Eugene Volokh, Mayer Brown and Benjamin Souede (Angeli Law Group LLC file a Motion for a New Trial in Obsidian V. Cox, Free Speech Case out of Portland Oregon.

"Motion for New Trial in Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox
Eugene Volokh • January 5, 2012 2:08 am

Our local counsel Benjamin Souede (Angeli Law Group LLC) and I have just filed a motion for new trial in Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox.

As you may recall, the Nov. 30 opinion in that case concluded, among other things, that only members of the institutional media are entitled to certain First Amendment libel law protections.

The motion for new trial argues that the First Amendment applies equally to all who speak to the public, whether or not they belong to the institutional media. Here is Part I.A of our memorandum in support of the motion:

Even if plaintiffs were not public figures, defendant was still entitled to the protections of Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.

The Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment applies equally to the institutional press and to others who speak to the public: “We have consistently rejected the proposition that the institutional press has any constitutional privilege beyond that of other speakers.”

Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876, 905 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). In support of this holding, the Court favorably quoted five Justices’ opinions in a libel case — Dun &; Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749, 784 (1985) (Brennan, J., joined by Marshall, Blackmun, and Stevens, JJ., dissenting), and id. at 773 (White, J., concurring in judgment) — which expressly concluded that “in the context of defamation law, the rights of the institutional media are no greater and no less than those enjoyed by other individuals or organizations engaged in the same activities,” id. at 784 (a view expressly approved by Justice White, id. at 773).

And the Court in Citizens United went on to specifically mention that its “‘reject[ion]’” of any greater protection for the institutional press over other speakers stemmed partly from the realities of the Internet age: “With the advent of the Internet and the decline of print and broadcast media, moreover, the line between the media and others who wish to comment on political and social issues becomes far more blurred.” 130 S. Ct. at 905–06.

Indeed, the principle that the institutional press and others who speak to the public have the same First Amendment rights has been applied by the Court in case after case since the 1930s. See, e.g., Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 452 (1938) (stating that the freedom of the press “embraces pamphlets and leaflets” as well as “newspapers and periodicals,” and indeed “comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion”);

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 265–66 (1964) (applying the same First Amendment protection to the newspaper defendant and to the non-media defendants who placed an advertisement in the newspaper); Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964) (applying the rule of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan to a speaker who was not a member of the institutional press);

Henry v. Collins, 380 U.S. 356, 357–58 (1965) (same, where the speaker was an arrestee who conveyed statements to the sheriff and to wire services alleging that his arrest stemmed from a “diabolical plot,” Henry v. Collins, 158 So.2d 28, 31 (Miss. 1963));

First Nat’l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 782 n.18 (1978) (rejecting the “suggestion that communication by corporate members of the institutional press is entitled to greater constitutional protection than the same communication by [non-institutional-press businesses]”); Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663, 669–70 (1991) (concluding that the press gets no special immunity from laws that apply to others, including laws — such as copyright law — that target communication);

Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514, 525 & n.8 (2001) (concluding that, in deciding whether defendants could be held liable under statutes banning the redistribution of illegally intercepted telephone conversations, “we draw no distinction between the media respondents and [the non-institutional-media respondent],” and citing New York Times and First Nat’l Bank of Boston as support for that conclusion).

All the federal circuits that have considered the question have likewise held that the First Amendment defamation rules apply equally to the institutional press and to others who speak to the public. Flamm v. Am. Ass’n of Univ. Women, 201 F.3d 144, 149 (2d Cir. 2000); Avins v. White, 627 F.2d 637, 649 (3d Cir. 1980); Snyder v. Phelps, 580 F.3d 206, 219 n.13 (4th Cir. 2009), aff’d, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011); In re IBP Confidential Bus. Documents Litig., 797 F.2d 632, 642 (8th Cir. 1986); Garcia v. Bd. of Educ., 777 F.2d 1403, 1410 (10th Cir. 1985); Davis v. Schuchat, 510 F.2d 731, 734 n.3 (D.C. Cir. 1975). As the Second Circuit put it in Flamm, “a distinction drawn according to whether the defendant is a member of the media or not is untenable,” even in private-figure cases. 201 F.3d at 149.

