Porn Blogger Mike South aka Michael Strother THREATENS to Sue Monica Foster. oH and for FREE with us of Unconstitutional, Unethical attorney Marc Randazza of Rabid Randazza Legal Group.
There are so many people that Marc Randazza has offered to represent for FREE to Silence Free Speech that exposes him. oh and to RETALIATE. Meanwhile he does not even have the stamina to stay in legal cases with us, he has to HIDE in bankruptcy court while doing FREE legal work out of unethical SPITE.
So, this Guy, Mike South aka Michael Strother, calls himself a PIMP and then threatens to Sue others who call him a Pimp too? WTF
"How in the hell would Randazza Legal Group attorneys (who've already filed one fraudulent lawsuit against me in regards to Jennifer Randazza's attachment to organized crime) and Michael Strother explain the above to a Judge? In addition how will Randazza Legal Group explain to a Judge that they are offering their legal services pro-bono to self labeled PIMPS (who are not owners and/or operators of legal brothels in Nevada) - all in effort to silence individuals who have opted to share the truth about sex trafficking and the adult entertainment industry? According to wikipedia and many other sources - a pimp is a sex trafficker.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_trafficking
I will not be apologizing to Mike South aka Michael Strother. In addition, he will not be suing me for "libel", as his entire proposed lawsuit has no legitimacy or merit.
Mike South aka Michael Strother has threatened to sue me for my stating what he's labeled himself as - a PIMP
On August 13, 2016 veteran porn blogger Mike South aka Michael Strother stated that he would take Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group's offer to sue me (apparently Randazza offered his legal services to Strother pro-bono). Strother indicated that he would sue me for "libel" because I claimed that he is a pimp and involved in sex trafficking.
I wonder what Marc Randazza's Creditors think of all his Pro Bono legal cases he offers and takes, and all in the name of REVENGE and nothing to do with Justice or making money to pay off his CREDITORS.
The amicus brief was authored by the Washington D.C. office of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, who is consistently ranked as an international top 20 law firm. See opinion, Darren-Chaker-Appeal, where the Ninth Circuit found absolutely no harassment or defamation took place.
Mr. Chaker was on probation for a white collar crime. The record shows Mr. Chaker’s bankruptcy attorney fraudulently filed a bankruptcy petition without Mr. Chaker’s knowledge. The report states in part, “In my opinion Chaker’s attorney did not exercise a reasonable standard of care in filing a Second Bankruptcy Case without Chaker’s consent and signature. Indeed, in my opinion such conduct is fraudulent.” See expert report, page 7. Despite the conduct of his bankruptcy attorney, Mr. Chaker was found guilty of only a single charge at trial. That conviction is being challenged.
While on probation, it was alleged Mr. Chaker made a false statement about Leesa Fazal of Las Vegas. “Specifically, Mr. Chaker wrote that Ms. Fazal, an investigator with the Nevada Office of the Attorney General, had previously been “forced out” of the Las Vegas Police Department.” says First Amendment law professor Clay Calvert at the University of Florida’s Marion B. Brechner First Amendment Project.
The blog also addressed the fact Leesa Fazal, a Nevada peace officer, brought her firearm into a San Diego Superior Court while hoping to testify in a family law matter. Leesa Fazal was not allowed to testify, and appears was detained by Sheriff Deputies when told not to leave as she was walking to the exit. It was Mr. Chaker who informed court security she had a firearm on her.
See video https://youtu.be/v9rGkkh84rg [Link is a public record, U.S. District Court Nevada Case No. 2:16-cv-00036.] Scott McMillan, McMillan Law Firm La Mesa, exited the elevator with Ms. Fazal – he apparently may not have advised her she may be breaking the law when they entered court together (but am not sure if she was counseled).
Ms. Fazal complained to the FBI, the Nevada Attorney General, and Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and no one arrested or questioned Mr. Chaker.
The Las Vegas Metro Police report stated, in relevant part, “All the evidence was reviewed and does not rise to the level of criminal harassment.” See,
Ms. Fazal then turned to the probation officer who promptly filed a petition and Mr. Chaker was put in jail. The court “had reviewed a police report prepared by the Las Vegas police department after Ms. Fazal reported Mr. Chaker’s blogposts, and noted that the police ultimately did not forward any charges for prosecution concerning Fazal’s allegations.” Opening Brief, page 7.
Ms. Fazal communicated to the probation officer Mr. Chaker may have had something to do with her firearm being stolen out of her car. However, Ms. Fazal’s own Officer Safety Alert stated – “The suspect is unknown” see excerpt,
During the probation revocation hearing, “At no point did the probation officer or government contend that the blogposts constituted stalking under the condition, nor did the court make any findings as to stalking. Instead, the focus was on whether the statement was harassment and defamation.” See Opening Brief, page 12.
