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. 

What is Going on at New York's Tenth Judicial District Grievance Committee ?

What is the Duty of the Chief Attorney Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District ?

What were the Duties and Responsibilities of the Chief Attorney Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Suffolk County - Nassau County - in the State of New York Rita Adler ? ( That Coming Soon )

And did Rita Adler, Ex- Chief Attorney Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Suffolk County - Nassau County follow these Laws, Rules, Standards of Ethics ? I think Not.

Did Did Rita Adler obey the Laws of the State of New York? Should Rita Adler be Held accountable for the lives she has affecting adversely?

Should Rita Adler Be Dis-Barred ? Where is Rita Adler now and whose life is her total lack of Ethics affecting Now? All that and more Coming Soon to RitaAdler.com ....

Is Robert A. Green Chief Attorney Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Suffolk County - Nassau County - in the State of New York , Continuing the Legacy Of Corruption and Life Ruining Behavior that Rita Adler Left Behind?

Or is Robert A. Green cleaning up "Dirty" "Business as Usual" at the Tenth Judicial District Grievance Committee ?

The Facts are there, the Truth Speaks for Itself.

It all comes down to a matte of if Robert A. Green Tenth Judicial District Grievance Committee for Suffolk County and Nassau County, New York ... if Robert A. Green will read the facts, and uphold the laws of the United States of American and protect the Taxpaying Voters of New York or ... if Robert A. Green will protect the Corporate Greed, Money Machine and Wall of Corruption in New York that Rita Adler Boldly protected for so many years... and seemingly accountable to No One.. Oh of course but to Me and NOW that you Know the Facts.. Rita Adler - Robert A. Green - Leslie B. Anderson are accountable to ALL OF YOU.

Rita Adler, Ex- Chief Attorney Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Suffolk County - Nassau County, Retired or Not is Still Liable for the Lives she has ruined, for her unEthical and Illegal behavior while Rita Adler, was Chief Attorney Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Suffolk County - Nassau County ... and I intend to Expose ever single one .. over her 4.5 year tenure..

Coming Soon Defamation Lawsuit(S) and Criminal Complaint(S) against Rita Adler personally and against Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District for Suffolk County - Nassau County - in the State of New York.

"Retirement" Does not mean "Immunity".

Someone in the position of Chief Attorney Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Suffolk County - Nassau County, such as Rita Adler was, that has the power to take away licenses to do business, has the power to protect hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate crime and the power to change peoples lives entirely... well this SHOULD never have any kind of "Immunity".

Rita Adler should be held accountable for what she has done and so should the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District for Suffolk County - Nassau County - in the State of New York.

Coming Soon What Judge, Laws, Ethics, Oversight is Responsible for the Behavior, Ethics, and Activities of the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District for Suffolk County - Nassau County - in the State of New York ? And are they paying any attention at all ? Or do they even know what is going on at the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District for Suffolk County - Nassau County - in the State of New York. Well if they don't know they soon will.

Also Coming soon what Exactly are the Duties, Responsibilities and Standard of Ethics that apply to Leslie B. Anderson - Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District for Suffolk County - Nassau County - in the State of New York ? What Liability does Leslie B. Anderson have in the Peter Sivere Case, the George Demos Issue or the Life and Economic Condition of New York Attorney Ruth Pollack?

Has the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District for Suffolk County - Nassau County - in the State of New York Ruined Your Life, Not Protected your Rights, Discriminated against you, Committed Fraud, aided and abetted corruption that you know of? Send your tip to me Crystal L. Cox ~ Investigative Blogger, Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Also Check Out the Peter Sivere Story at PeterSivere.com - $335 Million Dollars in JP Morgan Cover Ups, protecting Corrupt SEC investigator George Demos - what did Rita Adler and have to gain in protecting a Lie and not Defending the Whistleblower telling the Truth Peter Sivere Should have been Protected by National Whistle Blower Laws and the SEC Whistle Blower program and Peter Sivere was not. Why did Rita Adler Protect George Demos ? Why did Leslie B. Anderson protect George Demos ?

