"Cox was certainly “engaged in [a] medium of communication to the public.”

"Hernandez’s opinion is both more and less important than it might first appear. To begin with, Judge Hernandez plainly misapplied the Oregon shield law. O.R.S. 44.520 clearly states that “[n]o person … engaged in any medium of communication to the public shall be required by a … judicial officer or body … to disclose … [t]he source of any published or unpublished information obtained by the person in the course of gathering, receiving or processing information for any medium of communication to the public.”

Whatever else she may have been doing, by gathering information and directing her analysis and commentary to the public – even if it contained factual assertions that were incorrect, and even if some statements were defamatory – Cox was certainly “engaged in [a] medium of communication to the public.”

The definition of “medium of communication” was left deliberately broad by the Oregon legislature: “‘Medium of communication’ is broadly defined as including, but not limited to, any newspaper, magazine or other periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system.” O.R.S. 44.510(2).

Is there really any serious doubt that Cox producing an Internet blog is analogous to her creating a “periodical,” "book,” or “pamphlet” for purposes of the statute?

Even Judge Hernandez notes that Cox “made her statements in a forum available to the general public” which squarely undermines his eventual legal conclusion."

"Judge Hernandez’s ruling is of far more consequence to bloggers and others who seek to communicate information to the public via the Internet. The court’s unnecessary and rigid definition of “media” may harm others who in the future want to communicate important information to the public through the Internet while protecting the identity of their sources. "

Source of Quotes above and Full Article
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/12/crystal-cox-and-bloggers-as-journalists

Hey Longview Washington - Got a Tip?

Federal Rico Complaint - IViewit, Proskauer Rose, Foley Lardner, The Florida Bar, Supreme Court of New York and More Protected by Judicial System, Demand to Know Why?

Hey Washington D.C., Psinet (38.105.71.72)  - I See you Investigating my Every Blog Post, Every Person, Every Document, Every Story - are you going to Do Something about the mass amount of proof and documents that Expose Corruption in the U.S. Courts, Over the Iviewit Technology Case and in the Bankruptcy Courts.  I Sure Hope that is Why your Investigating all my Blogs so deeply.

Click Below for Rico Complaint Naming Proskauer Rose, Foley and Lardner, The Florida Supreme Court, Florida Bar, New York Courts, Intel Corp., Lockheed Martin, Silicon Graphics, Real 3D Inc., Wildman Harrold Allen and Dixen, Eric Chen, Digital Interactive Streams Inc., Kenneth Rubenstein Proskauer Rose, Uview.com, and tons more.. Filed by Eliot I. Bernstein, Iviewit Technologies.

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20080509%20FINAL%20AMENDED%20COMPLAINT%20AND%20RICO%20SIGNED%20COPY%20MED.pdf

Kristen Herwitz - Others must have issue with Blogher framing their site as here is a search on my site today from Germany

Kaiserslautern, Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany

Tks Telepost Kabel-service Kaiserslautern Gmbh & C (178.76.138.3) [Label IP Address]

Search Referral:

 www.google.de — blogher frame link referral #1

Visit Page:

 www.crystalcox.com/

Kristen Herwitz Blogher Publishing Network. Blogher Blogs, Blogher Copyright Issues. Kristen Herwitz, Elisa Camahort, Lisa Stone, Jory Des Jardins, Blogher. Kristen Herwitz

Kristen Herwitz Blogher Publishing Network Beef with Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox

Kristen Herwitz, Blogpaws, Blogher Advertisers, Blogher Publishing Network,Online's Women's Network, BlogPaws Publishing Networks, Blogher Editor, Elisa Camahort, Lisa Stone, Jory Des Jardins, Blogher Framing.  Got a Tip on Kristen Herwitz, Blogher or anything on this post?

Email your Kristen Herwitz Blogher Publishing Network., tip to Crystal@CrystalCox.com

A bit about Blogher, Kristen Herwitz, Copyright Laws, Website and Blog Framing, Blogher Making Money from the product of others work, their entire sites and network.  And yet covet their own material as if it is worth more then the thousands of pages of content they use to put their ads on that is Other People's life work.

Blogher Says about Bloghher Advertising "Partner With the Most Influential, Social and Info-Savvy Women Online."  I say not so much social, info-savvy but content stealing and using others writing for free on their blogs to create Blogher content for them to post google ads and other advertisers, making money over and over from YOUR Content. Even if Blogher pays you once for an article, Blogher makes money from that Blogher Content over and over.

You are better off to post your content on your blog instead of Blogher, and set up your own Google Adsense or commission junction site, or other affiliates. And it is best for you to encourage others to re-post your content and give you a link back. Blogher does not want your content shared on other blogs, this is greed based and not about getting attention to HUGE issues such as Human Trafficing.

Blogher claims to have an ad network of 3,000 bloggers, yet do they pay them all or get them to write for free, and also frame the sites of others? And by this I mean Blogher frames the sites of others who are in the news, trending such as me Crystal Cox Blogger, so they can redirect traffic that my blog may get and get that traffic to their site. Blogher also uses my name to get traffic in writing stories about me because I am trending online, and then had a hissy fit and threatens legal action if I repost one of their post, though they illegally "Frame" My entire blog within their pages.

Blogher Editors, nor Blogher Legal Counsel asked my permission to "Frame" My site yet they did it anyway.

Blogger Counsel Kristen Herwitz claims that its standard of practice somehow for Blogher to frame other people's sites thing is that is stealing and copyright infringement BIGTIME.  Blogher now has framed hundreds of my blogs from CrystalCox.com - and every where that is linked from that site.  Blogher gets ad dollars and traffic to their site from using my site framed.  And when Blogher writes about you and links to your site they frame it.  I re-post a human trafficking story to support Blogher and to get traffic to their site and link to them and they cry copyright infringement, when they have used my name to post stories as I was "trending" and they illegally use thousands of my posts as content to get them webs traffic and ad dollars.

Even my YouTube Videos, my YouTube Channels, Hundreds of my Blogs accessed via CrystalCox.com are now ad revenue for Blogher.com - that is not FAIR to me and yet they threatened me simply because I quoted a paragraph from their site and linked to them, ON a Human Trafficing STORY? WTF ?


