of religion but also to freedom of speech.<br />
<br />
IRS or no, there is no way under the Founders’ Constitution for churches to be restricted from engaging in as much electioneering as they wish. Now the vast majority of churches won’t, but that’s not the point. They all, each and every one of them, have that right and may exercise it if they wish.<br />
<br />
The liberal black church has engaged in direct political action for decades. Politicians speak in their pulpits regularly on the Sundays immediately prior to elections, and their pastors urge their parishioners to vote for the Democrat they just heard from the pulpit. Constitutionally, there is nothing wrong with this in any way, shape or form. The problem is when the IRS tries to stop conservative churches from doing the same thing. That’s an infringement on their First Amendment right to freedom of speech as well as their right to the free exercise of religion.<br />
<br />
The author may be contacted at bfischer@afa.net"<br />
<br />
Source<br />
<a href="https://www.afa.net/the-stand/culture/2019/09/urban-legends-of-the-bill-of-rights-first-amendment/" target="_blank">https://www.afa.net/the-stand/culture/2019/09/urban-legends-of-the-bill-of-rights-first-amendment/</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3604775273836722350.post-54844162394521772362019-12-22T17:25:00.000-08:002021-03-25T01:39:12.862-07:00It is NOT Ok for Judges to Accuse YOU of a Criminal Act in a Federal Court of Appeals Ruling on a Civil Trial whereby no Criminal Charges were Filed and there was NO adjudicated Facts. Judges are NOT above the Law. Blogger Crystal Cox Calls out Overreaching Ninth Circuit Judges.<span style="line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>It is not Right, not Legal, and not Constitutional</b> to accuse an Anti-Corruption Blogger of a CRIME in a Civil Case Ruling whereby that Blogger had <b>no due process</b>, no criminal investigation, no trial and no way to present evidence in defense of those allegations. No lower court ruling in any way.</span></span><br />
<span style="line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Yet Ninth Circuit Judges accused an Anti-Corruption Blogger of criminal activity in a higher court, federal court of appeals ruling. And <b>the "evidence" the Ninth Circuit Judges states as proof was a New York Times article of which was not based on any judicial finding or adjudicated fact.</b></span></span><br />
<span style="line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">In a Landmark Ruling that sets the Bar on First Amendment Rights of Bloggers and <b><span style="color: #990000;">ENDS the Monopoly of Free Speech</span></b> in which Big Media had for so long, as if in opposition to it's own ruling that bloggers have EQUALITY with the New York Times, we see higher court Judges using that same <b>"Big Media"</b>, the New York Times, as adjudicated FACT that a blogger engaged in criminal activity and in a high court esteemed RULING, these Judges simply accuses Blogger Crystal Cox of felonious activities and extortionate acts with NO proof, no adjudicated facts and ONLY citing a New York Times article as proof of their defamatory, speech chilling, unconstitutional "pot shots" against a blogger exposing corruption judges, attorneys, cops, and giving voice to victims of all corruption. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">This action is illegal, immoral and unconstitutional yet Judges do it all the time from Family Court to a Federal Court of Appeals across the United States. They do this same technique to "frame", set up, discredit, bully, harass and defame bloggers, citizen journalists and whistleblowers in every town who are exposing judicial corruption at every level. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"><br /></span></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9VxM_1dX_4MKjG7MJopq3CT-iS5eoiFukHjdbj1EWaByHi167vcJwn4GivNlZrdjpLYkq9osdATwK26m32ST5EEke0Qm2xBY1GD0i-zr9MDJWzuWiIZbk65_1ANvmihMcDbylK-7VKzN8/s1600/justice_quote_2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9VxM_1dX_4MKjG7MJopq3CT-iS5eoiFukHjdbj1EWaByHi167vcJwn4GivNlZrdjpLYkq9osdATwK26m32ST5EEke0Qm2xBY1GD0i-zr9MDJWzuWiIZbk65_1ANvmihMcDbylK-7VKzN8/s1600/justice_quote_2.jpg" height="213" width="400" /></a></div>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;"><b>Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox says it is not Ethical, Lawful, Nor Constitutional</b> for a Judicial Ruling to accuse litigants of crimes they have not been convicted of. Crystal Cox says this is HOW Judges and Lawyers silence those exposing corruption.</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"><span style="color: #990000; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;"><b>Below is a bit of "media" on Blogger Crystal Cox appealing the Ninth Circuit Judges pot shot accusing her of criminal activity in a court of appeals ruling on a civil case.</b></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">"Despite her First Amendment court victory, Montana blogger Crystal Cox doesn’t like the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals suggestion that <span style="color: blue;"><b>she shakes down reporting subjects for money in exchange for retractions.</b></span> So she has asked for a retraction of her own from the court.</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFTM8pS5Bgnrv-WjZzBK2Btq0lvGG_7-ZODBBubsosjIND-F2hQU1Z5MphkZ0aWBRim13bBmR8Ork-OGr7GVQZOipRmDLPMCf8bWQMN4MU09CiAKxm9i_HNDWWjWqgMERVuenEUvmRFT66/s1600/-Crystal+Cox+Blogger+-.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="background-color: white; clear: right; color: blue; float: right; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-decoration: none;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFTM8pS5Bgnrv-WjZzBK2Btq0lvGG_7-ZODBBubsosjIND-F2hQU1Z5MphkZ0aWBRim13bBmR8Ork-OGr7GVQZOipRmDLPMCf8bWQMN4MU09CiAKxm9i_HNDWWjWqgMERVuenEUvmRFT66/s1600/-Crystal+Cox+Blogger+-.jpg" height="165" style="-webkit-box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; background: rgb(34, 34, 34); border-radius: 0px; border: 1px solid transparent; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; padding: 8px; position: relative;" width="200" /></a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">In January, the circuit<b> held for the first time that bloggers like Cox have the same First Amendment protections as traditional media. </b></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 19.6000003814697px;"></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"><b><span style="color: blue;">That was a big victory for bloggers</span></b> generally and included overturning a $2.5 million libel verdict against Cox based on her accusations of fraud against a bankruptcy trustee.</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">What Cox didn’t like was</span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"><span style="color: #990000;"> a single sentence</span></b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"> in the opinion by Judge Andrew Hurwitz that stated,</span><br />
<b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"><br /></b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 19.6000003814697px;"></span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">“Cox apparently has a history of making similar allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction.”</b><br />
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">Last week, her lawyer </span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"><span style="color: blue;">Eugene Volokh asked the court to amend its opinion</span></b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">, not to change the substance of the ruling, but to delete the offending sentence. </span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"><span style="color: #990000;"> The claim of “payoffs” was based on a single New York Times article in 2011.</span></b><br />
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkj7GVbZ_mrK_L05TYzQbULxJmx7WfZ68lI0HZxfcE6suRTxA3oTO3uDGMIYLgp1fdtLoLqJPEpty5llNmt46voXubv3KgyCnKAci5776tCJhPc8hhngXHBfahCLSi9_QkLFX95hS7xzwc/s1600/Blogger+Crystal+Cox+-+Invesetigative+Blogger.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="background-color: white; clear: left; color: blue; float: left; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-decoration: none;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkj7GVbZ_mrK_L05TYzQbULxJmx7WfZ68lI0HZxfcE6suRTxA3oTO3uDGMIYLgp1fdtLoLqJPEpty5llNmt46voXubv3KgyCnKAci5776tCJhPc8hhngXHBfahCLSi9_QkLFX95hS7xzwc/s1600/Blogger+Crystal+Cox+-+Invesetigative+Blogger.jpg" height="200" style="-webkit-box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; background: rgb(34, 34, 34); border-radius: 0px; border: 1px solid transparent; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; padding: 8px; position: relative;" width="180" /></a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">“A judicial assertion of misconduct by a named person, even a judicial assertion modified with the word ‘apparently,’ could be <b><span style="color: #990000;">based on the record</span></b> in a case, or <b>authoritative finding</b> by another court. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 19.6000003814697px;"></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">But it </span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">ought not be based on a newspaper column</b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">, which was written without the benefit of cross-examination, sworn testimony, or the other safeguards of the judicial process,” Volokh wrote. He said</span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"><span style="color: #990000;"> there “seems to be no ‘history’ of ‘seeking payoffs’ </span></b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">claimed in the article, he said.</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">Not surprisingly, some news outlets repeated the sentence but <b>omitted the term “apparently,” he said.</b> </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">Journalists may perceive it as a factual finding, not just recitation of a newspaper column’s claim.</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" />
<b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">Thus Cox has asked for the court to redact the sentence from its opinion."</b><br />
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">Source of the Quote Above</span><br />
<a href="http://www.trialinsider.com/?p=4569" style="background-color: white; color: blue; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; text-decoration: none;">http://www.trialinsider.com/?p=4569</a><br />
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">Here is Eugene Volokh's Motion to Rehear</span><br />
<a href="https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkib1NraEFFb1Rac2M/edit" style="background-color: white; color: blue; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; text-decoration: none;">https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkib1NraEFFb1Rac2M/edit</a><br />
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">Crystal Cox's Statement In Support of Motion to Rehear</span><br />
<a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Sfa6KPy3ur6pBOcUF64CfvRFKM-n0ASMWhpUPC4G43Q/edit" style="background-color: white; color: blue; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; text-decoration: none;">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Sfa6KPy3ur6pBOcUF64CfvRFKM-n0ASMWhpUPC4G43Q/edit</a><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7vRB4LfZAGwX6qhJsai6oxyblmWxhZlei0XoxBdc290NPtBdndBJnL5UmiQN8lGtQ-OGzeJAjf6uUAxU47Lsz8d9acjpJ50zZkdTramHkSzkXiXrVGcf2q2c8qDQzDapoNrY3NDdAWqyp/s1600/1234302_164260603774702_1818037457_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7vRB4LfZAGwX6qhJsai6oxyblmWxhZlei0XoxBdc290NPtBdndBJnL5UmiQN8lGtQ-OGzeJAjf6uUAxU47Lsz8d9acjpJ50zZkdTramHkSzkXiXrVGcf2q2c8qDQzDapoNrY3NDdAWqyp/s1600/1234302_164260603774702_1818037457_n.jpg" height="252" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Blogger Crystal Cox was DENIED the removal of the defamatory remarks by the very JUDGES who made the remarks, which Cox claims is a conflict of interest and violates her rights.<br />
<br />
<b>After this Blogger Crystal Cox goes Pro Se again and files an appeal Petition to the Supreme Court. Below are the Details of that Filing. </b><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxT_bVzNxAkDRI966lny0aHdgMenbj01iENEj6LWqA8gj3R62drS6J4KXC0xAbU8fjwQO_P2fiqjd7Ykhi92u1IwvR7AAwieJIqTfF_eh9b7vU8MgnzTf65qIiiXSlY4Wl73VtDF4l6KgI/s1600/do_the_right_thing.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxT_bVzNxAkDRI966lny0aHdgMenbj01iENEj6LWqA8gj3R62drS6J4KXC0xAbU8fjwQO_P2fiqjd7Ykhi92u1IwvR7AAwieJIqTfF_eh9b7vU8MgnzTf65qIiiXSlY4Wl73VtDF4l6KgI/s1600/do_the_right_thing.jpg" height="148" width="200" /></a></b></div>
<br />
<br />
Crystal Cox Blogger; Petition for a Writ of Certiorari; First Amendment, Free Speech, Defamation Lawsuit, Shield Laws, Retractions Laws; Crystal Cox v. Obsidian Finance Group LLC 13-9731<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.7999992370605px;">SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES; </span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.7999992370605px;">Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal L. Cox</b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.7999992370605px;">; Supreme Court of the United States Filing;</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.7999992370605px;" />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px;">"The Petitioner is an Activist Litigant making a stand </b></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 16.7999992370605px;"><b>for the rights of all </b></span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px;">Citizen Journalists, Anti-Corruption Bloggers."</b></div>
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.7999992370605px;" />
<br />
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; text-align: center;">
<u><b>Crystal Cox v. Obsidian Finance Group, LLC, et al; No. 13-9731</b></u></div>
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.7999992370605px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.7999992370605px;">" </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="color: blue;">INTRODUCTION</span></span><br />
<span id="docs-internal-guid-ca30c53e-b348-30f0-2be2-244056887c09" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.7999992370605px;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.7999992370605px;"></span>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Petitioner requests this court to issue a ruling that requires the Ninth Circuit to <b><span style="color: blue;">redact criminal allegations of Petitioner in a Ninth Circuit civil court ruling </span></b>dated January 17th, 2014, Obsidian v. Cox, Ninth Circuit Case Number; 12-35319; D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00057- HZ.</span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.7999992370605px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b>This issue is a matter that affects all members of the public.</b></span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.7999992370605px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIjaDL21ZYHZK993UzvQVjHOOPY_Eb1yHIRoZE3ToVaBsrxJ28ed-uAKnPXJsavK6TADaqnIoy9FMzwnE0NU2qT5M1FPAcfiOQ6JcEAWxuR9g1-GEh_wUm22yokJex_j-IR53tfmF9_Bav/s1600/lawyer.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; color: blue; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-decoration: none;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIjaDL21ZYHZK993UzvQVjHOOPY_Eb1yHIRoZE3ToVaBsrxJ28ed-uAKnPXJsavK6TADaqnIoy9FMzwnE0NU2qT5M1FPAcfiOQ6JcEAWxuR9g1-GEh_wUm22yokJex_j-IR53tfmF9_Bav/s1600/lawyer.jpg" height="150" style="-webkit-box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; background: rgb(34, 34, 34); border-radius: 0px; border: 1px solid transparent; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; padding: 8px; position: relative;" width="200" /></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Ninth Circuit Judges; <b>Judge Arthur L. Alarcón, Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr.,and Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz</b>, stated:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><i>“. Cox apparently has a history of making similar</i></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><i>allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction. </i></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><i>See David Carr, When Truth Survives Free Speech, N.Y.</i></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><i>Times, Dec. 11, 2011, at B1. Padrick and Obsidian sent Cox </i></span><i style="font-family: Arial; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;">a cease-and-desist letter, but she continued posting</i></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><i>allegations. This defamation suit ensued.”</i></span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.7999992370605px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b><span style="color: blue;">Defendant Crystal Cox has no history of posting anything online and seeking a retraction for a payment.</span> </b>This is not based in fact, and <b>has NEVER happened</b>, as the court record clearly shows.</span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.7999992370605px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Cox was never “determined” by any court to have posted allegation, then sought a retraction, then continued posting and was sued. <b><span style="color: blue;">This is factually incorrect</span>.</b> </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Cox alleges the Ninth Circuit violated her constitutional rights in alleging criminal activity and has <b><span style="color: blue;">stated in error, the events leading up to her defamation suit.</span></b></span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.7999992370605px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhaUZOsh6yOMZQw9L5wqFPE2MzgXyWXtkR3BTjAKeB13y40v-Ex76TrCkE2cGs8yaevmKGEfdHlggFYOX4qpyTquIfJgqI-1ouIQzz6Mwbqx5oWc0lYEzpnO9ztzohe-Vu8a6gWbz6xJoxN/s1600/Blogger+Crystal+Cox+-+Invesetigative+Blogger.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; color: blue; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-decoration: none;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhaUZOsh6yOMZQw9L5wqFPE2MzgXyWXtkR3BTjAKeB13y40v-Ex76TrCkE2cGs8yaevmKGEfdHlggFYOX4qpyTquIfJgqI-1ouIQzz6Mwbqx5oWc0lYEzpnO9ztzohe-Vu8a6gWbz6xJoxN/s1600/Blogger+Crystal+Cox+-+Invesetigative+Blogger.jpg" height="200" style="-webkit-box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; background: rgb(34, 34, 34); border-radius: 0px; border: 1px solid transparent; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; padding: 8px; position: relative;" width="180" /></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Cox asks this court to rule that criminal allegations be redacted from the Obsidian v. Cox Ninth Circuit ruling dated January 17th, 2014.</span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.7999992370605px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Petitioner Cox understands that it is at the sole judicial discretion of this court to hear this matter. </span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Cox prays that this court will hear this matter as these judicial actions will potentially chill speech and violate the rights of other citizen journalists, whistleblowers and anti-corruption bloggers such as Cox.</span></span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.7999992370605px;" />