What Did "Chris Fox's" father in law really turn up on George Demos ? As he apparently hired New York Criminal Defense Attorney David Schwartz to investigate "look into" George Demos? What did they find, what was a blind eye turned on ?

Click Here for a Bit more on That One.

Also Check out the Odd story of a New York Attorney with her licensed suspended and no real explanation it seems, no real reason... I Believe it was to cover up millions hidden by the Valley Stream No. 24 and Edward Fale .. and I intend to Prove it Coming Soon to EdwardFale.com - Every Dollar, every dirty .. I want to KNOW.. eMail me at Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Edward Fale is part of some cover up that has changed the life of one Honest New York Attorney, and ya know thats gotta be rare.. (Smile) anyway Edward Fale seems to be a part of the Problem and not the solution and has made the life of Kevin Chesney and Attorney Ruth Pollack Collateral Damage in whatever it is Edward Fale is hiding and for Whom.... so It is time I get to the bottom of what Edward Fale is REALLY up To. ( oh and just how is Rita Adler and Leslie B. Anderson connected to Edward Fale .. Really ? )

Click Here for More on the Ruth Pollack Story.

Also Coming Soon Just What is James Pelzer 's part in All this?

Email me Your Story

Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Crystal L. Cox

Investigative Blogger

the "LIE will NOT become the TRUTH on My Watch"

P.S - How's My "A Game" so Far ?
Pumpkin ?

What is the Real Story Behind Valley Stream No. 24, Kevin Chesney and NY Attorney Ruth Pollack ?

Is there any Government Oversight to the Massive Corruption in New York ?

What is Really Going on at the Valley Stream No. 24 ? It is time to find out what "Lies Beneath" the Secret Veil of Corruption at Valley Stream No. 24 - in New York State.

News Article Archive

"By the End of 2007 - 2008 Valley Stream No. 24 had amassed $3.09 Million in Excess Reserves, more then 3 Times the Legal Amount. Auditors found that the district's budgeted expenses consistently exceeded amounts needed, concluding that this was done deliberately"

Click Here for Source of Above Quote and Full Article

So was anyone ever held liable? was the TRUTH ever told?

Big Money - Big Consequences for

the Truth Told about that Money.

Demand ALL Accounting of Valley Stream No. 24 - This is Your Money, What is really going on at Valley Stream No. 24 ? Who gets work contracts, what conflicts of interest exist - Who Is Protecting whom and why ?

Under Freedom of Information, Can't you Request what this Money is spent on, where it comes from and why. It seems to me that if the Millions of Dollars at Valley Stream No. 24 is used to help protect the Wall of Corruption in New York and that if the New York Grievance Committee, New York Bar, Second Department and other New York and Federal Agencies are used to SHUT UP an attorney on a Case that seems to me to simply be about ... some guy getting hurt at work..

Who Got Contracts? Who got Paid and what for.. ??
You have a Right to Know.

What Politicians or Public Officials are paid off, if any to protect this BIG money going through the hands of Valley Stream No. 24 ?

Who Would Kill to cover this Fraud Up? Who would Do just about anything to keep this kind of money, where it came from.. where it is going .. as a "Secret" ?

What if an Honest New York Attorney stumbled on the Truth or took on a Case in which "Discovery" would Turn up the Truth on the ... Valley Stream No. 24 - How About they some how convince the New York Bar, and a Corrupt New York Grievance Committee to simply Suspend the Attorney, take her Life as she knows it and Call it a Day. That oughta shut her up right? Well unless she has any morals or a backbone !!

Did they think If she is Suspended or perhaps even Dis-barred... well then surely no one will believe her right? And Surely if there is No "Discover" in this case, well then we can keep out dirty little ... Secret, Right?

Time to Expose the Secrets of

Valley Stream No. 24

Got a Tip on all that Money Valley Stream No. 24 ?
Crystal@CrystalCox.com

What is the Real Reason for the Absurd Suspension of New York Attorney, Ruth Pollack?