The Video Below is How Blogher Uses "Framing" to get revenue for them without paying those
who create the "Content".


Does Kristen Herwitz of Blogher Publishing Network know the Laws? Or is Blogher the only one that "Revenue", "Rights" and web traffic pertains to.


Kristen Herwitz, Blogher Publishing Network.




A Bit About the "Framing" Issue


Kristen Herwitz, Legal Counsel for Blogher says  "BlogHer employs a very common framing mechanism"  well re-posting articles is also "Common" yet she threatens me, and Framing is not legal or ethical from my research on the topic. 

"Framing. Framing is the process of dividing a Web page into separate framed regions and displaying the contents of someone else's site within a frame at your site. Generally speaking, site owners don't like having their content framed at another site, particularly without permission. At least one court has considered framing to be copyright infringement."
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/getting-permission-publish-ten-tips-29933.html

"If you set your website up with frames, and display an ad in one frame while someone else’s Website is being displayed in the other, the area gets very gray. You are effectively pocketing ad revenue for displaying the work of others. I would not want to be the one on the defendant side of one of these suits, because the resulting page may be considered a “Derivative Work.”
Source
http://www.theegglestongroup.com/writing/crlaw.php

"What about framing content from another Web site on my own site; that's permitted -- isn't it?
Framing is presumptively illegal. The owners of many Web sites don't want their content to be "framed" on another site for a number of reasons, including the fact that they sometimes have advertisers whose ads aren't visible when their content is framed somewhere else. When you "frame" someone else's site, you also give the impression, at least to the casual viewer, that the other site's content originated with you. Again, the best policy is to ask the proprietor of the other site for permission before framing his content on your page. While he might refuse permission, or place some conditions on your doing so, better to give credit where credit is due than to get a "cease and desist" letter and/or demand for monetary damages from his lawyer."

Source of Above Quote
http://www.csusa.org/face/softint/myths.htm#framing

What does WIPO say about "Framing"
"g) Some Internet practices may raise trademark issues, such as metatagging, linking & framing, and using trademarks in domain names (see below). You should be careful to check the law that applies to your business on this issue and to ensure that you have permission to show trademarks owned by other companies, if the law requires it."
http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/business_website.htm

And what state laws do Blogher get to use to decide if framing is LEGAL for them?  If I am based out of Montana and they are Based out of California and they steal my entire blog content to direct traffic to them, without my permission, what state laws apply?

More links on the act of FRAMING to use My Work for Blogher.com to make ad dollars
I intend to Sue Blogher for Framing my Blog as in this CNN Lawsuit,

"Framing is the process of dividing a Web page into separate framed regions and displaying the contents of someone else's site within a frame at your site. Generally speaking, site owners don't like having their content framed at another site, particularly without permission. At least one court has considered framing to be a copyright infringement, and in another case, CNN sued a news website that framed CNN news content. Under the terms of a settlement agreement, the news website agreed to stop framing and instead use text-only links."
Source of above Quote
http://www.garage.com/resources/reference/internet_tentips.shtml

Blogher Frames Our Blogs without Blogher asking our Permission to make ad dollars, revenue from our content and they do it to a whole lot of you.

"Framing is dividing a webpage into sections that display the contents of someone else's website within the sections on your website. Avoid framing others' material without first getting their permission. Courts have started to rule that framing constitutes copyright infringement."
Source of Above Quote
http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/copyright/copyright-realworld/website-content-permission.html

"Incorporating copyrighted web content by usage of framing has led to contentious litigation. Frames can be used for web pages belonging to the original site, or to load pages from other sites into a customized arrangement of frames that provide a generalized interface without actually requiring the viewer to browse the linked site from that site's URLs and interfaces."
Source of above quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_aspects_of_hyperlinking_and_framing

"Framing occurs when one Web site incorporates another site’s web pages into a browser window with the first site’s own content. The webite with the frame may post navigation tools, text, trademarks and/or advertising that the framed website is unable to control.

As more of the second site is incorporated into the first, the possibility that users may become confused over affiliation, endorsement or sponsorship becomes stronger. On the other hand, it may be that the marketplace understands frames for what they typically are–simply a way to feature another site which conveys no implication of affiliation or endorsement.

The unauthorized use of framing has been challenged under a variety of legal theories, including copyright and trademark infringement, unfair or deceptive trade practices, false designation of origin (passing off), false light and false advertising.

The Washington Post Co. v. Total News, Inc. et al., No. 97 Civ. 1190 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 1997). Various news organizations sued Total News for linking to plaintiffs’ websites and framing their content within the Total News home page. Plaintiffs alleged claims for misappropriation, federal trademark dilution, trademark infringement, false designation of origin, copyright infringement, and various state claims.

The case settled in early June 1997 based on defendant’s agreement to stop framing content from plaintiffs’ sites. See also Order, Washington Post v. Gator Corp., No. 02-909-A (E.D. Va. 2002) (granting temporary injunction preventing Gator from delivering pop-up ads to plaintiffs’ websites that allegedly altered the intended appearance of the websites, interfered with the Web site operators’ ability to sell their own ads, decreased the value of these ads on the sites and misled users. The suit was settled with the outcome sealed by the court). See http://news.com.com/2100-1023-983870.html.

Futuredontics Inc. v. Applied Anagramic Inc., 45 U.S.P.Q. 2d 2005 (C.D. Cal. 1998). Plaintiff alleged that defendant’s website, which framed content from plaintiff’s website, constituted copyright infringement. Defendant’s motion to dismiss was denied, where the court was unpersuaded by either party’s reliance on prior case law.

Plaintiff relied on Mirage Editions Inc. v. Albuquerque A.R.T. Co., 856 F.2d 1341 (9th Cir. 1988) for the position that the framing constituted the infringing creation of a derivative work. Defendant relied on Lewis Galoob Toys Inc. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc., 964 F.2d 965 (9th Cir. 1992) for the position that no derivative work is created by framing, since no portion of the copyrighted work is incorporated in a concrete or permanent form. The court held that neither decision controlled."