As the ACLU of San Diego states, “even if the defamation condition is valid, the court did not require the government to prove that Mr. Chaker made a false statement of fact, subjectively believed his statement to be false, or acted with reckless disregard of its truth.” At the hearing, Mr. Chaker admitted he posted the blog after doing online research. It was never proven what Mr. Chaker posted was “a false statement of fact.” Although Ms. Fazal was flown to San Diego and in court, the government did not call her as a witness. The court found Mr. Chaker violated probation, and an appeal ensued.
Cato Institute stated, “Public officials are appropriate objects of criticism and the protection of their feelings is not the appropriate province of the courts. Chaker’s words don’t even rise to the standard that must be met to constitute defamation of a public figure. Chaker didn’t act with “actual malice” or reckless disregard for the truth when he published his blogpost, which is the mental requirement necessary to sustain such a charge.” The Electronic Frontier Foundationsaid the government’s position would, “eviscerate a half-century of First Amendment protection of political speech criticizing government officials.”
Probation conditions are typically tailored to protect the public from future crime not online comments one takes offense at or believes are defamatory. It is well established speech “may not be suppressed simply because it is offensive.” Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1199 (9th Cir. 1989). Mr. Chaker was never sued for defamation or harassment by Ms. Fazal.
The blog consisted of about 421 words. Only two words were found to be false – “forced out”. No evidence was introduced the statement Mr. Chaker made was in fact false, or that Mr. Chaker knew the statement was false – hence actual malice. As page 27 of the opening brief states, “Without actual malice, the speech is protected by the First Amendment — even if false and damaging to Fazal’s reputation. See Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. at 2550-51 (stating that when a false statement is made without actual malice, the best remedy is not “handcuffs” but publication of “the simple truth”).”
Mr. Chaker is only one of 4,708,100 people are on probation or parole per a Bureau of Justice Statistics report. People under supervised release are not second class citizens where the First Amendment may be marginalized or discarded unless the speech are in an unprotected class – like true threats or inciting criminal conduct. For government to regulate speech, it must be “integral to criminal conduct.” United States v. Meredith, 685 F.3d 814, 819, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13012, 7, 2012-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50,421, 110 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5157 (9th Cir. Cal. 2012) [case cited at page 28 of opening brief] In this case, two words “forced out” were found to be false and Mr. Chaker’s probation was ultimately revoked because of it.
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court finding Mr. Chaker violated his probation as no evidence of harassment or defamation was presented to the court."
15:33 Judge Kozinski to AUSA “she [sentencing judge] did say I am not going to limit your [Chaker’s] First Amendment rights?” AUSA, “that’s correct your honor”;
20:08 Judge Kozinski told the AUSA to go back to her office and watch oral argument with her colleagues to be "properly embarrassed";
23:16 Judge Kozinski to ASUA - “You managed to bamboozle…I mean the United States, managed to fool the district judge imposing the condition…”;
26:31 Judge Kozinski, “It’s okay for the district court to say obey all laws...but this is not at all limited to criminal conduct…this is conduct that is not illegal…agree this is conduct that is not illegal?", reluctantly AUSA said "agreed that the condition reached conduct that is not illegal."
Why didn't Shield Laws or the First Amendment Protect this Guy? Did he really "make it up" out of thin air or was there a source, a reason, information that he did not expose? Was there an affair, WOW seems like alot that is not said here. Seems like the Judges are protecting the Politicians in my Opinion.
Goes to JAIL for offending someone? Where are the Free Speech Advocates on this one? Why can't you post on your blog about an affair? Well I suppose if it is the Politician, public figure having the affair then that should be fair game right? If it's his son maybe not. However, come on 3.5 million dollars and was in jail, for reporting a story he thought to be True? WOW.
""The Court finds the comments defamatory," Judge Blankenship stated in his order."
Seems a Bit Barbaric to Me. Marc Randazza, First Amendment attorney and his cronies, such as defamatory attorney Ken White, defame, harass, threaten and POST way worse knowingly false statements over and over and they get away with it. Speak out against a politicians son and a Judge steps in and serves up injustice? WOW.
Sure seems Fishy to Me.
"Rob Riley had sued Shuler in October for libel and sought the injunction to force Shuler to remove the posts. The judge ordered Shuler to remove the post and ordered the blogger jailed for contempt when he didn't do it immediately. Shuler remained in jail until the judge ordered his release in March after his wife removed certain stories from the blog."
This sure seems like a SERIOUSLY Overreaching Unconstitutional Judge to Me.
"Alabama blogger ordered to pay $3.5 million in defamation lawsuit
A Shelby County blogger, who spent five months in jail before agreeing to remove stories from his website about the son of a former governor, has now been ordered to pay $3.5 million in a defamation lawsuit filed by a former campaign manager for Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange.
