Hero Dictionary: Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox - Wikipedia. Reverend Crystal Cox Port Townsend Washington Landmark, First of it's Kind Free Speech Case.

  "Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox is a 2011 case from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon concerning online defamation. 

Plaintiffs Obsidian Finance Group and its co-founder Kevin Padrick sued Crystal Cox for maintaining several blogs that accused Obsidian and Padrick of corrupt and fraudulent conduct. 

The court dismissed most of Cox's blog posts as opinion, but found ONE single post to be more factual in its assertions and therefore defamatory. For that post, the court awarded the plaintiffs $2.5 million in damages. 

This case is notable for the court's ruling that Cox, as an internet blogger, was not a journalist and was thus not protected by Oregon's media shield laws,

[1] although the court later clarified that its ruling did not categorically exclude blogs from being considered media and indicated that its decision was based in part upon Cox offering to remove negative posts for a $2,500 fee.

[2] In January 2014 the Ninth Circuit Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's judgment awarding compensatory damages to the bankruptcy trustee.

[3] It also ordered a new trial on the blog post at issue.[3]

Background

Obsidian Finance Group is a financial advisory firm which was managing the bankruptcy of Summit 1031, a real estate company. Crystal Cox is a self-proclaimed "investigative blogger" who maintained the blogs obsidianfinancesucks.com, summit1031sucks.com, and bankruptcycorruption.com, amongst various others. 

On her blogs, Cox accused Obsidian and its co-founder Kevin Padrick of committing tax fraud, paying off the media and politicians, intimidating and threatening whistleblowers, and engaging in various other illegal activities in their handling of the bankruptcy. Cox repeatedly claimed that her investigations would expose Obsidian and Padrick's corruption. 

In response, Obsidian and Padrick brought suit against Cox for defamation, asserting that all of Cox's claims were false and damaging Padrick's reputation.[4][5]

Procedural History

The court initially intended to dismiss the defamation claims against Cox. To establish a defamation claim, the alleged defamatory material must be asserting a fact that can be proven true or false, as opposed to merely stating an opinion. 

The court held that even though Cox's allegations of fraud and corruption are technically assertions of fact, they appeared on obviously biased blogs and Cox made no attempt to provide supporting evidence.

The court ruled that in the context of Cox's ranting, hyperbolic blog posts, the allegations are unlikely to be taken as fact by any of her audience. As a result, the court held that Cox's right to voice her opinions was protected by the First Amendment and that her statements could not be considered defamation.[4]

However, after plaintiffs submitted additional blog posts for review, the court found one post to be more factual in tone and content than the others. 

The post delved into the details of Summit's bankruptcy filing and tax liability, and made specific accusations against Obsidian and Padrick for lying on tax filings and stealing money. The court allowed the defamation claim on this one particular post to move forward.[5]

A trial was held on November 29, 2011, and the jury ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding Obsidian and Padrick $2.5 million in damages.[6][7]

Opinion of the Court

After the trial, on November 30, 2011, the court issued an opinion clarifying some of its pre-trial oral rulings.[6]

Oregon's shield and retraction statutes

Cox had claimed that her allegations against Obsidian and Padrick were based on evidence from a secret source, and she refused to name her source citing media shield protection.[1] Under Oregon's media shield laws, any person involved with a "medium of communication to the public" did not have to reveal the source of their information, where "medium of communication" is defined as "including but not limited to" a list of traditional modes of media such as newspapers, magazines, television, and so on.[8] 

The court did not specifically decline to interpret the statutes to include bloggers as "media", rather holding that based on the facts of the case, Cox was not affiliated with any of the enumerated mediums, had no indicia of reliability as a journalist, and thus she did not qualify for the media shield laws.[6]

Additionally, the court held that even if Cox could be considered "media", she would still not qualify. Oregon's media shield does not apply in a civil defamation lawsuit, where the defendant has asserted "a defense based on the[...] source of allegedly defamatory information."[6][8]

Cox also tried to assert immunity under Oregon's retraction statutes, which state that general damages for defamation could only be awarded if the plaintiffs had sought a retraction, which Padrick had not. 