Source of Above "Framing" information
http://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Copyright:_Infringement_Issues

We are about to see how expensive a Lawsuit can be in a "Framing" "Copyright" dispute as coming soon I will be filing a lawsuit against Blogher for "Framing" my Entire Blog Network and placing their ads on top, without my permission and I have over 400 Blogs.

Framing as an "Issue" Research Link
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/Framing.htm

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter6/6-c.html

Fair Use Research Links

"Non-commercial use is often fair use. Violations often occur when the use is motivated primarily by a desire for commercial gain. The fact that a work is published primarily for private commercial gain weighs against a finding of fair use. For example, using the Bob Dylan line "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows" in a poem published in a small literary journal would probably be a fair use; using the same line in an advertisement for raincoats probably would not be."
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-rule-copyright-material-30100.html

http://www.investigativeblogger.com/ has no ads, and is not commercial really so fair use does not even seem to apply.  I was getting a massively important issue heard on my investigative blogger network. This blog does not "COMPETE" with the source site Blogher, yet Blogher competes directly with me by framing my entire site and every blog I have linked from it
http://www.blogher.com/frame.php?url=http://www.crystalcox.com

Much more coming on this Topic, on the Human Trafficking article and how "Blogher" operates their business in such a way as to use thousands of pages of other people's content, even if you have a youTube video that they cannot embed  framing it makes this video on your blog, their "Content" in which they have ads on in the upper left and a link to Blogher, and their logo as if it is their site.  Yet Blogher, Kristen Herwitz threatens me for quoting a small post on a MAJOR issue, and linking to the source post on their site.  Stay Tuned, as I now have a very big beef with Blogher and looks like we are all going to sue each other, will let you know how it works out.  Should be filed in Belmont San Mateo County, California where Blogher is based.

Kristen Herwitz Blogher Publishing Network.

Hey Forbes LLC, why Don't you Investigative Obsidian Finance Group

New York, United States

IP Address:

Forbes Media Llc (209.133.54.66) [Label IP Address]

Search Referral:

 www.google.com — first amendment obsidian finance #2

Visit Page:

 www.obsidianfinancegroup.com/2012/01/eugene-volokh-mayer-brown-and-benjamin.html

Photonics, Light Matters YouTube Channel

http://www.youtube.com/user/PhotonicsMedia

GMAC Mortgage lacked authority to foreclose the mortgage when it initiated the foreclosure proceedings

This is a Very Big Deal, find your mortgage papers, this could be your answer to keeping your home.

"PATTERSON v. GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC


Reginald A. Patterson and Diana V. Patterson, v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC.
No. 2100490.
Alabama Court of Civil Appeals.
Decided January 20, 2012.

On appeal, the Pattersons assert, among other things, that the trial court erred in determining that the foreclosure was valid. While the Pattersons’ appeal was pending, this court delivered its decision in Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loans, LP, [Ms. 2100245, Dec. 16, 2011] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2011).

In Sturdivant, BAC Home Loans, LP (“BAC”), initiated foreclosure proceedings on the mortgage encumbering Bessie T. Sturdivant’s house before the mortgage had been assigned to BAC.

BAC then held a foreclosure sale at which it purchased Sturdivant’s house, and the auctioneer executed a foreclosure deed purporting to convey title to Sturdivant’s house to BAC. BAC was assigned the mortgage the same day as the foreclosure sale.

Thereafter, BAC brought an ejectment action against Sturdivant, claiming that it owned title to her house by virtue of the foreclosure deed. After the trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of BAC, Sturdivant appealed to the supreme court, which transferred her appeal to this court. We held that BAC lacked authority to foreclose the mortgage because it had not been assigned the mortgage before it initiated foreclosure proceedings and that, therefore, the foreclosure and the foreclosure deed were invalid.

We further held that, because the foreclosure and the foreclosure deed were invalid, BAC did not acquire legal title to Sturdivant’s house through the foreclosure deed and thus BAC did not own an interest in the house when it commenced its ejectment action.

We further held that, because BAC did not own any interest in Sturdivant’s house when it commenced its ejectment action, BAC did not have standing to bring that action and, consequently, the trial court never acquired subject-matter jurisdiction over the ejectment action.

Because BAC did not have standing to bring its ejectment action and the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over the ejectment action, we held that the judgment of the trial court was void, and we vacated that judgment.

Moreover, because a void judgment will not support an appeal, we dismissed the appeal.
In the case now before us, GMAC Mortgage, like BAC in Sturdivant, had not been assigned the mortgage before it initiated foreclosure proceedings.

Consequently, under our holding in Sturdivant, GMAC Mortgage lacked authority to foreclose the mortgage when it initiated the foreclosure proceedings, and, therefore, the foreclosure and the foreclosure deed upon which GMAC based it ejectment claim are invalid.

Moreover, under our holding in Sturdivant, because GMAC Mortgage did not own any interest in the house, it lacked standing to bring its ejectment action against the Pattersons.

Because GMAC Mortgage lacked standing to bring the ejectment action, the trial court never acquired subject-matter jurisdiction over the ejectment action.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is void and is hereby vacated. Moreover, because a void judgment will not support an appeal, we dismiss this appeal. Id.

JUDGMENT VACATED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

Pittman, Thomas, and Moore, JJ., concur.
Thompson, P.J., concurs in the result, with writing.
Bryan, J., dissents, with writing.
THOMPSON, Presiding Judge, concurring in the result.
Or as Garfield puts it…

With those words tens of thousands of foreclosures, if not millions, are cast into doubt and, in Alabama — arguably the most conservative state in the nation, thousands of foreclosures can be overturned after eviction, after the sale at “auction” because if the creditor did not have proof of the sale of the loan (including payment, to complete the transaction, then they couldn’t very well initiate any Notice of Default, Notice of Sale, or submit a “credit bid” at auction, simply because they were not the creditor."

