Wednesday, September 18, 2013

Judge Marco Hernandez, a Portland Oregon Judge, RULED that the First Amendment Does NOT apply to "one" blogger, an anti-corruption blogger, exposing corruption in "his neck of the woods", Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox.

ONE overreaching Oregon Judge SHOULD Not be 
the Gatekeeper of the United States Constitution.
What happened after the Obsidian v. Cox verdict is nothing short of a LYNCH mob against one woman, an anti-corruption blogger giving voice to victims of corrupt judges, law enforcement, attorneys and government agencies.

What happened inside this jaw dropping, constitutional rights violating case is still, to this day, seemingly, a mystery to the public at large, as it does not really make sense, as a matter of law.

Let's discuss a few things regarding the Obsidian v. Cox case and the RULING by a federal judge in Portland Oregon that deemed "ONE" woman outside of the rights of free speech laws, shield laws, retraction laws, anti-slapp laws and the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

A Portland Oregon Judge, Judge Marco Hernandez RULED that blogger Crystal Cox was not "Entitled" to Constitutional Rights, First Amendment Protection, and that she, and she alone, was the only Blogger that could not have "Journalist" "status" by Law.

Some bloggers can be protected under the law and constitution, says Judge Marco Hernandez, Portland Oregon Judge, just not this blogger, Crystal Cox reporting on Corruption in Portland Oregon.

Kind of makes you wonder what is so special or so "bad' about this one blogger, this one woman, that the First Amendment does not apply to her, and that she alone cannot be given equal rights to those of traditional reporters and journalists or those "special rights" given to "recognized news entity" as Judge Marco Hernandez calls traditional media outlets.

"The essence of a prior restraint is that it places First Amendment protected speech under the
personal censorship of one judge. (Bernard v. Gulf Oil Co., 619 F.2d 459, 486 (5th Cir. 1980)
(State v. Globe Commc’ns, Corp., 622 So.2d 1066, 1073, (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), aff’d 648 So. 2d
110 (Fla. 1994)"

Judge Marco Hernandez RULED that Crystal Cox did not have First Amendment Rights, even though she is a citizen of the United States.

There were no First Amendment considerations for Defendant Crystal Cox.  Judge Marco Hernandez violated the rights of due process of Crystal Cox, and violated her Constitutional Rights. Judge Marco Hernandez SHOULD not be above the laws that U.S. citizens pay him to uphold.

Judge Marco Hernandez SHOULD be liable for the damage he has done to the life, assets, quality of life and business of investigative blogger Crystal L. Cox.

It is a FACT that the First Amendment Applies to 
anti-corruption blogger Crystal L. Cox, PERIOD.

Judge Marco Hernandez needs to be held accountable and cannot simply decide he does not "approve" or like a pro se litigant and therefore violate her lawful and constitutional rights.

The FBI, Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney General SHOULD make an example of Judge Marco Hernandez, in that a judge cannot override law based on his own personal opinion of a pro se litigant, a Judge cannot accuse a litigant in a CIVIL CASE of criminal behavior in a public ruling that thereby defames and ruins the life of the litigant without the rights to a trial, to due process, to LAW.

Judge Marco Hernandez is NOT above the Law and has no legal right to simply claim a litigant in his court is guilty of a crime, nor to imply such, without a proper and lawful investigation into the manner and a prosecution for the crime of that litigant.

Judge Marco Hernandez also ruled that retraction laws, shield laws and anti-slapp laws did not apply to this "one" blogger. Why? 

Well there were the now infamous 7 reasons that blogger Crystal Cox seemed to have failed to "prove" she was a journalist, though they are not LAW, not constitutional rights and even though there is no standard as to how many if any of those 7 need to be in place for the "law" to give EQUAL free speech rights to a blogger that traditional reporters and journalists have.

The retraction law clearly applies to new media, to bloggers and to Crystal Cox, then a resident of Montana, now a resident of Washington State, and whom published that "one" blog post while a resident of Boulder Colorado. Yet Judge Marco Hernandez RULED that Retraction Laws did not apply to this "one" blogger.

Oregon Law should not have been all that applied and it SHOULD be prudent, at best, that a federal judge would not want years of tax payers dollars, a costly trial, hearings, court time and years of tax payer money spent on litigation where by the Plaintiff had not even "asked" that defendant to remove (retract) the blog post that allegedly caused the problem, nor had the Plaintiff even supplied a specific blog post in which was a issue to the Plaintiff, or their business.