The court again held that Cox did not qualify because her blogs and practices did not fall under any of the traditional modes of media specifically enumerated in the statute.[6][9]

First Amendment issues

Cox asserted that because the plaintiffs are public figures and because she blogged about a matter of public concern, First Amendment protections are triggered. As a result, to prove defamation, actual malice on Cox's part must be shown. "Actual malice" would require that Cox had knowledge of the truth and knowingly disregarded the facts, instead of simply making a false assertion of facts on her blog. Ultimately, the court held that neither Obsidian or Padrick were public figures, stating that the Summit 1031 bankruptcy Cox blogged on was neither controversial nor newsworthy, and Cox was the only person trying to publicize the issue. As a result, actual malice did not need to be proven by the plaintiffs.[6]

Media Protections to Defamation

Cox also asserted that even if the plaintiffs weren't public figures, in order for the plaintiffs to claim damages, they must prove actual malice because she is a "media" outlet. Here, the court again held that Cox did not qualify as "media". In its reasoning, the court cited her lack of a journalism degree, lack of affiliation with traditional media outlets, lack of adherence to journalistic standards such as fact-checking and fair coverage, and the absence of Cox writing any original material rather than assembling the works of others. As such, the plaintiffs could seek damages without any further evidence of actual malice.[6]

Reactions and status after district court ruling

The holdings in this case re-ignited a public discussion over whether bloggers should be considered journalists and entitled to the same protections.[10] Cox suggested that this case "should matter to everyone who writes on the Internet" and that if she "[doesn't] win [her] appeal, we all lose".[1][11] Padrick responded by saying that "the concept of media [would be] rendered worthless [...] if anyone can self-proclaim themselves to be media". 

Padrick also pointed out the real damage done to his reputation and business by Cox, and stated his belief that he would have won the case even if Cox had been considered  "media".[11][12][13] 

Cox's motion for a new trial was denied. Currently, Cox is seeking to appeal the judgment, citing First Amendment grounds. Obsidian has filed a motion to seize and sell Cox's right to appeal to help satisfy its $2.5 million judgment, on the grounds that Cox's appeal right is intangible personal property subject to seizure. Cox is attempting to block the seizure to proceed with the appeal.[15][16][17]

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling

After granting Cox motion for appeal a unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court issued its judgement in Obsidian Finance Group LLC and Kevin Padrick vs. Crystal Cox (2014) on January 17, 2014.[3]

Judgement summary and First Amendment defamation impact

Judgement summary

A court summary produced by court staff summarized the Ninth Circuit ruling as follows:

The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's judgment awarding compensatory damages to a bankruptcy trustee on a defamation claim against an Internet blogger. The panel extended the principle held in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 350 (1974), that the First Amendment required only a "negligence standard for private defamation actions", is not limited to cases with institutional media defendants. The panel further held that the blog post at issue addressed a matter of public concern, and the district court should have instructed the jury that it could not find the blogger liable for defamation unless it found that she acted negligently. The panel held that the bankruptcy trustee did not become a "public official" simply by virtue of court appointment, or by receiving compensation from the court. The panel remanded for a new trial on the blog post at issue, and affirmed the district court's summary judgment on the other blog posts that were deemed constitutionally protected opinions.[3]

First Amendment defamation impact

The issue whether First Amendment defamation rules apply equally to both the institutional press and individual speakers has never been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.[3] 

But every United States appeals court which addressed this issue concluded[18][19][20][21][22][23][3] that the First Amendment defamation rules in Sullivan (1964) and its progeny case Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) apply equally to the institutional press and individual speakers.[3][24] The Ninth Circuit followed this trend with its January 2014 ruling by holding that a blogger is entitled to the same free speech protections as a traditional journalist and cannot be liable for defamation unless he acted negligently.[25] The court essentially said journalists and bloggers are one and the same when it comes to the First Amendment.[26] 

The court ruling is also a novelty because for the first time [27][28] an appeals court ruled that a blogger is entitled to the same free speech protections as a traditional journalist and cannot be liable for defamation unless the blogger acted negligently.[25]

The three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled[3] ruled that liability for a defamatory blog post involving a matter of public concern cannot be imposed without proof of fault and actual damages.[25] Bloggers saying libelous things about private citizens concerning public matters can only be sued if they're negligent i.e. the plaintiff must prove the defendants negligence – the same standard that applies when news media are sued. 