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="color: #990000;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="color: #990000;">QUESTIONS PRESENTED </span></span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.7999992370605px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Petitioner requests this court to decide the following questions:</span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.7999992370605px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Does Petitioner, Defendant, Litigants in a Civil Case <b>have a Human Right, Constitutional Right, and right under U.S. Code to</b></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b> be Considered Innocent until Proven Guilty</b>?</span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.7999992370605px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b>Do Ninth Circuit Judges have the legal authority to issue an opinion on criminal allegations in a civil case</b> in which the criminal allegation is not a matter of record in the lower court, has not been adjudicated and is<b><span style="color: blue;"> not a material factor</span></b> of the case?</span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.7999992370605px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiV8i-I8jcWNfGeXtNhfDn2fUhMnbVBXzka-AE4PcZyYaebeig_d1MjP4G47nCi7CUYBdufCZDFQvHk8zmxhdA_uHau2qEts-n6l5JvU7Lo553DhKR4WfvVC4SDgxmc1vtAh0UpCH12BWwY/s1600/crystal-cox-blogger.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="background-color: white; clear: right; color: blue; float: right; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-decoration: none;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiV8i-I8jcWNfGeXtNhfDn2fUhMnbVBXzka-AE4PcZyYaebeig_d1MjP4G47nCi7CUYBdufCZDFQvHk8zmxhdA_uHau2qEts-n6l5JvU7Lo553DhKR4WfvVC4SDgxmc1vtAh0UpCH12BWwY/s1600/crystal-cox-blogger.jpg" height="166" style="-webkit-box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; background: rgb(34, 34, 34); border-radius: 0px; border: 1px solid transparent; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; padding: 8px; position: relative;" width="200" /></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Does Petitioner, Litigants, in a Civil Case<b><span style="color: blue;"> have a legal right to due process of law</span></b>, in cases where Judges RULE that Litigants, such as petitioner have committed crimes of which Petitioner was not on trial for nor was a matter of record in the lower court ?</span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.7999992370605px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Do Ninth Circuit Judges have to <b><span style="color: blue;">find a Defendant Guilty of a Crime, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, or to have been Adjudicated of that crime in a U.S Court</span></b>, BEFORE they rule that a litigant such as petitioner is guilty of this criminal behavior or criminal activities?</span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.7999992370605px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Do litigants, such as petitioner, have a Fourteenth Amendment Rights, Bill of Rights</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br class="kix-line-break" /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">and Due Process of Law Rights that have to be adjudicated for a crime before a Ninth Circuit Judicial Panel can<b> issue an “opinion” in a highly publicized, higher court, esteemed ruling, regarding <span style="color: blue;">that alleged crime</span></b>?</span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.7999992370605px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Do Ninth Circuit Judges have a lawful right to use a New York Times article as adjudicated fact and material evidence to issue a ruling that a litigant in a civil case is guilty of criminal activity?</span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.7999992370605px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpFLEWNMT9E83H_ptTUesNjaaPMEamAIlKvmpTdfjFd-BqSdd78AtPb5gY65lf6daLSPWwFnKE03x3MFIGqEPykpwnu_WPzYRFN1ez63gbNw3j0IXls8fkDeKQJjUXpEsXgBlzRsVIDPjM/s1600/4f82166cb1669.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; color: blue; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-decoration: none;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpFLEWNMT9E83H_ptTUesNjaaPMEamAIlKvmpTdfjFd-BqSdd78AtPb5gY65lf6daLSPWwFnKE03x3MFIGqEPykpwnu_WPzYRFN1ez63gbNw3j0IXls8fkDeKQJjUXpEsXgBlzRsVIDPjM/s1600/4f82166cb1669.png" style="-webkit-box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; background: rgb(34, 34, 34); border-radius: 0px; border: 1px solid transparent; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; padding: 8px; position: relative;" /></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Is it Lawful for Ninth Circuit Judges to use <b><span style="color: blue;">gossip, hearsay and the rantings of a New York Times Journalist as adjudicated fact</span></b>, and use this as factual evidence in a Ninth Circuit Ruling?</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.7999992370605px;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Can the Court of Appeals Prejudice a Litigant with <b><span style="color: blue;">false and defamatory language in a ruling</span></b>? </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Does a litigant have a right to have<b><span style="color: blue;"> the language in the ruling challenged or reviewed by an independent Court,</span></b> (for example, the Supreme or another Appellate Court not involved in the decision with the defamatory and legally abusive language that prejudices the rights of the litigant in rehearing) ?</span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.7999992370605px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Does the court <b><span style="color: blue;">have the right to defame and slander litigants and deny due process</span></b>?</span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.7999992370605px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Do judges have the right to<span style="color: blue;"> <b>convict litigants of crimes in judicial rulings</b></span> </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">based </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;">on New York Times articles?</span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.7999992370605px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="color: blue;"><b>Do Judges have a right to deny due process in lower courts </b></span>by issuing a ruling that convicts litigants of crimes, thereby prejudicing them with a jury of their peers, as they return to have a new trial?</span></div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzbVyd4hXxnlIIyFYO9BpDkcIYyKb-fHM-tw6JAc4bB911_VWv9g9-SvSSWM3JNsrXgSyw-bp3F7O32YZTBgnR4VrT4dy56SGAfcZngxm2IXLq0Rs7MMMLqrSAovtaIYOqdpTjSldfpc36/s1600/obsidian+v+cox.+crystal+l+cox+case.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; color: blue; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-decoration: none;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzbVyd4hXxnlIIyFYO9BpDkcIYyKb-fHM-tw6JAc4bB911_VWv9g9-SvSSWM3JNsrXgSyw-bp3F7O32YZTBgnR4VrT4dy56SGAfcZngxm2IXLq0Rs7MMMLqrSAovtaIYOqdpTjSldfpc36/s1600/obsidian+v+cox.+crystal+l+cox+case.jpg" height="110" style="-webkit-box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; background: rgb(34, 34, 34); border-radius: 0px; border: 1px solid transparent; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; padding: 8px; position: relative;" width="200" /></a><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Do judges <b><span style="color: blue;">involved in a slanderous, possibly criminally defamatory statement</span> </b>have a legal and constitutional right to rule on whether they rehear this issue of them acting inappropriately and unlawful in that very ruling?</span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.7999992370605px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Is it lawful and within the constitutional rights of a Defendant such as Petitioner, for<b><span style="color: blue;"> a panel of judges to use a New York Times article to convict a litigant in a civil trial of a crime of which they have not been adjudicated of </span></b>?"</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgm2CSelKAIlDNOQ3VARysvqfAtGmCx0MbIEevnMzJTMb74DtgGwAZbr_4bQUZzchDYzp5_7VzVKLZ9Wq2XX-MoRHaxzp9a3IsHZObivO5ZXLuUmlPnOWnqu_3fjHXgBOuwkpnDKC05XuVX/s1600/bloggers.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgm2CSelKAIlDNOQ3VARysvqfAtGmCx0MbIEevnMzJTMb74DtgGwAZbr_4bQUZzchDYzp5_7VzVKLZ9Wq2XX-MoRHaxzp9a3IsHZObivO5ZXLuUmlPnOWnqu_3fjHXgBOuwkpnDKC05XuVX/s1600/bloggers.png" /></a></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; line-height: 1.15; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">" <b> </b></span><span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><u><b>REASONS WHY THIS WRIT SHOULD ISSUE</b></u></span></span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><u><b><br /></b></u></span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">
To <b><span style="color: blue;">establish firm guidelines for all district court, judges and appellate courts</span></b> that it is not constitutional, ethical nor lawful to render rulings that <b>accuse litigants of criminal activity</b> of which <b>they have not had due process of law </b>in regard to.
To <b><span style="color: blue;">guarantee the rights</span></b>, liberty, equality, freedom, due process rights, and free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution for all citizens, pro se litigants, anti-corruption bloggers, citizen journalists and whistleblowers alike.
To guarantee the<b> <span style="color: blue;">First and Fourteenth Amendment</span></b> rights of all.
To guarantee the<b> <span style="color: blue;">rights of due process and the Bill of Rights</span></b> to all.
<b><span style="color: blue;">To end extreme prejudice</span></b> by local, state, and federal judges whom use their power and position to silence, intimidate, suppress speech, bully, paint in false light, slander and defame litigants who expose corruption in the judicial system and of whom they have extreme prejudice in regard to.</span>
<span style="font-size: 12px;">
</span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_qnVzkndwgpDQGKzrhDclvR-ha1lzR0eRqTWqalWz6TznJRr2PTLJJLd0MBUqQlqk3KecaQmnDLW80F4HmK2-i0ag5dCwOQyyih74O4N8C_xm79_yt1ydsCAnmLCTieTVrnm6sVQr_qFF/s1600/Love+Light+Laughter+TRUTH+%252857%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; color: blue; float: left; font-size: 12px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-decoration: none;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_qnVzkndwgpDQGKzrhDclvR-ha1lzR0eRqTWqalWz6TznJRr2PTLJJLd0MBUqQlqk3KecaQmnDLW80F4HmK2-i0ag5dCwOQyyih74O4N8C_xm79_yt1ydsCAnmLCTieTVrnm6sVQr_qFF/s1600/Love+Light+Laughter+TRUTH+%252857%2529.jpg" height="200" style="-webkit-box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; background: rgb(34, 34, 34); border-radius: 0px; border: 1px solid transparent; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; padding: 8px; position: relative;" width="150" /></a><span style="font-family: inherit;"><u><b>STATEMENT OF THE CASE</b></u></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b style="font-family: inherit;"><u><br /></u></b></span></div>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit; line-height: 16.7999992370605px;">This case involves wrongful, non-adjudicated allegations of criminal conduct made by Ninth Circuit Judges ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ against Petitioner, Defendant Cox and clearly<b><span style="color: blue;"> violating her constitutional rights, human rights, and rights to due process, as a matter of law.</span></b> ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ Stated that Petitioner Cox; <i>" has a history of making similar allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction."</i> </span><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Which thereby<b><span style="color: blue;"> leads the public at large, media and the lower court in her pending $10 Million dollar Civil Case, to believe that Cox has been under investigation by authorities and found guilty of the crime </span></b>of extortion or blackmail. As it is ILLEGAL to make allegations and seek a payoff to retract those allegations.
Cox prays this Court <b>orders the Ninth Circuit to redact the above statement.</b></span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Petitioner Cox alleges that it is<b><span style="color: blue;"> not fair, ethical, equitable in rights, constitutional, nor appropriate as a matter of law and rules of procedure for Ninth Circuit judges or District Court Judges to state unrelated allegations, rumor and speculation in an esteemed higher court ruling,</span></b> that is published to the world and affects the life of Petitioner forever, as well as affects all <b>whistleblowers, citizen journalists and anti-corruption bloggers like her.</b>
Petitioner Cox alleges that it is an<b><span style="color: blue;"> abuse of power and process</span></b>, and an<span style="color: blue;"><b> extreme violation of her human and civil rights, for Judges to use hearsay and rumors as adjudicated fact</b></span> in an esteemed, higher court process, and to seek revenge, retaliate, and use extreme prejudice against Petitioner and litigants like her by<b><span style="color: blue;"> using a prestigious court ruling</span></b> to paint Petitioner in false light, slander and defame Petitioner and cause her a lifetime of irreparable harm. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAIHkwiHdf1p06ZrShcqHSj8H4v6eLhhynYPfxlS4UI5eFl_2XVBrDzVa4NgiNV6sxLR4db8TaE37_5QMUWRD5cOY5TTckFgrcSgmae-XBSBIfvlPzQruXsPYUF7DteVUQSNeV-Ddidng-/s1600/1536655_3826231672387_325367152_n+%25281%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; color: blue; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-decoration: none;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAIHkwiHdf1p06ZrShcqHSj8H4v6eLhhynYPfxlS4UI5eFl_2XVBrDzVa4NgiNV6sxLR4db8TaE37_5QMUWRD5cOY5TTckFgrcSgmae-XBSBIfvlPzQruXsPYUF7DteVUQSNeV-Ddidng-/s1600/1536655_3826231672387_325367152_n+%25281%2529.jpg" height="200" style="-webkit-box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; background: rgb(34, 34, 34); border-radius: 0px; border: 1px solid transparent; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; padding: 8px; position: relative;" width="160" /></a></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Petitioner alleges that it is the duty of Ninth Circuit judges to report anyone they deem a danger to the public. If ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ believe Cox to have a history of extortionate or blackmailing conduct, then it is their duty as public servants to order a criminal investigation by the proper authorities and it is <b><span style="color: blue;">NOT their duty, nor legal right to simply, flat out state, that Cox has a history of these criminal actions and thereby defame and slander Cox and put her under extreme prejudice as she heads back to the lower court Pro Se to face a $10 Million dollar civil court proceeding.</span></b></span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
Petitioner and bloggers, whistleblowers, citizen journalists like her, <b><span style="color: blue;">face extreme prejudice in the courts</span></b>, as they are oftentimes exposing judges, attorneys and people in powerful positions such as CEO’s and Politicians.
This court ruling, essentially <span style="color: blue;"><b>gives the rights to all Judges at every level of our court system</b></span>, and essentially <b><span style="color: blue;">all institutional press “traditional journalists”</span></b> to simply accuse litigants of crimes, activities, or unethical behavior, based on gossip and hearsay of an institutional press journalists such as Kashmir Hill of Forbes or David Carr of the New York Times, and have that be stated in a Ninth Circuit ruling as adjudicated fact.
Petitioner alleges that it violates her constitutional rights and the rights of those who engage in the same online activity as her,<b><span style="color: blue;"> for Judges to essentially take “pot shots”, add in gossip and hearsay into a ruling and thereby slander, defame and ruin the life of the litigant.</span></b> </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Especially in cases such as the petitioner where <b>she faces a retrial in a $10 million dollar civil case </b>where she is indigent and cannot afford an attorney and this criminal accusation prejudices her lower court ruling before the trial even begins.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfvPOyZCJOy9tB2XOknfbyyJrd-DpmkpDtdaswMrCUts-_3UJCtbBHqH_lqAfcMXe1vrYZju-wib9OZrzdcR8WlMJ-lnCfMaeJWVtcybBqkQggWT5XoqZunQO5ZFW2KKmJ_IwmKNPaJIl9/s1600/Main+Stream+Media+LIES+-+Copy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; color: blue; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-decoration: none;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfvPOyZCJOy9tB2XOknfbyyJrd-DpmkpDtdaswMrCUts-_3UJCtbBHqH_lqAfcMXe1vrYZju-wib9OZrzdcR8WlMJ-lnCfMaeJWVtcybBqkQggWT5XoqZunQO5ZFW2KKmJ_IwmKNPaJIl9/s1600/Main+Stream+Media+LIES+-+Copy.jpg" height="157" style="-webkit-box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; background: rgb(34, 34, 34); border-radius: 0px; border: 1px solid transparent; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; padding: 8px; position: relative;" width="200" /></a></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Petitioner alleges that allowing Ninth Circuit judges to state arbitrary allegations and accusations in authoritative higher court opinions,<b><span style="color: blue;"> will potentially chill the online speech of all bloggers, whistleblowers, citizen journalists. </span></b>As they will fear the same thing happening to them.