The blogger had written about an alleged affair between Strange and the campaign manager.
Jefferson County Circuit Judge Donald Blankenship on Monday entered a default judgment against Roger Shuler and his website Legal Schnauzer for $1.5 million in compensatory and $2 million in punitive damages. The judge wrote that all the elements for the judgment were present, including that a false and defamatory statement was made.
Jessica Medeiros Garrison, a Birmingham lawyer, filed the defamation lawsuit in 2013 against Shuler. She had managed Strange's 2010 campaign for Alabama Attorney General and served as Chief Counsel and Deputy Attorney General in 2011.
"The facts are clear and the judgment speaks for itself," Garrison stated in an email Tuesday to AL.com. "The absolute and blatant disregard for the truth has to come with consequences. I am very happy to finally be in a position to set the record straight," she wrote.
Bill Baxley, one of Garrison's attorneys, also said the ruling "speaks for itself." He said he doubts his client will be able to collect any money from Shuler, who had his house foreclosed upon a year or so ago.
Joel Dillard, another attorney for Garrison, said they are grateful that the judget returned a verdict that adequately compensates Garrison. "She is the righteous, kind, gracious working mother of a young son she adores, and this fact magnified this outrageous wrong. Shuler's statements about her were not just libelous, they were plucked from thin air, and were cyber-bullying of the worst order," Dillard stated.
Strange also issued a statement today.
"I am pleased the court has confirmed there was no truth to these lies and that some measure of justice has been done," Strange stated.
Shuler failed or refused to sit for a scheduled deposition. He was sanctioned by Judge Blankenship, who then set a March hearing for sanctions and default judgment.
At the March 9 hearing the judge heard testimony from Garrison and Strange. Both testified the allegations Shuler had written that the two had an extramarital affair and had a son together were false, according to the judge's order.
Shuler, or any lawyer representing him, did not attend the hearing.
Garrison testified that Shuler had written false comments in his Legal Schnauzer blog concerning her and Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange, the judge's order states.
"The (Legal Schnauzer) comments suggested that the plaintiff (Garrison) received preferential treatment from the Attorney General because the two were engaged in an ongoing extramarital affair; and that the Attorney General was the father of the Plaintiff's minor son," the judge's order stated.
Garrison testified that the comments were false and "were embarrassing, hurtful and degrading."
"She testified further that the comments made it difficult to perform her job. She works with a national organization, The Republican Attorneys General Association," according to the judge's order.
Garrison also stated that since the comments have now become widely known, she constantly suffers from embarrassment and anxiety, according to the judge's orders. "She testified that she worries about how the comments could later affect her minor son."
Strange also testified that the comments concerning his relationship with Garrison and a photo on the website that was cropped to make it appear Strange and Garrison were alone, were false.
"The Court finds the comments defamatory," Judge Blankenship stated in his order.
Efforts to reach Shuler for comment were unsuccessful prior to publication of this story.
Last year a Shelby County judge also issued a writ of arrest for Roger Shuler, author of the Legal Schnauzer blog regarding motion to revoke Shuler's probation on his conviction on a misdemeanor resisting arrest charge. The motion states that Shuler failed to make payment of court ordered fees and fines and did not appear as ordered by the court.
Shuler was charged with resisting arrest last fall when he was taken into custody on a contempt of court charge filed by judge after Shuler, at least initially, refused to remove stories he had written on Legal Schnauzer that Rob Riley, the son of the former governor, had an affair.
Rob Riley had sued Shuler in October for libel and sought the injunction to force Shuler to remove the posts. The judge ordered Shuler to remove the post and ordered the blogger jailed for contempt when he didn't do it immediately. Shuler remained in jail until the judge ordered his release in March after his wife removed certain stories from the blog.
Shuler's incarceration for contempt drew national attention from groups that claims Shuler's First Amendment rights were violated. The ACLU and Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed briefs on his behalf.
Weeks after the posts were removed Rob Riley complained that a very similar website with Shuler's posts had appeared. Shuler denied he had anything to do with the other website."
"Since 1931, the U.S. Supreme Court has found that the First Amendment prohibits a court order restraining anyone from saying or publishing something, even if it is defamatory. In Near vs. Minnesota, the U.S. Supreme Court found that Jay Near, who published a scandal sheet about Minnesota politics, could not be enjoined by the courts from publishing.
Later cases have upheld the decision, most notably in 1971 when the New York Times and Washington Post sought to publish the Pentagon Papers, a secret history and analysis of the Vietnam War compiled for the government.
In short, if you intend to commit libel or slander, you can be punished or sued after the act, but not stopped from the act itself."
"...had his constitutional rights trampled on and that he is a victim of prior restraint, a practice the U.S. Supreme Court has forbidden in all but imminent threats to national security."
