Monday, October 8, 2012

Judge Marco Hernandez Broke the Law, Violated Judicial Canons, and Denied Pro Se Defendant Blogger Crystal L. Cox Due Process. Judge Marco Hernandez, in a motion to Deny a New Trial, ended up putting Blogger Crystal Cox on Trial in the PUBLIC Eye, for a Crime she was never accused of formally in any way.

Judge Marco Hernandez Lied in his Trial Denial. 

"The judge also referred to email sent by Cox to the plaintiffs, offering services for reputation repair for $2,500 per month, which he said, along with not providing evidence according to the criteria listed in November, led him to conclude she was not a member of the media."

Source of Above Quote, Judge Marco Hernandez's Denial for a New Trial

The Infamous Extortion Alleging Email was entered into Evidence at the Closing Statement of Obsidian V. Cox. This is easily seen in the Court Transcripts linked below.

Pro Se Defendant, Blogger Crystal L. Cox was not given a chance to defend this issue nor was Crystal L. Cox brought up on charges, or a criminal complaint of any kind alleging extortion.

Judge Marco Hernandez Ruled that Pro Se Defendant, Blogger Crystal Cox was NOT Media, the day before the Obsidian Vs. Cox Trial, and hours before Crystal Cox's Deposition regarding any questions of the email.

Judge Marco Hernandez RULED that I was not Media and therefore Oregon Retraction Laws and Oregon Shield Laws DID NOT APPLY To Me, the DAY Before the Trial.

Yet, in a Denial of a Retrial, Judge Marco Hernandez says I am not Media Because I allegedly committed a Crime. And I am not media because of emails that had nothing to do with the Obsidian V. Cox Hearing where Judge Marco Hernandez Ruled I was NOT MEDIA.

None of this has anything to do with actual malice standards or whether the blog post was true or not. Or whether, as a Blogger doing what Journalists do, that I should be considered media or NOT. Even if the courts deemed me a Criminal, I would still have the rights of "Media" in online writings regarding the corruption I am alleging in the Summit Bankruptcy Proceedings.

Judge Marco Hernandez told the jury to specifically understand that I was not on Trial for a Crime, and that Obsidian Vs. Cox was NOT a Criminal Trial. 

Here are the Full Trial Transcripts of the Day of the Obsidian Vs. Cox Trial

Judge Marco Hernandez Repeatedly Denied my Request that he Admit or Deny a Conflict of Interest in the Obsidian Vs. Cox Trial. This is against the Law. Research Link on that Topic.

"How a Federal Judge Set up a Pro Se Defendant for a Crime in a Civil Trial in order to provide a smoke screen to protect Portland Oregon Judges and Attorneys, and to Protect Big Media.  

I had been asking the Courts the whole year, since the Email came up, for the Plaintiff's Attorney to stick to the facts. I was being accused of a crime, and I was not given a criminal trial. Now, a Motion to deny a new trial,  the Judge has the whole world thinking I have been proven guilty, with his accusing me of the Crime of Extortion in a Motion to Deny a New Trial in a Civil Case.

Here are a Few Highlights of the Obsidian V. Cox Case Regarding this Matter.

Also Note in the Trial Transcripts ( Click Here ) that I, Pro Se Defendant Crystal Cox claimed I was being accused of a Crime and asked for a Public Defender, Judge Hernandez said, as you see in the Trial Transcripts, "your not being accused of a crime, if you are, plead the Fifth".

Then you see at the Beginning of the Obsidian V. Cox Trial Proceedings and at the End, Judge Marco Hernandez makes sure that the Jury knows this is not a criminal trial, and that it is a civil trial. Yet in Judge Hernandez's motion to deny a new trial, he clearly accuses me of the the crime of extortion in such a way where I have no defense, no way to plead the fifth, and I was not charged with a crime. This violates my rights to Due Process. 

On Page 17, Line 15 through Line 24 of the Obsidian V. Cox Court Transcripts
Judge Marco Hernandez knew that the email was sent after the Lawsuit was filed, yet he seemed to have other motives to set me up and suppress information.

And thereby protecting the Portland Oregon Judicial System who I was Exposing in the Summit Bankruptcy Case.  Below you see the Trial Transcript where Judge Hernandez Clearly Says this is a Civil Trial.

Yet He Accuses me of a Crime in a Motion to Deny a New Trial, this was seemingly to create "Better" law for clients and agendas of Marc Randazza and to suppress Information on corruption allegations of Portland Oregon Lawyers and Judges, including David Aman, and Tonkon Torp Law Firm, whom my blog was and is EXPOSING. Yes I do believe that First Amendment Attorney, Marc Randazza worked with the Plaintiff's Attorney and Judge Marco Hernandez in wording the Motion to Deny a Trial a Certain way, each for their own Agenda.

Here is that Trial Transcript Part that the judge makes sure the Jury Know it is a Civil Trial. 

"THE COURT:  Go ahead and have a seat.