<b><span style="color: #990000;">This is a critical first amendment issue. And a critical issue of due process laws, the fourteenth amendment, civil rights and human rights.</span></b>
Petitioner alleges that she has a constitutional right to due process in the criminal justice system and that it <b><span style="color: blue;">violates her constitutional rights</span></b> for higher court, esteemed judges to rule on matters of her alleged criminal activity BEFORE she has been adjudicated or under investigation by the proper courts and legal procedure in the criminal justice system.
These accusations by Ninth Circuit judges <b><span style="color: blue;">prejudice the litigants such as petitioner in the re-trial at the D.C. level and put them under extreme prejudice in all matters of their life</span></b>, even things as simple as renting a home or getting a job. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Those researching litigants such as petitioner find a higher court ruling, issued by esteemed judges in a powerful position of which the public at large deems to be of the utmost authority, in which accuses the litigant of criminal activities, of extortionate behavior. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtHi4KySvSHb5e8U9wwl1cx6hYl3UqIgqBZocXLq3n-2pm9NEcWOiHyaDOHGlFqQ0HgPIsydY5QPXaNSMF8uvjQvZGEo7c1wkdPedNUFBH2vxmB_UFcdh-XhyNvO8zlIOo3NTUTVxJfZR7/s1600/Citizen+Journalist+ARE+Media.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; color: blue; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-decoration: none;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtHi4KySvSHb5e8U9wwl1cx6hYl3UqIgqBZocXLq3n-2pm9NEcWOiHyaDOHGlFqQ0HgPIsydY5QPXaNSMF8uvjQvZGEo7c1wkdPedNUFBH2vxmB_UFcdh-XhyNvO8zlIOo3NTUTVxJfZR7/s1600/Citizen+Journalist+ARE+Media.gif" height="154" style="-webkit-box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; background: rgb(34, 34, 34); border-radius: 0px; border: 1px solid transparent; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; padding: 8px; position: relative;" width="200" /></a></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b><span style="color: blue;">This is a violation of Petitioners rights of due process and constitutional rights</span></b>, as she now faces extreme prejudice, hate, inequality and duress in all aspects of her life. She is deemed a criminal, when she has not had due process in the criminal justice system. This precedence now makes it so that judges everywhere can do this same thing to essentially punish, retaliate against whistleblowers, citizen journalists and anti-corruption bloggers.
Does Petitioner, Defendant, Litigants in a Civil Case have a Human Right, Constitutional Right, and right under U.S. Code to be Considered Innocent until Proven Guilty? </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJySR80x8NFXOh5NG-7BhuS4TcRoTOfF6t-4aD4mv_ICouw_A9LRxrlZADV6L4lQvRUebmFZAM3rf3K2HzUvEBF5TnTJW4y2bma6ty6otXlRWZF_gma5JVuXxoV7I8_yZTDvufBfwu4DoL/s1600/Main+Stream+News+Runs.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; color: blue; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-decoration: none;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJySR80x8NFXOh5NG-7BhuS4TcRoTOfF6t-4aD4mv_ICouw_A9LRxrlZADV6L4lQvRUebmFZAM3rf3K2HzUvEBF5TnTJW4y2bma6ty6otXlRWZF_gma5JVuXxoV7I8_yZTDvufBfwu4DoL/s1600/Main+Stream+News+Runs.jpg" height="130" style="-webkit-box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; background: rgb(34, 34, 34); border-radius: 0px; border: 1px solid transparent; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; padding: 8px; position: relative;" width="200" /></a><span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Petitioner alleges that she has a constitutional right for it to be proven, <b><span style="color: blue;">as a matter of law, "beyond a reasonable doubt"</span></b> that she is guilty of a crime, <b>before Judges are allowed, by law, to state those allegations in a court ruling, a court opinion. </b>
<b><span style="color: blue;">Beyond a reasonable doubt </span></b>is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial. In civil litigation, the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. There was neither in the Ninth Circuit appeal of Obsidian v. Cox.
Petitioner Cox alleges that Judges must have <b>“Clear and Convincing Proof”</b> beyond a reasonable doubt BEFORE they are, by law allowed to <b><span style="color: blue;">state such allegations</span></b> in a higher court ruling.
Cox was not on trial for crimes or civil matters involving allegations, investigations or even a cause of action regarding posting content or allegations of others online and then seeking a payoff to remove those allegations, (aKa Extortion or Blackmail). </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="color: #990000; font-family: inherit;"><b>Cox was on trial for defamation, and that this was the only cause of action. </b></span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;">There was <b><span style="color: blue;">no "seeking a payoff" to remove allegations, as a material factor of Obsidian v. Cox</span></b> nor a factor in this case what so ever, therefore it was not a matter of record and cannot legally be brought into the Ninth Circuit proceeding, and certainly not, as a matter of law and constitutional rights, be stated in a Ninth Circuit court of appeals ruling, opinion. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9qMBF1UsOBFzUfMVPuhvwkdSBqDm43oTm7WLySqOBY8J4mwkuRiUF6-YwxgBPtnj5wPwXiOpLwyi3liGjjZSlVfhw0JG6o_YYmgGxd4bx8ROxNP1GzVGAoipFLRdjekG3y4DYpUeR5Y5I/s1600/WhistleBlower.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; color: blue; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-decoration: none;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9qMBF1UsOBFzUfMVPuhvwkdSBqDm43oTm7WLySqOBY8J4mwkuRiUF6-YwxgBPtnj5wPwXiOpLwyi3liGjjZSlVfhw0JG6o_YYmgGxd4bx8ROxNP1GzVGAoipFLRdjekG3y4DYpUeR5Y5I/s1600/WhistleBlower.jpg" height="200" style="-webkit-box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; background: rgb(34, 34, 34); border-radius: 0px; border: 1px solid transparent; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; padding: 8px; position: relative;" width="199" /></a></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
Petitioner Cox alleges that her <b><span style="color: blue;">Due Process of Law, Fourteenth Amendment Rights, and her rights under the Bill of Rights, have been violated by Judges accusing her of criminal activity</span></b> in rulings / opinions in civil cases of which these crimes have nothing to do with. Cox alleges this is retaliation for her exposing corruption that involves judges, and people with financial and political power.
Petitioner Cox alleges that she has <b><span style="color: blue;">a fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair </span></b>and that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one's life, liberty, or property. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Yet Cox was <span style="color: blue;"><b>not given notice of the crimes alleged, nor a way to present her side.</b></span> </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Cox was not given due process, as a matter of law and constitutional rights and Cox has thus lost her life as she knew it, her liberty and has lost personal property in this matter.
The<b><span style="color: blue;"> due process clause of the Fifth Amendment</span></b> asserts that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;">This amendment restricts the powers of the federal government and applies only to actions by it. <span style="color: blue;"><b>Petitioner Cox was not given due process, and was simply ruled guilty of criminal activities</b></span>, with a New York Times article as material evidence in the matter and was thereby “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiW3f_Gf_mF_w_yo0yNSzqLxbOvpUpEXcgTpqoqC6nfPcCuvr1ZaktHIebZzrsZrDZ7KkMVWnsO-BDBVQRbIxDKiJ8P2N4gIM8iaH0HQ7nA3pM5dM3emsJpwFFb79DCfrSxOC_qlMz_y-Rd/s1600/us_constitution-300x200.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; color: blue; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-decoration: none;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiW3f_Gf_mF_w_yo0yNSzqLxbOvpUpEXcgTpqoqC6nfPcCuvr1ZaktHIebZzrsZrDZ7KkMVWnsO-BDBVQRbIxDKiJ8P2N4gIM8iaH0HQ7nA3pM5dM3emsJpwFFb79DCfrSxOC_qlMz_y-Rd/s1600/us_constitution-300x200.jpg" height="133" style="-webkit-box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; background: rgb(34, 34, 34); border-radius: 0px; border: 1px solid transparent; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; padding: 8px; position: relative;" width="200" /></a><span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,declares,"[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (§ 1). Yet <b><span style="color: blue;">petitioner Cox was not given due process in the criminal justice system nor has Cox been adjudicated for or even under investigation for the crime of extortion,</span></b> yet high court judges accused Cox of extortionate behavior in a ruling of a civil case, a defamation case, unrelated in it’s material fact, evidence and testimony to the crime of extortion and to of having “a history of making similar allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction.”, which is essentially the felony crime of blackmail, or extortion.
The <span style="color: blue;"><b>Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment </b></span>has also been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in the twentieth century to incorporate protections of the Bill of Rights, so that those protections apply to the states as well as to the federal government. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9Jx7NMBOmkMapHU4_AM-XNXy__1SkuvCjUru1CbCSHOmJXBvyKdQdrEGHlbXoUhp9p65jlikHOYoMMkUwARvMmm388hPAZvlh2hJrXlcz475PmbAbGKdFfwyHYeD3WOFtkyJkUAeCrTEu/s1600/the+Truth+is+the+Truth.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; color: blue; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-decoration: none;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9Jx7NMBOmkMapHU4_AM-XNXy__1SkuvCjUru1CbCSHOmJXBvyKdQdrEGHlbXoUhp9p65jlikHOYoMMkUwARvMmm388hPAZvlh2hJrXlcz475PmbAbGKdFfwyHYeD3WOFtkyJkUAeCrTEu/s1600/the+Truth+is+the+Truth.jpg" height="200" style="-webkit-box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; background: rgb(34, 34, 34); border-radius: 0px; border: 1px solid transparent; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; padding: 8px; position: relative;" width="200" /></a></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Thus, the Due Process Clause serves as the means whereby <b>the Bill of Rights has become binding on state governments as well as on the federal government.</b>
The <span style="color: blue;"><b>Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is intended to protect individuals such as Petitioner from arbitrary actions by state as well as federal governments,</b></span> which includes the arbitrary actions of an esteemed higher court judicial panel in accusing petition and future litigants like her, of criminal activity of which was not a material factor in her case, and was simply hearsay by a traditional journalist of the institutional press, in this case a New York Time journalist, David Carr.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Due process requires that the procedures by which laws are applied <b><span style="color: blue;">must be evenhanded</span></b>, and in this case there was severe prejudice and inequality and Cox has thereby suffered harm, and wishes this court to remedy this ruling to protect future anti-corruption bloggers, citizen journalists and whistle blowers such as herself.
Petitioner Cox alleges that, under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, and other human rights and civil rights laws, and constitutional amendments, that<b><span style="color: blue;"> the actions of these judges deprived her of "fundamental fairness"</span></b> and of Civil Rights under the Due Process Clause. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">And now has the potential to do so to <b><span style="color: blue;">ALL future anti-corruption bloggers, citizen journalists and whistle blowers such as herself. </span></b></span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">And with this gives<span style="color: blue;"><b> far reaching, unconstitutional powers to the institutional press</b></span> and traditional journalists to publish gossip, hearsay and allegations and have Ninth Circuit judges and judges across the land, use these traditional journalists “opinion”, “writings”, “allegations” as adjudicated facts, hard and fast evidence, and sworn testimony that gives them the right to issue opinions and rulings that flat out accuse litigants such as petitioner of criminal activity of which they have not had due process of law in regard to.
<b><span style="color: #990000;">The Bill of Rights contains provisions that are central to procedural due process. </span></b></span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><span style="color: #990000;"><br /></span></b></span></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijlealtuynJu6_8IFGY08DeO1UTpW0LMVczoJ2eBGZnuMm1AJH0GlJwBwdhsag9vcFCmLfqP_XUyyZlh4JBZcyWxhvmnfnisHTmJxCGq5yCOfeAgIXI9E3uC7M5dhE4I45hL7OW1xSvWYM/s1600/truth+%252872%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; color: blue; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-decoration: none;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijlealtuynJu6_8IFGY08DeO1UTpW0LMVczoJ2eBGZnuMm1AJH0GlJwBwdhsag9vcFCmLfqP_XUyyZlh4JBZcyWxhvmnfnisHTmJxCGq5yCOfeAgIXI9E3uC7M5dhE4I45hL7OW1xSvWYM/s1600/truth+%252872%2529.jpg" height="200" style="-webkit-box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; background: rgb(34, 34, 34); border-radius: 0px; border: 1px solid transparent; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; padding: 8px; position: relative;" width="170" /></a></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;">These protections give a person a number of rights and freedoms including the right to be told of the crime being charged; the right to cross-examine witnesses; the right to be represented by an attorney; freedom from Cruel and Unusual Punishment; and the right to demand that the state prove any charges </span><b style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="color: blue;">Beyond a Reasonable Doubt</span></b><span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;">. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Petitioner Cox was <b><span style="color: blue;">deprived of these rights</span></b>, as Judges simply portrayed to the world she was guilty of criminal acts without having due process and without being told of the crime being charged; the right to cross-examine witnesses; the right to be represented by an attorney; freedom from Cruel and Unusual Punishment; and the right to demand that the state prove any charges Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.
<b><span style="color: #990000;">The Decision of the Ninth Circuit to allow statement of non-adjudicated criminal accusations to be put into a ruling in a civil case, whereby the litigant has not had due process for those allegations is Clearly Incorrect.</span></b>
Ninth Circuit Judges ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ erred in stating that Cox had a history of these criminal activities and <b><span style="color: blue;">erred in stating the New York Times as their evidence of fact and material facts of law.</span></b>
Petitioner Cox alleges that Ninth Circuit Judges<b><span style="color: blue;"> do not have a lawful, constitutional right to issue an opinion on criminal allegations in a civil case in which the criminal allegation is not a matter of record in the lower court,</span></b> has not been adjudicated and is not a material factor of the case.
Petitioner Cox alleges that she was<b><span style="color: blue;"> denied a legal right to due process of law in this ruling that slandered and defamed her, and painted her in false light, thereby affecting the rest of her life.</span></b>
Petitioner Cox alleges that Ninth Circuit Judges ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ did not find Cox guilty of these allegations beyond a reasonable doubt nor did they adjudicate Cox, charge Cox with these allegations nor use adjudicated facts in issuing their judicial authority (opinion), (ruling). </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">And that<b><span style="color: blue;"> it was an error to rule that Cox had a history of such criminal actions</span></b> when Cox was not allowed due process and constitutional rights regarding these allegations.
Petitioner Cox alleges that Ninth Circuit Judges ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ <b><span style="color: blue;">violated her Fourteenth Amendment Rights, Bill of Rights and Due Process of Law Rights</span></b> by alleging Cox committed these criminal actions of which she had not been charged by a lower court nor the criminal justice system, as a matter of law.
Petitioner Cox alleges that Ninth Circuit Judges ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ<b><span style="color: blue;"> prejudiced her substantial rights, and this was not a harmless error as Cox now faces extreme hate, prejudice, slander and defamation and has a other judicial proceedings that are now prejudiced against her.</span></b>
If Ninth Circuit Judges ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ believed Cox to have committed theses Criminal acts, they SHOULD go through due process of law. <b>Judges are NOT above the law.</b></span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><br /></b></span></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1Yc5a1zvt2iCzItoNiFGrR8iZZ97e-qGgVXTLRIiGnV-z9uawU-El9IUBI2MS3fNB0DdnnbV8m7BsD16uuH2pHV22q95AUJewu8oKXhbmUnQUSZUSXttPZVaW7cv-tSNyFABK3FJgemau/s1600/3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; color: blue; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-decoration: none;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1Yc5a1zvt2iCzItoNiFGrR8iZZ97e-qGgVXTLRIiGnV-z9uawU-El9IUBI2MS3fNB0DdnnbV8m7BsD16uuH2pHV22q95AUJewu8oKXhbmUnQUSZUSXttPZVaW7cv-tSNyFABK3FJgemau/s1600/3.jpg" height="160" style="-webkit-box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; background: rgb(34, 34, 34); border-radius: 0px; border: 1px solid transparent; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; padding: 8px; position: relative;" width="200" /></a></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><br /></b></span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><br /></b></span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><u><b><span style="color: #990000;">CONCLUSION </span></b></u></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><u><b><span style="color: #990000;"><br /></span></b></u></span></div>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">
I Pray that this esteemed panel, this court, send a clear message to the Ninth Circuit, and essentially all Appellate Judges and all judges across our court system, that <b><span style="color: blue;">it is not ok, not ethical, not constitutional nor lawful </span>to ad lib, make criminal allegations, introduce new case information into the appeal process, slander and defame litigants, and abuse the power of their process and esteemed role to retaliate against whistleblowers, citizen journalists, and anti-corruption bloggers in every town in the United States and essential the world.</b>
<b>The Obsidian v. Cox, Ninth Circuit ruling</b> is known well, worldwide and is the most prominent case to date of a blogger making a court rule on whether<span style="color: blue;"><b> a blogger has rights equal to a journalist when it comes to the First Amendment, Shield Laws, Retraction Laws and Free Speech Rights. </b></span></span></span><br />
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">This is <b><span style="color: blue;">a massive human rights and civil rights issue,</span></b> as now all who expose corruption and break news, report on what is really happening in small towns, big cities and essential everywhere, have the same rights in the courtroom as does traditional journalists and the institutional press aKa big media.