Illegal assessing ? You can't share diet advice? Hmmm.. Big Pharma LOST this one. You CAN Give Advice and yes those who help people get well WITHOUT Big Pharma have a First Amendment RIGHT. This Case was and is a VERY Big Deal.
YES there is a Food, a Plant, an HERB, an Exercise that has cured someone somewhere of pretty much every disease. They have a Free Speech right to share their experience. Big Pharma and the Controllers of the Establishment FDA Do NOT want you to know about those who have CURED themselves without those Evil prescription drugs and rogue doctors that do not have any respect for the KNOWN Cures that really do Grow on Mother Earth.
Those Blogging about KNOWN Cures, about Alternative Medicine that WORKS and Herbal Remedies as well as those blogging about corruption simply had NO FIRST AMENDMENT Rights, they had to Fight for it. Among those Fighting such battles, one of my favorite case was the Caveman Blogger Case. Sharing ideas and Advice is Protected FREE SPEECH.
You have a Free Speech right to talk about Food, about things that cured you, or worked for you. And the Big Pharma controlled government superpowers of the Corporation of the United States DO NOT have a legal, moral, constitutional right to SUPPRESS that information, though they have been able to, through controlled media and elite press since the beginning of time.
Caveman Blogger Fights for Free Speech and Internet Freedom
More on the Caveman Blogger Case which is a HUGE WIN for all those who KNOW for SURE that FOOD Cures, Right Eating CURES, Plants ARE Medicine, and that the Great Spirit really did NOT get it wrong and Big Pharma GREED get it right.
Defend the Free Speech Rights of all Activist Bloggers, Anti-Corruption Bloggers and Whistleblowers in every corner of the WORLD. They are the LIGHT. They are the Defenders of the Victims of Corruption and they are Changing the Entire WORLD for the BETTER. Stand up for those Bloggers. Start a Blog, EXPOSE Corruption, Report on the News to YOU. Post Videos and Documented Proof. You are ALL Media.
Defending the First Amendment in Free Speech for ALL.
Corruption is Being EXPOSED. The Light is SHINING bright in dark rooms of Corruption that have been there since the beginning of time. ~ Keep it up Folks. YOU are the MEDIA. You are the ones in the know.
Start a Blog, Use Google Docs, Use Free PR sites, use iReport, upload videos of you talking / reporting, post court documents, post sworn statements, post proof and be the MEDIA.
YOU are MEDIA.
REPORT on what you know, what you are passionate about, post documented facts, case law, videos, photos, and lot's of real proof. YOU are the REAL NEWS Folks.
You are the News by the People for the People.
If you are in insider, a whistleblower, a witness to a criminal or corrupt activity, a witness to an accident or incident, have information special to your company or industry, know about specific judges, cops, politicians or attorneys, REPORT THE NEWS and post documents of proof, post photos, post video so that people can actually read the REAL NEWS.
Report on Lobbyists, State Representatives, Mayors, Senators, Attorney Generals, Governors, Attorneys, Judges, Police, Sheriffs, Detectives, and any official, YOU are the NEWS. If you don't report what you see, find out or know then the REAL News does not get reported.
Not only do you have case precedent of a LEGAL Constitutional Right to Report the News that is EQUAL to any Institutional Press Journalist or Big Media Reporter but you also have case precedent to BREAK the NEWS. Another words you have free speech rights, as a matter of LAW, by case precedent to break a story, be the first person talking about the story. THIS is a VERY Big Deal. So use this case precedent to Break the News, Report the News, YOU are MEDIA.
Crystal Cox Blogger; Petition for a Writ of Certiorari; First Amendment, Free Speech, Defamation Lawsuit, Shield Laws, Retractions Laws; Crystal Cox v. Obsidian Finance Group LLC 13-9731
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES; Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal L. Cox; Supreme Court of the United States Filing;
"The Petitioner is an Activist Litigant making a stand for the rights of all Citizen Journalists, Anti-Corruption Bloggers."
Crystal Cox v. Obsidian Finance Group, LLC, et al; No. 13-9731
"INTRODUCTION
Petitioner requests this court to issue a ruling that requires the Ninth Circuit to redact criminal allegations of Petitioner in a Ninth Circuit civil court ruling dated January 17th, 2014, Obsidian v. Cox, Ninth Circuit Case Number; 12-35319; D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00057- HZ.
This issue is a matter that affects all members of the public.
Ninth Circuit Judges; Judge Arthur L. Alarcón, Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr.,and Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz, stated:
“. Cox apparently has a history of making similar
allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction.
See David Carr, When Truth Survives Free Speech, N.Y.
Times, Dec. 11, 2011, at B1. Padrick and Obsidian sent Cox
a cease-and-desist letter, but she continued posting
allegations. This defamation suit ensued.”