I mean come on she is certainly not a "George Demos", covering a $335 Million Dollar JP Morgan Secret.. She seems to be an Independent Attorney, simply doing her thing... so what in the World did she stumble on that makes these powerful people want to Discredit Her?

Well I will Be Exploring that Question in Great Detail On My Whistle Blower Media Blog Network, Stay Tuned ...

Also Coming Soon EdwardFale.com - to Expose Every Dollar, Every Dirty Deal withing the Valley Stream No. 24 ~ What is it that is so Secret, So Important that the New York Wall of Corruption would be recruited to help cover it up ?

The Collateral Damage in the Valley Stream No. 24 Scandal is many - particularly of interest to me is the Career and Quality of Life of One BOLD New York Whistleblower Attorney Ruth Pollack. And the Quality of Life of Kevin Chesney, he client in the Valley Stream No. 24 Scandal.

Coming Soon the Whole story of what made Ruth M. Pollack New York Attorney andKevinChesney Collateral Damage in a wall of corruption war in New York politics and high finance in which they had NOTHING to do with.

* I will Explore the Question of why so many Travel Expenses with Valley Stream No. 24 . What was Edward Fale, Valley Stream No. 24 Superintendent Really Up To.

* I will discuss Minerva & D'Agostino Law firm and what they may have to Hide.

* The Truth about the Hiring of Therapists without a Criminal Background Check. Who were they, who were they related or connected to... Who is Metro Therapy Inc. and what did they real gain or have to hide.. - Coming Soon..

* I will Explore the "Books" or the "cooking of the books"

* I will Expose all Legal Fees and Professional Services EVERY used... how much they cost and why that person or company was chosen..

* Just who is Anthony Iadevaio (is he a police officer?) and what are the Conflicts of Interest, Money Paid..

* Why was "Computer Access Rights" purged with an Incoming State Audit?

What Makes Valley Stream No. 24 and their Den of Secrets and Financial Cover Ups so important that the New York Corruption Mill is fighting to keep an Honest New York Attorney from simply going about her life and her law practice?

Well I Intend to Find Out ..

These Questions.. and Many more To be Explored Soon.. Check for EdwardFale.com in the near future, or simply google anything on this page and you will find what I am Yapping about it.

Got a Tip

Crystal L. Cox

Investigative Blogger

Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Click Here for More to the Story

Montana Highway Patrol Corruption - Corrupt Protective Orders - Lee Newspaper Corruption - Steve Bullock Montana Attorney General Does NOTHING.

" Montana Justice System in Crisis

Being ranked last in the nation for justice is not well known in the State of Montana. Congressmen, Governors, Attorney General, and the FBI feel the problem can persist.

Its easier with a staff member in the White House since 2009 helping to cover up the problems....our own Jim Messina.

What happens when "built in protections" in the justice system become more mechanism forabusing rights of Americans who live in Montana?

When local judges know the prosecutors, and go their way on bail (8th Amendment), probable cause (14th Amendment), and other determinations (search and seizure; 4th Amendment) ordinary Americans in Montana are not getting their rights upheld.

That might be the reason we lost a Montana Highway Patrolman in three forks this week. Whilethe Associated Press (AP) wishes the nation to believe this 56 year old dog trainer was "bitter" from a former snake bite complication, the bitterness is the loss of liberty, the loss of rights, and the loss of control normal people have in their lives due to our out of control criminal justice system in Montana.

In Montana it is big business to place orders of protection, with supposed large federal grants that never seem to make it to the bottom line of municipal budgets.

Required paperwork seems to magically appear, and Lee Newspapers are willing to fill in the blanks for a price. We have no justice, or truth.

When an employee of the Attorney General office threatens a person's livelihood and house for questioning a county prosecutor, something is wrong in Montana.

That employee is now in charge of the Highway Patrol, and is also Attorney General, Steve Bullock (a Columbia Law graduate).

The MHP did not give test scores in 2008 to applicants "who did not make it" and had two uniformed officers put their hands on their holstered sidearms and asked the "unsuccessful" candidates to leave.