And while the Ninth Circuit has not specifically discussed the question, it has indeed cited Gertz even where a non-institutional-press speaker was involved. See Newcombe v. Adolf Coors Co., 157 F.3d 686, 694 n.4 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing Gertz for the proposition that a “private person who is allegedly defamed” must show “that the defamation was due to the negligence of the defendant,” in a case where the defendant was not a media organization).

Moreover, the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning with regard to the First Amendment newsgatherer’s privilege is instructive for First Amendment cases more generally. In Shoen v. Shoen, 5 F.3d 1289 (9th Cir. 1993), the Ninth Circuit confronted the question whether the newsgatherer’s privilege applies only to the institutional press or also extends to book authors.

Plaintiffs argued that a person who was writing a book “has no standing to invoke the journalist’s privilege because book authors are not members of the institutionalized print or broadcast media.” Id. at 1293.

But the Ninth Circuit expressly rejected that view. It found “persuasive” “the Second Circuit’s reasoning” that “it makes no difference whether ‘[t]he intended manner of dissemination [was] by newspaper, magazine, book, public or private broadcast medium, [or] handbill’ because ‘“[t]he press in its historic connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.”’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting von Bulow v. von Bulow, 811 F.2d 136, 144 (2d Cir. 1987), which in turn quoted Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 452 (1938)).

And the Ninth Circuit concluded that “[h]ence, the critical question for deciding whether a person may invoke the journalist’s privilege is whether she is gathering news for dissemination to the public,” id., not whether she is working for the institutional media.

The same reasoning applies to the First Amendment defamation law rules, which are even more clearly secured by First Amendment precedents than are the First Amendment journalist privilege rules. See, e.g., McKevitt v. Pallasch, 339 F.3d 530, 531–32 (7th Cir. 2003) (taking the view that the Supreme Court’s First Amendment precedents do not in fact recognize a newsgatherer’s privilege).

Anyone who — like defendant — is disseminating material to the public is fully protected by the First Amendment precedents, whether or not she is a “member[] of the institutionalized print or broadcast media.”

Moreover, the Supreme Court cases cited above did not turn on whether the defendants were trained as journalists, were affiliated with news entities, engaged in fact-checking or editing, disclosed conflicts of interest, kept careful notes, promised confidentiality, went beyond just assembling others’ writings, or tried to get both sides of a story.

But see Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox, 2011 WL 5999334, *5 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2011) (concluding that the defendant was not protected by Gertz because “[d]efendant fails to bring forth any evidence suggestive of her status as a journalist,” and that, “[f]or example, there is no evidence of (1) any education in journalism; (2) any credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity; (3) proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest; (4) keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted; (5) mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources; (6) creation of an independent product rather than assembling writings and postings of others;

or (7) contacting ‘the other side’ to get both sides of a story”). The First Amendment fully protects the partisan polemicists in Citizens United v. FEC, the political activist in Bartnicki v. Vopper, the self-interested bank in First Nat’l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, the disgruntled defendant in Henry v. Collins, the elected district attorney in Garrison, the activists in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, and the Jehovah’s Witness pamphleteers in Lovell v. City of Griffin. It equally fully protects defendant.

In footnotes from a few cases from 1979 to 1990, the Court did leave open the possibility that some of its First Amendment defamation rules would only apply to the institutional press. See, e.g., Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 20 n.6 (1990). And a few other courts, including the Oregon Supreme Court, expressly held that such First Amendment defamation rules, and especially the Gertz v. Robert Welch protections, apply only to the institutional press. See, e.g., Wheeler v. Green, 593 P.2d 777, 784–85 (Or. 1979).