It is clear that Judge Hernandez ruled outside of LAW, and 
without consideration of the constitutional rights of blogger Crystal Cox. 

It is clear that Judge Marco Hernandez discriminated against blogger Crystal Cox, a Pro Se Litigant and favored top law firms, judges, DOJ trustees, utility companies, Senators, financial companies and lawyers in his jurisdiction.

It is clear the CONSTITUTION does apply to blogger Crystal Cox, that there is no LAW regarding the standards and practices of Journalists nor a license to be a journalist, yet Judge Hernandez ruined the life of Crystal Cox by accusing her of criminal activity in a ruling to deny a new trial in a CIVIL CASE, this is UNACCEPTABLE behavior in a free and democratic society.

Keep in mind that this federal judge WOULD have the power to open an investigation against Crystal Cox for the allegation of the crime of Extortion, however, instead of doing so and giving Crystal Cox due process of LAW, Judge Marco Hernandez simply declared anti-corruption blogger Crystal L. Cox guilty, in the denial of a new trial order from a Federal Judge in an Official Capacity, thereby denying the rights of Crystal Cox to due process of law and thus Crystal Cox was deemed guilty by society as a whole. This act has caused irreparable harm to Crystal Cox, of which Judge Marco Hernandez and the Portland Oregon Courts SHOULD be liable to every extent of the laws of the United States of America.

Judge Marco Hernandez never filed a criminal complaint, never initiated an investigation regarding the Extortion allegation and simply stated Cox guilty of such, and therefore ruined the life, business, quality of life, and business of blogger Crystal Cox, completely outside of due process of law. Judge Marco Hernandez made Crystal Cox the Collateral Damage in attempting to protect corruption in Portland Oregon.

What Judge Marco Hernandez did not count on is that blogger Crystal Cox is SERIOUS about ethics, morals, constitutional rights, law and protecting the victims of corruption. 

Crystal Cox has not given up on speaking out about her rights, the rights of all citizen journalist and whistle blowers, nor has Cox given up on exposing those involved in illegal, unethical, immoral and shady dealings surround the Summit Bankruptcy and the iViewit Technology theft.

Who is protected under the First Amendment as a Blogger? 
Who does the Shield Law Apply to and Why?

Read this recent Article Below regarding bloggers and First Amendment Rights

Keep in mind the massive attack against ONE Blogger to take away her rights of due process, shut down blogs, steal online content, bypass the First Amendment all together, and attempt to exclude this ONE person from Law and Constitutional Rights was simply because 3 lawyers and one judge ( Judge Marco Hernandez, Marc Randazza Attorney, David Aman Attorney, and Kevin Padrick Attorney) did not like her "ethics" or "standards".  Another words they wanted to protect corruption and to SHUT Crystal Cox up, they FAILED.

Crystal Cox has remained dedicated to exposing THEM and corruption in general and to protect the Free Speech rights and Constitutional Rights of ALL Anti-Corruption bloggers big and small, ALL whistle blowers, ALL Citizen journalist and the public at large. Despite losing her business, her home, having constant threats and duress, being homeless, penniless and publicly defamed constantly.

For More information and Articles on the Crystal Cox Cas

More on the "Reason" Cox is "Allegedly" not to be deemed a "Journalist" by Law

Judge Marco Hernandez Ruling States:
"Defendant fails to bring forth any evidence suggestive of her status as a journalist."

It is not law, nor a prerequisite of constitutional rights to have a "status" of "journalist" in order for the First Amendment or the LAW to apply to you. "Defendant" did not need, as a matter of LAW, to "bring forth" evidence of "status as a journalist".

2.5 Million Dollars is A LOT of money, that, on top of what Judge Marco Hernandez accused Crystal Cox of and put Crystal Cox through, is completely outside of law, constitutional rights and the due process that Cox is and was entitled to, as a matter of LAW.

There is no law or licensing procedure in place to be legally determined "media" nor to be a "journalist", as a matter of law. A large network of blogs is CERTAINLY a "medium of communication" to the "public", that is an undeniable FACT.

