Keep in mind Proskauer Rose, a HUGE New York based Law Firm was the patent attorney for iViewit and involved in the iViewit technology theft.
Then Attorney Andrew Cuomo put former Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye in charge of what I say covering up domestic violence for then Governor Paterson. You decide, this New York Times article I had saved when it all happened.
Funny Investigate a sitting Governor then become governor. Check out this article and think for yourself.
" More than 9 years ago Peter Halle a powerful and wealthy retired Washington attorney and his wife Carolyn Lamm, a former President of the American Bar Association (2009-2010), began stonewalling the disbursement of Jason Halle’s inheritance. They were well aware of Jason’s HIV+ status, his multiple heart attacks and his many bouts of three different types of cancer.
As attorneys licensed to practice in Florida, they knew that according to the four corners of the Edward Halle Trust document, Peter Halle was violating at least a dozen Florida laws and committing alleged felonies including Grand Theft and Perjury which are being investigated.
Judge French of the Palm Beach Probate court ruled against the qualified beneficiary that had never been challenged and he ruled in favor of Peter Halle from Washington, DC, who is part of the judicial establishment and has deep pockets.
Judge French stated in court that the Trust document was not important and that the Trustee (Peter Halle) could do whatever he wanted with the Trust.
Judge French then awarded the ten attorneys that had lied to him about material facts that influenced his decision and awarded $183,811.48 in legal fees to the predator attorneys at Richman Greer.
It was OUTRAGEOUS!
As a result of the malicious actions of his brother and his sister-in-law Jason has already lost his home. His father had left him money with the wish that he would be able to stay in his home as long as possible and so that he could have sufficient funds to obtain good medical treatment and a high quality of life including stress free living while he was battling so many life threatening condition as a senior citizen.
Jason continues to seek justice from the Florida Courts.
Most recently he filed a personal injury suit against Peter Halle, Carolyn Lamm, Charles H. Johnson, John G. White III, Michael J. Napoleone and the Richman Greer Professional Association in the Broward County Civil Court to recover damages for the harm and financial ruin they have caused him.
The defendants gave the Court false information to get the case dismissed. Judge Michael Gates dismissed the case after the predator attorneys involved committed alleged perjury which is being investigated. "
How to Side Step that Pesky First Amendment by using an Unconstitutional TRO, inspired by my former Unconstitutional, First Amendment Attorney Marc J. Randazza, Attorney Ronald Green and the Randazza Legal Group Law Firm.
Detailed Step By Step How To Coming Soon
Check out the Court Ruling Below whereby Randazza successfully WON is argument that A TRO is Unconstitutional.
"No. 3D12-3189 Lower Tribunal No. 11-17842,
Irina Chevaldina, Appellant,
vs.
R.K./FL Management, Inc., et al.,Appellee"
Absolutely Unconstitutional TRO Motion filed by my former attorney Marc Randazza. He was successful in using this Unconstitutional TRO to steal my intellectual property, my work product, my search engine placement, my online content, and flat out steal blogs and domain names with NO First Amendment Adjudication whatsoever
Also Check Out links below for Tips and Trick to use the Power of the Courts to your Benefit. No worry about those bad reviews or Gripe Sites, just get a TRO and WaLa you OWN the Constitutional Rights and Property of anyone you please.
"First Amendment Attorney Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group SAYS that Preliminary Injunctions are unconstitutional, they are unlawful prior restraint, they are "patently unconstitutional", they are clearly an "unconstitutional remedy". Especially if there was no prior First Amendment Adjudication." http://unethicalscumattorney.blogspot.com/2017/10/first-amendment-attorney-marc-randazza.html
"Pro Se Litigant Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox Pokes a BIT of FUN at the OUTBREAK of Preliminary Injunctions, Sweeping Rapidly, Seemingly Out of Control, through the District of Nevada, yet Granny Goose Alleges these RULINGS are an "extraordinary remedy". Crystal Cox Calls BULLSHIT. ViaView , Inc. Plaintiff v. BLUE MIST MEDIA; ERIC S. CHANSON; KEVIN C. BOLLAERT; CODY ALVIAR; ROY E. CHANSON; and AMY L. CHANSON ~ Randazza V. Cox, Who Will be NEXT?" http://unethicalscumattorney.blogspot.com/2017/10/pro-se-litigant-investigative-blogger.html
First Amendment Attorney Marc J. Randazza SUES blogger Crystal L. Cox to Suppress her Speech. 5 years later wants her to pay his legal fees for his Unconstitutional Retaliatory Lawsuit against her. $350,000 to SUE a Blogger over a $10 Domain Name that Trademark Attorney, Domain Name, First Amendment Expert Marc Randazza was to damn dumb to buy. WOW. Check out these BILLS folks. All to suppress the speech of someone speaking critical of big baby Marc Randazza. http://unconstitutionalattorney.blogspot.com/2017/10/first-amendment-attorney-marc-j.html
Much more Details Coming soon, so that you to Can use the Power and Privilege of our Court System to get a TRO against your enemy speaking critical of you and not have to concern yourself with the First Amendment or any kind of actual factual due process.