The federal appellate court thus essentially said that journalists and bloggers are one and the same when it comes to the First Amendment[26] and, in the words of Eugene Volokh, a professor at the UCLA School of Law, that nonprofessional press, especially bloggers, "for First Amendment purposes, have the same rights as others do, as for example the institutional media does."[24]

The unanimous three-judge panel rejected the argument that the negligence standard established for private defamation actions by the U.S. Supreme Court in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. only applied to "the institutional press."[24] "The Gertz court did not expressly limit its holding to the defamation of institutional media defendants," Judge Andrew Hurwitz wrote for the three-judge panel. "And, although the Supreme Court has never directly held that the Gertz rule applies beyond the institutional press, it has repeatedly refused in non-defamation contexts to accord greater First Amendment protection to the institutional media than to other speakers."[24] 

Hurwitz wrote: "The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond just assembling others' writings or tried to get both sides of a story. … In defamation cases, the public-figure status of a plaintiff and the public importance of the statement at issue -- not the identity of the speaker -- provide the First Amendment touchstones."[29]

Source and Full Document with Lots of Links

https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox

More FOI from the Michael Allman Case. Today we See an Email from November 29th, 2021 whereby Port Townsend City Attorney Heidi Greenwood eMails Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney Chris Ashcraft

 And Notifies him of the Crimes Committed in the Allmain Case. She forwarded my eMail with the Chronology of Events showing what a Local Non-Profit and members of the Jefferson County Government and Law Enforcement Really Did. 

Prosecutor Ashcraft says it is Fiction. If So then I Say, I should be Arrested for all manner of Fraud and Forgery. 

The Michael Allmain Case Chronology I compiled from FOI Emails, Personal Experience and Testimony, Court Transcripts, Court Filings, News Outlets, and more, has Real Crimes Throughout. 

We see from the beginning Deputies lying to Michael Allmain, false impound notice, tons of calls from the public to harass Michael, not following law or protocol, we see Officer Wendy Davis setting up Michael Allmain, we see members of the public stalking and harassing Michael, we see prosecuting attorney Julie St. Marie working with Sara Penhallegon of Center Valley Animal Rescue to steal a homeless man's dog (private property), premeditated. I have shown the premeditation through Facebook Threads.

We see City Attorney Heidi Greenwood, Prosecuting Attorney James Kennedy, Attorney Adam Karp, Sara Penhallegon of Center Valley Animal Rescue, and Officer Wendy Davis acknowledging that a Jefferson County Judge, Judge Mindy Walker ORDERED, via a Legal Document a Judicial Court Order to return Michael Allmain’s property to him (his dog Moses) and this bunch defied a court order.

Prosecuting Attorney Chris Ashcraft knew, and if not at the time then he knew through the email linked below forwarded to him by the City Attorney. It was all right there in my years worth of evidence he summed up in one sentence to City Attorney Heidi Greenwood. 

“Thanks. We knew this was out there. If people saw the pictures they would immediately see this is all fiction.”

Over a 100 pages of evidence of what Law Enforcement, his prosecuting attorneys, the public, and a local non-profit did and it's all cool cuz ya look at the pictures?  Which ones? The ones after a man had an accident with a dog? Or the chronic skin condition?

Prosecuting Attorney Chris Ashcraft did not even look at the Evidence. 

It was proven at trial that Michael Allmain’s dog Moses had a condition that was not able to be cured. It is all right there in the video and text trial transcript.

All the People, Government Agencies and Police involved spent years and well over a hundred thousand dollars, over 60k on legal expenses alone. They could have helped the Dog and kept the dog with his owner. They broke all kinds of laws and ethics violations. I emailed them all last November a Chronology of Events with a whole lot of proof that laws were broken at every level. 

They should have charged those involved, and cared about the laws and protocol violations, instead they simply discounted me. I am the Lady of The Untruth, and all that FOI, those emails, and documents of Evidence were “Fiction” says Chris Ashcraft Prosecuting Attorney Jefferson County Washington, all you have to do to know that those hundreds of pages of evidence are Fiction is look at the picture, presumably of the dog, but when?

Folks these guys are VERY corrupt, and ya it may be some dog, maybe you believe the dog needed to be taken and the man needed criminal charges and huge fines, however, it is clear from this chronology, these emails, the court transcripts, the long list of evidence that these guys got the prosecution they want through nefarious and illegal means, they DEFIED a Court Order and mocked the Judge for issuing it, and in no way did they get that dog or that prosecution by following the law, and it is clear they are above the law. This is How they Do it, and not just to “this guy”, whether you like or believe him or not.  They do it to Whoever they want for whatever reason they want. 