There are no standards, ethics, legal status or licensing in any way that is required by LAW to be "deemed" a "journalist", and therefore protected by the U.S. Constitution and the laws in place to protect traditional media reporters.  So, how in the world can a Portland Oregon Judge, simply state that the laws that protect traditional "journalists" and "recognized media entities" simply, do not apply to "ONE BLOGGER", because he personally alleges that she has no standards and ethics, ya know, like the rest of those "REAL" journalists do and are therefore entitled to First Amendment Protection, Retraction Law Protection, Shield Law Protection and Bill of Rights Protection.

Judge Marco Hernandez simply, and with complete disregard of the LAW, made the life, family, friends, business and quality of life of this one, anti-corruption blogger, Crystal L. Cox, collateral damage in his protection of corruption in Portland Oregon.

Big media, such as Fox News, Forbes, the New York Times and more,happily joined in to discredit Crystal Cox, intimidate her, and paint Cox out to be a criminal in an attempt STOP Crystal Cox from her Ninth Circuit Appeal and from receiving any support what so ever that would end their monopoly on Free Speech, their Reporters Privilege and their above the law abuse of the shield law.

High profile First Amendment Porn Attorney Marc J. Randazza of Randazza Legal Group joined the lynch mob, and set out to sabotage Crystal Cox's Appeal to the Ninth Circuit, and joined in painting blogger Crystal Cox in false light in attempt to make her look like a criminal and thereby discredit her online media, chill her free speech, shut down her blogs, and all to protect the best interest of the "big boys" in the porn industry. And with complete disregard of due process of law and the constitutional rights of Crystal Cox, whom he had been acting as her attorney.

Porn Attorney Marc Randazza's goal was to simply sweep the Crystal Cox case under the proverbial rug, so that the "mess she made" would not affect his clients in the Porn Industry. Marc Randazza acted unethically and outside of the law and rights of Crystal Cox. Cox is fighting back in multiple courts in order to protect others from being irreparable harmed by Marc J. Randazza and Randazza Legal Group as she has been.

Here is Crystal Cox's Legal Complaint Against Marc Randazza and Alleged Co-Conspirators

Nevada RICO

Florida Malpractice

It is Your Constitutional Right to have "Choices" in your "NEWS"

It is a human right, a civil right to have CHOICE in what "news" source you gather "information" from.  You have a constitutional right to news sources other then BIG Media paid by advertisers, corporations, politicians and those who control the version of the "news" that the public at large has access to.

For example, blogs are the ONLY media outlet in which those exposing corruption have.  Most newspapers small and large will not report the true story for fear of retaliation, legal action, death threats, and their own life being ruined.

It is of MASSIVE importance for online media, anti-corruption bloggers, citizen journalists, and whistle blowers to have the same protection under the law as traditional reporters, journalists and Big Media. Without this protection, society is subject to only have the option of the news fed to them by large corporations, politicians, and ad based news outlets.

It is important to a free society, as a whole, 
to have choices in their news. 

News has become a "product", it is created and Sold via ad dollars. It is a clear violation of anti-trust to wipe out competition by suing the competition, suppressing online media, and stripping online media and bloggers of equal protection under the law. It is very important to all of society that there remain independent researchers who are reporting the news from their sources, there own experience, tips they receive, news they personally witness and truly independent investigations of news events.

In fact, it is an anti-trust violation to take away the choice of the consumer and monopolize the industry. This is clearly pointed out in blogger Crystal L. Cox's Anti-Trust Lawsuit against Kashmir Hill Forbes Reporter and the New York Times. Click Below to read that Case Filing.

In the now infamous 7 Reasons that Judge Marco Hernandez, Portland Oregon Judge claims Crystal Cox does not have "journalist" status, he goes on to say:

"For example, there is no evidence of

"(1) any education in journalism; "

There is no law that an education in journalism is required by law, the Bill of Rights or the Constitution of the United States in order for a citizen, an independent blogger (or free press publisher), to have EQUAL rights to traditional journalists, media or reporters. 

Judge Marco Hernandez's ruling has, in essence chilled the speech of anti-corruption bloggers, online free press, citizen journalists and whistle blowers in fear of retaliation from those they are reporting on.

"(2) any credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity; "

It is not a statute of US Law, the Constitution of the United States of America, nor of the Bill of Rights, that a citizen prove they are affiliated with a "recognized" news entity, in order for the laws that apply to a "recognized news entity", traditional reporters, to apply to that citizen. Judge Marco Hernandez COMPLETELY side stepped the laws of the United States, and violated the constitutional rights of Blogger Crystal L. Cox, as a matter of LAW.