Defendant Crystal Cox has no history of posting anything online and seeking a retraction for a payment. This is not based in fact, and has NEVER happened, as the court record clearly shows.
Cox was never “determined” by any court to have posted allegation, then sought a retraction, then continued posting and was sued. This is factually incorrect.
Cox alleges the Ninth Circuit violated her constitutional rights in alleging criminal activity and has stated in error, the events leading up to her defamation suit.
Cox asks this court to rule that criminal allegations be redacted from the Obsidian v. Cox Ninth Circuit ruling dated January 17th, 2014.
Petitioner Cox understands that it is at the sole judicial discretion of this court to hear this matter.
Cox prays that this court will hear this matter as these judicial actions will potentially chill speech and violate the rights of other citizen journalists, whistleblowers and anti-corruption bloggers such as Cox.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Petitioner requests this court to decide the following questions:
Does Petitioner, Defendant, Litigants in a Civil Case have a Human Right, Constitutional Right, and right under U.S. Code to be Considered Innocent until Proven Guilty?
Do Ninth Circuit Judges have the legal authority to issue an opinion on criminal allegations in a civil case in which the criminal allegation is not a matter of record in the lower court, has not been adjudicated and is not a material factor of the case?
Does Petitioner, Litigants, in a Civil Case have a legal right to due process of law, in cases where Judges RULE that Litigants, such as petitioner have committed crimes of which Petitioner was not on trial for nor was a matter of record in the lower court ?
Do Ninth Circuit Judges have to find a Defendant Guilty of a Crime, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, or to have been Adjudicated of that crime in a U.S Court, BEFORE they rule that a litigant such as petitioner is guilty of this criminal behavior or criminal activities?
Do litigants, such as petitioner, have a Fourteenth Amendment Rights, Bill of Rights and Due Process of Law Rights that have to be adjudicated for a crime before a Ninth Circuit Judicial Panel can issue an “opinion” in a highly publicized, higher court, esteemed ruling, regarding that alleged crime?
Do Ninth Circuit Judges have a lawful right to use a New York Times article as adjudicated fact and material evidence to issue a ruling that a litigant in a civil case is guilty of criminal activity?
Is it Lawful for Ninth Circuit Judges to use gossip, hearsay and the rantings of a New York Times Journalist as adjudicated fact, and use this as factual evidence in a Ninth Circuit Ruling?
Can the Court of Appeals Prejudice a Litigant with false and defamatory language in a ruling?
Does a litigant have a right to have the language in the ruling challenged or reviewed by an independent Court, (for example, the Supreme or another Appellate Court not involved in the decision with the defamatory and legally abusive language that prejudices the rights of the litigant in rehearing) ?
Does the court have the right to defame and slander litigants and deny due process?
Do judges have the right toconvict litigants of crimes in judicial rulings
based on New York Times articles?
Do Judges have a right to deny due process in lower courts by issuing a ruling that convicts litigants of crimes, thereby prejudicing them with a jury of their peers, as they return to have a new trial?
Do judges involved in a slanderous, possibly criminally defamatory statementhave a legal and constitutional right to rule on whether they rehear this issue of them acting inappropriately and unlawful in that very ruling?
Is it lawful and within the constitutional rights of a Defendant such as Petitioner, for a panel of judges to use a New York Times article to convict a litigant in a civil trial of a crime of which they have not been adjudicated of?"
" REASONS WHY THIS WRIT SHOULD ISSUE
To establish firm guidelines for all district court, judges and appellate courts that it is not constitutional, ethical nor lawful to render rulings that accuse litigants of criminal activity of which they have not had due process of law in regard to.
To guarantee the rights, liberty, equality, freedom, due process rights, and free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution for all citizens, pro se litigants, anti-corruption bloggers, citizen journalists and whistleblowers alike.
To guarantee theFirst and Fourteenth Amendment rights of all.
To guarantee therights of due process and the Bill of Rights to all.
To end extreme prejudice by local, state, and federal judges whom use their power and position to silence, intimidate, suppress speech, bully, paint in false light, slander and defame litigants who expose corruption in the judicial system and of whom they have extreme prejudice in regard to.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case involves wrongful, non-adjudicated allegations of criminal conduct made by Ninth Circuit Judges ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ against Petitioner, Defendant Cox and clearly violating her constitutional rights, human rights, and rights to due process, as a matter of law. ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ Stated that Petitioner Cox; " has a history of making similar allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction."
Which thereby leads the public at large, media and the lower court in her pending $10 Million dollar Civil Case, to believe that Cox has been under investigation by authorities and found guilty of the crime of extortion or blackmail. As it is ILLEGAL to make allegations and seek a payoff to retract those allegations.
