“Cox apparently has a history of making similar allegations
and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction”
Cox has not been found guilty by a court of law, had a formal investigation nor any kind of due process on extortion allegations. Therefore an esteemed, highly "reliable source" such as a 3 Judges on an Appellate Panel, should not make allegations of speculated crimes of the Defendant, especially quoting a New York Times journalist as the source of said opinion, or allegations.
I have NO ISSUE with those Speaking Critical of Me, that is your Constitutional Right.
I do not care about being personally Criticized,
I care about
Judges obeying the Law and obeying the
Constitution of the United States of Amerca.
It is one thing for a journalist and a blogger to have equal rights in reporting the news, this is important. However when corruption stories are told or "broke" by these outlets, the authorities then need to perform a formal investigation before a judicial ruling makes those same allegations, as a MATTER OF LAW and Legal Precedent.
I Don't Care Who Likes Me and Who Does Not.
I care about our Judges obeying the Law,
and Respecting our Constitutional Rights.
Speak Critical of me If You must, oh well. I need no support from the masses. This is a Spiritual mission for me. And I will not be silent as to this matter. If I am silent then all anti-corruption bloggers are easily silenced by overreaching Judicial Rulings that accuse them of bad or illegal behavior as a matter of law, in a court of law and with no judicial process, due process, in a court of law. And do so, seemingly, to cover up the very corruption in which those anti-corruption bloggers are exposing in the first place.
Crystal Cox via her attorney Eugene Volokh, UCLA Constitutional Law Profess filed a Motion to Rehear / A motion to REDACT the allegations against Cox that are hearsay and rumor maliciously reported by New York Times Journalist David Carr.
To Read this Motion; Click Belowhttps://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkib1NraEFFb1Rac2M/edit
"A judicial assertion of misconduct by a named person, even a judicial assertion modified with the word “apparently,” might 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 civil justice process. The claims in the columnist’s assertion are neither facts found by a fact finder nor facts subject to judicial notice under Fed. R. Evid. 201.
Moreover, while the New York Times article does discuss Cox’s offering her consulting services to appellees in this case, it does not make any such allegations about other cases.
There thus seems to be no “history” of seeking money claimed in the article. The “history” that the column is positing appears to be only a history of Cox’s “making similar allegations.”
The widely reprinted Reuters wire service, for instance, wrote, According to the court’s opinion, Cox has a history of making allegations of fraud and other illegal activities “and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction.”
Dan Levine, Blogger Gets Same Speech Protections as Traditional Press: U.S. Court, Reuters, Jan. 17, 2014, http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/17/us-usa-blogger-ruling-idUSBREA0G1HI20140117; see also, e.g., http://www.nbcnews.com/id/54102454/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/ (NBC News republication of the Reuters article).
Of course, some such media misstatements are inevitable. Still, they highlight the fact that, when a statement is made in a Court of Appeals opinion—with the authority such opinions possess—journalists might perceive the statement as a factual finding, and not just a report of what a newspaper column has alleged.
Judicial opinions are perceived as extraordinarily reliable sources of information.
This reliability stems from the assumption that statements in the opinion, especially statements that allege misconduct, generally rest on adjudicated facts.
Because of this, Cox respectfully requests that this particular allegation, which rests solely on a claim made in a newspaper column, be redacted from the opinion."
Link to "Motion to Rehear" Filed by Eugene Volokh;
Crystal L. Cox, Online Statement regarding and in support of the Motion to Rehear, to Clarify or Redact Courts statement, “Cox apparently has a history of making similar allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction” and the surrounding media and corruption.
This is where the proverbial rubber hits the road Folks.
Crystal Cox has NEVER alleged criminal activity without documents, interviews, court hearings, court motions, and lot's of documented evidence posted on her blogs and linking to the source of that information.
Yes, I cuss, yes I have my own style. NO I have not accused the innocent of "bad behavior" EVER. And I have never sought a pay off to retract any allegations nor will I ever.
The goal, the mission per say, is to get criminal investigations and to give a voice to the victims of corrupt attorneys, judges, commissioners, corporations and corruption as a whole, that have documents of proof. Not to accuse innocents and ask for money. That is a LIE painted out by those who wish to silence me, and discredit the stories in which I am trying to draw attention to.
If you want to believe your favorite blogger or big media newspaper, go ahead, that is your free will and constitutional right. However, if you really are a journalist, a researcher, and an Investigative Blogger then do your homework. Investigate the allegations I have posted against hundreds over the last 10 years. Investigate the entire Summit Bankruptcy case and make up your own mind. And investigate the extortion allegations, find factual evidence in all of this, DO NOT simply believe Forbes, the New York Times or in this case an overreaching Judicial Ruling that gives Equality to blogger while at the same time using a New York Times article to discredit, slander and accuse the blogger of criminal activiity.
I am asking for a retraction, as a matter of law and constitutional rights of ALL who expose corruption and are often put under extreme prejudice and duress by the very legal system they are claiming is corrupt in some way.
I allege crimes that I truly have researched and truly do believe have been committed. And I do NOT ask for a payoff to retract those allegations that I 100% believe to be true. For over 9 years now, I have studied inside tips,documents, court cases, videos, emails, hearings, and I have not alleged criminal activity that has nothing to back it up, NOT EVER.
Nor have I accused people of crimes with nothing to go on at all. And CERTAINLY I have not give my life to exposing crime in order to seek a measly $2500 a month pay off to extort or blackmail the criminal (bad guy) I am earnestly trying to expose and get justice for their victims. An email during a legal battle, sent in my Pro Se capacity as a settlement offer, is called extortion by the masses and is certainly NOT evidence against me, that is based in any kind of fact.
I have dedicated my life to this. I am penniless, live in Church housing and eat due to the generosity of the Church. I made this stand to fight for the victims of corruption and give power to the anti-corruption bloggers exposing corruption. To me this is a basic human right, a civil right and absolutely necessary in a truly Free society striving for Justice for All.
I have given to much, witnessed so much suffering. And at this point I do not intend to let the lie stand in place of the Truth, to the best of my ability.
These crimes are happening, these victims, these stories are real, and I have not simply been half hazardly alleging or accusing innocent "victims.
Asking for a Ninth Circuit Redaction is based in a Matter of Law and Constitutional Rights plain and simple. I ask this for the rights of all Citizen Journalists, Whistle Blowers, and Anti-Corruption Bloggers out there trying to expose corruption and being shut down by lawyers, judges and the judicial process as a whole.
If the Ninth Circuit Judges DENY this request for true equality as Matter of Law and Constitutional Rights, then they do. However, I have at least asked the question. And we will soon know if it is a Ninth Circuit Ruling / Judicial Opinion that the New York Times is FACT, is documented evidence that can be used against all people as a matter of LAW, with no fact checking by the Ninth Circuit as to the allegations made by a New York Times reporter.
If the Ninth Circuit Appellate court gives the New York Times this kind of power as a Matter of LAW and Constitutional Rights, then what good is this amazing ruling that levels the playing field for all Citizen Journalists, Whistle Blowers, and Anti-Corruption Bloggers, equal to that of the New York Times, Forbes, USA Today, Reuters and other high powered corporate media outlets.
If the Ninth Circuit Judges say its lawful for Federal Judges to accuse people of crimes in a Judicial Ruling, as a Matter of LAW, based on the New York Times saying so, well there you have it, then its LAW.