Therefore it is<b><span style="color: blue;"> imperative that this ruling does not be tainted</span></b> with giving t<b>hose same traditional journalists of the institutional press, super powers</b> to have that same blogger alienated, outcast, painted in false light, prejudiced in other court proceedings, and have the world at large believe them to be a criminal and therefore not taken serious that in which they are exposing or reporting on.
This ruling that gave equality,<b><span style="color: blue;"> seemed to have took it away in the very same ruling.</span></b>
<b><span style="color: #990000;">Petition Cox has NEVER, not even once in her life, posted anything online with the intention of seeking a payment for a retraction. </span></b></span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Cox has NEVER asked for money to remove anything she has posted online, and yet Ninth Circuit Judges ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ are claiming, in a Ninth Circuit ruling that Cox has a “History” of doing such actions, seriously criminal, unconstitutional and unethical action. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b><span style="color: blue;">As if Cox has a pattern and history </span></b>of illegal, unethical behavior, of which there is NO History or Pattern. If these judges are allowed to put these unsubstantiated, unadjudicated, extremely biased and prejudice criminal allegations into a ruling in a civil case, then this will chill the speech of those in the future wishing to, wanting, or trying to expose corruption in their area of expertise, town, or state.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmOInOxkp98PUK2opGRYbYeKgVyocPjKx8X4q3mjtMQqN2b8aG154W9Jkf_UBIXJmOA996Z_3D8ljj1H4F2kGTIXHGhf_Kf9PEejicxx6SERYznw00Ue4sQWfxE6vhp4KHWe4pH0mTKImJ/s1600/Blogger+Crystal+L.+Cox.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; color: blue; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-decoration: none;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmOInOxkp98PUK2opGRYbYeKgVyocPjKx8X4q3mjtMQqN2b8aG154W9Jkf_UBIXJmOA996Z_3D8ljj1H4F2kGTIXHGhf_Kf9PEejicxx6SERYznw00Ue4sQWfxE6vhp4KHWe4pH0mTKImJ/s1600/Blogger+Crystal+L.+Cox.gif" height="143" style="-webkit-box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; background: rgb(34, 34, 34); border-radius: 0px; border: 1px solid transparent; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; padding: 8px; position: relative;" width="200" /></a></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;">In Truth <b><span style="color: blue;">Petitioner Cox has dedicated her life, lost everything and been under extreme threats, retaliation, and extreme prejudice for nearly a decade</span></b>, all because she<b> did the right thing and stood up for others</b>, for strangers and used her internet marketing skills to give voice to the victims of corrupt detectives, county commissioners, judges, cops, politicians, real estate companies, banks, finance companies, and victims of human trafficking, pedophilia, rape, and severe abuse. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<span style="color: blue;"><b>Cox was RULED guilty of a crime of which she was not on trial for, </b></span>was not adjudicated for and was not under investigation for. A crime that was <b><span style="color: blue;">NOT a material factor in Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal Cox.</span></b> </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;">It is not legal, due process, nor constitutional for these judges to have stated these false, unadjudicated allegations.
Petitioner respectfully request that the Ninth Circuit Court amend its opinion <b>to withhold the sentence that now says, Cox apparently has a history of making similar allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction.</b> See David Carr, When Truth Survives Free Speech , N.Y. Times, Dec. 11, 2011, at B1. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;">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<span style="color: blue;"><b> on authoritative findings</b></span> 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. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><span style="color: blue;">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.</span></b>
Adding this statement to the Obsidian v. Cox ruling dated January 17th, 2014 is Legally Flawed and Has Far-Reaching Consequences, and is thereby Warranting Review in This Case.
<b><span style="color: #990000;">This issue affects all who are reporting news, all citizen journalists, all victims of corruption at every level and all whistleblowers. </span></b></span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;">If a Ninth Circuit panel can rule that any individual has committed crimes without that person having bee</span><span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;">n investigated or given due process for those allegations, and use a New York Times article as evidence of those crimes, then this potentially affects every citizen in the United States and is a very important issue for all lawmakers, citizens, and the judicial process as a whole.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">
The Court should grant the petition. "</span><b style="font-size: 12px;">
</b></span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.7999992370605px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: 15.1999998092651px; line-height: 13.8000001907349px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Source of Crystal Cox Blogger Supreme Court Filing</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 15.1999998092651px; line-height: 13.8000001907349px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yBV1MgaxPbjqoYxC3op2241oidez4pEW2WJ2P-Lg8Hk/edit" style="color: blue; text-decoration: none;">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yBV1MgaxPbjqoYxC3op2241oidez4pEW2WJ2P-Lg8Hk/edit</a></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMOC87FZPS5FWO1VvMSIiCqb7RGkFpXKGowjkNkW_8jd4fMxbJugoTiqZmvWuMQkzmssTSWfc7KQ6HpxJIjDfJJ0fdhR4RLJLT-1Ub93HFq4VTbFLDC4RlhLIKwq-9elfsn1PztD07CIlO/s1600/Crystal+Cox+Blogs+Blogger+Crystal+Cox.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="color: blue; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-decoration: none;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMOC87FZPS5FWO1VvMSIiCqb7RGkFpXKGowjkNkW_8jd4fMxbJugoTiqZmvWuMQkzmssTSWfc7KQ6HpxJIjDfJJ0fdhR4RLJLT-1Ub93HFq4VTbFLDC4RlhLIKwq-9elfsn1PztD07CIlO/s1600/Crystal+Cox+Blogs+Blogger+Crystal+Cox.jpg" height="266" style="-webkit-box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; background: rgb(34, 34, 34); border-radius: 0px; border: 1px solid transparent; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; padding: 8px; position: relative;" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
Crystal Cox, Free Speech Case fighting to Equal rights of bloggers, Citizen Journalists, Whistleblowers as New York Times, Forbes and other traditional, mainstream media.</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><u><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">Blogger Crystal Cox filed to the Supreme Court Pro Se</span></u></b></div>
<br />
<b>Here is a Video of Crystal Cox regarding her </b><br />
<b>PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI</b><br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkYW7nl4774"><b>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkYW7nl4774</b></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Here is the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari that Blogger Crystal Cox filed to </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>the United States Supreme Court to Stand up for the rights of all Bloggers, </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Citizen Journalists and Whistleblowers</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yBV1MgaxPbjqoYxC3op2241oidez4pEW2WJ2P-Lg8Hk/edit">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yBV1MgaxPbjqoYxC3op2241oidez4pEW2WJ2P-Lg8Hk/edit</a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Start a Blog, Expose Corruption.</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Report the NEWS in your Area.</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>YOU are the NEWS !!!</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgB63_lgHkajoT88Nu7t22cpFHLVOb11arAp9zNvD3CytmWp8OxTxsgdpKB25-3RvCEj04V_AzZXtvSRlV7sSd9YxJPwwZKzjRV4U_rFW_fQDJAS5iZVErzEH1rbSWDSi3m7IBmAw7Xd2Ar/s1600/Citizen+Journalist+rights.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgB63_lgHkajoT88Nu7t22cpFHLVOb11arAp9zNvD3CytmWp8OxTxsgdpKB25-3RvCEj04V_AzZXtvSRlV7sSd9YxJPwwZKzjRV4U_rFW_fQDJAS5iZVErzEH1rbSWDSi3m7IBmAw7Xd2Ar/s1600/Citizen+Journalist+rights.gif" height="309" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>YOU are the MEDIA !!!</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3604775273836722350.post-61899620999911849302019-12-22T14:05:00.000-08:002021-03-25T01:40:28.777-07:00Crystal Cox Ninth Circuit; "Is there any surprise that the legacy media HATES the bloggers, and wants them NOT to have any protections?" "Wow, what an amazing, crystal clear victory for the blogger!"<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">"By California Lawyer | Friday, January 24, 2014 at 4:23 pm </span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"><span style="color: blue;">What First Amendment protections are afforded a blogger sued for defamation?</span></b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"> This was the question presented recently in a case just decided in the most liberal appellate court jurisdiction in the USA, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi71cokptaqoql2nSCTR2G8viSv61XlNrga6tOU2oSM_0obWQdlXGGVXvHbhfaW3oh6XAGMEG11IXyVa0xfz4bA1rEL64BR6YSxIFuZ2yNXUkExwGf4qVO4o84S8HMJWmSplWc3KhHp-AKr/s1600/3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="background-color: white; clear: right; color: blue; float: right; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-decoration: none;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi71cokptaqoql2nSCTR2G8viSv61XlNrga6tOU2oSM_0obWQdlXGGVXvHbhfaW3oh6XAGMEG11IXyVa0xfz4bA1rEL64BR6YSxIFuZ2yNXUkExwGf4qVO4o84S8HMJWmSplWc3KhHp-AKr/s1600/3.jpg" style="-webkit-box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; background: rgb(34, 34, 34); border-radius: 0px; border: 1px solid transparent; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; padding: 8px; position: relative;" width="200" /></a><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">The issue was </span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">one of first impression, and is a critically important legal decision in light of the emergence of bloggers</b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"> and the alternative media. It is of obvious concern to anyone that blogs, like Mr. TF, all the guest posters and contributors here, too, so an in depth discussion is warranted."</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">"So, naturally, a pointed question must be asked,</span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"><span style="color: #990000;"> if we as a group are going to have any rights to stand up and say what we want without fear of crippling lawsuits that will chill our very free speech rights and squelch our dissent big time: “what, if any, legitimacy should be given to bloggers?”</span></b><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">The previous argument, advanced by the monopolistic legacy media</b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">,, witnessing their slow and inexorable demise, was that</span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"><span style="color: blue;"> bloggers get no special protection</span></b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">, because they are nobody’s. Pure and simple. Only journalists–that is, credentialed elite from the nation’s liberal/progressive indoctrination camps, err, universities–get First Amendment protections, not some blogger or bloggers hammering away on mommy’s computer in the basement.</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">Bloggers, naturally, felt otherwise."</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">"Is there any surprise that the legacy media HATES the bloggers, and wants them NOT to have any protections? </span></b><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">Keep reading.</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">So, the confrontation finally resulted in a trial, then an appeal. See,</span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"> if a blogger gets sued for defamation, and settles, there is NO LEGAL PRECEDENT, AND NO DEFINITIVE RULING. </b><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"><br /></b><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyBt9kWPw6oOkSVgJrTiO29xlIcmHTJ6-8JhxZ5JMqCiyBBV1pVZCNdGTuBSra2_pvlKI9ZjbmwD5F_TUJ2g3-hJq5rN3hO6nJkMYlGb3N5UXW0QsaFv8FX1v6imNfrOnPG3UwQXICljgP/s1600/9969_631703486846351_1810786249_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="background-color: white; clear: right; color: blue; float: right; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-decoration: none;"><img border="0" height="128" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyBt9kWPw6oOkSVgJrTiO29xlIcmHTJ6-8JhxZ5JMqCiyBBV1pVZCNdGTuBSra2_pvlKI9ZjbmwD5F_TUJ2g3-hJq5rN3hO6nJkMYlGb3N5UXW0QsaFv8FX1v6imNfrOnPG3UwQXICljgP/s1600/9969_631703486846351_1810786249_n.jpg" style="-webkit-box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; background: rgb(34, 34, 34); border-radius: 0px; border: 1px solid transparent; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; padding: 8px; position: relative;" width="200" /></a><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">The ONLY way the case law changes is when a blogger courageously steps up and commits </b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">to having a jury decide the case, and thereafter, if one or both decide to formally appeal the case to the appellate court. Naturally, the stakes are high, and stacked heavily against the blogger.</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"><span style="color: blue;">There is NO huge news organization backing the blogger</span></b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">, so absent a kind soul volunteering his or her time, there usually is no chance for the blogger. But every now and then, there is a case that attracts some attention, and a volunteer steps from the shadows.</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjp105Wa66Gs-SegiJwAvCH81V9u-7S-TB4bJ-cyCrno_o0qV-wYJyAmjSGjnBX6PjffNGIKTbhCP9JiULbq4vFC7NnezncQnDkuNkpVuoObo73ll0V_bXSW-EfCOMrUK3VVxDIihRJ1HOl/s1600/-Crystal+Cox+Blogger+-+-+Copy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="background-color: white; clear: left; color: blue; float: left; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-decoration: none;"><img border="0" height="165" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjp105Wa66Gs-SegiJwAvCH81V9u-7S-TB4bJ-cyCrno_o0qV-wYJyAmjSGjnBX6PjffNGIKTbhCP9JiULbq4vFC7NnezncQnDkuNkpVuoObo73ll0V_bXSW-EfCOMrUK3VVxDIihRJ1HOl/s1600/-Crystal+Cox+Blogger+-+-+Copy.jpg" style="-webkit-box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; background: rgb(34, 34, 34); border-radius: 0px; border: 1px solid transparent; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; padding: 8px; position: relative;" width="200" /></a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">That is exactly what happened recently."</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">"Hotly contested at trial of this issue </span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"><span style="color: #990000;">was the legal standard that should govern a claim of defamation when the lawsuit involved a blogger and supposed matters of public concern. The blogger, Ms. Cox, raised two First Amendment arguments:</span></b><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">(1) Because the </span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">alleged false statement</b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"> involved a matter of public concern, then Padrick and his company had to prove BOTH the blogger’s negligence (negligence is a legal concept that means a person had a duty to act reasonably under the circumstances, but did not; typically the argument is asserted that the person “knew or should have known” the statement was false, but published it anyway), AND that they could not recover PRESUMED damages absent proof that the blogger acted with ACTUAL MALICE (actual malice is SUPER DIFFICULT to prove, because it requires a showing that the blogger KNEW the post was false or acted with reckless disregard of its truth or falsity);</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgk-IxtGSilhRVe_VAfpaq5CTdT7-Jc3qH61_3ajYscZk66bSlfyh43LYc6yWpEb8y28_TAyuVOMcfh3NJDVChG-J3QoEfEAP8-xZMj3wYotJY69td42Lc2P653-YepbwzUnBaEOvEtCc8y/s1600/Blogger+Crystal+Cox+-+Invesetigative+Blogger.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="background-color: white; clear: right; color: blue; float: right; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-decoration: none;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgk-IxtGSilhRVe_VAfpaq5CTdT7-Jc3qH61_3ajYscZk66bSlfyh43LYc6yWpEb8y28_TAyuVOMcfh3NJDVChG-J3QoEfEAP8-xZMj3wYotJY69td42Lc2P653-YepbwzUnBaEOvEtCc8y/s1600/Blogger+Crystal+Cox+-+Invesetigative+Blogger.jpg" style="-webkit-box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; background: rgb(34, 34, 34); border-radius: 0px; border: 1px solid transparent; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; padding: 8px; position: relative;" width="180" /></a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">(2) </span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">Ms. Cox, the blogger</b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">, also argued that Padrick and Obsidian were public figures [bankruptcy trustee and his company], and as public figures, the blogger argued that Padrick and Obsidian were required to prove that Cox made the statements against them with actual malice.</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">The trial judge rejected Ms. Cox’s legal arguments. </b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">The trial judge felt that ““Padrick and Obsidian were not required to prove either negligence or actual damages because Cox had failed to submit “evidence suggestive of her status as a journalist.” [citations]. The [trial judge] also ruled that neither Padrick nor Obsidian was an all-purpose public figure or a limited public figure based upon Padrick's role as a bankruptcy trustee, finding that they had not injected themselves into a public controversy, but rather that Cox had “created the controversy.””</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"><span style="color: blue;">In short, the trial judge REJECTED the notion that blogger is entitled to any sort of journalistic protection.</span></b><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">Does that not sound like the same, tired meme from the </span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">legacy media</b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">, trying to protect the crippled, failing fiat ponzi scheme of the broken federal reserve system? Entrenched, legacy bureaucrats protecting THEIR tired, worn system at all costs, is that not readily apparent? Newspapers? What’s that? Blogging?</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"><span style="color: #990000;"><br /></span></b><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"><span style="color: #990000;">We ARE IT, and it is time the old school judges and legacy media embrace us."