But while the Oregon Supreme Court’s decision establishes what Oregon state libel law is, it is the judgments of the United States Supreme Court that are controlling on the First Amendment question. The United States Supreme Court has never held that the institutional press enjoys such extra rights.

All the federal courts of appeals that have considered this question have specifically held that the institutional press lacks any such extra rights. And the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United expressly closed the door that the earlier footnotes left open, making clear that a speaker’s First Amendment rights do not turn on whether she is a member of the institutional press."

Source of Post Quote and More
http://volokh.com/2012/01/05/motion-for-new-trial-in-obsidian-finance-group-llc-v-cox/

Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal L. Cox, Investigative Blogger, Motion for New Trial

Obsidian V. Cox - New Trial Motion. Eugene Volokh, Benjamin Souede



Free Speech, Shield Laws, Retraction Laws, Bankruptcy Courts, Bloggers Rights, Tonkon Torp Law Firm, Obsidian Finance Group, David Brown, Kevin Padrick, Patty Whittington, Ewan Rose, Kevin D. Padrick, Oregon Attorney General, Judge Marco Hernandez, Oregon Civil Lawsuit, Summit 1031 Bankruptcy, US Bankruptcy Trustee. 

Stephanie DeYoung, Bankruptcy Whistleblower still Facing Harassment from Bankruptcy Attorney trying to Hide his Secrets... Bend Oregon DA in On it..

Stephanie DeYoung - Oregon's Summit 1031 Bankruptcy Whistleblower is still harassed by Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance. Kevin Padrick - Obsidian Finance Group is using your Oregon Tax dollars to Harass Stephanie DeYoung... Bankruptcy Whistleblower..

Kevin Padrick, still mad at the Transparency that Stephanie DeYoung Brings to the Summit 1031 Bankruptcy out of Bend Oregon with her blog and her tenacity to tell the Truth.. he uses the Bend Oregon District Court Attorney to pull off his school yard games of Stephanie Called my Wife... so Tell her to STOP.. and your Tax Dollars go hard to work.. though Stephanie DeYoung did NOT Call Kevin Padrick's wife... the Bend Oregon DA decides that she needs to be told not to Call her.. hmmm.. boy Bend Oregon is Sure Sounding like a Judicial Hell Hole to Me....

A bankruptcy attorney running the Bend Oregon Court Rooms ... hmmm.. That Portland Attorney Fraternity sure does have Above the Law Power... time for a Civil Lawsuit, a Defamation Lawsuit, a Harassment Lawsuit against the Deschutes County - the District Attorney, Phil Duong personally and professionally, and anyone involved in this mess that is Sounding very Corrupt to Me... anyway here is what Bend Oregon Bankruptcy Whistleblower Stephanie DeYoung has to say today..

"" Oh what a great morning!

I had a feeling something special was in store for me today. My Criminal Attorney who is defending me against the alleged crimes the Deschutes County DA's office (led by Phil Duong (Assistant DA) is charging me with because Kevin Padrick said so!

ONE - The legal recording of the presentation the US Bankruptcy Judge Dunn approved on 02/11/09 at a hearing where they Wham Bam Thank You Ma' am, DECIDED TO APPOINT A LIQUIDATING TRUSTEE IN 40 MINUTES WHEN IT WASN'T EVEN ON THE AGENDA FOR THAT DAY.

TWO - The Good Faith Legal Posting of A Legal Video by an Bankruptcy Whistleblower.

Did my attorney email me about breaking these laws?

No, not really, he told me "Stephanie, the prosecutor asked me to relay to you not to call Padrick’s wife. Definitely do not call anyone from his firm, nor their spouses."

Like how Padrick said not to CALL his wife.

I didn't call his wife, but he can just say that?

You see what happened was, someone emailed me what they thought was Kevin Padrick's facebook page, but it wasn't, it was Kevin's wife, Karen Padrick's Facebook page.