"A year ago, the chief judge booted the cases ofcontroversial guardian Elizabeth “Betsy” Savittout of the South County Courthouse over apparent concerns about favoritism and conflict of interest involving her husband, a judge, after an investigation by The Palm Beach Post.
This month, out of the public’s view, Savitt lobbied the chief judge to allow her to move her cases back to Delray Beach, saying her wards would save money if she and her lawyer didn’t have to drive to Palm Beach Gardens, where the cases are now.
She asked that her guardianships be in front of Judge Howard Coates, who recently ruled in her favor.
Coates blocked efforts to remove her as a guardian in a case where her ward’s former lawyers have alleged that $400,000 of the ward’s assets are missing.
Coates, a former Wellington councilman, recently was transferred to the South County Courthouse.
She made the request to Chief Judge Jeffrey Colbath in a Jan. 18 letter from her attorney, Ellen Morris, that was obtained by The Post.
After inquiries by the newspaper, Colbath on Tuesday wrote to Savitt’s attorney to say her current six guardianship cases will remain in the North County Courthouse in Palm Beach Gardens. However, he said Savitt would be allowed to have new cases, appointed at random, in the south courthouse.
The Post reported that thanks to Savitt’s job as a professional guardian, the life savings of incapacitated seniors flowed into the household of her husband, former Circuit Judge Martin Colin, who sat in the Probate & Guardianship Division in south county.
Savitt took thousands of dollars in fees prior to a judge’s approval and families complained she manufactured legal work to increase her fees, among other criticisms.
They said the judge’s wife appeared to be bulletproof.
Savitt worked most of her cases in the same courthouse where Colin was a powerful judge. Though she didn’t appear in front of her husband, most of her cases were in front of a family friend: Circuit Judge David French. It was French who routinely dismissed concerns about her work from families of her wards.
Savitt’s guardianship attorneys appeared in front of Colin in other cases and he approved their fees.
After The Post’s investigation, the chief judge acted quickly. He transferred Colin out of south county and out of the Probate & Guardianship Division.
Colbath required the judges in south county to recuse themselves from Savitt’s cases and he moved her cases north. Colin announced his retirement and did not seek reelection in November.
Then in October,Colbath announced sweeping changes to the county’s guardianship system, addressing many of the complaints that families had about Savitt — including taking so-called “retainer” fees.
This month, after French was transferred to the Civil Division in West Palm Beach, Savitt’s attorney sent her letter to Colbath asking that the six guardianship cases be sent back to south county and be consolidated in front of Judge Coates.
Coates had presided over Savitt’s cases in north county before replacing French in Delray Beach.
In December, Coates said he would dismiss a motion with prejudice to remove Savitt as guardian for Frances Berkowitz.
The former attorneys said they wanted Coates to allow the case to go forward so they could get bank statements and other evidence in discovery.
Donna Solomon Greenspan, one of Berkowitz’ former attorneys, asked Coates point-blank why there appeared to be many roadblocks.
“We wanted to protect our client and we put our client in the hands of the court, saying please give her a guardian who would protect her,” she said. “But this client — who we had been working with for years — was put in the hands of Betsy Savitt.”
Solomon told The Post that the chief judge did the right thing by denying the request to transfer the six cases back to south county.
“Cases are not transferred based on an ex parte letter from an attorney,” she said. “Transfers should be requested by proper motion, under the rules, with notice and the opportunity to be heard.”
Berkowitz died on Dec. 31. Her probate case initially was assigned early this month to south county, but the Palm Beach County Clerk and Comptroller’s Office transferred it to Palm Beach Gardens last week.
Attorneys representing two men who have fought Savitt in guardianships said they, too, are concerned that the professional guardian attempted to go outside a courtroom to get the cases moved back to Delray Beach in front of Coates.