</span></b><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjeOT-1iOGX9QCXzdUQ0ahX164EYu893Btr1J6UJZWnHYqCQgSRsTt42VZH9Luj37y3Y5_rSbVW1lVr6lvR2JQyFsTc5ak9VeVa5uTASCJVJu3dRYkLCIb2JAgxES38noDjaSvS5JlZkp-W/s1600/bloggers.bmp" imageanchor="1" style="background-color: white; clear: right; color: blue; float: right; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-decoration: none;"><img border="0" height="148" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjeOT-1iOGX9QCXzdUQ0ahX164EYu893Btr1J6UJZWnHYqCQgSRsTt42VZH9Luj37y3Y5_rSbVW1lVr6lvR2JQyFsTc5ak9VeVa5uTASCJVJu3dRYkLCIb2JAgxES38noDjaSvS5JlZkp-W/s1600/bloggers.bmp" style="-webkit-box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; background: rgb(34, 34, 34); border-radius: 0px; border: 1px solid transparent; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; padding: 8px; position: relative;" width="200" /></a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">After closing arguments, the judge read the law to the jurors. This part of the trial is known as jury instruction. The judge told the jury that under Oregon law, “"Defendant's [the blogger, Ms. Cox’s] knowledge of whether the statements at issue were true or false and defendant's intent or purpose in publishing those statements</span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"> are not elements of the claim and are not relevant to the determination of liability</b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">.” The judge also told the jury that "plaintiffs [Obsidian and Padrick] are </span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"><span style="color: blue;">entitled to receive reasonable compensation for harm to reputation, humiliation, or mental suffering even if plaintiff does not present evidence that proves actual damages . . . because the law presumes that the plaintiffs suffered these damages."</span></b><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHx1dgXtHykCqfxASgJ7lSGeuxhpuEiNhfQXdR0RwxxSK3rmJuAx-AWXQ5YHX1a1fAWRB-9XtsPQsqgA-YeUL22iXakdVKlJ_SG3dkeuSV2hbR4oIpii7UgQEJtosstdrDFv3qVXy0LtwS/s1600/Crystal+Cox+Investigative+Blogger.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="background-color: white; clear: left; color: blue; float: left; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-decoration: none;"><img border="0" height="133" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHx1dgXtHykCqfxASgJ7lSGeuxhpuEiNhfQXdR0RwxxSK3rmJuAx-AWXQ5YHX1a1fAWRB-9XtsPQsqgA-YeUL22iXakdVKlJ_SG3dkeuSV2hbR4oIpii7UgQEJtosstdrDFv3qVXy0LtwS/s1600/Crystal+Cox+Investigative+Blogger.jpg" style="-webkit-box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; background: rgb(34, 34, 34); border-radius: 0px; border: 1px solid transparent; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; padding: 8px; position: relative;" width="200" /></a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">So, what happened, is that </span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">proof that the statement was made was all that was required</b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">, and it matter not one bit whether Ms. Cox knew or should have known of the falsity of the statement. Secondly, the most galling part, is that </span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"><span style="color: #990000;">neither Obsian or Padrick had to prove any harm at all.</span></b><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"><span style="color: blue;">The law “presumes”–legal gobbledygook for “makes up out of thin air because we say so”</span></b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">– that Obsidian and Padrick had suffered harm and therefore, the jury only has to</span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"> make up a number out of thin air</b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"> </span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"><span style="color: #990000;">which they can guess at and which has no basis at all in fact</span></b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">. Kind of like fiat FRN’s come to think of it . . .</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"><span style="color: blue;">With that legal set up, there should be no surprise: the jury found against the blogger, and awarded substantial compensation in favor of Padrick and Obsidian.</span></b><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">Following the trial, Ms. Cox made some arguments in front of the trial judge, pointing out that it was wrong for the court to instruct the jury as it did, that is, </span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">by failing to tell the jury that Ms. Cox was entitled to certain First Amendment protections</b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"> “including requiring plaintiffs to establish liability by proving that [she] acted with some degree of fault, whether it be negligence or 'actual malice."'</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">The trial judge also rejected the blogger’s arguments that a showing of fault was required because the defendants were public figures and that the blog post referred to a matter of public concern," and thus concluded that a showing of fault was not required to establish liability, and that presumed damages could be awarded.</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">So, the only options were to pay the huge verdict or appeal the jury verdict and the judge’s instruction based on application of an incorrect legal standard.</b><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">At this point, also,</span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"><span style="color: blue;"> the blogger managed to attract the attention of a UCLA law professor, who helped her in the effort to appeal the trial court’s ruling.</span></b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"> [“Though Cox acted as her own attorney, UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, who had written an article on the issue, learned of her case and offered to represent her in an appeal.”</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">"In the appeal, Volokh admitted both that (1) the blog post contained an assertion of fact which (2) the jury correctly concluded was false and defamatory. The appeal was only based on the trial court’s incorrect legal rulings that “liability could be imposed without a showing of fault or actual damages and . . .Padrick and Obsidian were not public officials.”</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXLeUY7_1Zomg0mjOgfiBhzz_Ri5Us7Yz69U9CehAMNKl74cZfYDn7N-yAJiUT5tF0DOQVzDXFDWFn_OwBII1Q9IhdPYs4n8ful37vpRXUCmgiXsPkfTADquz9wLxe692-8Ps57KrUVcV8/s1600/241621_198626150181703_100001029582745_566964_3861723_o+(1)+-+Copy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="background-color: white; clear: right; color: blue; float: right; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-decoration: none;"><img border="0" height="128" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXLeUY7_1Zomg0mjOgfiBhzz_Ri5Us7Yz69U9CehAMNKl74cZfYDn7N-yAJiUT5tF0DOQVzDXFDWFn_OwBII1Q9IhdPYs4n8ful37vpRXUCmgiXsPkfTADquz9wLxe692-8Ps57KrUVcV8/s1600/241621_198626150181703_100001029582745_566964_3861723_o+(1)+-+Copy.jpg" style="-webkit-box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; background: rgb(34, 34, 34); border-radius: 0px; border: 1px solid transparent; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; padding: 8px; position: relative;" width="200" /></a><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"><span style="color: blue;">Naturally, Obsidian and Padrick wanted the verdict upheld. </span></b><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">They asserted various arguments.</span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"> First, they argued that only the “institutional press”–that is, the legacy, mainstream media–were afforded protection under a negligence standard.</b><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"><span style="color: blue;">What they were arguing is that BECAUSE</span> the blogger was NOT mainstream press<span style="color: blue;">, then Obsidian and Padrick did not have to prove the blogger’s fault. They claimed that defamation against a blogger was governed by a standard of strict liability, that is, they claimed they only had to prove that the false statement was made, and voila, winner winner chicken dinner!</span></b><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">Not so fast said the Court. Gertz did instruct that there was a need to shield "the press and broadcast media from the rigors of strict liability for defamation" [citation], but the Court in this case said: “holding in Gertz sweeps more broadly.”</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">The court said this:</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">“Like the Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit has not directly addressed whether First Amendment defamation rules apply equally to both the institutional press and individual speakers. But every other circuit to consider the issue has held that the First Amendment defamation rules in Sullivan and its progeny apply equally to the institutional press and individual speakers. [citations] We agree with our sister circuits.”</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">“</span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was 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. </b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable: "With the advent of the Internet and the decline of print and broadcast media . . . the line between the media and others who wish to comment on political and social issues becomes far more blurred." Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 352.</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">In defamation cases, the public-figure status of a plaintiff and the public importance of the statement at issue--not the identity of the speaker-provide the First Amendment touchstones.”</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"><span style="color: #990000; font-size: medium;">The Court then delivered a stunning victory to the blogger: </span></b><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">“We therefore hold that the Gertz negligence requirement for private defamation actions is not limited to cases with institutional media defendants.”</b><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: blue; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"><b>This means that a private, basement-dwelling blogger or contributor, cannot be successfully sued under a strict liability standard, that is, for simply making the false statement of fact. </b></span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">Instead, the blogger must be shown to have made the statement on the basis that the blogger knew, or should have known of the falsity of the statement.</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: medium;">This is a<b> HUGE </b>victory for internet bloggers on this point alone.</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">But, like any case, there was not just one argument. Obsidian and Padrick also argued that there was another reason why jury’s verdict should stand under the strict liability standard that the trial court applied [thus making their case easier to prove because there was no requirement of proving fault of the blogger in making the statement].</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrICyMelEJaZc9X0euxouPskncHRiMfe1X5E0YEK7756Eab3064xRVJ3KCyR2NUbxarta4AaIxPnXt0B4oksWj0il8Uw12RRBNuQu4jmEZyWXFHVaT1Urq_x9nBe_HFSJvTc-L62oCrWrl/s1600/3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="background-color: white; clear: right; color: blue; float: right; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-decoration: none;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrICyMelEJaZc9X0euxouPskncHRiMfe1X5E0YEK7756Eab3064xRVJ3KCyR2NUbxarta4AaIxPnXt0B4oksWj0il8Uw12RRBNuQu4jmEZyWXFHVaT1Urq_x9nBe_HFSJvTc-L62oCrWrl/s1600/3.jpg" style="-webkit-box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; background: rgb(34, 34, 34); border-radius: 0px; border: 1px solid transparent; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; padding: 8px; position: relative;" /></a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">Obsidian and Padrick argued that the negligence standard, requiring them to prove fault, only arose, unlike here, in the context of defamation involving matters of public concern. They argued, that Obsidian and Padrick were not engaged in such matters of public concern, and thus, they should NOT have to prove fault. They argued that strict liability thus applied, and that they should win because they proved the false statement was made, even though they did not prove that the false statement was made by the blogger who knew or should have known the statement was false.</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">The 9th Circuit opinion, citing many other examples, disagreed with Obsidian and Padrick’s analysis that the blogger’s statement was about a purely private matter involving nothing of public concern [“Cox’s allegations in this case are similarly a matter of public concern.”] The Opinion summarized WHY the blogger’s statement involved a matter of public concern:</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">“</span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">Padrick was appointed by a United States Bankruptcy Court as the Chapter 11 trustee </b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">of a company that had defrauded its investors through a Ponzi scheme.</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #990000; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><b> That company retained him and Obsidian </b></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">to advise it shortly</span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"><span style="color: blue;"> before it filed for bankruptcy</span></b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">.</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">The allegations against Padrick and his company raised questions about whether they were failing to protect the defrauded investors because they were in league with their original clients.”</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpd_Trwk-UuAmDthPRxfmHfr87ltI5wFpuFhCRJcb8kLI_yRBO82zjabFIj3I2ufkT7xxF8sivGkMqPtY3YxR81cICdjD3l62ojDRgrvK9MB0U4fzra9ZvS2m9ov7kebm7QrlqRyam-R96/s1600/Blogger+Crystal+L.+Cox.gif" imageanchor="1" style="background-color: white; clear: left; color: blue; float: left; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-decoration: none;"><img border="0" height="142" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpd_Trwk-UuAmDthPRxfmHfr87ltI5wFpuFhCRJcb8kLI_yRBO82zjabFIj3I2ufkT7xxF8sivGkMqPtY3YxR81cICdjD3l62ojDRgrvK9MB0U4fzra9ZvS2m9ov7kebm7QrlqRyam-R96/s1600/Blogger+Crystal+L.+Cox.gif" style="-webkit-box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; background: rgb(34, 34, 34); border-radius: 0px; border: 1px solid transparent; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; padding: 8px; position: relative;" width="200" /></a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">This “public concern” rationale protects all sorts of potentially defamatory statements. Any one of us already has expressed statements relating to gold and silver being manipulated on the COMEX, about knowing stooges helping perpetrate the massive fraud and manipulation, that there are those in the pocket of the fraudsters who actively make their living spouting the constant stream of lies about gold and silver manipulation, etc.</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">We should all rejoice at the 9th Circuit’s opinion, since at this point, it is beyond dispute that what we talk about here, metals, manipulation, currencies, central banking, all of it, are matters of public concern. </b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">Even that evil man JC is fair game for comment, because he actively is involved in the dialogue supporting the ongoing manipulative schemes. We all now have some protections that before we did not have.</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">In delivering another stunning victory to the blogger, on the issue whether the statement involved a matter of public concern, the Court said this:</span></b><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">“Because Cox's blog post </span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"><span style="color: blue;">addressed a matter of public concern</span></b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">, even assuming that Gertz is limited to such speech, the district court should have instructed the jury that it could not find Cox liable for defamation unless it found that she acted negligently. See Gertz, 418 U.S. at 350. The court also should have instructed the jury that it could not award presumed damages unless it found that Cox acted with actual malice. Id. at 349.”</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"><span style="color: blue;">Wow, what an amazing, crystal clear victory for the blogger!</span></b><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNSDa4ILeOrDJFjkVC2OR-cjE3k38duUQ-kLOSZJ8GwTHKg5a7pV0MV9nnT5nG0Atvz_rP0G5nEz3GhUJkhLIWBS6F1gY5YVrhlc9rZXUHV0ui2wotO85QnfKMMj4Qk22gamb9VUuHcQQr/s1600/Corrupt+Fear+Us.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="background-color: white; clear: right; color: blue; float: right; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-decoration: none;"><img border="0" height="170" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNSDa4ILeOrDJFjkVC2OR-cjE3k38duUQ-kLOSZJ8GwTHKg5a7pV0MV9nnT5nG0Atvz_rP0G5nEz3GhUJkhLIWBS6F1gY5YVrhlc9rZXUHV0ui2wotO85QnfKMMj4Qk22gamb9VUuHcQQr/s1600/Corrupt+Fear+Us.jpg" style="-webkit-box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; background: rgb(34, 34, 34); border-radius: 0px; border: 1px solid transparent; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; padding: 8px; position: relative;" width="200" /></a><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">The Court did give Obsidian and Padrick a slight victory, of no real consequence, because the Court found that neither Obsidian nor Padrick were public officials. The blogger argued that “the jury therefore should have been instructed that, under the Sullivan standard, it could impose liability for defamation only if she acted with actual malice. [citation].” The Court disagreed. To this is a big , because the victories on the other arguments meant that the Court had no choice but to reverse the judgment and send it back to the trial court.</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">The Opinion wiped out the huge judgment for Obsidian and Padrick, and requires them to once again, have a trial, in front of a jury, where the trial judge has to instruct the jury that the jury can only find the statements defamatory</span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"> IF Obsidian and Padrick PROVE that the blogger knew</b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"> or should have known the statement was false. That is </span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">a very difficult standard to prove, far harder than a strict liability standard, which has no such requirement at all.</b><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">What will happen at the re-trial? Well, first, will there even BE a retrial under this heightened standard that Obsidian and Padrick must meet?</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">Who knows. If there is a re-trial, what evidence will Obsidian and Padrick bring to bear on the question as to the fault of the blogger in making the statement?</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">How can they prove Ms. Cox knew the statement was false? </b><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">How can they prove that she should have known the statement was false?</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">Isn’t it more likely that Ms. Cox was spouting an opinion based on inferences of wrongdoing, which means that there is proof that she had some basis to make her statement, or, in other words, there is at least some evidentiary basis to support her defense to the defamation claims, unlike what she faced in the earlier trial </span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"><span style="color: blue;">where the only defense was that she did not make the statement at all</span></b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">?</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">More realistically, Obsidian and Padrick will slink off into the distance and never appear again. How many thousands of dollars did Obsidian and Padrick spend, for naught, on this case taking the blogger to trial?</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUAAtSzjTk5pHF3WjOX1ITfx-LDMNWJKuJ1Yse6Oj-rLQPy8kpFxk6r8biXKubi1atnqxwhUh_mw8sFcIJpkMmm27Y1Jz4zELkYyer5S_T_ajsT7UwecMuxZoxcRD1p53vz1Ug4l-zz2bX/s1600/-Justice-For-Sale-Bankruptcy_corruption-.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; color: blue; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-decoration: none;"><img border="0" height="190" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUAAtSzjTk5pHF3WjOX1ITfx-LDMNWJKuJ1Yse6Oj-rLQPy8kpFxk6r8biXKubi1atnqxwhUh_mw8sFcIJpkMmm27Y1Jz4zELkYyer5S_T_ajsT7UwecMuxZoxcRD1p53vz1Ug4l-zz2bX/s1600/-Justice-For-Sale-Bankruptcy_corruption-.jpg" style="-webkit-box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; background: rgb(34, 34, 34); border-radius: 0px; border: 1px solid transparent; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; padding: 8px; position: relative;" width="200" /></a></div>