With letters, websites, blogs, and a documentary on justice, the Montana state and federal officials now need to understand that they were given information about the justice system prior to this officers ultimate sacrifice.

Denial is the first step, what is the next?"

Source of Post
http://wethepeoplemt.blogspot.com/2010/12/montana-justice-system-in-crisis.html

Posted by
Crystal L. Cox

Investigative Blogger

Got a Tip on Montana Highway Patrol Corruption, Cover Ups or ???

Crystal@CrystalCox.com

The LIE will NEVER

Stand as the Truth
On My Watch !!

More on Massive Corruption, Cover Ups and Illegal Activity in Montana by the Very Judicial System Paid to Protect Montana Citizens.

www.MontanaCorruption.com
Montana Corruption Rampant ~ Demand Transparency and Accountability.

www.HamiltonMontanaNews.net
Hamilton Montana News of Cover Ups, Corruption,
Pay Offs, Corrupt Judges in Ravalli County Montana

www.EurekaMontanaNews.com
Lincoln County Montana Corruption Exposed

www.MontanaMoxy.com
Montana News for the People by the People

www.RobinClute.com

Exposing Corrupt Hamilton Montana Justice of the Peace Robin Clute

www.GeorgeCorn.com
Exposing Corruption in the Ravalli County Montana

County Attorney Office. ~ Though Corrupt Ravalli County
Attorney George Corn was voted out this blog will keep on

eye on what the Corrupt George Corn Does next and expose

past corruption as well as keep a future watch over

the Ravalli County Montana County Attorney Office.

Got a Story on a Corrupt Montana Justice of the Peace, Corrupt Montana Law Enforcement, Illegal Montana Protective Order, Set Ups to Silence Truth Tellers, Corrupt District Court Judges in the State of Montana, Stories of Asking the FBI - the Montana ACLU - Commissioners - Police for HELP and Being Ignored as they Protect the Criminals over the Victims Rights?

Email your Story to Me RIGHT NOW and Get Heard...

Crystal Cox Montana Investigative Blogger
"Montana Media"

WhistleBlower Media...
Crystal@CrystalCox.com

SJ Berwin says No To merging with Corrupt Law Firm Proskauer Rose

SJ Berwin JUST got out of a 13 trillion dollar liability. SJ Berwin has halted talks of nonsense with merging with Corrupt Law Firm Proskauer Rose LLP.

Good for SJ Berwin as Proskauer Rose Law Firm is named in an 13 Trillion Dollar Federal RICO Lawsuit over Proskauer Rose Law Firm stealing the Iviewit Technology and making a Corrupt Deal with MPEG LA to rake in Billions every year from the Iveiwit Technology. Which is Now used by .. WELL all of Us everday with anything to do with video ... anything..

Proskauer Rose Law Firm is also named in an SEC Complaint and will one day NOT be protected by Andrew Cuomo and the Corrupt New York Courts and Proskauer Rose will pay Billions on Top of Billions for the 13 Trillion Dollar Technology Theft of the iViewit Technology.

Todays GOOD News for SJ Berwin

"Proskauer and English Firm End Their Merger Discussions

Nate Raymond

New York Law Journal

November 15, 2010

Proskauer Rose and SJ Berwin said Friday they had decided against merging, putting to an end months of speculation about a possible trans-Atlantic tie-up between the two law firms.

The firms in a joint statement said they decided to end merger talks, which had become public in May. New York-based Proskauer and London-based SJ Berwin said "we recognized that the timetable necessary to reach the agreements that would ensure the successful integration of our firms is not workable at this time."

"Our discussions began on the basis of a longstanding and profound mutual respect founded on outstanding lawyering ability, "(INSERT VOMIT HERE)" a commitment to client service, and synergistic practice capabilities," the firms said in their statement. "Our discussions end with the same profound respect, and with the greatest admiration for all the partners we have met during the course of the process."

A spokesperson for Proskauer said the firm would have no further comment. Rob Day, the managing partner of SJ Berwin, did not return calls or answer an e-mail seeking comment. But he told Legal Week, a London-based legal publication, that to seal a deal would have taken "several more months" and "that would have meant too much uncertainty for both partnerships."