West Palm Beach attorney Valentin Rodriguez is not involved in any cases involving Savitt, but as a criminal and civil litigator, he says there are only a few situations where ex parte communications are appropriate. He said if the issue is general rather than case-specific, it is often more acceptable — especially if the other attorneys in the case were notified.
“Generally speaking, the one rule of thumb is that lawyers from either side never discuss ongoing litigation with the judge assigned to the case without it being done in the presence of the other lawyer,” Rodriguez said. “Justice is blind, and sees only the truth, but when one side gets the ear of the judge in the case, then that notion of justice withers away.”
Morris said in her letter that she already had spoken on the phone with the offices of Colbath and Circuit Judge Rosemarie Scher, who is currently assigned the six cases. Morris’ letter said that the chief judge’s office told her to put her request in a letter and also said that Coates had agreed to take back the cases.
“Fundamental and basic rights for litigants in the American legal system consists of notice and the opportunity to be heard,” attorney William J. Maguire wrote Colbath on Jan. 20. He represents a Boca Raton man who has steadfastly opposed Savitt in a guardianship for a stroke victim.
Attorney Thomas Dougherty said his client, who opposes Savitt’s actions in the guardianship of Albert Vassallo Sr., doesn’t feel the issues in south county are resolved in regard to the professional guardian.
“Savitt created the circumstances that required the cases to go to north county,” Dougherty said. “The move back to south county could be considered judge shopping.”
Morris said there was no ex parte communication or judge-shopping because all of the lawyers were copied on her letter to the chief judge.
“Just trying to reduce fees for going to north county by returning to original courthouse I was assigned to,” she wrote in an email response.
Neither Judge Colbath nor Coates responded to requests for comment for this story.
Savitt hasn’t received an appointment to a new guardianship since The Post’s investigation was published in January 2016. But she may get new cases as one of about 30 professionals who are now part of a new assignment wheel, a random method of assigning cases, established by Colbath to eliminate any appearance of favoritism. Judges who appoint a professional guardian must now rely on the wheel to make their choice.
Morris, representing Savitt, argued to Colbath that the cases should move to Coates because of additional time it takes for her and Savitt to travel to the North County Courthouse — time that translates into fees charged to the senior.
Maguire rejected this notion in his own letter to Colbath on Jan. 20. He represents Daniel Schmidt, who litigated for months to force the resignation of Savitt as guardian for stroke victim Carla Simmonds. Schmidt is now Simmonds’ guardian and is fighting Savitt’s fee requests in court.
His lawyer told Colbath that Savitt and Morris could have saved Simmonds thousands of dollars in fees by resigning but instead chose to vigorously litigate with Schmidt for months.
“Now Ms. Savitt and her counsel request ex parte relief to transfer the guardianship to a single judge, ignoring the court’s administrative orders regarding judicial assignments and rotations,” Maguire said.
“All of which ostensibly are in place to avoid the appearance of favoritism, forum shopping, etc.”Source
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
Linda W. BOTTA, Bethany B. BOYD, Nancy D. COLACHICCO, Appellants,
Vs.
CIKLIN, LUBITZ & O’CONNELL, a Partnership of Professional
Associations, and BRIAN M. O’CONNELL, ESQ., individually,
Appellees.
No. 4D17-379
July 26, 2017
Appeal of non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth
Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Carlos A. Rodriguez, Judge; L.T. Case
No. CACE15019284AXXXCE.
Michael C. Sasso and Michael A. Sasso of Sasso & Sasso, Winter Park,
for appellants.
Brian M. O’Connell, Ashley Crispin Ackal, and Zachary Rothman of Ciklin Lubitz & O’Connell, West Palm Beach, for appellees.
"The appellant daughters appeal from the circuit court’s order denying
their amended motion to transfer the underlying actions from Broward
County to Seminole County based on forum non conveniens. The
daughters argue the court erred because their evidence showed that Broward County was not a convenient forum while Seminole County was
the most convenient forum. We agree with the daughters’ argument. We
reverse and remand for transfer of all pending actions to Seminole County."
"The law firm, as the drafter of the 2002 POA, filed an action in Broward County seeking a declaratory judgment that the 2002 POA was valid as “freely and voluntarily executed” by the mother, with “the requisite
capacity” and “free from duress, coercion and undue influence.” The law
firm named all three daughters as defendants.
The law firm alleged that daughter Botta resided in Connecticut, daughter Boyd resided in Broward
County, and daughter Colachicco resided in Seminole County.
The law firm alleged that it named all three daughters as defendants to the action based on their “antagonistic and adverse interests.”