Cox prays this Court orders the Ninth Circuit to redact the above statement.
Petitioner Cox alleges that it is not fair, ethical, equitable in rights, constitutional, nor appropriate as a matter of law and rules of procedure for Ninth Circuit judges or District Court Judges to state unrelated allegations, rumor and speculation in an esteemed higher court ruling, that is published to the world and affects the life of Petitioner forever, as well as affects all whistleblowers, citizen journalists and anti-corruption bloggers like her.
Petitioner Cox alleges that it is an abuse of power and process, and an extreme violation of her human and civil rights, for Judges to use hearsay and rumors as adjudicated fact in an esteemed, higher court process, and to seek revenge, retaliate, and use extreme prejudice against Petitioner and litigants like her by using a prestigious court ruling to paint Petitioner in false light, slander and defame Petitioner and cause her a lifetime of irreparable harm.
Petitioner alleges that it is the duty of Ninth Circuit judges to report anyone they deem a danger to the public. If ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ believe Cox to have a history of extortionate or blackmailing conduct, then it is their duty as public servants to order a criminal investigation by the proper authorities and it is NOT their duty, nor legal right to simply, flat out state, that Cox has a history of these criminal actions and thereby defame and slander Cox and put her under extreme prejudice as she heads back to the lower court Pro Se to face a $10 Million dollar civil court proceeding.
Petitioner and bloggers, whistleblowers, citizen journalists like her, face extreme prejudice in the courts, as they are oftentimes exposing judges, attorneys and people in powerful positions such as CEO’s and Politicians.
This court ruling, essentially gives the rights to all Judges at every level of our court system, and essentially all institutional press “traditional journalists” to simply accuse litigants of crimes, activities, or unethical behavior, based on gossip and hearsay of an institutional press journalists such as Kashmir Hill of Forbes or David Carr of the New York Times, and have that be stated in a Ninth Circuit ruling as adjudicated fact.
Petitioner alleges that it violates her constitutional rights and the rights of those who engage in the same online activity as her, for Judges to essentially take “pot shots”, add in gossip and hearsay into a ruling and thereby slander, defame and ruin the life of the litigant.
Especially in cases such as the petitioner where she faces a retrial in a $10 million dollar civil case where she is indigent and cannot afford an attorney and this criminal accusation prejudices her lower court ruling before the trial even begins.
Petitioner alleges that allowing Ninth Circuit judges to state arbitrary allegations and accusations in authoritative higher court opinions, will potentially chill the online speech of all bloggers, whistleblowers, citizen journalists. As they will fear the same thing happening to them.
This is a critical first amendment issue. And a critical issue of due process laws, the fourteenth amendment, civil rights and human rights.
Petitioner alleges that she has a constitutional right to due process in the criminal justice system and that it violates her constitutional rights for higher court, esteemed judges to rule on matters of her alleged criminal activity BEFORE she has been adjudicated or under investigation by the proper courts and legal procedure in the criminal justice system.
These accusations by Ninth Circuit judges prejudice the litigants such as petitioner in the re-trial at the D.C. level and put them under extreme prejudice in all matters of their life, even things as simple as renting a home or getting a job.
Those researching litigants such as petitioner find a higher court ruling, issued by esteemed judges in a powerful position of which the public at large deems to be of the utmost authority, in which accuses the litigant of criminal activities, of extortionate behavior.
This is a violation of Petitioners rights of due process and constitutional rights, as she now faces extreme prejudice, hate, inequality and duress in all aspects of her life. She is deemed a criminal, when she has not had due process in the criminal justice system. This precedence now makes it so that judges everywhere can do this same thing to essentially punish, retaliate against whistleblowers, citizen journalists and anti-corruption bloggers.
Does Petitioner, Defendant, Litigants in a Civil Case have a Human Right, Constitutional Right, and right under U.S. Code to be Considered Innocent until Proven Guilty?
Petitioner alleges that she has a constitutional right for it to be proven, as a matter of law, "beyond a reasonable doubt" that she is guilty of a crime, before Judges are allowed, by law, to state those allegations in a court ruling, a court opinion. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial. In civil litigation, the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. There was neither in the Ninth Circuit appeal of Obsidian v. Cox.
Petitioner Cox alleges that Judges must have “Clear and Convincing Proof” beyond a reasonable doubt BEFORE they are, by law allowed to state such allegations in a higher court ruling.
Cox was not on trial for crimes or civil matters involving allegations, investigations or even a cause of action regarding posting content or allegations of others online and then seeking a payoff to remove those allegations, (aKa Extortion or Blackmail).
Cox was on trial for defamation, and that this was the only cause of action.