Source of Above
http://4closurefraud.org/2012/01/24/bam-patterson-v-gmac-mortgage-llc-judgment-vacated-no-assignment-gmac-mortgage-did-not-own-any-interest-in-the-house/

Legal Decision
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20ALCO%2020120120002.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR

Lawless America Talk Shoe link to hear my Lawless America Interview

http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-115884/TS-580790.mp3

There is too Much Proof to Ignore Corruption Just so we won't be persecuted and Others Will

I will not ignore their voice so my life will be easier.

Start a blog, write your story on my blogs, take videos, expose them.

United We Stand..

Email me at Crystal@CrystalCox.com to write on my blogs exposing corruption.

Judge Marco Hernandez has enough information provided to the courts by me, Crystal L Cox to call for an Investigation of Obsidian Finance Group as a Federal Trustee

Judge Marco Hernandez of Portland Oregon has an Obligation as a Federal Judge to Call for an Investigation of the Summit Bankruptcy and of ALL parties involved.

Judge Marco Hernandez now KNOWS that there is reason to suspect massive white collar crimes in the Summit Bankruptcy that may involve the biggest law firms in Oregon and yet Judge Marco Hernandez does not call for an investigation?  Why ?

Judge Marco Hernandez called for an FBI investigation over David Aman, Tonkon Torp conspiring with a man that there is record in Montana Courts of the man threatening to kill me.  So obviously Judge Marco Hernandez has the power and authority to call for investigations.

Now that Judge Marco Hernandez has the information, documents, exhibits, depositions, videos, audios that I have brought to his attention, doesn't Judge Marco Hernandez have an obligation, a duty to those who pay his wages, YOU the PUBLIC, to request that the DOJ, SEC, FBI, IRS, Oregon Attorney General, and all Oregon Authorities investigate the actions of Kevin Padrick in the Summit Bankruptcy?

Sure it is easier for Judge Marco Hernandez and those agencies to look the other way, however that does nothing to STOP the culture of corruption in America nor to STOP the rampant misuse of the justice system by what is commonly know as the "Oregon Attorney Fraternity" involving Tonkon Torp, Miller Nash, Sussman Shank and more.

Judge Marco Hernandez of Portland Oregon should request that the FBI, DOJ, Attorney General, IRS, SEC, and more Investigate the Summit Bankruptcy in depth and look deeply at the reasons why Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox is screaming foul play so Loud.

I am and always have been telling the story of the Victims of Obsidian Finance Group, Tonkon Torp, Sussman Shank, Perkins Coie, Susan Ford, Tom Stilley, Steven Hedberg, Perkins Coie, and the victims of the Department of Justice employees that FAILED miserable and broke the law Ms. Vivienne Popperl and Pamela Griffith, and the Victims of the massive conflicts of interest of Judge Randall Dunn in the Summit Case and seemingly favoring Obsidian Finance Group, Kevin Padrick over the LAW, and not just in Summit, but possibly in the Blue Heron Paper Company bankruptcy out of Portland Oregon where Obsidian Finance Group was the Financial advisor according to bankruptcy documents I have seen online.

Investigate Kevin Padrick and Obsidian Finance Group. They set up their own clients, Summit and they took over a 40 Million Dollar Bankruptcy and all bank accounts, assets, power and control that went with it and answered to NO ONE.  What if Summit was your company, or you were a creditor or investor.  This affects us all, the TRUTH on this Affects YOU ALL.

Crystal L. Cox, Investigative Blogger Regarding Roger Shuler's Defamation Judgment Article at OpedNews.

Crystal L. Cox, Investigative Blogger has a few things to say Regarding Roger Shuler's Defamation Judgment Article at OpedNews. 
From This Article
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Defamation-Judgment-Agains-by-Roger-Shuler-120118-935.html

First of all Roger Shuler is the only Media Outlet, blog, to get this close to right on some of the facts and details of Obsidian Finance Group, Kevin Padrick and their involvement in the Summit Bankruptcy.

Over all this is a great article.  As the Summit story was never mine, I had no money involved, no family involved and I was simply investigating the story and getting their story heard.

A powerful way to do this is mass blogs to get their story found.  Hundreds of blogs, used with proprietary search engine techniques to get to the top of the search engine for the names of the judges, financial company, LLC's involved, banks, lawsuits and more.  And most importantly these blogs were used to get the bankruptcy whistle blower blog found in the search engines.  A powerful blog that connected lots of documents, videos, audios, depositions and more.  That blog went down out of fear, the day after my trial.

I was not claiming to be a "journalist" in the traditional sense. I am media, that is no doubt really, I am an online investigator, I get to the top of search for the names of the parties involved and insiders send me tips, call me, mail me documents, and some even meet with me.  This has been happening for year.  The point of so many blogs and posts how I do them is to get the citizen journalist actually experiencing the story, along with the documents, videos, audios and true information found in the search to get the story EXPOSURE in hopes to get the victims justice.  Or to at least give them a voice where they had no voice.  I prefer to not take the story and write on it as traditional journalists do.  I like to bring attention to the documents and evidence in my way, and I do.

Though many slam my writing and my style, it certainly is affective, so much so that I charge $5000 a month for investigative blogging work, search engine investigations that turn up discovery, details, secrets, documents and more, and though Roger Shuler thinks $2500 a hefty fee, well that's not near what reputation manager's charge and they don't have a network as strong as mine, though they have millions in venture capital money to run with and tons of employees.

The $2500 was a very good offer, and it was very fair.  I normally charge $5000 a month per individual company. It was NOT mixing "business with journalism", my blogs are different, I turn up facts, I monitor web stats and catch "bad guys" looking at stuff that connects them to the situation, the crime per say and that is my business.  Journalism, is a word that is just, well I don't get it really.  Most seem to be used to a "reporter" going to a scene of something "newsworthy" and telling their version of events, or writing quotes from people standing around - quotes that are often wrong.

Most of these "journalists" if you will, seem to think the story is in calling people involved, and often just one as in my case Kashmir Hill, Forbes, did not talk to me, yet defamed me horribly with accusing me of a criminal activity without the facts.