City Attorney Heidi Greenwood forwarded this email to Prosecuting Attorney Chris Ashcraft, he says that my Chronology is Fiction all you have to do is look at the pictures.  Yes, See I made up emails from Officers, I made up the impound Notice, and WOW I completely Forged a Judicial Order to Return Moses to Michael, All Fiction, if so I certainly should be in Jail. Right? I made up a Judge Order? I faked all those officer emails, prosecuting attorney emails? If all Fiction, Why Am I not in Jail Chris Ashcraft?  You may want to look into some criminal charges for me, maybe forgery or falsifying legal documents, emails and court orders. 

Yes photos of a Wolf Dog with a chronic skin condition.  A list with FOI evidence, trial transcripts, court orders NOT followed, and Jefferson County Prosecutor Ashcraft sums it all up with one word “Fiction”.

Anyway, Here is the eMail Response from Prosecuting Attorney Chris Ashcraft to Port Townsend City Attorney Heidi Greenwood regarding my Timeline Evidence of Crimes that Really Happened. 

They Do not CARE about the Law Folks.  To them it is all about their own Emotions, who they like, who they value, who is worth persecuting and prosecuting and who is worth turning the other way. The Michael Allmain Case Chronology is CLEAR, Laws were broken, if that’s all Good to ya, then you or someone you do care about is next.

Click Below to Read the “Fiction” email from Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney Chris Ashcraft. 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Hvp-7eg6vvFwNl7VyQKyAUdBQI0LKP1-/view?usp=sharing

To Read the Full Michael Allmain Case Chronology Click Below

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Dt44DsV3Tp9Gg3Sx34rEHuHCJAyOIHBABloddPlnzY8/edit?usp=sharing

Brighid Grahan of Port Townsend. Laurie McClave Port Townsend. Discussion of 2 Not So Great People In Port Townsend.

  Laurie McClave Port Townsend:  Apparently 2 not so great people in our town were lying to Fox News? Wonder what the motive of these at least 2 not so great people could be? Perhaps Personal Boundaries, Consent, Truth?  Who decides what is Disgusting, what is Bigotry, are both in the Eye's and Ears of the Beholder. Why is it ok to Hate Us? Who the hateful people are is pretty obvious if one uses logic.

Definition of Bigotry: "obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction; in particular, prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group." hmmm is it obstinate or unreasonable to want control over your own body, want equality from your town council, want fairness and dignity for an elder in our community. I think to ANY Clear Minded, Free Thinking Sovereign Individual it is easy to see who is being violently obstinate, and violently unreasonable.

One's personal truth and personal experience being called "Lies" is the epitome of Gaslighting.

The attention on Port Townsend is perhaps yes possible for Bigotry however it is not the two "not so great" people that are behaving as Bigots.

Careful Folks Brighid Grahan of Port Townsend seems to think it is bigotry and somehow mysteriously nefarious to have a landlord/tenant relationship, I guess we are all in a lot of "trouble" Wow right, off the charts for irrational behavior. Oh and those 2 not so great, landlord tenant people, well apparently they staged the whole YMCA freak out, call the police, ban an Elder Party.  

They staged how the YMCA reacted, and the exact moment a YMCA employee was not following the rule of three and startled an Elder and a scene blew up, these not so great people staged it all.  Ya know so they could get "famous" on "Tucker".  There is no Rational Words coming from this Hate Group. Makes No Sense Whatsoever

Amy Sousa at Port Townsend City Council September 19th, 2022. TRANSCRIPT OF Amy E. Sousa CITY COUNCIL SPEECH. Mayor David Fabor, Councilwoman Libby Wennstrom.

 "My name is Amy Sousa, I’m here because I am deeply concerned for this community. I’m concerned about the treatment that women/girls are being given by those on city leadership, and I am concerned for the community as a whole when the lack of respect given to women, specifically rape survivors is not only condoned, but applauded by those holding positions of power.

People on this city council have accused me of being hateful, a bigot, and a TERF, a slur which is associated with hundreds of thousands of some of the most graphic threats of violence against women. This slur was used both by mayor David Faber and by council member Libby Winstrom.

In the hierarchy of debate, the highest course is to refute the other person’s central point, next lower is to find a mistake in the other person’s argument, next presenting counterarguement, then contradiction, then responding to tone, going down to ad hominem and then finally the lowest possible response in a debate is name calling. This is apparently the level of debate that the leaders of the community hold themselves to.