(3) proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest;

First of all, "proof of adherence to journalistic standards" is not a statute of US Law, the Constitution of the United States of America, nor of the Bill of Rights and should NOT have been a determining factor in a civil trial for defamation regarding a blogger (publisher) of online media reporting on a $40 Million Dollar VERY public Oregon Bankruptcy Case. 

Secondly, it is a CLEAR Fact that blogger Crystal Cox has and had the ability to "edit"

It is also a fact that Cox was not asked to edit nor change any fact on any blog post. 

Crystal Cox, Montana anti-corruption blogger was not asked to retract anything, and was simply sued for 10 million dollars in an Oregon Court. It is an obvious FACT that Crystal Cox could and can edit any blog post at any given moment in time, if asked to do so, or court order to do so. If Crystal Cox is given the facts and told which blog post is an issue for the Plaintiff.

Thirdly, Crystal Cox CERTAINLY did engage in the act of "fact-checking" to the best of her ability and had done so for 3 years when the Plaintiff sued her.  Crystal Cox had been reporting on the Summit Bankruptcy case for 3 years and Plaintiff fully knew this fact, as the Plaintiff and his attorney David Aman, "deposed" Stephanie DeYoung, one of Crystal Cox's sources in August of 2009, in video, and asked her who Crystal Cox was and why she thought Crystal Cox was reporting on the Summit Bankruptcy case.

Crystal Cox had read internal emails with the DOJ, read FBI press releases, spoke with investors and creditors, interviewed insiders, emailed insiders, read hearing transcripts, listened to hearing audios, read court filings and motions, read the massive amount of news and blogs that were discussing the very high profile Summit Bankruptcy, and Cox even heard Kevin Padrick's own words from videos of him at meetings, signed declarations and testimony, motions signed by him, 

Crystal Cox had "fact checked" to the best of her ability and did so for 3 years when Plaintiff, all of the sudden, Sued Cox with no retraction request, no blog post named in the complaint and from their completely violated the rights of due process and the constitutional rights of Anti-Corruption Blogger Crystal Cox.

Fourth, blogger Crystal Cox had  no need to disclose a conflict of interest, as Cox had NONE. Crystal Cox was not involved in the Summit Bankruptcy, had no money involved, no assets or property connected to this 1031 Exchange Company, nor had Cox, in any way a "connection" to Summit or anyone involved in Summit when she began reporting on the Summit Bankruptcy. 

Judge Marco Hernandez Ruling Goes on to Say more reasons that the First Amendment, the Laws of the United States do not seem to apply to this "One" Blogger:

(4) keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted;

This is false, my blogs held many notes, some conversations were recorded with permission of participants, pages and pages of notes were taken from each call, massive amounts of emails were also notes, ALL of these were something that the Plaintiff had no legal right to, even though Judge Marco Hernandez RULED that Crystal Cox must give all notes, emails, phone records and conversations to those she was exposing to be participating in corruption, Crystal Cox refused and this is why Cox used the shield law as a defense. Cox did not claim the shield law because she had some "secret source", as Seattle weekly had reported. 

The sources of Cox's blogs was PUBLIC knowledge and had been for 3 years. 

What Cox wanted to protect was the DEMAND that she give the Plaintiff aKa, the "Enemy" and the subject of her corruption reporting, all the emails, notes, phone records and information of any kind from sources, to the very people she was claiming to be corrupt. Crystal Cox wanted to protect the rights of her sources, and Judge Hernandez did not want Crystal Cox to do this. The Plaintiff made settlement offers that asked that Crystal Cox incriminate her source for crimes they did not commit, and to state they committed acts that they did not. Crystal Cox wanted to, and DID protect the legal and constitutional rights of all of her sources.

Crystal Cox certainly did have a record of conversations and interviews, and this, AGAIN, is not a matter of law and should not have been a factor in whether blogger Crystal Cox "deserved" equal protection under the law or the U.S. Constitution.

"(5) mutual understanding or agreement of
confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources;"

Number 5 is SHOCKING, at Best. 

Judge Marco Hernandez ORDERED blogger Crystal Cox to produce all records of conversation, all recordings, phone calls, emails, notes of any kind between me and all of my sources regarding the Summit Bankruptcy. So here he is saying that Crystal Cox is not protected under the First Amendment nor does Crystal Cox have protection under the same laws as traditional journalists, and "recognized media entities", and ONE main reason is that Cox did not have "mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources". 