David Carr, New York Times,  did talk to me and still printed the lie, his version of reality for his own agenda. Jeff Manning, the Oregonian talked to me and then Flat Out Lied about me, and he is most guilty as his coverage of the Summit Bankruptcy was flat out jaded and he had documents, interviews, facts for years and ignored them.  This to the detriment of the public at large and especially the State of Oregon.

The news is not in a reporter, journalist or even a bloggers YAP or their posting of partial quotes, pieces of videos, or even their opinion really.  THE real news is in the documents of the case, the entire videos, depositions involved, financial documents, LLC Agreements and the FULL story. NOT the version of some person's interpretation of the story.  The news is best told by those involved, so I try and get them found.

My email being posted in Forbes is certainly not an unbiased coverage of the story, and the email presented to the jury was thrown into the closing statement after the judge said it would not be entered as I claimed it had nothing to do with the truth or damage of this one post.  I protested and said if Plaintiff's attorney is accusing me of a crime I demand a Criminal Defense attorney, I was denied my right on all this. And the deal I made whereby I would not testify on the stand if the other blogs and emails was not brought in as to bring in my "state of mind" as the judge called it.  Offering $2500 a month to clean up the story, be mine or others is not a crime, it was not extortion, it was a settlement communication between two attorneys, a way to STOP a year long lawsuit and was not extortion.

The email was sent Jan. 19th, the Complaint was filed Jan. 14th, and as far as Roger Shuler saying I should be careful what I say to counsel, that is bull, as I have seen the inside of many lawsuits as a real estate broker owner and those attorneys communications can get pretty aggressive and very secretive.  They don't want the offers to get out, for example the Plaintiff's camp made another offer recently ( in the last 2 Weeks) with my attorney and no one is talking of those details, its between attorneys, the Plaintiff Camp asked me not to talk about it, and I have thus far honored that request though my attorney communications as I WAS AND AM PRO SE, well those communication are put in Forbes for Kashmir Hill and David Carr to ruin my search business with total disregard and I will be filing a defamation lawsuit of my own, and with proof of lost revenue.

Roger Shuler, obviously has seen the courts running amok and has possibly even been victim to the wall of corruption in our courts.  Roger Shuler seems to be an intelligent man and to have looked at the story with the most unbiased look so far.  I suggest you ALL look deep if you want the facts or look away, but don't simply listen to Jeff Manning, David Carr, and Kashmir Hill and run with that.

Also with that, I want to say, the first story from the Seattle Weekly, they got parts wrong and the whole world ran with it. The AP got parts wrong and newspapers and tv around the world reported this story and NONE contacted me, they simply believed the version of one reporter with the AP.  I encourage you to look at facts, documents, audios, videos and find the real story and DO not listen to anyone's version, think for yourself.

"(1) Crystal Cox should focus more on journalism and less on search-engine optimization--and she should be careful in her communications with opposing counsel; " - Says Roger Shuler.

Thing is what I do works, and I in NO WAY want to be a "traditional journalist" nor focus on what most call "journalism" NO THANK YOU.. and in 2012 if you don't focus on Search Engine Optimization well then your "STORY" will not be found where it needs to, at the top of the search for all names, parties, companies and victims involved.  ~ And again regarding the suggestion to be careful in my communications with opposing counsel, are you kidding, its a 10 million dollar lawsuit, negotiations are not careful, it's war.. and David Aman, the Plaintiff's Attorney was certainly not careful, I will soon post more of his Offers to me, however the one linked below is where he wanted me to lie to a federal court and to set up Summit Insiders.

The Plaintiff's attorney wanted me to blame innocent parties, and make them liable for my actions.  He wanted an investigative blogger to flat out lie about people and in this case would further damage their case, their possible prison terms and their quality of life. WHICH is certainly NOT legal and if it is, well it should not be.   David Aman, Plaintiff Attorney also wanted me to pay $5000 for every time I mention any of their names. Is that careful? Lawful? IS that Extortion?

Plaintiff Camp, in the Settlement Communication listed below also wanted me to state that what I said about Obsidian Finance Group and Kevin Padrick were false, and all this was so they could get a 10 Million Dollar loan that some undisclosed, alleged bank VP denied because of my internet presence regarding the Summit 1031 Bankruptcy Scandal. I am telling a true story regarding the Summit Bankruptcy to the best of the information I have read, saw, videos I watched, Interviews I took.  The Summit Bankruptcy SHOULD be void and the Department of Justice Trustee and the Bankruptcy Judge, Judge Randall Dunn as well as all attorneys involved should be prosecuted for letting Kevin Padrick be Trustee and in essence setting up the Summit Principals to face prison while he makes millions a year from their life's work.

Here is a Link to more on that.

David Aman, Plaintiff's Attorne Offer to Me from Obsidian Finance Group
http://www.tonkontorpsucks.com/2012/01/settlement-offer-from-david-aman-tonkon.html

I wish more were like Roger Shuler and would find out things for themselves.. Dig Deep.. or Don't Poke around at all folks.. Either you want the story or not..

What part of Included but not limited to did Judge Hernandez not understand? Sure seems like discrimination and favortism to me..

"O.R.S. 44.520(1). "Medium of communication" is broadly defined as including, but not limited"

Bottom of Page to in Opinion Regarding Crystal Cox and Shield Laws
http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2011-11-30-Order.pdf

Steve White Bend Oregon Searched over and Over. Steve White, Bend Oregon Do you have a Confession to Make? Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Bloggers are News, they are in the Thick of it, getting the REAL story as it plays out. Do NOT control information via bloggers the REAL NEWS.

"In the last several years, bloggers have become important contributors to our national conversation. But that contribution is being ignored in Washington, D.C. Congress is debating whether to establish a federal shield law that will protect journalists from having to disclose their sources and news gathering material. 

But the current version of this bill defines who qualifies as a journalist in such a way that it will exclude anyone who is not affiliated with an established media organization. 

That means citizen journalists and bloggers are left completely unprotected. In addition, this will be a first step down the dangerous road of creating an exclusive guild of journalists.

There are two options: either we do nothing or we act. 

If we do nothing, maybe the bill will disappear. Or it passes and marginalizes citizen journalists and bloggers by denying them the protections afforded to journalists who work for large media organizations.