In all the name calling I have received no one has made an attempt to grapple with my central point, which I will repeat for you now again in the hopes that we can have an actual conversation. The issue that I am pointing to is one of sexism. I observe that safeguarding necessitates that women/girls have protections on the basis of our sex, and boundaries around our bodies, the right of consent, privacy, safety & dignity. I refuse to deny the embodied sex based differences of men & women and I uphold that to deny these differences is SEXIST.

On August 15 I organized a press conference in order to speak to the physical needs of women/girls as a sex class. A mere 35 women gathered to listen to one another speak, and we were met with an angry mob of protesters who backed us into a brick wall, bullied us, harassed us, and silenced us. The leadership of this community has been not just dismissive about the violence women were subjected to on August 15, but have even applauded it publicly. Is there a greater tragedy(irony?) then to have women who are speaking out about our need for privacy, safety and dignity, to have our dignity and safety trampled on by angry men who refuse to let women speak. This is regressive.

The recent proclamation called for by this council asked members of the community to be respectful, welcoming, and kind to everyone regardless of gender identity, I have never done otherwise. I can be respectful, welcoming, and kind to everyone and still ask for boundaries around my body and the needs of my physical sex respected.

Being a woman is not "who" I am by identity, it is WHAT I am physically experiencing. I do not claim boundaries for myself on the basis of my identity, but on the basis of my sex. I do not object to men in my spaces on the basis of their identity, but on the basis of their SEX.

Sex denialism is SEXISM. Denying women/girls provisions for our sex is sex based discrimination. This is a conversation I am planning to continue to have with all of you seated here today as well as with the wider community. Women/girls demand to center the needs of our bodies and we demand for these needs to be taken seriously politically."

~ Amy Sousa, Port Townsend

Stand for Decency Rally September 3rd 2022 Port Townsend Washington Eric Rohdes of Washington III% You Call Us Nazis. You Call Us White Supremacists. Video Compilation.

Prayer for Port Townsend Video I did February of 2022 regarding Organics, Healing, Psychics, GMO, Hippies and the Jab. "Reverend Crystal Cox Prayer for Port Townsend."

Piper Corbett of Propolis Port Townsend is the Queen of what is "Unacceptable" in our her Town. Piper Corbett and her Hate Group are the only ones who should be allowed to instill fear or have concerns. Arianna Patterson likens us to the KKK.

 a Comment from the City of Port Townsend Announcement about the Stand for Decency Rally on September 3rd 2022 by Robert Zerfing of Common Sense Conservative, one of us attacked at the Julie Jaman Press Conference as the City of Port Townsend incited the Violence, Condoned and Praised it. 

Piper Corbett Says the City of Port Townsend should not be advised of "potential violence". So Funny, our Group was NOT Violent.  The Group, I mean Lynch Mob that Piper was with on August 15th 2022 at the Julie Jaman Press Conference was Violent. It was and is the City of Port Townsend itself and those Governing Port Townsend (ya know the Ruling Class and their Hate Gang) that were the Violent Party. Yet they warned that we were coming back to town with protection so we could actually speak, and that was violent to them. 

Propolis Piper Corbett says there is no place to allow a hate group. However, there was plenty of room for a 400 member Hate Group to attack us in a 20-30 person group of mostly elders, of which Piper was part of.  The Hate Is Obvious, so why do so many believe that Hate is Love and Support? Must be something in the water that the Port Townsend Prominent People are Drinking. 

Piper says our Permit should be Revoked, see only Piper and her Hate Group are allowed, they were not even permitted, and yet mobbed us and that is all Legit.

Piper does not want people to "feel" "fear". First of all if they "feel" fear it is because of Flat Out Lies of who the Bad Guys were/are and secondly, it is fine if we feel terror and fear, if we are traumatized and bullied, injured and oppressed and they gaslight us after, no problem. See we are not human, we have no fear or feelings unless we believe the exact same as the Port Townsend Hate Group that Lynched us and continues to daily. 

It is pretty outrageous what is "acceptable" and what is "unacceptable" to Piper Corbett of Port Townsend. 

I agree, however, the City should NOT have Put us in this Position but non the less the City of Port Townsend did, along with the incited hate from the Olympic Peninsula YMCA, Olympic Pride, and the raging rabid Port Townsend Straight Liberals who attacked us, and continue to bully, invalidate, gaslight, and incite violence against us daily online. 

Arianna Patterson likens us to the KKK.  WoW right?  

They attack us we come back to stand up for ourselves and we are the KKK. They are the Hateful People, Clear and Obvious, yet we are painted out at the violent party, the KKK?  

Twisted Indeed.