This is FALSE.

For one, the agreements I had or did not have with ALL my sources, were and are my private information between me and my sources and is not subject to review by the opposition in a defamation case. Two, Judge Hernandez RULED that I was to violate any agreements and turn over all notes, emails, documents, files, phone records with ALL sources to the opposition, the Plaintiff in the case. Yet at the same time claimed I had no agreement and this is why I cannot, by law, have "journalist" status.  

This was a violation of the rights of my sources, violation of my rights and clearly outside of the LAW. So, how in the world could this "mutual agreement" or confidentiality disclosure have anything to do with whether the laws that protect traditional journalist and "recognized news entities" applied to me, Crystal Cox or not. And how is it lawful to DEMAND that I give this "confidential" disclosure data to the Plaintiff in this case and his attorney, ALL whom I was reporting was involved in unethical and corrupt actions in the Summit Bankruptcy?

"(6) creation of an independent product
rather than assembling writings and postings of others; or "

There is not one person, anywhere, who would not agree that I, Crystal Cox have an Independent Product. How in the world is this a determining factor in RUINING my life because I Dared EXPOSE Corruption in the State of OREGON?

If Judge Marco Hernandez thinks that my "product" aKa "blog posts" are not an "independent product", then he must believe, as a matter of law, that I did not write the information on my hundreds of blogs I had at that time, but simply re-posted what others had wrote. Yet, if so, then why sue me for defamation, why not sue all those other blogs? 

Also Judge Hernandez ruled that the Summit Bankruptcy was not of "public concern", and David Brown Co-Owner of Obsidian Finance Group also stated under oath that I, blogger Crystal Cox was the only one discussing the case. This was not TRUE, however, as it was Oregon's biggest bankruptcy case and had victims in 5 states, over 100 victims aKa creditors and investors. And had a whole lot of media and blogger coverage, as the record clearly shows.

So, that nasty blogger Crystal Cox, who allegedly set out to defame and extort, was simply "assembling writings and postings of others" and did not have her own "independent product" ?  Really? 

Does this seem true to you reader? 

I mean come on, I called him a thug and a thief, I curse, I capitalize in those crazy, odd places. I go "over the top" in my language and I don't have an "independent product" ? 

Well I say that is another flat out FALSEHOOD by a Federal Judge protecting corruption in Portland Oregon and making ALL citizen journalists, free press, online media, whistle blowers and new media publishers, the collateral damage of his free speech suppressing, Anti First Amendment RULING against Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox.

"(7) contacting "the other side" to get both sides of a story.
Without evidence of this nature, defendant is not "media."

First of all, this "evidence" is NOT required as a matter of law and constitutional rights.

Secondly, COX is media in her massive online presence PERIOD, as a matter of definition and fact. And Crystal Cox had and has a very strong, very large, dominating "medium of communication", aKa media. Judge Marco Hernandez would have you believe that Crystal Cox has no "medium of communication" and is thereby not legally "media", YET somehow defamed an Oregon Lawyer so badly in 3 weeks, that she had to pay him 1.5 million dollars and his company, Obsidian Finance Group another 1 Million. ( the date of the blog post was December 25th 2010 and the Lawsuit was filed January 14th 2011, the threat of the lawsuit claiming millions in loss was December 22nd 2010)

This case is riddled with fraud, filled with violations of due process, is a serious abuse of power and is a civil and human rights violation against blogger Crystal Cox an in turn ALL citizen journalists, online journalists, investigative reporters, whistle blowers and citizens of the United States of America.


Judge Marco Hernandez SHOULD be recalled, and indicted for his participation in protecting CORRUPTION among Portland Oregon Judges, top Law Firms, high profile lawyers, utility companies, DOJ Trustees, financial companies and more.

How much more do you need to SEE to understand that this JUDGE was Protecting CORRUPTION in Portland Oregon and in essence made ALL online media, bloggers, citizen journalists, whistle blowers, and new media journalists collateral damage.

This one Judge, spread FEAR among those exposing corruption and single handily CHILLED the Speech of those Exposing Corruption in their neck of the woods, around the WORLD.