"However, by the time the law firm filed its lawsuit, the three daughters
had resolved their differences. Daughters Botta and Boyd then filed a malpractice counterclaim/third-party complaint against the law firm and the attorney who drafted the POAs. Botta and Boyd claimed to be intended third party beneficiaries of the law firm’s and the attorney’s services for their mother. According to Botta and Boyd, but for the law firm’s and the attorney’s drafting of the 2002 POA, they would have withheld their consent to certain expenditures if they retained the “veto” power of the 2000 POA, and the removal of the “veto” power in the 2002 POA was the proximate cause of losses to them.
The three daughters also united to file an amended motion to transfer
venue from Broward County to Seminole County. In their motion and
affidavits, they alleged the following. Daughters Boyd and Colachicco
reside in Seminole County, more than 200 miles from Broward County.
Daughter Botta resides in Brevard County, more than 135 miles from
Broward County. Round trip travel for all three daughters would require
several hours and would be extremely inconvenient. The mother resided
in Seminole County when she executed the 2002 POA. The mother’s
affairs were managed in Seminole County until she died. The mother’s
estate was in probate in Seminole County. Any property being probated
was in Seminole County. No connection existed to Broward County."
"As for daughters Botta’s and Boyd’s malpractice action against the law firm and the attorney, the daughters argued that action accrued not where the legal services were provided in Palm Beach County,"
Brian O'Connell is one of a Gang of Co-Conspirating attorneys and Judges who put families against each other for their own financial gain, as far as I see it, because I can READ.
Brian O'Connell and Ashley Crispin have a CLEAR Pattern and History and I believe a civil and criminal RICO and Racketeering Complaint will be NEXT up and include the whole GANG.
eMail me any tip you have about the law "practices" of Brian O'Connell
and / or Ashley Crispin of CIKLIN, LUBITZ & O’CONNELL ReverendCrystalCox@gMail.com
South Florida Probate Court, 4th D.C.A, Florida Guardianship, Ted Bernstein, Attorney Alan Rose, Judge Marin Colin, Judge John Philips, Florida Corruption, Florida Predatory Guardianship,
"Florida Judge Sued for Marital Alienation by Forlorn Wife
Elizabeth Cunningham lives just 25 minutes from her husband David Napier Cunningham in Pensacola,Florida but she’s not allowed to spend time with him.
In fact, Ms. Cunningham hasn’t seen her 65 year old husband in nearly three years because she was restricted from setting foot inside the assisted living facility where the former commercial real estate developer now resides. Ms. Cunningham blames her husband’s guardian, a CPA who sued her for legal fees and won. Last week, Ms. Cunningham countersued in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Florida Pensacola Division after the Honorable Family Law Judge Darlene Dickey reportedly issued ex-parte stay away orders denying the forlorn wife not only contact with her husband but also face to face visits. “Even criminals in prison are allowed conjugal visits with their wives but because Mr. Cunningham is a ward of the state of Florida, he has no such right and neither does Elizabeth,” said Dr. Sam Sugar, founder of the Americans Against Abusive Probate Guardianships (AAAPG) in Florida.
Ms. Cunningham is among a rising number of Americans seeking relief in federal courts nationwide from state guardianship-related proceedings that are alienating them from their loved ones. Other federal alienation suits include Bush v Goodall in Pennsylvania.
In most states, it is not uncommon for senior citizens, deemed incapacitated by a probate court,judge to lose their individual rights around residence, visitation, medical care, assets and property once they become a Ward of the state. However under federal law, experts claim that alienation of any kind, including spousal, parental and familial, is unconstitutional.
According to Ms. Cunningham’s federal suit, Judge Dickey’s stay away order was based on hearsay from the Guardian whom she claims has a financial interest in Mr. Cunningham’s inheritance, portfolio of shopping centers and land situated in Cherokee County, Georgia.
“I miss my husband,” said Ms. Cunningham. “Judge Dickey knew or should have known that this hearsay was false and fraudulent but instead she acted against my due process rights and my husband’s rights under the 5th and 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.”
Whether it’s husband, wife, sibling, uncle, aunt or parent, some 90% of family members report that the judge in their guardianship proceedings did not act in the best interest of the elderly, 80% suspected the judge was improperly influenced and 70% felt the retirement home did not act in their parent’s best interests, according to an AAAPG study. Ms. Cunningham alleges that she was unduly influenced while under duress by an attorney to sign papers that would assign a professional guardian over her husband and his financial affairs.