There was no "seeking a payoff" to remove allegations, as a material factor of Obsidian v. Cox nor a factor in this case what so ever, therefore it was not a matter of record and cannot legally be brought into the Ninth Circuit proceeding, and certainly not, as a matter of law and constitutional rights, be stated in a Ninth Circuit court of appeals ruling, opinion.
Petitioner Cox alleges that her Due Process of Law, Fourteenth Amendment Rights, and her rights under the Bill of Rights, have been violated by Judges accusing her of criminal activity in rulings / opinions in civil cases of which these crimes have nothing to do with. Cox alleges this is retaliation for her exposing corruption that involves judges, and people with financial and political power.
Petitioner Cox alleges that she has a fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one's life, liberty, or property.
Yet Cox was not given notice of the crimes alleged, nor a way to present her side.
Cox was not given due process, as a matter of law and constitutional rights and Cox has thus lost her life as she knew it, her liberty and has lost personal property in this matter.
The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment asserts that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
This amendment restricts the powers of the federal government and applies only to actions by it. Petitioner Cox was not given due process, and was simply ruled guilty of criminal activities, with a New York Times article as material evidence in the matter and was thereby “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,declares,"[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (§ 1). Yet petitioner Cox was not given due process in the criminal justice system nor has Cox been adjudicated for or even under investigation for the crime of extortion, yet high court judges accused Cox of extortionate behavior in a ruling of a civil case, a defamation case, unrelated in it’s material fact, evidence and testimony to the crime of extortion and to of having “a history of making similar allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction.”, which is essentially the felony crime of blackmail, or extortion.
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has also been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in the twentieth century to incorporate protections of the Bill of Rights, so that those protections apply to the states as well as to the federal government.
Thus, the Due Process Clause serves as the means whereby the Bill of Rights has become binding on state governments as well as on the federal government.
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is intended to protect individuals such as Petitioner from arbitrary actions by state as well as federal governments, which includes the arbitrary actions of an esteemed higher court judicial panel in accusing petition and future litigants like her, of criminal activity of which was not a material factor in her case, and was simply hearsay by a traditional journalist of the institutional press, in this case a New York Time journalist, David Carr.
Due process requires that the procedures by which laws are applied must be evenhanded, and in this case there was severe prejudice and inequality and Cox has thereby suffered harm, and wishes this court to remedy this ruling to protect future anti-corruption bloggers, citizen journalists and whistle blowers such as herself.
Petitioner Cox alleges that, under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, and other human rights and civil rights laws, and constitutional amendments, that the actions of these judges deprived her of "fundamental fairness" and of Civil Rights under the Due Process Clause.
And now has the potential to do so to ALL future anti-corruption bloggers, citizen journalists and whistle blowers such as herself.
And with this gives far reaching, unconstitutional powers to the institutional press and traditional journalists to publish gossip, hearsay and allegations and have Ninth Circuit judges and judges across the land, use these traditional journalists “opinion”, “writings”, “allegations” as adjudicated facts, hard and fast evidence, and sworn testimony that gives them the right to issue opinions and rulings that flat out accuse litigants such as petitioner of criminal activity of which they have not had due process of law in regard to.
The Bill of Rights contains provisions that are central to procedural due process.
These protections give a person a number of rights and freedoms including the right to be told of the crime being charged; the right to cross-examine witnesses; the right to be represented by an attorney; freedom from Cruel and Unusual Punishment; and the right to demand that the state prove any charges Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.
Petitioner Cox was deprived of these rights, as Judges simply portrayed to the world she was guilty of criminal acts without having due process and without being told of the crime being charged; the right to cross-examine witnesses; the right to be represented by an attorney; freedom from Cruel and Unusual Punishment; and the right to demand that the state prove any charges Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.
The Decision of the Ninth Circuit to allow statement of non-adjudicated criminal accusations to be put into a ruling in a civil case, whereby the litigant has not had due process for those allegations is Clearly Incorrect.
Ninth Circuit Judges ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ erred in stating that Cox had a history of these criminal activities and erred in stating the New York Times as their evidence of fact and material facts of law.
Petitioner Cox alleges that Ninth Circuit Judges do not have a lawful, constitutional right to issue an opinion on criminal allegations in a civil case in which the criminal allegation is not a matter of record in the lower court, has not been adjudicated and is not a material factor of the case.
Petitioner Cox alleges that she was denied a legal right to due process of law in this ruling that slandered and defamed her, and painted her in false light, thereby affecting the rest of her life.
Petitioner Cox alleges that Ninth Circuit Judges ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ did not find Cox guilty of these allegations beyond a reasonable doubt nor did they adjudicate Cox, charge Cox with these allegations nor use adjudicated facts in issuing their judicial authority (opinion), (ruling).
And that it was an error to rule that Cox had a history of such criminal actions when Cox was not allowed due process and constitutional rights regarding these allegations.