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

Random Acts of Journalism And who Is protected under Media Law. Blogger committing "Acts of Journalism" should have Equal Rights. Bloggers who gather information, interview, study documents, research, and investigate for YEARS such as Crystal Cox in the Obsidian v. Cox case Details, SHOULD be Protected under Media Laws and CERTAINLY the First Amendment

"When Community Residents Commit ‘Random Acts of Journalism’
‘In communities with little news coverage, people are using the Web to restore a sense of place.’

By Jan Schaffer

In rural Dutton, Montana, 80 people showed up last fall, wooed by a notion of starting a local news site for this newspaperless town of 375 people. Months later, the community celebrated the launch of the Dutton Country Courier. In Chappaqua, New York, three long-time community volunteers decided their community needed a weekly online newspaper.

So in early Dutton Country Courier
— October, they launched News & Opinion Weekly. Meanwhile, in Moscow, Idaho, low-power KRFP-FM radio, just two years after it began airing a citizen-produced nightly newscast on, is applying for a noncommercial radio license.

All three of these citizen media projects were fueled in small part by microgrants from the J-Lab/Knight Foundation New Voices program, but they are being sustained in much larger part by the passion, vision and hard work of their creators. From girls podcasting in the Lower East Side of Manhattan, to environmental journalists creating a wiki about the Great Lakes, to journalism students scooping Chicago news outlets, in two years some 30 New Voices start-ups have joined scores of other hyperlocal ventures in committing what some refer to as “random acts of journalism” by “citizen journalists.”

It is here—on these hyperlocal sites—that systemic conventions of inverted pyramids and “balanced” stories are out of sync with information conveyed amid a keen caring about community. “These are not multiple-source stories,” said veteran journalist Suzanne McBride of the items on, which she cofounded in Chicago. “It took me a while to say that’s okay; it’s not libeling anyone. I had to change my thinking about that,” she told a Citizens Media Summit at the The Associated Press Managing Editors’ conference in October.

Nonjournalists sharing photos and videos of breaking news events—from the London bombings to the South Asia tsunami, from the violence of Burma’s protests to Benazir Bhutto’s return to Pakistan—garners media attention, yet what’s happening on emerging hyperlocal news opens a window to observe what is happening in journalism today. In communities with little news coverage, people are using the Web to restore a sense of place. Behind these hyperlocal efforts is a desire to get local citizenry engaged in issues affecting their lives—in essence, to create a civic media that at the same time constructs a new architecture of participation in their towns.

“Citizen Media: Fad or the Future of News?”
– curves at many of these Web sites are still high, but those of us who closely observe and do research about these efforts already know a lot. Earlier this year, J-Lab released one of the first reports on the rise of local news sites based on user-generated content (UGC). The research, “Citizen Media: Fad or the Future of News?,” reported on survey responses from 191 citizen media participants and about in-depth interviews with those involved with 31 Web sites.

Here are some of the key findings:

Citizen media is emerging as a form of “bridge media,” linking opportunities to share and create news and information with opportunities to get involved in civic life.

No one size fits all; there are many models. Sites have been started by former journalists, seeking to be the I.F. Stone of their towns, and by friends of the public library seeking to construct a local news entity.

Instead of being comprehensive sources of news, sites are formed as fusions of news and schmooze. Stories unravel over a series of postings and people, contrary to traditional journalistic conventions, “cover” the topics they care most about and know something about.

Half the respondents said their sites don’t need to make money to continue. Costs can be as low as $13 a month for server space, and volunteers provide most of the labor. But site founders concede it would be nice to be able to pay a little to contributors.

Most citizen sites don’t use traditional metrics—unique visitors, page views, or revenues—to measure success. Even so, 73 percent assessed their efforts to be “successful.”

Success is often defined as impact on the community. Included as evidence of their effectiveness are such accomplishments as increasing voter turnout in elections and attendance at town meetings, helping communities to solve problems, and being a watchdog on local government. [See accompanying graph above.]

There is a high degree of optimism that citizen news and information sites are here to stay. But founders note that attracting more contributors and some operating support continue to be major challenges."

Source and Full Article

Friday, June 7, 2013

Hey Attorney Marc J. Randazza, Kevin D. Padrick, David Aman, AND Judge Marco Hernandez, Judge Gloria Navarro, Did you Hear, TURNS out the First Amendment Does APPLY to Bloggers. Yet you seem to think it Does not apply to Crystal Cox, make sense? Only in CORRUPTION.