I thought back to when I was playing phone tag with Kevin to schedule this Presentation Meeting. There was ONE MOMENT where I felt Kevin might be a have a heart. It was when he greeted his wife.

This was one reason I thought he might be a decent person. When Kevin Showed His True COLORS on the BOULDER HOUSE REJECTED AND LOST 3 submissions of offer by the same buyer that would have produced $80K CASH IN THE Bank for the exchangers.

But wait, the bankruptcy plan had not been confirmed so Kevin wasn't going to get the bonus 15%. The buyer got sick of dealing with Obsidian Finance and left to seek another house to buy since there were plenty to choose from.

This house has since gone back to the bank and was sold to someone else and Kevin Padrick/Obsidian Finance lost the Summit 1031 Exchanger's $80K.

Often times I have pondered on what Mrs. Padrick must think.

Does she even know what her husband does at work? I mean how many husbands do all this stuff and don't include their spouse in the equation. If they would, we would have a much more peaceful planet.

So when I was sent Karen Padrick's Facebook page, I sent her a message. I said "Please Pray for your husband's heart". Then I added these blogs...

http://www.looktoyourheart.us/
http://www.summit1031bkjustice.com/
http://www.summit1031bankruptcy.com/

So I ask myself, by doing these blogs to VOICE the truth, I have received hate mail like you wouldn't believe. I have an 8 Page letter and 30 or so emails and comments by the same person. Our Bend Police say can't do a thing because the harasser didn't say they want to kill me. I FEEL SAFE...

So why would my simple prayer message on Karen Padrick's OPEN facebook be illegal?

All I was doing was reaching out. Wait - Kevin Padrick didn't say facebook message, he said "CALL". Why doesn't he have to provide proof of this call?

BIGGER QUESTION IS WHY IS PHIL DUONG ASSISTANT DA
KEVIN PADRICK'S WHOOPING BOY ?

I MEAN WHO THE HELL DOES HE WORK FOR?

DESCHUTES COUNTY OR KEVIN PADRICK?

Why is a little shout out to pray illegal?

The US Department of Justice, our Attorney General, the US Trustee, and the FBI scour my blogs, see all the evidence, and yet are doing nothing with regard to Kevin Padrick's actions to pad his pocketbook at the expense of 200 victims and 106 Innocent investors. He likes to take their money, their retirement, their time, their name, and anything else he can get for a Steal.

Why can Kevin Padrick get away with being the end all be all word of Ponzi Scheme, Embezzlement, and Aiding and Abbetting without any REAL documentation and support for his false and misleading statements?

Why with all the documentations, recordings, audios and loads of PUBLIC court documents do I get told to not send a prayer to Kevin Padrick's wife in hopes she can help soften his heart so he doesn't continue to harm others in the name of his riches.

Little did I know back in February 2009, that these coordinated actions of Judge Randall Dunn, Steve Hedberg, Jeanette Thomas, Annie Buell, Tom Stilley, Kevin Padrick, Susan Ford, Sussman Shank, Perkins Coie, Ms. Vivienne Popperl, Pamela Griffith, and Robert Miller (US Trustee 18th Region) was happening right in front of my eyes.

How could I have known? I had never stepped into a US Bankruptcy Hearing in my life nor did I ever expect to. What were they talking about? Hell if I know. Mostly all gibberish to me and probably 99% of you, who don't live in these courtrooms, will have a difficult time understanding it until you dig in a bit deeper.

After a year of being harangued by some powerful attorneys like David Aman of Tonkon Torp and Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance, I have gained a whole bunch of insight into the workings of the US Bankruptcy Laws and how they Simply aren't used for what their intended purpose. In fact, the parties who know this law, but have ultimate power, use it to flood their bank accounts and keep their team fed.

In the meantime, the victims and innocent parties get caught in the middle. Oh, you might be SAFE if you cower down to these menacing powers. If you don't, however, they will stop at no end to take you down!