Petitioner Cox alleges that Ninth Circuit Judges ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ violated her Fourteenth Amendment Rights, Bill of Rights and Due Process of Law Rights by alleging Cox committed these criminal actions of which she had not been charged by a lower court nor the criminal justice system, as a matter of law.
Petitioner Cox alleges that Ninth Circuit Judges ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ prejudiced her substantial rights, and this was not a harmless error as Cox now faces extreme hate, prejudice, slander and defamation and has a other judicial proceedings that are now prejudiced against her.
If Ninth Circuit Judges ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ believed Cox to have committed theses Criminal acts, they SHOULD go through due process of law. Judges are NOT above the law.
CONCLUSION
I Pray that this esteemed panel, this court, send a clear message to the Ninth Circuit, and essentially all Appellate Judges and all judges across our court system, that it is not ok, not ethical, not constitutional nor lawful to ad lib, make criminal allegations, introduce new case information into the appeal process, slander and defame litigants, and abuse the power of their process and esteemed role to retaliate against whistleblowers, citizen journalists, and anti-corruption bloggers in every town in the United States and essential the world.The Obsidian v. Cox, Ninth Circuit ruling is known well, worldwide and is the most prominent case to date of a blogger making a court rule on whether a blogger has rights equal to a journalist when it comes to the First Amendment, Shield Laws, Retraction Laws and Free Speech Rights.
This is a massive human rights and civil rights issue, as now all who expose corruption and break news, report on what is really happening in small towns, big cities and essential everywhere, have the same rights in the courtroom as does traditional journalists and the institutional press aKa big media.
Therefore it is imperative that this ruling does not be tainted with giving those same traditional journalists of the institutional press, super powers to have that same blogger alienated, outcast, painted in false light, prejudiced in other court proceedings, and have the world at large believe them to be a criminal and therefore not taken serious that in which they are exposing or reporting on.
This ruling that gave equality, seemed to have took it away in the very same ruling.Petition Cox has NEVER, not even once in her life, posted anything online with the intention of seeking a payment for a retraction.
Cox has NEVER asked for money to remove anything she has posted online, and yet Ninth Circuit Judges ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ are claiming, in a Ninth Circuit ruling that Cox has a “History” of doing such actions, seriously criminal, unconstitutional and unethical action.
As if Cox has a pattern and history of illegal, unethical behavior, of which there is NO History or Pattern. If these judges are allowed to put these unsubstantiated, unadjudicated, extremely biased and prejudice criminal allegations into a ruling in a civil case, then this will chill the speech of those in the future wishing to, wanting, or trying to expose corruption in their area of expertise, town, or state.
In Truth Petitioner Cox has dedicated her life, lost everything and been under extreme threats, retaliation, and extreme prejudice for nearly a decade, all because she did the right thing and stood up for others, for strangers and used her internet marketing skills to give voice to the victims of corrupt detectives, county commissioners, judges, cops, politicians, real estate companies, banks, finance companies, and victims of human trafficking, pedophilia, rape, and severe abuse.
Cox was RULED guilty of a crime of which she was not on trial for, was not adjudicated for and was not under investigation for. A crime that was NOT a material factor in Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal Cox.
It is not legal, due process, nor constitutional for these judges to have stated these false, unadjudicated allegations.
Petitioner respectfully request that the Ninth Circuit Court amend its opinion to withhold the sentence that now says, Cox apparently has a history of making similar allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction. See David Carr, When Truth Survives Free Speech , N.Y. Times, Dec. 11, 2011, at B1.
A judicial assertion of misconduct by a named person, even a judicial assertion modified with the word “apparently,” could be based on the record in a case, or on authoritative findings by another court. But it ought not be based on a newspaper column, which was written without the benefit of cross-examination, sworn testimony, or the other safeguards of the judicial process.
The claims in the columnist’s assertion are neither facts found by a fact finder nor facts subject to judicial notice under Fed. R. Evid. 201.
Adding this statement to the Obsidian v. Cox ruling dated January 17th, 2014 is Legally Flawed and Has Far-Reaching Consequences, and is thereby Warranting Review in This Case.
This issue affects all who are reporting news, all citizen journalists, all victims of corruption at every level and all whistleblowers.
If a Ninth Circuit panel can rule that any individual has committed crimes without that person having been investigated or given due process for those allegations, and use a New York Times article as evidence of those crimes, then this potentially affects every citizen in the United States and is a very important issue for all lawmakers, citizens, and the judicial process as a whole.
The Court should grant the petition. "
Source of Crystal Cox Blogger Supreme Court Filing
Crystal Cox, Free Speech Case fighting to Equal rights of bloggers, Citizen Journalists, Whistleblowers as New York Times, Forbes and other traditional, mainstream media.