“Under guardianship, my husband cannot vote, he is prohibited from driving a car and as a couple we cannot sell any of our properties without permission,” Ms. Cunningham said. “The Guardian receives all the proceeds of any sale of property that my husband acquired through his hard work over the years. How can this be legal?”
Critics of elder guardianship say it’s historical.
“Probate courts in America have a sordid history,” said Dr. Sugar. “They were the primary mechanism for dealing with legal issues in the slave trade of African-Americans until slavery was abolished in 1865. These equity courts committed and continue to commit egregious abuse against the most vulnerable in society.”
In 2017, however, court appointed guardianships do not discriminate based on race.
“My husband and I enjoyed our Pensacola home until this posse of court workers came into our lives,” said Ms. Cunningham.
Ms. Cunningham is seeking damages in excess of $7 million. She is representing herself."
YEARS and YEARS of Corruption and Judge Martin Colin continues to Dish it out, WHY?
"Anonymous said...
The JQC does nothing! We have a corrupt sick Judge in Palm Beach County MARTIN COLIN. He abused his step son, had attys rep his now Betsy savitt and did NOT disclose any conflicts. ROOT, HANDLER, KARTAGENA appaer before him. READ THE BAEZ DECISION 4th DCA. JQC WAKE UP!!
August 3, 2008 at 11:26 AM
Anonymous said...
I agree Judge Martin Colin must be REMOVED. He is corrupt! Colin is a case fixer! Ignores the 4th DCA in BAEZ....
THE JQC SHOULD REMOVE COLIN NOW!!!
October 7, 2008 at 6:40 PM
Anonymous said...
CORRUPTION IS RAMPANT IN PALM BEACH COUNTY.... WINNET AND COLIN ARE SICK EVIL CORRUPT JUDGES AND SHOULD BE JAILED.. MARTIN COLIN IS A CRIMINAL....
THE FEDS ARE HOT ON THE ROBES OF COLIN..... AND HIS BOCA RATON BUDDIE HENRY HANDLER AND THE BOYS.. SCHUTZ, ROOT, JETTE...
CMON FEDS -- DO YOUR JOB!!!
October 16, 2008 at 8:54 AM
Anonymous said...
THE JQC is a "JOKE" The protect these corrupt Judges... Brooke Kennerly should be removed... Gov. Crist does NOT a clue and looks the other way.... Just Look at Palm Beach County judge Martin Colin, a corrupt judge.....
October 25, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Anonymous said...
Serial CORRUPT JUDGE MARTIN COLIN has be sent to the CIVIL Court - Judge Kroll removed Colin from the FAMILY COURT.
JUST THE START - HENRY HANDLER & CAROL A. KARTAGENER soon to be charged by the Florida Bar for many ETHICAL VIOLATIONS and other crimes.
Its about time, KARTAGENER was CAUGHT making perjurious statements to Judges Burton, Colin & Crow. One lie after another. KARTAGENER IS A HABITUAL & PATHOLICIAL LIAR!!!!! A sick a demented evil lady ---- Lacking Skills....
December 30, 2008 at 1:46 PM
Anonymous said...
THE "FEDS" WERE AT THE OFFICES OF WEISS & HANDLER....
SERIOUS Abuse of Power, Violations of Ethics, Aiding and Abetting Corruption, Protecting Attorneys and Violating the rights of Florida Citizens.
Judge Martin Colin has been CAUGHT and yet is still ruining lives with BOGUS, Lawless, Fraud on the Court Rulings.
Hey remember when Judge Martin Colin wanted the Millions in Heritage Life / Jackson National insurance money moved from Illinois Courts to his tiny lawless court. MILLIONS in life insurance in regard to a man that the Palm County Sheriff Office is SUPPOSED to be investigating the Murder of???
Corruption in FLORIDA is very Bad. And Judge Martin Colin seems to be in charge of protecting the most lawless schemes in Florida and aiding HUGE RICH law firms such as Tescher and Spallina and Alan Rose / Alan B. Rose of Mrachek, Fitzgerald, Rose, Konopka, Thomas & Weiss, P.A. in West Palm Beach, Fla.
Judge Martin Colin has no issue with the deceased signing documents, nor attorneys forging documents, and has no respect for the law, rights or children, judicial cannons or well, anyone that is not possibly bribing him or giving him some other motive to BREAK THE LAW and Ruin Lives.
So why is the Palm County Sheriff NOT looking into murder allegations, forgery, fraud and more in the Simon Bernstein Estate Case? Well I suppose its because they are seriously CORRUPT. And Judge Colin seems to be their buddy.