If we act, we can encourage our Congressional representatives to change the definition of journalists to include bloggers and citizen journalists within the scope of the shield law.

We might also shine a brighter spotlight on the topic of citizen journalism.

So that's the choice: do we do nothing, or do we act?

If you have doubts about whether a shield law is important, maybe you should watch this video:"

Source, More Information and Video
http://www.citmedialaw.org/BloggersBeware

"A New Heavyweight Steps in the Ring as Round 2 Begins in Obsidian v. Cox" Crystal Cox was always telling the story of the Summit Victims, and never made the story up. Investigate Tonkon Torp and Obsidian Finance Group.

"Posted January 9th, 2012 by Arthur Bright

Given the hoopla it caused a few weeks ago, you may already be aware of the somewhat notorious ruling in the Obsidian Finance Group v. Cox case. 

That's the case where an Oregon federal judge rejected blogger Crystal Cox's contention that she was a member of the media, thus clearing the way for a $2.5 million verdict against her for defaming the plaintiffs.

The story resulted in much hooting and hollering online, particularly from bloggers outraged that the judge ruled that they were not protected under Oregon's shield law. 

Though as CMLP guest blogger Eric Robinson pointed out, the shield law issue was a sideshow to a much bigger problem in the ruling: that Judge Marco A. Hernandez had ruled that the Supreme Court's decision in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. does not apply to Cox because she is not "media."

Gertz stands for the proposition that plaintiffs in a defamation case cannot recover any damages without proof that the defendant was at least negligent, and may not recovered presumed damages without proof of the defendant's "actual malice."

In Cox, the judge ruled that Gertz only applies to media entities, and – using a rather arbitrary list of what defines the media – determined that Cox was not a member of the protected class.  This in spite of several cases (of which the judge took no notice and Cox, acting pro se, did not cite) that state just the opposite.

Well, Cox now has filed a motion for a new trial challenging the court's reasoning on omittingGertz, and this time she's got some help: Portland lawyer Benjamin Souede and First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh. 

Volokh's addition is particularly significant: besides being a First Amendment expert, he's also a serious blogger himself, overseeing and writing for the eponymous Volokh Conspiracy.  There aren't too many better lawyers than Volokh to fight this sort of fight, I suspect.

In the motion for a new trial, Volokh and Souede are arguing that precedent clearly establishes that Gertz applies whether or not Cox is a member of the media, thus entitling her to a jury instruction establishing the burdens on the plaintiffs to prove liability and recover damages. 

Further, they argue, the plaintiffs should be treated as public figures, thus invoking the "actual malice" standard of New York Times v. Sullivan. 

Finally, they argue that Cox is entitled to a new trial, or at least remittitur, because the evidence provided to the jury did not support an award of $2.5 million in damages. 

The motion is available on our legal threat database entry on the case.

Of course, this is just the first punch in a new round in Cox; we've got a long way to go before we see a winner.  But this'll definitely be one to follow in the coming months, as it looks like some of the judge's dubious rulings might finally get the review that they deserve.

Arthur is the research attorney and editor for the Citizen Media Law Project at the Berkman Center and a correspondent for The Christian Science Monitor.  He tweets occasionally at@NominallyBright. "

Link To Source of Arthur Bright Post
http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2012/new-heavyweight-steps-ring-round-2-begins-obsidian-v-cox

Also Check Out the Second Major Punch from Defendant's Camp, Motion Filed by EFF, the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/110847626/Obsidian-V-Cox---Retraction-Laws-Shield-Laws-Free-Speech-First-Amendment

And remember, the story is not about me, the messenger, and you should ALL investigative Kevin Padrick and Obsidian Finance Group for yourself, and see what the real story is

http://obsidianfinancesucks.blogspot.com/

http://www.kevinpadrick.com/

http://www.objectiontofees.com/

Remember the Jimmy Boston emails on my Sites, and the Univ. of MT Stalker email all those haters?

Well they are all public record and will soon be gathered..
this law in NV is a good thing as University's, Cops, County Prosecutors like Bernie Cassidy and George Corn.. all the emails are public record.. ..oh and you too Bend Oregon D.A. ..
http://randazza.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/nevada-supreme-court-expands-open-records-law-to-include-e-mails/

Pro Se Blogger Crystal Cox Ably and Correctly identified the Laws that applied to her and was denied those rights. Obsidian V. Cox, Retraction Laws, Shield Laws Blogger Crystal Cox.

This is a excerpt from EFF, the Electronic Frontier Foundation attorneys in support of a new trial for defendant Crystal L. Cox in Obsidian Finance Group v. Cox. Oregon Retraction Laws should have applied to defendant Crystal L. Cox.  Kevin Padrick nor Obsidian Finance Group asked for a retractions of that blog post, or a reason why to retract.

"  The First Amendment protects all speakers, not just the press, from strict defamation liability. Moreover, protected-though-critical speech cannot be the basis for a verdict reached by a sympathetic jury. Especially when read in light of the Court’s (unnecessary and erroneous) additional rulings regarding if and how online speakers can earn an elevated “media” or “press” status, these findings paint an unnecessarily risky legal landscape for such speakers in the district, one at odds with the First Amendment and Oregon law."

"The allegedly defamatory statements attributed to Cox included ones accusing Padrick of all manner of misconduct such as committing “tax fraud,” of being “corrupt,” of paying off media and politicians, of “illegal activities,” “deceit on the government,” “money laundering,” “defamation,” and “harassment,” even going so far as asking whether “Padrick hire[d] a hitman to kill” her. Compl. at ¶ 8.

Plaintiffs alleged in their Complaint that “Defendant knowingly and intentionally published the false and defamatory statements alleged above with actual knowledge of their falsity or with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statement.” Compl. at ¶ 10."

"Under the First Amendment, contrary to the Court’s Order of November 30, 2011, a successful defamation action requires at least a showing of negligence, regardless of the “media” status of the defendant.

As the jury found Cox liable for defamation pursuant to jury instructions that did not include such a limitation, the verdict must be overturned and a new trial granted.