Your job as jurors is to apply the facts to the law which I will give you. This is a civil case. It's
not a criminal case. You may have seen criminal cases on television or in the movies and know that in a criminal case the prosecutor is required to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil cases are different. In civil cases the party who has to prove something only has to prove that it is more likely true than not true. "

I had stated in numerous court filings that the Plaintiff's Attorney was accusing me of a crime, and pleading with the courts to stick to the facts of the case.  I filed this, just before the Trial 

Motion to Move the Courts November 25th
there were many such motions throughout the year. I wanted to address the Extortion allegations and I was ignored on this matter.

Hearing, The Day Before Obsidian V. Cox Trial

On Page 16 Line 8, through line 25  I say this to the Courts:

"I do have one question about tomorrow, what he's allowed to bring. He's accusing me of extortion over and over and over. And if he's allowed to put in e-mails and accuse me of extortion, which is a crime, do I have any rights on that tomorrow in a criminal justice system?

THE COURT:  This isn't a criminal case.

MS. COX:  But extortion is a crime.

THE COURT: That's right. And you have the right to remain silent if you think you may be subject to criminal prosecution, which means that you don't have to testify if you don't want to, by the way. He may call you as a witness; and if you raise that as a defense in this case, then you take the Fifth Amendment, and we'll see what happens at that point.

MS. COX:  The jury -- my concern is what the jury will think with him accusing me of extortion.."

Then Fast Forward to March 27th 2012, and in a Motion to Deny a New Trial in a Civil Case, a Federal Judge accuses me of Extortion, to say that some bloggers are journalists, just not this one, because she is guilty of extortion, which I was not charged with nor on trial for.

Here is a Link to that Document, I will discuss this at length in a Future Post.

There had been many reasons the Judge Said that I, as a blogger, was not media.

However, in this final smack down, the reason became seemingly, because I was guilty of Extortion in which I was simply not guilty of. Nor was I even charged with.

Many sites have names that imply bad things of those on the Site, such as RipOffReport, and many folks offer Search Reputation Management. This is a skill set that goes right along with Investigative Blogging, it just is. And I offered this service as a cease fire, a Settlement Communication, after the Lawsuit was filed. And I have been lied about over and over in order for Big Media to keep their hold over their Alleged authority as the "Real News".

In This Denial of a New Trial Motion, Judge Hernandez seems to also be saying he addressed the Shield Law only because I did, which you can clearly see that the Plaintiff's Attorney brought it up in the Pre-Trial Hearing, and he had it in his Trial Memorandum ( Click Here for Plaintiff Trial Memorandum, Shield Law is Page 7 ). This was in order to specifically deny me the right to use Anti-Slapp laws, Retraction Laws, Shield Laws and more. ( If document is blurry, download to see)

Judge Hernandez said this in his motion to deny Blogger Crystal Cox a New Trial.

" In addition, the uncontroverted evidence at trial was that after receiving a demand to stop posting what plaintiffs believed to be false and defamatory material on several websites, including allegations that Padrick had committed tax fraud, defendant offered "PR," "search engine management," and online reputation repair services to Obsidian Finance, for a price of $2,500 per month.  Ex. 33.  The suggestion was that defendant offered to repair the very damage she caused for a small but tasteful monthly fee.  This feature, along with the absence of other media features, led me to conclude that defendant was not media.  "

"Uncontroverted" means "of which the truth or validity is not disputed".

I disputed this over and over. Also this email was taken out of context, this email was sent after a 10 Million Dollar Lawsuit was filed against me. And it was a series of emails. This was not Extortion. (Click Here )

Also I objected to Exhibit 33 and with good reason, it had NOTHING to do with the Trial or whether the Post was true or not and it had NOTHING to do with whether I was protected under the same laws as Traditional Media. If the Judge thought I was guilty of extortion, why not charge me and let me have a defense. There certainly was no Innocent Until Proven Guilty in this Set Up.

I had already pointed out the many Settlement Communications where they demanded I pay $5000 every time I mention their name, and this was after I was granted a Summary Judgement to Do So. This was not an eye catcher, but my offer to Cease Fire was?

And what does tasteful mean? I have had people tell me they pay $30,000 a month to Reputation Defender. It was not out of line, it was Win Win, in a Settlement Negotiation between me, Pro Se Defendent in my Pro Se Capacity and David Aman, the Attorney for the Opposing Council.

Judge Hernandez said, "The suggestion was that defendant offered to repair the very damage she caused for a small but tasteful monthly fee.  This feature, along with the absence of other media features, led me to conclude that defendant was not media." What? I did not suggest any such thing, and I did not cause their damage, their action did. And what does this have to do with me not being media? What?  How can a Federal Judge imply that I "Suggested" anything? That is not the facts of the case. And if Judge Marco Hernandez really believes this then why ignore the issue for the prior year every time it was brought up? Why not file charges against me, and give me a fair trial with an impartial judge.

This Motion to Deny a New Trial was to Protect Corruption and to Protect the Stronghold of Big Media."

Above was Originally Posted At the Following Link

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.