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">What an utter waste of time and money, only to end up with the blogger not only winning, but convincingly so, and paving the way for the rest of the blogging community to enjoy freedom in posting with lessened fear of being sued! Hooray is what I say!</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">I have been wanting to weigh in on this concept for a long time, and I thank TF for bringing this case to my attention. He graciously agreed to allow me to offer up this analysis, and I thank him profusely for the opportunity to be of service."</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">Source of Post</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3115701/posts" style="background-color: white; color: blue; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; text-decoration: none;">http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3115701/posts</a><br />
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">
<br /></div>
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /><br />
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: medium;">More on the Crystal Cox Ninth Circuit Case Media</span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; text-align: center;">
<b style="color: blue; text-decoration: none;"><a href="http://ninthcircuitcrystalcoxappeal.blogspot.com/" style="color: blue; text-decoration: none;">http://ninthcircuitcrystalcoxappeal.blogspot.com/</a></b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3604775273836722350.post-78963111575771164292019-11-20T10:24:00.000-08:002022-10-07T00:13:46.874-07:00Blogger Crystal Cox Extortion Allegations; Anti-Corruption Blogger Crystal Cox FIGHTS BACK Crystal Cox Extortion Allegations; Anti-Corruption Blogger Crystal Cox FIGHTS BACK Against Extortion Allegations in Judicial Ruling<p><span style="font-size: large;"> <b style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">PORT TOWNSEND, Wash.</b><span style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"> - </span><b style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">Feb. 2, 2014</b><span style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"> - </span><i style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><a href="https://www.prlog.org/" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #3454a0; line-height: 1.5; text-decoration-line: none;">PRLog</a></i><span style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"> -- Anti-Corruption Blogger Crystal Cox FIGHTS BACK, against Federal Appellate Judges Stating;</span></span></p><span style="font-size: large;"><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">“Cox apparently has a history of making similar allegations</span><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction”</span><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;" /><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">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.</span><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;" /><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">I have NO ISSUE with those Speaking Critical of Me, that is your Constitutional Right.</span><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;" /><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">I do not care about being personally Criticized,</span><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">I care about</span><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">Judges obeying the Law and obeying the</span><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">Constitution of the United States of Amerca.</span><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;" /><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">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.</span><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;" /><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">I Don't Care Who Likes Me and Who Does Not.</span><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;" /><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">I care about our Judges obeying the Law,</span><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">and Respecting our Constitutional Rights.</span><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;" /><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">Crystal Cox via her attorney Eugene Volokh, UCLA Constitutional Law Professor 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.</span><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;" /><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">To Read this Motion; Click Below</span><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;" /><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;" /><a href="https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkib1NraEFFb1Rac2M/edit" rel="nofollow" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #3454a0; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/<wbr style="box-sizing: inherit;"></wbr>file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkib1NraEFFb1Rac2M/<wbr style="box-sizing: inherit;"></wbr>edit</a><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;" /><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">A Few Quotes from Eugene Volokh's Motion to Rehear (https://docs.google.com/</span><wbr style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"></wbr><span style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkib1NraEFFb1Rac2M/</span><wbr style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"></wbr><span style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">edit);</span><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;" /><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">"A judicial assertion of misconduct by a named person, even a judicial assertion modified with the word “apparently,”</span><wbr style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"></wbr><span style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"> might be based on the record in a case, or on authoritative findings by another court.</span><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;" /><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">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."</span><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;" /><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">Link to "Motion to Rehear" Filed by Eugene Volokh;</span><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;" /><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkib1NraEFFb1Rac2M/edit?usp=sharing" rel="nofollow" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #3454a0; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;" target="_blank">https://drive.google.com/<wbr style="box-sizing: inherit;"></wbr>file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkib1NraEFFb1Rac2M/<wbr style="box-sizing: inherit;"></wbr>edit?usp=sharing</a><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;" /><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">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.</span><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;" /><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">Click Below</span><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #111111; font-family: arial, sans-serif;" /><a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Sfa6KPy3ur6pBOcUF64CfvRFKM-n0ASMWhpUPC4G43Q/edit" rel="nofollow" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #3454a0; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/<wbr style="box-sizing: inherit;"></wbr>document/d/1Sfa6KPy3ur6pBOcUF64CfvRFKM-<wbr style="box-sizing: inherit;"></wbr>n0ASMWhpUPC4G43Q/<wbr style="box-sizing: inherit;"></wbr>edit</a></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3604775273836722350.post-58984238119319431532019-10-12T13:31:00.000-07:002021-03-25T01:38:18.725-07:00The Crystal Cox Case is a Landmark Decision and it is a Game Changer for all New Media."Bloggers Gain First Amendment Victories But Still Face Issues in Online Journalism<br />
<br />
Bloggers achieved a significant victory when the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held on Jan. 17, 2014 that First Amendment protections in defamation lawsuits extend to bloggers. <br /><br />In April 2014, a Florida appellate court held that bloggers were entitled to pre-suit notices for defamation suits under Florida law. Although the victories are welcome news to online content producers everywhere, the jailing of an Alabama blogger has raised questions and concerns among free speech advocates. Online speakers may still have obstacles to overcome before courts fully recognize that First Amendment protections apply to them.<br />
<br />
Ninth Circuit Recognizes First Amendment Protections for Bloggers<br />
<br />
On Jan. 17, 2014, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that bloggers receive the same First Amendment protections as institutional media in defamation lawsuits. Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox, 740 F.3d 1284 (9th Cir. 2014).<br />
<br />
The case involved a dispute between Kevin Padrick, a principal with Obsidian Finance, a firm that advises financially troubled businesses, and Crystal Cox, a self-described investigative blogger. In 2008, Obsidian began working with Summit Accommodators, which was considering filing for bankruptcy. A bankruptcy court appointed Padrick as Chapter 11 trustee once Summit filed reorganization paperwork.<br />
<br />
Shortly thereafter, Cox began posting accusations of criminal activity carried out by Padrick and Obsidian in their work with the Summit bankruptcy on several different websites, including “obsidianfinancesucks.com.” After sending a cease-and-desist letter that Cox did not comply with, Padrick and Obsidian filed a defamation suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.<br />
<br />
The district court held that only one blog post could be interpreted as containing a statement of fact, and could proceed to trial. Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox, 812 F. Supp. 2d 1220 (D. Or. 2011). The remaining blog posts were considered constitutionally protected opinions because they did not contain provable statements of fact. <br /><br />Cox also claimed protection under Oregon’s journalist’s shield law, but District Judge Marco A. Hernandez held that she did not meet the definitions of who can receive protection as laid out by the state statute. (For more information on Cox’s shield law claims, see “Defamation Lawsuits Pose Threat to Journalists as Online Communication Complicates First Amendment Analysis” in the Spring 2012 issue of the Silha Bulletin).<br />
<br />
Cox also made First Amendment arguments that the liability standards should be governed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc, 418 U.S. 323 (1974). In Gertz, the Supreme Court held that a private plaintiff needs to show only negligence to recover actual damages from a media defendant. But a plaintiff can only recover presumed or punitive damages upon a showing that a media defendant acted with “actual malice,” meaning that the statements were made with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of the truth. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. Cox argued that, under Gertz, Padrick and Obsidian carried the burden of proving her negligence in order to recover actual damages for defamation. Cox also argued that Padrick and Obsidian must show that she acted with actual malice to receive presumed damages.<br /><br /> Judge Hernandez dismissed these arguments, stating that Cox had not proven that she was a journalist. Therefore, the protections of Gertz did not apply to her.<br /><br />
Cox also contended that Padrick and Obsidian were public figures. Under the New York Times v. Sullivan and the Gertz rulings, public figures are required to prove actual malice before they may recover any type of damages. New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). The district court judge once again dismissed this argument, stating that Padrick and Obsidian had not made themselves public figures by becoming involved with a public controversy. Rather, Cox had created the controversy.<br /><br />
At the conclusion of the trial, a jury returned verdicts in favor of Padrick and Obsidian. Cox moved for a new trial, which the district court denied. Cox then appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the district court had ruled incorrectly on the liability standards and Padrick’s and Obsidian’s public figure status. Padrick and Obsidian filed a cross-appeal contending that the jury should have considered their defamation claims relating to the other blog posts.<br /><br />
In a unanimous decision, the Ninth Circuit panel reversed the district court’s judgment against Cox. The court held that Gertz’s liability rules were not limited only to situations that involved traditional media defendants. <br /><br />The opinion by Judge Andrew Hurwitz explained that although the Supreme Court has never ruled that the Gertz standard applied to others besides institutional media, the Court’s language in the opinion also did not limit the ruling to institutional media alone. Hurwitz wrote, “[the Supreme Court] has repeatedly refused in non-defamation contexts to accord greater First Amendment protection to the institutional media than to other speakers,” citing several cases in which the high court declined to create a distinction between members of the press and the general public.<br /><br />
As a result, the court agreed with other circuits that “the First Amendment defamation rules in Sullivan and its progeny apply equally to the institutional press and individual speakers.” The court also noted that trying to create a distinction between institutional media and other communicators was very difficult. <br /><br />Therefore, the court said that the key First Amendment factor under Gertz in defamation cases was not the identity of the speaker. Rather, “the public-figure status of a plaintiff and the public importance of the statement at issue” are the key First Amendment considerations. Through this rationale, Cox, as a blogger, was entitled to the same liability standards that traditional forms of media received under the First Amendment.<br /><br />
In addition to determining that Sullivan and Gertz protections apply to the general public, the appeals court also rejected the argument that Gertz was limited to defamation cases involving matters of public concern. Hurwitz wrote that even if Gertz was limited to such a situation, Cox’s blog posts concerned public matters qualifying for protection. <br /><br />However, the appellate court rejected Cox’s argument that Padrick and Obsidian became public officials because a bankruptcy court appointed them to oversee Summit’s affairs and provided compensation to them. <br /><br />The court also held that Cox’s remaining blog posts were clearly opinions. The panel concluded its decision by granting Cox’s request for a new trial.<br /><br />
Several First Amendment advocates and advocacy organizations praised the Ninth Circuit’s ruling. UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, who represented Cox during the appeals process, told Associated Press reporter Jeff Barnard for a Jan. 17, 2014 article that the decision “makes clear that bloggers have the same First Amendment rights as professional journalists.” <br /><br />Volokh also noted that the decision followed similar court rulings that granted First Amendment protections to other writers and book authors, although this ruling appeared to be the first to grant protection to bloggers. In the same article, Gregg Leslie, the legal defense director for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP), said the ruling confirmed the fact that Gertz was “not a special right to the news media.” Rather, it applied to everyone. “So it’s a good thing for bloggers and citizen journalists and others,” Leslie said.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: blue;">In a Jan. 24, 2014 commentary, First Amendment Center President Ken Paulson called the Ninth Circuit’s ruling a </span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-size: large;">“landmark decision.”</span> </span><span style="color: blue;">Paulson noted that given the growing financial constraints on traditional news media, many bloggers had taken on the role of the watchdog of people with power. The Ninth Circuit’s holding that bloggers deserve the same protections as traditional media was “something worth celebrating.” </span></b><br />
<br />
On the same day, Jim Rosenfeld, Ambika K. Doran and Jeremy A. Chase, attorneys with the firm Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, called the decision <b><span style="color: blue;">“a major win for individuals who blog, share, tweet, and otherwise publish their views online.” </span></b><br />
<br />
The attorneys explained that the panel’s language provided First Amendment protections to all speakers regardless of affiliation with institutional media.<br />
<br />
As a result, the attorneys said, <b>“an individual blogger, website operator or social media users speaking publicly on the Internet enjoy the same First Amendment protections from defamation claims as traditional media publishers.”</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkITNoHNxo9iW0xOQGz3xWd9Me0nlDe2oqjNlyLFnTenHmdwRFu1yolSZqnVRTaq6J74ejjQ__Ii6zLhEc-p3f2wHD279mVzgN_kIwM6mzhSH1i_cP0vwGSrkBF0iCUVWypCqL4ez8UqC7/s1600/First-Amendment.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="179" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkITNoHNxo9iW0xOQGz3xWd9Me0nlDe2oqjNlyLFnTenHmdwRFu1yolSZqnVRTaq6J74ejjQ__Ii6zLhEc-p3f2wHD279mVzgN_kIwM6mzhSH1i_cP0vwGSrkBF0iCUVWypCqL4ez8UqC7/s320/First-Amendment.jpg" width="320" /></a>Nevertheless, some observers have noted that the case may not be a total victory. In a Jan. 17, 2014 post, Digital Media Law Project director Jeff Hermes wrote that although the court rightly decided the case, he was concerned that the court’s statements seemed to suggest that the reason Cox’s speech was protected in some blog posts was because few people could reasonably believe that content on blogs.<br />
<br />
Hermes wrote that such assumptions about online content could devalue factual speech in the name of protecting it. “Respecting speech means evaluating it on its merits, instead of assuming that it has none,” he said."<br />
<br />
Source<br />