Blogs are the ONLY Media those exposing corruption have. 

Blogs are the ONLY truly Independent Media in our "time". 

Bloggers are Citizens and have First Amendment Rights, PERIOD.

" Lindsey Graham Isn't Sure If Bloggers Deserve
'First Amendment Protection' "

"Whether bloggers count as journalists has mostly been a matter of esoterics for reporter types. But as Congress weighs a media shield law in response to the Associated Press/Justice Department subpoena scandal, the question is gaining an urgency that lawmakers are finding hard to ignore as they turn to writing the bill.
Speaking to reporters Tuesday, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., took on the issue—and stumbled.
"Who is a journalist is a question we need to ask ourselves," he said. "Is any blogger out there saying anything—do they deserve First Amendment protectionThese are the issues of our times."
The verbal slipup aside (of course bloggers are covered under the Bill of Rights!), Graham's riffing on constitutional law exposes one of the age-old tensions between journalism as a product and journalism as an activity. What Graham really meant to ask was whether bloggers deserve the specific protections of the First Amendment that are granted to the press. And in fact, along with his colleague Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., Graham has been an ardent proponent of a media shield law in recent weeks. But as the line between blogger and journalist has blurred, a far more relevant challenge is figuring out whether those protections apply to the behavior of finding and passing on (sometimes secret) information, or if they apply only to people with little plastic ID badges to prove their affiliation.
In some ways, what this episode really suggests is that it might be time to retire the word "blogger" as an artifact of the aughts.


ATTORNEYS David Aman of Portland Tonkon Torp, Kevin D. Padrick, Marc J. Randazza AND Judge Marco Hernandez, Judge Gloria Navarro better Get a Memo on the FACT that the First Amendment Applies to Bloggers, Even ones they don't like, such as Anti-Corruption Blogger Crystal L. Cox

Or maybe Lindsey Graham is confused and the First Amendment does not TRULY apply to BLOGGERS, especially if they are bloggers who EXPOSE Corruption and Demand Transparency and Strive to Truly Be Independent Media, such as Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox.

Judge Marco Hernandez Flat out RULED that the First Amendment Did not Apply to Blogger Crystal COX, PERIOD.  
"there are no First Amendment implications." RULED Judge Hernandez

Judge Marco Hernandez claimed that other bloggers may have this right but now Crystal Cox, why? Well he claimed that Crystal Cox had no ethics, or standards. See Crystal Cox was exposing Portland Oregon's top law firms, Judges, Department of Justice Employees and more and needed to be silenced and discredited. ( Obsidian Finance Group, Perkins Coie, Sussman Shank, Portland General Electric, Pacificorp, Michael Simon - now a Judge, and more of the Portland Elite)

A Bit more on the Case of BLOGGER Crystal Cox, where Federal Judge Marco Hernandez RULED that the First Amendment Does not Apply to Bloggers, ESPECIALLY Crystal Cox, because she Allegedly has no ethics and standards ( which is not LAW, nor a constitutional issue)

Free Speech RIGHTS is a Matter of Local Courts, and Well it DOES not apply to Bloggers who expose local or state corruption, these bloggers, such as Crystal Cox will get the smack down, then once they get a massive ruling against them, they will be defamed, and painting in false light in the biggest media around the world.

Here is the Nevada Case where Judge Gloria Navarro side stepped the First Amendment all together and wiped out massive blogs, online content, and competing search engine results because Attorney Marc J. Randazza told her to. See the online media was criticizing Marc Randazza, alleged Free Speech Attorney, and so he simply did away with the blogs with NO FIRST AMENDMENT ADJUDICATION

Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox is Fighting Back and has Filed Legal Action against those who have defamed here, including an Anti-Trust Lawsuit against Big Media

Thursday, May 9, 2013

Independent MEDIA, Citizen Journalist, Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox FILES Anti-Trust Lawsuit against Forbes, Kashmir HIll, David Carr, New York Times, WIPO, Marc J. Randazza, Tracy Coenen, Peter L. Michaelson ...

Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox v. Kashmir Hill Forbes Reporter 
Northern California Case 4:13-cv-02046-DMR
Anti-Trust Lawsuit Cox v Kashmir Hill, Forbes -

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Jamaica Observer "Proposed defamation legislation a blessing and a challenge" Clare Forrester reports on the Crystal Cox Defamation Case and crucial issue of the importance of the distinction of who is a "journalist", as a matter of law.