Proskauer's talks with SJ Berwin came at a time of renewed interest among law firms in international tie-ups. Squire, Sanders & Dempsey and British firm Hammonds agreed last week to merge, a little more than a month afterSonnenschein Nath & Rosenthals combined with UK-based Denton Wilde Sapte to become SNR Denton. Hogan & Hartson completed its merger with London's Lovells in May and is now known as Hogan Lovells.

Proskauer emerged as a potential partner for SJ Berwin in May after talks between the British firm and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe ended. The Proskauer/SJ Berwin efforts may have been hampered by public knowledge of the negotiations, as leaks of the merger talks were reported on frequently, mostly in the British legal press.

"These things are probably easier done where they're negotiated privately," said Ward Bower, a consultant at Altman Weil Inc. who was not involved in the merger talks.

For the 663-lawyer Proskauer, a merger with SJ Berwin would have immediately jump-started its efforts to expand in London and abroad. SJ Berwin has about 165 partners and more than 400 other lawyers in 12 offices in Europe, the Middle East and East Asia.

SJ Berwin began the search for a merger partner following financial declines. The firm, known for its work in real estate and private equity, saw profits per partner drop 49 percent to £410,000 ($661,475) in its 2008-09 fiscal year, which ends in April. Revenue during that period meanwhile fell 14 percent to £184 million ($296 million).

SJ Berwin's revenue fell another 7 percent in its most recent fiscal year, with the books closing on April 30 with £171 million ($276 million) in revenue. Its profits per partner meanwhile improved to £447,000 ($721,440), up 9 percent.

The London firm's finances have shown more improvement since then. Revenue for the first half of the fiscal year was up 9 percent to £87 million ($140 million), the firm announced separately on Friday, while its profits were up 34 percent, the firm said.

"This is a strong performance which marks a significant step in our financial recovery," Mr. Day said in a statement. "We expect to maintain growth in revenue and profit in the second half of this financial year."

Still, a profitability gap would have existed with Proskauer, the stronger of the two firms financially. The New York firm reported $643 million in revenue for 2009, up 1.5 percent. Profits per partner at Proskauer climbed 6.6 percent to $1.45 million.

Mr. Day acknowledged to Legal Week on Friday that disparities in profitability "no doubt makes it more difficult" to do a merger. But he added that "there are various ways of dealing with and getting around that issue."

Mr. Bower in an interview suggested the two could have organized as a Swiss verein, an increasingly popular legal structure for cross-border mergers that creates an association of member law firms under the one umbrella but each firm has separate partnerships and profit pools.

SJ Berwin had also experienced partner departures while merger talks dragged on. A four-partner real estate team, including practice group head Jon Vivian, left for UK-based Irwin Mitchell in September. Another real estate partner, Michael Metlis, this month left for London's Berwin Leighton Paisner. Niamh Grogan, a partner in SJ Berwin's competition practice, also left this month, joining Lloyds Banking Group.

In the midst of merger discussions, both firms also went through leadership changes. Proskauer partners in October elected Joseph M. Leccese to succeedAllen I. Fagin as the chairman in January. SJ Berwin, also last month, chose a new managing partner, Mr. Day, after Ralph Cohen in August said he would step down after more than eight years as the firm's head.

Proskauer and SJ Berwin in their statement said they were halting merger talks "with considerable regret." The firms said that they "look forward to continued cooperation between our firms for the benefit of our clients." A spokesman for SJ Berwin said that would include a non-exclusive referral agreement.

@|Nate Raymond can be reached at nraymond@alm.com. "

http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/PubArticleNY.jsp?id=1202474809714&Proskauer_SJ_Berwin_Call_Off_Merger_Talks&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1

posted Here by

Crystal L. Cox

Investigative Blogger

Crystal@CrystalCox.com

got a Story on the Corrupt Proskauer Rose Law Firm?
eMail me Today.. and Get Heard ...

Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox Soon to file a Lawsuit and Criminal Charges against Hamilton Montana Judge Robin Clute

It is Against the Law to use Protective Orders, Restraining Orders, Orders of Protection as a way to Silence a Blogger, To Silence a Whistleblower, and to well.. basically control people WITH no Trial, No Proof, and no Due Process what so ever.

Montana Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox, Silenced for a Year, Defamed, Set Up, by Lincoln County Attorney Bernie Cassidy, Lincoln County Cop Maury McKinney and Judge RobinClute - Hamilton Montana - Ravalli County Justice of the Peace.. by way of a Corrupt Protective Order and the Events that Followed now 15 months and counting.

Montana Judicial Law is used against Montana Victims to cover up corruption.

Montana Judges have no real Standard of Practice, No Accountability.

The Protective Order has strict guidelines and laws, however no one makes Montana Judges actually obey Montana Laws. So what good are the Laws? No way to Enforce them.

Now if a Montana Judge was Part of "Oath Keepers" well this would mean that they doublepinky swear per say, they Swear on Top of their Oath to do No Harm and to NOT violate yourConstitutional Rights, Swear to not break the law and Swear to not OBEY any Order that Does Violate Your Rights in any way.

A Small Town Justice of the Peace Can ruin your life simply by their "Opinion" and they do not have to obey the Laws of Montana, UNLESS of Course Someone Like Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox Sues someone like Judge Robin Clute in Hamilton Montana for Defamation, Harassment, Violating Civil and Human Rights and Life Endangerment. And Files Criminal Charges, under Montana Law against Judge Robin Clute - Hamilton Montana Justice of the Peace for Breaking Montana State Laws.

Montana Judges who Violate Montana Law such as Judge Robin Clute - Hamilton Montana Justice of the Peace, well YOU can Files Criminal Charges and you don't need to have an Attorney to Do it. You can file on your own Criminal Charges, based in Montana Law and when you do, make sure you email me a copy for when they send it to the round file - well that is another "Breaking of the Law" - and I will Post the PROOF that you Filed it for your Lawsuit against that City, Town, and County and against that Judge personally for the "Damages" they did to your life.

You do not have to find the elusive Montana Attorney with the backbone to stand up to HamiltonMontana Corruption ... You can File Against Corruption without a Montana Attorney.

Montana State Laws they are Useless if the Law is NOT Enforced by Montana Judges, Montana County Attorney's, Montana Supreme Court Justices, and Montana LawEnforcement.

The LAW is only Above the Law if You Say Nothing,

Do Nothing and Vote them in AGAIN..

Montana Judges are running amok.

Demand Accountability and Transparency.

Montana Judges should not be above the law and should HAVE TO base their court decisionson actual Montana State Law, Actual Proof and if they have no proof and no reason what so ever to actually give a protective order ... then Montana Judges such as Judge Robin Clute -Hamilton Montana Justice of the Peace, should make a Real, Forthright Effort to actually get that proof - especially when it is a 2 second subpoena to Google, Yahoo or Craigslist or a Simply Fax from the Lincoln County Attorney with Proof of a Complaint that proved me Innocent, all under 15 minutes - Judge Robin Clute - Hamilton Montana Justice of the Peacecould have STOPPED 15 months and counting of my defamation, life threatening harassment and the destruction of my quality of life. Judge Robin Clute deliberate chose to NOT prove me innocent for the Agenda of Judge Robin Clute - Hamilton Montana Justice of the Peace was to Silence Me, the Montana Media - aKa Investigative Blogger. ..

And to this day the Above the Law Judge Robin Clute - Hamilton Montana Justice of the Peace, has not made one small effort to discover the truth. And Well the Protective Order that Judge Robin Clute - Hamilton Montana Justice of the Peace, gave against an innocent Montana Woman - Me, Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox - well this Montana Protective Order was Illegal.

And All this to protect corruption in Hamilton, Ravalli County Montana and Libby, Lincoln County Montana and to silence the Media.. "ME" Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox -which also Violated Montana State Laws with in Media Rights.