<a href="http://silha.umn.edu/news/WinterSpring2014/SILHACENTERBloggersFirstAmendmentUniversityofMinnesota.html" target="_blank">http://silha.umn.edu/news/WinterSpring2014/SILHACENTERBloggersFirstAmendmentUniversityofMinnesota.html</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3604775273836722350.post-72165036909695121592019-08-05T14:32:00.000-07:002021-03-25T16:37:56.479-07:00Bloggers have the same Constitutional rights as Journalists Due to 2014 Obsidian v. Cox Free Speech Case in a Ninth Circuit Appeal.<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif;">" Federal courts have ruled that bloggers have the same Constitutional rights as Journalists. In 2014 The Ninth Circuit Federal Court ruled in Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal Cox that even though someone might not write for </span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;">the “institutional press,”</b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif;"> they’re entitled to all the protections the Constitution grants journalists. "</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;" />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif;">Source and Full Article</span><br />
<a href="https://www.bobandsteve.com/blog/2018/10/17/vincent-squire-loves-free-speech-unless-its-about-him" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: blue;">https://www.bobandsteve.com/blog/2018/10/17/vincent-squire-loves-free-speech-unless-its-about-him</span></a><br />
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;" />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif;">Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif;">Port Townsend Washington</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQVQYq8StE2-3Chx2K9yX8Rryt9lPEHUEiV_vR9YY8AQDEGfHBQt_Imj_bvpc6xrBZriS6pn5o2wy-MzUI5u380RG387oFr72Goc_u2CkSpNC24khl1Vcn7wCNqB3dvXE7z1mDWnoXaBdW/s1600/crystal+cox+free+speech.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="161" data-original-width="313" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQVQYq8StE2-3Chx2K9yX8Rryt9lPEHUEiV_vR9YY8AQDEGfHBQt_Imj_bvpc6xrBZriS6pn5o2wy-MzUI5u380RG387oFr72Goc_u2CkSpNC24khl1Vcn7wCNqB3dvXE7z1mDWnoXaBdW/s1600/crystal+cox+free+speech.jpg" /></a></div>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3604775273836722350.post-76432488082675988782018-10-30T15:01:00.000-07:002018-10-30T15:01:14.989-07:00"U.S. Court : Bloggers deserve freedom of the press protection" Crystal Cox Port Townsend Free Speech Case 2014 Ninth Circuit WIN."<br />
<header class="lxb_af-post_header lxb_af-grid-parade" role="presentation" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: adobe-caslon-pro-1, adobe-caslon-pro-2, georgia, times; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 20px;"><div class="lxb_af-post_header-meta" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<div class="lxb_af-post_header-meta-byline_cat_wrap" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<div class="lxb_af-template_tags-get_post_byline lxb_af-post_meta" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.15em; margin-bottom: 0px;">
By <span class="lxb_af-template_tags-get_authors lxb_af-template_tags-get_authors-get_linked_author_names lxb_af-template_tags-get_authors-get_linked_author_names-get_post_byline-authors" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a class="lxb_af-template_tags-get_author lxb_af-template_tags-get_author-get_authors-author" href="https://kevin.lexblog.com/author/kevin/" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #006aa4; text-decoration-line: none;">Kevin O'Keefe</a></span> on <time class="lxb_af-template_tags-get_post_date lxb_af-template_tags-get_post_date-get_post_byline-date" datetime="2014-01-18 12:00" style="box-sizing: border-box;">January 18, 2014</time></div>
</div>
</div>
</header><div class="lxb_af-post_content lxb_af-clear" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; color: #333333; float: none; font-family: adobe-caslon-pro-1, adobe-caslon-pro-2, georgia, times; font-size: 18px; margin-bottom: 45px; overflow: hidden; width: 770px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 20px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<a href="https://rlhb.lexblogplatformthree.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/111/2014/01/20140118-1716581.jpg" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #006aa4;"><img alt="20140118-171658.jpg" class="alignnone size-full" src="https://rlhb.lexblogplatformthree.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/111/2014/01/20140118-171658.jpg" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; height: auto; max-width: 100%; vertical-align: baseline;" /></a></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 20px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
As <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/17/us-usa-blogger-ruling-idUSBREA0G1HI20140117" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #006aa4;">reported</a> by Dan Levine (<a href="https://mobile.twitter.com/FedcourtJunkie" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #006aa4;">@FedCourtJunkie</a>), the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled yesterday that a blogger is entitled to the same free speech protections as a traditional journalist.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 20px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
A bankruptcy trustee and Obsidian Finance Group sued a Crystal Cox for defamation over a 2011 blog post she wrote accusing them of tax fraud. A lower court found that because Cox failed to prove she was a journalist she was not entitled to the same freedom of the press protection. The 9th Circuit found it didn’t matter if Cox was a traditional reporter. Per 9th Circuit Judge Andrew Hurwitz, writing for the Court:</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 23px; font-weight: 600; line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; max-width: 650px; padding-left: 75px; position: relative;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 20px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
UCLA School of Law professor and blogger, Eugene Volokh (<a href="https://mobile.twitter.com/VolokhC" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #006aa4;">@VolokhC</a>), pointed out the importance of not distinguishing bloggers from traditional press today in the world where online content dominates.</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 23px; font-weight: 600; line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; max-width: 650px; padding-left: 75px; position: relative;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
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.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
What protection do bloggers now have? If blogging on a matter of public interest or about a public figure, the plaintiff will need to show, at least in the 9th Circuit, that the blogger knew what they were publishing was false or published it with reckless disregard of whether or not it was false. As for Cox, the plaintiffs can proceed with their lawsuit back in the trial court. They’ll need to prove knowledge that the post was false or with negligence on Cox’s part."</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
Source</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<a href="https://kevin.lexblog.com/2014/01/18/bloggers-receive-freedom-of-the-press-protection-u-s-court-of-appeals/" target="_blank">https://kevin.lexblog.com/2014/01/18/bloggers-receive-freedom-of-the-press-protection-u-s-court-of-appeals/</a></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3604775273836722350.post-28164347456378909622018-10-24T14:34:00.000-07:002018-10-24T14:34:08.327-07:00First Federal Court of Appeals Case that SPECIFICALLY Protects the Rights of ALL Bloggers, Citizen Journalists, and Whistle Blowers. By Reverend Crystal Cox of Port Townsend Washington<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">USE Your Voice. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Start a Blog, Make Videos. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Report on what is happening in Your Neck of the Woods. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Report on What Happened to You. </span></div>
<span id="docs-internal-guid-77e566fc-7fff-1ca5-7ad7-7fdc317fc2a1" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"></span>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">You have had EQUAL Rights Legally by a High Court Precedent since January of 2014.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b><br /></b></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuVSBDM_X0bGOqS6VGyI3lofg1ZLDAgtMAsIIMf8VMBDDYJ73GQSX9AmnnTwe03j0JDvDWuy6uoxx-RdQUkcLGtoGlHdtFJcyCxmNdNdfyUA6q5ZhPDIeHWDI49Ss1SIHJrxxBUJde5lw/s1600/images.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="color: #444444; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-decoration-line: none;"><img border="0" data-original-height="161" data-original-width="313" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuVSBDM_X0bGOqS6VGyI3lofg1ZLDAgtMAsIIMf8VMBDDYJ73GQSX9AmnnTwe03j0JDvDWuy6uoxx-RdQUkcLGtoGlHdtFJcyCxmNdNdfyUA6q5ZhPDIeHWDI49Ss1SIHJrxxBUJde5lw/s1600/images.jpg" style="background: rgb(34, 34, 34); border-radius: 0px; border: 1px solid transparent; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; padding: 8px; position: relative;" /></a></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_7TUkfScpaOdK9CQnVgJSgsgIBMCO7HXrJNui6atpGYDRSOgtZYqmBOtQeVqOr1SCNHpgzDpTEBCUyRFVcSVSV1e7fj2Wn7U8EagYZ1GBKM_ysknUQDoPu00cTAWFNttMMUHsp-d9mhg/s1600/crystal+cox+free+speech+rights.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; color: #444444; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-decoration-line: none;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_7TUkfScpaOdK9CQnVgJSgsgIBMCO7HXrJNui6atpGYDRSOgtZYqmBOtQeVqOr1SCNHpgzDpTEBCUyRFVcSVSV1e7fj2Wn7U8EagYZ1GBKM_ysknUQDoPu00cTAWFNttMMUHsp-d9mhg/s1600/crystal+cox+free+speech+rights.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; color: #444444; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-decoration-line: none;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_7TUkfScpaOdK9CQnVgJSgsgIBMCO7HXrJNui6atpGYDRSOgtZYqmBOtQeVqOr1SCNHpgzDpTEBCUyRFVcSVSV1e7fj2Wn7U8EagYZ1GBKM_ysknUQDoPu00cTAWFNttMMUHsp-d9mhg/s1600/crystal+cox+free+speech+rights.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; color: #444444; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-decoration-line: none;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_7TUkfScpaOdK9CQnVgJSgsgIBMCO7HXrJNui6atpGYDRSOgtZYqmBOtQeVqOr1SCNHpgzDpTEBCUyRFVcSVSV1e7fj2Wn7U8EagYZ1GBKM_ysknUQDoPu00cTAWFNttMMUHsp-d9mhg/s1600/crystal+cox+free+speech+rights.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; color: #444444; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-decoration-line: none;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_7TUkfScpaOdK9CQnVgJSgsgIBMCO7HXrJNui6atpGYDRSOgtZYqmBOtQeVqOr1SCNHpgzDpTEBCUyRFVcSVSV1e7fj2Wn7U8EagYZ1GBKM_ysknUQDoPu00cTAWFNttMMUHsp-d9mhg/s1600/crystal+cox+free+speech+rights.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; color: #444444; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-decoration-line: none;"><img border="0" data-original-height="387" data-original-width="603" height="128" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_7TUkfScpaOdK9CQnVgJSgsgIBMCO7HXrJNui6atpGYDRSOgtZYqmBOtQeVqOr1SCNHpgzDpTEBCUyRFVcSVSV1e7fj2Wn7U8EagYZ1GBKM_ysknUQDoPu00cTAWFNttMMUHsp-d9mhg/s200/crystal+cox+free+speech+rights.png" style="background: rgb(34, 34, 34); border-radius: 0px; border: 1px solid transparent; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; padding: 8px; position: relative;" width="200" /></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br class="kix-line-break" /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">My First Amendment Court Case was the First of it’s kind to get a High Court decision that Gave ALL Bloggers, Citizen Journalist, and Whistle blowers EQUAL rights to that of the highest paid Journalist in the highest of institutional press. </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br class="kix-line-break" /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br class="kix-line-break" /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Now Retraction Laws, Shield Laws, and the First Amendment APPLIES to ALL Bloggers, Citizen Journalists and Whistleblowers EQUAL to the highest paid Journalists of the biggest media outlets in the world. </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br class="kix-line-break" /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br class="kix-line-break" /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">All sides fought me, threatened me, belittled me, defamed me, pressured me to quit, harassed me, gang stalked me, investigators followed me, my emails were hacked and watched daily, and I was under constant threat for years and years to hold onto this Legal Precedent for YOU to Have YOUR Voice. </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br class="kix-line-break" /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br class="kix-line-break" /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In my court case, Obsidian v. Cox there was No Criminal Extortion. This was made up by the Opposition to attempt to Stop me from proceeding to the high court. And to attempt to suppress ALL of your voices as a matter of Law. It was a Set Up by a group of attorneys, judges and big media with varying agendas. </span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">For those who believe there was Extortion in the Crystal Cox Case, ask yourself Why None of these Court Officials, Attorneys, Judges, Cops, FBI Agents, Homeland Security, or any party private or public filed ANY criminal charges in any way so that there could be a True Investigation as to the allegations against me by Big Media. Large Law Firms, Groups of Attorneys and High Court Judges. This was ALL to Deny the constitutional rights of Citizen Journalists, Investigative Bloggers, and Whistleblowers and to attempt to discredit the true to the best of my knowledge reporting I was doing, in that case, on Portland Oregon Judicial and Bankruptcy Court Corruption. </span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">There was no Lies. All I reported was True to the best of my knowledge and remains to be true though I have removed the blogs per a lower court settlement. I had got the Precedent that changed the world. I had made it to my Finish Line, my Goal and from there I let go of the battle to bring down Portland Oregon Bankruptcy Corruption. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_-EUhet7mpYkcsNy37vUvB3b5_q-UP1k1oNLuFU0coGbWI1LKQ1AteGFmvXtOCoV9X52LbwK4lMb9fT-eeT5dWkMYtL7AYoptcO59NnmOb75-DHHA3lzz6C7x3J-pjPCDZBXTHYZYiac/s1600/free-speech.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; color: #444444; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-decoration-line: none;"><img border="0" data-original-height="224" data-original-width="250" height="179" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_-EUhet7mpYkcsNy37vUvB3b5_q-UP1k1oNLuFU0coGbWI1LKQ1AteGFmvXtOCoV9X52LbwK4lMb9fT-eeT5dWkMYtL7AYoptcO59NnmOb75-DHHA3lzz6C7x3J-pjPCDZBXTHYZYiac/s200/free-speech.gif" style="background: rgb(34, 34, 34); border-radius: 0px; border: 1px solid transparent; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; padding: 8px; position: relative;" width="200" /></a></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br class="kix-line-break" /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I exposed Corruption for decades to the absolute best of my ability and with the whole truth and nothing but the truth to the best of my knowledge and ability. Now it is your turn to TELL YOUR STORY.</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br class="kix-line-break" /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br class="kix-line-break" /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Many of the Articles out there about my Case, are Distorted, Jaded, Biased, Hate Filled and Flat Out False. There are some aspects to many of the news articles about my case that I do like, so it’s worth reading through to find the golden nuggets.</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br class="kix-line-break" /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br class="kix-line-break" /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The First Amendment court case, Obsidian vs. Cox is cited around the world in courts large and small. This Legal Precedence has changed the world and gave YOU a platform to ROAR, so Do IT. ROAR. </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br class="kix-line-break" /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br class="kix-line-break" /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I was Pro Se in the Lower Court. Meaning I represented myself, acting as my own attorney. I did so for one I did not have money for an attorney, and I did so as I knew that an attorney would force me to settle, to bow out and therefore STOP the case moving to the highest court possible and forcing a high court ruling as to what rights bloggers have / had as compared to the rights of the institutional press. </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br class="kix-line-break" /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br class="kix-line-break" /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Remember that when one goes to the Ninth Circuit, attorney or not, there is no legal case citing or information allowed that was not stated, named, created in the lower court case. So my attorney could not enter new case law, but could only use what I had already used. I chose Eugene Volokh deliberately for this task.</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br class="kix-line-break" /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br class="kix-line-break" /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-D-IOTsRT3frvkgH1DyDqZVgrp_afnxSRCCcqZ8r7DfMscKON2TJFFesFO4Y5tVot38x0VoscEgoJZlPHgZafOyRKxcW8PkpaqCumScgrgY4u-yjUX-FTMcXTrr09_FA6uUyiPo6qoSQ/s1600/free_speech_is_a_civil_right+port+townsend.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; color: #444444; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-decoration-line: none;"><img border="0" data-original-height="350" data-original-width="350" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-D-IOTsRT3frvkgH1DyDqZVgrp_afnxSRCCcqZ8r7DfMscKON2TJFFesFO4Y5tVot38x0VoscEgoJZlPHgZafOyRKxcW8PkpaqCumScgrgY4u-yjUX-FTMcXTrr09_FA6uUyiPo6qoSQ/s200/free_speech_is_a_civil_right+port+townsend.jpg" style="background: rgb(34, 34, 34); border-radius: 0px; border: 1px solid transparent; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 0px 0px; padding: 8px; position: relative;" width="200" /></a><b><span style="color: blue;">“Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law Professor</span></b></div>
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: center;">