"Some in the media fraternity argue that making a distinction between who is and is not a journalist would perhaps help to provide clearer directions when addressing alleged infringements committed by posting damaging information on the Internet.

Source of Quote

"These concerns exploded in a widely publicised case in the US against a self-styled "investigative blogger" named Crystal Cox.

This defendant functions as a type of 'whistle-blower' using a preponderance of blogs where she frequently writes about allegations of wrongdoing, usually by those in the finance sector.

She was sued by one of the targets of her posts, an investment firm called Obsidian Finance Group and its founder Kevin Padrick who alleged she defamed them.

In resisting a court demand to disclose the source of her information, she argued that she and the source(s) should be covered by laws designed to protect journalists.

The judge ruled otherwise, on the grounds that she was not affiliated with a traditional media entity and so not entitled to such protection.

She was then slapped with a US $2.5-million judgment, the amount which the plaintiff argued that he lost in earnings as a result of the damage caused to his reputation.

The intensity of the criticisms against the judge's 'bloggers versus journalists' comments led him to release a follow-up opinion explaining that his statement should not be interpreted to mean that all bloggers do not qualify to be called journalists, but that Cox certainly could not be so regarded. Moreover, blogging and bloggers were not, up to that point in time, covered under the journalism shield legislation in that state."

Source and Full Article

Please "Like" this page for other Crystal Cox Case articles and updates

Also for more on the Crystal Cox Case, Check Out

The Crystal Cox Case is on Appeal in the Ninth Circuit. Crystal Cox's attorney is UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh. Below is links to the opening brief and secondary brief in the Crystal Cox appeal

Here are some briefs in the appeal that were support briefs, Amicus Briefs that really clarify the issue that matters most to all.

Sunday, March 31, 2013

BLOGGERS and "other" citizen journalists DEMAND EQUAL rights and privileges.

"There is a battle brewing in American life in which bloggers and other citizen journalists will demand the same rights and privileges traditionally enjoyed by professional journalists.

What is a journalist? 

What differentiates journalists from other people who seek to disseminate ideas and information to the public?

Does whether someone is considered a journalist depend on where his or her words are published? On whether he gets paid? On whether she offers only "objective" facts or also supplies her own analysis and ideas?

It was not long ago that the lines between journalists and the rest of us seemed relatively clear. Those who worked for "news" organizations were journalists; everyone else was not. In the view of most, you knew the press when you saw it.

Those days are gone. Thanks to the internet and the growing "blogosphere," the lines distinguishing journalists from other people who disseminate information, ideas and opinions to a wide audience have been blurred, perhaps beyond recognition.

Some of that blurring has resulted from forces outside the media, some from the transformation of the media itself. Whatever the causes, it is harder than ever to tell who is a journalist."


Tuesday, March 19, 2013

"The funders and owners of the Progressive Movement get richer and richer off Wall Street and the corporate system." ~ Citizen Journalism, Investigative Bloggers are News by the People for the People and DESERVE equal protection under the law and under the constitution.

"The self-labeled Progressive Movement that has arisen over the past decade is primarily one big propaganda campaign serving the political interests of the the Democratic Party’s richest one-percent who created it. The funders and owners of the Progressive Movement get richer and richer off Wall Street and the corporate system. But they happen to be Democrats, cultural and social liberals who can’t stomach Republican policies, and so after bruising electoral defeats a decade ago they decided to buy a movement, one just like the Republicans, a copy.

The Progressive Movement that exists today is their success story. The Democratic elite created a mirror image of the type of astroturf front groups and think tanks long ago invented, funded and promoted by the Reaganites and the Koch brothers. The liberal elite own the Progressive Movement. Organizing for Action, the “non-partisan” slush fund to train the new leaders of the Progressive Movement is just the latest big money ploy to consolidate their control and keep the feed flowing into the trough.

The professional Progressive Movement that we see reflected in the pages of The Nation magazine, in the online marketing and campaigning of MoveOn and in the speeches of Van Jones, is primarily a political public relations creation of America’s richest corporate elite, the so-called 1%, who happen to bleed Blue because they have some degree of social and environmental consciousness, and don’t bleed Red. But they are just as committed as the right to the overall corporate status quo, the maintenance of the American Empire, and the monopoly of the rich over the political process that serves their economic interests."

Source of Taylor Marsh Article