The PBSO has NO Respect for CIVIL Rights or the Law PERIOD.
Check this Out:
"FBI Raid on PBSO: Deputies Routinely Violate Civil Rights of Minorities!
WEST PALM BEACH — This week’s FBI activity at the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office came after a push by Guatemalan-Maya Center lawyer Jack Scarola for the U. S. Department of Justice to investigate what he claims is the unfair treatment of minorities by sheriff’s deputies.
Jack Scarola
Guatemalan-Maya Center lawyer Jack Scarola (via Facebook)
It’s another Gossip Extra exclusive: Last month, Scarola wrote a lengthy letter to U. S. Attorney General Eric Holder that outlined a series of PBSO shootings and incidents of brutality against minorities, mostly Hispanics.
The letter also blasted Sheriff Ric Bradshaw‘s handling of such incidents, including the agency’s “growing militarization” and the sheriff’s message in television appearances that minority neighborhoods are akin to “war zones.”
And to make sure that Holder got the message that PBSO’s handling of such incidents didn’t pass muster, Scarola forwarded his missive to members of the local delegation to the U.S. Congress, including U.S. Reps. Patrick Murphy, Alcee Hastings and Lois Frankel.
When asked if his effort caused Monday’s arrival of the feds at PBSO headquarters on Gun Club Road, Scarola said: “There have been stranger coincidences.”
“I’m not surprised,” the high-profile lawyer said. “And I am pleased they’re acting as requested. I contacted various government officials about this problem and I’m just pleased someone’s taking action.”
Scarola said the riots in Ferguson, Missouri, that followed the shooting death of a black man by a white police officer have placed a renewed emphasis on the use of lethal force by police on minorities.
But, Scarola says, the FBI’s apparent investigation into PBSO is independent of what’s happening near St. Louis.
“I believe that I wrote a persuasive letter,” Scarola said.
Gossip Extra broke the story last night: FBI agents were spotted at PBSO Monday to seize files pertaining to deputy-involved shootings and complaints.
Among the documents taken by the G Men were files about the public’s complaints against Lake Worth deputy Russell Brinson.
Minority leaders in Lake Worth have been asking that Brinson be fired after they found out he had a long string of use-of-force incidents, and most of them involving minorities.
Instead, the 40-year-old Brinson was re-assinged to Palm Beach International Airport security.
In his letter, Scarola mentioned one Brinson incident in which a Hispanic immigrant who tried to report a crime to Brinson was allegedly beaten down.
Scarola also reminded Holder of the principles of modern policing, including that the cooperation of the public with police is inversely proportional to police’s use of physical force.
There is, Scarola’s letter reads, a growing perception in Palm Beach County that (deputies) “are too quick to resort to the use of force — even deadly force — particularly when confronting members of the civilian population whose racial and ethnic appearance differs from their own.”
The Florida / Palm Beach County Sheriff DOES NOTHING to help solve murder cases, jewelry and real estate theft, massive attorney fraud, corruption and collusion in the Simon Bernstein Case. And Judge Martin Colin seems to be assisted by Palm County to violate the rights or the poor, minorities or anyone that Judge Colin does not WANT to be on top of the PILE. Maybe it's about who pays him the most. As I allege that Judge Martin Colin has taken bribes from Tescher and Spallina and possible Ted Bernstein's legal team including Alan B. Rose of Mrachek, Fitzgerald, Rose, Konopka, Thomas & Weiss, P.A. in West Palm Beach, Florida.
"What will the FEDS do — They should start with SA Dave Aronberg & Alan Johnson — i.e., there relationship with the crooks at Weiss Handler & Cornwell, P.A. Fraud case fixing fraudulent documents Civil theft and legal Malpractice.
Legal Assistants sleeping with certain wealthy clients and be billed as well… Handler is operating a brothel for his clients.
Handler creates fraudulent and back dates legal DOCS. Does Handler BILL his client for his legal assistant to sleep with clients…. Mostly, yes, before Judge Martin Colin in South County.
Colin is on the handler “PAYROLL” FBI SAC Piro you have your work cut out for you.. Henry Handler and Howard Weiss should be indicted and jailed….. BTW Jack Scarola is well aware of Weiss Handler… Jack, perhaps you should write a letter to DOJ regarding WEISS HANDLER. This is CORRUPTION COUNTY!!!! As Judge Kastranakes!!!!! He indicted most of em…"
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.