<b style="font-family: Arial; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="color: blue;">who represented Crystal Cox pro bono, affirmed:"</span></b></div>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br class="kix-line-break" /></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">“This case is</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="color: #990000;"> THE FIRST ONE</span></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> from a federal court of appeals that specifically protects the rights of bloggers."</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br class="kix-line-break" /></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br class="kix-line-break" /></span><a href="http://thewartburgwatch.com/2014/01/22/court-rules-bloggers-have-first-amendment-protection/" style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">http://thewartburgwatch.com/2014/01/22/court-rules-bloggers-have-first-amendment-protection/</span></a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br class="kix-line-break" /></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br class="kix-line-break" /></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">There are Many Articles and Much Chaos around my Case. What rises to the top and Lights up Undeniably is that ALL Now Have Equal Rights to REPORT the News, and to “Break the News” even if no one else is talking about. You are the News. FIND YOUR VOICE and Tell Your Story. </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br class="kix-line-break" /></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br class="kix-line-break" /></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">~ Reverend Crystal Cox</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> (Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox)</span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3604775273836722350.post-80727572687686176342018-10-21T14:31:00.003-07:002018-10-21T14:31:33.489-07:00"Bloggers all over the US are rejoicing as are we.""<span style="background-color: white; color: #413f36; font-family: Arial;">As the case wound through the Courts, a district court eventually decided that as a blogger, Cox did not warrant the First Amendment protections of a journalist.<br /></span><br />
<div style="color: #413f36; font-family: Arial;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Law professor Eugene Volokh and others signed onto to represent Cox.<br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #413f36; font-family: Arial;">
<span style="background-color: white;">On January 17, 2013 the Ninth Circuit Court <a href="http://raisedonhoecakes.com/ROH/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/12-35238.pdf" style="color: #413f36; outline: none;" target="_blank">issued its decision</a> giving Cox the same protection as a journalist. Interestingly enough, the decision was based in part on the <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html" style="color: #413f36; outline: none;" target="_blank">Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission</a>.<br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #413f36; font-family: Arial;">
<span style="background-color: white;">The Court wrote, in part:</span></div>
<blockquote style="background-color: #ddd5ba; border: 1px solid rgb(199, 190, 160); color: #413f36; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12px; margin: 20px 30px; overflow: auto; padding: 0px 10px;">
The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was 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. As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable: “With the advent of the Internet and the decline of print and broadcast media … the line between the media and others who wish to comment on political and social issues becomes far more blurred.” Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 352. In defamation cases, the public-figure status of a plaintiff and the public importance of the statement at issue — not the identity of the speaker — provide the First Amendment touchstones.</blockquote>
<div style="color: #413f36; font-family: Arial;">
<b style="background-color: white;">Bloggers all over the US are rejoicing as are we.</b></div>
<div style="color: #413f36; font-family: Arial;">
<b style="background-color: white;">The decision is short, so we are including it below the fold."</b></div>
<br />
Source<br />
<a href="http://raisedonhoecakes.com/ROH/bloggers-and-first-amendment-fans-rejoice/" target="_blank">http://raisedonhoecakes.com/ROH/bloggers-and-first-amendment-fans-rejoice/</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3604775273836722350.post-72381870536701557892018-05-29T15:18:00.000-07:002018-05-29T15:18:18.430-07:00 Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox"Citizens United v. FEC expressly held that <b>the First Amendment</b><br />
<b>applies equally to the professional media and to other speakers;</b><br />
<b>and all the federal circuit courts that have considered the issue have</b><br />
<b>agreed.</b><br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;"> The most recent such decision, Obsidian Finance Group LLC</span></b><br />
<b><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">v. Cox, reached this result in an Internet speech case, though the court’s </span></b><b><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">logic applies more broadly."</span></b><br />
<br />
"Thus, for instance, in <b>Obsidian Finance Group the Ninth Circuit</b> reversed a district<br />
court decision that denied defendant full First Amendment libel protection. That district<br />
court decision rested in part on the view that defendant lacked “any education in journal-ism,” “any credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity,” or “proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest.”<br />
<br />
Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox, __ F. Supp. 2d __, __ (D. Ore. 2011). Not so, said the Ninth Circuit: <b><span style="color: blue;">“The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was 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.”</span></b> Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox, 740 F.3d 1284, 1291 (9th Cir. 2014)."<br />
<br />
" Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox, 740 F.3d 1284, 1292 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Gardner as an example of a holding that “even consumer complaints of non-criminal conduct by a business can constitute matters of public concern”)"<br />
<br />
"See, e.g., <b><span style="color: blue;">Obsidian Finance Group LLC v. Cox</span></b>, [cite] (trial); Chan v. Ellis, [cite]<br />
(trial). A few such cases might pique the interest of a lawyer who will take the case on appeal<br />
pro bono. But handling a case at trial is generally much more burdensome for a lawyer<br />
(especially one who is outside the jurisdiction) than <b>handling it on appeal</b>, especially<br />
when the case involves a good deal of fact investigation. <br /><br />A trial-level case is less likely to have <b><span style="color: blue;">the glamour of a potentially precedent-setting appellate case</span></b>. And sometimes the defendant will be up against a plaintiff who can afford a private lawyer—for instance, if the lawsuit is over a defendant-consumer’s criticism of a business."<br />
<br />
<b><u>Source and Full Eugene Volokh Article</u></b><br />
<a href="https://administrativestate.gmu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2018/01/What-Cheap-Speech-Has-Done-The-Transformation-of-Libel-and-Privacy-Law.pdf" target="_blank">https://administrativestate.gmu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2018/01/What-Cheap-Speech-Has-Done-The-Transformation-of-Libel-and-Privacy-Law.pdf</a><br />
<br />
Blogger Crystal Cox was Pro Se in the Lower Court. The Higher Court Appeal could only use facts as per the lower court. COX won the Appeal with Eugene Volokh as her attorney, however, Volokh argued the case that COX, Pro Se, had already made in the lower court. When you appeal you cannot bring in new facts, you can only litigate what was of the record in the lower court.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3604775273836722350.post-3548143272651562352018-05-20T14:58:00.000-07:002018-05-20T14:58:15.427-07:00"Lieu cited the Ninth Circuit’s 2014 ruling in Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal Cox, which found that bloggers have the same free speech protections as traditional press. ”That was a pretty awesome and amazing opinion,” he said. “And that’s the kind of things we see out of the Ninth Circuit.”"WASHINGTON (CN) – Capitol Hill’s crosshairs turned Thursday on the Ninth Circuit just a day after a federal judge under the court’s purview became the latest to thwart efforts by the president to block Muslim immigration.<br />
<br />
The Ninth Circuit had already earned criticism from the White House in February after it ruled 3-0 against the first iteration of President Donald Trump’s travel ban.<br />
<br />
When a federal judge on Hawaii issued an injunction against the revised executive order Wednesday, Trump complained that night at a campaign-style rally in Nashville that his new travel ban had been tailored to the “much-overturned” circuit’s “flawed ruling.”<br />
<br />
The Ninth Circuit is the largest federal appeals court in the country, overseeing far-flung federal courts in Hawaii, Alaska, the Northern Mariana Islands and Guam, as well as those in Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington state.<br />
<br />
Last month’s ruling had Trump to blast the Ninth Circuit as “in chaos” and “frankly in turmoil.” Republicans have long said the court is too big, too liberal and too slow, and they have tried for decades to break it up.<br />
<br />
At a hearing Thursday before the House Judiciary Committee on how to restructure the court, a partisan debate erupted over the GOP’s claims that Ninth Circuit rulings are overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court more so than often than any other federal appeals court.<br />
<br />
Vanderbilt University Law School professor Brian Fitzpatrick said he has been tracking reversal rates for several decades.<br />
<br />
“The numbers did not look good for the Ninth Circuit back then, and they still don’t look good today,” Fitzpatrick said in written testimony. “For the last 20 years, the Ninth Circuit has been the most reversed circuit in America — and it isn’t even close.”<br />
<br />
Numbers compiled by the fact-checking organization Politifact dispute this. It says the Supreme Court reversed 70 percent of all cases it heard from 2010-15. Though the average for the Ninth Circuit was slightly higher than that at 79 percent, it was not the highest. Two other courts clock in ahead of it.<br />
<br />
The Cincinnati-based Sixth Circuit had an 87 percent reversal rate, followed by the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit with an 85 percent ruling reversal.<br />
<br />
Indeed the Ninth Circuit is only narrowly ahead of the 78 percent reversal rate featured by the court in fourth place, the Philadelphia-based Third Circuit.<br />
<br />
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., put the Ninth Circuit statistics a different way.<br />
<br />
“Less than one-tenth of 1 percent of Ninth Circuit decisions are overturned by the Supreme Court,” he said.<br />
<br />
This led him to ask the panel’s five witnesses – including three federal judges from the Ninth Circuit: “Does that stat give weight to the president’s opinion, or should the courts stand up to the executive when necessary?”<br />
<br />
“Judicial independence is important,” said U.S. Circuit Judge Sidney Thomas, the Ninth Circuit’s chief. “And I know this committee has recognized that.”<br />
<br />
Thomas declined to address the second part of the question.<br />
<br />
When asked how splitting the court could affect public perception of the courts as a fair and neutral arbiter, Thomas said such a move would diminish public respect for the rule of law.<br />
<br />
“No question about that,” he said. “I hope this committee won’t engage in that kind of endeavor,” he added.<br />
<br />
John Eastman, director of the Chapman University Fowloer School of Law, meanwhile regaled the congressmen with other problems the Ninth Circuit faces. Because of its caseload, the circuit takes 50 percent longer than the others to move from appeal to ruling, with that process spanning 18 months.<br />
<br />
Describing the Ninth Circuit as the “Wild West,” Eastman said that collegiality among judges also suffers in the Ninth Circuit because the constant caseload buries its 29 judges.<br />
<br />
On top of that, Eastman said the extraordinarily high combination of three-judge panels – 17,296 to be exact – prevents a coherent body of law from emerging, and undermines the circuit’s ability to get the law right. <br />
<br />
Because of the high number of opinions, practitioners have a hard time keeping up, which gives rise to intracircuit conflicts.<br />
<br />
“Collegiality thus serves to check the tendencies of some judges to ‘fly solo,’ ruling according to their personal views rather than the clear commands of the law,” Eastman’s written testimony states.<br />
<br />
Thomas, along with U.S. Circuit Judges Carlos Bea and Alex Kozinski, strenuously disputed the notion that their circuit is inefficient, or that case law is inconsistent.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: blue;">“A decision by our court binds courts and litigants in the whole Western area,” </span></b>Bea said.<br />
<br />
<b>“This minimizes the risk that the law of intellectual property – copyrights and trademarks, for instance – maritime trade, labor relations, employment discrimination, for instance – will be different in Phoenix, San Francisco or Seattle,”</b> he added.<br />
<br />
Splitting the court could even affect fishermen, he said.<br />
<br />
“What law will rule Lake Tahoe, evenly split between California and Nevada,” he asked. “Will the tackle used by a Nevada fisherman be an illegal lure if his boat drifts into California waters?”<br />
<br />
“This predictability and uniformity of law based on diversity of thought and backgrounds of the judges would suffer under any balkanization of the circuit,” he said.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, Kozinski told the committee that the size of the circuit has forced it to take advantage of modern technology – like video and live streams of court hearings – to bring justice closer to the people.<br />
<br />
When the circuit heard the appeal of Trump’s first travel ban, Kozinski noted that 137,300 people used the court’s website to hear the audio stream of the oral arguments.<br />
<br />
CNN’s live broadcast of the hearing had 1.5 million viewers, and another 138,615 people listened to the recording of the hearing.<br />
<br />
“Think about that,” Kozinski said. “Well over 2 million people from all over the country and beyond listened to a 60-minute oral argument.”<br />
<br />
All three judges expressed their opposition to splitting the Ninth Circuit up.<br />
<br />
Sens. Jeff Flake and John McCain, both of Arizona, sponsored the legislation to spin off a new circuit for Nevada, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Alaska and Arizona.<br />
<br />
That would leave only California, Hawaii, Oregon, the Northern Mariana Islands and Guam in the Ninth Circuit.<br />
<br />
In explaining reversal rates, Eastman testified that size matters as much as the ideological make-up of the court. The bigger court, the lower the quality of its output, he said, citing a 2000 paper in the Journal of Legal Studies by the Seventh Circuit’s ever-popular Judge Richard Posner.<br />
<br />
Chicago-based Posner found that the Ninth Circuit’s reversal rate was six times higher than the other circuits between 1985 and 1997.<br />
<br />
There were no state additions to the Ninth Circuit during those years, but five additional judgeships were authorized in 1984. The court did not have another judgeship authorized until 2009.<br />
<br />
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, asked the judges if Posner got it wrong.<br />
<br />
Thomas said size absolutely does not affect the quality of judicial output.<br />
<br />
“I think that our deliberations now are even better than when I joined the court, because of technology,” he responded.<br />
<br />
Kozinski said he respects Posner, but that “Dick and I disagree all the time on all sorts of things.”<br />
<br />
Saying the model his colleague used is only as good as his inputs, Kozinski accused Posner of focusing too much on size while ignoring context.<br />
<br />
President Jimmy Carter had from 1977 to 1981 appointed 11 of the “most liberal judges the world has ever seen,” while the Supreme Court was moving in the opposite direction, Kozinksi said.<br />
<br />
Chaffetz defended Trump’s attack on the Ninth Circuit amid rulings against his travel ban from it and lower courts in its clutches.<br />
<br />
“The president was duly given, by Congress, the authority to protect our borders,” Chaffetz said. “And for these injunctions to come in place and prevent the president from doing his job is absolutely totally wrong.”<br />
<br />
Noting that California is a populous and progressive state, and that appeals courts cannot pick and choose cases like the Supreme Court does, Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., underscored the importance of the Ninth Circuit for taking on cases that “push the envelope” and “challenge the status quo.”<br />
<br />
“That’s certainly right,” Kozinski said. “And of course that would be exacerbated if California were isolated,” he added, noting that one of the reasons for having regional circuits is so that <b>no single state dominates. </b><br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">To drive his point home, Lieu cited the Ninth Circuit’s 2014 ruling in Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal Cox, which found that bloggers have the same free speech protections as traditional press.</span></b><br />
<b><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;"><br /></span></b>
<b><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">”That was a pretty awesome and amazing opinion,” he said. “And that’s the kind of things we see out of the Ninth Circuit.”</span></b><br />
<br />
Source<br />
<a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/ninth-circuit-gets-frankencourt-treatment-house/" target="_blank">https://www.courthousenews.com/ninth-circuit-gets-frankencourt-treatment-house/</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3604775273836722350.post-78954242390287269222017-10-21T12:43:00.001-07:002017-10-21T12:43:14.026-07:00"Ninth Circuit holds blogger has same First Amendment rights as institutional media""In Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox, Nos. 12-35238, 12-35319 (9th Cir. Jan. 17, 2014), the Ninth Circuit held that First Amendment protections under the Supreme Court’s landmark opinion in <b>Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.</b>, 418 U.S. 323 (1974), applied to a blogger, not just the institutional media. <b><span style="color: blue;">In Obsidian, a blogger accused a Chapter 11 bankruptcy trustee of fraud and other illegal activities in the bankruptcy case. </span></b><br />
<br />
The trustee sued for defamation for several of the blog posts. The district court allowed one of the trustee’s claims to go to trial on the grounds that the blog post at issue had made false factual assertions. <br />
<br />
The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the blog post was protected by the First Amendment under Gertz, in which the Supreme Court held that private defamation suits against the media require proof of negligence and actual damages. <br />
<br />
The Court refused to distinguish between the institutional media and private individuals, explaining that First Amendment protections for the media “do not turn on whether the defendant was 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.” <br />
<br />
The Court noted that the Supreme Court had not decided whether Gertz onlyapplied to matters which are of no public concern, but the Court said that made no difference in the instant case because the blog topic raised issues that were clearly of public interest, namely allegations of criminal activity and fraud in a bankruptcy case. <br />
<br />
Nonetheless, the Court did not adopt all of the blogger’s arguments; it notably rejected the defense that the bankruptcy trustee was a public official, highlighting that the trustee was not elected or appointed to a government position and was paid by the debtor’s estate, not the court."<br />
<br />
Source<br />
<a href="https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=41ae20be-a102-4ede-ae4b-51690a82e23b" target="_blank">https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=41ae20be-a102-4ede-ae4b-51690a82e23b</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com