Here are the Montana State Laws that Judge Robin Clute Violated in the Name of Supposed Justice. Flat Out, Blatantly BROKE the Law and still in the Power Position of Ruining lives with NO Accountability or Transparency, why?

A Complaint Must Be Sworn, under penalty and perjury by Montana State Law in order for a Justice of the Peace in Montana to give a Protective Order.

This complaint is full of lies, defamation, flat out NONE Fact and yet Montana Justice of the Peace RobinClute not only accepted this Complaint against me, but then Issues a Protective Order - Had me served and She Claimed at my hearing that she had not even read the Complaint.

So this Montana Justice Of the Peace did NOT even read this complaint that violated my right and came from someone who the Hamilton Courts had record of that I claimed threaten to Kill Me and She gave him a Protective Order against me without reading the complaint or doing anything to prove that I was NOT in an Danger and I Gave her the information to Easily go Get the Proof.

The Complaint on me to Judge Robin Clute in Hamilton Montana had no basis of it being fact what so ever, and yet Judge Robin Clute immediately faxed that un-notarized,unRead Complaint the Complainant's Friend, Officer Maury McKinney in Eureka, Montana and had me served. All based on a Complaint that was not Notarized, not even Read by Justice of the Peace RobinClute and had no basis in fact what so ever.

Judge Robin Clute in Hamilton Montana gave a year long protective order against me, and said in a Year she would make it permanent... she did not do that at the end of Sept. 2010 for some reason, not sure why she backed off and am waiting forJudge Robin Clute in Hamilton Montana to set me up again..

From that Day that I was served this Illegal Protective Order the Complainant has harassed me, defamed me, gathered other haters against me from across the United States... read everything I wrote daily on Paid time at the University of Montana and emailed anyone I wrote about that he could to tortuously interfere with my making money, my media company and my way of life - all protected by and Illegal Protective Order issued unfairly, unjustly and illegally against me byJudge Robin Clute in Hamilton Montana

If a Complaint is NOT sworn under penalty and perjury, well the Judge who issued the Protective Order based on a Complaint that violated the Montana Law - well then that judge is liable under penalty and perjury.

This is One man's opinion taken as Fact, by a Corrupt Montana Justice of the Peace and Used Against me, All because I was exposing corrupt law enforcement and corrupt county attorneys in the State Of Montana.

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiavp3YYs9lpzXVDtSeQ1UbO-bo-aakooinwcoz-eOWtKG1gb65z2qmgNcA121OZWCLrAYw-JTzqZuzWWU9v3xluVmGN2K9KyPkFylRwCiCgnLLEW4KGupUaMtwL9LELd7jU19QvTzAbGi8/s1600-h/2.JPG - this is the NOT Sworn, Not Notarized Last Page of the Illegal Complaint that Judge Clute in Ravalli County Montana Illegal Took against Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox.

Page 1

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_08hFA1IU7sI/S4rF4kb0s7I/
AAAAAAAAAHE/HKdEAakMMJU/s1600-h/3.JPG

Page 2

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCAd-uH7oycmWCdzX7_jScwgfe_LfRAFoi8_LWvk70XYM1IzpwBNyz7wEKxjvR44CK8Xt7SeDOzgj4xy7LZ686BQ-YMA5ap6S5SRtHVDSdVLtIe0nZrZIQh06ZsKzjcOHhH3KvzlGhwM8T/s1600-h/1.JPG

Here is a Link to the Laws that Ravalli County District Judge Haynes Signed whereby he stated the reasons Why I was not allowed a Protective Order against a Man whom I was and am in fear of my life over.

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibIBluGcl8_GNwzdgQvjBe10SOGIZGL0BbtNvlnhMqkYwet2m9JXC3q96VtJNIRuknp3oxkPFjGp5veHyIY0E8zb-va2-h64_a2QFWJbC8xVGoNFtfKrsLULtWT1A7IZISQSu2R0xZi_8c/s1600-h/DSC02311.JPG

Judge Robin Clute in Hamilton Montana would NOT allow this into evidence and in fact YELLED at me when I told her about it and asked if she wanted to see it.. She Yelled "this is MY COURT and I don't Care what Judge Haynes said about it." "this is My decision" .

Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox will Soon File a Lawsuit Against Justice of the Peace Robin Clute and the City of Hamilton Montana for 15 months and counting of Defamation, Ruining my Montana Real Estate Business, Endangering My Life, and putting me under extreme duress with no end in sight since July of 2009.

Montana Law Says that your Complaint to get a Protective Order Must be Sworn, this complaint was not Sworn, not notarized and in fact Judge Robin Clute Claimed to not even have read the complaint til the day of my hearing, yet it was pages of FALSE INFORMATION and Serious Defamation. I have this Court Hearing Recorded..

ENOUGH with the Lies Judge Robin Clute, you Set Me up, you lied about me, you endangered my life, you violated my rights and you broke the Laws of the State of Montana and Well apparently Hamilton Montana Justice of the Peace Robin Clute does not have to Obey Montana State Law nor does Justice of the Peace Robin Clute have to base her decisions in Montana Law.

Click Here to See the Illegal Complaint that Judge Robin Clute allowed to be take though it was not Sworn Under Oath, Not Notarized and Violated Montana State Laws.

Hamilton Montana District Judge Haynes Quotes the Laws that Say I cannot have a Protective Order and Why I cannot, yet Justice of the Peace Robin Clute gave one to SeanBoushie illegally against me a few weeks later.

Click Here to See Why a District Court Judge in Hamilton Denied me a Protective Order against a Man Who I Truly Believe Threatened to Kill me, and I brought web stats, blogs and other technical proof and was still denied protection by the Hamilton Court System after I was denied a Protective Order with this Same Proof from Judge Stormy Langston in Eureka Montana, even though Justice of the Peace Stormy Langston said to me and the friend who went with me.. "this is not ok, i agree it is Sean" Justice of the Peace Stormy Langston said she woulddefinitely give me a protective order, then a few moments later she said well it's hard to prove that it is Sean ... so fill this out and bring it back tomm. - with your other paperwork and we will go from there..

Then Justice of the Peace Stormy Langston refused to do a 2 second subpoena to google, yahoo, or the hook up sites that proved my Life was in Danger. My case had easy ways to prove this crime and I was denied protection yet all Sean Boushie had to tell Justice of the Peace Stormy Langston about Paul Stramer is that he was afraid, no proof at all just Stated Fear Man to Man and Yet me with Proof and a Woman - I was Denied Protection.

Then Sean Boushie Gets Corrupt Hamilton Montana Judge Robin Clute to give him a protective order against me and the massive 15 month and counting attack that followed, just by his stated fear AND no Facts Proven.

Judge Robin Clute BROKE the LAW

More on the Defamation, Life Endangerment and Illegal behavior of Hamilton Montana Judge Robin Clute at www.MontanaCorruption.com

It seems to be that many states use Corrupt Protective Orders to Shut Up Whistleblowers, Set UP Victims to keep them quiet. Got a Story on a Judge giving you an Illegal Protective Order to keep you Quiet?

Links and Resources to this Story

http://www.eurekamontananews.com/2009/09/sean-boushie-got-protective-order.html

Video Recording of My Stalker's Admitted Friend, Officer McKinney Serving Me an Illegal Protective Order that was issues by Judge Robin Clute out of Hamilton Montana and was NOT based in Montana State Law What So Ever. The Complaint was not "Sworn" which is illegal and there was no basis in fact what so ever. Also the Stated Laws Given by Hamilton District Judge - Judge Haynes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYcqfBjB654

http://www.montanacorruption.com/2010/02/judge-robin-clute-protects-criminals.html

Posted here by

Investigative Blogger

Crystal L. Cox

Eye On Judge Clute in Hamilton Montana ~ Forever.

I speak the Truth, You Set Me UP

You Endangered My Life and

You Broke the Law.

I Will Be Filing a Lawsuit against you.