Moreover, the jury’s award – $2.5 million based on a single blog post, undifferentiated from the myriad other allegedly defamatory posts that the Court eventually found to be protected speech under the First Amendment – was excessive and unsupported by sufficient evidence and thus cannot stand.

Combined with the other overreaching rulings regarding Cox’s media status, these errors will leave online speakers in the district unnecessarily and unconstitutionally chilled. Defendant’s motion should be granted."

"The Court Failed to Instruct the Jury that It Must Find the Defendant at Least Negligent In Order to Find Her Liable for Defamation.

In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974), the Supreme Court identified a constitutional floor regarding the intent requirement in defamation claims, holding that “so long as they do not impose liability without fault, the States may define for themselves the appropriate standard of liability for a publisher or broadcaster of defamatory falsehood injurious to a private individual.” Gertz at 347. Noting that “erroneous statement of fact” is “inevitable in free debate,” and that “punishment of error runs the risk of inducing a cautious and restrictive exercise of the constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of speech and press,” the Court gave States Case 3:11-cv-00057-HZ Document 108-1 Filed 01/11/12 Page 6 of 13 Page ID#:2614
broad latitude to achieve their legitimate objectives of protecting private individuals but drew a firm line barring strict liability statutes because of the inevitable chilling effect: “Our decisions recognize that a rule of strict liability that compels a publisher or broadcaster to guarantee the accuracy of his factual assertions may lead to intolerable self-censorship.” Id. at 340.

Fashioned in a pre-Internet context (addressing a defamation claim concerning a traditional magazine publisher), and couched in terms of “media,” “press,” “broadcasters,” and “publishers,” the Gertz Court nonetheless did not limit its ruling to the “media” per se.

Rather, the Court addressed a factual claim before it that involved the (then relatively expensive and limited) ability to “broadcast” a message to a sizable audience, an ability that is now not just commonplace but ubiquitous."

"EFF also agrees with the Defendant that the jury’s damages award was unsupported by the evidence, providing a separate basis requiring the Court to grant a new trial.

Trial courts may grant remittitur if a jury award “is so unreasonably high as to ‘exceed any rational appraisal,’” is “outrageous, shocking or monstrous,” or “so inordinately large as obviously to exceed the maximum limit of a reasonable range within which the jury may properly operate.” Rosa v. Burlington Northern, 277 Or. 683, 687 (Ore. 1977) (citing Oliver v. Burlington Northern, 271 Or. 214 (Ore. 1975)). Such is the case here.

Plaintiffs assert that the harm inflicted by the Defendant was the result of hundreds of disparaging blog posts made across a multitude of time and across dozens of sites: “Every time someone gets on the Internet and uses a search engine such as Google to research Kevin Padrick or Obsidian Finance, what they immediately find is that Padrick and Obsidian are being accused of serious criminal and civil misconduct on literally dozens of websites.” Plaintiffs’

Memorandum In Opposition to Sua Sponte Motion for Summary Judgment filed July 22, 2011,
at p.2 (Dkt. 27). See also id. at p.13 (“Defendant Cox has falsely stated to potentially millions of Internet users that Padrick and Obsidian have engaged in criminal and civil misconduct.”).

However, the Court granted Cox’s motion for summary judgment as to all blog posts (and web sites) save one: a single post from December 25, 2010, that appeared on the www.bankruptcycorruption.com web site. See Supplemental Opinion &; Order of August 23, 2011, at 24-31 (Dkt. 31).

While recognizing the highly critical and caustic nature of many of the allegedly defamatory statements, the Court ultimately found that all but one of the posts amounted to, at worst, hyperbolic expression that a reasonable fact-finder could not interpret as provably false assertions (and thus protected speech).

No evidence in the record supports a finding that Plaintiffs suffered $2.5 million in damages due exclusively to the single blog post of December 25, 2010. Rather, the evidence appears only to indicate that the reputational harm alleged by Plaintiffs was exclusively or primarily the result of protected speech. That search engines such as Google may highlight and prioritize the Defendant’s protected though critical statements in a manner the Plaintiffs may (understandably) find to be unfortunate or unfair is of no legal consequence to a defamation award. Indeed, that the jury appears to have shared the Plaintiffs’ aversion to Cox’s writings similarly cannot excuse an award that is contradicted by the evidence.

See, e.g., Siebrand v. Gossnell, 234 F.2d 81, 94 (9th Cir. 1956) (trial court may “grant a new trial when he is of opinion the verdict is against the weight of evidence …”) (citing Southern Pacific Co. v. Guthrie, 186 F.2d 926, 932 (9th Cir. 1951), Bradley Mining Co. v. Boice, 194 F.2d 80, 83 (9th Cir. 1951)). The excessiveness of and lack of an evidentiary for the jury’s award warrants a new trial.

"The Court’s Additional Erroneous Findings Regarding the Defendant’s Media Status Amplifies the Impact of the Improper Jury Instruction and Threatens to Further Chill Speech.

Amicus is concerned not only with the improper application of First Amendment standards to the Internet speaker in the immediate case but also with the message that the Court’s rulings will send to the broader Internet community.

Combined with the pre-trial rulings filed by the Court on November 30, 2011, they together threaten to chill speech in contravention of the First Amendment.

Therefore, in addition to granting Defendant’s motion for a new trial, amicus strongly urge the Court to reconsider two of its previous First Amendment decisions regarding the Defendant’s “media” status.

First, contrary to the Court’s decision, Oregon’s retraction statute should be interpreted to extend to Internet periodicals such as Defendant’s blogs.

O.R.S. § 31.215 prohibits the recovery of general damages absent a demand for a retraction (that is subsequently ignored) for “defamatory statement[s] published or broadcast in a newspaper, magazine, other printed periodical, or by radio, television or motion pictures.”

Passed decades before the advent of the public Internet, this statutory list appears to reflect the legislature’s desire to identify and encompass all manner of publication channels, not a desire to pick and choose communications made pursuant to certain technologies per se.

Rather, the legislature’s public policy goal was to encourage the publication of retractions of defamatory statements and to therefore reduce litigation and preserve judicial economy by reducing lawsuits.