Violate your Rights...who cares.
F* with your Life...who cares.
Bankrupt You...who cares.
Ruin Your credit...who cares.

Andrew Moore of the Bend Bulletin told me that no one will comment on record except for Kevin. I responded with, "Well what does that tell you? Everyone is scared. They don't want to be Kevin Padrick's Target. Kevin is talking because he has to protect his story. He has to create fall guys, he has to protect his $6.5 Million dollar score, and he has to keep the focus on the Summit Principals so he can get away with the money.

Well to no end will Kevin Padrick step off, in constantly preying on me and violating me he is making me stronger, faster, quicker and really more powerful - though he will never admit that. He is making me more compassionate, more willing to fight for these wrongdoings, and more poor so that I do this for no profit which makes it even more Powerful. I mean - What the hell - if I work for money, they will just take it RIGHT OR WRONG so where is the power in that illusion. Kevin Padrick - keep coming - keep coming - keep coming. You don't scare me a bit. You will just step in your own mess with all your false statements as you try to SHUT ME UP!

Robert Miller is the US Trustee http://www.justice.gov/ust/r18/p_home.htm

The US Trustee is the one responsible for monitoring the bankruptcy courts to make sure no coordinated wrongdoings go on. He has been asleep at the wheel on this bankruptcy case and it looks like the US Dept of Justice in Fort Washington, Maryland have taken an interest. If you look below, they are google searching "Stephanie Studebaker" + "Robert Miller". My name with Robert Miller’s name…weird huh, I mean who the hell am I and what do I have in common with Robert Miller?

Us Dept Of Justice (149.101.1.118)
Fort Washington, Maryland, United States

9th March 2010
07:58:49
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22stephanie

http://www.obsidianfinancesucks.com/2009/07/letter-from-stephanie-studebaker.html

9th March 2010
08:01:01
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22stephanie

http://www.obsidianfinancesucks.com/2009/07/robert-miller-more-coming-soon.html

9th March 2010
08:02:53
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22stephanie

http://www.obsidianfinancesucks.com/2009/07/robert-miller-more-coming-soon.html

9th March 2010
08:07:35
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22stephanie

http://www.obsidianfinancesucks.com/2009/07/robert-miller-more-coming-soon.html

above by Bankruptcy Whistleblower
Stephanie DeYoung...

******

So No Accountability for Kevin Padrick?

Bend Oregon DA harassing a whistleblower to protect Kevin Padrick and Obsidian Finance Group so they can keep taking in Millions of Victims money with no end in site....

the Bend Police DO nothing when Stephanie DeYoung gets Horrible - Hate Emails and Harassment... with PROOF of IT. .. and yet ALL Cry Baby Kevin Padrick has to say is.. wa wa snivel snivel Mean Ol' Stephanie Called my Wife and said.... what.. I wonder what he Lied to the DA about that Stephanie DeYoung Supposedly called and told his wife... TOO funny.. she never Called Kevin Padrick's wife... what a Baby.. talk about Junior High games... with very Adult Corruption and Life Ruining Tactics added to it.. Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance is a Very Dangerous Man... he is Ruining Lives in Bend Oregon just because He said so..

Just Imagine what Would happen if Someone had actually Called Kevin Padrick's Wife..

So the Bend DA is so Dense or So Corrupt that they would even try to prosecute someone for a Recording that she supposedly made of a hearing when she actually got the recording from the Court.. talk about Corruption in the Courts... Fraud on the Courts.. Bend Oregon Sounds like a Nasty Place ... Kevin Padrick seems to run the place... and Laws Seem to Be Irrelevant..

Above Banter by
Crystal L. Cox
Bankruptcy Commentator....

more on the Summit 1031 Bankruptcy
www.Summit1031bkJustice.com and
www.ObsidianFinanceSucks.com

Bankruptcy Corruption, Court Corruption, Oregon Corruption,