As the Oregon Supreme Court has noted, the retraction statute is “loosely drafted” and that the “legislature probably intended” that the protections be afforded “to those involved in the process of publishing or broadcasting.”

Wheeler v. Green, 286 Or. 99, 123 (Ore. 1979). That is, “publishers” are afforded the statutory
opportunity for retraction as “[i]t is the ‘publisher’ in that sense who has the power to determine
whether or not a correction or retraction shall be printed or broadcast. Id. As Internet publication is no different in this sense than the broad publication methods identified the statute, it too should be afforded the same opportunities and protections.

Applying the statute to Cox’s Internet posts, as a retraction demand was not issued by the Plaintiffs, the ability to seek general damages should have been precluded.
"
Second, the Court’s finding that Cox was not “affiliated with any newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system” and “thus, she is not entitled to the protections of the [shield] law in the first instance” was unnecessary to reach and erroneous as a matter of law.

Order of November 30, 2011, at p.3 (Dkt. 95). O.R.S. § 44.520 states that “[n]o person …
engaged in any medium of communication to the public shall be required by a … judicial officer
or body … to disclose … [t]he source of any published or unpublished information obtained by
the person in the course of gathering, receiving or processing information for any medium of
communication to the public.” By gathering information and directing her analysis and commentary to the public – even if it contained factual assertions that were incorrect, and even if some statements were defamatory – Cox was certainly “engaged in [a] medium of communication to the public” and thus afforded the protection. The definition of “medium of communication” was left deliberately broad (and non-exclusive) by the Oregon legislature:

“‘[m]edium of communication’ is broadly defined as including, but not limited to, any newspaper, magazine or other periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system.” O.R.S. § 44.510(2).

There can be no question that Internet publication qualifies for protection under the statute, and that individuals engaged in such publication directed at the public should be afforded the statute’s protections.
The Court ultimately should not have ruled on the question, and thus should have refrained from issuing its controversial dicta regarding whether Cox’s status as an Internet publisher precluded her from the shield law’s protection, because the source of Cox’s statements were not at issue.

In her Objection to Plaintiff’s FRCP 37 Motion to Compel, filed November 14, 2011 (Dkt. 66), for example, Cox disclaims a proper reliance on the shield law, identifying and explaining the source of her statements and noting that that source “has nothing to do with the blog post I am on trial for.” Id. at p.3.1 Accordingly, the question of the scope of the shield law’s protection should have been left for another day and for a situation in which a true controversy exists.

Taken together with the Court’s ruling regarding the appropriate intent requirement and the jury’s excessive verdict, these findings paint an increasingly and unnecessarily hostile landscape for online speech, one that may discourage such speakers or lead them to engage in the type of “intolerable self-censorship” decried by the Supreme Court in Gertz.

Not only may they be subject to strict defamation liability and disproportionate damages awards based on search engine placement, independent online publishers may be denied the opportunity to limit their damages (pursuant to the retraction statute) and compelled to produce their sources even though they fall within the letter and spirit of the shield law.

In addition to granting a new trial, amicus urges the Court to reconsider the broader holdings discussed above in order to ensure that speech is not unduly restrained in this new medium.

V. CONCLUSION

While the scope of the First Amendment protections afforded to Internet journalists is a salient and important question, here the primary question was not whether “a self-proclaimed ‘investigative blogger’ is considered ‘media’ for the purposes of applying a negligence standard in a defamation claim” but whether all speakers enjoy the same affirmative First Amendment protections regardless of media status.

Order of November 30, 2011, at p.9. Amicus supports Defendant’s motion for a new trial because the proper defamation standard was not applied below and because the jury verdict was excessive.

Moreover, amicus believes that the question of Defendant’s “media” status unfortunately and improperly emerged to overshadow the merits of the case to the detriment of both the Defendant and of Internet publishers generally.

Accordingly, amicus respectfully asks the Court to grant Defendant’s motion for a new trial and to reconsider its rulings of November 30, 2011, as to the applicability of Oregon’s retraction statute and shield law."

Source of Post
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/110847626/Obsidian-V-Cox---Retraction-Laws-Shield-Laws-Free-Speech-First-Amendment

More on Obsidian V. Cox
http://www.obsidianvcox.com/

More on Kevin Padrick's pattern and history
http://www.kevinpadrick.com/

More on Tonkon Torp
http://www.tonkontorpsucks.com/


ObsidianFinanceSucks.com blog
http://obsidianfinancesucks.blogspot.com/

Crystal Cox Blog
http://www.crystalcox.com/

Shield Laws, Retraction Laws, First Amendment, Free Speech Support from EFF

Obsidian V. Cox - Retraction Laws, Shield Laws, Free Speech, First Amendment

Stephanie DeYoung Deposition Regarding Crystal Cox Blogger, August 2009

David Aman of Tonkon Torp Law Firm is questioning Stephanie DeYoung, I believe that Obsidian Finance Group's Ewan Rose was also in the room. They all knew the intentions of blogger Crystal Cox was in no way negligent and was simply getting the story found. They knew what I was posting on and why, and they knew it for years and never contacted me in any way until the month before they sued and that contact was a cease and desist for all my blog posts over years about any of them, of which they had no right to have removed. David Aman of Tonkon Torp Law firm, nor anyone at Obsidian Finance Group, nor Kevin Padrick personally ever contacted me on my posts other then that and they never gave a specific post. Even when they filed their 10 Million Dollar Lawsuit Against Me, they did not specify one post and the courts seemed to have no issue with this, why?

I filed a motion for a more definitive statement and I was denied, why? Don't bloggers have a right to know what they are being sued on instead of a broad general statement regarding thousands of blog posts over years?  David Aman, Tonkon Torp Law firm is a bully at best.  He huffs and puffs until he gets his way, at my forced deposition he threw a fit and made Judge Hernandez come in and force me to tell him my work history and where I went to high school, and there was no court recorder this was seemingly "Off the Record" yet a big deal to me as I was also forced to talk of my Legitimate, Legal Search Engine Management Business.